Father of the green movement says scientists lack PR skills to make public listen
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
Climate sceptics are winning the argument with the public over global warming, the world's most celebrated climate scientist, James Hansen of NASA, said in London yesterday.
It is happening even though climate science itself is becoming ever clearer in showing that the earth is in increasing danger from rising temperatures, said Dr Hansen, who heads NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, and is widely thought of as "the father of global warming" – his dramatic alert about climate change in US Senate hearings in July 1988 put the issue on the world agenda.
Since then he has been one of the most outspoken advocates of drastic climate action, and yesterday he also publicly criticised Germany's recent decision to abandon its new nuclear power programme, formerly a key part of German climate measures, in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan earlier this year.
"I think it was a big mistake," he said. "And I think the Prime Minister [German Chancellor Angela Merkel] knows that, as she's a physicist, but I think the political reality is she couldn't stay in office if she expressed that opinion."
In a briefing at the Royal Society , Dr Hansen, pictured, was frank about the success with public opinion of what he termed "the climate contrarians", in effectively lessening public concern about global warming. He said: "They have been winning the argument for several years, even though the science has become clearer.
"There's been a very strong campaign by those who want to continue fossil fuel 'business as usual', and the scientific story has not been powerful enough to offset that push."
Part of the problem, he said, was that the climate sceptic lobby employed communications professionals, whereas "scientists are just barely competent at communicating with the public and don't have the wherewithal to do it."
The result was, he said, that in recent years "a gap has opened between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community, and what's known by the people who need to know – and that's the public. However there's nothing that has happened to reduce our scientific conclusion that we are pushing the system into very dangerous territory, in fact that conclusion has become stronger over that same time period."
Asked if anything might re-alert the public to the dangers of climate change, Dr Hansen said: "Mother Nature."
Significant climatic "extreme events" were now occurring over 10 to 15 per cent of the planet annually, whereas between 1950 to 1980 they occurred over less than 1 per cent. He added: "So in places like Texas this year, Moscow last year, and Europe in 2003, the climate change is so big that they are undeniable. Within 10 to 15 years they're going to occur over 15 to 20 per cent of the planet, so people have to notice that the climate is changing."
Burning issue: Hansen's evidence that the world is hotting up
Texas, summer 2011
The US state this year has had its driest summer since record-keeping began in 1895, with 75 per cent of the state classified as "exceptional drought", the worst level. Shortages of grass, hay and water have forced ranchers to thin their herds – where this cow died, in the San Angelo area, there has been less than three inches of rain.
Moscow, August 2010
Russia experienced its hottest-ever summer last year – for weeks, a large portion of European Russia was more than 7 °C (12.6 °F) warmer than normal, and a new national record was set of 44 °C (111 °F). Raging forest fires filled Moscow with smoke, forcing the cancellation of air services and obliging people to don face masks.
Northern Europe, 2003
Shrivelled French grapes at the end of Europe's hottest summer on record, in 2003. The heatwave led to health crises in several countries and more than 40,000 people are thought to have died. Britain experienced its first (and so far only) 100+ F air temperature – 101.3°F (38.5°C) recorded at Brogdale, Kent, on 10 August.
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
George Osborne and the Treasury attacked for hostility to green policies
Parliament's green watchdog says the department 'doesn't get' climate change and warns against backtracking on commitments
Damian Carrington
The Guardian, Tuesday 11 October 2011
George Osborne's Treasury has come under fierce attack for its hostility to green policies, with parliament's green watchdog saying the department "still doesn't get climate change" and that "backtracking on the government's green promises now would be a big mistake" for both the climate and the economy.
The report by the House of Common's Environment Audit Committee (EAC) on the UK's targets for cuts in carbon emissions concludes that there is a fundamental "inconsistency" in David Cameron's government simultaneously committing to long-term reductions and to a "politically motivated" review of those reductions in 2014. It also finds fears that lobbying by highly polluting industries is "dictating policy" are fuelled by a "lack of transparency".
"The Treasury still doesn't get climate change, or the risk it poses to global stability and economic prosperity," said Labour's Joan Walley, chair of the EAC. "Green investment should be seen as a 'win-win' solution to our economic problems; helping to stimulate growth and rebalance the economy, at the same time as reducing pollution."
Zac Goldsmith, a Conservative member of the committee, said that uncertainty over the government's commitment was harming the UK's transition to a low carbon economy. Changes in policy were "the one risk all investors highlight when they consider putting funds into clean technology", he said.
Ofgem calculates that £200bn of investment is needed over the next decade in the UK's creaking and dirty energy infrastructure.
"The Treasury has made important progress on a range of green initiatives," a departmental spokesman said. "We are introducing a carbon price floor – a world first – as the basis of an innovative and economically ambitious green policy."
Osborne stunned green businesses and campaigners on 3 October when, for the first time, he publicly attacked environmental measures as harming some businesses and appeared to reverse previous government ambitions to be a world leader in low carbon technologies, such as wind power and carbon capture and storage.
"We're not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business," he told the Conservative party conference.
His statement followed months of behind-the-scenes rows between the Treasury and other government departments over green policies, which continued on Sunday with reports that Osborne is the cause of continuing delays to an urgent review of subsidies for renewable energy.
Conservative sources say soaring energy bills and the unpopularity of green policies with Tory voters were behind Osborne's reversal of green ambition, as well as fears of the affordability of some policies in a world gripped by economic crisis.
Critics respond that renewable energy, energy efficiency and other sustainable sectors represent the best sectors for economic growth and employment in the UK, not energy intensive industries like steel and cement.
"Osborne is a 20th century chancellor in a 21st century world who has totally failed to grasp the financial necessity of building a low-carbon future," said Andy Atkins, director of Friends of the Earth. "I hope the prime minister has a better grasp of modern economics than his chancellor." Cameron pledged to lead the "greenest government ever" within days of taking office.
The EAC report focuses on the carbon budget approved by the government in May, which commits the UK to cutting its emissions by 50% by 2025. Cameron had to overrule Osborne's objections to get the budget passed, but Osborne exacted two concessions. First, there would be a review of the budget in 2014 to ensure it was not harming UK competitiveness; and second, exemptions, rebates or grants would be given to heavy energy users to offset the impact of new emissions restrictions.
The EAC report found: "There is, more fundamentally, an inconsistency in the government's position of trumpeting its acceptance of a recommended carbon budget for 20 or so years hence, while at the same time envisaging the possibility of overturning that commitment just three years from now."
The Treasury spokesman called the 2014 review pragmatic. Energy and climate change minister Greg Barker said: "By legislating for clear targets up to 2027 we are doing more than any other country in providing long-term certainty to those investing in the low carbon economy. At the same time, it's right that we review progress towards the EU emissions goal in 2014 so that we're not disadvantaging British industry, which would simply result in emissions being shipped overseas."
The 2025 carbon budget was proposed by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), the official advisers to the government. The CCC will also carry out the 2014 review but its chief executive, David Kennedy, said he did not expect the "significant change in circumstances" needed to weaken the legally binding budgets by that time. "The climate change act is a very powerful piece of legislation," he said. "It is there to mitigate against these short-term political and economic difficulties."
The EAC also criticised the government over the help it has signalled it will give to heavily polluting industries, some of which have received windfalls of billions of euros from unused carbon pollution permits.
"Government has given little priority to generating hard evidence of 'carbon leakage' [where jobs are lost to nations with weaker emissions controls]. A lack of transparency and information on the risks to energy intensive industries ... needs to be resolved to allay fears of lobbying dictating policy."
Political insiders saw Osborne's conference speech as "a little gift" to energy intensive industries.
Neil Bentley, the CBI deputy director general, said: "A review of the carbon budget is sensible and will ensure the UK doesn't get out of step with European competitors, but what's really important is that the government delivers a clear framework for companies to invest with confidence."
Before Osborne's speech, environment, energy and climate change ministers had talked of the dangers of being a "follower" not a "leader" in the global low carbon economy. On the eve of the chancellor's speech, environment secretary Caroline Spelman told the Conservative party conference: "I passionately believe going green is an economic and moral imperative."
The Treasury has pledged £1bn of public funds to build the country's first commercial-scale demonstration of carbon capture and storage, but the only bidder for the contract is on the verge of pulling out. It has also implemented a minimum price for carbon emissions, which will discourage carbon-heavy energy generation but give a windfall to existing nuclear power operators.
Two power companies considering building new nuclear power stations in the UK have, however, either pulled out or are reviewing their plans.
Damian Carrington
The Guardian, Tuesday 11 October 2011
George Osborne's Treasury has come under fierce attack for its hostility to green policies, with parliament's green watchdog saying the department "still doesn't get climate change" and that "backtracking on the government's green promises now would be a big mistake" for both the climate and the economy.
The report by the House of Common's Environment Audit Committee (EAC) on the UK's targets for cuts in carbon emissions concludes that there is a fundamental "inconsistency" in David Cameron's government simultaneously committing to long-term reductions and to a "politically motivated" review of those reductions in 2014. It also finds fears that lobbying by highly polluting industries is "dictating policy" are fuelled by a "lack of transparency".
"The Treasury still doesn't get climate change, or the risk it poses to global stability and economic prosperity," said Labour's Joan Walley, chair of the EAC. "Green investment should be seen as a 'win-win' solution to our economic problems; helping to stimulate growth and rebalance the economy, at the same time as reducing pollution."
Zac Goldsmith, a Conservative member of the committee, said that uncertainty over the government's commitment was harming the UK's transition to a low carbon economy. Changes in policy were "the one risk all investors highlight when they consider putting funds into clean technology", he said.
Ofgem calculates that £200bn of investment is needed over the next decade in the UK's creaking and dirty energy infrastructure.
"The Treasury has made important progress on a range of green initiatives," a departmental spokesman said. "We are introducing a carbon price floor – a world first – as the basis of an innovative and economically ambitious green policy."
Osborne stunned green businesses and campaigners on 3 October when, for the first time, he publicly attacked environmental measures as harming some businesses and appeared to reverse previous government ambitions to be a world leader in low carbon technologies, such as wind power and carbon capture and storage.
"We're not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business," he told the Conservative party conference.
His statement followed months of behind-the-scenes rows between the Treasury and other government departments over green policies, which continued on Sunday with reports that Osborne is the cause of continuing delays to an urgent review of subsidies for renewable energy.
Conservative sources say soaring energy bills and the unpopularity of green policies with Tory voters were behind Osborne's reversal of green ambition, as well as fears of the affordability of some policies in a world gripped by economic crisis.
Critics respond that renewable energy, energy efficiency and other sustainable sectors represent the best sectors for economic growth and employment in the UK, not energy intensive industries like steel and cement.
"Osborne is a 20th century chancellor in a 21st century world who has totally failed to grasp the financial necessity of building a low-carbon future," said Andy Atkins, director of Friends of the Earth. "I hope the prime minister has a better grasp of modern economics than his chancellor." Cameron pledged to lead the "greenest government ever" within days of taking office.
The EAC report focuses on the carbon budget approved by the government in May, which commits the UK to cutting its emissions by 50% by 2025. Cameron had to overrule Osborne's objections to get the budget passed, but Osborne exacted two concessions. First, there would be a review of the budget in 2014 to ensure it was not harming UK competitiveness; and second, exemptions, rebates or grants would be given to heavy energy users to offset the impact of new emissions restrictions.
The EAC report found: "There is, more fundamentally, an inconsistency in the government's position of trumpeting its acceptance of a recommended carbon budget for 20 or so years hence, while at the same time envisaging the possibility of overturning that commitment just three years from now."
The Treasury spokesman called the 2014 review pragmatic. Energy and climate change minister Greg Barker said: "By legislating for clear targets up to 2027 we are doing more than any other country in providing long-term certainty to those investing in the low carbon economy. At the same time, it's right that we review progress towards the EU emissions goal in 2014 so that we're not disadvantaging British industry, which would simply result in emissions being shipped overseas."
The 2025 carbon budget was proposed by the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), the official advisers to the government. The CCC will also carry out the 2014 review but its chief executive, David Kennedy, said he did not expect the "significant change in circumstances" needed to weaken the legally binding budgets by that time. "The climate change act is a very powerful piece of legislation," he said. "It is there to mitigate against these short-term political and economic difficulties."
The EAC also criticised the government over the help it has signalled it will give to heavily polluting industries, some of which have received windfalls of billions of euros from unused carbon pollution permits.
"Government has given little priority to generating hard evidence of 'carbon leakage' [where jobs are lost to nations with weaker emissions controls]. A lack of transparency and information on the risks to energy intensive industries ... needs to be resolved to allay fears of lobbying dictating policy."
Political insiders saw Osborne's conference speech as "a little gift" to energy intensive industries.
Neil Bentley, the CBI deputy director general, said: "A review of the carbon budget is sensible and will ensure the UK doesn't get out of step with European competitors, but what's really important is that the government delivers a clear framework for companies to invest with confidence."
Before Osborne's speech, environment, energy and climate change ministers had talked of the dangers of being a "follower" not a "leader" in the global low carbon economy. On the eve of the chancellor's speech, environment secretary Caroline Spelman told the Conservative party conference: "I passionately believe going green is an economic and moral imperative."
The Treasury has pledged £1bn of public funds to build the country's first commercial-scale demonstration of carbon capture and storage, but the only bidder for the contract is on the verge of pulling out. It has also implemented a minimum price for carbon emissions, which will discourage carbon-heavy energy generation but give a windfall to existing nuclear power operators.
Two power companies considering building new nuclear power stations in the UK have, however, either pulled out or are reviewing their plans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
