SCIENCE & POLITICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
6 November 2007
Hazel Prowse
Report of one session
at a weekend of seminars held by the Institute of Ideas at the
Royal College of Art, 27—28 October 2007.
Professor Mike Hulme said giving the Nobel Peace Prize to the
IPCC is only the beginning, and the real issues are on what to
do about it. He posed the following:
(1) The ‘danger’ of a 20 degree rise in temperature
above pre—industrial levels depends on where you live!
(2) The Stern review’s '5—20% loss to global GDP’
is an incomplete response
(3) The Kyoto protocol is not the only response and is a poor
investment. We should look at the issues another way.
Chris Rapley, a physicist, said climate change was a symptom of
human use of energy. When the world population was only lbn, fossil
fuels were discovered. Later we found acid rain, then CFCs, and
resolved those issues, up to a point. We must take action, even
if there is only 1 chance in 100 of being effective.
Hans von Storch said we are seeing the effects of greenhouse gases,
but he was not convinced we can attribute weather extremes to
anthropogenic climate change. He claimed climate change
was not catastrophic and was unsure how to rank it as a global
problem, compared to, say, poverty. Our options are not limited
by science, rather science just informs on options.
We could (a) reduce climate change, or (b) empower communities
to get over it by more efficient fuel use and removing greenhouse
gases, or (c) both.
Most political decisions have been on reducing greenhouse gases
but this would only limit climate change. Other strategies meet
outright opposition. As we have anthropogenic climate change NOW,
we need to mitigate it NOW.
Joe Kaplinsky said Al Gore’s film was not very helpful —
it is 50% science, 20% politics and 30% sentimental mush.
Only Mike Hulme mentioned population at the very end.
11.00-12.30
'Climate change is our moors landing.’ So said Sir Martin
Rees, Astronomer Royal. Politicians of all persuasions compete
to present their green credentials, alongside business, and very
large public organisations. All cite scientific evidence to rebut
scepticism or debate. Is the time for debate really over, or are
political choices obscured by talk of scientific consensus? Are
the threats so great and the science so certain that there really
is only one course of action?
MIKE HULME professor of climate change, University of Lost Anglia:
founding director,Tyndall Centre
