Monday, July 16, 2007

The Penguin knows about climate change

An wonderfully written post on climate change from Caesar Penguin.
The current climate change movement is determined to stop us doing things - to restrict the number of flights we take or the amount of air-conditioning we use. This is immoral, unhelpful, and lazy.

Immoral because we cannot say, with good conscience, to the people of emerging nations that they should not enjoy the earth as much as we have over the last hundred years - how can we tell the Chinese and Indians not to take vacations, drive to supermarkets and cool their homes?

Unhelpful because, so long as humans are breeding, the demands we place on the planet will increase. Unless we return to living in caves, we will have an impact on the planet.

Lazy because it lacks imagination and vision. It's much easier to tell people to stop doing something than it is to encourage the discovery of new technologies which would facilitate our continued existence on this planet.

Go and read the whole thing.

In the meantime, The Dude takes exception to The Kitchen's approach to climate change.
The DK line is that man is at most only responsible for climate change on the margins and the whole MCACC hysteria is cooked up as a crypto-socialist conspiracy. Thus they berate any who mouth the orthodox line. They should be aiming their ire at the George Monbiots, the Polly Toynbees and the other socialists stretching the science to create an anti-capitalist hysteria.. Those with orthodox views should be tolerated and politely given a different angle - in short persuaded*. By screaming at the congregation, they are not likely to be persuaded and we sceptics of Massive Catastophic Antropogenic Climate Change are more easily branded loonies.

Whilst Jackart is, to an extent, correct, few things are so frustrating as attempting to argue with the stupid and the ignorant. These people have already swallowed the Toynbee/Monbiot line and their fundamental lack of understanding about how we might measure these effects is wasted on them.

Thus, your humble Devil will continue to call these people fuckwits whilst pointing to the more reasonable, measured analysis of others. After all, your humble Devil is primarily a polemicist and in such manner does he exorcise his demons.

However, hysterical I may come across, The Dude does actually put his finger on something that I do believe but, possibly, fail to reiterate enough.
Adaptation to the climate rather than trying to piss into the wind is the order of the day. That said, efficiency in material use and energy is an a priori good thing.

Of course it is: one should never waste energy. My belief that our CO2 emissions are doing little or nothing to create climate change does not mean that I don't think that we should continue just as we are; there are obvious political and supply reasons for moving away from burning fossil fuels.

But unlike many people, I do try to follow research and development in these matters and I firmly believe that the West, at least, will not be burning fossil fuels in forty years' time (the bonus knock-on, of course, will be the economic collapse of Saudi Arabia and the other terroris-funding Islamist states).

Alternative technologies are being developed and the high price of oil and gas, and continuing uncertainty over suplies, is ensuring that these technologies are becoming econmically viable.

Fear not: we are not doomed.

4 comments:

Milo said...

There was an event earlier this year where various climate scientists said that they thought that the climate hysteria was getting a bit much, really. This was reported by the BBC.

My belief that our CO2 emissions are doing little or nothing to create climate change

Maybe you are right, maybe not. It is the case that climate models are very sensitive to CO2, but for various reasons that does not necessarily mean that we're all going to die unless the tranzis step in to save us for our own good.

Icena said...

Agree with almost everything. Not sure about the following, though:

"Immoral because we cannot say, with good conscience, to the people of emerging nations that they should not enjoy the earth as much as we have over the last hundred years - how can we tell the Chinese and Indians not to take vacations, drive to supermarkets and cool their homes?"

This seems to be a bit of a non sequitur. One might as well say that as we used to take part in the slave trade, not allow women to vote or own property, to allow a man to rape his wife etc, we should not criticise any country or people that go in for that now. Either it's deeply immoral for the Chinese to leave their DVD players on standby or it isn't (and I am pretty sure that it isn't); the fact that we used ourselves to indulge in such extravagances is neither here nor there.

Roger Thornhill said...

Indeed, I think we do need to look into new technologies to sustain our lifestyle.

Taxing only draws cash from us to the government. It is like they have decided our life now bears interest. I reject their intent.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Rog, for a change I have to disagree. I see no problem in taxing fuel and domestic energy etc a bit more heavily, as long as the proceeds are used to reduce taxes elsewhere and/or is dished out per capita as a universal benefit. So that's not going to happen then.

Get rid of all these carbon trading schemes, esp. the international ones, of course.