Jan 25 2007
Climate change and CO2
For once when I asked the government a written question I received an answer.
I asked
-
Subscribe
-
Widgets
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from The Rt. Hon John Redwood MP. Make your own badge here.
RSS Feed-
About
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
Conservative Party Economy News
“Government should take action now to build stronger sea defences” - the UN’s IPCC leaked report is predicting a possible 17 inch rise in water levels over the next century - this is much lower than their last estimate. So lets save our tax money until we see evidence of rising water levels (over natural post-glacial increases).
If there is a business case for “creating new land in the shallows of the Thames estuary” then do it - it should not be tied to global warming.
I don’t find the argument that we can’t do it alone & therefore shouldn’t bother convincing. This is the argument that we shouldn’t report crime because it won’t stop it unless everybody does.
However it is a moot point because what 3% of total CO2 release proves is that it is far to small to have a significant effect on total CO2, which in turn is almost certainly a lesser part of warming, the main bit being solar variance.
I believe that if I take the opposite stance to Friends of the Earth I won’t be far wrong on global warming. It’s just another device for tax gathering.
better still, leave the eu (to avoid the landfill directive nonsense)
use the land behind the sea walls for landfill and when high enough build houses
if you include the east caost of the uk there should be many centuries of land fill
(the govt thinks this lando is of no value since its decided not to repair sea walls)
kills several birds with one stone
John’s question, and the government’s answer to it, leaves room for confusion about the human effect on climate change. Neil Craig at least, see comment 2 above, has been misled.
The natural world has been busy pumping out huge amounts of CO2 for billions of years. It has also, simultaneously, been absorbing it. It’s the way carbon-based ecosystems work. The carbon emitted comes from the carbon eaten, which comes from the carbon absorbed which comes from the carbon emitted… and so on.
Then, around the time of the dinosaurs, a lot of dead vegetation fell into swamps and didn’t decompose to CO2. Over millions of years it became coal, gas and oil instead. With less CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth’s temperature dropped substantially.
So the 3% of total emissions that humans are now responsible for is the 3% that the global biological system does not have the capacity to soak up. When we have burnt it all we will be back to the pre-Carboniferous climate. There’s no problem with the other 97% - it is being absorbed by plants as fast as ever.
The alleged demise of the human race unless we DO SOMETHING requires global agreement. Meanwhile here are a few things that could be easily done:
1. Develop an anti-waste attitude in the home.
2. Do we HAVE to keep all the lights in our offices on all night?
3. Importing huge tonnages of hardwood from abroad, encourages people to cut down the rain forests like there is no tomorrow (no pun intended). Cutting down huge swathes of forest must surely be a major contribution to global warming.
4. Intensify our research into hydrogen and other alternative, non polluting, fuels.
5. Resist the Global Warming ‘band wagon’ excuse to invent a new tax raising opportunity.
Why do we still let water run down hill without catching its potential energy for the National Grid? Why is making your own home carbon zero not (stealth) tax zero?
I think all disabled people who need a stair lift and a dishwasher and other gadgets ought to be given a free installed wind turbine, and photovoltaic roof tiles, to offset the cost of running them.
Is joined uop thinking like that too futuristic for Britain? It already happens in Switzerland!
At last a politician (John Redwood) is challenging the convential wisdom about the role of carbon dioxide and so called greenhouse gases in general. Anyone with only a basic knowledge of chemistry would find that there are far more questions than answers. For my part I have never been able to find an explanation of why miniscule quantities of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are responsible for altering the physical process of heat transfer. Does anyone really know anything about the process?
Richard that is simplistic. Vegitation did not spring into existence at 2the time of the dinosaurs” - there has always been coal being formed & released. However the Earth’s living systems are living systems - which means they can easily adapt to using 3% more CO2 - indeed the evidence of tree ring growth is that the rise in CO2 is already meaning that plants are growing better. For those of us who eat food this is not a bad thing.