Climate change is both political and scientific. The political side attacks capitalism, globalization and the USA. The scientific side identifies previous glacial cycles including the present one which began 10,000 years ago. The Earth was warmer 1,000 years ago, and the natural part of present warming seems to dwarf human contribution. This does not stop us acting to influence it if we want to.

This is where the politics comes in. The prescription is to cut growth and economic activity and learn to live more simply. We should buy locally and travel less, trying to minimize our footprint on the planet. Any technological approach which seeks to minimize the consequences of growth by developing engines which pollute less, or which removes carbon from the atmosphere, is unacceptable because it bypasses the political agenda. This is where the US and George Bush enter the frame. Fraser Nelson (The Business) sums it up:

Bush has pledged to reduce US greenhouse gas intensities by 18% within 10 years, a tougher target than Kyoto-signing Britain, which has set a target for 12%. His White House is pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 500 tonnes over a decade a bigger saving than the rest of Europe put together.

The problem for activists is that the US is pursuing carbon capture technology, plus a scheme to capture and use waste methane for energy. Far from cutting economic growth, such measures should boost it, creating new markets for innovative solutions.

… by 2015, the Methane to Markets programme will have removed 1% of all greenhouse gases emitted by humans into the atmosphere. This is the environmental equivalent of closing down England’s entire road network, or shutting down 50 coal-fired power stations,

Part of the US agenda is avowedly to reduce its dependence of foreign oil, but part of it is resistance to being straitjacketed by a Kyoto Protocol which imposes such heavy costs for so tiny a result. Some reports suggest, to the fury of eco-activists, that the Gleneagles draft being considered will incorporate some of these developments. It looks increasingly as if the way forward will involve leaving Kyoto behind.