All credit to the Financial Times (November 13, Page 16) for contributing its weight to climate change solutions, but the approach is flawed. The world does not need new crack pot ideas but (a) a rigorous debate about the efficacy of the technologies we currently have at our disposal and (b) greater pressure on companies to play their part in counteracting species depletion - a major consequence of climate change but also of displacement caused by economic development and urbanisation.
Climate change is the current fashion but species have been, and will continue to be rendered extent due to habitat loss caused by man. The climate change debate is allowing the focus to be taken away from the issue of population growth. This is the greatest issue facing this planet and one which has the same consequences as climate change, yet there is virtually no debate on this subject as it is being “crowded out” by the softer climate change debate which does not have the same political and religious sensibilities.
As for the FT’s competition, it is somewhat ironical that you have
chosen Sir Terry Leahy, Chief Executive of Tesco as a panel member and
his appointment demonstrates just how removed from the real issues the
market has become.
Tesco’s failure to use its dominant market share to provide practical
solutions which could enhance, rather than destroy biodiversity, is a
case in point. Why hasn’t Tesco taken a high profile stance against
palm oil (used in chocolates, toiletries, cosmetics and biofuels) from
Indonesia and Malaysia to provide a strong disincentive for rain forest
(C02 sinks) to be cleared for palm oil plantations? Equally, why hasn’t
the company when sourcing locally, insisted that basic ingredients must
be sourced from crops with nature strips on their verges. Unfortunately
it all gets back to maximising profit. If these companies are serious
about climate change they must marry social responsibility with
maximising returns- or be forced to.
Your paper should play an active role in stimulating debate about the
efficacy of the technologies we currently have at our disposal at this
point in time. Most of the renewable technologies have major
fundamental flaws yet some of them enjoy obscene levels of
subsidisation while more credible technologies such as nuclear power
which meet cost, environmental and security of supply objectives are
left languishing due to ignorance.
The scale of support for renewables is misguided but because the public
generally does not understand these technologies they will continue to
be supported at great cost both economically and environmentally until
the scale of usage makes their shortcomings painfully obvious. This is
why it is vital to address the status quo before encouraging more
“innovation” as this will inevitably be influenced by current flawed
and fashionable technologies. The stupidity of the slavish support for
windfarms highlights why debate is needed. Most people remain ignorant
of wind farms major shortcomings and cost - being ~ 20 efficient
windfarms must be backed up with predictable and reliable sources of
power such as gas, oil or nuclear. If the latter is not available, then
conventional power stations are required to kick in when renewable
sources fail and this could actually lead to an increase in C02
production and certainly no decline.
Your paper has yet to debate the nuclear issue in detail from a
technological perspective. This is urgently required as a better
understanding would result in more informed debate about this
technology’s advantages as the public focuses only on the negatives.
Sixty years of technological advances have largely been ignored.
I look forward to the Financial Times leading the debate on these issues and dread the outcome of your competition.
