Unjoining CO2, climate and ecocide

The media often mention that the conservative side of climate change politics is generously funded by corporations. There is the implicit assumption that the corporations are immoral because of their primary allegiance to market fundamentalism, but precisely how much money is actually spent by them is not clear. Yet it must also be undeniable that the alarmist side of the anthropogenic climate debate, World Wildlife Foundation, Greenpeace, the United Nations IPCC, COP21, etc are also extremely well funded.

Cross-subsidies abound. The largest energy multinationals are heavily invested in renewables. Consequently, the largest energy corporations are major beneficiaries of these government (= taxpayer) subsidies.

Money buys influence with scientists because their careers are dependent on stable funding. If the funding is not regular then the scientists and their staff are out of a job. Unfortunately nearly all the funding from government, business and charities, is irregular. Few scientists have tenure. Scientists need to frame their research carefully to be competitive in the grants application game, where funding is uneven and political.Many funding applications for individual research projects, and in many instances whole programs and large scientific institutions, tap into the dollars that flow with the mantra of alarmist catastrophic climate change.

Last December, it was agreed (although not mandated) in Paris that developed nations should transfer $100 billion annually to developing countries for climate change mitigation. If this COP21 agreement is ratified then it will surely divert resources from traditional foreign aid, social services, health, and education. It logically has to be thus, given that the allocation of government budgets is generally highly contested. However, some have argued otherwise. Senator John Kerry spruiked that the $100 billion annual spend would be the greatest economic opportunity (one must ask for whom) of all time! The developing countries that happen to have manufacturing facilities for first and second world consumer brands, such as India Brazil and China, could be beneficiaries of this COP21 agreement.

My contentions are not just academic. Climate has always changed. Climate does this for many reasons, which have not been discussed in this article. The IPCC has focused on human-induced climate change and more particularly CO2, but there is a disconnect between empirical measurements and its alarmist modeling. This is not to deny that CO2 is increasing and that human activity is contributing, but the wrongful demonisation of CO2 has resulted in opportunity costs and negative impacts. These arguably have led and will continue to lead to national and global economically unproductive pursuits. Furthermore, the diversion of vast amounts of scarce government money undermines more purposefully directed efforts to minimise man's heavy footprint on the Earth.

It goes without saying that we should become less reliant on fossil fuels. However, the pace of change should not be forced in ways that impoverish nations. Fossil fuels remain necessary for the immediate energy requirements to release people from poverty in much of the developing world. They remain necessary for daily life in the developed world.In this regard, it must be acknowledged that there are some absolute constraints on the feasibility of many renewable energy sources – constraints that relate to energy density, and energy balance - the energy required to make and maintain them versus the energy that they can deliver over their lifetime.

Good policy is the art of combining the possible with the important. The degradation of the Earth due to human activity can and should be unjoined from climate and CO2. Solutions should not be centred around CO2 alone.

The following suggestions list some practical down-to-earth solutions, which hopefully are not controversial.

Spending money on renewable energy research (versus subsidy) will encourage development of renewable energy. The reliance on fossil fuels is particularly destructive to the Earth and the Sea when these are extracted on a large scale. However, moving away from them will not happen overnight and will not happen completely. Currently renewable energy applications are very competitive in isolated or smaller communities where power transmission lines are impractical. However, the current spend on renewable energy research is meagre compared to the expenditure on renewable subsidies. The "Breakthrough Energy Coalition Fund (BECF)", initiated by Bill Gates, was one desirable COP21 outcome, as economical large-scale renewable energy applications are badly needed.

Increasing the funding for research and development of energy-lean practices and technologies will help the environment because it will reduce the average environmental footprint of each person. It would be sensible to extend the charter of the BECF (fund) to include the research and development of energy-lean practices and technologies. Increasing the uptake of these would likely yield a greater economic and environmental dividend at this time than research into renewable energy generation, given the physical limitations that constrain many of the non-nuclear renewable energy sources.

On the world stage, there should be increased efforts to ensure a fairer distribution of wealth with an emphasis on better health and education for all in our societies. Reducing poverty has been shown to result in smaller families.

The burgeoning human population is often referred to as the elephant in the room in these discussions. Reducing it will benefit the environment of the Earth, the Air and the Sea. There are so many environmental impacts that are unrelated to CO2. A smaller human population will also reduce competition for resources, which in turn will reduce conflict. Conflict is the harbinger of war. Reducing wars will assist the rehabilitation of the Earth. It is not usually mentioned, but there is no requirement for an environmental impact study to start a war; war is the human activity that is perhaps the most destructive of all to the environment.