Global Hysteria

For the past decade, debates about carbon emissions contributing to global warming have really been heating up. For the past five years or so, the British government have been showing the terrifying adverts, and the chilling warnings that global warming will be worse than scientitists expect. Increasing hysterical publicity campaigns, our government beseeches to drive less, heat less, and consume less, all in the name of climate change. But people are still not convinced. The urgency which grips politicians around the world seems not to be shared by the general public.

Last month’s leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, in which some scientists denied that human activities were responsible for global warming, pretty much affirmed the public’s scepticism. In one corner, outrage really did hit the fan, well at least in the UK, as the leak had been perfectly timed to coincide with the Copenhagen conference next week. I’m not a rocket scientist on the subject of global warming, but have taught 'O' level Natural Economy, so I do have strong view about it. And I do know attempted thought control and  hostility to free speech when I see it.

The truth about global warming is that the debate has many layers and levels. The issues for debate are whether mankind is largely responsible and if so how can we avert carbon emissions. Global temperature is on the rise, this is an undisputed fact and its consequences are easy to see. However, I now have doubt whether humans are responsible for global warming; my conspiratorial mind is inclined to believe the ‘deniers’. I would give a right arm to see those leaked emails and analyse the data. Whether I would understand anything I read or see is beside the point.

At the Copenhagen conference, much attention will be placed on alternative forms of energy and actions for drastic reduction of carbon emissions. However the general consensus will be hard to achieve as the rift between rich and developing nations is immense. China and India are currently responsible for much of the increased carbon emissions. Yet at the same time, the economic growth is lifting millions of people out of proverty. It’s a hard balance to weigh up. What is apparent and agreed by all nations is the sheer cost of reducing carbon emissions. According to the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change calculated that global tax “starting at $68 could reduce economic output by a staggering 13 per cent by 2100-the equivalent of $40 trillion a year". That is to say, it would cost 50 times the expected damage of global warming. "A further $800 billion spent over the next 90 years solely on mitigating carbon emissions, we would rein in temperature increases by just 0.1 degree C”. When figures are put in such brutal manner, one start to wonder why all the fuss.

It has been put that the smartest way forward would be to increase public funds for research into non-carbon energy and perhaps not rule out geoegineering solutions. Superfreakonomics have suggested that by pumping millions of tons of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere (operation costs is negligible). At high altitude, it mixes with water vapour and quickly blankets the earth, effectively creating a sunscreen layer, which would cool earth by 0.5 C instantly. Pioneering science, which is still very much in experimental stages, but it could work. I couldn’t abstract any secondary consequences of this brilliant idea, but what comes to my mind is global acid rain. But the simplicity is this solution is ingenious. So why not fund these super-freaks?

So why the hysterical pandemonium by governments? Have they too been misinformed, misguided by scientists? Perhaps, perhaps not! Perhaps the real fear is that wealth will be shifted from West to East. By forcing developing countries to drastically reduce emitting carbon would inevitably result in stunted economic growth.