Download Climate Change is a Global Problem that must be tackled globally.

Preamble
“Climate Change is a Global Problem that must be tackled globally.”
If the initial premise is without substance – then the proposed solutions are meaningless.
So, consider, the global climate is always changing – has always changed – always will – Geological
fact.
However, the idea that climate change is a “problem” is an untested assertion of no merit, and
therefore the idea that we should “tackle it” makes no sense since there is nothing to tackle.
Introduction
I am a geologist with 30 years’ experience. Therefore I look at “climate change” from a geological
perspective.
Part 1
Some of the oldest rocks in Australia are the 3.5 billion year old river gravels at Jack Hills in Western
Australia. Clearly 3.5 billion years ago the earth had surface water, evaporation, rain and flowing
rivers, in fact, an active hydrogeological cycle not unlike the present day. In the last 3.5 billion years
the geological record tells us that in that time the global climate has only ever varied over a very
narrow range. Also during that time there have been continents moving and rearranging
themselves, mountain ranges forming and disappearing again, there have been continental scale
volcanism events such as the Decan Traps, and massive meteorite impacts, yet the climate has been
resilient to it all. Consider the meteorite impact that wiped out the dinosaurs. This massive event
had such a minor impact on the climate that it is almost impossible to find the event in the
sedimentary record without geochemically hunting out an iridium anomaly. The perturbation in the
climate resolved itself almost immediately in geological time sense.
The idea that “climate change” is going to magically go over some “tipping point” is unsupported by
3.5 billion years of scientific experiment. The idea that climate change is a “problem” for the
biosphere is nonsense.
Part 2
The early atmosphere 3.5 billion years ago was rich in CO2 and almost free of oxygen. Rather than
CO2 being a “pollutant”, it is in fact a necessary precondition for life on earth. This should not come
as a surprise to any carbon-based life form. The biosphere originated in an atmosphere high in CO2
precisely because there was a virtually unlimited supply of available carbon. Atmospheric oxygen is
a bi-product of the successful photosynthesis of carbon dioxide by plants and algae and was never a
precondition for life. The biosphere evolved during a period of much higher atmospheric CO2 and
evolved because of the higher levels of CO2. It is no surprise that market gardeners increase the
levels of CO2 in their glasshouse to improve their productivity. Higher CO2 level aid photosynthesis.
The idea that CO2 is a pollutant that will cause problems for the biosphere is the very antithesis of
reality.
Part 3
As recently as the Mesozoic Era (around 100 million years ago) atmospheric CO2 is estimated to
have been around 7,000 ppm or 20 times current levels. These were not times of great hardship
and struggle for the biosphere, but one of the most productive times in geological history –
abundant plant life being able to support a vast array of mega fauna. The problem for life on earth
then is not the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere currently around 400 ppm, but the declining levels
of atmospheric CO2 over geological time. The problem is that the photosynthesisers are just way
too efficient. Since the Mesozoic they have been stripping CO2 from the atmosphere and
sequestering it as coal, oil, methane, gas, limestone reefs, etc. It should be remembered that
every molecule of carbon in coal, oil, gas, limestone, … in the ground has been taken from the
atmosphere by a plant.
The idea that plants would suffer if that carbon was returned to the atmosphere is just laughable.
Part 4
On the contrary, if one looks at the levels of atmospheric CO2 during recent earth’s history, we find
that by the last Ice Age, plants had managed to reduce the levels of atmospheric CO2 down to
approximately 190 parts per million. It should be realised that at 150 parts per million of carbon
dioxide there is just insufficient atmospheric carbon dioxide for plants to photosynthesise. The
chemical process becomes too in efficient to operate. Geologically speaking then, during the last
Ice Age, the earth came within a whisker of the destruction of the biosphere. Consider that without
plants photosynthesising there would be no atmospheric oxygen for the respirators to breathe, nor
any plant life for them to eat. Atmospheric levels of CO2 have since rebounded to around 400 ppm,
still a long way away from the 7,000 ppm of the Mesozoic, but the next Ice Age would take them
back down again, perhaps further this time. Geologically speaking, rather than reducing
atmospheric CO2, it is vital that some of the sequestered carbon is returned to the atmosphere so
that it can be made available for plant life in the future.
Conclusion.
I would argue, from a geological perspective:
1/ the idea that “climate change” is a “problem” has no merit, and therefore your opening
premise for the need for a Renewable Energy Target based on “climate change” has no
merit.
2/ The idea that high levels of atmospheric CO2 is a “problem” has no merit, and in fact
increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 will increase the efficiency of photosynthesisers and
therefore increase the productivity of the biosphere. The justification of a Renewable
Energy Target based on a perceived need to lower atmospheric CO2 has no merit.
3/ Any argument for a Renewable Energy Target should be disconnected from any
references relating to “climate change” and atmospheric CO2 levels, and be argued for on
their own merit relating to issues of energy supply.
Alistair Crooks.