Climate change – excuse my ignorance
I have been getting so little response to my posts just recently that I thought I would write one that is bound to elicit a loud response (while I will also be pondering whether it is time to hang up my blogging boots).
The backlash against the stupid and unethical behaviour of climate scientists at East Anglia University, the shot across David Cameron’s green bows by former shadow cabinet member David Davis in The Telegraph this morning, and the Daily Express’ championing of highly controversial climate change sceptic Ian Plimer are all signs of a growing tide.
I had already begun to notice that among Conservative friends of mine the theory of anthropogenic climate change now ranks with the European Union as a subject that merely has to be mentioned to elicit a hostile reaction. Although the Tory front bench remains strongly committed to the need for a concerted action on climate change, at the level of party activists and political opinion formers a clear left right gap is emerging. At the recent Conservative conference the loudest applause on the fringe went to the sceptical views eloquently expressed by Lord Lawson.
The problem with knowing how to respond is that 99% of us have neither the time nor the expertise to make our decision based purely on the science. People with strong opinions throw around their favourite statistics claiming their views are scientifically based but this usually tells you much more about who these people are inclined to trust than what the facts say.
Maybe it would be better for the debate if more of us owned up to how much we rely on hunch, trust and selecting certain facts as the ones we intuitively feel are the most important. At the risk of sounding naive and feeble minded, let me try to be honest about what drives my views.
My starting point is two facts which I don’t think are disputed: first that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and second that human activity is leading to much more of it being pumped into the atmosphere, with much more to come if we don’t find alternative ways of generating and using energy. Furthermore I find it hard to see why the overwhelming majority of scientists – from a whole variety of perspectives and disciplines – would sign up to the climate change thesis if there weren’t very good reasons to do so.
There seem to be two questions that cause the biggest quasi-scientific controversy. First, has there been major climate change in the past unrelated to human emissions and if so does this invalidate the IPCC thesis? Second, what is actually happening to the climate now and how can we predict what will happen in the future on the basis of assumptions about the link between human-caused emissions and temperatures.
On the first of these I think we should beware the argument that just because there was an unexplained correlation in the past, or even that a correlation doesn’t work perfectly, that it doesn’t exist. The fact that some people get lung cancer having never smoked doesn’t disprove the link. Equally, while a football team may have had an inexplicable bad run in the past doesn’t mean its present bad run can’t rightly be put at the door of its manager.
On the issues of climate trends and scenarios, I accept the precautionary principle (whilst not believing this is a principle that should be applied in all situations of risk). There are enough reasons to think rising emissions could drive accelerating warming to conclude it is not an experiment we should conduct if we can avoid it.
Finally, I believe that we can adjust to a low carbon economy without having to massively hamper other goals such as global economic development; not because we are all happy to become vegetarians and live in yurts but because a combination of changes in consumption, clever regulation and technological innovation can do the trick, and at the same time help us deal with the problem of the finite supply of carbon based energy.
As I read this back I know it lacks the certainty and authority with which so many non- scientists speak on this subject. I am discussing this issue on the Moral Maze tonight and I know I will probably – and not for the first time - be the most wishy- washy voice. But given that the overwhelming majority of us who will be affected by the decision on climate policy maybe it is useful to explore basic arguments at a level accessible to a busy layperson.
Public spending – a looming trilemma?
Do we have to choose between social justice and universal public services? This was one of the issues raised at this morning’s 2020 Public Services Trust seminar.
Paul Johnson from IFS opened the seminar by explained the full scale of the fiscal crisis. The top line is that from 2011 the public sector faces a decade of year-on-year substantial real terms cuts. It is inconceivable that cuts like this can be made without a concrete and visible impact on public services.
This prospect framed the response from Lord McNally, whose distinguished past includes his time as a senior advisor to James Callaghan between 1976 and 1979. While recognising the scale of the crisis, he warned against alarmism, citing three sets of decisions:
• Roy Jenkins’ fiscal tightening in 1970 which many believe lost Labour the election of the same year
• Denis Healey’s agreement to IMF demands for cuts in public spending (cuts which some economic historians now argue weren’t necessary). It was this that led to the winter of discontent, Labour’s defeat in 1979 and its subsequent decline into near political suicide
• Margaret Thatcher’s economic and fiscal policies which – whatever their economic upside – led to huge social dislocation and the running down of public services.
The priority for McNally was the maintenance of social cohesion, even if this meant higher taxes and a large ongoing public deficit.
The economist and business woman Bridget Rosewell countered by, first, by questioning whether most public spending really did contribute to social cohesion and inclusion, and, second, highlighting the risk that a Government not seen by the markets to be facing up to its fiscal responsibilities would be unable to finance its debt.
The subsequent conversation reminded me of the concept of the trilemma: a situation in which policy makers may be able to achieve two out of three aims but not all three. A classic trilemma in pensions policy comprises: incentivising saving, targeting the poor and limiting expenditure. Recently, speaking to a centre right audience, Niall Ferguson suggested free marketers faced their own trilemma: free trade globalisation, social stability and a small state.
In the face of the structural public spending deficit do we face a new trilemma? This is between national economic viability, protecting the poor (those already being hardest hit by the downturn), and welfare state universalism. As an example of this kind of thinking, it is significant that Conservative MP David Davis yesterday advocated means testing child benefit as a way of saving a few billion.
If protecting the poor while safeguarding the economy means reassessing universalism the implications are huge and very troubling to progressives.
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.