]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] GREENHOUSE HOKUM [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ (C) Copyright R. J. Long (1/13/1988) December, 1988 [Kindly uploaded by the author, Freeman QAUSTLONG, (yes, all the way from Brisbane, Australia!)] [ *** WARNING **** This is a very long file (14 screenfuls). Normally a file of this length would not be acceptable for FF. But coming from halfway around the globe... Sysop] [Note for the HTML version: Footnotes can be seen by clicking on the link. Netscape will return you to where you were in the main text by clicking on its "Back" button. However, Microsoft Internet Explorer will return you to the beginning of the main text, so click on the "[Back]" link to return to where you were in the main text. I am aware of the FN tag, but that does not work for all browsers. There has been much publicity recently about the so-called greenhouse effect. We have been assailed by apocalyptic headlines and warnings of the style: "Act now or face climatic disaster"; "World in a greenhouse getting ready to boil"; "one of the world's greatest environmental problems"; "Earth's hellish and deadly nightmare" and "the ultimate consequences could be second only to global nuclear war." That's enough to make anybody sit up and take notice. Panic, even. But is panic the right reaction? Are things as bad as they are made out to be? I strongly suspect not. Not only are climatic predictions nowhere as clear-cut as we are lead to believe, I am sure there is a "hidden agenda" which is distorting the information which is presented to us in the media. As we all no doubt now know, the greenhouse effect is caused by carbon dioxide (and other gases) absorbing infrared radiation and heating the atmosphere, rather than retransmitting radiation back into space. It is interesting to note that real glass greenhouses are not warmed by this "greenhouse" effect. The effect there is the more simple one of lack of ventilation: warmed air can't leave the closed structure. This was demonstrated in 1909 when two greenhouses, one with a quartz roof, reached equal temperature in the sun, though quartz is significantly more transparent to the entire sunlight spectrum than glass.[1] However, this does not stop the "expert" journalists decorating their misleading articles with diagrams of the earth trapped inside a glass greenhouse.[2] Be that as it may, as the environmentalists say, the mechanism is not in dispute. What is controversial is exactly how much the earth's temperature will change given certain increases in greenhouse gases. It is undeniable that carbon dioxide levels have increased on a global basis, but there is no agreement on temperature rises: how much, how soon or with what regional distribution.[3] The whole CO2-climate problem is a "cascade of uncertainty."[4] Even the sources of the greenhouse gases are uncertain. Despite these uncertainties, we are being told, in no uncertain terms, that everything is clear-cut, and that the solutions are known. Without a doubt, the most common cause of the "problem" is said to be mankind itself. Here are a few headlines and quotes: "What have we done to the weather?"[5] "[I]t is almost certainly our fault," continues the article. Another article titled "Fouling our own nest: human activity and the Greenhouse Effect" says "The problem then is. . . that human activity since the Industrial Revolution has steadily added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere."[6] School children are being "taught" from resource kits about "humanity's contribution to its [the greenhouse effect] acceleration." The advertising brochure quotes from the Toronto International Conference on The Changing Atmosphere: "Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to global nuclear war. The earth's atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants, inefficient and wasteful fossil fuel use and the effects of rapid population growth in many regions." At the recent Greenhouse 88 national conference, Dr. Iraphne Childs said "humans are the problem." Senator Graham "Greenhouse" Richardson (Phillip Adams' term) said there is "continuing evidence of our abuse of the environment." And Carmel Travers, in a replay of a "Beyond 2000" tape asked, "will our excesses and those of our ancestors deny the future its lifestyle?" Graeme O'Neill states that "the evidence is quite clear that concentrations of the so called `greenhouse gases' are increasing in the Earth's atmosphere, and that in "each" case the rise is linked to human activity."[7] Professor David Suzuki (a contributor to the Commission for the Future's magazine, "In Future", and to the ABC Radio's "Science Show") claims that "this planet is changing beyond recognition under the impact of the greatest predator of all -- us."[8] (You will notice that once you read past the "there is no doubt" headlines, most of the dire predictions are qualified by words such as "could," "may," "might," "perhaps," "as much as" or "potentially.") So it is all our fault. But is it? Very rarely is information presented which suggests that there may be natural causes. When that does happen, any effects from natural causes are immediately played down, and possible harmful effects from human activities are emphasised. For example, on the previously mentioned "Beyond 2000" tape replay it was stated that methane, one of the greenhouse gases, is produced by cows and rotting material. But that was not seen as a problem even though methane is thought to contribute about 20% of the greenhouse effect: "The atmosphere can cope with methane and NO2, probably." However, when the rhetorical question "Is the rise of CO2 just a natural variation?" was asked, the result was, after a mention of the "constancy" of CO2 in ice core samples, that this is "not conclusive proof, but pretty convincing" evidence of man-made effects. But the facts are that there are natural sources of greenhouse gases. Methane is produced by ruminant animals, in particular, cattle. It is also produced by bacterial activity in rice paddies (if covered by water -- the flooding is for weed control; the rice itself doesn't need it)[9] and fertilisers. It could be argued that these activities were introduced by man and are not "natural." But we haven't (not yet, anyway) heard an outcry demanding that we shoot all cattle. And those who advocate vegetarianism would expect us to eat more rice! Natural wetlands (they used to be called swamps!) also produce methane. There are, however, other natural causes that cannot be blamed on man (or woman! Let's be fair about this.) One is termites. Rather, the cause is a bacteria carried in termites' guts which decomposes 90% of their food into CO2.[10] It is estimated that the total production of carbon dioxide from this source is 50 billion tonnes annually. This should be compared with the 5 billion tonnes produced from the burning of fossil fuel. If this is the case, then it would appear that the emphasis on fossil fuel burning and energy use is badly misplaced. What is the point of concentrating our efforts on something that makes up less than one tenth of the problem? If the pseudo-environmentalists are serious then they should try to ban the production of cheese, too, especially "Swiss" styles with holes. The holes are produced by bacteria which generate carbon dioxide! Beer, too, is said to be making the greenhouse effect worse. Carbon dioxide escapes from the keg into the atmosphere. The estimate is 65,000 tonnes from UK pubs.[11] I guess I should not comment on that statement further; after all, any self-respecting environmentalist should now pledge to give up his beer. But to do so would be guilty of promoting half truths, like most of the scare-mongers do. The facts are that the carbon dioxide was extracted from the atmosphere in the first place! (So now, our concerned environmentalist will buy lots of beer and leave it unconsumed. . .) But "there is no easy method for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere" complains Keith Suter.[12] I suppose that is why we are lucky not to have a wasteful abundance of carbonated softdrinks and beers forced upon us by wicked advertisers. Volcanoes have a significant effect on the environment. The major components of volcanic gases are, by percent, water 70.75 (water vapour is a greenhouse gas), carbon dioxide 14.07, sulphur dioxide 6.40 and nitrogen 5.45.[13] (Note that sulphur dioxide is a precursor of sulphuric acid, a component of acid rain. But acid rain is another exaggerated scare story.) Hot springs are common in volcanic areas and many of them emit carbon dioxide. Gases are not the only components that affect climate, nor even the most important. The most important is albedo, the ratio of reflected energy to incident. Typical albedos are: concrete 17- 27 percent; green forests 5-10; desert soil 25-30; snow 45-90 and clouds 5-85 percent, depending on their thickness and the size of cloud droplets.[14] Thus the higher the albedo the greater the energy reflected and the lower the temperature (of the reflecting/absorbing body). Do these figures then suggest that to counter the warming effect we should concrete over the forests? (If I were to seriously suggest that then the "environmentalists" would immediately cry that "things are not as simple as that!" My point exactly!) The next most important effect is scattering by atmospheric particulates. Human activities create smoke, dust and other solids that enter the atmosphere. All of these counterbalance the greenhouse effect. Next comes humidity, and finally carbon dioxide. As Professor Beckmann says, "Clearly, then, the disputes on how much CO2 is due to what cause have been belaboring only a part of the problem, ignoring the equally or more important factor of albedo, which is not affected by CO2."[15] I mentioned before that volcanoes emit gases and particles which affect the atmosphere. In fact, the massive eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 is credited with a 0.3[o]C global temperature drop due to reflection into space of incoming radiation by microscopic particles.[16] The converse is also true: a reduction of volcanic activity can result in a "warming" of the atmosphere. Browning and Garris comment on this: "a period of relative geological quiet ensued . . . around the turn of the twentieth century. It has been in this Northern Hemisphere `volcanically exhausted' period that the climate has been so warm. The air has been extraordinarily clear."[17] Another factor that adds uncertainty is the sun's activity (few sunspots characterise a "cool" sun). A common theme of the greenhouse fear promoters is that the earth is on the brink of disaster because "the atmosphere is thin and fragile"[18] or that the earth's systems are so finely tuned that it is possible for "the life habits of one of its inhabitants is upsetting the very balance of Life on Earth."[19] But Landsberg comments that "there are no adequate physical reasons to expect any but local effects from energy uses by man."[20] Browning and Garris ask, "And how do Man's activities compare with Nature's? If we were to take all of the garbage produced by 220,000,000 Americans for a year (at 3-pounds per day), grind it into dust in a giant blender, and dump it into the stratosphere, we would have inserted only 1% as much dust as Krakatoa put up in one shot. And Krakatoa was nominal. Man's effects are truly trivial."[21] An increase in temperature is presented as a certainty. A majority of models cluster in the range of 1.5-4.5[o]C for doubled CO2. This has been called the "consensus estimate." But as Landsberg notes, "one should not overlook that a substantial minority, 25 percent of the estimates, is 1[o]C or lower. One scientist places the warming at less than 0.26[o]C for a doubling of CO2."[22] There is another problem with the measurement of past temperatures. That is the "notorious urban heat island" which has raised the average urban temperature by 1-2[o]C and can exceed the rural surroundings on occasions by 10[o]C.[23] This phenomenon has led a senior lecturer in geography at Woolongong University, Dr. Edward Bryant to state that "evidence that temperatures have increased also has its flaws because it comes from land-based city measuring stations." He says that scientists have not taken into account the fact that, when cities grow, they generate and retain heat.[24] Another interesting fact is that global temperatures decreased between 1940 and 1970 (by about 0.2[o]C) even though carbon dioxide levels were "increasing."[25] Bryant also throws doubt on the claim that rising sea levels are indicative of the greenhouse effect. He says his analysis shows that in many places, sea levels have actually fallen. He says that, for example, one side of Japan's coast has risen by 24mm a year and the other side fallen by 6mm. His explanation is that processes below the earth's crust are resulting in earth movement. I mentioned before that the natural contributions to the greenhouse gases are played down; it is also true that any benefits which would result from increased warming and increased carbon dioxide are dismissed out of hand. Journalist Brian James[26], who seems to be on the side of the scare-mongers, reports on the meeting between 30 countries at the Hamburg Congress Hall. He mentions that "[t]he professors were less than kind to the Indian scientist who insisted that he was sceptical about two days of dire warnings. In any case, he said, global warming would `make India's northern deserts bloom so we can feed the United States'". A Soviet academician, Mr Budyko, reportedly "depressed" his listeners for saying that the now barren tundra would be made available for agriculture. He said that the greenhouse effect would also reduce the difference between hot and cold countries and the season in each. He asked, therefore, was there not a case for actually increasing carbon dioxide emissions? Ah, yes! It would certainly be a problem if food supplies were increased. This view is echoed by Phil Noyce, who opines, "For farmers however, what will it mean if a desert area starts growing wheat in competition? And will the rest of the world want an increase in food production from Australia?"[27] Problems, problems, problems! Perhaps these people are worried that an increase in food production will destroy their arguments about over-population. (What they never admit is that "over-population," or imbalance between food supplies and people, is predominantly caused by socialism, not just numbers of people. But that, too, is another story.) When, during the Greenhouse 88 conference it was claimed that Tasmania could benefit with increased tourism from the greenhouse effect, the audience laughed. They didn't want to hear anything but bad news. But why shouldn't we at least listen to these "good-news" views instead of instantly dismissing them? There is so much uncertainty in the predictions that they may well be right. A lot of apparent "certainty" comes from the use of computer models. Unfortunately, the complexity of climate modelling means that such results are by no means certain at all. No doubt the public thinks that if a computer said so, it must be correct. The "Beyond 2000" program stated that "only a computer program of several thousand lines can predict [temperature] effects." It would have been much more realistic to say that "not even a computer program of several thousand lines can predict effects." Landsberg comments that "[b]ecause so many conclusions are based on the mathematical-numerical modeling of climate, it is imperative to take a critical look at the various models. The fact that they appear in the exact framework of mathematics is deceiving because they can only simulate nature successfully if they represent all variables and their interactions. With the present state of knowledge that is virtually impossible. Hence it is also not surprising that various modelers have used different approaches and parameterizations to achieve approximations."[28] This is not to say that modelling is not useful: "These and other mathematical model simulations have made great progress in the past two decades thanks to increased computer capacity. They still suffer from their inability to simulate a host of feedback mechanisms and by the inadequacy of representing the ocean influence in the system."[29] We have been told that the current series of unusual weather patterns, droughts in the USA for example, are the result of the greenhouse effect. "Indeed, most scientists are now convinced that the greenhouse effect is responsible for the record droughts ravaging the United States' Mid-West and for the heat- waves throughout Europe and Asia which recently killed hundreds of people."[30] That is not true. Even Stephen Schneider, the keynote speaker at the Greenhouse 88 conference, said that the current "disasters are not caused by the greenhouse effect, but are due to the random nature of climate," though he thinks the changes caused by the greenhouse effect will be similar. Such claims of changing weather patterns fly in the face of centuries of evidence of past dramatic climate changes. An article in the "The Weekend Australian"[31] started off with the statement, "Last October, a succession of unprecedented frosts and hail storms devastated some of Australia's finest vineyards in the hills east of Adelaide. . . At the same time, on the other side of the world, a climatic disaster of a different kind was afflicting southern England. There, the worst gale for 300 years was scything 15 million trees, destroying houses and cars and setting off an avalanche of insurance claims." This dramatic introduction is followed by mentioning further problems and then states that "[i]t seems to be asking a lot of coincidence that so many extremes, so much record-breaking weather, should have been bunched up into one quarter-century -- unless, that is, we are suffering from a kind of climatic hypochondria and are just noticing it more." Well, perhaps we just ignore past evidence. In fact, the doomsday writers appear to ignore evidence that is in front of their noses. That very same article presents a summary of climatic extremes from 200 BC: droughts, retreat of North Sea ice, sunless summers, unseasonal frosts and so on. But such history has no effect on the claims that we are living in the worst of times and there is no hope for us. Rather than being extreme, the Adelaide wine-growers should consider that they may have been let off lightly. Hailstorms in the past have been worse. For example, hailstones have been known to be of such size to kill cows. In 1888, in India, a hailstorm killed 230 people and injured thousands. Hailstones are estimated to have been disk shaped, up to ten inches in diameter and three inches thick at the centre.[32] Increased storm and beach-front wave activity are also predicted. This could lead to destruction of seaside properties. But I wonder whether the activists really care about this, or just use it to promote their scare-mongering. A very revealing episode occurred during the Greenhouse 88 conference. During the showing of the "Beyond 2000" programme there was a scene showing the undermining of some beach-front properties, intended to show the problems to be experienced in the future. Instead of remaining in grim silence, the audience spontaneously murmured in approval that such things should happen. Nothing like a dose of envy: "Serve those rich capitalists right to build on the seaside"! Let's now consider some of the proposed solutions by those who claim that the greenhouse effect is "all our fault." Put briefly, the common theme is that there has to be a reduction in energy use by the West, "an end to affluence", population reduction and non-nuclear "alternative energy" options. These are common "left-wing" proposals of those who want more government intervention and regulation. They are expressed regularly in the taxpayer funded Commission for the Future's magazine "In Future". It was the Commission who organised the national Greenhouse 88 conference in November 1988. Although the Commission's job is to "explain the social impacts of science and technology and to foster the development of an innovative, productive culture" it predominantly puts the one-sided view of the "environmentalists." Theme of the conference was "The greenhouse effect: political reality or media event?". This rhetorical question was clearly meant to come up with the answer that it is a political reality, not just media exaggeration, and that governments must "do something." It is interesting to note the theme title did not include the option "physical reality." As we have seen, there is much evidence to cast doubt on the popular belief that the greenhouse effect is going to result in dire consequences. I attended the Brisbane venue of the conference. Although I went along with many misgivings (the articles in "In Future" did not reassure me; and the association with the well-known left- of-centre Phillip Adams was worrying) I was hoping to see presented some real scientific evidence on the subject. But I was to be disappointed. The panel, and most of the audience, were already convinced that we (especially the West) were guilty of destroying the world. I have already mentioned some of the thoughts of the local panel at the conference and it is instructive to relate some other episodes of the conference. It was based on a national satellite (isn't that high technology?) linkup of several cities. Each city was to select from their audiences several questions, some of which were to be asked later on the national linkup. As I wanted to try to see if some objective information was forthcoming, I asked what percentage of CO2 production was attributable to human activity. I quoted the example of termites, as mentioned above. Several other questions were suggested by other audience members. Now, I didn't have the presumption to expect that my question would be selected; and it wasn't. What is instructive is the one that was chosen: "What can be done to divert taxes to fund public transport?" This shows that it was taken for granted that private transport is "bad," that public (government owned) transport is "good" and that government has the right to levy and distribute taxes as it sees fit. Thankfully, Barry Jones replied that in Australia, with such a dispersed population, such reliance on public transport is not viable. Later on, the Brisbane audience asked the local panel several questions. Again, most were based on the assumpions of impending doom. Many were applauded by other members of the audience. One particular questioner asked, how do we know that the forecasts are not simply extrapolations of a trend that is near its end anyway? I thought that was quite a reasonable question, given that climatic cycles are known to exist. However, I also expected that such a question would go against the "prevailing wisdom" so I was not at all surprised that when I applauded, I was the only one! The response of a panel member to this question was to echo a statement on a Greenhouse Project poster: "If we live as if it matters, and it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. If we live as if it doesn't matter, and it matters, then it matters."[33] But does it matter whether we are given all the facts, or a proper perspective on the issue? No, "that" doesn't matter. As Man is "known" to be the problem, it is not surprising that there were calls for reduced population growth. I have already mentioned that Dr. Iraphne Childs has said that "humans are the problem." Greenhouse 88 conference audience member and well known conservationist, Dr. Aila Keto, is even more specific. She says that "we have to look at a total reduction in population, not just [a reduction of] growth rate." No one asked the obvious question, "Who are you going to shoot first?" It seems to me that the anti-growth advocates talk a lot about the need for quality of life in the future -- as long as they are not the ones to suffer. Are they volunteering to shoot themselves? Aren't they consuming resources now? It is nothing but elitism. Another hater of mankind (although he would not say so as bluntly as that) is Dr. David Suzuki. He is a Professor of Genetics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. He is a frequent contributor to "In Future" magazine and is often featured on the ABC's "Science Show" radio program, which is hosted by Robyn Williams (Williams is also a Commissioner for the Commission for the Future.) Suzuki has stated that "[i]f you look at human beings the way I study fruit flies (I've spent my professional career studying fruit flies, and I know fruit flies very well, then) when you look at human beings that way you find we are not a very impressive species. I mean we can't fly by ourselves -- fruit flies can. Fruit flies can land upside down and hang on the ceiling -- we can't. They have 6 legs -- we only have [sic] two; we are not gifted with strength, speed or sensory acuity. But what we do have is the most complex structure in the known universe, which is the brain, the human brain."[34] He is also an advocate of reduced population growth. There seems to me to be a contradiction in his actions: he has "four" daughters! Hasn't he taken any notice of his fellow population controller Ehrlich's (see below) exhortation that "two is plenty"?[35] I hope he has trained them to fly and land upside down on the ceiling. None of these people have considered that growth rates and food production change over time to suit the circumstances. They fall into the errors of Malthus (1766-1834) and others who continually predict the end of the world.[36] One of these is Paul Ehrlich. ("The Science Show" has presented him favourably also; one of his talks was repeated "due to popular demand.") He has written, "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programmes embarked upon now."[37] Yes, there have been famines -- but they have been caused by the socialist policies advocated by the stop-growth people. You may have thought I was joking too much when I asked who is to be shot first; just consider what Ehrlich says: "We must have population control at home, hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail."[38] As Beckmann puts it, `The credo of the population controllers is simple: "There are too many of you others."'[39] Things can't be going too badly if now the greatest (or is it only the second greatest?) threat to mankind is a rise in temperature by the year 2030! A consequence of this argument is that we must reduce energy usage. The director of the Commission for the Future, Dr. Ian Lowe, stated that "energy use is so profligate it is almost a scandal. . . [an] absurd level of waste."[40] Drew Hutton, a Brisbane conservationist, stated that the only way to say to the Third World that they should reduce production of greenhouse gases is for us to "abandon our affluence." A conference audience member said that we need to show the Third World that subsistence farming is better than our system.[41] Does he know what he is talking about? Why is it that the Third World is continually trying to improve its food production above subsistence level? Doesn't he know that subsistence farming means that that is all you do from morning to night -- attempt to grow food to stay alive? One of the reasons the underdeveloped countries have poor education standards is that they have no time for schooling; the children must help to grow food. It is subsistence farming that leads to the cutting down of forests by peasant farmers (e.g., in Haiti) (all we are allowed to hear about is the cutting down of forests by filthy multi- national companies) so that they can either cook their food or make charcoal so that they can buy food in the first place. Such reminders do not go down well with those who believe that "high technology industrial society is to blame."[42] On the other hand, subsistence farming may be a good thing for members of the Commission for the Future and their ilk: they would not then have the time to write their one-sided propaganda at taxpayers' expense! (As an interesting sideline, it is only in modern times that conservationists have had the time and surplus energy (i.e., petrol to drive their cars) to attempt to rescue stranded whales. American Indians, and later the European settlers, actively watched for, and killed, stranded whales to obtain whale oil.[43]) Nowhere in the popular press are we exposed to the idea that the free-market can provide the solution. Instead, it is always more government intervention that is needed. The action of free-market prices is completely ignored; we are told by Stephen Schneider that the things we can do now are to "turn off the lights, buy more efficient cars and refrigerators." (Note that the stop-growth people should be taking this further and abandoning their cars and refrigerators.) The reason I turn off my lights is because it costs me money. Allow the price mechanism to work and any shortages will appear as higher prices. This will cause energy conservation, energy substitution and greater efforts to produce energy by others (their incentive is that dreadful thing, profit!). When Schneider sarcastically mentioned that some people say that we can "leave it to the free-market -- the free-market knows best," the Brisbane audience, and the central audience at Dallas Brooks Hall, jeered in agreement with him. He then said, "I'm pleased to hear a few hisses." But that's alright -- it's only the free-market that pays taxes which enable him to be invited to Australia. To quote Beckmann again, the privileged "Penthouse Proletariat" don't want to rub shoulders with the common riff-raff. "No wonder the Penthouse Proletariat is frustrated. What caused this state of affairs? Who filled the jetliners with plumbers and printers? Who crowded the beaches with beer-drinking steel workers? Who made cars and gasoline so cheap that an entire nation was put on wheels? What gave people electricity at the laughable price of a nickel a kilowatt-hour?. . . Capitalism; science; technology. Stop it! Stop the world, I want it all to myself."[44] There is never any mention that private property is always looked after better than government owned. Private property has to earn its future. The call for more government intervention is misplaced. It is often said that public ownership is the solution to various problems. It is claimed that then "the people" own the property and have control. That is a deceit! Public ownership means that the "government" has control, and the people are subject to the whims, lobbying and corruption of government processes. Without control, ownership is meaningless. True ownership means I should be able to say, "OK, I want to sell "my" bit of National Park (or whatever)." Both you and I know that is impossible to do. A revealing example of this happened during Stalin's collectivisation in the Ukraine in the 1930s. A farmer had a favourite fishing spot. One day, he found another farmer at that spot. A brawl ensued, and they were both taken before the village court. The judge announced that inasmuch as the rivers, land, and forests belonged to all the people, both the plaintiff and defendant were guilty of trespassing on public property and had therefore committed treason. They were each convicted to two weeks of forced labour.[45] In another episode, during a time when there was mass starvation, "it was considered a great crime to even glean the already harvested [communal] fields, to fish in the rivers, or to pick up some dry branches in the forest for firewood. After the passage of this law, everything was considered socialist, state-owned property, and thus everthing was protected by law."[46] If the conservationists want to save a forest, they should attempt to buy it. "But it would cost too much," will be the cry. "Only government can afford to do these things." But, where does the government gets its money from? From the taxpayers! They would have the money if it were not confiscated from them by high tax rates. The conservationists, unfortunately, always want someone else to pay for their utopias. Of course, mention that nuclear power is the sensible solution (there are no greenhouse gases emitted by a nuclear power station) and you will be howled down. When, during the Greenhouse 88 conference, Ian Lowe said he was not a supporter of nuclear power, the audiences broke into applause. Commenting on the Third World destruction of forests, Professor Petr Beckmann says the problem is that the Third World countries "split wood, not atoms, and burn dung, not uranium."[47] He continues, in his biting style, that by contrast, "the industrial polluters and wastrels in the US, who split atoms, not wood, have a forest cover which by percentage of the total area is close to that of colonial times."[48] (It should be added that nuclear power does not need the tenuous arguments of the greenhouse effect to argue in its favour.) It is instructive to note one of the results of the Greenhouse 88 conference with respect to the nuclear option. A "conference statement" with "proposed actions" was produced. "In Future" (December 1988) magazine claimed that "each Greenhouse 88 venue examined a draft conference statement produced by the national Greenhouse 88 secretariat." That certainly did not happen at the Brisbane venue I attended! If it did, it was an examination by the panel; there was no audience involvement. The following clause in the "proposed actions": Explore the nuclear option. There is some support for further effort to determine whether the persistent problems of operation safety, cost over-runs, nuclear weapons proliferation and radioactive waste could be solved to allow nuclear power to play a role in reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. was replaced with this one: At present nuclear power is not a solution to the greenhouse problem because of the limited contribution it could make to replacement strategies for the wide range of uses afforded by fossil fuels and because of persistent problems of cost, operating safety, nuclear weapons proliferation and radioactive waste. Quite a turn around! There seemed to be some hope there for a while, despite the gross exageration of "problems" in the first statement. And to say that we should not do anything because it would be a "limited contribution" is contradicting the wisdom of other concerned deep-thinkers: "Every little bit that you can do can help lessen the effects of the greenhouse problem and the thinning of the ozone layer..."[49] Another point overlooked is that "no energy" (i.e., lack of energy) is worse than more energy from any source. Despite the fact that nuclear power is far safer than other sources (taking into account oil and gas tank explosions, transportation deaths from the carrying of large volumes of coal and premature deaths from coal burning -- 50,000 per year for the US[50]) it is still opposed. Further, as we have seen above, there are calls for reduced energy use. It is not for purely selfish affluence that we have, for example, refrigerators. They preserve food and prevent deaths from food poisoning. Refrigerated transport enables fresh and safe food to be delivered to refrigerated food cabinets in supermarkets. Energy is used in food preparation factories to cook and preserve food in vacuum sealed cans. Domestic electric stoves reduce deaths from open- fire accidents. We mentioned previously the heat-waves throughout Europe and Asia which recently killed hundreds of people; if ample cheap energy were to enable air-conditioning to be provided then those deaths could be reduced. In cold countries (even the US), elderly people die from the cold. It may not be possible to provide extremely cheap energy to everybody -- but the no-growthers don't even want us to try. They will no doubt provide us all with woollen pullovers -- hand-knitted, of course, and free! But of course, trying to provide air-conditioning and heating just shows "the energy absurdity of this lifestyle."[51] I mentioned at the beginning that I suspect a hidden agenda in the exaggeration of problems about the greenhouse effect. That is effectively admitted by those who say that "we don't need to use the greenhouse effect to advocate reduction of energy use."[52] They are anti-technology. They claim that "technological solutions will not come cheaply -- and it will be our children who will be paying."[53] I mentioned earlier the production of greenhouse gases by animals; Beckmann's comment is to the point: "So why are the Environmental Defence Fund and similar imposters not filing suit to exterminate all cattle? Because they need the greenhouse effect only for crusading against technology and industry, and they can't present Mary as a corporate pig for having a little lamb."[54] The greenhouse effect is also being used as an excuse by special interest groups to push their own barrows. Professor Ballinger, the Australian and New Zealand Solar Energy Society chairman [you may remember that I prefer to use the non-sexist "chair-critter"] said that the Federal government would have to take over the control of the distribution and pricing of electricity by the end of the century. This is because he thinks an international greenhouse treaty is inevitable. The Federal Government would then need to use its external affairs powers to control the State electricity authorities. He recommends that Australia should look at developing an export market in renewable energy (solar, no doubt!).[55] Keep in mind that fossil or nuclear plants need areas much smaller than that needed for solar collectors. For example, the Queensland Swanbank coal powered power station, with a generating capacity of just under 1,000 MW, is on a site of 61 hectares. I estimate an equivalent solar collector plant needs over 12,000 hectares (47 square miles). And who said "small is beautiful"?![56] And power "free" from the wind? The Energy Authority of NSW has been testing a 150kW wind turbine; the cost of the project is $500,000 (1986).[57] To produce 1,000MW (a typical capacity of a nuclear or fossil plant) the cost would be over $3,000 million. The previously mentioned Swanbank station cost $116 million in 1973 ($400 million in 1986 dollars). But what's an extra few billion dollars between friends (especially if the friends are paying for it)? But we have to act NOW! we are told. Do we? Yes. Or no. Some say it is already too late: "The ultimate effects will last for centuries and will be irreversible," says an Environmental Protection Agency draft report.[58] Irreversible? That is probably what the hippopotamuses, lions and forest elephants were complaining about while they were (so we are told) roaming about England 120,000 years ago, when temperatures were 2.5[o]C higher than today, and "falling".[59] Obviously the environmentalists of the time forgot to warn them to start the Ice Epoch Industrial Revolution to keep things warm! If things are really too late, why bother? If not, and if, as I submit, the need is not for less energy, but for less polluting energy, then "the panic lobby . . . who are forever screaming about acid rain and greenhouse effect with slogans like `we cannot afford to wait until our fears are confirmed' do not have to take this risk: they can all support nuclear power now."[60] So what if we do follow the environmentalists' advice and spend billions providing land-consuming solar plants, wind or wave generators dependent on fickle climatic conditions? Does it matter if they are wrong? Of course not -- after all, it won't cost "them" anything: it will be our children who have to pay. -------------------- (Revised January 13, 1988) (Revised December 2009: - Removed reference to where to buy the booklet form of this article, as it is out of print. - Minor syntax corrections. - Corrected sunspot/sun activity relationship.) R. J. Long, GPO Box 1467, Brisbane, Qld. Australia 4001 1.[Back] "Access to Energy", August 1988. 2.[Back] See, for example, "The Planet Imprisoned," "The Australian", September 15, 1988, reprinted from "The Sunday Times". Also, the front cover of "Time" magazine, October 19, 1987. 3.[Back] H. E. Landsberg, "Global Climatic Trends," in "The Resourceful Earth," Julian Simon and Herman Kahn (eds.), Basil Blackwell, New York, 1984, p. 290. 4.[Back] Landsberg, p. 291 (quoting Kellog and Schware). 5.[Back] "The Weekend Australian," November 4-5 1988. 6.[Back] Phil Noyce, "In Future", August 1987, p. 6. 7.[Back] "The Age", March 18, 1988, quoting Dr. Graeme Pearman of the CSIRO. My emphasis. 8.[Back] "The Australian", May 24, 1988. 9.[Back] "Access to Energy", August 1988. 10.[Back] "Access to Energy", August 1988. Beckmann refers to Zimmerman and others in "Science", November 5, 1982. 11.[Back] "The Australian", November 1, 1988. 12.[Back] "Simply Living", vol. 3, no. 7, p. 113. 13.[Back] "Encyclopaedia Britannica," 15th Edition, 1976, "volcanic gases." 14.[Back] "Encyclopaedia Britannica," 15th Edition, 1976, "albedo." 15.[Back] "Access to Energy," June 1987. 16.[Back] Landsberg, in "The Resourceful Earth", p. 275. 17.[Back] Iben Browning and Evelyn Garris, "Past and Future History", Fraser Publishing Co., 1981, p. 33. 18.[Back] Stated at the Greenhouse 88 conference, and repeated in the "Beyond" "2000" tape. 19.[Back] Phil Noyce, "Fouling our own nest," in "In Future", August 1987. 20.[Back] "The Resourceful Earth", p. 287. 21.[Back] "Past and Future History", p. 30. 22.[Back] "The Resourceful Earth", p. 292. 23.[Back] "The Resourceful Earth", p. 286. 24.[Back] "The Australian", November 18, 1987. 25.[Back] "Access to Energy," August, 1988. Also, "New Scientist," October 22, 1988. 26.[Back] "The Final Forecast?" in "The Weekend Australian", November 12, 1988. Reprinted from "The Times". 27.[Back] Phil Noyce, "In Future", August 1987, p. 7. 28.[Back] "The Resourceful Earth", p. 292. 29.[Back] "The Resourceful Earth", p. 275. 30.[Back] Ben Bremner, "World in a greenhouse getting ready to boil over," in "The Australian", August 8, 1988, p. 9. 31.[Back] Richard Mabey, "What have we done to the weather?" in "The Weekend" "Australian", November 5-6, 1988. Note again that the title implies that there is absolutely no doubt that mankind is to blame. 32.[Back] Guy Murchie, "The World Aloft", Bantam Books, 1983, p. 121. 33.[Back] See, for example the back page of "In Future", December 1987, or July 1988. 34.[Back] "Science Show", ABC Radio, April 11, 1987. 35.[Back] "The Population Bomb", p. 178. 36.[Back] See Charles Maurice and Charles Smithson, "The Doomsday Myth", Hoover Institution Press, 1987. 37.[Back] Paul Ehrlich, "The Population Bomb", Pan, 1968, in the prologue. The book was published in association with the Friends of the Earth. 38.[Back] "Idem". 39.[Back] Petr Beckmann, "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear", Golem Press, 1979, p. 175. 40.[Back] Greenhouse 88 conference. 41.[Back] Greenhouse 88 conference. 42.[Back] Greenhouse 88 conference, comments by audience member. 43.[Back] Charles Maurice and Charles Smithson, "The Doomsday Myth", Hoover Institution Press, 1987, pp. 62-63. 44.[Back] "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear", p. 176. 45.[Back] Miron Dolot, "Execution by Hunger", Norton, 1987, p. 107. 46.[Back] "Ibid", p. 157. 47.[Back] "Access to Energy", June 1987. 48.[Back] See also Sedjo and Clawson, "Global Forests," in "The Resourceful" "Earth", pp. 128-167. 49.[Back] "The Investigators", ABC TV, November 1, 1988. 50.[Back] Petr Beckmann, "Coal," in "The Resourceful Earth", p. 433. 51.[Back] Brisbane Chair-critter of the Greenhouse 88 conference, Mary Maher. She also said that we now have "an artificial glut of oil, because of market forces." And I always thought "market forces" deliberately withheld products from the market so that they could force up the price! 52.[Back] Greenhouse 88 conference. 53.[Back] "Beyond 2000" tape replay at Greenhouse 88 conference. 54.[Back] "Access to Energy", October 1988. 55.[Back] "Courier Mail", November 11, 1988. 56.[Back] Based on 1kW solar influx, 10% collection efficiency, 50% collector spacing. A factor of 6 times is needed to account for the extra area needed to supply storage units to cater for nightime and cloudy times (Beckmann, "Health Hazards", and private communication). This is not to imply that solar power does not have appropriate, generally small scale, uses. 57.[Back] "Engineers Australia", September 5, 1986, p. 13. 58.[Back] "The Australian", October 25, 1988. 59.[Back] John Gribbin, "The Hole in the Sky", Corgi Books, 1988, p. 84. The theme of this book is set by its subtitle: "Man's Threat to the Ozone Layer." I have not addressed the "hole" in the ozone layer problem in this essay; suffice to say that it, too, is so fraught with uncertainties that it is impossible to honestly say that "it is all mankind's fault." 60.[Back] "Access to Energy", June 1987, p. 3. * * *
Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page