climate change
‘Climate Change: The Facts’ bend over backwards to provide solid facts. A strong team of
scientists gave testimonies to back up Attenborough’s narrative. It is certainly better to be guided
by evidence than by wild guesses. The fact remains, however, that if we wait until all the facts are
‘in’, it will probably be too late. As the programme itself made clear, there simply too many
unknowns and perhaps never to be knowns.
In any case, isolated facts seldom ‘speak’ for themselves. Their value depends not only the quality
of the original research. There is also the problem of robust interpretation. Many critical variables
such as ‘ecosystem functions’, ‘food security’ and ‘safety’ are hard to quantify and not amenable to
expression in prices. Furthermore, factually we humans might survive the losses of some other
species but that does not give us the ‘right’ to wipe them out.
We can state certain facts about, say, wind turbines (they filled the screen at times). There are still
bound to be conflicting interests and value judgements inherent in plans for more wind power. It
is a fact, one not seen in the programme, that mining for neodymium (used in wind turbine
magnets) has caused terrible pollution in certain places.
We need to be upfront about the dilemmas involved in some ‘alternatives.’
The statement that nuclear power is ‘carbon-free’ was made without qualification. Yet the fact is
that nuclear power plants are part of a whole fuel cycle, from uranium mine to waste disposal site,
one that generates significant levels of CO2, not least in the transportation from one part of the
cycle to another.
Those emissions (and
the many other problems inherent in this blighted energy source) will get far worse as high grade
and easily accessible source of uranium is depleted.
The fundamental problem of not one of the shortages of evidence or deficient data-processing. The
deeper problem is one of analysis, vision and appropriate policy. Here ‘Climate Change: The Facts’
fell short. Mention was made, for example, of rewilding. On a quite huge scale and with more
space for ‘non-people’, it will make a real difference. But, of course, that means a restriction on the scale and locations of human
activity. Here the programme remained glued to vague generalities.
Though the programme dealt with ‘facts’, it might be imagined that several assumptions
were being made, if not by Attenborough then by some of the ‘talking heads’. They perhaps
include the fallacy of ‘green growth’ and two related assumptions, those of ‘decoupling’ and of a
‘circular economy, both propositions that defy biophysical reality, not least the entropy law,
There was scarcely a hint in the programme that we will have to abandon the pursuit of growth,
trying to find paths to significant degrowth in several sectors and, overall, build a steady-state with a much lower overall level of
economic activity. Instead, the impression was left that the magic wand of technology will vanquish the climate monster, aided
by a more responsible form of consumerism. Palatable or not, society is, in toto, obese: some
slimming is the only sustainable option.
Comments
Post a Comment