Adam
Smith Institute, 20 June 2005 http://www.adamsmith.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1397
Climate
change is both political and scientific. The political side attacks capitalism,
globalization and the USA. The scientific side identifies previous glacial
cycles including the present one which began 10,000 years ago. The Earth was
warmer 1,000 years ago, and the natural part of present warming seems to dwarf
human contribution. This does not stop us acting to influence it if we want to.
This is
where the politics comes in. The prescription is to cut growth and economic
activity and learn to live more simply. We should buy locally and travel less,
trying to minimize our footprint on the planet. Any technological approach
which seeks to minimize the consequences of growth by developing engines which
pollute less, or which removes carbon from the atmosphere, is unacceptable
because it bypasses the political agenda. This is where the US and George Bush
enter the frame. Fraser Nelson (The Business) sums it up:
Bush has pledged to reduce US
greenhouse gas intensities by 18% within 10 years,
a tougher target than
Kyoto-signing Britain, which has set a target for 12%. His
White House is pledged to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 500 tonnes over a
decade a bigger saving than the
rest of Europe put together. The problem for activists is that the US is
pursuing carbon capture technology, plus a scheme to capture and use waste
methane for energy. Far from cutting economic growth, such measures should
boost it, creating new markets for innovative solutions.... by 2015, the
Methane to Markets programme will have removed 1% of all greenhouse gases
emitted by humans into the atmosphere.
This is the environmental
equivalent of closing down EnglandŐs entire road network, or shutting down 50
coal-fired power stations.
Part of the US agenda is avowedly
to reduce its dependence of foreign oil, but part of it is resistance to being
straitjacketed by a Kyoto Protocol which imposes such heavy costs for so tiny a
result. Some reports suggest, to the fury of eco-activists, that the Gleneagles
draft being considered will incorporate some of these developments. It looks
increasingly as if the way forward will involve leaving Kyoto behind.