Email
The New Climate Economy report from Nicholas Stern et al at the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate (Cutting emissions can boost growth, say economists, 16 September) says “Good economic actions can take us most of the way to a 2C path”.
This is from the economist who had the grace to admit he got it so wrong before. However, the emissions context in which this new claim is made is a little heroic. It is based on climate modelling in the IPCC fifth assessment report, which, as Nicholas Stern himself observed from the IMF last May, omitted significant feedback effects.
We seem now to be entering an era of carefully scripted half-truths, where the glass half full is a quite different glass from the one that is half empty.
The half-truths that nudge this “New Climate Economy” still do not observe the limits that make it a wholly owned subsidiary of the global environment.
Sadly, one is inclined to take these half-truths with the salt in the seawater that’s coming our way.
Aubrey Meyer (@aubreygci)
Global Commons Institute
• Angela Gurría and Nicholas Stern remind us that “The prize [of building a strong global economy that can avoid dangerous global warming] is huge but time is running out” (Commentary, 16 September) but make no mention of the potential for pan-European energy cooperation and renewable energy sharing. This would certainly seem to make sense: we have plenty of wind, wave and tide in the north and there is plenty of sun in the south. The proposed European super-grid, including inputs from north African concentrated solar power (CSP) and Icelandic geothermal energy, should surely be pursued with the utmost sense of urgency.
I only hope the fact that the UK is so lamentably far behind most other European countries in the development of renewable energy (Sweden produces 49% of its energy requirements from renewables; the UK, which is third to bottom in the table, produces barely 10% and seems unlikely to achieve its target of 20% by 2020) will not prove to be an impediment.
Dr Peter Wemyss-Gorman
Lindfield, West Sussex
• We call on the prime minister, deputy prime minister and opposition leaders to seize on the opportunity for British onshore wind. British voters are clear about what they want: cheap and secure energy. As parties come together at annual conferences they must put country before party, ensure energy is central to every manifesto and seize the opportunity to get policy back on track.
We call on all politicians to listen, to step forward and to act on what voters are telling them. We must harness the full potential of our abundant, clean and home-grown resources and reduce our exposure to global risks, price peaks and supply shocks.
Supported by 70% of voters (according to official government figures), more than nuclear or fracking, British onshore wind greatly reduces our exposure to global price fluctuations and foreign crises – unlike fossil fuels – and the potential for faults that have led to the current shutdown of a quarter of Britain’s nuclear capacity.
The costs to consumers of British onshore wind are falling. Already – and set to remain – the cheapest large-scale renewable, it is also cheaper than new nuclear and new coal plants. And yet the industry does not have the certainty it needs. EY last week concluded that the attractiveness of the UK market for investment in renewable energy has reached a five-year low.
Politicians of all parties must listen to the people and pledge loud and clear that British onshore wind has a role to play beyond 2020 in securing Britain’s energy supply. Its contribution to our economic competitiveness must not be artificially constrained by discriminatory policy.
Richard Mardon CEO, Airvolution, Richard Dunkley Group finance director, The Banks Group, Gareth Swales Director, Fred. Olsen Renewables, Juliet Davenport CEO, Good Energy, Eric Machiels CEO, Infinis, Esbjorn Wilmar CEO, Infinergy, Andrew Whalley CEO, REG, Gordon MacDougall Managing director, RES Western Europe (all signatories’ companies are members of British Wind)
• The UN’s plans for full-scale carbon emission negotiations in 2015 (Report, 23 September) are doomed to failure, for the following simple reason. We need to regulate carbon dioxide production, and it would be sensible, and a lot easier, to regulate the amount of coal and petroleum dug out of the ground. Therefore regulating production is a glaringly obvious way to control carbon dioxide emissions.
Obviously the regulation would need to be international, so the UN is a good starting point, but it is missing a trick by not putting the coal and oil company representatives in the hot seat – in fact, not even inviting them.
Of course reduction in availabilty of oil and coal would cause market chaos; on the other hand the UN’s and Obama’s financial schemes and let-outs will also cause market chaos, but without any guaranteed reduction in carbon dioxide. In fact, if nobody approaches the coal and oil companies it is obvious that, with or without the UN, we will have a guaranteed increase in carbon dioxide.
Dr Chris Harrison
Teddington, Middlesex
• “Fuel poverty” is a serious issue for millions in the UK (A winter’s grail, The big energy debate, 11 September). Yet that phrase obscures the breadth of the problem and implicitly pits it against renewable energy. It is primarily an issue of energy efficiency, insulation and austerity, but “fuel poverty” just implies that gas prices are too high – the phrase makes it nearly impossible to talk about sustainable energy in its context, because wind, waves and solar aren’t fuel, even though they can already deliver three times the amount of energy per unit cost of investment. Let’s help those in need by changing the phrase. “Warmth poverty” will do – keeping the focus on the need rather than the implied solution.
Julian Skidmore
Birmingham
• “Texas proposes rewriting school text books to deny manmade climate change” runs the indignant headline on your online report. Just as shocking would have been “Texas rewrites text books to confirm climate change”. The job of education should be to induct young people into controversial issues and encourage them to make their own judgment on the basis of evidence. Why do we suddenly bend the knee to science the way the Guardian suggests? Whether you are a global warmer or sceptic, you should look at the evidence for and against, much of which is perfectly readable. It is far from true that 97% of scientists agree on manmade (anthropogenic) warming (whatever “scientist” means) and there are plenty of authoritative climate “sceptic” texts – not least of which is PJ Michael’s Shattered Consensus, which includes authors of IPCC report chapters themselves questioning the narrative. Respectable climate scientists (David Demeritt, Mike Hume, Anthony Watts and others) add useful counterfactual material – not to mention the shibboleths of the climate warmers, Mountford, Lomborg, McIntyre & McKitrick and Laframboise, all of whom are disciplined, evidence-based and respected writers. I have formed my own view, and it is not based on taking the word of scientists of whatever persuasion. I have spent a great deal of time reading the evidence. My conclusion? There is a justified, democratic debate to be had based on mutual respect and tolerance for dissent and supporting people to make up their own minds. Hang on – isn’t that the Guardian’s mission?
Professor Saville Kushner (@SavilleNZ)
University of Auckland, New Zealand
