Skip navigation
Contact No's - ROI 048 3755 1260  NI   028 3755 1260

Climate change and air pollution - Letter in the Times, December 8 2012

Sir,

David Aaronovitch draws a misleading parallel between government action to reduce air pollution in the 1950s and current carbon dioxide emissions reduction policy (Opinion, Dec 6).

Smog formation is well understood, it leads directly to respiratory problems, and simply eliminating coal fires and reducing particulate pollution from industry solves the problem. Also, smog is a localised problem — reduce air pollution in an urban area, and smog formation stops.

Climate change, on the other hand, is a global issue and is highly complex. Manmade CO2 emissions certainly have a role, but their importance is still not clear, despite the messages Mr Aaronovitch has taken as fact. Simply adding more CO2 to the atmosphere has a range of effects and is, up to a point, likely to be on balance beneficial.

If we could find a secure, affordable energy source to replace fossil fuels it would make sense to adopt it, and governments would have no need to subsidise it. But not only is wind energy not secure and affordable, but any modest emissions reduction it brings are (and will be) swamped by the increased emissions from China and other developing economies.

Climate change policy is not working and has no chance of working unless China decides to stop developing. In the meantime, air pollution remains a serious health issue for poor people in the developing world who continue to rely on indoor wood fires for cooking. Like London smog, that’s something we can do something about.


Martin Livermore
Scientific Alliance, Cambridge 

 

Copyright Times Newspapers 2012

Current Issues


Future costs of UK energy supply

The Scientific Alliance recently published part 1 of an examination of National Grid's Future Energy Scenarios, dealing with security of supply. We are now pleased to publish part 2 - cost of supply. The authors - Dr Capell Aris and Colin Gibson - conclude that building more gas and nuclear stations would be considerably less expensive than any of the NG scenarios, as well as offering better energy security.

What's New

14 October 2016: Read the new report by Dr Capell Aris, published jointly with the Adam Smith Institute - Solar power in Britain: the Impossible Dream