Morning:
3°c
Moments of political importance require
difficult choices.
On climate change, we have to make decisions about nuclear power, about the growth of wind farms and about how we can take the carbon out of our homes.
But as the world approaches the Copenhagen summit on climate change, we are hearing siren voices telling us there is an easy way to avoid these questions: voices that deny the problem, voices that say we cannot defeat it and voices that would downgrade expectations. We should ignore them all.
The people who want to deny or cast doubt on whether climate change is happening are the most dangerous. They want to tell people that we can stick our heads in the sand and the problem will go away.
Scientifically, they are the flat-earth brigade of the modern era. The scientific evidence from across the world shows we need to act.
Here in the UK, the Met Office, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Royal Society are just some of the world-renowned scientific bodies who are united in their view.
And yet people who are not scientists want to say they know better.
Who should we believe — Nigel Lawson, or the thousands of scientists who contributed to the IPCC study of 2007? One set of emails from the University of East Anglia does not undermine decades of climate science.
We must not let the sceptics pass off political opinion as scientific fact.
Those facts are clear. The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997, ice sheets are retreating so fast that in summer we can now sail the North West passage through the Arctic, and sea level rises are already threatening low-lying countries, from the Netherlands to Bangladesh.
Events in Cumbria give a foretaste of the kind of weather runaway climate change could bring.
Abroad, the melting of the Himalayan glaciers that feed the great rivers of South Asia could put hundreds of millions of people at risk of drought. Our security is at stake.
While Lord Lawson says we shouldn't take significant action because he questions whether the problem exists, there are others who say it's too late to act. They are defeatists.
But if we act with boldness, we can protect our way of life and prevent warming of more than two degrees, the point at which the most extreme effects of climate change kick in. That is one the key tasks for the Copenhagen conference.
Yes, there will be significant warming to which we — and developing countries in particular — will need to adapt.
Flood defences, action to secure water supplies and the like will all be vitally important.
But at Copenhagen we have the chance to turn around global emissions for the first time in our industrial history, tackling the cause of the problem, not just its symptoms.
Despite that, there are those who would downgrade Copenhagen. Let's keep negotiating and wait for a better moment to get a deal, they say. This, too, is dangerous stuff.
The world has set a deadline. That deadline is working. China, the United States, Brazil and Indonesia have all said in the last month what they will do to tackle the problem. They have
done so now because the pressure is working.
And we need action from all countries at Copenhagen if we are to turn around the growth in global emissions by 2020, which the science tells us we need to do.
That will require developed countries to reduce their emissions. The UK already has legislation to reduce our emissions by 34 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050.
We will be looking for similar steps from other developed countries. But it won't be enough if it is developed countries alone that act.
We would still end up facing dangerous climate change, since around 90 per cent of future emissions growth is likely to come from developing countries.
So we need actions from developing countries too and that will require progress on finance to support them to make those changes.
In attempting to get action from developed and developing countries to ensure that global emissions peak and decline, we are attempting at Copenhagen something never done before.
The previous treaty at Kyoto in 1997 was not ratified by the United States and did not require significant action on emissions from developing countries. So it is no wonder that global emissions have carried on rising.
The unprecedented nature of the challenge across the world may seem daunting. It will require difficult choices, including here at home as we transform our energy systems, our housing stock and our transport system.
Difficult it may be but just as we should be candid about the challenges, so we must not forget the potential benefits.
If the world sends a decisive signal at Copenhagen that it is shifting to low carbon, we can unleash a green revolution.
In electric cars, the manufacture of wind turbines and clean coal, this can mean jobs and export opportunities for Britain.
What's more, the low-carbon revolution can be good for energy security as well.
It is cultivating home-grown renewable energy that can limit our reliance on imported gas. We know that diverse energy supplies are the best guarantee of security in the modern world.
I'll be doing my best at Copenhagen, alongside the Prime Minister, to get an ambitious climate deal.
The degree of difficulty just isn't a good reason to deny the problem, concede defeat
or limit our expectations and hope something turns up. The science demands we act.
It can be done in a way that benefits our economy and it is imperative to fulfil our moral duty to future generations.
Reader views (18)
I'm of the mind that civilizations destruction of the environment is the number one problem we face. Slowing polulation growth and the direct destruction of our environments will do more than a new tax.
Having to work harder (and destroy more natural resources in the process) to pay a new tax to the same corrupt sociopathic ruling gangs leading our environmental destruction seems of dubious environmental value to me.
Ironic or more ignorance the use of the historic flat earth analogy. History showed the flat-earth brigade had a mistaken earth centric view of things. The sun was key.
- J Gordon, Vancouver Canada, 16/02/2010 18:38
Report abuse
I think it is sad that this "Global Warming" fanaticism has relegated common sense and investigative science to to the department of "deniers" "flat earth people" and are dismissed.
This is now a cult that denies questions and opposing argument. Dr David Suzuki stated emphatically "there nothing left to debate!"
The whole concept is based on a very questionable movie by Al Gore.
The 1000 scientist who "unanimously" agreed on this theory have never engaged themselves in any debate anywhere with anyone.
Global Warming is in the domain of religion. ...prayer will answer your questions...
CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas the "scientists" agree upon, But that is fluffed over, that human induced CO2 is less than 3% of added gasses is likewise ignored.
Science has no consensus that the planet is warming.
This subject is now devoid of any science and firmly in the hands of politicians.
I want to know just 2 things.. is the earth warming as a result of mans activities and if so can we really prevent it?
It beggars belief that the world population now entrust these people to give us the facts and truth! The same people that bilked the British public for expenses, and here in Canada could not get a few drops of H1N1 vaccine to the people without a monumental cock-up.
Perhaps all that is left is prayer.
- W.Palmer, Vancouver, Canada, 21/12/2009 21:06
Report abuse
This from a young man who has NEVER worked in a REAL JOB in his entire life...A sad reflection of our politics these days..It is astonishing he is a Cabinet minister! We are led by people who in the private sector without their address book would be on benefits!
- Tom, uk, 15/12/2009 16:14
Report abuse
Here's a suggestion for Ed - Carbon Emission Savings at Sellafield
Why not direct the hot water from the cooling ponds straight into the tea urns at Sellafield - this would make a bit of a saving on the nuclear plant's unmentionable and unmentioned gas bill of £30m every year ( Sellafield no longer produces electricity)
NOTE: 4 million gallons of fresh water are abstracted every day from Wastwater (Britain's Favourite view) for cooling the ferociously hot nuclear wastes.
- Marianne Birkby, Cumbria, 09/12/2009 22:35
Report abuse
Apparently those in the "developed" (marketed and financially hog-tied) world produce 10 - 50 times the dreaded carbon footprint of those in simpler societies.
OK, if true then we in the decadent west should be doing the most to reduce the impact we have on our planet.
Fine.
I noticed on the news reports that many many young ladies were amongst the crowds of cool "eco warriors" demonstrating, and I have no doubt they are there in the sincere belief that "something" must be done to save the planet.
Now given that we pollute more than third world countries, I would have the greatest respect for any of these women who pledge to do their bit for our tired old world, simply by not breeding more than one polluter each.
I’m sure if they signed that pledge then the rest of us consumers would feel a bit happier about escalating fuel prices, and tariffs for the trendy eco-cool politically fashionable techno garbage that are wind farm, `lectric cars and the like.
For I suspect that the only way to really save the world is to convince people NOT to overpopulate it.
The most eco friendly device on earth isn’t solar powered curling tongs, or dishwashers - it’s made of rubber and it’s called a condom - it stops two polluters becoming more polluters -
Use it.
- Darius, London UK, 07/12/2009 08:28
Report abuse
Ed and his warmist friends claim that CO2 is the cause of global warming because they have data which shows the globe getting warmer as CO2 in the atmosphere increases. However, they are unable to prove whether the CO2 causes the warming or is the result of warming. Also, they ignore the logical argument that urbanisation skews temperature upwards i.e. as cities grow, city thermometers pick up the increase but measurements are not taken from the rural areas which are losing people/industry to the cities and which have decreased temperatures.
- Doug Watt, london (EUSSR)14, 04/12/2009 16:32
Report abuse
Yes the climate is changing, but did we cause it NO, not now nor ten thousand years ago. This C02 scam is no more than political shenanigans by socialist governments to slowly and insidiously set up a world government. Brown and Obama have both recently spoken of world governance and that great bastion of democracy the EU have shown how easy it is to ride over the peoples wishes and crap on us from on high.
- Donb, Bromley, Kent, 04/12/2009 15:11
Report abuse
I don't know about John and Edward (Jedward) between David and Ed Milliband I think we have Deadwood!
- Sheila, London, 04/12/2009 14:56
Report abuse
"Climate change sceptics are today's flat-earth brigade" says cabinet member whose government have jettisoned single science subjects in favour of an unfailable micky mouse single-science joke qualification and reduced education standards so we now rank 24th in maths.
- Judith Bsc. Ma Phd, London, UK., 04/12/2009 14:04
Report abuse
This is a subject I care passionately about. We live in an
incredibly beautiful world. Of course the problem is complex and we depend on the advice of scientists.The problem was first identified many years ago and is far to0 important to ignore.
I find the blogs from critics deeply depressing.unfortunately they appear to be of a right-wing inclination.I intend to support the Conservatives at the next election. For my part, it is absolutely imperative that they make tackling global warming a main prioity.If they waiver on this issue, I may have to re-asses my intentions
- Bill Caplin, Camden, 04/12/2009 14:01
Report abuse
Ed, we're sceptical cos of you and Labour being fourth-raters. No other reason...
- Tom, St. Albans, 04/12/2009 12:41
Report abuse
The new anti-holocaust denial. Not allowed to criticise global warming even though in the past before man's contribution of CO2 one could grow vines for wine in York.
No one yet indicates man's CO2 proportion to natural emissions. Is it 25%, 50% or more. They daren't tell us.
- Edwin Underhill, beaconsfield, bucks, 04/12/2009 12:13
Report abuse
To address some of the issues raised by the Right Honourable Minister....
1. Climate change sceptics are today's flat-earth brigade - such a statement by The Right Honourable Ed Miliband is beneath the dignity of a member of parliament
2. One set of emails from the University of East Anglia does not undermine decades of climate science - I am afraid the The Right Honourable Minister is wrong, they do, these emails clearly show how decades of research has been distorted by the CRU at the UEA....not to mention the fact that the UEA has now claims to have "lost" this data.....it is proposed that The Right Honourable Minister should read these documents...as it obvious that he has not done so..
3. ice sheets are retreating - The Right Honourable Minister is clearly unaware that the Arctic summer ice has been increasing since 2007 and that the summer melt of Sep 2009 has recovered to the levels of 2005..
4. melting of the Himalayan glaciers- The Right Honourable Minister is wrong again. A report just published by the Geological Survey of India (22nd Nov, 2009) states that glaciers are not retreating and in fact some are actually growing...
5. the science tells us we need to do - The Right Honourable Minister surely by now realises that "the science" has been comprimised and that it behoves the government to institute an unbiased investigation into what is really going on, as it seems they are somewhat "at sea on these issues"
- Snowmaneasy, Forest Row, East Sussex, 04/12/2009 12:08
Report abuse
Give us some facts (not made up) and stop taxing us in the name of the planet when we know the money is being given to bankers and to pay for MPs expenses.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, the Scottish one, 04/12/2009 12:00
Report abuse
Milliband's attempt to make this a party political issue by attacking the tories is a perfect example of how this issue has become politicised. Until there is a climate (excuse the pun) where reasoned debate is allowed - rather than the current hysteria in which any scientist who questions the alarmist position is vilified as a 'denier' - then those pushing the agenda do not deserve to be listened to. Why are they so afraid of simple debate?
- Clive, Epsom, UK, 04/12/2009 11:17
Report abuse
Really Ed? Strange that we're not the ones who've been caught manipulating data to make it show what we want, conspiring to shut anyone with doubts out of the peer review process and illegally hide our raw data from freedom of information requests.
No, that was the top scientists behind the IPCC reports.
If it's all so cut and dried, why the need for cheating and lying?
Incidentally, you should research your "facts", starting with the one about the ten hottest years being since 1997.
- Kevin T, Beckenham, Kent, 04/12/2009 11:04
Report abuse
I prefer to think of us as modern day Martin Luther's (no not the American one) nailing our protest to the door of a Cathedral that houses a evil corrupted religion. For MMGW is just that. Still unproven it's just a cult/ religion. What is certain is that the Eco loons will begger us all to prevent what may (or may not) be a completely natural cycle.
Besides if I'm on the other side to Millibrain then that just convinces me more!
- Ethan, EUSSR, 04/12/2009 10:50
Report abuse
What's going on? An article on climate change and the "It's all Communism innit?" consipracy brigade haven't flooded the page with comments yet.
Having said that, there is a leading article on immigration today, so they are probably occupied at the moment.
- Liam, London, 04/12/2009 10:36
Report abuse
