New WorldChanging Post on Geoengineering

[Dan Whaley]

Interesting evolution of POV here from Steffen. Given where he's come
from, this is real progress. David Schnare may have a slightly
different perspective of course... ;)

I think most of his suggestions are already standard w/ most of us. I
would question his 'prioritization' below, since that depends on how
urgent one feels the problem is. I'd say we need to move on all
fronts simultaneously.

D

Geoengineering and the New Climate Denialism

Alex Steffen
April 27, 2009 1:59 AM

This is a draft essay, and obviously still rough in patches. I'd
appreciate feedback! - Alex

GEOENGINEERING AND THE NEW CLIMATE DENIALISM
by Alex Steffen

The Idea of Geoengineering is Being Used Dishonestly

Though we spend our time here at Worldchanging focused on solutions to
the planet's most pressing problems, sometimes the politics around an
issue become so twisted that it's necessary to address the politics
before we can have a real discussion about the problems and how to
solve them. That's the case with geoengineering.

Some scientists suggest that certain massive projects -- like creating
artificial volcanoes to fill the skies with soot, or seeding the
oceans with mountains of iron to produce giant algal blooms -- might
in the future be able put the brakes on climate change. These
"geoengineering" ideas are hardly shovel-ready. The field at this
point consists essentially of little more than a bunch of proposals,
simulations and small-scale experiments: describing these hypothetical
approaches as "back up options" crazily overstates their current state
of development. Indeed, almost all of the scientists working on them
believe that the best answer to our climate problem would be a quick,
massive reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions.

None of this has stopped geoengineering from becoming part of a new
attempt to stall those very reductions, though. The same network of
think tanks, pundits and lobbying groups that denied climate change
for the last 30 years has seized on geoengineering as a chance to
undermine new climate regulations and the U.N. climate negotiations to
be held at the end of the year in Copenhagen. They're still using
scare tactics about the economic costs of change, but now, instead of
just denying the greenhouse effect, they've begun trying to convince
the rest of us that hacking the planet with giant space-mirrors or
artificial volcanoes is so easy that burning a lot more coal and oil
really won't be a problem.

Delay is The Carbon Lobby's Strategy

It's a central, yet often forgotten, fact in the climate debate that
pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is incredibly
profitable. For a small group of giant corporations (the coal, oil and
car companies which we can collectively call the Carbon Lobby),
business as usual is big bank. The difficulties of addressing climate
change have much more to do with the political power of these
corporations than with the technical challenges of building a carbon-
neutral economy (a carbon-neutral economy being an engineering and
design challenge that we already have the capacity to meet).

For the last thirty years, the Carbon Lobby's strategy on climate
change has been to delay. Almost every informed observer knows, and
has known for decades, that the days of fossil fuels are numbered, but
how quickly and how completely we shift away from them makes all the
difference to these industries. They have a huge investment in oil
fields and coal mines and dirty technologies, and each decade they
delay the transition away from coal and gas means literally trillions
of dollars more profits. Delay = big bucks.

The best way for the Carbon Lobby to delay that transition has been to
make regulations and treaties that limit the amount of CO2 emissions
politically impossible, especially in the U.S., where the Lobby's
influence is the greatest because of their hold over the Republican
party.

That's why they put such emphasis on attempting to portray the science
of climate change as inconclusive or hotly debated (despite the fact
that their own scientists told them in 1995 that the science on
climate "is well established and cannot be denied"). If they could
make people feel uncertain, they could make it safe for politicians to
actively oppose new regulations and treaties (a strategy laid out in
the famous leaked "Luntz Memo"). Lying about the science made people
uncertain; that uncertainty let the Carbon Lobby stall U.S. action;
and by stopping the world's biggest polluter from participating, they
stymied any real global deal on greenhouse gasses.

The strategy worked, up to a point. But now most Americans understand
that climate change is real and that it demands action. Our new
president advocates strong action on climate; business leaders from
many industries back him, as do most labor and religious groups; and
foreign nations are eager to negotiate (European conservatives are
even competing to show leadership on tackling climate emissions,
rather than denying that those emissions are a problem). This emerging
consensus on the need for regulatory action and effective treaties
threatens to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels much
more quickly than anyone expected, so the Carbon Lobby is scrambling
to find new reasons for delay.

How Geoengineering Becomes an Argument for Delay

Their new justifications for delay are simple. Taking advantage of the
economic crisis, they call climate action a job killer. If the Right's
anger and vehemence against the very idea of green jobs has shocked
and confused you, well, understand that it's important that climate
change be framed as a threat to the economy, and never an opportunity:
the growing importance of clean tech industries and jobs to the
American economy must be downplayed in order for this strategy to work
(never mind that wind power already employs more Americans than coal
mining). Look for this argument to increase in volume as Copenhagen
draws near.

But to really make their case for more delay, they can no longer be
seen as outright opponents of climate action. They've got to have
their own plan. And that's where geoengineering comes in.

The biggest argument for strong actions taken quickly is that delay or
weak responses may put us in a position of facing rapid, perhaps even
runaway climate change. The longer we wait, the more dangerous our
position becomes. The only certain route to safety would be rapid
emissions reductions, including programs for ecosystem restoration and
other forms of sustainable sequestration to help draw CO2 levels down.

But if we can be made to believe that megascale geoengineering can
stop climate change, then delay begins to look not like the dangerous
folly it actually is, but a sensible prudence. The prospect of
geoegineering is the only thing that can make that delay seem at all
morally acceptable.

In other words, combining dire warnings about climate action's
economic costs with exaggerated claims about geoengineering's
potential is the new climate denialism.

The Carbon Lobby Spins Geoengineering Instead of Emissions Reductions

The new climate denialism is all about trying to make the continued
burning of fossils fuels seem acceptable, even after the public has
come to understand the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate
change is real. That's why denialists present geoengineering as an
alternative to emissions reductions, and couch their arguments in
tones of reluctant realism.

One of the earliest political calls for geoengineering was Gregory
Benford's essay Climate Controls, written for the Reason Foundation
(you can find out more about their links to the Carbon Lobby and their
role in climate denialism here). Benson was explicit that he saw
geoengineering as a way to avoid reducing CO2 emissions:

"Instead of draconian cutbacks in greenhouse-gas emissions, there
may very well be fairly simple ways--even easy ones--to fix our
dilemma. ...take seriously the concept of "geoengineering," of
consciously altering atmospheric chemistry and conditions, of
mitigating the effects of greenhouse gases rather than simply calling
for their reduction or outright prohibition."

Benford is far from alone. One of the major proponents of
geoengineering is the American Enterprise Institute. AEI has a long
history of working to deny the scientific consensus on climate change.
They have strong ties to the Carbon Lobby (ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond
served on the AEI board of trustees, and $1,870,000 from ExxonMobil
helped fund their anti-climate work).

Now AEI is working both sides of the new climate denialism street.
They claim that climate action is too expensive (In a January paper,
AEI's Willem P. Nel and Christopher J. Cooper argue that "The extent
of Global Warming may be acceptable and preferable compared to the
socio-economic consequences of not exploiting fossil fuel reserves to
their full technical potential." In other words, "It's more profitable
to let the planet roast."). They also house one of the few funded
policy centers on geoengineering, the AEI Geoengineering Project.

The Geoengineering Project is run by Lee Lane. Lane is smart, and so
he doesn't say outright that we should dump climate negotiations and
trust in geoengineering, but you don't need to read too far between
the lines to hear that's what he's saying.

In 2006, Lane specifically advised the Bush Administration to urge a
greater focus both on debating carbon taxes (we know how Republicans
like to "debate" taxes) and on geoengineering as "strategic measures"
to "block political momentum toward a return to the Kyoto system." He
continues to put forward geoengineering as an alternative to real
emissions reductions anytime in the near future. As he said at AEI's
recent geoengineering conference:

"I think in response to all of those difficulties that certainly I
am not the only person to see, a growing number of experts are
becoming increasingly concerned about the need to broaden the debate
on climate policy. What I mean by broaden it is to expand what we
consider as serious climate policy options from what has been a very
narrow focus on greenhouse gas emissions limitations, and indeed
rather steep and rather rapid greenhouse gas emissions limitations, to
consider a much broader range of policies that go way beyond simply
attempting to make short run reductions in greenhouse gases."

In other words, Lane wants us to believe that emissions reductions are
politically impossible (never mind that he works at an institution
which has labored mightily to sabotage emissions reductions treaty
negotiations, and that he himself explicitly advised the Bush
Administration on how to do the same), so we ought to be considering
geoengineering as the "serious" option instead.

The Distortion of Geoengineering has Become Widespread

Turn over denialist rocks and you'll find political advocates for
geoengineering a-plenty. For instance:

*The Cato Institute (denialists), whose senior fellow and director of
natural resource studies, Jerry Taylor, says that if we end up forced
do something about global warming, "geo-engineering is more cost-
effective than emissions controls altogether."

*The Heartland Institute (denialists), whose David Schnare now
advocates geoengineering as quicker and less costly to the economy
than greenhouse gas reductions:

"In addition to being much less expensive than seeking to stem
temperature rise solely through the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, geo-engineering has the benefit of delivering measurable
results in a matter of weeks rather than the decades or centuries
required for greenhouse gas reductions to take full effect."

*The Hudson Institute (denialists) advocates geoengineering as
substitute for reductions:

"Successful geoengineering would permit Earth's population to make
far smaller reductions in carbon use and still achieve the same
retarding effect on global warming at a lower cost. The cuts in carbon
use proposed by international leaders and presidential candidates
would have a drastic effect on the economy, especially since
substitutes for fossil fuels will be expensive and limited for a
number of years."

*The Hoover Institution (denialists) is home to not only to senior
fellow Thomas Gale Moore, author of "Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't
Worry About Global Warming" but also nuclear weapons engineer and
original SDI "Star Wars" proponent Lowell Wood. Wood has become an
outspoken geoengineering proponent and co-authored a recent WSJ op-ed
in which he warns "But beware. Do not try to sell climate geo-
engineering to committed enemies of fossil fuels," thus revealing that
the point is to be friendly to fossil fuels.

And, of course, denialists' allies in the media and the blogosphere
have been quick to take up the call. Conservative columnist (and
climate "contrarian") John Tierney thinks geoengineering makes
superfluous emissions reductions ("a futile strategy") and wants "a
geoengineering fix for global warming," to provide an alternative to
the idea that "the only cure [is] to reduce CO2 emissions." Wayne
Crews of the denialist site globalwarming.org (a project of the Carbon-
Lobby-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute) likes geoengineering
strategies as possible "options apart from carbon constraint," while
climate treaty opponent and "delayer" Roger Pielke, Jr. finds it
encouraging that geoengineering's getting so much buzz.

It would be easy to go on. But the point is obvious: the Carbon Lobby,
no longer able to deny the reality of climate change, is hoping to use
the idea of geoengineering to undermine political progress towards
reducing climate emissions through sensible, intelligent regulations
and international treaties. Big Oil, Big Coal and the auto companies
want you to believe that reducing emissions is too expensive to work,
climate negotiations are too unrealistic to succeed, but we can keep
burning fossil fuels anyways because geoengineering gives us a plan B.
If you think that, you've been spun.

How to De-Spin Geoengineering

None of this is to say that megascale geoengineering should be a taboo
subject. We need a smart debate here, where we explore the subject
honestly and without industry spin. Here are six suggestions for
returning reality to the geoengineering debate in these critical
months leading up to Copenhagen:

First, Demand that bold emissions reductions be acknowledged as the
only sound foundation for any climate action plan. The Carbon Lobby
thrives on half-truths and obfuscation. Ethical people -- whether
geoengineering proponents, opponents or doubters -- all need to be
extremely clear in saying that a strong, rapid movement away from
fossil fuels and toward climate neutrality is non-negotiable. Many
leading thinkers on geoengineering (such as Paul Crutzen and Ken
Caldeira) already make clear that immediate action on reducing
greenhouse pollution (on both the national and global levels) is the
first step, period. We should follow their lead.

Second, Point out that a climate-neutral world is realistic. One of
the public debate's biggest failures is the extent to which we've let
people be convinced that a climate-neutral planet is some distant,
improbable fantasy world. It's not. We know, already, right now, how
to dramatically slash emissions using currently available
technologies, and make a profit. Economists (like Lord Nicholas Stern,
former Chief Economist at the World Bank) estimate that the total cost
of pursuing climate neutrality could be as little as 1% of GDP (far
lower than the anticipated costs of allowing climate change to
worsen). But there may not even be a cost: a great many of the actions
we need to take (like rebuilding our cities and using energy more
efficiently) return greater economic benefits than they demand, and
when something pays you money, it's not a cost, it's an investment.

Third, Be extremely clear about geoengineering's real possibilities
and actual limitations. Journalists tend to sell the planetary
engineering sizzle, rather than serve the heavily-caveated steak.
Advocates need to continue to emphasize that geoegineering proposals
are still extremely early-stage, experimental and surrounded with
unknowns. (On the other side, even determined opponents of
geoengineering need to acknowledge the good intent and sound reasoning
of scientists who are doing their best to add new insight to an
extremely important debate.)

Fourth, Get the order right: zero-out first, adapt next, engineer
last.. We need to be clear that because of the experimental nature of
geoengineering projects, their use should be a last resort, not a
primary option. Megascale geoengineering should not yet be part of any
national strategies for addressing climate change, or a part of any
offset systems in carbon trading regimes. We need first to drive
greenhouse gas concentrations down with proven methods, and then begin
preparing to adapt to the climate change we know we've already set in
motion. We should only turn to megascale geoengineering as a last
resort.

Fifth, Keep a wary eye on the Arctic ocean and other tipping points.
Last year, scientists conducting research in the Arctic made a
startling discovery: what might perhaps be formerly-frozen methane was
bubbling to the surface of the warming ocean in alarming amounts.
Their work demands corroboration, but if confirmed, this should cause
us all to worry. Methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas and
huge amounts of it are trapped beneath frigid waters and frozen
permafrost, waiting perhaps to be released by rising temperatures.That
methane could set off runaway climate change. Even if their findings
are refuted, though, potential tipping points need to be watched. If
we find we've blundered into rapid runaway climate change, some forms
of geoengineering, however poorly understood, may quickly move from
"last resort" to "needed option."

Sixth and last, Continue outing the Carbon Lobby and its cronies, and
reject their intervention in the debate. Legitimate debates about the
possible uses of megascale geoengineering should not include people
whose institutions have been consistently and intentionally dishonest
about science and science policy.

The next two decades will have an almost unparalleled importance in
human history, and the decisions we make during this time could have
almost unthinkable impacts for millennia. The world in which scores of
future generations will live -- its climate, the plants and animals
that make up its biosphere, the material possibilities of its cultures
-- will to an astonishing degree be influenced by the choices we make
in the next score of years.

How we interpret the possibilities of (and understand the limitations
to) large-scale geoengineering projects will help shape the clarity
and velocity with which we act on reducing emissions and building a
new, climate-neutral economy. These questions matter too much to allow
them be twisted by a bunch of shills for fossil fuel industries.

We need to reclaim the debate about our planet's future, together.


Image credit: Edward Burtynsky

[xben...@aol.com]

All:

Since Steffen quotes my 11 year old piece on geoengineering, I should
respond.

It's good to see a political commentator try to bridge the gap.
Comments:

1. He could mute his stance, not using hot-eyed terms:

"Turn over denialist rocks and you'll find political advocates for
geoengineering a-plenty."

2. He should give us some idea of what his jargon means:
"Second, Point out that a climate-neutral world is realistic." What's
climate-neutral really mean?
3. Don't try to rule the future:

"Fourth, Get the order right: zero-out first, adapt next, engineer
last.. We need to be clear that because of the experimental nature of
geoengineering projects, their use should be a last resort, not a
primary option."

The Arctic problem overturns this broad comment, as he halfway notes
later. Des anyone think "zero-out first" means attain zero CO2 output
first? (a fantasy) Or just put it at the top of a list? This essay
confounds priority and timescale, confusing his rhetoric. His
stentorian call: "We need first to drive greenhouse gas concentrations

down with proven methods, and then begin
preparing to adapt to the climate change we know we've already set in
motion."

is utterly impossible. Does anyone think we can reduce CO2 below its
present levels within our lifetimes?
4. Lastly, beyond actually spelling my name right, he should realize
that my 1998 sentence ending in
"...mitigating the effects of greenhouse gases rather than simply

calling
for their reduction or outright prohibition."

-- uses mitigation in its general sense, not the jargon some have
advocated.

Nowhere in this does he own up to the delay his faction has caused by
attacking our ideas for the last decade. But it is good to see some
outreach in this piece. A bit less rhetoric and more reason seems the
way to go.

Gregory Benford

[David Schnare]

Dan, et al.

 

The reality is that all climate change is politics and politics as usual in Washington, D.C., which includes the politics of personal destruction.  Note the ad hominem attack on Lee Lane, a respected member of this group.

 

Indeed, lately the notion of "strange bedfellows" has gone out the window.  Thus, anyone not 100% behind 100% reduction in carbon is a bad person - much like Bush's policy that your are either our friend or our enemy.

 

That's the reality.  The only counter to the reality is more reality.  This is why I have stated on numerous occasions that the only way support for geoengineering (and significant research on it) will grow is when we see millions starve or drown from a climate effect than cannot be attributed to anything other than greenhouse gases.  When people start dying, money will flow.  Alarmism is not sufficient, in part because it is not credible to what has now become a majority of voters world wide (and a plurality in the U.S.) 

 

The reason of scientists is not and never will be enough.  Nor is it sufficient anymore to say that you don't get money from big oil/big carbon.  The alarmists will still call you a collaborator, and you will not get a chair at the table.  Look at how the Nation's chief science advisor got handed his head.  Even today, he will say that we can't take geoengineering off the table, unless the table is inside the White House.

 

I still haven't given up on seeing some money flow, although it will be easiest to get if the purpose for the research is to show geoengineering causes unacceptable risks.  Nevertheless, I would continue to hope that geoengineering get one-percent of the funding going to climate change.  That would be a massive influx in research dollars.  It's just that I don't have much hope until the "alarmists" find a way to support "Plan B Research".  Several such alarmists lurk on this list.  Not one has ever put up support for this kind of research on their websites.

 

David.

--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship

[Alvia Gaskill]

"Journalists tend to sell the planetary engineering sizzle, rather than serve the heavily-caveated steak."

 

I don't know what journalists he is talking about as nearly all of the articles, reports and quasi-editorials have been extremely negative.  If anything, journalists have a bias against geoengineering.  I suppose Angry Old Alex (AOA) thinks any publicity is good publicity, although as Greg pointed out, he didn't spell his name right.  AOA also imagines the lukewarm endorsements from the right carries the same weight as financial support.  If so, I like some of the rest of you are waiting for my checks from John Tierney, Jerry Taylor and the Hudson and Heartland Institutes among others.  Also, where was the Newster's impassioned plea to Congress on Friday for geoengineering research?  He works out of AEI.

 

"Indeed, almost all of the scientists working on them [geoengineering ideas] believe that the best answer to our climate problem would be a quick, massive reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions."

 

No one in their right mind believes a quick, massive reduction in GHG emissions is possible.  And nearly 100% of the people I have read about or run across involved in geoengineering don't propose it as a substitute for emissions reduction.  AOA also forgets about the legacy CO2 in the atmosphere that emissions reductions won't eliminate.

 

"...while climate treaty opponent and "delayer" Roger Pielke, Jr. finds it encouraging that geoengineering's getting so much buzz."

 

If I recall correctly, Pielke, Jr. has only expressed support for air capture.

 

"Megascale geoengineering should not yet be part of any national strategies for addressing climate change, or a part of any offset systems in carbon trading regimes. [Sorry, Dan.] We need first to drive greenhouse gas concentrations down with proven methods, and then begin preparing to adapt to the climate change we know we've already set in motion. We should only turn to megascale geoengineering as a last resort."

 

Again, AOA shows his ignorance of mitigation technologies and what they can accomplish.  They aren't going to be used to "drive greenhouse gas concentrations down."  At best, we could expect them to slow the growth of CO2 levels and in the second half of the century they might begin to fall, but who actually believes that is likely given the slow progress made to date?  Then, IAOA (Ignorant Angry Old Alex) assumes adaptation will be used.  So spend 50 years trying to reduce atmospheric CO2, then try adapation (also known as death in some circles--won't reduce the carbon, but will reduce the carbon based units) and as a final last gasp hail mary, IAOA says, turn the geoengineers loose.  If we follow the IAOA plan, what we will have isn't World Changing.  It will be World Ending.

[Andrew Lockley]

I wish his conspiracy theory were true, because then we would be awash with denialist dollars for our research.

I'd happily get into bed with Beelzebub (let alone ExxonMobil) if I thought it would give us the research money - before we all fall over the waterfall.

Doubtless, a husk of truth, but I think the grain has slipped away.

A

2009/4/27 Alvia Gaskill <agas...@nc.rr.com>

[dsw_s]

The idea that deniers are promoting geoengineering is so loopy it's
hard to believe that anyone can say it with a straight face, let alone
believe it. Are there people out there who honestly believe it, or is
it just being pushed cynically? If the latter, who and why?

On Apr 27, 7:58 pm, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wish his conspiracy theory were true, because then we would be awash with
> denialist dollars for our research.
> I'd happily get into bed with Beelzebub (let alone ExxonMobil) if I thought
> it would give us the research money - before we all fall over the waterfall.
>
> Doubtless, a husk of truth, but I think the grain has slipped away.
>
> A
>

> 2009/4/27 Alvia Gaskill <agask...@nc.rr.com>

> > *From:* David Schnare <dwschn...@gmail.com>
> > *To:* dan.wha...@gmail.com
> > *Cc:* geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
> > *Sent:* Monday, April 27, 2009 2:11 PM
> > *Subject:* [geo] Re: New WorldChanging Post on Geoengineering

> ...
>
> read more »

[Ken Caldeira]

I have spoken to some, like Nigel Lawson, who appeared to take the position that the risk of climate catastrophe is small but that the cost of a "geoengineering" insurance policy is so tiny compared to the risks that it is nonetheless worthwhile developing "geoengineering" options as a hedge against the remote (in his opinion) possibility of climate catastrophe.

NOTE: My representation of Nigel Lawson's position is no doubt a misrepresentation (filtered through imperfect memory and my own biases) and no doubt his true position differs from what is stated above.

260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  

[Alvia Gaskill]

No, that's about the position of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer under Maggie Thatcher.  Lawson is a climate change denier, which makes taking a position in favor of geo hard to understand and probably explains why the hard core deniers won't take a more active role in promoting geoengineering.  It would require them to admit there is a problem.  Explains why Bush never did anything about geo, while spending the country broke on everything else.

[Lane, Lee O.]

Dear Alvia,

You state "Lawson is a climate change denier." I have met him only once, but my impression is that he was a leading force behind the British House of Lords report on climate change. The latter contained a great deal of economic common sense although, as is inevitably the case, some of its points have been questioned. 

The House of Lords report argues that there is a social cost of carbon and discusses several means by which it might be internalized. It mentions, for example, the option of an internationally harmonized carbon tax and seems to propose that Britain adopt a carbon tax. It calls for more emphasis on R&D directed at lowering the costs of greenhouse gas abatement and for more adaptation of the unavoidable costs of climate change.

The report appears to be well-researched. It accurately cites Barrett, McKibben, Wilcoxen, and others in pointing to the severe structural defects of the Kyoto Protocol. It cites Manne, Mendelssohn, Nordhaus, Richels, and Tol in supporting the conclusion that the harm from climate change, although, potentially serious, is most likely less than catastrophic. It also recognizes that low-probability high-impact events cannot be entirely ruled out. None of these opinions imply denial of potentially serious harm from climate change or dispute the need to address it with prudent policies.

Perhaps Lawson does not believe these things although he signed the report. Or perhaps he has since changed his mind. I fear, though, that what many mean by this term is that a person dares to question the correctness of all IPCC analysis or the belief in the workability and desirability of the Kyoto Protocol.

If we label as a denier everybody who holds those views, then a great many of the most distinguished economic experts on climate policy are deniers, which would surely come as a great shock to all of them. It hardly seems either fair or wise to lump many prominent advocates of moderate greenhouse gas controls and broad-based climate policies together with the people who really oppose taking action and think that the problem is imaginary. I hope that this was not your intent. 

Best regards,

Lee Lane

[Alvia Gaskill]

No, he's a denier, a charter member of the UK Climate Change Denier's Club.
Lawson also wants to get rid of the IPCC.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=203

He also looks like John Hurt, the guy in Alien that got to serve as the host
for the giant killer wasp baby. You don't suppose....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3778985.ece

From The Sunday Times
April 20, 2008

Nigel Lawson loses no sleep over global warming
Nigel Lawson, the Iron Lady's chancellor, scourge of the miners and father
of the adorable Nigella, has joined the ranks of the climate change
sceptics. He believes David Cameron's green agenda is overblown, biofuels
are useless and carbon trading resembles 'nothing so much as the sale of
indulgences by the medieval church'

John-Paul Flintoff meets Nigel Lawson
I can't pretend I'm expecting to get on with Nigel Lawson. In fact, I'm
worried that I might lose my cool - say something I'll regret, perhaps even
bop him on the nose.

On receiving his new book, An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global
Warming, I find myself handling it as though it is toxic; I even flinch at
the expression of fierce intellectual arrogance in the author's photograph.

When I start reading, though, I'm dismayed to discover that I agree with
considerable amounts of what Lawson is saying - especially about the current
biofuel madness - while also disagreeing with other chunks.

As energy minister under Margaret Thatcher, Lawson masterminded the war
against the miners, and as chancellor of the exchequer he launched a series
of controversial privatisations and deregulated financial services. Lately,
he's raised my blood pressure even further by pooh-poohing the idea of
climate change and resisting any attempt to address what most people accept
as a pressing reality. In fact, according to the Lawson view, I - like many
others - am a deluded fool for growing food in the garden, cycling
everywhere, flushing the minimum possible amount of water down the loo
(using an Interflush), and generally making do and mending when things fall
apart.

Still, it's hard to disagree with him about biofuels, on which new European
Union regulations came into effect last week, requiring petrol to contain at
least 2.5% biofuel, a figure that will increase in future.

"Biofuels," he says, "have become one of the European Union's latest fads.
It's far from clear that ethanol produces more energy than is used in its
own production. In the second place, it requires a vast amount of land to
produce a relatively small amount of ethanol. This not only antagonises
environmentalists, upset by the destruction of rainforests for this purpose,
but has also led to a marked rise in food prices - in particular the price
of grain."

Last year the Chinese government suspended its production of ethanol for
precisely this reason. Now dozens of other countries that are experiencing
grave food shortages must wish more would do the same.

In person, Lawson appears less intimidating than his photo. Though no longer
startlingly thin - his weight loss, some years ago, gave him the unexpected
opportunity to become a bestselling diet guru - he's by no means fat. And
instead of scowling, he twinkles, disarmingly.

We meet at the glamorous home of his daughter, the TV cook Nigella, and her
husband Charles Saatchi, the adman turned art collector. Lawson himself now
lives in France. Sinister lifelike sculptures - an old codger, a woman
pushing a pram - loiter in the hall and on the stairs. Among the many other
artworks are several large pots by Grayson Perry.

To begin with, I tell Lawson I'm glad somebody of his background has made
absolutely clear the uselessness of biofuels, carbon trading ("it has done
nothing to reduce emissions, merely awarded subsidies to selected
emitters"), and carbon offsetting ("a scam . . . it resembles nothing so
much as the sale of indulgences by the medieval church").

If we seriously wanted to reduce emissions, he says, we'd have to impose a
carbon tax across the board - but this government lacks the confidence to do
that. Not that he's bothered about emissions, anyway. And so we come to
climate change . . . or we would, but Lawson thinks the term is specious: it
was only adopted, he says, because recent evidence suggests that global
warming has almost stopped.

Well, his own party deserves much of the credit, or blame, I say, for
pushing green issues up the agenda. The Tories have even swapped their old
logo, a burning torch, for a green tree.

"David Cameron has gone overboard," Lawson says. "I can understand some of
the motivation. He was clearly engaging in rebranding the Conservative party
because the old brand would not sell. But I suspect he may believe in it."

True belief, he seems to imply, may be worse than cynical rebranding.

"I think [Cameron's emphasis on green issues] is completely mistaken. I don't
think he has thought through the consequences."

After serving on a House of Lords committee investigating the economics of
global warming, Lawson himself concluded that the science behind it was not
as certain as many people believe, and that the measures being taken to
address the warming of the globe are economically damaging.

Then he wrote his book. "But despite being promoted by an outstanding
literary agent," he says, "the book was rejected by every British publisher
to whom it was submitted - and there were a considerable number of them."
(It went to an American-owned publisher in the end.) The problem, Lawson
believes, was that "to question global warming is regarded as sacrilege". He
gives a faint snort. "I hate intolerance. The only thing I won't tolerate is
intolerance."

Taking this as a cue, I ask why his book overlooks the likelihood that oil
may be approaching a terminal peak in supply. If, as most scientists
believe, warming is caused by CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels,
surely he should have tackled this important issue?

"People have been talking about 'peak oil' for as long as I can remember,"
Lawson says, with a sniff. "It's not going to happen in the foreseeable
future."

Hang on a minute. The Hirsch report, commissioned by the US Department of
Energy, concluded that we need to prepare for the likelihood of oil
shortages at least two decades in advance. And President George Bush,
challenged recently to ask the Saudis to pump more oil for the US, replied
that they may not have the capacity to pump more. Lawson is unfazed. "They've
got plenty," he says.

End of argument. How can he possibly know this? Saudi oil reserves are not
independently audited. But Lawson has a kind of lofty certitude in such
matters.

Predictably, he is a big supporter of nuclear energy. Yet experts point out
that if we try to match the world's current energy requirements using
nuclear power alone, we'll run out of uranium in little more than a decade.
Lawson ripostes, perhaps rightly, that uranium prospecting has never been
carried out properly, so there's probably much more out there. Even so,
nuclear energy is still only a relatively short-term solution, and fraught
with political problems.

I move on - to the future of the human race. In his book, Lawson states: "We
care about our children and our grandchildren, but we do not normally lose
sleep over the welfare of our grandchildren's putative grandchildren." Thus,
it would be wrong to expect the present generation to make sacrifices for
people who may or may not live hundreds or thousands of years hence.

But surely, Lord Lawson, if we aim for a way of living that is truly
sustainable - if we leave the world as we find it - then not only our own
children but every succeeding generation would benefit? And one way we might
do this would be to switch to a monetary and economic system that doesn't
require constant growth.

"There's nothing unsustainable about the way we do things now," says Lawson.
There is a pause.

I'm stumped. Every economist and businessman distinguishes between capital
and income, I say. And by burning up fossil fuels, we're spending nature's
capital, with no hope of replenishing it. To this Lawson has no answer.

For all his talk about bravely tackling orthodoxy, he remains wedded to a
powerful orthodoxy of his own: mainstream economics. His arguments against
tackling global warming come back again and again to the idea that
globalisation, and economic growth, as measured by gross domestic product
per head, are fundamentally necessary and even inevitable.

Yet people around the world are rioting as food becomes unaffordable. In
part, this is because land has been sacrificed to growing biofuels, but it's
also down to the demands of global trade. Wouldn't Kenyans, for example, be
better off growing food for themselves, rather than mangetout for
supermarkets?

He looks stern. "I know a lot about Kenya. The people of Kenya benefit from
being able to sell their produce to markets in the West. Hugely."

My time is nearly up. I argue that we will reduce emissions - and save
valuable energy supplies - if we consume what we produce ourselves, instead
of relying on international trade. Of course, this may result in a lower
GDP, but is that necessarily so bad? I get nowhere, so I tell him a joke
about two economists who challenge each other to eat a pile of dog excrement
for £20,000 a go. Having both done this, and rendered themselves precisely
no better off than before, they pat each other on the back. Why? Because
they've increased GDP.

I'm rather pleased with this satirical critique. But Lawson doesn't laugh.

"You are quite right that GDP is imperfect," he says, his face assuming the
all-powerful expression captured on his book jacket. "But it's less
imperfect than all the other things that have been tried. GDP per head, as a
measure of prosperity, over the long run, goes up with consumption per head.
And what people consume is generally what they want to consume. They don't
consume dog s***."

An Appeal to Reason is published by Duckworth, £9.99

And in his own words, so there is no doubt...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557374/The-REAL-inconvenient-truth-Zealotry-global-warming-damage-Earth-far-climate-change.html

The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our
Earth far more than climate change
By NIGEL LAWSON

Last updated at 11:47 05 April 2008



Over the past half-century, we have become used to planetary scares. In the
late Sixties, we were told of a population explosion that would lead to
global starvation.

Then, a little later, we were warned the world was running out of natural
resources. By the Seventies, when global temperatures began to dip, many
eminent scientists warned us that we faced a new Ice Age.

But the latest scare, global warming, has engaged the political and
opinion-forming classes to a greater extent than any of these.

Scroll down for more ....


Cast adrift: But are campaigners painting a false picture of the Earth's
future?

The readiness to embrace this fashionable belief has led the present Labour
Government, enthusiastically supported by the Conservatives and Liberal
Democrats, to commit itself to a policy of drastically cutting back carbon
dioxide emissions - at huge cost to the British economy and to the living
standards not merely of this generation, but of our children's generation,
too.

That is why I have written a book about the subject.

Now, I readily admit that I am not a scientist; but then neither are the
vast majority of those who espouse the currently fashionable madness.
Moreover, most of those scientists who speak with such certainty about
global warming and climate change are not climate scientists, or Earth
scientists of any kind, and thus have no special knowledge to contribute.

Those who have to take the key decisions aren't scientists either. They are
politicians who, having listened cto the opinions of relevant scientists and
having studied the evidence, must reach the best decisions they can - just
as I did when I was Energy Secretary in Margaret Thatcher's first government
in the early Eighties.

But science is only part of the story. Even if the climate scientists can
tell us what is happening, and why they think it is happening, they cannot
tell us what governments should be doing about it. For this, we also need an
understanding of the economics: of what the economic consequences of any
warming might be, and, if there is a problem, the best way of dealing with
it.

First, then, what is happening? Given that nowadays pretty well every
adverse development in the natural world is automatically attributed to
global warming, perhaps the most surprising fact about it is that it is not,
in fact, happening at all. The truth is that there has so far been no
recorded global warming at all this century.

The world's temperature rose about half a degree centigrade during the last
quarter of the 20th century; but even the Hadley Centre for Climate
Prediction and Research - part of Britain's Met Office and a citadel of the
current global warming orthodoxy - has now conceded that recorded
temperature figures for the first seven years of the 21st century reveal
there has been a standstill.

The centre now officially expects global warming to resume at some point
between 2009 and 2014.

Maybe it will. But the fact that the present lull was not predicted by any
of the complex computer models upon which the global warming orthodoxy
relies is clear evidence that the science of what determines the world's
temperature is distinctly uncertain and far from "settled".

Genuine climate scientists admit that Earth's climate is determined by
hugely complex systems, and reliable prediction is impossible.

That does not mean, of course, that we know nothing. We know that the planet
is made habitable only thanks to the warmth we receive from the rays of the
sun. Most of this heat bounces back into space; but some of it is trapped by
the so-called greenhouse gases which exist in the Earth's atmosphere. If it
were not for that, our planet would be far too cold for man to survive.

The most important greenhouse gas is water vapour, including water suspended
in clouds. Rather a long way behind, the second most important is carbon
dioxide.

The vast bulk of the carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is natural -
that is, nothing to do with man. But there is no doubt that ever since the
Industrial Revolution in the latter part of the 19th century, man has added
greatly to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide by burning carbon -
first in the form of coal, and subsequently in the form of oil and gas, too.

So it is reasonable to suppose that, other things being equal, this will
have warmed the planet, and that further man-made carbon dioxide emissions
will warm it still further.

But in the first place, other things are very far from equal. And in the
second place, even if they were, there is no agreement among reputable
climate scientists over how much this contributed to the modest late-20th
century warming of the planet, and thus may be expected to do so in future.


It is striking that during the 21st century, carbon dioxide emissions have
been growing faster than ever - thanks in particular to the rapid growth of
the Chinese economy - yet there has been no further global warming at all.

Carbon dioxide, like water vapour and oxygen, is not only completely
harmless but is an essential element in our life support system.

Not only do we exhale carbon dioxide every time we breathe (indeed, an
important cause of the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
is simply the huge increase in the world's population), but plants need to
absorb carbon dioxide in order to survive. Without carbon dioxide, there
would be no plant life on the planet. And without plant life, there would be
no human life either.

While climate scientists disagree about how much further warming continued
carbon dioxide emissions might cause, there is an established majority view.

This is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
an offshoot of the United Nations, whose view is that 'most' of the modest
(0.5 per cent) late-20th century warming was "very likely" caused by
man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

And if the growth of such emissions continues unabated, their 'best guess'
is that in 100 years' time, the planet will be somewhere between 1.8 and 4
per cent warmer than it is today, with a mid-point of a shade under 3 per
cent. (Incidentally, this was published before the early 21st century
warming standstill was officially acknowledged, so was not taken into
account.)

Alistair Darling told us in his recent Budget speech that this would have
"catastrophic economic and social consequences". But that is just alarmist
poppycock.

Let's look at just two of the alleged "catastrophic" consequences of global
warming: the threat to food production, leading to mass starvation; and the
threat to human health, leading to disease and death.

So far as food production is concerned, it is not clear why a warmer climate
would be a problem at all. Even the IPCC concedes that for a warming of
anything up to 3 per cent, "globally, the potential for food production is
projected to increase". Yes: increase.

As to health, in its most recent report, the IPCC found only one outcome
which they ranked as "virtually certain" to happen - and that was "reduced
human mortality from decreased cold exposure".

This echoes a study done by our own Department of Health which predicted
that by the 2050s, the UK would suffer an increase in heat-related deaths by
2,000 a year, and a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 deaths a
year - something that ministers have been curiously silent about.

The IPCC systematically exaggerates the likely adverse effects of any
warming that might occur because estimates of the likely impact of the
global warming it projects for the next 100 years are explicitly based on
two assumptions, both of them absurd.

The first is that while the developed world can adapt to warming, the
developing world cannot.

The second is that even in the developed world, the capacity to adapt is
constrained by the limits of existing technology. In other words, there will
be no technological development over the next 100 years.

So far as the first of these two assumptions is concerned, if necessary, the
developed world will focus its overseas aid on ensuring that the developing
countries acquire the required ability to adapt. The second is, of course,
ludicrous - notably in the case of food production, where, with the
development of bio-engineering and genetic modification, the world is
currently in the early stages of a genuine revolution in agricultural
technology.

All in all, given that global warming produces benefits as well as costs, it
is far from clear that the currently projected warming, far from being
"catastrophic", will do any net harm at all.

To which it will be replied that while that may be so for the world as a
whole, the people in the developing world will indeed suffer.

But the greatest curse of the developing world is mass poverty, and the
malnutrition, disease and unnecessary death that poverty brings. To impede
their escape from poverty by denying them the benefits of cheap carbon-based
energy would damage them far more than global warming ever could.

Nonetheless, on the basis of its deeply flawed assumptions, the IPCC
predicts that if the warming is as much as 4 degrees centigrade by the end
of this century, then the economic cost would be a cut of between 1 per cent
and 5 per cent of what world output (GDP) would otherwise have been - with
the developed world suffering much less, and the developing world much more
than this.

But supposing the developing world suffers as much as a 10 per cent loss of
GDP from what it would have been in 100 years' time.

That means that by the year 2100, people in the developing world, instead of
being some 9.5 times better off than they are today, will be 'only' 8.5
times better off (which, incidentally, will still leave them better off than
people in the developed world today). And, remember, all this is on the
basis of the IPCC's own grotesquely inflated estimate of the likely damage
from further warming.

So the fundamental question is: how big a sacrifice should the present
generation make now in the hope of avoiding this?

The cost of the drastic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions which we are
told is necessary would be huge. The Government has introduced legislation
to force us to cut emissions by between 60 per cent and 80 per cent by 2050,
and Tony Blair, as self-appointed head of a group of "experts", last month
declared that "emissions in the richer countries will have to fall close to
zero".

One thing is clear: the "feelgood" measures so popular among some sections
of the middle classes, from driving a hybrid car and having a wind turbine
on one's roof to not leaving the television set on standby, are trivial to
the point of total irrelevance. What would be required is for all transport
to be 100 per cent electric, and all electricity to be generated by nuclear
power.

To cut back carbon dioxide emissions on the scale the present Labour
Government (supported by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) is
demanding would require a fundamental restructuring of the economy,
involving a rise in the cost of energy dwarfing anything we have seen so
far.

No doubt we could afford this hardship if it made sense. But does it? The UK
accounts for only 2 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. Even if the
entire European Union adopted this policy, that accounts for only 15 per
cent of global emissions.

By contrast, China - which has already overtaken the U.S. as the biggest
single emitter - has said that there is no way it will agree to a cap on its
carbon dioxide emissions for the foreseeable future. And India has said
precisely the same.

Both of them point out that it was the industrialised West, not they, that
caused the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the
last century, and that it is now their turn to catch up.

Also, that their emissions per head of population, although rising fast, are
still well below those of the U.S. and Europe; and that their overriding
priority is - quite rightly - the fastest possible rate of economic growth,
and thus the most rapid emancipation of their people from poverty. One good
reason why there will not be any effective global agreement.

So the chief consequence of decarbonising here, and making energy much more
expensive, would simply be to accelerate the exodus of industry from the UK
and Europe to China and elsewhere in the developing world - with, as a
result, little or no reduction in overall global emissions.

And even if there were a global agreement to cut drastically carbon dioxide
emissions, the economic cost of doing so would far exceed any benefit.

So does all this mean that we should do nothing about global warming? Well,
not quite. (Although doing nothing is better than doing something stupid.)

We do need to monitor as accurately as we can what is happening to
temperatures across the globe, and we do need to assist the developing
countries to adapt to a warmer temperature, should (one day) the need arise.

It makes sense, too, to invest in research in the hoped-for technology of
generating electricity using commercial carbon capture (so that carbon
dioxide emissions might be "captured" before they can escape into the
atmosphere) and also, as the U.S. is already doing, in the technology of
geoengineering to cool the planet artificially.

But that is about the size of it. This is not the easiest message to get
across - not least because the issues surrounding global warming are so
often discussed in terms of belief rather than reason.

There may be a political explanation for this. With the collapse of Marxism
and, to all intents and purposes, of other forms of socialism too, those who
dislike capitalism and its foremost exemplar, the United States, with equal
passion, have been obliged to find a new creed.

For many of them, green is the new red. And those who wish to order us how
to run our lives, faced with the uncomfortable evidence that economic
prosperity is more likely to be achieved by less government intervention
rather than more, naturally welcome the emergence of a new licence to
intrude, to interfere, to tax and to regulate: all in the great cause of
saving the planet from the alleged horrors of global warming.

But there is something much more fundamental at work. I suspect that it is
no accident that it is in Europe that eco-fundamentalism in general and
global warming absolutism in particular has found its most fertile soil. For
it is Europe that has become the most secular society in the world, where
the traditional religions have the weakest hold.

Yet people still feel the need for the comfort and higher values that
religion can provide; and it is the quasi-religion of green alarmism, of
which the global warming issue is the most striking example, which has
filled the vacuum, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as
little short of sacrilege.

Does all this matter? Up to a point, no.

Unbelievers should not be dismissive of the comfort that 'religion' can
bring. If people feel better when they drive a hybrid car or ride a bicycle
to work, and like to parade their virtue in this way, then so be it.

Nonetheless, the new and unattractively intolerant religion of
eco-fundamentalism and global warming presents real dangers. The most
obvious is that the governments of Europe may get so carried away by their
own rhetoric as to impose measures that do serious harm to their economies.
That is a particular danger at the present time in the UK.

Another danger is that even if the governments do not go too far and damage
their own economies, they may still cause great damage to the developing
world by engaging in what might be termed green protectionism. The movement
to make us feel guilty about buying overseas produce because of the "food
miles" involved is just one example of this.

And France's President Sarkozy is currently urging the European Union to
impose trade barriers against those countries that are not prepared to limit
their carbon dioxide emissions.

It should not need pointing out that a lurch into protectionism, and a
rolling back of globalisation, would do far more damage to the world
economy - and in particular to living standards in the developing
countries - than could conceivably result from the projected continuation of
global warming.

But even if this danger can be averted, it is clear that the would-be
saviours of the planet are, in practice, the enemies of poverty reduction in
the developing world.

So the new religion of global warming, however convenient it may be to the
politicians, is not as harmless as it may appear. Indeed, the more one
examines it, the more it resembles a Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It
is a great story, and a phenomenal bestseller. It contains a grain of
truth - and a mountain of nonsense.

And that nonsense could be very damaging indeed.

We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be as
economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting. It is from this, above
all, that we really do need to save the planet.

? AN Appeal To Reason: A Cool Look At Global Warming by Nigel Lawson is
published by Duckworth on April 10 at £9.99. To order a copy (p&p free),
call 0845 606 4206.