More Swindle...

Channel 4 comes under fire again in an article in the Independent about The Great Global Warming Swindle. But this time it is from Carl Wunsch - one of the scientists interviewed in the programme.

Those who saw the programme will have noticed the extensive editing that took place when the interviews were shown. Only a few sentences were shown at a time and I for one was left wondering what it was that these people said either side of the bits that were shown.

Professor Wunsch complains that he was mislead about the nature of the programme when he was originally approached by Channel 4 - and that far from suggesting that global warming is driven by natural rather than man-made emissions he was trying to say that as the world warms, natural effects - such as the warming of the oceans - can kick in and release vaste amounts of stored CO2 which will dwarf man made emissions. This is quite different to saying that man made emssions are not causing the problem.

Professor Wunsch goes on to say: "In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous - because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important - diametrically opposite to the point I was making - which is that global warming is both real and threatening."

The programme he says was "one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them (Channel 4) at face value - a great error."

So there you have it.

Nuclear power or save the planet?

A recent feature in the Guardian raised some interesting points about renewable power.

A field of mirrors focussing the sun's energy on a furnace can be used to power conventional electricity turbines. Several of these power stations have been operating successfully in desert regions around the world for many years. Engineers have estimated that covering just 0.5% of the world's deserts with these ingenious devices would meet the entire planet's electricity demand with ease.

It seems like the ultimate answer - there's lots of sunshine in Africa so they can get rich selling their electricity to Europe and solve all their problems. We no longer need to buy oil from the late Saddam Hussein and other undesirables. Global warming will be halted in its tracks.

So what's the catch? Well part of the problem seems to be that somebody wants to invest billions and billions of our money in a new nuclear power programme which will generate about 3% of the world's electricity by 2050 - if ever - at many times the cost of these ingeneous solar powerstations. The other problem apparently is that we would need a new pan-Europe high voltage electricity grid to move the power around - and that requires those same people who want their nuclear power to dig into their budgets and build one.

No wonder you're not heard about Concentrated Solar Power before. Doesn't it just make you feel that the planet is safe in the hands of our elected leaders? Erm.... No!

Road Pricing and carbon emissions

Road pricing has hit the news again - and I have to say I have some sympathy for the idea. But in the debate about taxation of vehicles according to their carbon emissions, or taxation of fuel there's a key issue that never seems to get a look in - alternative fuels.

Alternative fuels - biofuels, biodiesel are available right now. Existing diesel engines can run on them without modification. They are carbon neutral and engines running on them have incredibly low emissions. What's more they totally eliminate dependence on oil imported from places it's better not to be dependent on.

So, if the government were as keen to be green as they say they are why aren't they promoting biofuels and giving generous tax breaks to encourage their use. Come to that why not scrap the idea of road fuel taxes altogether and just replace them with a carbon tax on fossil fuels based purely on their fossil carbon content whether it's to be used as road fuel or any other purpose.

Could the reason be something called Shell, or BP, or Exxon...? Or could it be an old friend of mine Malcolm Wickes - the Energy Minister - who's probably right at this moment licking Tony Blair's backside and saying "Yes Sir, nuclear power, sir. Anything you say, sir." Or, as another old friend of mine - the late and very well respected Earl Conrad Russell once confided in me: "Malcolm Wickes isn't as clever as he likes to think he is."