The Great Global-Warming Swindle

This recently aired Channel 4 documentary exposed some sad truths about how desperate the situation has become. Many environmentalists have been trying to get their varied messages across for decades, possibly centuries. Scientific proof of man-made global warming is the holy grail that many see as the message that will galvanise humanity into taking up the cause. Deep green environmentalism is indeed a spiritual philosophy and taking personal responsibility for our role in the changing climate requires an element of belief. Many feel that the green movement will be able to fill the spiritual void that has opened up in society. This is dangerous territory and there is no place for dogmatic thinking in science.

I can sympathise with long-suffering environmental campaigners ('martyrs') who are finally being vindicated. It was not that long ago that environmental responsibility was seen as a a threat to econcomic growth and therefore, well-being. The Stern Report and the latest IPCC findings have been proven to be key catalysts in tipping the scales. Having said this, neither of these documents is a bible and to question the findings is not blasphemous. It has taken a painfully long time to get to this tipping point, deep green philosophy and climate-science do not easily lend themselves to tabloid headlines, vox-pops and sound-bites.

Luckily, 'smoke and mirror' tactics as used by the tobacco industry have given us the hindsight to question the real motivations of so-called experts on such matters. It is true that the loudest lobby against anthropogenic global-warming has been funded by some sections of the oil industry and car enthusiasts who clearly have a bias towards burying the issue. This has caused an immense amount of frustration (see global warming is a myth). Now that the general public is paying attention and looking for guidance, the challenge for the green lobby is to avoid sinking to the same level. In that spirit, here's a plug for 'The politically incorrect guide to global warming and environmentalism' by Christopher C. Horner.

As with all religions, fundamentalist 'eco-extremism' is usually counter-productive. We don't know all the facts and must be open to all possibilities. No-one does provocative, sensationalism like Channel 4 and as long as they represent 'the other side' (i.e. their documentary 'The War on Terra') then long may such programmes continue... just don't accept them as gospel! The precautionary principle may be flawed, but when coupled with equitable, globally-distributed carbon-rationing and new technologies like nuclear fusion, a win-win situation is still achievable.

Documentaries like this keep the fire alive... but let's hope that sensationalist media, politicians and corporations will allow scientists to get back to being politically neutral. In the meantime, I suggest that we all continue to work towards green solutions that improve well-being for society as a whole.

Please post your thoughts by clicking on 'comments' below this post.

Alternatively, you can join the debates raging in the following forums:
* Friends of the Earth
* Channel 4
* YouTube

Some counter-arguments to the claims made in the Channel4 documentary:
* Sir John Houghton, chair of the IPCC; also Director General and Chief Ex of the UK Meteorological Office
* The Independent, 14 March 2007
* The graphs that the article refers to
* George Monbiot, The Guardian, 13 March

Revolve's bookmarks on "global-warming": http://del.icio.us/revolvin/Global-warming.

Can Formula One ever be green?

"The perfect race car crosses the finish line in first place
and then falls to pieces."

- Ferdinard Porsche

Formula One is the ultimate orgy of technological innovation. Win on Sunday and you'll sell on Monday, so the competition is intense. Until recently, Formula One teams had to put ethics aside; speed is expensive - both financially and environmentally - and oil, alcohol and tobacco companies offered very lucrative sponsorship deals. However, the FIA are starting to make some concessions towards making Grand Prix cleaner but it's going to be a long, long time before the sport event itself could be considered anywhere near sustainable. In a race, fuel consumption is typically around the 75 l/100 km (4 mpg) mark, then there's the team-trucks, motorhomes, helicopters and yachts etc. that make up the F1 entourage. It is this hedonism that makes Formula One so seductive and many would be sad to see it greenwashed.

The teams argue that energy-efficiency innovations developed on the track, gradually see their way into our cars. This may be true to some extent, but it's not exactly the most effective form of green R&D. Honda have realised that with an audience of 600 million viewers, they can bring about positive change now, not just via engineering, but also harnessing the sheer spectacle of the sport.

It was only a few years ago that British American Tobacco side-stepped the growing restrictions on tobacco advertising and decided to build an entire team: 'BAR'. The team battled with the FIA from the beginning, ignoring the rule that both race cars must have the same livery and instead choosing to cover each car in a different cigarette brand livery. They later unified the design by metaphorically slicing the bodies of the two cars in half and sticking them back together so that on one side, it was blue and yellow and on the other it was red, white and black. The rear wing of Jacque Villeneuve's BAR ensured maximum TV exposure for their brands. Unluckily for him it wasn't because he was out in front, the likes of michael schumacher's Ferrari was often just trying to lap him.

In 2005 & '06 , the team suffered from tough bans and was stripped of points. This unlucky strike must have come as quite a relief to the other drivers, who had repeatedly fallen foul of Takuma Sato's aggressive racing style. It seems he took engine supplier, Honda's slogan of dreaming the impossible dream a little too seriously when trying to out-brake rivals. Gradually, the team kicked its nicotine habit and last year, Jenson Button gave the official Honda works team their first victory from 14th on the grid. Honda even made a second team (in honour of Aguri Suzuki) just for Takuma Sato... (and to appease their angry Japanese customers for not renewing Sato's contract).

Now, the former 'bad-boys' of F1 have decided not to display any of their sponsor's logos on their 2007 car , instead advertising the fact that we have only one planet. According to Honda: "At http://www.myearthdream.com/ anyone who wishes, will have the opportunity to have their name on the car, make a pledge to make a lifestyle change to improve the environment and make a donation to an environmental charity [...] each name will form a tiny individual pixel which will help build the image of planet earth on the car. Each name will be visible on the website when you make the pledge or under a microscope on the car." The site launches today.

Video: Nick Fry explains the concept ¦ Read Honda's full press release ¦ F1 goes hybrid in 2009

Pay-As-You-Go Road-Pricing: For or Against?

The Transport Secretary is quoted as saying that the proposed road-pricing scheme would be scrapped unless it attracted public support, but added that doing nothing was not an option. He has accused the anti-road charging pettion of spreading 'myths' about the plans. The Daily Mail explained how so many signatures were collected: "A series of round robin e-mails - mutating as they were sent - led to thousands more signatures." The emails originated from the Association of British Drivers, which makes the following claim: "...increasingly vicious, and increasingly silly, anti-car policies at national level are 'justified' by futile attempts to avert non-existent man-made global warming."

Tony Blair is now replying to all 1.8m anti road-pricing campaigners. We submitted their e-petition to the incredible 'EnBW Spamrecycler'.

Click here to create your own art from spam.

Even highly-respected, pro-environmental motoring groups can foresee potential flaws in the scheme, calling it "the millennium-dome of transport."

Petition against road-pricing: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/
Deadline: 20.02.07.

Petition in support of road-pricing: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/proroad-pricing/
Deadline: 17.01.08.

Economists have long advocated Road Pricing. According to the Department For Transport's feasability study: "A carefully structured road pricing scheme could potentially make a valuable contribution to promoting social inclusion and accessibility by:

• Freeing up road space to improve bus journey time and reliability.
• Minimising the impact of traffic and new infrastructure provision through better use of the existing network.
• Reducing the relatively high cost of motoring in less congested areas e.g. some rural areas.
• Using any revenue raised to provide demand-responsive transport systems and improve local amenities."

Summary of the report ¦ More case studies ¦ Road-Pricing in the Netherlands

Global Warming is a Myth?

Senior figures from the US Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), have described global warming as a myth. According to Guardian Unlimited, "the CEI [have also] responded to the recent release of Al Gore's climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, with adverts that welcomed increased carbon dioxide pollution."

Well done to ExxonMobil for no longer funding the CEI!

However, Bob Ward of The Royal Society - Britain's premier scientific academy - has written to the Director of Corporate Affairs at Esso UK, accusing ExxonMobil of continuing to communicate an "inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence of climate change". Added to this, the Royal Society points out that in 2005, ExxonMobil donated a total US$2.9million to a further 39 organisations that have also "misrepresented the science of climate change".

Read the letter in full here (592kb PDF)

This claim is based on a piece of public information literature entitled "ExxonMobil 2005 The Worldwide Giving Report" which apparently only lists US organisations(?), the Royal Society is wondering how many other organisations are benefitting from this kind of 'greenwash' funding.

At least two of the organisations have links to the UK. The International Policy Networkis a thinktank with HQ in London. In 2005, their Executive Director wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph entitled "Greenhouse gassing" in which she argued: "...the cost of taking action now is likely to be far higher than if action is delayed. Current technologies for reducing emissions are expensive. Their rapid implementation would divert resources from more important activities."

In 2004, a US institute jointly published a report with the UK group the Scientific Alliance which claimed that global temperature rises were not related to rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

"There is not a robust scientific basis for drawing definitive and objective conclusions about the effect of human influence on future climate," it said.

Bob Ward concludes his letter to Esso UK as follows: "...I have shared the contents of your documents with some climate researchers who are Fellows of the Royal Society and it would be useful to update them about whether ExxonMobil will be continuing to express views that are inconsistent with the findings of their work."