Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40
- 43)
MONDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2008
DR PHIL
WILLIAMSON, PROFESSOR
NICK JENKINS,
DR TIM
FOX AND
PROFESSOR STEVE
RAYNER
Q40 Dr Gibson: Suppose Paul Baker
of the Daily Mail and Prince Charles get together and start
talking about this arena of endeavour and just reflect it the
way they want to because it is a new, dangerous technology, how
will you persuade the public that it is a bona fide pursuit, an
investment?
Professor Rayner: I think that
is why one has to be developing the institutional apparatus for
managing and governing these technologies alongside developing
the technologies themselves, and I think it has to be done—and
at this point I can only offer generalisations—in a way
which engenders public trust, which demonstrates that there are
appropriate mechanisms for dealing with liability, in other words
for putting things right if they go wrong, and finally for ensuring
that there is actually some notion of consent on the part of populations
for the implementations of technologies, what I call the TLC factors.
Q41 Dr Gibson: Yes. So how are you
going to stop these mad scientists just going ahead and throwing
things up in space and ionization, et cetera? You are interested
in public dialogue. You want to get the message over to people.
You have not published this, have you?
Professor Rayner: With respect,
I think that is, to a significant degree, your job. It is a question
of what kind of a legislative framework, what kinds of rules under
which you want to fund the research and development necessary
to bring these technologies to a level of maturity where they
can at least be sensibly characterised.
Q42 Dr Gibson: Yes, but we are waiting
for you to give us the arguments. You, the bright chaps, have
got time, you know.
Professor Rayner: The arguments
are fairly simple, I think, which is that if we take the warning
of scientists seriously and we are looking to stabilise the atmosphere,
say at around 550 parts per million, by the middle of the century
given current progress with conventional mitigation we are in
grave danger of falling very far short of that goal. Therefore,
we may at some point in the future find it necessary to avail
ourselves of the option of geo-engineering solutions. There is
also the danger, of course, that we might even meet the goals—we
might even meet a more ambitious goal of 450 parts per million—and
then discover that the climate sensitivity is much greater than
we have anticipated. Once again, if at that stage we start from
scratch and say we are going to develop these technological options
from point zero, we are going to miss the boat. So I think there
is a very strong argument here which can be made across all three
of the positions I outlined, that there is at least an option
value in developing and characterising technologies.
Dr Gibson: That is the same argument
as nuclear power stations in the eighties.
Q43 Dr Iddon: What do you say to
Greenpeace, who say, "We are trying to get people to alter
their societal behaviour and to stop producing carbon dioxide,"
and you guys are telling the general public out there that there
is an escape route? Will that not stop people from altering their
behaviour?
Professor Rayner: This is the
concern that there is a moral hazard involved in developing alternatives,
but I would say that we have heard that argument for the best
part of two decades with respect to adaptation to climate change,
that if we actually start to take adaptation seriously and look
at it and analyse it seriously, then we are encouraging people
to believe that it is okay to carry on emitting greenhouse gases—I
used to live in the southern United States and it is a bit like
talking to Southern Baptists about sex education in schools, you
know, you do not want to do it because you will encourage the
kids to behave badly. So it is the same moral argument. I would
argue that we have now reached the stage where the taboo on discussing
adaptation has been lifted, but we have lost 10 to 15 years' worth
of progress, which is going to condemn tens of thousands at least,
if not millions, of poor people in vulnerable situations in developing
countries to a very uncomfortable time, to put it modestly. I
think we have seen that that moral hazard argument really just
is not one which we can afford to give in to with respect to adaptation
and we should not give in to it in respect of developing geo-engineering
options.
Chairman: I think on that sobering note
we will finish this first session. Can I thank very much indeed
Dr Tim Fox, Professor Steve Rayner, Dr Phil Williamson and Professor
Nick Jenkins. We would have liked to have extended this considerably,
but thank you all very, very much indeed.
|
