The Pin Factory Blog

So, after an excruciatingly long delay, we are finally to be allowed to have our say about who we wish to govern us. Commonsense would suggest that we are overdue for a change of government. But given the increasing disenchantment with politics generally, an electoral system currently weighted against the Tories and the relatively small differences in real policy proposals between the parties, anything is possible. Attitudes (not even hard policies) on a few key issues may well prove decisive.

The Conservatives seem to have hit on one topic which resonates with people: the latest National Insurance increase. Here's another suggestion: if they were to break ranks on the apparent shared belief among political elites that present policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions are both necessary and effective, they are likely to tap into a deep vein of scepticism about the greening of politics among the mass of voters.

Now, given the carefully crafted image as a party deeply committed to environmental issues (which includes a puzzingly distate for both nuclear power and airport expansion) any volte face at this stage would be both difficult and surprising. However, the enthusiasms of the Cameroons are not shared by all Tory MPs (although, to be fair, the next batch of candidates might find them more to their liking). The man and woman in the street, meanwhile, are unconvinced that the planet is facing a crisis, while seeing green taxation as just a politically-correct way to separate them from a higher proportion of their earnings. Any party which shows it is willing to question the orthodoxy and think again might get a useful electoral boost.

Martin Livermore is the director of The Scientific Alliance.

Recent opinion polls in the UK and elsewhere show that governments have failed to convince the public about the received wisdom on climate change: it's very bad, it's all our fault and we have to rejig the global economy to fight it. In a survey conducted for the Times, just 41% of people agreed that 'it is now an established scientific fact that climate change is largely man-made'. And only 28% believed that it is 'far and away the most serious problem we face as a country and internationally'.

The Science Museum has been running a campaign called PROVE IT!, in which they asked people to sign up to the statement 'I've seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they're serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen'. Visitors to the museum gallery were overwhelmingly in favour: 3,408 counted themselves in, while 626 disagreed. But on the website, after allowing for initial multiple voting (largely from the 'yes' camp), 2,650 were counted in and 7,612 counted out. Hardly a resounding message to send to the negotiating team.

It seems that the public just refuses to get the correct message, and it's likely that 'climategate' and the recent scary TV ads have reinforced scepticism. The problem is that, short of voting UKIP, the electorate has no way of influencing policy at the next election: both Labour and the Conservatives are officially fully signed up to the climate change agenda.

But this may not always been the case. It's fascinating to see that, in Australia, the opposition Liberal party replaced their leader, Malcolm Turnbull, by Tony Abbott, on the basis that he would not support the goverment's Energy Trading Scheme bill (which has now been duly rejected for the second time by the Senate). If, as expected, Kevin Rudd now calls a snap election, it will be equally fascinating to see what the Australian electorate thinks. It must surely only be a matter of time before a major political party in an EU Member State backs away from a hardline policy on emissions: despite appearances, most parties contain significant numbers of doubters. Then we can see whether there is truly a democratic mandate for radical carbon dioxide emissions reduction policies.

Martin Livermore is the director of The Scientific Alliance.

Lord Stern, author of the eponymous report on the economics of climate change mitigation, brings the zeal of the converted to this contentious debate. An interview with him is given a two-page spread in yesterday's  Times together with a front page story encouraging us all to turn vegetarian to save the planet. He claimed on the Today programme that such a headline was unfortunate and that it did not represent the main thrust of his interview. Nevertheless, it was said, and the contribution of farming to emissions of so-called greenhouse gases is likely to become a matter for high-profile debate following whatever fudge emerges from the climate change summit in Copenhagen in December.

In his interview, Stern calls for President Obama and other political leaders to attend this conference to ensure agreement is reached. There is little chance of this. The last time the President went to the Danish capital his presence did nothing for Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Olympics and the chances of a similar outcome are high, especially as the US will take no steps on climate change legislation until the top priority of healthcare reform is settled. It is far more likely that he will address the issue when he receives the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, following his ill-advised acceptance of this dubious honour.

In the Today interview, Lord Stern claimed that climate change 'deniers' were a small and declining group. Like many statements about climate change, this was put forward on the basis of no evidence. There are signs that the public is becoming increasingly sceptical (hence the government's decision to run the bedtime story propaganda ads on TV). This mood is only likely to strengthen if meat eating, energy and driving all become more expensive. And politicians are surely aware that unpopular policies do not lead to re-election.

Martin Livermore is the director of The Scientific Alliance.

Hoarders are reportedly stocking up on 100 watt and pearl lightbulbs as the phased EU-ban on their supply comes into force. Like the plastic bag, filament bulbs are an easy target for governments, since we all use them and politicians can be seen to be doing their bit for carbon reduction. But this is gesture politics at its worst. Domestic lighting (for that is all that the legislation covers) does not represent a major component of the UK's carbon dioxide emissions, but it is a soft target.

Many people have criticised the replacement bulbs, the so-called compact fluorescent lamps, despite their lower energy use and longer life. For one thing they will not fit all existing lights, and for another they give a light which is different in quality from the familiar tungsten light. On top of this, they contain mercury, so bringing more of this toxic element into homes just as it has been phased out from thermometers.

But don't take my word for this. Charles Clover, ex-environment editor of the Telegraph now writes a column for the Times. His latest contribution is called Dim thinking behind the new lightbulb laws.

In this, he comments on the reality that many people simply do not like the new bulbs, despite the fact that the head of Osram's consumer products division claims that nobody can tell the difference. Given the lower energy use, it's pretty clear that consumers would be flocking to use the new bulbs if there was no disadvantage. That politicians have to resort to compulsion and manufacturers have to lie to make the change happen speaks volumes. As Charles Clover and others have pointed out, a much more suitable technology is now viable and should soon be available at a more competitive price: the light-emitting diode or LED.

Encouraging the uptake of good new technology is one thing, but forcing people to use a flawed technology which may soon be obsolete does not reflect well on policy makers. But, in the world of environmental politics, few things do.

This week Policy Exchange launched a report called "Green skies thinking: promoting the development and commercialisation of sustainable bio-jet fuels". The thrust of their argument is that bio-fuels cannot replace oil as the primary energy source for all transport because of production constraints, but road vehicles can be powered by electricity or hydrogen. However, such options are not open for aircraft, so bio-fuels should be used primarily by them.

The logic is fine as far as it goes, although of course it takes it as a given that we will all be going to hell in a handbasket if carbon dioxide emissions are not drastically cut back. And we might well see flights in a generation's time largely powered by economically viable algal bio-fuels. But what has sustainability got to do with it?

The term has become a convenient catch-all for environmentalists' policy prescriptions for pretty much everything we do. But the supply of jet fuel is at present perfectly "sustainable", in that the demand for flights can continue to be met for the forseeable future. When oil prices rise sufficiently high for alternatives to become viable, things will change. Something which can only be sustained by use of high and continuing public subsidy does not deserve to be called sustainable.

The mantra of sustainability assumes that future generations will continue to use resources in the same way as we do. A quick review of the last two centuries would surely be enough to show the fallacy of that argument. And if we do not need to second guess how our grandchildren might choose to live their lives, then there is a strong case for regarding sustainability as just another fashionable but failed concept.

Martin Livermore is the director of The Scientific Alliance

The G8 meeting in Italy is reported to have agreed yet more goals. An 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 (from a baseline yet to be agreed) is more of the usual aspiration target-setting, with no agreement on hard shorter-term goals. The chances of India and China signing up to something similar are zero. The likelihood is that there will some form of agreement cobbled together in Copenhagen in December which will in practice be meaningless and will achieve nothing.

However, one further goal has been agreed which will be easy to reach. That is to keep average temperatures from rising by more than 2°C, which has now been taken as some line in the sand beyond which we cannot go without disastrous and irreversible consequences. In practice, we are extremely unlikely to get close to this goal whether or not anything is done about emissions control. So that's one goal they'll meet.

Elsewhere, Prince Charles, in his Richard Dimbleby lecture, has calculated that we have just 96 months to save the world, in what the Independent reported as a searing indictment of capitalist society. So, I assume he is going to take a lead by shutting down Duchy Originals. In the meantime, we can be comforted that the heir to the throne has such a sound grasp of maths.

For more information, visit the website of the Scientific Alliance.

When so much which is said, written and done in the name of climate change mitigation is tinged with a zealotry which insists that drastic action must be taken, despite the improbability of it happening, it is particularly refreshing to see a remarkably sensible new report from the University of Oxford and LSE.

How to Get Climate Change Back on Course clearly and concisely demolishes the myth that the Kyoto protocol and any successor which might possibly emerge from the Copenhagen conference later this year will have the claimed effect on emissions. It also highlights the ludicrously ambitious targets of the UK Climate Change Act, which would require a sustained rate of decarbonisation over twice that ever seen. That Kyoto places binding obligations on Annex 1 countries and the Climate Change Act targets are legally enforceable is meaningless: no sactions can force compliance.

The authors of the report all subscribe to the view that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of climate change. These are not sceptics. However, they are realists, capable of independent thought and recognising that the current hypothesis may turn out to be false. They propose a policy which is lower cost, efficient and - most importantly - directly addresses the key issue of carbon intensity: a low, ring-fenced carbon tax to fund innovation policies. This is based on the simple truth that clean energy will only begin to dominate when it is cheaper to supply at the point of use than conventional sources. Such a carbon tax may turn out to be unnecessary, but it certainly beats the unholy mess of emissions control. This report should be required reading for all politicians.

For more detail, see the latest Scientific Alliance newsletter.

Last Friday's papers had blanket coverage of the latest government-sponsored projections of climate change in the UK. Summers, particularly in the South East, are set to get hotter, and winters generally wetter. London will become (even more) unbearable in summer, coasts will erode faster than ever and hundreds of thousands of homes will be at risk of flooding. However, although this is put forward as authoritative research, it is actually just the revised projections of computer models. In the world of climate science, hard evidence is replaced by computer output.

These models, flawed and incomplete as they are, are compromised further by being fed with doubtful input data. In particular, unrealistic assumptions are made about the amount of oil, gas and coal likely to be economically extractable. By some reckoning, even the most conservative of the IPCC's scenarios assumes cumulative fossil fuel use by 2100 of greater than the likely reserves; the more extreme scenarios project their use still to be accelerating at that point! If reserves really are effectively limited, there is simply insufficient oil, gas and coal available to raise average temperatures by more than 2° Celcius, even using the IPCC's assumptions for climate sensitivity. And if so, the projections for the UK's climate are simply nonsense.

For more detail, see the latest Scientific Alliance newsletter.

An article published recently on Euractiv reports the Party of European Socialists' publication of a list of 12 "conservative, liberal and right wing" candidates who are "at risk of being elected" to the European Parliament.

To quote: "The list contains candidates who, it is claimed, variously deny that the holocaust ever happened, dispute the existence of climate change or hold 'other offensive or absurd' views."

Now, leaving aside the fact that mature adults should be free to vote for whoever they choose in a democratic election, it is undeniable that the vast majority of people would indeed find holocaust denial offensive. But what I find far more disturbing is this easy conflation of holocaust denial with questioning of the received wisdom on the drivers of climate change. It has become the norm now for sceptics to be labelled as climate change deniers, in an attempt to place them outside the pale.

However, on this as so many other issues, it is ironic that the only directly elected institution in the EU is so far out of step with the views of those who it purports to represent. This is one of the reasons why many voters are Eurosceptics. The benefits of a single market, free movement of citizens and an unprecedented era of cooperation between countries who were regularly at war with each other are very real but often taken for granted. More visible, unfortunately, are things such as the CAP, the unaccountable and Byzantine Brussels bureaucracy and the continued progress of a highly precautionary environmentalist agenda which does little for European citizens while stifling innovation and growth.

Martin Livermore is the Director of The Scientific Alliance

The government, in its wisdom, has now announced plans to install "smart meters" in all homes across the UK by 2020. These would allow consumers to see what their actual gas and electricity consumption is at any time, and also do away with meter readers, as readings can be collected wirelessly by the supplier. There would also - in principle at least - be no need for call centres to deal with complaints or revised readings.

The cost is estimated as £7bn, or roughly £15 per household for each year from 2010 to 2020. Energy companies claim that £10 of that would be funded by their own cost savings, while the remainder would be more than offset by savings made by more aware consumers. Maybe, but experience suggests that costs are probably underestimated and savings overestimated. For example, it seems inconceivable that all 26 million electricity and 22 million gas meters would work perfectly all the time, so call centres would still be needed to some extent. And what will be done about the people who have prepayment meters?

Experience also suggests that smart meters will polarise people into those who become obsessed with turning off all possible devices (but many of whom are probably already obsessed by energy saving) and those who simply ignore them. The impetus for the move comes, not surprisingly, from the government plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The claim is that energy use would be reduced by 2%. The likelihood is that such savings will not materialise and, by the time all the meters have been fitted, carbon dioxide will no longer be seen as the driver of climate change. The energy companies (and smart meter manufacturers) will gain, but meter readers and call centre employees will lose.

Martin Livermore is the Director of The Scientific Alliance