Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): twenty-sixth amendment.

STATES OF JERSEY

r

ISLAND PLAN 2011: APPROVAL (P.48/2011): TWENTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT

Lodged au Greffe on 26th April 2011 by Senator S.C. Ferguson

STATES GREFFE

2011   Price code: B  P.48 Amd.(26)

ISLAND PLAN 2011: APPROVAL (P.48/2011): TWENTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT PAGE 2 –

After the words "the revised draft Island Plan 2011" insert the words "except that the draft Plan be amended as set out in Appendix 2 to remove all references to climate change and carbon emissions".

SENATOR S.C. FERGUSON

REPORT

This Island Plan is intended to last for 10 years. If this is the case it is less than sensible to include pseudo-scientific dogma which is already out of date.

The question of the inclusion of references to the IPCC AR4 from 2007 was raised with the Inspector. His conclusion was that it was better to leave these references in on the basis of the precautionary principle. It could be that he considered this area to be beyond his area of competence. On the other hand the precautionary principle is best applied to risks which are, to a greater or lesser degree, realistic. For example it might be necessary to consider the possibility of fog delaying a flight. The precautionary principle dictates either insuring against such a happening or travelling the night before or a combination of the two. The precautionary principle does not require a country to mortgage its future in case an infinitely low-probability event might occur.

We, as politicians must consider all factors when debating such matters. Currently many UK politicians are blindly following the raucous voices of the IPCC and their acolytes, without considering the collateral damage the policies advocated will cause. Is it reasonable that we should deny the poorer countries of the world access to cheap energy and thereby the means to drag themselves out of poverty and into a prosperous future?  Should  we  be  condemning  futures  generations –  particularly  women –  to cooking using wood and animal dung in cramped unsanitary conditions with all the health hazards this entails?

Willie Soon, a Harvard Astrophysicist makes the following comment –

Those who must rely on human and animal muscle, or open fires, remain poor. Certainly, wind turbines and solar panels are far better than primitive energy. They can bless remote villages with electricity. But they are nothing compared to reliable electricity from hydrocarbon, hydroelectric and nuclear power.'

If we follow the policies advocated by the IPCC, we will be substantially increasing the cost of living as well as reducing the standard of living. Given that we live on an Island which is in itself more expensive and given that the evidence is that the IPCC policies are flawed and based on flawed science, I would maintain that it would behove us to address ourselves to mitigation rather than prevention.

The current policy of encouraging energy-efficient houses is entirely appropriate and is a good example of mitigation, particularly as we do not actually know what the long-term trends in temperature are. There are 2 bodies of opinion at the moment. The first considers that temperatures will rise, and the second that temperatures will fall to those of the period 1940 to 1970. Energy efficiency and insulation are good in either circumstance.

The Draft Island Plan, as can be seen in the list included with this report, makes great play of climate change which, reliant as this is on the IPCC report, can be translated as Anthropogenic Global Warming. There is also an emphasis on low carbon which is shorthand for carbon dioxide emissions. This is compounded by warnings of increased storms and rising sea levels.

Some  of  the  empirical  evidence  contradicting  the  computer  model  estimates  is attached in the Appendix.

The dire warnings and the recommended IPCC policies are mooted as requiring the West to "deindustrialise", to reduce our standard of living and to adopt sustainable life styles. This is usually equated with no long-distance travel and a lifestyle equivalent to that of the Victorian era, if not earlier than that. The rationale for that is that fossil fuels are bad for the planet and by doing this we will prevent AGW and save the planet.

Civilisation has progressed as a result of changes to more efficient forms of energy as knowledge increases – from wood to coal to oil. Despite the fears of running out of oil, this seems unlikely with the significant availability of new offshore reserves and shale oil. This will be more expensive to extract and so energy efficiency will be essential – not because of carbon dioxide emissions but because of the extraction expense. In fact, the next major change in energy utilisation will be to gas, of which there is some 250 years' supply.

It may be that, at some time in the future, wind power may be viable. From a practical viewpoint, it is currently too intermittent and inefficient and cannot be stored. This is demonstrated by the fact that during the extremely cold period last December, wind produced some 0.4% of the power usage in the UK1. The only reason that wind power is being built in the UK is that there are large EU subsidies to producers, which are paid for by a levy on conventional power producers who then pass it on as a charge to their customers. According to Christopher Booker2, by 2020 wind power will add some £400 a year to energy costs per household in the UK. If the full renewables charges are added up, this amounts to £880 a year per household. It is therefore appropriate  to  delete  the  paragraphs  on  wind power  and  substitute  the  suggested paragraph.

There is considerable doom and gloom about an environmental crisis prophesied by the main stream media and some scientists. It is said that resources are finite, there is too large a world population and so forth. This is not supported by the facts. Julian Simon3 researched the facts. For example, as populations become more prosperous, the birth-rate falls. Human intellect invents new methods of utilising resources which are more efficient and use less of any resource. As an example, when silicon chips were invented they required a thick slice of silicon. Nowadays they use wafer-thin slices. A block of silicon will produce significantly more slices than that originally used. Cars have better mileage per gallon than they did in the 1930s.

If we retain the various "climate change" and "low carbon" references in the Island Plan, we are effectively saying that we are willing not only to reduce our own standard of living but also to prevent poorer countries from obtaining access to reasonably priced energy. We are content to see them continue in a way of life that contributes to a low life expectancy, overcrowding and poor health.

1 Neta (the New Electricity Trading Arrangements) report on the Balancing Mechanism

Reporting System www.bmreprts.com

2 Sunday Telegraph 16th October 2010

3 Julian Simon, the Ultimate Resource 2

To quote Dr. Roy Spencer:

Making our most abundant and affordable sources of energy artificially more expensive with laws and regulations will end up killing millions of people. Poverty kills. Those who argue otherwise from their positions of fossil-fuelled health and wealth are like spoiled children.

And to prove that nothing is new under the sun:

A change in our climate is taking place very surely. Both heat and cold are becoming moderate within the memory of even the middle-aged, and snows are less frequent and less deep." – Thomas Jefferson, 1804.

Financial and manpower implications

There are no additional financial or manpower implications for the States arising from this amendment.

APPENDIX 1

1. This graph illustrate the changes in carbon dioxide and temperature against time.  As  can  be  seen,  the  temperature  is falling  even  though  the  carbon dioxide level is rising. The satellite temperature readings are more reliable than the Hadley surface temperature readings. (Joseph D'Aleo, CCM)

2. According to the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA) graph for sea level at Brest, Brittany, the maximum rate of rise of sea level is 1.08 mm a year. There have been various estimates of future sea levels by the IPCC, one of which is a 1 metre rise by 2100. On the basis of 1.08 mm a year, it will take 925 years to rise 1 metre. Given that there is apparently no significant change in the level of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic, this will take rather longer than the life of this Island Plan.

APPENDIX 2