For the last two weeks politicians from all over the world have been gathering and meeting in Glasgow in order to formulate an agreement to cut the use of fossil fuels by mankind. The target has been to keep the maximum extent of global warming below 1.5°C and so avoid a catastrophic warming of over 2.8°C by the end of this century. This may be very laudable, but in my opinion most of the measures agreed or demanded are unworkable and unnecessary.
My first critique is with regard to the current temperature rise and its projection. The received wisdom is that current warming relative to pre-industrial times (i.e. before 1750) now stands at 1.1°C. In contrast, the real temperature records, as outlined on this blog, show that this is unlikely to be true. Over the last sixteen months I have analysed the land-based temperature records of virtually the entire Southern Hemisphere, plus those of the USA, Europe and southern Asia. None show a warming of over 1°C since 1750 that correlates with increases in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The only consistent warming is seen after 1980, and this is only about 0.5°C in magnitude. Given that 70% of the Earth's surface is water and that the oceans heat up by less than half the amount compared to land, it is impossible to get to a 1.1°C average warming globally unless one postulates that land temperatures have increased by over 2°C everywhere, as Berkeley Earth does (see Fig. 80.1 below). But the reality of the raw data that I have analysed so far is that there is virtually no country or continent that I have investigated so far where this has happened. So the real temperature increase so far is likely to be less than 0.5°C. And as I showed in Post 14 and Post 29, much of this 0.5°C could be due to urban heat island effects.
Fig. 80.1: Land and ocean global average temperature anomalies since 1850 according to Berkeley Earth.
My biggest criticism, though, is reserved for the proposed countermeasures. The one consideration that has been completely omitted from discussions of carbon reduction policies has been the economics. While a lot of time has been devoted to discussing financial aid to small developing countries that are supposedly at risk from climate change, none has been directed to considering the financial impact on producers and consumers.
One of the main aims of COP26 was to "keep 1.5 alive" - namely to enact measures that would prevent the global temperature rise from exceeding 1.5°C. This, we are told, requires a 50% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2030, and a move to net-zero by about 2060. The question, then, is how do we reduce fossil fuel use by 50% by 2030, or 5% per year? At COP26 all the emphasis appeared to be on reducing fossil fuel demand rather than supply. Yet both are problematic, and both will cause economic hardship to many.
The current political strategy appears to revolve around getting as many countries as possible to cut their usage of fossil fuels, but this policy has two flaws. Firstly, it requires over 180 countries to agree to do something that none really want to do. That means it is highly unlikely to succeed (think: herding cats). But if it does there is the second problem. It will devastate the economies of many oil producers. What is striking is the callous disregard many climate activists have for the people of these countries.
Countries like Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Russia, Libya, Nigeria and Venezuela are almost entirely dependent on the revenues from oil and gas to feed their people. They are economic monocultures. Nor do they have large sovereign wealth funds to fall back on like Norway, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. So what happens to their economies when demand for oil and gas runs out, or the sale is banned by international treaty? The impact will be cataclysmic.
The alternative strategy is hardly much better, but will create a different set of losers. Rather than trying to regulate demand, the UN could instead try to regulate supply by getting the producers to cut supply by 5% per year and thus force the consumer nations to adapt. This strategy has two advantages. Firstly it requires the agreement only of the producers who are much fewer in number, and secondly any cut in supply would result in spikes in price which would largely protect the incomes of the producers. Instead the consumers would suffer, and with them the global economy. The result would be oil and gas shortages, high prices, fuel poverty and global economic collapse. So, not a great choice!
No comments:
Post a Comment