Is global warming a financial scam?
There seems to be little doubt that global mean temperatures are rising albeit by relatively small percentages. A rise of 1 degree fahrenheit is recorded over the last 100 years. A similar rise of 1 degree (accurately or not) is forecast for the 21st century. It reminds me of erroneous reports of Mark Twain's death which he described as exaggerated.
Annual rises in sea levels due to melting of the polar cap are measured in millimetres. There would seem to be little imminent danger of inundation. There was developed in the 20th century a particular technique for controlling populations. It involved scaring the pants off them. First it was the atomic bomb, secondly it was Stalin and nuclear missiles with the odd dirty bomb thrown in. When Stalin died and the Soviet Union collapsed western politicians were at a loss for a while. Then Osama bin Laden appeared and they were off again.
If the Americans had the misfortune to capture Osama bin Laden they would have to invent an alternative pretty quickly, otherwise their war on terror would run into difficulties. It would seem that the Americans are grooming Iran and its President to play a similar role. Could global warming be another in the sequence? That it is caused by human activity and in particular excess production of CO2 is questioned.
The concentration is on CO2 and its carbon content although methane has a more powerful effect in blanketing warmth. Some scientists point out that there have been variations in temperature, up and down, at times when human agency could not have been involved. The consensus view, however, is that greenhouse gases are responsible. Elaborate arrangements are discussed at international conferences in an attempt to establish global co operation to control the problem. Is it a problem however?
In a recent article I have shown that greenhouse gases are the constituents of synthetic diesel. They could be used to reduce dependence on oil extracted from the ground. Most would perceive that as a benefit. The powerful oil companies probably would not.
Two developments exist which might suggest that the seductive call to save the planet might not be as praiseworthy as appears. Green and environmental lobbies should perhaps look carefully at what they have become involved in. They are in danger of looking like those characters who used to carry billboards proclaiming that the end of the world is nigh.
The first is a proposal for carbon capture which would involve separating out the carbon at a multitude of sites where CO2 is produced and then transporting it by undersea pipeline to storage in the geological spaces from which North Sea oil has been extracted. It is a system which does not exist and is purely hypothetical. It would entail the creation of massive installations to somebody's benefit. It would be an expensive and wholly unnecessary operation and there is no guarantee that it would work. The second is a vast market trading in an invented commodity consisting of carbon permits. This commodity is ideal. It has no bulk so requires neither expensive storage nor transport. There is no physical deterioration on account of age. It can easily exist and be handled on a computer.
As I understand it producers of carbon dioxide are given a permit for a certain amount of carbon. If they produce less than their permit allows then they can sell what they have saved to somebody who produces more. In theory this is an incentive to produce less carbon dioxide and to sell the saving. If the system is to work, however, there has to be a permanent supply of buyers. By definition, they are exceeding their allocation. According to an article by Ben Bland in the Daily Telegraph (14 July 2008) the global carbon market was worth £30bn in the first half of 2008 and is forecast to rise to trillions of pounds sterling in the next 10 years. It is difficult to see how this volume of trading on the Climate Exchange will not become an end in itself. Is it too cynical to surmise that CO2 emissions have little chance of being eliminated? We would not want to lose that volume of trade would we?
How the political class came to be obsessed with this issue is an interesting speculation. Certainly a particular kind of scientist will benefit. In order to maintain public disquiet there will be a need for well funded studies, reports and investigations all tending generally in the same direction. In addition there will be countless committees, councils and conferences in exotic locations to keep the politicians busy. It will be surprising if lawyers and accountants do not get a look in. All this is testimony to the infinite gullibility of the man in the street.
NOTE. If it were to be the case that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are responsible for a serious problem down the road it remains the case that they could be converted into diesel and the emissions from diesel are hydrogen, water and particulates. Some of the particulates might bother the chesty but they will not jeopardise the existence of the planet.
NOTE. It is worse than I knew. According to reports which have surfaced since this article was written the precious carbon permits are going to sold by the British Government in some sort of auction. From the same reports we learn that HM treasury expect to make some £2bn out of the sale. How often will that be? Annually? 
