The Column

Emission Statement

Global warming - burning Earth

I am becoming increasingly irritated by the phrase carbon footprint and what it has come to represent. Dare to venture on a long haul flight for a holiday, or perhaps drive yourself into a city centre to visit the shops using a spacious car, and the (stereo) typical environmentalist will declare that you are guilty of sodomising Mother Nature. Never mind that there is no practical alternative when travelling to far-off destinations in the average two-week holiday from work. Or that it is often cheaper to use a private car to travel around the UK, rather than rely on the over-priced and unreliable public transport network. They will simply mention your carbon footprint and expect you to hang your head in shame, while they spew statistics down the front of your shirt, and tell you that the climate is changing as a direct consequence of your actions.

The science behind the argument on climate change (global warming) is both complex and contradictory in equal measure. Popular scientific theory tells us that Earth is warming up as a result of man’s activities since the dawn of industrialisation, and that unless something is done immediately, our coastlines will disappear and we will all be living halfway up a mountain getting sunburnt. The problem is that this theory is now treated as fact by a large percentage of the population, and yet there are many notable scientists and academics who dispute it. A good example of this is Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist (1962-1966), who in early 2007 claimed that the Antarctic is actually getting colder.

Are cars to blame?

It seems to me that the issue of climate change has been hijacked by the Government and environmentalists (the two are mutually exclusive) and turned into a controlling mechanism which they frequently rely on to satisfy their own agendas. The Government refers to climate change every time it introduces a policy which is loosely linked to the environment, or a new charge to motorists (e.g. road tax increases, toll roads, congestion charging). This merely constitutes an excuse to interfere in our lives and/or raise revenue, rather than a genuine concern for the future of life on Earth. If scientific reasoning is attached to policy change, the public are expected to find it more palatable.

Antarctica by dusk

I am all in favour of positive environmental policies, in particular the moves made (by local councils) in recent years to promote domestic recycling, as they give people a genuine chance to make a difference, rather than simply making them feel guilty for something they have little or no power to change. If we could all walk to work whilst eating an organic apple and singing folk songs, oblivious to the fact that it’s cold and raining, then I’m positive more people would. Let’s not forget though that fuel duty accounts for £25 billion of the Government’s income each year; if we all give up our cars, that money would need to come from somewhere else pretty rapidly. Bicycle tax perhaps? Congestion charging for London’s busiest pavements?

In recent years motorists have been repeatedly targeted by the Government in the name of the environment, which is most unfair when you consider the relative leniency shown towards airlines and shipping firms. This discrimination is not just confined to environmental issues either. If little Timmy, already hepped-up on Fruit Shoots, dashes out into the road to avoid being bitten by his grandma’s illegal pit-bull, and is knocked down by a passing car, you can guarantee it will be a road safety issue. The driver (and car) will be seen as the problem, not poor parenting and/or the negligent behaviour of the supervising adult. The car is not the biggest problem; it is just the easiest target.

Toyota Prius

In fairness, the car industry is leading the way in cleaning up its act and making changes for the better. Toyota has enjoyed massive success with its hybrid Prius, and the VW group have achieved incredible fuel economy figures from their latest small diesels in the Polo and Audi A3, which actually better the Prius for out-of-town use. Sadly, the Prius has become something of a status symbol for champagne socialists, with many celebrities parking them alongside their private jets, although there are genuine buyers too. Elsewhere, it is now estimated that a season of Formula One car-racing burns less fossil fuel than a single transatlantic flight thanks to improvements in engine economy; technology which will naturally filter down to road cars in the coming years.

Farting cows are estimated to be responsible for 18% of all greenhouse gases, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. With this in mind, if all the environmentalists in the UK ate veal instead of tofu (mostly imported using ships and aeroplanes) they would actually be helping to cut greenhouse gases. Common sense must prevail here though; it’s a sure sign that things are getting out of hand when we are measuring how much gas comes out of the backsides of livestock as we look to reduce carbon emissions.

Typical bad weather

It is typical of our natural arrogance as a race to think that humans are entirely responsible for climate change, and more importantly, capable of preventing Earth’s climate from altering drastically in the future. Reducing carbon emissions and our dependence on fossil fuels is a good thing, granted, but it should not be used as a finger pointing exercise or an excuse to raise revenue. In all fairness, after the summer we’ve just had, a touch of global warming would not go amiss.