Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.