Blog:Wonderful, Wonderful, Copenhagen
From Bolton Interweb
Penny Fotherguy, Environment Correspondent, 12 December 2009
The Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is half way through. It got off to a bad start with the leak of emails from East Anglia University indicating that statistics had been massaged and raw data destroyed. An elite of climatologists have been described as operating as a mafia.
In the US and across much of the world people are cynical and these revelations are devastating for governments and scientists anxious to convince us all of imminent disaster. If the case was that strong why would scientists try to egg the pudding? Their data obviously did not support their beliefs. There is a vast difference between being convinced by scientific evidence and being convinced by beliefs dressed up as scientific evidence. And so the cynicism will grow and politicians will need to adopt a new strategy or press on regardless at their electoral peril.
I'm not a scientist but I am a former Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society so possibly a little more educated than the average man in the street. I am not convinced, despite being told that the argument is over, about the extent or dangers of climate change in the form that it emerges from the politicians and their fundamentalist climatologist advisors. Throughout the history of the planet oceans have risen and fallen, temperatures have risen and fallen, land has been flooded and land has turned into desert. You may wonder why ancient Egypt was so advanced and the pharaohs built vast pyramids in the middle of a parched desert. A few thousand years ago that part of the world was green and fertile, that's why. Scientists claim that the difference is the speed of climate change. But there is conflicting evidence whatever they say and the data used for comparing climate is neither consistent nor that reliable on a historical level. Remember the Y2K Bug, the end of the world. Billions were invested to stop it, the evidence of disaster was incontrovertible. The 1st of January 2000 arrived and what happened? Nothing. Nothing at all. OK, critical computer systems had been fixed so not all the money was wasted, some things had to be done, but a lot of bunkers around the globe are still full of tinned peas. Another reason we don't trust the doom-mongers and so called experts.
So should we carry on as we are and ignore the green lobby? Absolutely not. This is why Governments and scientists need to stop feeding us rot and expecting us to believe their every word. Instead, make the compelling arguments to change behaviours that everyone can reasonable accept as sensible. We have the technology to engineer the planet to everyone's good and that is what Copenhagen should be concentrating on.
Fossil fuels are bad news. They are finite, they are under the control of a limited number of countries some of which have quite unstable governments, they pollute the air we breathe. They will get increasingly more expensive, already create economic instability, and will eventually run out. Renewables are vital to our energy security, our economic wellbeing, and our health.
Wanton waste is bad news. Raw materials are finite and, unless you eventually want to live on top of one enormous landfill site, we have to recycle and re-use. We have to minimise packaging, compost organic waste, mend instead of replace. That 30 year blip in history from 1970 to 2000 when virtually everything was considered disposable is over.
Back in the 1970's when my interest in matters environmental was first piqued, I became particularly intrigued by a concept most considered boring and insignificant but that I had an inkling would be absolutely critical in the future. And so it has proved. Deafforestation. In other words the impact of cutting down trees. For, quite simply, cutting down trees turns land into desert. Trees help stop soil erosion and enrich that soil. They provide food, fuel, and shelter. But if you cut them down faster than new ones grow then the soil becomes thin and poor, water runs off and isn't retained, and eventually you get barren desert. Trees also consume CO2 and this is a factor in climate change, whether you think it is man-made or natural. You could see back in the 70's that clearing forest for cash crop production would eventually backfire, and sure enough it has. And so one of the major, if not the major, action that nations need to take is a commitment to replanting forests and to sustainable forestry.
But trees need water and we also need to invest in desalination technology powered by sustainable and renewable fuels, and use the water to irrigate and turn deserts green again. African countries are perfect for large scale solar power projects so even the most barren areas can be productive in some form.
Closer to home we need to buy more local and seasonable foods to reduce transportation costs. All packaging must be biodegradable - the Co-op has had biodegradable carrier bags for years, why is it so difficult for all the other supermarkets to do the same? Highly efficient biofuels and renewable energy power cells will mean we can all drive cars and fly on holiday for as long as we want. Micro power generation - photovoltaic roof tiles and rooftop wind turbines - will eventually make us more or less self-sufficient in our energy needs.
For all their words, the proof of the real commitment of the politicians to all things green is evident in the investment levels. In the UK this is minuscule. While we throw billions at banks and billions at crazy ID and NHS computer systems no-one wants, the government spends an insignificant sum on renewable energy and other green technology. And that will likely by slashed to cut the deficit with no concept of the future value of such investment.
Forget Copenhagen if you think it will make a blind bit of difference. The strategy needs to change fast.
© Evrose, 2010
