Climate change

How to fix it

Climate change needs better regulation, not more political will

See article

Readers' comments



Dr Norman Page

The entire anthropogenic global warming meme is a mass delusion foisted on a scientifically illiterate British and Western public by a grant ,position and honour seeking sycophantic scientific establishment and by ecoleft politicians ( including Cameron ) to reward their rent seeking campaign contributors and wind farm land owning friends.
Because of the Urban Heat Island effect and the thermal inertia of the oceans Sea Surface Temperatures are the best measure of global trends. These show that the global warming trend ended in about 2003. There has been no net warming since 1997 since when CO2 has risen 8.5% with no global temperature increase. Since 2003 the trend is negative. The current decline in the solar magnetic field strength is so marked as to suggest a possible coming Maunder Minimum (Little Ice Age) and the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation suggests a likely 20 - 30 year cooling phase. For the next 30 years or so cooling is more likely than warming.A colder dryer earth would be much more harmful to world food production than a warmer wetter one.
In light of the real world climate situation Britain and Europe's climate and energy policies can only be described as lunatic or criminal - probably both.

Dr Norman Page in reply to SmithAmI

This comment is typical of the AGW faithful
"I don't even comment on the statement that climate warming isn't happening. All serious scientist are in agreement and the facts speak for itself."

They simply refuse to address the actual climate data referred to in my earlier post - and simply make the self comforting, unsubstantiated nonsensical assertion that all serious scientists are in agreement.
However ,unfortunately, it also typifies the dismal level of critical analsyis of the problem exhibited by most British and European poltical leaders who have created the current energy policy dogs breakfast.


The world may or may not have a surfeit of CO2 but it definitely has a shortage of intelligent books on the question of climate change and CO2 emissions. Let's hope this book is read widely rather than being tossed onto the flames of bigotry and closed-mindedness (thereby adding a little more to the CO2 problem).


Dr. Helm's book is prescribing shale gas and carbon capture and sequestration as solutions to future energy needs and carbon dioxide reduction. This is highly questionable. Shale gas may be a success in the USA, but may be less useful in more densely populated Europe and China. Fracking requires gargantuan amounts of water and can pose risks to aquifers. Describing it as "low carbon" is also rather euphimistic. Moreover, shale gas test drillings in Poland, which is very keen on shale gas, have not been successful.

CCS technology has not yet been proven on an industrial scale and poses risks itself, because of sudden carbon dioxide releases. CCS is even less proven than storing nuclear waste.

I have not yet read the book, but I wonder whether the physics term energy density is mentioned in the book. The importance of energy density is often forgotten in energy policy discussions. Nothing comes close to the energy density provided by nuclear (fission or fusion) energy.

Rob S in reply to Bradley Keller

What you propose is to add another inefficient conversion step into an already inefficient process. That only ADDS cost to a very costly source of energy. What we are witnessing is an attempt to repeal the laws of physics through wishful thinking.


I am amazed at the naivety of this review. To think that this was published in the Economist!
The fist thing to do is to stop giving subsidies to fossil fuel. The subsidies to fossil fuel is far greater than subsidies to renewable.
The next thing to do is to actually do something about energy savings. Any competent economist who knows the least about the energy business, would know this.


So let me recap; the author is saying that the unproven and uneconomical technology CCS and the most environmentally damaging technology shale gas are the solution to the problem? This can't be serious and it makes me wonder if Shell has sponsored his 'research'. When will 'economists' of this kind start including the true & long-term costs into their calculations? And the argument of wind being intermittent is lame because storage technologies are readily available and will become cheaper fast (most importantly the conversion into clean hydrogen gas). Cleaning up the mess isn't cheap but there is no such shortcut like the author suggests. I don't even comment on the statement that climate warming isn't happening. All seriouos scientist are in agreement and the facts speak for itself.

Rob S in reply to Dane1

The US Department of Energy produces a yearly report on American subsidies of various sources of energy. The 2010 report is here:

When measured as $ of subsidy vs Mwh of energy produced, fossil fuels are less than $1 - a negligible fraction of the cost to the consumer (about $100/Mwh). Complete elimination would have no impact on consumption. Nuclear energy is subsidized at a rate of $3/Mwh - a measurable amount compared to the cost of electricity. The subsidy of solar energy is $800/Mwh, or more than a 1000X that for fossil fuels, and about 20X the price charged for the electricity produced by solar energy. Can you make a guess as to what would happen to support for solar energy if the consumer had to pay for that subsidy directly, rather than having the cost hidden from him in his taxes?

Let's get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels, ethanol AND solar energy.

The agency which produced this report is a major advocate of the expansion of the use of solar energy, btw.

Rob S in reply to Dane1

Do you want to back up your assertion with a measure of the amount of subsidy that our government provides to the cost of electricity generated by fossil fuels? The Obama Department of Energy provides a convenient table that makes such a comparison.

No? Why not?

I agree that energy conservation is a very inexpensive approach to reducing CO2 emission. The REDUCTION in CO2 emission from electrical generation in the US is attributed, in part, to energy savings. If we would have invested the money we wasted on solar energy into energy savings (and conversion to natural gas) we would have reduced CO2 emission even more.

We need to get our priorities straight - reduce CO2 or solar energy.

Rob S in reply to Sense Seeker

Natural gas would cut CO2 emission in half, with a capital investment of 1/20th that required to produce the same amount of ENERGY (not power) with solar energy. Moreover, a complete conversion from coal to NG IS feasible. The intermittent nature of solar energy, together with the inconvenient misalignment of peak solar energy production with peak electricity use, makes it impossible to close ANY coal plants. Solar energy requires a much higher capitalization and operating cost.

And, as SS points out, it needs no subsidies. And, for that matter, neither do any other technologies. We have been subsidizing the development of solar energy now for over 50 years. Yet we are still using the same basic technology introduced to the marketplace in the last half century, It is a technology older than integrated circuits, passenger jets, LCD TV - and fracking.

Time to move on.

Sense Seeker

Personally, I disagree with Dr Helm's views on both technological development and the energy market.

Take this quote: "[...] some of the money that goes on renewables would be better spent on future clean technologies such as carbon capture, energy storage and electric vehicles."

CCS is very far from economically viable, at least over the coming 20 years and possibly forever. Besides, why would governments invest in it? Fossil fuel companies have the financial interest and they are not short of resources. Yet Dr Helm argues for subsidies. Why?

Shale gas may carry risks of polluting aquifers, but even if not, it is still adding CO2 to the atmosphere. At best, it is useful for the transition towards non-CO2 energy sources, but much better to skip that and move straight to renewables. And again, no reason to subsidize it; fossil fuel companies will invest and if not, then it likely isn't economically worthwhile.

Yes, wind power is intermittent, but therefore you have to look at it in context of an energy system, and best on a European scale. Link it all up, and it doesn't blow in Germany, it may in Spain or the UK. Use a mix of power sources and develop storage methods. Use biofuels (e.g. from waste) to fill any gaps. Develop smart metering to enable the setting of priorities. And the best way to develop useful new technologies is to apply it in practice; that would be where strategic government support would be most useful. It takes a market to stimulate suppliers.

And sure, a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions would be wonderful. But talk is cheap. European countries have opted to act. Not always with ideal policies or optimal results, but compare that to the US where half the population is living in some kind of lala-land where the whole problem does not exist. Perhaps Dr Helm's book will convince all governments to adopt a global system of emission taxation (and the distribution of the proceeds. But I doubt it.

SmithAmI in reply to Dr Norman Page

The only reason why I did not want to respond to the 'there is no warming trend in recent years' & 'there is no anthropogenic climate change' myth is because it has been done so many times and still people like you, DrNorman Page, decide to ignore facts.
Do you honestly think that more than 99% of scientists from all over the world keep up a lie? This level of corruption would be unmatched in human history!

Here you find the response from the MetOffice(just another currupt European scientific agency I suppose) to the latest publication stating 'the end of climate change':


This book should be required reading for governing politcians, those aspiring to govern, policy-makers and regulators everywhere. It appears that Dieter Helm has pulled together the cogent arguments (backed by solid evidence and sound economic principles) he has been advancing for some time. The EU truly is a basket-case. It is bolting its plethora of climate change policies, instruments and targets on to this dysfunctional edifice of full retail competition. The resulting and inevitable psudeo-competition and psuedo-regulation is damaging to the interests of all consumers, citizens and EU economies. It is creating a paradise for rent seekers and subsidy junkies of all stripes.

At least the US has fully-functioning, efficient and competitive continent-wide markets in gas and gas pipeline capacity and is rolling out equally efficient markets in electricity and generation and transmission capacity - despite some rent seeker induced mis-steps on climate change policy. One can only hope that the major emerging economies will take their cue from the US and not from the EU.

It will take the sustained expression of fully justified citizen anger in the EU to halt and reverse the excessively expensive nonsense that is being perpetrated. It may be that UK PM Cameron's recent announcement to legislate to regulate final electrciity and gas prices is evidence that his backbenchers are conveying their constituents' increasing and fully justified anger to him.


Carbon credits are like paying someone not to eat baked beans. I don't like baked beans but if someone offers to pays me not to eat them for it I will claim to like them to get more money.


This review is an excellent summary of the fallacies underlying current approaches both in Europe and among many advocates for taking action on anthropogenic climate change in the U.S., with their emphasis on promoting politically correct, but technologically immature, green technologies. Far better to get the right price on carbon through a gradually increasing carbon tax (implemented over decades) and let the market sort out the winners and losers. However, such a tax would have to be implemented and adhered to globally, and therein lies the rub. I believe the author takes too sunny a view of the technical, logistical, and economic barriers to carbon capture and sequestration, but, hey, let the market sort that out. The tragedy for the U.S. is the mindless ideological opposition of the Republican Party to taxes of any kind whether they make sense or not. But then nothing in politics is ever cast in stone.

Swiss Reader in reply to Sense Seeker

Please come to my country, have a look at the glaciers, compare that with old pictures, postcards, maps etc.
Then ask yourself why so many hard-nosed oil company managers and Russian politicians are competing for exploration rights in the warming arctic, if climate change is just a myth.

SmithAmI in reply to Murchu_an_tEacnamai

Economists = good, regulators = bad; nice one.
The financial mess of recent years created by poorly regulated economists should have shown to the last fellow citizen just how harmful and short-sighted economy will act when left to its own devices and next years bonus.
Shale-gas is dirty and will come at a high price and CCS is super subsidised and will remain subsidised for decades to come, yet a very profitable business idea for owners of near-depleted oil-fields.
However, the mess caused by carbon auctioning is a fair point made by the author, this really is a gold mine for creative profiteers and it's clearly not working either.
To picture the US energy market as fully functioning, however, is an amazingly naive statement; the only independant US authority with competency in this field (health/environment), EPA, has a somewhat different opinion on this topic...

Sense Seeker in reply to Swiss Reader

No need, Swiss Reader. The temperature record and sea level changes over time are sufficient for me, along with the solid theoretical explanation of enhanced greenhouse effects and the confirmation of that in empirical data (satellite and ground IR measurements etc.).

The myths I was referring to are those voiced by "Dr Norman Page" in his tedious rant. Maybe he'd like to drop by and you can show him the evidence?

Bradley Keller

Wind farms and solar collectors work great for hydrogen production. One makes it on the days the power is available.?! Am i witnessing the effects of Petrochemical Corporations influencing the thought pattern?


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Yemen: Hot heads
Pomegranate 44 mins ago
China's trade surplus: Strength from weakness
Free exchange 2 hrs 58 mins ago
Regenerative medicine: Bad science
Banyan 3 hrs 15 mins ago
America's economy: Waiting for inflation
Free exchange July 10th, 9:27
The European economy: Four is a trend?
Buttonwood's notebook July 10th, 9:10


Products and events



