Out of step?

Just when you think that we've reached the bottom of the trough of pessimism, along comes James Lovelock. He's about to have his new book "The revenge of Gaia" published, and today's Independent fairly revels in the chance to give him a pulpit. In Why Gaia is wreaking revenge on our abuse of the environment by Michael McCarthy, we have a front-page spread on how we have already passed the point of no return. For those readers who feel strong enough, Lovelock himself preaches his gospel of hopelessness in The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever which may last as long as 100,000 years.

For example, the good professor says:

Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics.

and follows with:

We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.

This last snippet alludes to the cooling effect of atmospheric aerosols, which he believes will quickly disappear as industrial output plummets.

So, what's the old boy up to? He's a genuine believer in Earth's self-regulation, what he calls "Gaia". However, he makes the same mistakes as other deep greens: he believes worst case scenarios rather than looking at the evidence and, more importantly, he sees Mankind as something outside Nature. But, we humans are natural. Yes, we may have a greater range and apparent impact on the planet than other species, but that doesn't make us unnatural. What we do have is a unique capability for guilt and self-loathing, which manifests itself particularly as extreme environmentalism.

I see this as one of a series of apocalyptic prophesies over the century, this time in the trappings of environmentalism rather than religion. And yet, religion it effectively is.

Sorry, Professor Lovelock, I'm still an optimist, although I do occasionally read the Independent for entertainment value.

In a paper published in Nature, scientists in Germany have reported the apparantly surprising finding that plants produce methane even when there is plenty of oxygen present, not just when they decay (see Plants revealed as methane source on the BBC website). According to this:

The possible implications are set out in Nature by David Lowe of New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, who writes: "We now have the spectre that new forests might increase greenhouse warming through methane emissions rather than decrease it by sequestering carbon dioxide."

If this turned out to be true, it would have major implications for the rules of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which allows countries and companies to offset emissions from the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil by funding the planting of new forests or the restoration of deforested areas.

Now, if I was obsessed by conspiracy theories, I would be tempted to say that this startling discovery was now going to be picked up by climate change activists to discredit the idea of "carbon sinks". Although their deep gloom about the imminent destruction of the environment by evil humans is real enough (to them), they really don't want to see any possible solutions which don't make the perpetrators suffer. Planting trees as carbon sinks is seen as an easy way out, letting big "pollutors" off the hook.

On the other hand, this shows how easy it is to think we understand what's going on. If a significant percentage of atmospheric methane is a product of normal plant growth, that makes the centrally planned dictates of the Kyoto protocol an even blunter instrument than we all thought.

Fortunately, the article ends on a note of reason:

In fact, of course, trees are neither good nor bad. They are just there, and if they are producing methane now they always have been in natural conditions.

The study highlights, however, the extreme complexity of the relationship between the biological processes of the Earth and the chemistry of our atmosphere - and how much there is yet to discover.

How true.

The Soil Association, the leading band of organic foodies in the UK, has just held its 60th anniversary conference. This has gone largely unnoticed by the general public, apart possibly from the fact that David Cameron spoke at their dinner. Since the Tory new boy is eager to prove his environmentalist credentials, this should come as no surprise.

What surprised me, however, was the fact that Caroline Lucas, the UK's single Green Party MEP, made a comment about Cameron's speech which, I have to admit, I agreed with:
Mr Cameron made a warm speech almost entirely devoid of content, according to Dr Lucas.

However, she restored my faith in her by herself making a very silly speech the next day (see Feeding our cities in the 21st century). It seems to surprise her that very little farming goes on in cities, and that large quantities of food need to be brought in on a daily basis. In fact, she seems to regard the very nature of cities to be "unsustainable" (whatever that means). According to her sources, the EU's "environmental footprint" is twice as large as its global carrying capacity. This arrant nonsense is based on dubious calculations designed to "prove" (all very Marxist, this) that we are living beyond our means, when all visible indications show this is clearly not the case.

Her solution is to encourage consumption of locally-produced food, organic of course. The "encouragement" would include public procurement rules which effectively mandate it. But the end result would be a vast cut in food miles and a blissfully happy and healthy society. Apart that is, from the farmers, both in Europe and developing countries, who make a living by selling urban dwellers food they can't grow themselves because they are working in other sectors and don't want to turn their flowerbeds over to potatoes. Oh, and perhaps the general public who appreciate a choice of good quality, affordable food. Still, if it makes the Soil Association happy...

I am joining I'm sure many other bloggers commentating on the "breakthrough" agreement on climate change policy in Montreal in the early hour of Saturday morning. Nevertheless, stay with me if you will.

The headline is that the USA has been pressured into joining future negotiations on carbon emission targets beyond 2012, when obligations under the present Kyoto protocol lapse. "Son of Kyoto" is seen by environmentalists as a victory: the nations of the world will continue to work together to save the planet. Grown men wept when agreement was reached (probably for sheer joy that they could finally get some sleep).

Now let's look at the reality. America has agreed to talk, which I think is politically sensible, but has explicitly said it will not agree to targets. There is no conceivable possibility that major developing countries - China, India and Brazil in particular - will jeopardise their future growth in the name of climate control. And, finally, none of the major countries supporting Kyoto and the new agreement is likely to meet its 2012 targets other than by the sleight of hand of buying carbon credits from Russia and other countries whose heavy industry has collapsed.

So, the 10,000 delegates now leave their heated glass building in frigid Montreal and fly back to their home countries, to be collected at the airport by air-conditioned, chauffered cars. Thousands of column inches in newspapers will be wasted on analysis of an empty agreement. Governments will spend millions on measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The climate will continue to change under the influence of factors we don't understand. But at least it gives environmentalists something to concentrate on, and takes the pressure off other issues.

Green groups and Kyoto-ratifying governments hail this as a victory. The US should also see the benefits: it's more difficult to consider a country a pariah when it's part of a negotiation process. The burst of worrying research published in the last month or two will recede, and climate change will come lower down the priority list until the next big event. And, finally, we'll realise that governments just cannot take the political risk of legislating for the savage cuts in carbon intensity (and consequent harm to economic growth) to which they pay lip service.

In the meantime, oil, coal and gas prices will be subject to normal market forces, technology will advance, and our energy mix will change without any government interference.

Within 48 hours of becoming the new leader of the Conservative party, David Cameron is establishing his street cred with environmentalists. Today, he launches a new policy group on the environment, the first of six covering different areas. This is to be led by Sir John "beefburger" Gummer, which is hardly a surprise. Alongside him will be Zac Goldsmith, son of the late Sir James, brother to Jemima, editor of the Ecologist (bankrolled by his uncle Teddy) and prospective Tory candidate. He follows the tradition of eco-toffs, being in the company not just of his dotty uncle but also Lord Melchett and Jonathon Porritt (Baron Mond).

The policy group will be launched at the Wildfowl and Wetlands centre in Barnes with Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth in attendance, and, to complete the PR exercise, Cameron was tie-less when interviewed on the Today programme. Now that Tony Blair has announced publicly that the reality of politics means that economic factors have to be taken into account when the Kyoto protocol and other green shibboleths are considered, new boy David is trying to establish the Conservatives as greener than thou. Of course, they have competition from the erstwhile Norman Baker and others in the Lib-Dems, but this party can afford to indulge in some pretty radical policies as it doesn't have a hope in hell of gaining power.

So, where will this environmental enthusiasm lead before the next election? Well, according to a BBCi report this morning (Cameron to focus on the environment), Cameron said:

"The real test will come in 18 months time when we have to show we are prepared to take the tough decisions to meet the carbon reduction targets."

Actually, in 18 months time, it's much more likely that (particularly assuming the government-sponsored Stern report on the economics of climate change policy has been published) the political experience of Sir John Gummer will be called upon to explain that the Conservatives place rather more emphasis on economic growth than trendy green policies. Remember to read this post again in summer 2007...

Yes, that's right: environmentally-friendly grenades. According to a story in World Science (Earth-friendly grenades proposed), mining of copper for grenades is environmentally damaging. Even worse, apparently, is that detonating the grenades means that the copper cannot be recycled. The researchers, from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, suggest that replacing copper by plastic would be "greener". So that's OK, then: lob a grenade and save the planet. Perhaps plastic grenades will get a Greenpeace seal of approval (as long as they're produced from renewable resources, of course); in time, use of copper-based munitions may be regarded as a war crime.

Is it just me, or is this work rather missing the point? Grenades are a rather unsophisticated product of our creative ability to kill each other easily. Where does environmentalism come in to this? Is this just one more rather macabre illustration that environmentalism is the new religion?

To blame for what? Well, pretty much everything. Latest on the list, predictably, is hurricane Katrina. Sir David King, never one to miss an opportunity to push home the message, is quoted from an interview on Channel 4 News in yesterday’s Independent (King: global warming may be to blame):

"The increased intensity of hurricanes is associated with global warming," Professor King told Channel 4 News yesterday. "We have known since 1987 the intensity of hurricanes is related to surface sea temperature and we know that, over the last 15 to 20 years, surface sea temperatures in these regions have increased by half a degree centigrade.

"So it is easy to conclude that the increased intensity of hurricanes is associated with global warming."

Yes, but perhaps Sir David draws the conclusion too easily, because it supports a political agenda. Looking at longer-term evidence suggests that neither the intensity nor frequency of hurricanes is currently out of the ordinary. Looking back over the last century, it seems that Atlantic hurricanes were more frequent in the 1930s, and that the end of the 20^th Century was a relatively quiet time. In the last few years, we seem to have experienced a cyclical increase in activity. At the same time, the populations and property values in vulnerable areas have increased, meaning that landfall by hurricanes can cause greater damage and loss of life.

Klaus Topfer, head of the UN’s environment programme, and another serial offender, has similarly placed the blame for this year’s floods in Northern Europe and drought and forest fires in Southern Europe on global warming (that is, manmade climate change). His interview with FT Germany was also reported on the Euractiv website (UN director links natural disasters and climate change).

Climate changes, however they are induced, are bound to affect local weather patterns. But, rather than engage in gloom-mongering in a vain attempt to force down emissions of carbon dioxide, we should be putting our efforts into adapting. It’s pretty certain that a high proportion of our energy needs in 2050 will be generated other than from fossil fuels. These changes will be driven by economics and Mankind’s inventiveness. In the meantime, cherry picking the facts and spinning them to meet a politically correct agenda is unscientific and benefits no-one.

So reads the BBC headline. Oh dear, what are we going to worry about now? Fortunately, help is at hand, as the Cancer Research UK study reported “only” looked at the people using mobile phones for ten years. And look at the following quotes:

Senior investigator Professor Anthony Swedlow said: "Whether there are longer-term risks remains unknown, reflecting the fact that this is a relatively recent technology."

Dr Michael Clark from the Health Protection Agency said: "This is good news but we still need to be a bit cautious."

Dr Julie Sharp, senior science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "This study provides further evidence that using mobile phones does not increase the risk of brain tumours.

"However, it is important that researchers continue to monitor phone users over the coming years as mobiles are still a relatively new invention."

In other words, still feel free to worry. It seems that, despite the mounting evidence, there will always be room for caution. In the case of mobile phones, the vast majority of people will continue to use theirs as normal and not worry, because they enjoy the benefits. However, similar concerns are also expressed about mobile phone masts, even though there is still no evidence of harm. The BBC1 “Should I worry” series covered both phones and masts last year, and did an interesting piece of research, reported as follows:

The Should I Worry About team decided to carry out a test. We put ten students in a house for ten days and erected a mobile mast in the garden. We weren't entirely honest with them though; we told the students the mast was on at the start of the experiment and off at the end. In fact it was off at the start and on at the end. What's interesting is that the only time any of the students felt ill was when the mast was OFF but they thought it was ON.

Our small experiment suggests that people's fear of phone masts can be a factor in making them feel unwell. There are some people though who might be affected by phone masts and a large study is just beginning at Essex University to try to spot these hypersensitive people.

Say no more?