Lack of Environment

A blog on the politics and psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems

Archive for the ‘Climate Change’ Category

Climate change denial IS conspiracy theory

with 50 comments

I am growing increasingly tired of the circular nature of arguments about climate change.  People who are supposedly ‘sceptical’ only have four arguments, which are as follows: (1) It ain’t happening; (2) It ain’t us; (3) It ain’t bad; and (4) It ain’t worth fixing.

However, climate change is happening, human activity is the primary cause, it is going to be bad, and, if we don’t fix it, the sixth mass extinction now underway will kill the majority of species on the planet.  This is the settled opinion of the vast majority of relevant experts.  Dismissing their opinions can only be justified by one of two basic kinds of conspiracy theory:

Scientific conspiracy theories:  ‘Scientists are just trying to perpetuate their research funding’ (etc).

Political conspiracy theories:  ‘The ‘IPCC is just trying to subvert national government via the UN’ (etc).

Unfortunately, when you point this out to conspiracy theorists, they don’t like it.  This is because, sadly, they are in denial about being in denial.

Stephan Lewandowsky

In 2012, Stephan Lewandowsky et al published research – in the Psychological Science journal – highlighting the fact that rejection of the scientific consensus regarding primary human causation of ongoing climate disruption correlates very strongly with invocation of conspiracy theory explanations for other things:  NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science.

In response, the conspiracy theorists who got annoyed at being labelled conspiracy theorists, invoked conspiracy theories in an attempt to discredit the research.  Lewandowsky et al were so astonished by this that they published a second ‘Recursive Fury’ article – on the Frontiers journal website.

Now, over 12 months since the latter was removed from the website – because of threats of legal action from conspiracy theorists – the Frontiers journal have taken the extra-ordinary step of retracting the article’s publication (in their journal) altogether.  Fortunately, the article remains on the website of the University of Western Australia (PDF) - who have accepted that it is valid, ethical and legally defensible.

As a result of events last week, however, things are not looking good for the Frontiers journal, as I will now attempt to explain:

On the 21 March this year, the Frontiers journal retracted the ‘Recursive Fury’ article, despite finding no ethical flaws in the research: citing legal ‘issues’ raised by the climate change deniers that had objected to being labelled as conspiracy theorists.

Last Friday, however, in response to objections from a variety of academics – including one who peer-reviewed the article prior to publication, which appeared on The Conversation blog and was reprinted on the Scientific American website –  the Frontiers journal published a second statement asserting that they had not been threatened by legal action and dismissing the research by Lewandowsky et al as invalid (despite having previously stated they had found the research to be ethically and legally defensible).

If you want to catch up on the back story to all of this (before things get interesting for the Frontiers journal), please read the excellent summary by Graham Redfearn on DeSmog blog.

It would seem to me that both Lewandowsky and those that peer-reviewed the Recursive Fury article have little choice now but to sue Frontiers for defamation of character.

————

UPDATE (1215 GMT Monday 7th April 2014): Stephan Lewandowsky has issued a very polite statement demonstrating how hard it is to reconcile the second Frontiers statement with the facts of history (as documented by the article’s authors and reviewers): Revisiting a retraction

Climate change is here and now

with 7 comments

Please don’t be a Climate Ostrich.

The UN is not being ‘alarmist’ in order to achieve global Zionist and/or Communist domination.

Working Group 2 of AR5 warns that the effects of human caused climate change are most likely to be severe, pervasive and irreversible.

The pH of seawater is increasing due to rising CO2 content of our oceans. Because the pH scale is logarithmic, pH 7 is ten times more acidic that pH 8.

The threat to marine life from continuing pH reduction in seawater is a scientific fact, not a political conspiracy.

As the BBC’s Roger Harrabin reported last week, dying coral off the coast of Papua New Guinea does not care that the CO2 bubbling out of the sea floor is volcanic in origin – it is just dying.

For Marine Biochemistry 101 – please see Wikipedia.

Written by Martin Lack

31 March 2014 at 17:07

If I cannot blog I will Tweet

with 12 comments

I am struggling to make time to blog so may have to investigate getting Tweets to appear here automatically.  In the meantime, there is this…

David Cameron at PMQs last Wednesday (Guardian/Press Association)

History repeats itself because people do not listen

with 28 comments


Thanks to Greenpeace for the inspiration…

Industry has been manufacturing doubt regarding inconvenient science for decades. They have confused the public and paralysed our politicians. All we must do now is deal with the consequences.

Over to Greenpeace for the call to action:

Is this what it would take to get action from the government on climate change? http://bit.ly/1hg9TVM

With a climate change denying environment minister like Owen Paterson in charge, it may well be. But we don’t have to wait to see. Join the call to sack Paterson – and replace him with someone serious about climate change. http://bit.ly/1hg9TVM

What more can I say? 

Written by Martin Lack

13 February 2014 at 18:34

On the Origin of the Specious by Means of Climate ‘Scepticism’…

with 26 comments

…or the Preservation of Favoured Rhetoric in the Service of Liars.

With apologies to Charles Darwin for the parody of the title of his most famous work (Darwin, 1859), I have decided to mark the start of work on my PhD by posting here the Abstract and Conclusions of my MA dissertation, ‘A Discourse Analysis of Climate Change Scepticism in the United Kingdom’.  Existing readers will, no doubt, be aware that the Abstract has been on the About page of this blog since its inception, and other bits and pieces have appeared over time (links embedded below). However, the Conclusions have never been published here before (although I have often alluded to them).  The whole thing, of course, was the basis for my book, The Denial of Science: Analysing climate change scepticism in the UK, which can be purchased in hardcopy or eBook form from any decent online bookstore (click on book cover, right, for details).

Before reading further, however, please note the following:
1. Since writing this, three years ago, I have stopped using the more familiar – but imprecise – term ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ (AGW), in favour of the less familiar – but more precise – term ‘Anthropogenic Climate Disruption’ (ACD).
2. It is not possible to explain the totality of late 20th Century warming unless humans are the primary cause.
3. Disputing this necessitates believing that the majority of climate scientists are either: (a) being stupid; (b) reaching unjustifiable conclusions; or (c) wilfully stating things they know to be false.
4. Whereas 3(a) is highly improbable and 3(b) is entirely irrational, if 3(c) were true, unlike industry-sponsored misinformation campaigns, it would be unprecedented.   However, fortunately for all those interested in avoiding ideologically-driven denial of science in the service of vested business interests, evidence continues to pour in to show that the scientific consensus is entirely reasonable, rational and reliable.

——-

Abstract
Discourse analysis is understood in the sense proposed by John Dryzek (2005) that it involves the textual assessment of (a) basic entities recognised or constructed; (b) assumptions about natural relationships; (c) agents and their motives; and (d) key metaphors and rhetorical devices used.  As a piece of social science research, no attempt is made to prove or disprove the validity of the scientific consensus view that climate change is happening and that human activity is its primary cause.  However, this reality has been assumed solely in order to analyse the views of climate change sceptics that dispute it.  To this end, the philosophical roots of scepticism; its possible misappropriation for ideological reasons; and the psychological causes of denial are reviewed.  In this context, based on the finding of numerous researchers that conservative think-tanks (CTTs) often act as the primary driving force of campaigns to deny environmental problems, the output of such UK-based CTTs is analysed, along with that of scientists, economists, journalists, politicians and others.  Whereas the majority of CTTs analysed dispute the existence of a legitimate consensus, and the majority of sceptical journalists focus on conspiracy theories, the majority of scientists and economists equate environmentalism with a new religion; whereas politicians and others analysed appear equally likely to cite denialist and/or economic arguments for inaction.  However, because of the economic and political realities of the world in which we live, politicians will not take any action that will be unpopular with business interests and/or the wider electorate.  If so, Peter Jacques (2009) would appear to be right to conclude that anti-environmentalism (i.e. environmental scepticism) needs to be exposed as being “in violation of the public interest”.

Conclusions
Whereas the majority of CTTs analysed dispute the existence of a legitimate consensus – and the majority of sceptical journalists focus on conspiracy theories of various kinds – the majority of scientists and economists equate environmentalism with a new religion.  In contrast to all of the above, the politicians and others analysed appear equally likely to cite denialist and/or economic rationalist arguments.

Climate change sceptics often object to being called ‘denialists’ on the grounds that they accept the climate is changing but do not accept that we are causing it.  However, this appeal to reason is wholly reliant on the complexity of climate science; and the consequential limited understanding of it amongst the vast majority of the population.

Therefore, although many sceptical scientists and economists may wish to draw analogies between concern for the environment and religious belief; and be very dismissive of “an uncritical acceptance of this new conventional wisdom” (Peacock 2008: 114), this does not negate the reality of the Limits to Growth argument; nor change the strong probability that, in addition to being the “greatest market failure in history” (Stern) and “a failure of modern politics” (Hamilton), AGW is the clearest evidence yet that the Earth has a limited capacity to cope with the waste products of human activity (cf. Meadows et al. 2005: 223).  As James Lovelock has put it:

Unless we see the Earth as a planet that behaves as if it were alive, at least to the extent of regulating its climate and chemistry, we will lack the will to change our way of life and to understand that we have made it our greatest enemy.  It is true that many scientists, especially climatologists, now see that our planet has the capacity to regulate its climate and chemistry, but this is still a long way from being conventional wisdom (Lovelock 2006: 21-2).

Furthermore, there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that this scepticism being fuelled by those with a vested interest in the continuance of ‘business as usual’ (i.e. the FFL and/or CTTs) by seeking to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of AGW; and/or the unsustainable nature of exponential growth in economic development, resource depletion, and environmental pollution (Hamilton, Jacques, MacKay, Oreskes & Conway, etc.).

If the consensus view of AGW is correct, taking action to mitigate and/or adapt to the realities of AGW in a timely fashion has already been delayed by several decades.  This would make it imperative that this delay should end; and that action should be taken.  However, because of the economic and political realities of the world in which we live, politicians will not take any action that will be unpopular with business interests and/or the wider electorate.  If so, it is also imperative that those with a vested interest in the continuance of ‘business as usual’ – waging this disinformation campaign – should be exposed as the real enemies of humanity and the planet.

It is hoped that this research will be of benefit to those seeking to achieve this end.

References

Darwin, C. (1859), On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: Murray.

Dryzek, J. (2005), The Politics of the Environment (2nd ed).  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hamilton, C. (2010), Requiem for a Species: Why we resist the truth about climate change.  London: Earthscan.

Jacques, P. (2009), Environmental Skepticism: Ecology, Power and Public Life.  Farnham: Ashgate.

Lack, M. (2013), The Denial of Science: Analysing climate change scepticism in the UK Milton Keynes: AuthorHouse.

Lovelock, J. (2006), Revenge of Gaia.  London: Allen Lane.

MacKay, D. (2009), Sustainable Energy: without the Hot Air.  Cambridge: UIT.  Available online at http://withouthotair.com.

Oreskes, N. & Conway E. (2010), Merchants of Doubt.  New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.

Peacock, A. (2008), ‘Climate change, religion and human freedom’, in Robinson C. (ed), Climate Change Policy: Challenging the Activists.  London: IEA, pp.114-31.

Stern, N., et al. (2006), Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change.  London: HM Treasury.

——-

And finally
If you have a genuine interest in understanding who it is that has been lying about climate change for decades, based on the research I have since done (in order to draft my PhD proposal), I would recommend that you read any or all of the following:

Capstick, S. & Pidgeon, N. (forthcoming). ‘What is climate change scepticism? Examination of the concept using a mixed methods study of the UK public’. Global Environmental Change. Corrected proof available here [accessed 01/02/2014].

Carvalho, A. & Burgess, J. (2005). ‘Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in U.K. Broadsheet Newspapers, 1985–2003’. Risk Analysis, 25 (6), pp.1457-69.  PDF available here [accessed 01/02/2014].

Gavin, N. & Marshall, T. (2011). ‘Mediated climate change in Britain: Scepticism on the web and on television around Copenhagen’, Global Environmental Change, 21(3) pp.1035-44.  Abstract available here [accessed 01/02/2014].

Jacques, P. et al. (2008), ‘The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism’, Environmental Politics, 17(3), pp.349-385.  Available here [accessed 01/02/2014].

O’Neill, S.J., & Boykoff, M. (2010).  Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian? Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 107:E151.  Available here [accessed 01/02/2014].

Painter, J. (2011). Poles Apart: The International Reporting of Climate Sceptics (Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism).  PDF of Executive Summary available here [accessed 01/02/2014].

I have decided to take the red pill

with 32 comments

redblue_pill1

“The red pill and its opposite, the blue pill, are pop culture symbols representing the choice between embracing the sometimes painful truth of reality (red) and the blissful ignorance of illusion (blue).”

Wikipedia – ‘Red pill and blue pill’. (See also – ‘The Matrix’.)

In September 2010, I resigned from my last full-time job (i.e. something for which an employer paid me for services rendered) in order to do a Master of Arts (MA) degree in Environmental Politics. This followed months (if not years) during which I had become increasingly concerned about ‘the painful truth of reality’ (that the Earth is no longer able to cope with size of the human population on it) and ‘the blissful ignorance of illusion’ (that perpetual growth in resource consumption and/or degradation are possible and/or sensible).

The last two-and-a-half years have, in many ways, been an absolute nightmare for me:  I did not do my MA with the intention of returning to hydrogeology afterwards.  Indeed, by the time I finished my MA, I had concluded that the most sensible thing would be for me to pursue my research in the form of a PhD.  Despite all this, having investigated an array of alternative ways forward, I have spent a great deal of this time applying for hydrogeology jobs.  However, having got my MA research published in the form of a book – and having had a number of academics subsequently tell me I should pursue my research further – I am now delighted to announce that:

I have been offered & accepted a place as a full-time PhD student at the University of Liverpool.

For me, doing my MA was the equivalent of Neo’s meeting with Morpheus in The Matrix.  Just like the character of Neo in the movie, I have spent most of my life feeling there is something very wrong with reality – I just could not say why.  In the course of doing my MA, however, I read a number of things that began to help me understand what the problem is.  Chief amongst these were the following:

‘Betrayal of Science and Reason’ (1996) by Paul and Anne Ehrlich.
‘Environmental Skepticism’ (2009) by Peter Jacques.
‘Requiem for a Species’ (2010) by Clive Hamilton.
‘Merchants of Doubt’ (2010) by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.

One third of my MA involved researching and writing a dissertation.  As a result of my reading these books, I chose to research the subject of climate change scepticism – as summarised on the About page of this blog.  Having completed my research, this is how summarised my work in the closing chapter of my dissertation (i.e. as submitted in August 2010):

Conclusions

Whereas the majority of [conservative think tanks] analysed dispute the existence of a legitimate consensus – and the majority of sceptical journalists focus on conspiracy theories of various kinds – the majority of scientists and economists equate environmentalism with a new religion… Climate change sceptics often object to being called ‘denialists’ on the grounds that they accept the climate is changing but do not accept that we are causing it.  However, this appeal to reason is wholly reliant on the complexity of climate science; and the consequential limited understanding of it amongst the vast majority of the population.

Therefore, although many sceptical scientists and economists may wish to draw analogies between concern for the environment and religious belief… this does not negate the reality of the Limits to Growth argument; nor change the strong probability that… [anthropogenic climate disruption] is the clearest evidence yet that the Earth has a limited capacity to cope with the waste products of human activity…  As James Lovelock has put it:

Unless we see the Earth as a planet that behaves as if it were alive, at least to the extent of regulating its climate and chemistry, we will lack the will to change our way of life and to understand that we have made it our greatest enemy.  It is true that many scientists, especially climatologists, now see that our planet has the capacity to regulate its climate and chemistry, but this is still a long way from being conventional wisdom. [‘Revenge of Gaia (2006) p.21-2].

…If the consensus view of [climate change] is correct, taking action to mitigate and/or adapt… in a timely fashion has already been delayed by several decades.  This would make it imperative that this delay should end; and that action should be taken.  However, because of the economic and political realities of the world in which we live, politicians will not take any action that will be unpopular with business interests and/or the wider electorate.  If so, it is also imperative that those with a vested interest in the continuance of ‘business as usual’ – waging this disinformation campaign – should be exposed as the real enemies of humanity and the planet.

It is hoped that this research will be of benefit to those seeking to achieve this end.

Recommendations

However, for this objective to be fully realised, it may be necessary to demonstrate the extent to which this disinformation is being orchestrated; rather than just being the consequence of a few misguided but influential people.  For this to be achieved, would require significant research, based on Jacques et al. (2008), on a scale similar to that undertaken by Oreskes and Conway; and for this to be widely publicised in similar fashion to their Merchants of Doubt book.  The starting point for all of this would therefore probably have to be a PhD.

And so, two years later than originally scheduled, that is what I am now going to do.

I should wish to hereby acknowledge the assistance of Elaine McKewon  – who found my book on the Internet and contacted me – without whose encouragement I would not have produced a sensible research proposal; identified a shortlist of UK-based academics with relevant research interests; and sent it to them.  Of this dozen (or so) academics, three or four expressed some interest, two suggested it needed refining and one offered to supervise it (and helped me refine it).  All of this may explain why my activity level in the blogosphere reduced in the second half of 2013.   Therefore, although I intend to continue blogging (albeit – as now – on an infrequent basis), my main focus for the next few years will be pursuing my research in the form of a PhD.

As such, my desire to “derail climate change denial” may still be a distant dream but, at least I can now say with confidence that it is a work in progress; one to which I am personally making an active contribution.

redblue_pill2

What a Year that was (for Greenpeace and the Planet)

leave a comment »

Most recent Email received from Greenpeace:

——–

Hi Martin,

2013 was undisputably the year of the Arctic, and if you skip to the end of this email, you’ll find a link to a film that relives some of the highlights.

But don’t go just yet, because I want to pass on an amazing victory that you have been instrumental in achieving, even if you didn’t realise it. It involves the world’s largest palm oil trader and an incredible new commitment that could mean the difference between saving or wiping out the last Sumatran tigers.

Making palm oil shouldn’t mean destroying Indonesia’s rainforests. But dangerous and greedy companies are trashing them to grow oil palms. It’s pushing orangutans and tigers ever closer to extinction.

My colleagues have spent months investigating the palm oil industry. Everywhere they went – whether investigating oil palm grown illegally inside a national park, speaking to families trying to protect their livelihood, or working with charities that rescue animals from palm oil companies’ bulldozers – they came across the same name.

That name was Wilmar International.

You probably haven’t heard of Wilmar, but you’ve almost certainly bought something containing its palm oil. Wilmar is a commodities trader and 45% of the world’s palm oil passes through its hands – some coming from a number of very unsavoury companies.

Our evidence linked Wilmar and its customers to the destruction of tiger and orangutan habitat, human rights abuses and conflict with forest communities.

And throughout the autumn, we exposed how Wilmar was laundering this dirty palm oil and selling it to major brands, like Gillette, Ferrero, Cadbury, L’Oreal and Clearasil. Our campaigners in Indonesia protested at Wilmar’s offices and rolled out massive banners in freshly-cleared forest, showing Wilmar’s customers just what they were buying.

Then something interesting happened.

First Ferrero announced a detailed, ambitious plan to only buy forest-friendly palm oil. Then Mondelez (which makes Cadbury) and L’Oreal made an initial commitment to no deforestation (although they’re still working out the details).

And when its customers started moving, Wilmar had no choice but to follow suit.

On 5 December, Wilmar announced it would stop clearing forests and buying oil from companies that it knew were engaged in forest destruction. “We know from our customers and other stakeholders that there is a strong and rapidly growing demand for traceable, deforestation-free palm oil,” said Wilmar’s CEO, Kuok Khoon Hong as he launched their new ‘no deforestation’ policy, “and we intend to meet it.”

Even though you won’t have sent an email to Cadbury or L’Oreal about their palm use, being part of Greenpeace meant that you didn’t need to. Just the possibility that you and millions of others around the world might take action was enough to persuade these companies to act now. That’s the kind of power you hold.

So thank you for helping to make such outstanding progress, and for everything else we’ve achieved together this year.

And now here’s that video!

Sini of the Arctic 30Happy new year,

[Greenpeace (and me)]

Written by Martin Lack

31 December 2013 at 00:02

Will Gazprom give the Russian Arctic an amnesty?

leave a comment »

This news just in from Greenpeace:
———–

Greenpeace

Dear supporter,

Prepare yourself for some great news:

The Arctic 30 have been granted amnesty by the Russian parliament!!

This means the legal action by Russia against the Arctic 30 can come to an end and the 26 non-Russians will be free to return home to their families as soon as they are given exit visas by the Russian authorities.

While we’re breathing a huge sigh of relief, they still aren’t home yet. And Gazprom and Shell are still planning on drilling for oil in the Arctic. If you haven’t already sent a message to Shell’s new CEO, click here. 

I think the best thing to share with you about the amnesty decision is from one of the Arctic 30.

Peter WillcoxPeter Willcox, Captain of the Arctic Sunrise:

“I might soon be going home to my family, but I should never have been charged and jailed in the first place. We sailed north to bear witness to a profound environmental threat but our ship was stormed by masked men wielding knives and guns. Now it’s nearly over and we may soon be truly free, but there’s no amnesty for the Arctic. We may soon be home, but the Arctic remains a fragile global treasure under assault by oil companies and the rising temperatures they’re driving. We went there to protest against this madness. We were never the criminals here.”

It is not clear when the non-Russian crew among the Arctic 30 will be able to leave Russia. They don’t have the correct stamps in their passports because, well, they were brought to Russia by commandos after being illegally seized in international waters.

This fight continues. Accepting amnesty does not mean admitting guilt. It means we can focus on what this is really about: saving the Arctic.

You have stuck with this story since the beginning. The most important thing you can do now is to help everyone you know understand that this is still far from over. The Arctic 30 were in the Arctic to bring attention to the absurdity of Arctic oil drilling. Tell Shell’s new CEO to ditch the deal with Gazprom and leave Arctic oil in the ground.

Keep this fight alive.

Tell Shell: End Gazprom deal

Onward,

Ben Ayliffe
Arctic Campaigner
Greenpeace

P.S. If you’re on Facebook, share this post today. Let your friends and family know there is still no amnesty for the Arctic.

Written by Martin Lack

18 December 2013 at 17:41

Please remind Shell that Lloyds think Arctic drilling is bad

leave a comment »

Lloyds of London have warned that fossil fuel exploration of the Arctic will damage an important ecosystem. With that in mind, here is the latest email I have received from Greenpeace:

Image credit: Greenpeace/Denis Sinyakov

Dear supporter,

Any moment now, Gazprom will pump the first drops of oil from beneath the icy Arctic seas.

But Gazprom’s plans to open up huge areas of the Arctic to drilling depend on its powerful partner, Shell. This January, Shell has a new boss taking over. That means we have a major opportunity to stop both companies from destroying the pristine Arctic.

Tell Ben van Beurden, Shell’s new CEO, to scrap Arctic oil drilling and end the deal with Gazprom.

Why would he listen to us? Because Shell’s investors want to make money, not take risks. Shell’s board want the investors to be happy, and as a new CEO, he will want to start with a clean record.

More and more industry insiders are warning that Arctic drilling is a losing battle. Shell already suffered a massive PR fail and a criminal inquiry for its series of mishaps trying to drill in Alaska last year. And Gazprom, already infamous for a 2011 rig accident in which 53 people died, came under serious fire recently for its role in the imprisonment of the Arctic 30.

This might be the best chance we’ve ever had to protect the Arctic. If Shell scraps Arctic oil, Gazprom will be cut off from the resources it needs to expand oil drilling to grotesque proportions. And it will send a clear signal to other oil companies that Arctic oil just isn’t worth the risk.

Tell Shell’s new CEO to ditch the deal with Gazprom and leave Arctic oil in the ground.

Our movement to save the Arctic is incredibly strong. We sent 2.5 million messages to Russian embassies demanding freedom for the Arctic 30, who were finally released on bail last month. Nearly 5 million of us have added our voices to a call to create a global sanctuary in the uninhabited area around the North Pole, protected from oil drilling and destructive industry. We won’t stop growing, or fighting, until we win.

Thank you for everything,


Ben Ayliffe
Arctic Campaigner
Greenpeace

Written by Martin Lack

12 December 2013 at 16:05

BBC Panorama on the Energy Crisis in the UK

with 13 comments

The BBC have very helpfully posted the recent Panorama programme ‘Energy Bills: Power Failure’ on YouTube (as embedded below). Presented by Tom Heap (who regularly does spots on CountryFile), it is very fair-minded and includes contributions from a wide range of people. Therefore, even if you do not live in the UK, I would recommend watching the programme because: it is very good at describing the problems that we all face; and makes it crystal clear that we must find a solution (but does so in a way that somehow avoids being dogmatic).

Some questions I would like help in answering are as follows:
1. What is the instrumental music used in the opening night-time sequence in Blackpool?
2. Why do so many poor people use the most expensive (pay-as-you-go) way to heat their homes?
3. Can we give Angel Gurria (Secretary-General of OECD) a Nobel Prize for plain-speaking?
4. How can anyone avoid concluding that Ed Milliband is an opportunist and a con-man?
5. Why did the CEO of RWE nPower not admit profit margin on generation (as opposed to sales)?
6. Is the need for decarbonisation actually incompatible with power generation being privatised?
7. Why has carbon capture and storage not been made a priority in order to continue burning coal?
8. Is it realistic to think that (in a post-carbon era) energy will ever be cheaper than it is now?
9. When will the UK government admit that fracking is not actually low-carbon and (thus) not the answer?
10. Has Michael Fallon not read the BGS report that says only 10% of shale gas is probably recoverable?

——–

UPDATE (23/12/2013): I think the answer to Q1 is “Burn”  by Ellie Goulding (see comments below).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 296 other followers