The global warming debate has raged for decades.  Are we heating up?  Are we cooling down?  Have we done this, or is it a natural happenstance?  Neil Hopkins looks into the mire.

Looking out of the window at the time that this editorial is being written, it’s hard to believe in global warming.  The winds is howling outside, sending wintery rains slamming into every flat surface.  Any more of this and I’ll need a boat just to get home.  It’s cold, it’s nasty – it isn’t like any July that I’ve ever known.

And yet, if I think back across the last few decades, it does seem to have been getting warmer.  Winters have shifted into what used to be spring, there’s not half the snow that there was and the summer temperatures are getting steadily more unbearable.  The general trend does seem to be up.

There are two principle arguments for this.  One is that the phenomenon has been caused by man’s development, burning of fossil fuels and generally polluting the planet.  And the second is that it’s all part of a natural cycle that has been continuing throughout time.  It’s a real mess with incredibly convincing arguments being played out by both sides.

What isn’t in doubt is the fact that the media have latched onto global warming in a big way.  Every day, we’re bombarded by messages urging us to lower our CO2 emissions, reduce our impact on the environment and the recycling mantra; reduce, reuse, recycle.  Whether it’s in print, broadcast or online, it’s virtually inescapable and even insurance companies are now starting to market themselves as low CO2 emitters. 

I wouldn’t presume to denigrate any of these messages, for reasons that I’ll come onto later, but I do wonder: why?  Why have the media jumped on this bandwagon, why are companies now touting their environmental credentials as highly as the savings that they can get you on your home insurance?  Is it truly altruistic, are we being educated into better ways to save ourselves and our planet?  Or is it to do with business?

I’m an unrepentant cynic and have to wonder whether business is the primary driving force behind this deluge of messages that we’re having to endure.  Thanks to the media coverage of global warming theories, it makes sense for companies to market themselves as low CO2 producers.  More and more people are coming around to the idea of global warming and using their pounds to effect change and are thus more likely to be attracted to a company who is making strenuous efforts to minimise their impact on the environment.

Furthermore, it must be remembered that global warming is now big business, fuelled by the fires of publicity.  There are the scores of scientists whose very livelihoods depend on proving that global warming exists.  Then there is the new carbon offsetting industry.

Carbon offsetting allows you to purge yourself of all carbon emissions (from travel, energy consumption etc) by buying ‘carbon credits’ from an offsetting programme.  The money that you pay for these credits goes into installing solar panels in houses, building wind farms or tree-planting schemes that will literally suck your expelled gasses from the atmosphere.

But, and this is the real cynic in me speaking, these carbon offsetting companies aren’t doing it for the love of it.  They’ve got directors and shareholders and thus have a duty to make as much profit as possible to justify their existence.  If you bought £100 of carbon credits (which have been touted as a new global currency), then I’m sure that you wouldn’t be putting £100 into any of the aforementioned projects. 

While we’re on the subject of carbon offsetting, it’s worth throwing an additional argument into the mix.  Groups such as Friends of the Earth have, quite rightly, suggested that this industry is sending out entirely the wrong message – i.e. that you can buy your way out of the problem that you cause.  This is exacerbated when you consider the global impact of this industry – the most polluting countries can theoretically pump out as much rubbish in the atmosphere as they like, and pay less developed countries (who don’t have the infrastructure to produce their full quota) for their remaining carbon credits.  It doesn’t appear to solve the problem, just offer a blame-free way of shirking responsibilities.  Give with one hand, take with the other…

Speaking of giving and taking, taxation is an interesting issue, at least for those of us in the UK anyway.  We suffer high tax rates at the petrol forecourt, and although green fuels are less impactful to the pocket, they are still taxed and prices seem to be increasing.  What’s even worse is the case of bio-fuels, such as chip fat.  I seem to remember a story from the last twelve months or so where an individual decided to collect the used chip oil from the local fish and chip shops and run his car on it.  The powers that be found out about it and gave him a proverbial slapping for evading the taxes of the land…  So, on one hand we’re told to reduce our reliance on oil based fuels and on the other, as soon as someone comes up with a novel solution that also removes income from the Government, they’re hammered by the authorities.  To those in power, I implore: make up your minds.

One must also consider the politicisation of the science behind global warming as well.  Those who argue that the phenomenon is not caused by man’s influence will suggest that global warming only really started to emerge into international consciousness after the end of the Cold War.  With no ‘Reds under the bed’ to be fretting over, what would the public now be scared of?  What credible theory could be touted to keep them in a state of fear?  And, as we all know, fear is a perfect way of control.  The sudden interest in global warming could be a replacement for the fear of the invading Communists.  Or could it?  This raises a raft of sociological and socio-political that we don’t have time to get into fully here, but it’s an interesting perspective.

So much for the conspiracy theories and the cynical talking – what are the actual facts of the situation?  While the media might have us believing that global warming is as much of a fact as death and taxes, the powers that be haven’t said it in quite so many words.

In fact, the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) – the overarching body of scientists involved with the global warming phenomenon – said in their Fourth Assesment Report that it is “very likely” that global warming is caused by human actions.  Yes, “very likely” implies a probability in excess of 75%, but it’s still a hazy definition.  If someone told you that you were “very likely” to win the lottery, would you believe them?  Or if they told you that you were “very likely” to die, would you believe them? 

It is the above example of the lottery and death that illustrates, to me at least, the perfect dichotomy in the great global warming debate.  If you’re told that you’re very likely” to win the lottery, you’ll probably shake your head and laugh, believing this “very likely” to be a fallacy.  Death, on the other hand, will have you understanding “very likely” very differently.  Semantics play a part, even in global warming…

What isn’t in doubt is that the planet is getting warmer – all studies are showing this.  However, a warming in itself isn’t anything to become alarmed about in the slightest – the Earth has recorded a cyclical rise and fall in temperature since time before time.  We’ve had hot spells, we’ve had ice ages and all points in between on a regular basis as far back as our instruments can measure.  And while the media would have us all believing that CO2 is the principal cause of this, there is significant doubt.

Take, for example, the ice core samples extracted from Vostock, which show that CO2 levels rise and fall as much as 1,000 years adrift from significant periods of global warming or cooling.  Are we then at the tail end of a spike, or the beginning of a new one?

Then there is the fact that between 1940 and 1970, temperatures across the globe actually dropped slightly – and this prompted fears of a new ice age.  Three decades later and we’re now panicing the other way:  could this just be a micro-swing in the Earth’s climate as part of a bigger whole?

And don’t forget the fact that during the ice age of the Ordovician period of the Paleozoic era, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were some ten times higher than they are now…

So why, if I’m so unconvinced as to the validity of man-made global warming arguments, am I reluctant to go against the messages of CO2 limitation and energy conservation? 

Two reasons

 

1. It doesn’t hurt to limit our impact on the planet.  We are essentially custodians of this great ball of elements and compounds that’s winging its way through space and, as such, have a duty to limit our impact on the incredibly complex ecosystem.  Whether that means driving more fuel efficient cars, not cutting down rainforests or recycling tin cans, we’ve all got a duty and an important role to play in the preservation of our great planet.
2. And secondly, commerce.  It makes economic sense to be environmentally friendly.  Even such measures as turning off the lights, fixing dripping taps or driving a car that can do 50mpg rather than 20mpg all puts precious pennies back into our pockets.  And, as my grandmother used to say, look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves.

We’d love to hear your views on this article, and on global warming in general.  Has your company taken steps to become carbon neutral?  Are you making a conscious effort to save money through efficiency?  If so, we’d love to hear from you! 

Email your stories, letters and thoughts to This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it and we'll get your thoughts posted on the 'net!