21 Environmental Fallacies

This podcast considers whether we can adapt to a changing climate. Our sophisticated global economies face huge challenges, and an effective response requires effective strategies and major investment (unfortunately, there is little evidence of either). Even if we divert a large proportion of GDP to protect our economic infrastructure, it will not be possible to prevent a collapse in the ecosystems that are fundamental to our survival. At what point will human efforts be overwhelmed by Nature? Do we have fifty years? A hundred years? Reports by the UN suggest that adaptation measures will become ineffective if global warming exceeds the 2.0 °C threshold. If this forecast is correct, that gives us about 25 years, if we're lucky.

This podcast episode explores how token gestures are used to justify our unsustainable lifestyles. We also discuss the characteristics of the human brain, which responds rapidly to threats that are obviously dangerous and imminent but struggles when faced with threats that are uncertain, complex and some point in the future. The problem is compounded by political processes that elect leaders promising 'better times' rather than those who advocate social and economic change. In the light of these issues, it is not surprising that the response to the climate crisis has been characterised by delusion, denial and prevarication.

The challenge of a growing global population is frequently linked to the threat of climate change. This is not surprising as a growing population will increase the demand for consumer goods and energy. This will increase the pressure on natural resources, and a growing energy demand is likely to accelerate the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The challenges presented by population growth are particularly relevant on the continent of Africa, where the population is predicted to double within the next 30 years. How can highly developed economies be expected to tackle climate change if less developed economies are expanding so rapidly? This podcast examines the complex interdependencies between population growth, economic wealth and climate change.

This episode considers the challenge of transitioning to renewable energy. Rapid adoption of renewables is essential, but many governments appear reluctant to intervene in the energy market. Instead, there appears to be a reliance on free market forces. This strategy seems to be based largely on political ideology. However, this policy of abdicating responsibility to market forces does not apply to the fossil fuel sector, which receives massive financial support from governments. This discussion unpicks the contradictions and flaws in political strategies that rely on free market forces to drive the transition to renewables.

The carbon credit industry is integral to many of the strategies designed to limit the rise in global temperatures. Carbon credits provide a trading mechanism that enables the producers of carbon emissions to pay other organisations to undertake activities to offset the carbon emissions. In theory, this should prevent carbon emissions from warming the climate. In practice, it encourages the continued production of CO2 at a time when every effort should be dedicated to reducing CO2.

However, there is a risk that carbon credits distort markets, slow the adoption of renewable technologies and create a false impression that we are making progress toward a cleaner, greener world.

This episode provides an entertaining examination of an issue that is often poorly understood.

This episode considers the characteristics of good and bad environmental policies plus the complexities of cost-benefit analysis - who pays the cost and who enjoys the benefit. We also examine why governments might wish to perpetuate the view that we should not overreact to fears about global warming.

This episode considers whether we should feel reassured by political claims that 'We are on track'. What does 'On Track' mean? Is this 'On Track' to achieve Net Zero? Is this 'On Track' to avoid temperatures exceeding the two-degree Centigrade upper limit? Is this 'On Track' to meet some other, vague and unspecified, climate targets?

Scientific evidence shows that carbon emissions are increasing and global warming is accelerating. A dispassionate assessment of the current situation would suggest that we are far from being 'On Track'. It is unclear whether claims that we are 'On Track' are due to ignorance, complacency or delusion. Whatever the reason, we should be wary of claims that we are 'On Track.'

The stated purpose of The Conference of The Parties is to ' …stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system'.

For the last 30 years, COP events have been attempting to stabilise concentrations of CO2. For the last 30 years, concentrations have increased. It is astonishing that the international community has not declared COP to be an ineffective, failed organisation.

The economic consequences of the impending climate catastrophe were highlighted in a recent report by The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which stated that global GDP is projected to fall by 50% in the period 2070-2090 due to the effects of climate change.

Until international leaders acknowledge that COP is utterly ineffective, we will continue to live with the delusion that COP is making acceptable progress. We must replace COP with an organisation that will secure economic growth, increase wealth and fulfil the ambitions of a capitalist society for a period that extends beyond the next twenty years. Honestly, what is COP playing at?

This episode questions the concept of a 'safe limit'. Is this safe for people living at subsistence levels in developing countries? Or is it safe for people living in the major, western cities. Is it safe for the next 5 years or is it safe for future of generations yet to be born? Is it safe for all ecosystems around the world, or maybe just for some of them?

There is a risk that even minimal rises in global temperatures could trigger natural feedback loops that might take the climate to an irreversible tipping point. Do we know where the tipping point is, or are we hoping that it is still some way off? There is a risk that we might already be dangerously close to the tipping point without knowing it.

The global response to the climate crisis should adopt the 'precautionary principle'. (i.e. If there is a degree of uncertainty, we should err on the side of caution). However, this does not appear to be the case.

The goal of 'net zero' has been widely adopted by governments, the United Nations and many large corporate organisations. There seems to be broad consensus that achieving net zero will address the impending threat of global warming. At first sight, it seems logical that if we stop adding to the level of atmospheric CO2, then we will limit the rise in global temperatures. However, look a little closely, and the flaws in the strategy become apparent.

The first problem is that the mechanisms for achieving net zero (carbon capture technologies and carbon offsetting, e.g. planting trees) are incapable of capturing the 37 billion tonnes of CO2 that we currently produce each year.

The second and more fundamental problem is that achieving net zero by 2050 offers no assurance that global temperatures will be limited to a safe level.

The third problem is that 'net zero' is a theoretical calculation based on assumptions that carbon emissions are offset by actions such as planting trees. Similarly, there are assumptions that biofuels and biomass are 'green'. The failure to understand the flaws in these ideas is at the heart of the problem.

However, net zero does provide the illusion that governments are addressing the threat of climate change. The fact that we are unlikely to achieve the target and even if we did, global warming could have passed catastrophic levels, is conveniently glossed over.

This is delusion on a grandiose scale.

NOTE: This episode refers to the following diagram.