You May Not Believe Climate Science But You Cannot Deny The Economics

There seems to be a choice of 3 opinions one can take on the Climate Change/Global Warming debate. Firstly one can choose to deny the existence or validity of any evidence that shows the global trend of rising average temperatures. The second position seems to be one of acknowledging the rising temperatures but dismissing the idea that it could be in any way ‘man-made’. The third position is one of acceptance of near-universal scientific consensus, that the world is getting warmer and its our (collective) fault. There is a fourth position of believing the climate science but not caring enough to do anything about it but this is really just a form of denial without having to deal with the arguments, outright denial or just looking the other way often end up with the same results, that of having to deal with far larger problems, far quicker and more expensively than would have been the case had they been confronted at the first opportunity.

There are probably a number of motives for the denial evidenced in the first two opinions listed above. These vary from religious to financial but all appear rooted in the human disposition of being opposed to change of any sort. One can be opposed to changes in the global climate but that will not stop them happening. It is interesting that those who deny the often overwhelming scientific evidence for climate change will often point to other scientific evidence for previous changes in the global climate, accepting only the evidence they like to hear, not unlike the ‘independent’ studies into the links between smoking and cancer in the 1950s. There is a huge amount of industrial capital invested in fossil energy sources, not just by us in the West but globally, being told that we need to change our cultural dependence is unsurprisingly distressing. It is also reasonable that those with the most to lose would want to make absolutely certain that change is necessary before it is effected. However, misleading the public with lies and bullying politicians into doing things they know will have negative long-term consequences for their citizens are not actions that can be tolerated. The media has a lot to answer for this, the traditional media debate pitches two opposing views against each other to argue their points, leaving the audience to make up their own mind with some sort of compromise. Little weight is given to the scientific strength of each of the opponents, even if 99% of scientists are sure of one side of the argument, the audience are presented with a view that both opinions are equal, this may be fine in political debate but more emphasis needs to be given to scientific backing in debates about public policy that is based on scientific evidence.

Imagine that there was no scientific evidence to support the claims made by proponents of Climate Change. Imagine the world was not warming and global weather patterns were not changing. We do know that the world as a whole is getting richer and our lives are becoming more and more automated with every passing year. Labour saving devices in the home and workplace save our biological energy but cost in the form of electricity and are becoming an ever more important part of people’s lives throughout the world. Add to that the increasing burden of travel, caused by the people wanting to travel to ever more exotic locations for their holidays or having to travel ever further for work and the energy demands of the world show no signs of abating in the near future. The fossil fuels available to us are a finite resource, despite new options for extraction being opened up in Arctic waters (ironically by Climate Change itself) the increase in demand is far faster than the increase in supply. Any basic economic model will indicate that where demand exceeds supply, prices will rise and when the supply is limited by finite resources rather than expandable manufacturing capacity, prices will continue to rise until they become unaffordable. This is a process currently underway, the diesel I put in my van costs nearly £1.50 a litre ($10.80/gallon) and despite the restriction of supply caused by the current political problems in the Middle-East, a real-terms fall in global energy prices is not likely in the near future. The current stretch on supply chains means there is no slack in the system so any disruption causes massive peaks in the oil price. Any medium term increase in supply by drilling in ever more hazardous environments is likely to be more than offset by not only the increased demands from the developing world but also the massively increased costs of extraction from oilfields found in very deep or very cold locations. Not to mention the heightened risks associated with these types of drilling techniques, both to the local ecology and the workforce.

Home energy bills continue to rise faster than inflation and fuel poverty (more than 10% of household income spent on home energy bills) has become a significant problem in Britain yet popular opinion still seems to resist the idea of energy efficiency in the home, with political pressure pushing for tighter controls on the prices charged by energy companies and the high initial costs of renewable sources being cited as ‘prohibitive’ to their widespread implementation. LED lighting is expensive to install but costs less in the long-term, is this any different from buying a house rather than renting? We seem to be waiting until the energy bills we pay are so high the payback on installing PV cells or wind turbines are almost immediate. All the while certain elements are releasing negative and untrue stories to the media about the longevity and maintenance costs of the technology used in the harnessing of these energy sources.

The fundamentals of my argument boil down to this:

Fossil fuel energy is getting more expensive due to supply and demand issues, who do you think will be best prepared for the future? The state who makes sure its citizens have full access to oil until the final drop has been extracted while refusing to invest in new technology to use the various ‘free’ sources available to them, or encouraging its citizens to use energy in a more responsible way? Or, the state who begins a gradual shift from fossil to renewable sources as early as possible, while reducing the overall demand on energy supply by educating its citizens in the benefits of energy efficiency?

Even if you are a Climate Change ‘denier’ or ‘sceptic’, your bills will continue to rise. You may not wish to change the way you live but it will cost you more if you do not. I may dislike the raised costs of precious metals and could choose to deny their scarcity but like Cnut, the will of a person cannot hold back the tide.

Thanks for reading



Something To Add?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: