An especially useful support for my 'current climate policy is pointless' argument is afforded by this article by Professor Michael Kelly. In it he demonstrates, in careful detail, the impracticability of much of Britain's current decarbonisation programme. Regarding the global context, he says:

The European lead in decarbonisation is penalising the European economy, while China and India pursue progress with the rapid expansion of coal-fired electricity. By the time the developing countries agree to a low-carbon economy, the developed countries should have mature and economic alternatives to fossil fuel technologies available for rapid global deployment. We are not there yet, and based on what is in the pipeline, we will certainly not be there before 2030.

In my view, the evidence is that the developing countries are anyway unlikely to be ready to agree to a low carbon economy by 2030.

The solitary lemming

The Observer this morning reports that Ed Davey is once again making the embarrassing assertion that Britain must lead the international battle against global warming:

"Not to lead is deeply irresponsible. If you don't lead, you will not bring others with you."

Why is it that LibDems and other greenies continue to embrace a position that, as I said a few days ago, smacks of an outdated, neocolonial, 'White Man's Burden' view of the world? Do they really think that, for example, China and India - whom we exploited and looked down on for hundreds of years - care a jot about what Britain does?

He went on to claim that

there was also reason to feel "more hopeful" than ever about the UN's global negotiations towards a 2015 treaty to reduce the impacts of climate change, a treaty he said would rank alongside the greatest in history.

Such a view doesn't remotely reflect the reality of current international negotiations: don't his advisers keep him informed about developments or is he unable to come to terms with reality?

And Rowan Williams, the erstwhile Archbishop of Canterbury (watch your step BH!), is also at it today: it's all down to 'Western lifestyles ... pushing the environment towards crisis':

We have heard for years the predictions that the uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels will lead to an accelerated warming of the Earth. What is now happening indicates that these predictions are coming true.

Er ... 'accelerated warming'? I don't think that's quite right.

Rich, industrialised countries, including our own, have unquestionably contributed most to atmospheric pollution. Both our present lifestyle and the industrial history of how we created such possibilities for ourselves have to bear the responsibility for pushing the environment in which we live towards crisis.

Er ... 'unquestionably'? But the developing world is responsible for 67% of current emissions (LINK) and China's per capita emissions are the same as the EU's: LINK. And, in particular, the developing world is responsible for at least 50% of emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution: LINK.

It rather seems that determining responsibility may be quite difficult - even for a mighty brain such as Williams's.

PS: I'm not so sure, Richard, that you're right about that sad lemming.

Well I've done some research, Richard, and it seems I have to do a humiliating climbdown. In our email exchange, you mentioned 'the first lemming over the cliff' and I responded how the poor lemming would look back and '... oh no, the other lemmings are not following.' Then you observed 'yep, the solitary lemming.' My feeble response was: 'the solitary lemming - falling to his doom all by himself. That's so sad.'

BTW you added:

That's surely one for Josh.

I agree: are you listening, Josh?

Fame at last

"Pushing at an open door"? Maybe, but there are some powerful people pushing back. For example, IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri - LINK. An extract:

Scope for such adaptations will diminish if warming continues, however, meaning it was a mistake to portray them as alternatives, said Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC.

“Adaption alone is not going to solve to the problem and we need mitigation at the global level,” he said.

“The sooner you start mitigating the easier it is to adapt. Clearly we could get closer and closer to tipping points and thresholds which would make adaptation totally impossible beyond that stage.”

It's interesting that he thinks we "could get closer" to tipping points. I wonder if this is the same Rajendra Pachauri who, in 2007 (LINK), said:

“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

This whole thing is farcical: what Ban Ki-moon's was saying in 2007 (see above NYT article) is almost identical to what he's saying today. And I daresay to what his successor will be saying in 2021.

“Are you listening, Josh?” (See above Mar 30 at 5.01 PM.P)

He was!

Me too, Paul. (Currently "in moderation".)

My comment has survived moderation and an interesting discussion has ensued - including Latimer Alder of this parish.

Some may be interested in a detailed and interesting debate on the US warmist site Earth in Brackets.

A useful precedent: it seems Noah was a "climate adaptationist".

Paul Homewood and Jo Nova both refer to this article by Ian O'Doherty in the (Irish) Independent. It's about the UN, its latest climate report and, in particular, about how Mary Robinson ("Ireland's very own UN big cheese") is able to "wibble meaninglessly" about it - especially about how emissions have grown in the last decade. Having noted that the reason for this is the massive industrialisation of "emerging countries and superpowers such as India and China" he concludes:

Someone like Robinson and her idiot followers can change to as many crap light bulbs, or buy as many bad cars, as they want. And Robbo can continue to fly around the world and further engorge her carbon footprint wagging her fingers at gullible, guilt ridden Westerners all she wants. But one uncomfortable fact remains – the people who matter in all this couldn't give a toss what Robinson or Al Gore or Duncan Stewart have to say. [My emphasis]

Because the only way to drag your people out of poverty and starvation is industrialisation – of food, of the economy, of the way they live their lives.

Increased living standards and life expectancy comes through industrialisation and with that comes pollution and with pollution comes emissions – which is making poor Mammy Earth feel unwell.

So what do you want? Clean air or dead babies?

That China, India etc. "couldn't give a toss" is precisely why the UK's climate policy is pointless. But O'Doherty puts it far more eloquently than I.

Of course you're right, Mike. By "clean air" I'm sure O'Doherty is referring to green allegations that GHG emissions cause atmospheric "pollution". The reality that industrialisation can overcome the real baby killing pollution resulting from, for example, cooking over wood and dung is, I believe, well established. As for reducing the burden on the earth by making every one better off see this and especially this.

My point, however, is to highlight the absurdity of the likes of Robinson running around trying to persuade people in the comfortable West that "we" are all doomed unless "we" take action (that will damage our economies) when countries responsible for about 70% of emissions "couldn't give a toss".

Thanks, Hilary - great stuff. I hadn't heard of The Elders (what a wonderful name!) before. (One thing puzzles me: why isn't Tony Blair one of their number? Perhaps the group is too altruistic for him.)

I see that three of this distinguished group (Mary Robinson, Jimmy Carter and Hina Jilani) are hosting a debate - How can we make sure world leaders take the bold action needed to tackle climate change – and what can young people do to spark political momentum? - and it's today. We're invited to send in our questions: either by a post on their website or by Twitter. But hurry: there are only a few hours left (check out the handy count-down clock). Hmm - there's possibly a problem: so far there are no questions on the website nor, so far as I can see, on Twitter.

I saw the live broadcast of The Elders debate (see above) - or as much as I could take. It was a splendid exercise in waffly wibble (or wibbly waffle). As invited, I posted a question. Here it is (recreated from my notes):

There’s a major dilemma at the heart of the climate change issue – see below. How do The Elders think that dilemma might be resolved? And how might young people in particular contribute to that resolution?

The dilemma was formalised in 1994 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) when the world was divided into two blocs: Annex I countries (essentially the developed world) and Non-Annex I countries (essentially the undeveloped world, OPEC members and developing economies). Under the Kyoto Protocol (1997) the former were committed to stabilising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The latter were not.

The Annex I / Non-Annex I distinction made sense when the latter were essentially poor – regarded as the “Third World” or the “South”. But today the category (which includes major economies such as China, India, South Korea, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Iran) has become increasingly powerful: in 2012 responsible for 67% of global GHG emissions. But they have resolutely refused to amend the distinction. As a result, from the 2009 climate conference in Copenhagen onwards, Non-Annex I countries have been clear they would not accept binding obligations to reduce emissions – for example at the UN climate conference in Warsaw last year and the recent working group meeting in Bonn. There’s no current prospect that this will change in time for next year’s “make or break” Paris conference: thus it’s almost certain that a binding global deal then is unachievable.

It might be tempting to criticise the most powerful Non-Annex I countries for their intransigence. But that would be misplaced. These countries are understandably anxious to improve the condition of their very poor – especially when, according to current research, an increase in GHG emissions is recognised as a pathway to improved human well-being. Thus China (now responsible for over 27% of global emissions – more than the US and EU combined) has in the last 30 years, because of the availability of affordable, reliable electric power derived from fossil fuels (mainly coal), lifted over 600 million people out of poverty. That’s an astonishing achievement, having a major beneficial impact on human rights and dignity. With renewables (mainly hydro) making only a small contribution to its energy mix, China sees no reason to change its policy. So it’s rather puzzling that President Carter sees it as a potential leader.

To expand on my initial question: do The Elders think the Annex I / Non-Annex I dilemma might be resolved? Can – or indeed should – Non-Annex I countries be persuaded to change their minds? And, if they don't, what might be the consequences?

It disappeared into "moderation by The Elders". And didn't return. Hmm ...

PS 1: I added the bit about "major beneficial impact on human rights and dignity" when Hina Jilani was making her opening comments. I was proud of that. (And of course it's true.)

PS 2: Carter made one interesting comment. Asked if he could identify one country that provided a good example of how to respond to the crisis, he said he couldn't think of one. He added that at one time he thought the EU might be that example - but now even they seemed to be backing away.