Questionable Politics

Thursday’s Question Time concerned me greatly, not only due to the notion of the debate over the EXISTENCE of climate change, but the apparent lack of understanding shown by some of the people who are incredibly influential in political spheres. Nigel Lawson (NL) (previous Chancellor in Thatcher government), was predictably dismissive of climate change, especially in relation to the relationship between climate change and the effect on tropical storms in light of the terrible Typhoon Haiyan. Ed Davey (Minister for Energy and Climate Change in the current government) agreed with NL about the lack of evidence from the IPCC regarding the effects of climate change on the frequency of tropical storms, but he stressed the increased intensity and therefore increased vulnerability of people.

However, according the recently released 5^th assessment report (summary for policymakers); “extreme precipitation events over most of the mid-latitude land masses and over wet tropical regions will very likely become more intense and more frequent by the end of this century” (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf). This seems contradictory to the analysis that tropical cyclone activity cannot be attributed as easily to climate change as the IPCC state that it is “more likely than not” to increase intensity in tropical cyclone activity (more than 50% chance). Although there is no reference to frequency of specifically tropical storms, therefore it cannot be either refuted or claimed that climate change affects them.

On another note; NL’s claim that ‘global warming’ has happened ‘very little’, over the last 10-15 years. Where to begin? This displays an odd understanding of scientific consensus, especially over the nature of what climate change entails, regarding the time period referenced of 15 years. Considering, the idea of the ‘Anthropocene’ which claims that due to human influence on the environment, we now live in a new geological epoch (Crutzen, 2002). Geological epochs are timescales of tens of millions of years, and ‘climate’ of an area is generally established over the course of 30-35 years, therefore, to use the argument that little has changed over 15 years is misleading. More to the point, considering the frequency of extreme events, such as droughts and floods, and the intensity of them, the rate of change over the last 15 years is actually astonishing.

Stella Creasy (Shadow Business Minister) used an intriguing phrase: “we are not immune to our own responsibility”… and this was in response to a commonly made point to the tone of ‘what can we do when China and India are polluting so much more’. It is true that the industrial heartland of the world now lies to the east, however, the does not dissolve us of responsibility, both to the environment, but to other countries to lead the paradigm shift in attitudes, behaviours and practices required to mitigate and adapt to climate change. In my view, it is a very negative and defeatist stance to take, to say that there is no point changing our way of life when others aren’t doing the same. It is also an inaccurate one as a great deal is being done in China especially, to clean up and make a renewables shift, at least in policy circles.

It was refreshing to see general consensus from the speakers (except NL) regarding the actions required, and the urgency needed, especially considering the upcoming climate talks in Warsaw over the next couple of weeks. I hope that this means the UK will maintain its previous apparent strong attitude (however superficial) to climate change and its recognition of the need and benefits that renewable energy can generate if structured correctly. I say this in the light of the news that the Japanese have drastically reduced they’re carbon targets for 2020, down from a 25% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels to a 3.8% reductions on 2005 levels; which actually amounts to a 3% increase in net emissions (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/reduction-in-japanese-carbon-emissions-target-for-2020-statement-by-edward-davey). Although Japan have already done a great deal in regards to energy efficiency and conservation, this seems an untimely and unwelcome alteration to a positive policy. And considering that it has reaffirmed its aim to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, I find this medium term target change an odd re-evaluation, and there are no qualifications or reasoning for it published yet. I consider that it could be related to post-Fukushima energy policy change, combined with the simple fact that due to improvements and high standards already existing, the government can afford to reduce the medium term targets while still achieving the longer term goal, and getting its energy system and network restored and revitalised following the still ongoing upheaval caused by the Fukushima disaster.

In regards to the UK, the discussion on Question Time was infuriating to listen to, due the fact that climate change is still being ‘debated’ and the fact that a 95% confidence in anthropogenic climate change is still insufficient to convince sceptics. However, this genuine frustration did seem to be mirrored in the faces and voices of the politicians and other influential business figures. This is what I will cling to when following the Warsaw discussions.