Bishop Hill SciTech committee looks at public attitudes
Feb 28, 2013 Climate: Parliament The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has just launched a new inquiry:
In July 2011, the Foresight programme’s report into the International Dimensions of Climate Change stated:
Recent polling suggests that scepticism about climate change has increased, alongside diminished concern for its effects. In 2006, 81% of surveyed UK citizens were fairly or very concerns about climate change compared with 76% in 2009 in an identical tracking survey.
Foresight cautions that “should scepticism continue to increase, democratic governments are likely to find it harder to convince voters to support costly environmental policies aimed at mitigation of, or adaptation to, climate change.”
The Science and Technology Select Committee considered issues of public trust and risk communication in its report “Devil’s bargain? Energy risks and the public” earlier this year. The Committee concluded that “more could be done to improve risk communication of scientific matters in the media”.
The Committee has agreed to hold an inquiry into what the public understand about climate, where people look for their information and how that may impact climate change policy and seeks written submissions on the following matters:
- What is the current state of public understanding of what is meant by climate change? How has this changed in recent years?
- Which voices are trusted in public discourse on climate science and policy? What role should Government Departments, scientific advisers to Government and publicly funded scientists have in communicating climate science?
- How could public understanding of what is meant by climate change be improved? What are the main barriers to this? Does the media have a positive role to play?
- How important is public understanding in developing effective climate change policy?
- What evidence is there that public attitude to climate science affects their engagement with energy policies or initiatives?
- Does the Government have sufficient expertise in social and behavioural sciences to understand the relationship between public understanding of climate science and the feasibility of relevant public policies?
- Can lessons about public engagement with climate change policy be learned from other countries?
Details on how to submit evidence here.
Reader Comments (59)
@Feb 28, 2013 at 9:28 PM | Green Sand
"One of the issues that has concerned me for awhile is how does the UK Government carry out its responsibilities with regard to due diligence on this subject?..."
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
There can be no doubt that HMG do not apply due diligence to their decision making. If they did, the windfarm project would never have got off the ground and/or would immediately have been halted in its tracks following the experience of the winter of 2010.
Windfarms are not being rolled out because they are a more efficient form of energy generation compared to say coal or gas fired generation. They are not being rolled out because they are a more reliable form of energy generation compared to say coal or gas fired generation. They are not being rolled out because they are capable of providing base load capacity, still less that they are better at providing base load capacity than either coal or gas fired energy generation.
So why are windfarms being rolled out? Is it to reduce the rise in global temperatures? If so to what extent will UK windfarm energy generation reduce (or keep in check) global temperatures? If I recall there was some research on this and it was suggested perhaps about 1/100th of a degree! So applying due diligence, can windfarms be justified on that basis? I would say obviously not.
Are windfarms being rolled out because they reduce CO2 emissions. Well there is absolutely no evidence that they achieve any significant reduction in CO2 emissions. Given that they need 100% back up which often runs in less efficient mode thereby producing more CO2 than the back up would produce if that back up was not employed as backup but instead employed as primary generation, it is difficult to see how windfarms can reduce CO2. This is so, even before considering the CO2 emissions in their manufacture, transportation to site and erection etc. So applying due diligence, can windfarms be justified on that basis? I would say obviously not.
I seem to recall that there is evidence that not one single conventional power generation station any where in the world has been closed down as a result of a windfarm being built to replace it. Since not a single conventional power station has been rendered redundant by the errection of windfarms, can their use be justified on the basis that they render conventional power generation redundant? So applying due diligence, can windfarms be justified on that basis? I would say obviously not.
Now turn to the experience of the winter of 2010. The UK had a 1 in a hundred year bad winter (irronically following on from a 1 in 30 year bad winter the year before) when a blocking high brough severe cold temperatures and snow. These conditions were experienced for more than a month, may be 6 weeks. During this time, there was little wind.
I monitored the contribution that wind made to the UK energy requirements during that period. For the maun part, wind was producing between1 and 3% of nameplate/installed capacity. Not 3% of total UK energy demand but rather just 3% of the more than 4GW of installed capacity. On a few days it reached 8% of nameplate/installed capacity.
What would have been the position had wind been responsible for producing 30% of UK energy requirement (ie., about 16 to 17GW) which is the longterm goal. Well the UK would have been in serious trouble since during the period of that blocking high, wind would only have been producing about 0.34GW (ie., 2% of nameplate/installed capacity). It is obvious that there would have had to have been energy rationing with rolling blackouts perhaps of between 6 to 12 hours a day (depending upon whether priority was given to hospitals and other essential instalations). How many people would have died because they were unable to heat their homes (even oil and GCH will not work when there are power cuts since electrity is used for ignition and powering the circulating pump etc). The number of deaths (particularly of the lederly) would have been horrendous.
Could there have been mass evacuation to sports halls and the like. Probably not since in many areas the roads were impassable because local government had insufficient supplies of salt and more significantly snow ploughs and the like. The entire situation would have been a nightmare.
The eperience of the winter of 2010 would if anyone was applying due diligence have brought home how unsatisfactory wind is for any significant proportion of UK energy supply. Of course the winter of 2010 was said to be a 1 in a hundred year event, However, the winter before was also sever being said to be a 1 in 30 year event. No matter about the statistics, the point is that using due diligence one can not have an energy policy which exposes a sizeable proportion of the country's citizens to a premature death even if the circumstances that give rise to this may be a 1 in 30 year or even a 1 in one hundred year event.
If the UK government was applying due diligence to its policies, following the experience of the winter of 2010, the further run out of windfarms would have been halted in their track and other more reliable (and secure) forms of energy generation would instead be commissioned.
Well i was going to submit a written answer to the committee but i don't know enough one syllable words
Feb 28, 2013 at 9:42 PM | dave38
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I really liked that. Many a true word is said in jest.
I absolutely despair of this government.
Why is it that they are 'concerned' that voters are becoming 'less concerned' about climate change..? Is this along the same lines as (was it Phil Jones who said:) 'The lack of warming is worrying'..?
Do you suspect that nice tax routes are looking less secure..?
Is it (as has been aired above) that the necessary hobgoblins are not looking so scary..?
Is it EVEN that the arguments of the likes of us, are starting to have some effect..??
P.S. Look out for Sunday (3rd) - according to the Met Office pressure forecast charts (I know - but let's give them the benefit of the doubt) - there's going to be a stonking circle of high pressure sitting right over these Sceptered Isles... Watch out for not much wind...
Soon or late what we need is a large number of uncoordinated responses. We also will need an actual oral witness, but how to achieve that I know not. Somebody who knows the score and has a claim to authority. I presume the GWPF will produce an institutional response with a possibility of getting into the room. Is that enough or should we do more?
rhoda
Normally, that would have to be someone representing a properly constituted organisation, something which has often been discussed here and rejected.I’ll be stating in my evidence that there is great confusion among social scientists who study the subject about who sceptics are and what they believe, and that if they call witnesses from the social science community who are activists like Marshall and Corner, they should also call someone to represent the UK sceptic community. That can only be Andrew Montford, in my opinion, but would he be willing? If he’d let himself be elected president of something or other it would probably be easier to argue.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it was pointed out how unjust it was that Steve McIntyre wasn’t invited to the Climategate Inquiry, and the excuse given was that there wasn’t time, because of the forthcoming election. If I’m right there, that would at least establish the principle that the objects of enquiry (us) have a right to be heard.
A change in attitude towards wind turbines may be part of what caused a hatchery "across the pond" on Cape Cod to give up a 3 year battle to gain the right to erect a wind turbine on their own property, to lower energy costs. The judge hadn't yet handed down his ruling, but it looked to me like the hatchery would win. Then they just said, "Never mind." I wish I knew more about their reasoning.
http://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/struggling-arc-hatchery-drops-plans-for-wind-turbine/
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
A rant:
People who complain about and make representations to the Science and Technology Committee tilt against the wrong windmill. I doubt anybody in the corridors of power would rate a place there. Its members do what they think their masters in the Cabinet want in the hope of personal advantage - a ministerial job etc - and for the moment, the perception that committee members have of what is required from them is, no doubt, right.
Because for the time being, it seems Government is not yet ready to go through the hoops of changing energy policy. Firstly, they are plain afraid of the heavy guns of Greenpeace and the like who clearly know how to damage an opponent and always have funds available to execute their threats. And then there is the ever-present political flack that assails governments that perform U-turns.
Rational arguments will not do the trick. The committee would only be interested were such an argument to support their efforts to please their masters, and to most members of the Cabinet, they are an irrelevance compared with arguments that impact the over-riding importance of keeping a seat at the table. Actual requirements are for arguments, subterfuges, tricks and the like that have political impact, probably personal (like a good sex scandal for instance): perhaps not matters about which contributors here would claim expertise. And, of course, a good deal by the law of unexpected consequences.
And you should not expect too much -there is a great deal of inertia in the political system. None of these characters is going to step out of line - that would require initiative, leadership even. But none of them will rate as a leader in any future history book - the last one we had was Blair, like him or not, he stood out like a beacon (come hither and join the crusade) or lighthouse (beware the rocks that circle me) against the greyness of the UK body politic of his time. The real leaders that society needs are now lost to us: swept up into the Green cause by the powerful rhetoric of emotion and guilt in the face of which our ability to think straight crumbles. Or into business - Branson, Jobs? - where being rich is the badge of success and not of a well concealed scam and in the short term at least you can be as famous as most politicians.
So political and not rational technical arguments must be directed to those at Cabinet level, or, here's a thought, at UKIP who alone seem to be acquiring the ability to frighten the boys there into thinking properly. (Are they on board the good ship 'Skeptic'?)
IMHO
avuncular ranter
Your pessimism is bracing and necessary as a cold shower, but not entirely justified.
Graham Stringer, the only proper scientist on the committee, I think, went so far out of line as to publish a minority opinion on the climategate hearings. This must at least have given the majority a few uncomfortable seconds.
There are dissenting voices in the government. A bunch of well-argued evidence buries away in an appendix to a committee report might just come to the notice of someone. Then, the day an M.P. puts his head above the parapet and says: “Windmills aren’t working. My constituents are revolting”, we can write to him and say: “As we pointed out in our evidence to the parliamentary committee...” He sends his researcher down to the Library, and the M.P. can stand up in the House and say: “Is the Minister not aware that public concern was being voiced to the parliamentary committee as early as...”
It’s an elaborate game, but it doesn’t seem to me to beyond the intellectual capacities of people here. It’s no more complicated than chess or go, for goodness sake.
(Sometimes I feel this aged anarchist ranter is the only person left who believes in parliamentary democracy)
Science & Technology Committee may be encouraged by
http://explosivereports.com/2013/02/15/ecologists-urge-government-to-move-beyond-existent-levels-of-public-permission/
Find out what the public say and then 'move beyond existent levels of public permission'...