It has been a rather hectic week. I may join other bloggers in commenting on the issue of expenses, but it has not been at the forefront of my mind. This week, I have been dashing from meeting to meeting. I will be doing one or two posts about some of the meetings, not least the one I hosted this evening for Debatewise and the International Debate Education Association (IDEA), drawing students from about twenty countries, primarily new democracies and some non-democratic countries, to encourage debate and dialogue. Some of the students are bloggers, including in countries where free exchange is not encouraged.
However, the purpose of this post is to draw attention to a debate in the House earlier this week. On Tuesday, the House debated the Committee on Climate Change’s progress report: Meeting Carbon Budgets-The Need for a Step Change. It was notable for the quality of the contributors, who included Lord May of Oxford (as readers of last week’s quiz will know, a former President of the Royal Society), Lord Stern of Brentwood (author of the Stern review), Lord Hunt of Chesterton (a professor of climate modelling) and Lord Krebs (Principal of Jesus College, Oxford, and former Royal Society Research Professor).
In the debate, Lord Stern made a fascinating contribution, not least in explaining the high stakes involved in the Copenhagen summit. In advocating low-carbon growth, he said:
“What does low-carbon growth look like? It is more energy-secure and is cleaner, quieter, safer and more biodiverse. Surely the choice is crystal clear. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, made very clear the appropriate risk analysis in this area. If we go ahead and ignore the warnings of the science, it will be very difficult to back out of the position that we find ourselves in because of the longevity of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2. If the risks turn out to be lower than we currently think them to be and we go down the more sensible route, we will have a more energy-efficient society, we will have an economy and new technologies, and we will be more biodiverse. On any commonsensical analysis of risk, surely the path to follow is clear.”
Lord Clark of Windermere, chairman of the Forestry Commission, also developed a point about the need to make greater use of timber. Wood helps sequester carbon. He went on:
“On top of that we can store even more carbon in the timber itself. It is therefore important that we use more wood in our construction industry because it would tie up carbon for many years, decades and occasionally centuries. We ought to do that. It is possible. Between 80 and 90 per cent of new houses in Scotland are built using the timber-framed method; in England, the figure is less than 20 per cent. The challenge for the Government is to give a lead to architects, developers and builders. It is not only a sensible way to store carbon but, given our climate, it is a cheaper way to build houses.”
These are merely snippets from a short but highly informative debate.
Noble lord Norton,
Thank you for making us aware of this debate, which may be an instructive one. I shall ‘listen again’if possible.
The only comment about the contributors is that the Chair of the forestry commission may be making rich remarks, which whilst true, may obscure the false values of such a large and dominant organization which prevents effective land ownership in these islands in a way which really would be effective in reducing our footprint on the planet.
I often quote:
” anti-globalist,anti-capitalist, anti- consumerist, homestead loving philosopher”
as a mantra for those who would seek to opt out of anything to do with damage to the planet. The last part of it, “Home stead loving philosopher” is a viable proposition in, for example, Portugal and many parts of the USA and South America, but try finding a working homestead as a poor man in the UK and what have you got?
Over the last 30 years, even a wise policy of development of homesteads for the poor in the UK, instead of these vastly profitable enterprises of New towns, for the pockets of the ancient aristocracy….. would have done a lot for many.
Instead of that we have second and third home owners, which are used by them for one month a year whilst… yes on the forestry commission property a few hundred metres away, there are estimated to be some of the 50,000 destitute and dying traveller, relying on handouts from the state.
I have no doubt that Lord Clark spoke in very virtuous mode!
Climate change is the vast sin of post imperial globalism, compounded by modern science,and it will not be cured by debate in the House of lords and home to centrally heated tea in a limousine!(!).
The master of Jesus may know what he is talking about!
Debating climate change will undoubtably be the same as debating our whole system and way of life. The minutae covers every aspect of industry and living.
What amuses me, and it really shouldn`t, is that what the anti-everything modern brigade promote is not too disimilar to what you would have if the Taliban ruled the World.
Personally I feel that being able to get the balance of what the Earth requires and what we feel we want, is beyond the human condition. Politicians are certainly not going to get it right, there are not that many idealists in the job and they have to pander to the electorate.
I wonder how the politicians may feel when the population is unsustainable. Would they actually be able to decide who lives or not ? Besides themselves of course.
We can already see some of how they feel and how modern living comes before people in the expansion of airports and travel.
I used to live very close to an airport, one that repairs quite a lot of craft. Often they`d test engines that wouldn`t work correctly which would result in unburnt fuel being sprayed over houses and population within 100`s yards. Unburnt aviation fuel is a carcinogen. I contacted the CAA, unless it was in the airport they do not cover it. I contacted local Government to be told I had to make notes of times etc., but there were no tests available to provide proof. In other words we`re not really interested as the Airport earns us money, the fact your children may develop cancer appeared neither here nor there. I moved house. What this proves is that the fiscal return for Government will alway`s outweigh a possible future human tragedy.
Climate change ? Little in reality will happen, we are ALL too human. Even the anti-brigade wrestle with their conscience at times.
The balance is too hard to get right. The Creator, Mother Nature, evolution will put it right eventually, possibly before the Sun burns out and we all become the miniscule atomic particles we were to start. Of course in Quantum physics someone somwhere will get it right, stand up “Spartacus”.
The reality is a successful species is a suicidal species especially when natural instinct and nature is removed. As catastrophe moves closer, politics will combine with religion and the most successful religion will decide the fate of man.
Sorry for the cynical, depressing monologue at the start of the weekend !
I would be interested to see a post from Lord Monckton. I don’t agree with his views, but it is rather tiresome to see George Monbiot resorting to ad hominem attacks and the Guardian only ever showing him as swivel-eyed, wearing a pith helmet and a foppish jacket, as though this was some kind of scientific argument.
I agree that we need to cut carbon emissions, not least because even if the situation is not as bad as the ‘worst case scenario projections’, we humans will soon find a way to push CO2 levels up to a point where a temp rise in excess of 2 degrees C is inevitable.
But nobody seems to be having a proper debate about the science, so that we explore all possible solutions and do a cost/benefit analysis on each of them. If I were living in Africa, my more immediate threat might be from malaria, not the effect of DDT in the environment, or the risk of drought in 50 years time or a monsoon in 75 years.
There is one topic of climate change that would produce a warm welcome that of cabin heating in modern diesel cars. It seems that manufacturers have gone to great lengths to keep their engines CO2 efficient but have completely forgotten driver comfort.
On a cold day, not necessarily a frosty one, it takes an interminably long time for the cabin heater to produce any heat. Windows remain fogged up; cold air blasts everywhere and all to no avail. On the continent where temperatures often fall to minus twenty or more some manufacturers allow a parking heater to be retrofitted. Lorries have these heaters fitted as standard, as do some small commercial vans, but not in the UK.
The problem for manufacturers is that there is so much crammed under the hood that a shoebox sized parking heater would have nowhere to fit. I cannot understand why instead they are unable to fit a small electrical heater/glow plug into the engine casing to boost coolant water temperature on start up. They just don’t do this?
A warm engine produces less CO2 that a cold one upon start up. Just imagine you are in your office/home and its freezing outside and its nearing time to set off. In advance you send your car an SMS text message to start the parking heater. When you later get into the car its warm and cosy. Come ON manufacturers give us all a break!
Ref: How a parking heater works: view video
http://www.parkingheater.co.uk/products/parking-heater.html