Reduce dependency on fossil fuels and develop new sustainable technologies, but the debate at the Copenhagen Climate Change conference must be open in order to achieve a correct and practical resolution of the issues, says Giles Chichester, South West MEP
My discussions with constituents in the South West reveal a wide divergence of views on the issue of climate change. Many are not convinced about global warming and argue that warnings of the melting of Polar ice packs and future rises in sea levels are not borne out by the scientific evidence. Others point to our wet, humid summers and local flooding as a foretaste of the increasing effects of climate change. The majority are, like me, confused by messages of doom from experts who issue statements based upon the latest climate predictions of their computer programmes. These are always prefaced by words such as should, could or may, thus emphasising by the vagueness of the language the inadequate foundations of their research.
In December there will be an important international meeting in Copenhagen to thrash out a global climate change policy. I am, however concerned to learn that many eminent scientists who are unconvinced by much of the research forecasting global warming have not been invited to participate in this debate. This is indeed worrying, for the findings of this Copenhagen Conference will have a considerable effect on future social and economic policies of governments and, in particular, for those of developing nations. Rather than attempt to suppress the research of those who reject global warming, it should be seriously considered in an open debate to achieve a correct and practical resolution of the issues. People need to be reassured that if the climate change crisis is real then the sacrifice which may be demanded of us will not be simply another example of government spin to make us accept higher taxes.
Although I may appear somewhat sceptical about global warming, I believe we must be realistic about one of the important issues which will form part of the Copenhagen debate. There is need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels which contributes to pollution levels that are detrimental to the environment and our health. Furthermore, we cannot take for granted that our future energy needs will be provided by fossil fuels because their supply is finite and, as the recent Ukraine crisis shows, can be easily disrupted by political events. We must make greater efforts to improve our energy efficiency, diversify our energy sources and develop new technologies to ensure a clean, secure and sustainable future energy supply.
Giles Chichester MEP
Conservative MEP for the South West of England and Gibraltar
Think for yourself, people…
I want you all to think about Climate Science. What is Climate? Well, it could be described as the physical, chemical, and thermal condition of the atmosphere that is influenced by millions of contributing factors from within the Earth, upon the Earth, in the atmosphere, and from space, including effects that we do not observe and do not know how to measure; and which change constantly in sudden and slow changes and cycles far longer in time than our own existence here on Earth.…or perhaps it is the living breath of our world.
And what is Science? Well, that could be described as the methodology used to make sense of the subject material by the progression of ideas and assumptions, through rigorous experimentation and verification under closely controlled conditions, changing one variable at a time to arrive at the indisputable ‘scientific facts’ in the absence of any desire for one outcome or another; purely an objective, logical approach, necessarily devoid of any feeling towards the subject matter… which is reduced to a mechanism that exists just because it does, with no greater purpose, and ideally to a mathematical function or computer model entirely devoid of life.
For the sake of expediency, I will not linger on the wholesale unsuitability of science as a tool to determine the reality of ‘Climate Change’ and provide ‘technical solutions’ to ‘save the Earth’; instead I will ask you, are we not missing the point?
How many Earths have we got to play with? Is it not simply idiotic to plunder the resources of the planet for our entertainment, and recklessly pollute the air, land, groundwater, rivers and seas with the toxic spoils of our activities? Do we need an ‘Authority’ to rustle up some magic and make it disappear (or just appear to disappear whist stimulating new industries and inventing new tax revenue streams, perhaps)? Whose Earth is it anyway? Is there not a better way to live on Earth?
You bet there is. It is the way of responsible usage of the Earths’ gifts, which are countless. Plant something and it grows….how about that! Move away from activities you know to be causing harm…it makes you feel good, I promise! Imagine a way that actually is preferable to the current way…learn something empowering about yourself from your interaction with nature. Share your love of the world, and demonstrate a happy alternative to the ‘norm’. Have fun.
Aaron Custance