Opinion - News Analysis   

Bush's change on climate is illusory

George Monbiot

GEORGE W. Bush proposes to deal with climate change by means of smoke and mirrors. So what's new? Only that it is no longer just a metaphor. After six years of obfuscation and denial, the United States now insists that we find ways to block some of the sunlight reaching the earth. This means launching either mirrors or clouds of small particles into the atmosphere.

The demand appears in a recent U.S. memo to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It describes "modifying solar radiance" as "important insurance" against the threat of climate change. A more accurate description might be important insurance against the need to cut emissions.

Every scheme that could give us a chance of preventing runaway climate change should be considered on its merits. But the proposals for building a global parasol don't have very many. A group of nuclear weapons scientists at the Lawrence Livermore laboratory in California, apparently bored of experimenting with only one kind of mass death, have proposed launching into the atmosphere a million tonnes of tiny aluminium balloons, filled with hydrogen, every year. One unfortunate side-effect would be to eliminate the ozone layer.

Expensive proposals

Another proposal, from a scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado, suggests spraying billions of tonnes of sea-water into the air. Regrettably, the production of small salt particles, while generating obscuring mists, could cause droughts in the countries downwind. Another scheme would inject sulphate particles into the stratosphere. It is perhaps less dangerous than the others, but still carries a risk of causing changes in rainfall patterns. As for flipping a giant mirror into orbit, the necessary technologies are probably a century away. All these fixes appear more expensive than cutting the amount of energy we consume. None reduces the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which threatens to acidify the oceans, with grave consequences for the food chain.

The demand that money and research be diverted into these quixotic solutions is another indication that Mr. Bush's avowed conversion to the cause of cutting emissions is illusory. He is simply drumming up new business for his chums. In his State of the Union address last week, he spoke of "the serious challenge of global climate change" and announced that he was raising the Government's mandatory target for alternative transport fuels fivefold. This is wonderful news for the grain barons of the red States, who will grow the maize and rapeseed that will be turned into biofuel. It's a catastrophe for everyone else.

An analysis published last year by the Sarasin Bank found that until a new generation of vegetable fuels, made from straw or wood, is developed, "the present limit for the environmentally and socially responsible use of biofuels [is] roughly 5 per cent of current petrol and diesel consumption in the EU and U.S." Mr. Bush now proposes to raise the proportion to 24 per cent by 2017. Already, though the rich world has replaced just a fraction of 1 per cent of its transport fuels, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation reports that using crops to feed cars has raised world food prices, with serious consequences for the poor. Biofuels fall into the same category as atmospheric smoke and mirrors — a means of avoiding difficult decisions.

But at least, or so we are told, the argument over whether or not manmade climate change is happening is now over. On Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change publishes the first instalment of its vast report, which collates the findings of the world's climate scientists. If even Mr. Bush now grudgingly acknowledges that there's a problem, surely we've seen the last of the cranks and charlatans who had managed to grab so much attention with their claims that global warming wasn't happening?

Some chance. A company called Wag TV is currently completing a 90-minute documentary for Britain's Channel 4 called The Great Global Warming Swindle. Manmade climate change, the channel tells us, is "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times. The truth is that global warming is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media ... The fact is that CO2 has no proven link to global temperatures ... solar activity is far more likely to be the culprit."

It is the same old conspiracy theory we've been hearing from the denial industry for 10 years, and it carries as much scientific weight as the contention that the twin towers were brought down by missiles.

The programme's thesis revolves around the deniers' favourite canard: that the "hockey-stick graph" showing rising global temperatures is based on a statistical mistake made in a paper by the scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes.

What it will not be showing is that their results have been repeated several times by other scientists using different statistical methods; that the paper claiming to have exposed the mistake has been comprehensively debunked; and that the lines of evidence used by Mr. Mann, Mr. Bradley, and Mr. Hughes are just a few among hundreds demonstrating that 20th-century temperatures were anomalous.

Hilarious howlers

The decision to commission this programme seems even odder when you discover who is making it. In 1997, director Martin Durkin produced a similar series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which also maintained that global warming was a scam dreamed up by environmentalists.

It was riddled with hilarious scientific howlers. More damagingly, the only way in which Mr. Durkin could sustain his thesis was to deceive the people he interviewed and edit their answers to change their meaning.

After complaints by his interviewees, the Independent Television Commission found that "the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing" and that they had been "misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part." Channel 4 was obliged to broadcast one of the most humiliating primetime apologies it has made.

Are institutional memories really so short?

How often must scientists remind the media that a handful of cherry-picked studies does not amount to the refutation of an entire discipline?

But with Mr. Bush's defection, the band of quacks making these claims is diminishing fast.

Mr. Bush's purpose — to insulate these companies from the need to cut production — is unchanged. He has simply found a new way of framing the argument. —

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Inner-party manoeuvres
Europe's far-right consolidates
Jammu and Kashmir: the death of a cause
Bush's change on climate is illusory
Corrections and Clarifications
Davos 2007: losers feel threatened, winners too are discomfited
The reshuffle in the BJP and the message
Unnecessary fuss
Doing India Proud
Nuclear disarmament
U.S. hegemony
A great loss

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu