"Climate campaigners should block road-building not HS2"

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

I find that the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) being in fourth place to be very surprising indeed and feel that the figures linked to may be misleading.
For example I note that Afghanistan is near the bottom of the list, I would expect that nation to be relatively green, not as a matter of policy but simply because most of the population are too poor to afford significant fossil fuel.

Whenever I log on to this forum I tell myself how fortunate I am to be among experts who are better informed than the likes of the Yale Centre for Environmental Law & Policy, Columbia University, The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, The UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre and numerous other World renowned Professors, academics and Research Fellows.

Truly I walk amongst giants   

I make no claim as to having knowledge superior to the various organisations listed above.
I do however feel that some reports are very carefuly produced and woded so as to give the impresion that things are splendid, when a simpler approach might show a less optimistic result.

The combustion of fossil fuels adds to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels which are generally accepted to be the cause of climate change.
Reduction in fossil fuel use is therefore of considerable importance, and the UK has a poor record in this respect.
Better therefore to produce a complex report that takes into account many other factors rather than just a simple amount of fossil fuel used. By giving sufficient emphasis to these other factors, a splendid result may be obtained.
"UK is in the TOP FOUR nations" so we can carry on flying and driving with little concern.

A simple assesment of fossil fuel used per capita is arguably of greater importance, but shows the UK in a very poor light, so best to concentrate on other factors.

So again I claim no superior knowledge, but I DO CLAIM a considerable degree of cynicism and common sense.
A diesel train will under most circumstances use less fuel per passenger per mile, than a car or an aircraft.
An electric train would be better still.
And we are encouraging flying and driving by reducing the costs thereof, whilst making rail travel ever more expensive.
And slowing the already slow progress of railway electrification.

[IndustryInsider]

I do however feel that some reports are very carefuly produced and woded so as to give the impresion that things are splendid, when a simpler approach might show a less optimistic result.

Better therefore to produce a complex report that takes into account many other factors rather than just a simple amount of fossil fuel used. By giving sufficient emphasis to these other factors, a splendid result may be obtained.
"UK^▸ (United Kingdom) is in the TOP FOUR nations" so we can carry on flying and driving with little concern.

It’s a report by a university in the US isn’t it?  Why would that show any bias to the UK?

[TaplowGreen]

Whenever I log on to this forum I tell myself how fortunate I am to be among experts who are better informed than the likes of the Yale Centre for Environmental Law & Policy, Columbia University, The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, The UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre and numerous other World renowned Professors, academics and Research Fellows.

Truly I walk amongst giants   

Once upon a time footballers, entertainers and politicians were the only people that others thought they could do a better job than them, and they were usually men propping up bars.

The internet has got a lot to answer for...

Reminds me of Cliff, the know-all Postman character in "Cheers" who was once outraged when someone shouted across the bar to him "Hey Cliff, there's a guy over here who says you know nothing about photosynthesis!" 

- what I find astounding at the moment, particularly if you have a look at social media, is just how many expert epidemiologists we have in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), who have only come forward since the advent of the coronavirus!

[broadgage]

I do however feel that some reports are very carefuly produced and woded so as to give the impresion that things are splendid, when a simpler approach might show a less optimistic result.

Better therefore to produce a complex report that takes into account many other factors rather than just a simple amount of fossil fuel used. By giving sufficient emphasis to these other factors, a splendid result may be obtained.
"UK^▸ (United Kingdom) is in the TOP FOUR nations" so we can carry on flying and driving with little concern.

It’s a report by a university in the US isn’t it?  Why would that show any bias to the UK?

I doubt that bias towards the UK was the aim.
More likely to be a bias towards developed western nations with a high fossil fuel consumption, and against "backward" or "developing" nations that have yet to fully adopt the western way of life.

Possibly funded by the Heartland institute, an American based pro fossil fuel lobbying group.

[ellendune]

Whenever I log on to this forum I tell myself how fortunate I am to be among experts who are better informed than the likes of the Yale Centre for Environmental Law & Policy, Columbia University, The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, The UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre and numerous other World renowned Professors, academics and Research Fellows.

Truly I walk amongst giants   

I make no such claim. I merely looked into the detail provided by these experts that lies behind the bold headline.   It lists 32 indicators under 11 sub headings and 2 main headings. The headline depends on how you weight these individual figures.

So for example we are ranked 6 for biodiversity, but within that we are ranked 1st for marine protected areas despite recent reports that although we have designated some they are not adequately protected from damage by bottom trawling.  More concerning is that we are ranked 143rd for biodiversity habitat index and 43rd for species habitat index.

For eco-system services we are ranked 115th and for fisheries 109th (seems to question the effectiveness of marine protected areas I mentioned above).

For climate change we are ranked yet most of the indicators we do well on there are growth rates and trends, the actual measures of contribution to climate change we rank very poorly at 124th and 125th and 44th.

On agriculture we  are ranked 37th but there is only one indicator and that is on sustainable nitrogen management yet there is great concern over the impact of soil erosion and over sustainable phosphate management which are not covered by these indexes.

Under water resources we are ranked 6th but its only measure, perversely is wastewater treatment about which we do well, despite only 14% of our river reaching a "Good" status and no mention of the severe impact on the environment from over-abstraction of water particularly in the south east of England where on the measure annual rainfall per head of population the region is on a par with arid countries like Portugal and Israel.  

And no I am not a professor, but I have worked for an environmental consultancy for over 30 years and I have a professional environmental management qualification (CEnv).  I also have enough experience of working with professors (including one of the organisations Taplow Green listed) to know that some do need calling out!

In summary what I say is that the numbers all these academics use to build a picture do not support the headline of UK^▸ (United Kingdom) ranked 4th.

 

[broadgage]

Could not have put it better myself.

[TaplowGreen]

Whenever I log on to this forum I tell myself how fortunate I am to be among experts who are better informed than the likes of the Yale Centre for Environmental Law & Policy, Columbia University, The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, The UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre and numerous other World renowned Professors, academics and Research Fellows.

Truly I walk amongst giants   

I make no such claim. I merely looked into the detail provided by these experts that lies behind the bold headline.   It lists 32 indicators under 11 sub headings and 2 main headings. The headline depends on how you weight these individual figures.

So for example we are ranked 6 for biodiversity, but within that we are ranked 1st for marine protected areas despite recent reports that although we have designated some they are not adequately protected from damage by bottom trawling.  More concerning is that we are ranked 143rd for biodiversity habitat index and 43rd for species habitat index.

For eco-system services we are ranked 115th and for fisheries 109th (seems to question the effectiveness of marine protected areas I mentioned above).

For climate change we are ranked yet most of the indicators we do well on there are growth rates and trends, the actual measures of contribution to climate change we rank very poorly at 124th and 125th and 44th.

On agriculture we  are ranked 37th but there is only one indicator and that is on sustainable nitrogen management yet there is great concern over the impact of soil erosion and over sustainable phosphate management which are not covered by these indexes.

Under water resources we are ranked 6th but its only measure, perversely is wastewater treatment about which we do well, despite only 14% of our river reaching a "Good" status and no mention of the severe impact on the environment from over-abstraction of water particularly in the south east of England where on the measure annual rainfall per head of population the region is on a par with arid countries like Portugal and Israel.  

And no I am not a professor, but I have worked for an environmental consultancy for over 30 years and I have a professional environmental management qualification (CEnv).  I also have enough experience of working with professors (including one of the organisations Taplow Green listed) to know that some do need calling out!

In summary what I say is that the numbers all these academics use to build a picture do not support the headline of UK^▸ (United Kingdom) ranked 4th.

 

Succinctly, your opinion, narrative and interpretation differs from the findings and conclusions of the Environmental Performance Index, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I am sure those who compiled it expected to receive some dissent.

Given the subject, it would be a rather odd publication if it didn't.

[4064ReadingAbbey]

The combustion of fossil fuels adds to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels which are generally accepted to be the a cause of climate change.

A minor correction...

Not all causes of the changes in climate are man made, there are also many possible naturally occurring mechanisms for climate change which have been discussed, analysed and debated in many places. For example other influences are the Earth's elliptical motion around the Sun not being regular resulting in small long term changes in the incoming radiation levels (Milankovitch cycles) and the last ice age only ended some 10,000 years ago and we are now in an interglacial period. Scientific evidence shows that the Earth's surface temperature has varied dramatically over the last several million years without any human input from the burning of fossil fuels.

None of this should be taken as meaning that I think that man-made climate change is all malarkey - Alexander von Humboldt suggested that burning stuff would create a greenhouse effect in the early 19th century and history has proven him correct. What I do find annoying are the suggestions that it is only man-made and therefore it is our fault - for me the holy Greta comes across as a medieval prophetess - and that wearing a hair shirt will somehow make it better.

Of course we should be emitting lower levels of carbon dioxide - but one should be clear that even if the quantity could be reduced to zero and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere reduced to pre-Industrial Revolution levels it is still entirely likely that the Earth would continue to warm up. And then cool again. It always has done so in the past.

[TonyK]

Whenever I log on to this forum I tell myself how fortunate I am to be among experts who are better informed than the likes of the Yale Centre for Environmental Law & Policy, Columbia University, The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, The UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre and numerous other World renowned Professors, academics and Research Fellows.

Truly I walk amongst giants   

I doubt that bias towards the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) was the aim.
More likely to be a bias towards developed western nations with a high fossil fuel consumption, and against "backward" or "developing" nations that have yet to fully adopt the western way of life.

Possibly funded by the Heartland institute, an American based pro fossil fuel lobbying group.

Which demonstrates why I said we need a real forensic examinations of all the claims and counterclaims. There are many universities with many students, ready to solve the many problems of the world with scholarship and science. A lot of these seats of learning are funded by outside organisations, giving rise to bias towards certain ideas which are then taught to others. It used to be oil and gas at one time, but not any more.

There are certain issues in which it is not helpful to one's career to go against the perceived orthodoxy. Nuclear energy is slowly gaining ground again, but for a long time it was out of favour, so not funded or researched. Climate change generally is accepted by all but a hardcore of refuseniks, which was not the case a couple of decades back. The argument now is what to do about it, and where to spend the money. I have my own ideas, shared by some and not by others, which have changed over the years. That doesn't make me a scientist, just a fascinated observer enjoying a public debate. And as I pointed out, with the modesty for which I am greatly admired and respected, I might be wrong.

[ellendune]

The combustion of fossil fuels adds to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels which are generally accepted to be the a cause of climate change.

A minor correction...

Not all causes of the changes in climate are man made, there are also many possible naturally occurring mechanisms for climate change which have been discussed, analysed and debated in many places. For example other influences are the Earth's elliptical motion around the Sun not being regular resulting in small long term changes in the incoming radiation levels (Milankovitch cycles) and the last ice age only ended some 10,000 years ago and we are now in an interglacial period. Scientific evidence shows that the Earth's surface temperature has varied dramatically over the last several million years without any human input from the burning of fossil fuels.

None of this should be taken as meaning that I think that man-made climate change is all malarkey - Alexander von Humboldt suggested that burning stuff would create a greenhouse effect in the early 19th century and history has proven him correct. What I do find annoying are the suggestions that it is only man-made and therefore it is our fault - for me the holy Greta comes across as a medieval prophetess - and that wearing a hair shirt will somehow make it better.

Of course we should be emitting lower levels of carbon dioxide - but one should be clear that even if the quantity could be reduced to zero and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere reduced to pre-Industrial Revolution levels it is still entirely likely that the Earth would continue to warm up. And then cool again. It always has done so in the past.

You are of course right that man-made emissions is not the only cause.  Its just that it seems to be the largest single factor by a long way.  So your contention that we do not need to "wear a hair shirt" as you put it is flawed. 

The cost to our economy of climate change is already immense and we have no choice but to pay that, but we have to chose to pay the money to reduce carbon which will save us (and more particularly our descendants) far more in the future. 

[mjones]

. What I do find annoying are the suggestions that it is only man-made and therefore it is our fault - for me the holy Greta comes across as a medieval prophetess - and that wearing a hair shirt will somehow make it better.

Who has claimed that man-made emissions are the only cause?

And why do you think it is ok to make rather snide personal comments about one particular individual?

[mjones]

For climate change we are ranked yet most of the indicators we do well on there are growth rates and trends, the actual measures of contribution to climate change we rank very poorly at 124th and 125th and 44th.
 

Quite. The point that is being missed is that Britain looks good on percentage reductions,  because we started with a high baseline, with electricity mostly generated by coal, and lots of energy intensive industries, fed by coal. So it isn't surprising that we can achieve large percentage reductions by offshoring manufacturing and shifting electricity production to gas. For countries that have a larger contribution from nuclear and hydro, they were already starting from a lower baseline,  so further reductions are harder to  make. As you point out, emissions per capita are the better indicator of our actual impact.

[IndustryInsider]

It’s a report by a university in the US isn’t it?  Why would that show any bias to the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)?

I doubt that bias towards the UK was the aim.
More likely to be a bias towards developed western nations with a high fossil fuel consumption, and against "backward" or "developing" nations that have yet to fully adopt the western way of life.

Oh, I see.  If that’s the case I’m surprised they didn’t manage to find a way of bumping up the US from its lowly position of 24th!

Anyway, not to worry, ellendune has managed to explain very well, to those like myself who know little about the subject, how 4th place for the UK that TG highlighted might translate into very little in reality.

[Bmblbzzz]

I do however feel that some reports are very carefuly produced and woded so as to give the impresion that things are splendid, when a simpler approach might show a less optimistic result.

Better therefore to produce a complex report that takes into account many other factors rather than just a simple amount of fossil fuel used. By giving sufficient emphasis to these other factors, a splendid result may be obtained.
"UK^▸ (United Kingdom) is in the TOP FOUR nations" so we can carry on flying and driving with little concern.

It’s a report by a university in the US isn’t it?  Why would that show any bias to the UK?

I doubt that bias towards the UK was the aim.
More likely to be a bias towards developed western nations with a high fossil fuel consumption, and against "backward" or "developing" nations that have yet to fully adopt the western way of life.

Possibly funded by the Heartland institute, an American based pro fossil fuel lobbying group.

Quite likely not a deliberate or even conscious bias but simply the result of selecting those criteria which seem to matter most from the perspective of Western nations.

[4064ReadingAbbey]

. What I do find annoying are the suggestions that it is only man-made and therefore it is our fault - for me the holy Greta comes across as a medieval prophetess - and that wearing a hair shirt will somehow make it better.

Who has claimed that man-made emissions are the only cause?

And why do you think it is ok to make rather snide personal comments about one particular individual?

The quote I changed stated that carbon emissions were THE cause of climate change.

I made no personal comments.