Is belief in man-made Global Warming Irrational?
In an article in the London Times Higher, Martin Cohen (one of P.I.'s resident editors), argued that it is. He gave some brief examples by way of an introduction to a longer discussion in which the irrationality of the debate was illustrated more generally, by:
• indicating the deliberate distortion and manipulation of facts by proponents of the man made CO2 is causing global warming' theory.
• providing examples of some of the 'marketing' and propaganda techniques employed,
• and pointing out some of the apparently 'unintended consequences' of the theory.
He then expanded on the argument here, largely in response to requests to do so by Nick Beech, a 'neo-Marxist' currently based at University College London.
Cohen (in beige outfit) offered the following additional material to support his position that support for MMAGW (to use out of necessity an awful acronym!) is irrational, and Beech (in neo-Marxist yellow) offered the following 'rebuttals'.
| First of all, the sheer amount of electricity that can be saved by swapping to 'low-energy' bulbs is, in terms of the amount of energy that the sun heats the atmosphere by each day, entirely negligible. The idea that 'saving' this energy could affect the earth's climate is risible.That is one form of irrationality. | How we distinguish the 'rational' and the 'irrational', and to what extent either is 'useful' in terms of action? Your first point: contains two points, first: the quantity of energy saved compared with the amount of energy produced by the sun that 'heats' the atmosphere. Well, I'm not sure if that comparison is the right one to make. One could argue, rationally, that the comparison should be made across 'traditional' light bulb energy consumption, and 'eco' light bulb energy consumption. Otherwise, we could 'rationally' make the claim in the opposite direction: we should/can/could switch to a new type of light bulb that consumes huge amounts of energy, because in comparison to the energy of the sun the ratio is negligible. |
| It is rather a symbolic action - but it is a symbolism with a heavy price in terms of environmental pollution and human comfort. (Similarly, cars run on electricity require highly polluting metals in the new batteries.) Since the action is proffered out of concern for the environment, that is another form of irrationality. If we allow the symbolism that any saving of electricity is good, we surely have to also accept that any new use of electricity must be B.A.D | The second part of that first point—that this saving (whether calculated as a ratio with the sun, or as a ratio with 'traditional' bulbs) could affect the earth's climate is a risible concept. I'm not sure that is quite right either. It assumes that the specific policy of forcing a switch to a new technology is a) actually anything to do with the 'climate' and b) that the switch is understood as sufficient. On the question of 'sufficient/necessary', I haven't come across the position that light bulbs are sufficient by those who believe that AGW is occurring, rather, the switch is seen as necessary in two senses (it is accepted that lighting using electric bulbs is necessary AND it is considered necessary to reduce the energy consumed for that purpose) but not sufficient (it can't help at all on its own). that this policy/action could be understood as a symbolic one. That is quite possible, and as you say, that could be weighed against 'real' costs, and shown to be 'irrational' because, as a symbolic action, it defeats the object of the 'symbol'. Perhaps this is 'irrational', but that would mean that any activity that has a demonstrable 'disconnect' between its symbolic value and its material consequence is 'irrational'. I'm not sure if that is as useful as one might think: there are whole areas of human activity (gifts, high consumption festivals in winter (!), war, birth rites, kinship rites) that appear materially unjustifiable, simply discounting them as 'irrational' excludes a host of activity, without proper examination of their symbolic function. At the same time, I'm not even sure if the claim—that the 'symbolic' is outweighed by the energy consumption in the case of energy saving light bulbs—is justified. You suggest that if the value of the symbolic action lies in the fact that energy saving is 'good', then we must assume that all new use of electricity is 'bad'. I wouldn't agree that that is necessarily true. |
| Thirdly, in terms of the 'CO2' theory, now formally ditched at Copenhagen, electricity for light bulbs could in any case be from virtuous 'low CO2' sources, such as wind turbines - or more likely nuclear power. Thus the electricity 'wasted' by the bulbs may be said to have nothing at all to do with the CO2 emissions full stop. In France 95% of domestic electricity is thus produced - but of course all the lightbulbs still have to be changed! That is another form of irrationality. | The third point still doesn't hold: because it assumes that there are no energy costs in production and distribution, or that if there are the costs across 'eco' and 'trad' are the same (which I don't think can be true, simply in terms of distribution costs, if an 'eco' bulb lasts as long as 10–20 'trad' bulbs the distribution costs must be higher for the 'trad' bulbs). Now, the French don't run their trucks and cars on nuclear or other, renewable, resources, so they can still reduce carbon emissions through a change to 'eco' bulbs. At the same time, the question of 'all the lightbulbs still have to be changed', which begins to suggest that the French are now in a NEW situation is not quite right. The 'bulbs are changing' all the time ANYWAY, and the stock of 'trad' bulbs is not being 'thrown away', it's being run down. So there is not an introduction of a 'new' energy cost. At the same time, there remains a 'problem' with energy costs in France, just like everywhere else: making energy is not 'cheap' or 'free', and they face serious problems in energy consumption just like everyone else—if you're right that DOMESTIC energy use is 95% nuclear/renewable, it is also true that about 51% of ALL energy consumption is carbon based (coal, gas, and oil). If the French (for whatever reason, and I'd argue that Gasprom is more pressing on the French elite than the environment at the moment) want to reduce dependence on carbon, they need to reduce the DOMESTIC consumption of that nuclear/renewable capacity if they are to shift industrial, agricultural, and transport sectors onto those resources. So the policy, and action, is still not 'irrational' in that context. |
| Fourthly, cars run on electricity have to charge their batteries somewhere. Using a grid system, that source will include oil-fired, gas and coal power stations. Electric cars are thus producing the dreaded CO2 again. What's more irrational, is favouring the conversion of a usable energy source, like oil or coal into a different from, electricity in the grid, and then again into electricity in a battery, at all stages 'wasting' energy - in order to appear green and 'virtuous' in terms of energy use. | You make a number of points in your 'fourth' case of 'irrationality' and I'd like to pick out a 'central' one—that changing cars from 'oil' to 'electricity' will cost enormous amounts in terms of energy loss in distribution. Well, to make that case, we would have to demonstrate that all the current distribution (energy) costs that already exist are less than those that would be associated with the loss of energy in conversion and distribution to batteries in cars. At the same time, we would have to be sure that this particular action is guided, not by concerns over loss of carbon resources, nor by concerns over the geo-political control of resources, but solely on CO2 emission. At present, I think you are probably right to suggest that such a forced switch, with present technology, would engage greater CO2 production. But that isn't anyone's policy, and that isn't what is happening: no-one is advocating a 'forced' switch, with an immediate effect. No-one is suggesting that the technology is available to provide vehicles with the same power, capacity, and range as petrol/diesel vehicles at present, and no-one is arguing that the current technology in batteries would reduce CO2. That doesn't mean that there aren't 'greener' cars—that is, cars advertised on the basis that they reduce fuel consumption. But that isn't your point, you didn't include cars that simply use less fuel. So, though you may be right that such an immediate policy would be 'irrational', it is a 'straw man', and can be safely disregarded. |
The debate continues now on the discussion page
