|
Article Excerpt
In the last issue of National Observer, I wrote on "global warming" scare-mongering. (1) At several points, I had to employ phrases such as "at the time of writing" because events were changing fast. (2) There have since been several important developments, both internationally and within Australia, on the matter.
This sequel to that article stems from the view that there are few more important topics in Australia today. Wrong national decisions, resulting from populist and ill-informed pressures, could wreak serious damage on our economy and future living standards of our descendants.
In what follows, I first give a brief retrospect, sketching the lead-up to my preceding article. Next, I examine the Stern Report (3) in more detail. The processes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (4) in publishing (in part!) its Fourth Assessment Report are then considered. Finally, I note some related political developments, before concluding with some general observations.
RETROSPECT
In 1992, the so-called Rio Earth Summit resulted in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Subsequent meetings of the contracting parties to that convention, including Australia, led to the 1997 negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, whereby those developed nations ratifying it agreed to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, and carbon dioxide (C[O.sub.2]) in particular. In 2005 this treaty, signed by Australia but not ratified either by it or, more importantly, by the United States, came into force when finally ratified by Russia.
Meanwhile, in 1990, 1995 and 2001 the IPCC had issued its First, Second and Third Assessment Reports. These advanced its thesis that global temperatures were rising steadily, and that this was due principally to anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) causes--notably the growing use of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas). These Assessment Reports claimed, increasingly shrilly, that the rising concentration of atmospheric C[O.sub.2] was directly responsible for rising global temperatures. Using highly complex computer models of the atmospheric and other processes involved, projections (which however were increasingly treated as predictions) were also made of the likely future consequences if effective action were not taken to rein in the growth of, and stabilise, the atmospheric concentration of C[O.sub.2].
These likely consequences ranged widely. They included melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps (which between them contain about 95 per cent of the world's frozen water); melting of the (floating) Arctic sea-ice; "shutting down" of the Gulf Stream; growing frequency of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and floods; disruption of world food supplies; spread of "tropical" (sic.) diseases such as malaria; rising sea-levels as the ice caps melt, with inundation of low-lying areas; displacement of people living in such areas; destruction of animal habitat (those cuddly-looking polar bears again!); and so on.
Because projections of future C[O.sub.2] emissions depend, inter alia, on projections of world economic growth, the IPCC Assessment Reports involved not only the work of climatologists to underpin the basic "science", but also of economists to undertake those economic growth projections. (5)
For many years, some prominent economists, such as Professor William Nordhaus, (6) have extensively researched the potential costs and benefits that might arise from a world warming in line with IPCC projections/predictions. In doing so they have accepted, at least for purposes of their calculations, the underlying "science".
In July 2005, the (UK) House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs issued an impressive report on these topics. (7) It too largely accepted the IPCC-determined "science". However, its conclusions about the risk-assessment processes involved, particularly the relative costs of abatement versus mitigation measures, were significantly at odds with the rising tide of IPCC-inspired opinion. It expressed concern "that UK energy and climate policy appears to rest on a very debatable model of the energy-economic systems and on dubious assumptions about the costs of meeting the long-run target of 60 per cent reduction in C[O.sub.2] emissions". It called on the government "to improve substantially (a) the cost estimates being conveyed to the public and (b) the manner of their presentation". It urged, further, "that explicit comparisons be made between the monetary cost of adaptation measures and their benefits", benefits", and considered that "the Treasury should become directly involved itself, making its own economic assessment of the issue".
Without acknowledging that call, the UK government, in July 2005, did institute what looked like such an assessment under the direction of Sir Nicholas Stern. (8) His report was formally submitted on 30 October 2006. However, in keeping with the Blair Government's modus operandi, its conclusions had been widely disseminated to appropriately compliant journalists before publication. (9) To say that those conclusions were alarming would be a huge understatement. Yet, as I hope to show, this is an essentially fraudulent document.
Nevertheless, the Stern Report provided both a dramatic and timely stage setting for the release in February, 2007 of the IPCC's next instalment. So let us now examine what it said.
THE STERN REPORT
The four key elements of the Report were:
* Its wholehearted acceptance of the IPCC's "science" on global warming.
* Its apocalyptic predictions as to the consequences for the human race if effective action were not taken to halt the otherwise "inevitable" soaring temperatures resulting from economic-growth-related C[O.sub.2] emissions.
* Its striking assertion that, without preventive action, the economic costs "will be equivalent to losing at least 5 per cent of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) each year, now and...
|
