Is Sir Mark Moody-Stewart right?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7218002.stm

Answer 1

In some ways yes, provided it is possible to cut energy usage and carbon emissions sufficiently while holding on to our growth economy.

When I walk through town I see so many people who are rich enough and have enough spare time to make some appropriate changes, or are too relatively poor and unempowered to consider it thier responsibility or notice thier potential power or opportunities.

These are the people who vote and set the agenda. That may be fine for a developed democracy like the UK, but in developing countries carbon trading would really hurt, In china it is only the environmental ignorance, miraculous growth and materialistic hope that it brings that keeps the leaders in power.

I am of the hair shirt brigade who thinks we might be happier with less, and reducing consumerism is the cure to cutting emissions and freeing society from the ignorance and misery of a greedy and materialistic ethos.

It is that culture of consumerism that tell us not to worry, rock the boat or do anything, it is all going to alright just like on the television, as long as we stupify ourselves with retail therapy. That is true of the economy, but you can't have economies with ecolosystems.

The two solutions can both be put into practice, and will suit different people. In IMO though Sir Mark Moody-Stewart's method fails to take the fallibility of human nature into account, and takes the wind right out of the hair shirters sails.

Answer 2

The first statement sort of makes sense, especially if you anticipate energy prices are going to continue to rise.  The UK should reduce the carbon content of energy by half and double the GDP produced per unit of energy used.

The rest of what he says doesn't make sense at all.  He's saying that the government should just ban everything that they deem to be less than ideal for the purposes of ensuring that the British can continue to live in as cold a country.as possible.  That's not going to work because any plan based on false premises isn't going to achieve it's end.

Making the type of goods imported into the UK unduely regulated, will protect inefficient UK industries from cheap imports thus ensuring that the UK remains a very expensive place to live without providing a particularly high standard of living.

Answer 3

Absolutely.  It's too bad (a disgrace) this kind of level headed clear thinking is missing from the American debate.  I see the first answer is back to square one, trying to "debate" the climate science.  

We already live in a mixed economy, lets make it work best for everyone.  

Thanks for posting.  We're starting to come around.  http://apnews.excite.com/article/2008020...

Answer 4

There’s some key information missing from Dr T’s explanation [above] of the rise and falls of temperature and CO2 concentrations in the ice age record. What’s missing is what causes ice ages to occur in the first place.

Ice ages are due to variations in what’s called its astronomical cycles. (aka Milankovitch cycles.) Earths rotation isn’t stable, it wobbles a little like a gyroscope. This alters the distribution of solar energy hitting the Earth. When  less solar energy is received Earth enters into an ice age; when it begins to receive more solar energy it comes out of the ice age. However the amount of solar energy and the temperature effect it has can be worked out and it amounts to around 5 degrees C. The additional rise and fall in temperatures beyond the 5 degrees C range can only be explained by the effects of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere due to various feedback or forcing mechanisms.

As the Earth’s temperature begins to drop feedback occur that reduce the amount of CO2 being produced and atmospheric concentrations begin to fall. At the end of an ice age as more solar energy is received and again as temperatures begin to rise feedbacks begin to produce more CO2 increasing CO2 concentrations.

Another way of describing this is that the initial temperature changes at the beginnings and ends of ice ages are caused by changes in orbital forcings. These temperature changes have effects on the natural carbon, nitrogen, and methane cycles. In particular, initial warming reduces ocean uptake of atmospheric carbon (because warmer water can absorb less CO2 from the atmosphere), and warmer temperatures increase the decay rate of vegetative matter. Similarly, cooling at the start of an ice age increases ocean uptake and reduces emissions from vegetative decay.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the cooling or warming, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

Answer 5

Yes, in fact I've made the exact same arguments myself.

When they finally start accepting the science behind global warming, the politically conservative reaction is 'let the market control carbon'.  The problem with this solution is that the market will not be able to reduce our CO2 emissions by any significant amount in the near future.

I agree that we need either a carbon cap and trade system, carbon tax, or combination of the two in order to sufficiently reduce our emissions.

Answer 6

No, he is not. He presumes that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration require elevated temperatures--the entire basis of AGW. However, if you note the region of the referenced plot around 120,000 years ago, you'll see that as time moves forward (to the left) the temperature falls precipitously while the carbon dioxide levels remain fixed and elevated.

Nature never lies and it says that temperature changes always precede atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration changes in the entire 450,000 year data record. Always. That means temperatures have always risen and declined without regard to the CO2 levels. It does not matter if we reduce our production of CO2, the temperature will do what ever it will do.