Measures to combat climate change are being opposed by right-wing populists everywhere, not least in the United States. Admittedly, China continues to build coal fired power stations, but it is also investing heavily in renewables.
Opponents of climate change policies either argue that it is not happening at all or that it is not the result of human activity but is part of a normal long-run weather cycle.
I don't have the time, space or knowledge to thoroughly review the evidence, but recent reports suggest that the recommended 1.5 degree increase in global temperatures is already being exceeded.
However, let me just feature one study published in the reputable journal Nature yesterday which suggests that the melting of glaciers is accelerating alarmingly with the equivalent of three Olympic swimming pools being lost each second.
These losses can be seen as a canary in the coal mine with implications for the melting of the ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic which would lead to a rise in global sea levels affecting vulnerable islands and coastal areas (not to mention flood defences in the River Thames).
What we are also seeing is an increase in the incidence of extreme weather incidents, notably floods. These had a devastating effect close to my great-granddaughter's home in the Valencia region of Spain.
Admittedly, some of the policy responses to global warming have been defective. Investing in heat pumps is of little use if houses are not properly insulated. The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe and as someone who lives in a 150 year old house, I know how difficult and expensive it is to exclude draughts.
For me carbon capture is still an unproven technology which requires further development to establish that it offers a long-term solution rather than a quick fix.
I also think that some of the direct action taken by climate change activists is counter productive. Disrupting people's lives does not persuade them of the case for effective policy.
Some young people think that climate change is a real threat to their survival. If unchecked, it is going to cause some very serious problems and the chances of effective international cooperation are not good. Firms like BP are under shareholder pressure to invest in fossil fuels rather than renewables.
Recent international developments persuade me that nuclear war is a greater and more proximate threat. Without the US defence umbrella, and its own conventional land forces beset with challenges, Europe might be tempted to resort to a nuclear response to an invasion of its territory. But the 515 or so nuclear weapons possessed by Britain and France are strategic and they lack the tactical weapons possessed by the United States and Russia. These are worrying enough, but they are a stage short of all out escalatio.
No comments:
Post a Comment