Bishop Hill Mixing science and economics
Sep 5, 2012 BBC Climate: WG2 Climate: other Roger Harrabin has written another piece on the cabinet reshuffle, this time managing to leaven the criticisms of the usual suspects with a few mentions of those who are pleased with the appointments of Owen Paterson and John Hayes.
Harrabin's analysis of a quote from Hayes was rather interesting:
"We face a major challenge to keep the lights on in the most cost-effective way. In achieving this, we must not be over-reliant on any one technology, but build a balanced low-carbon mix and make the best use of Britain's domestic energy resources and skilled workforce."
However, this could be interpreted as an ambiguous statement that could lead to a large increase in gas use.
Both ministers would face serious credibility problems among international colleagues if they reject majority climate science.
This seems to me to be a fairly appalling conflation of two separate issues: the scientific and economic sides of the AGW question. Science may be able to tell us if man is having an effect on the global climate, but it is economists who can tell us the best way to react, or indeed if we should react at all.
It's a bit of a worry that Roger Harrabin doesn't seem to have grasped this.
Reader Comments (54)
Mike: Nelson is correct in surmising that there is the potential (he mentions shale but other sensible environmental policies would contribute) to make Britain a greener place.
I worry about what that means, too. It would be harder to make Britain any greener. England is less than 2% 'built on' -- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096 -- but we're hearing a lot about how the green belt is being threatened by some of the coalition's plans. It looks more like we're being choked by it in many cases.
Ben
I remember many years ago when I was doing a bit of freelancing around the Edinburgh area having a discussion with the chief Planning Officer for East Lothian District Council (as then was) and he had some fairly trenchant things to say about the Edinburgh Green Belt which he described as "less of a belt, more of a corset".
But I'm a bit surprised that you are happy with Easton's definition of what is "built on". Certainly London's royal parks or Holyrood Park in Edinburgh or Newcastle's Town Moor are urban open spaces and vital ones at that but to exclude them from the definition of what is urban, which is what he would appear to be doing, strikes me as perverse. It's almost as if he is saying, "well, it's OK to build on these because 98% of England isn't built on so you'll not really be losing anything."
And to include gardens and canals and rivers in urban areas seems even more perverse. They are, in development parlance, sterilised; i.e. it's not possible to build on them and any contribution they make to improving urban life is minimal.
But I don't think Fraser Nelson was looking at "greening" in that sense. Since the jury is still out (or maybe has retired again!) on the subject of CO2 and global warming there is still the argument that reducing CO2 output is a worthwhile aim and shale gas will do that. The footprint of shale gas drilling and the consequent power stations is smaller by a considerable amount than that of the wind farms which would be the inevitable alternative, and they wouldn't do the job anyway, and it is the wealth we create that enables us to live in a way which allows to be environmentally aware in practice.
That is my understanding of Nelson's use of "greener". Though I may be wrong.
Mike - It's almost as if he is saying, "well, it's OK to build on these because 98% of England isn't built on so you'll not really be losing anything."
It's not saying that at all. The article points out that even when we take a much broader definition of 'urban' or developed, we still get a %age of the country which is surprisingly low -- and much lower in the case of Scotland. I drove up to Edinburgh from York a few times in recent years, and the overwhelming sense is that there is almost nothing between the two cities. Similarly, I have driven down to the Southwest from Oxford, this year, and though it is not quite as empty, it is nonetheless mostly nothing. We'd not really be losing anything -- or not much, anyhow -- if we doubled the physical footprint of all developments, gardens included. We'd be gaining something -- more space for people, including more green space, if it is important. Let's not confuse 'change' for 'loss'.
The more important of your points was about Nelson's intentions. You're right, it's not clear from his article what he means by 'green'. What I wanted to point out is some emerging anxiety about the green belt. For eg. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199564/Concreting-soul-England-We-Nimbys-save-countryside-bulldozer-says-Midsomer-Murders-writer-Anthony-Horowitz.html
Ben
As someone brought up in Northumberland and who lived for several decades just outside Edinburgh, I don't disagree with your assessment of how empty the UK really is — at least north of the Wash and south-west of Birmingham.
I also agree very much that it is long past time that we took a serious look at the footprint of housing development but if we are going to do that then we are going to need some very severe price controls on land prices. I am now living in a house on 1,000 square metres of land which cost me about £20k less than I got for my two-bed Wimpey semi on a plot a bit less than half that. Why? Very simply because house prices in France, at least outside the bigger towns and cities, have never been artificially inflated by land being sold as an investment. Why, again? Partly because per capita there is so much more of it and partly because the French simply don't look at it that way.
In our area it is the commune that has the land bank not the volume builder because there is no volume builder. As the commune decides to create a housing estate it sells the plots (1000 sq m is about normal) and you negotiate with your chosen builder for his off the shelf design — and there are enough local builders to ensure competition and avoid the regimentation which has been the curse of every British town fringe for the last half-century.
It seems to me that until the UK follows a similar course, cutting out the land banks that developers sit on for years (about 1000 houses in Midlothian's last Local Plan but one are only now coming to formal planning stage!), then cramped over-priced sub-standard developments will continue to be the norm.
I don't know how you do that; the UK has followed a different route.
I think I've wandered a bit off-topic here; you've given me a leg up onto one of my hobby horses, I'm afraid!