As a long term sceptic of the “anthropogenic climate change zeitgeist” I’ve been wondering what I could add to raising awareness of the absurdness of it all that hasn’t recently been written about online. Then I happened upon two events that gave me an idea of how to contribute: spell out an argument that perhaps even “lefties” might not shout down and that might help to further spread my incertitude. A long story follows and, if you want to skip to the nub of it all, then please scroll down to my last paragraph.
Long-term sceptic? Yes, I’ve been boring people on this subject for many years and I’m pleased to now see many thoughts similar to my own appear in forums such as this one. Of note though is that many people seem taken in by the theme. Some 12 years ago this surprised me as I thought the whole idea preposterous, and long before the advent of some of the more totally absurd elements such as shipping wood chips across the Atlantic to replace coal in power generation, giant flywheels to replace gas powered generators in preventing power surges, or the ideas of “15 minute zones” and the banning of the eating of meat. Back then I chanced upon one of my neighbours waiting with me in the local doctors’ surgery and we started talking about the subject of “global warming” as it was called back then I think. We both thought it was total hokum and swapped our various views on it to become aware of many unsympathetic stares and the feeling that we were a couple of pariahs. This genuinely surprised me but then I’ve always seen things in black and white, practical, terms as did my neighbour and this obviously set us apart.
The strength of support for what is now known as climate change is really quite staggering. Most recently I attended a village meeting about the prospect of 4,000 acres of solar farm being foisted upon the local area supplanting farmland, ruining idyllic views, destroying wildlife habitat and turning the area into a dystopian landscape with, no doubt, a proliferation of attendant spy cameras.
Here I had my second surprise. I had assumed the meeting would be to galvanise support to oppose the proposed development. How wrong I was. The meeting conveners made it clear it was a “meeting to inform” and intended to be neutral in terms of whether the development was to welcomed or not. I guess a handful of the 50 or so people in the room appeared less than pleased at the prospect but the majority turned out to be supportive. This was confirmed to me when a concerned lady spoke out against the development and was shouted down.
Then a man went to the front of the room to explain that development in this area “was necessary to be able to connect to the grid" and went into a lot of detail about what was to be done. Followed with a round of applause and cheering. I thought this chap was a representative of the developers but it turned out he was “just a concerned resident.” My flabber was ghasted as the saying goes.
I am now of the opinion that there can never be any full public debate on the subject as people not sharing the same opinion will not engage. In a full debate the points I would like discussed would be: does it actually exist (ergo where is the definitive proof); how will the inept strategies being put in place actually produce results (big subject – way too big to capture in parentheses); how are the gargantuan projects being embarked on affordable, and how will the UK removing 1% of worldwide emissions help the planet when well over 50% of emission come from countries not taking part. Good luck with arguing any of this, you’ll be shouted down before you finish a sentence I suspect.
Then came my eureka moment discussing my new oil boiler with the heating engineer during its first service (I bought a new oil boiler with a 10 year guarantee last year to pre-empt the mooted ban). We talked about how useless heat pumps are and what will be the subject of our discussions in 9 years time (will I be replacing another perfectly good oil boiler or will all the nonsense have subsided?). Electric cars were discussed too and the burning off of “renewable power” when there is no demand.
I mentioned that Toyota are developing a hydrogen powered car (as fuel cells appear too delicate for automotive use) and then it struck me. Net Zero is “politically led” but it should be “technology led” instead. How many would argue against LED light bulbs for example. They save a fortune in electricity and are now reliable and aesthetically pleasing too (unlike the early CFT bulbs). The argument about “why” goes away. The technology sells itself.
I think the way forward to argue is “Net Zero should be technology led”. I could see myself discussing this with the “man in the meeting” – how can we better your aims? Instead of burning off renewable power when there is no demand, split down sea water with it to power Toyota’s hydrogen cars [and make the buyers of the hydrogen pay for it rather than electricity consumers paying for power to be wasted].
Save the shipping emissions fuelling Drax with wood and the cost of giant flywheels, keep a handful of gas generators open with improved gas burning technology and use our own gas supplies saving the shipping emissions for that as well. Get inside their tent before you take a leak J