Complaint to Ofcom Regarding “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

Inhalation of wood smoke is certainly a major public health problem, but it is entirely false to imply (as the programme does) that action to combat climate change would somehow make this problem worse or more persistent. On the contrary, provision of more efficient stoves is an important component of many carbon offsetting schemes, with the aim of simultaneously reducing deforestation and promoting human health (see for example http://tinyurl.com/38r7sp [ClimateCare].]

(In breach of the 2003 Communications Act Section 265, Ofcom 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.11, 5.12)

[Comment 127: Rural electrification is not opposed by the environmental movement. On the contrary, it could be a major force for good in many places (see Comment 30, page 25; and paragraph number 5 of Comment 123, page 104; and Comment 128, page 109; concerning the links between development and climate change).

The only problem with electricity from the point of view of climate policy is that, if it is generated by fossil fuels, it contributes to climate change. However, an obvious solution is to use solar and wind resources wherever doing so is cost-effective; and it could be much more extensively used than it is in rural regions in Africa to generate electricity. It is a falsehood to suggest that climate change campaigners would argue that people in rural Africa should not have electricity.

Furthermore, the IPCC 4th Assessment Report clearly states that improving rural access to electricity in developing countries (even to fossil fuel–generated electricity) will not have much influence on global greenhouse gas emissions. The reason for this is that the amount of electricity that would be generated in such areas is insignificant in global terms. See the IPCC 4th Assessment Report Working Group 3 (2007), Summary for Policymakers, p34 (http://tinyurl.com/ysxugh), which states:

Climate change and other sustainable development policies are often but not always synergistic. There is growing evidence that decisions about macroeconomic policy, agricultural policy, multilateral development bank lending, insurance practices, electricity market reform, energy security and forest conservation, for example, which are often treated as being apart from climate policy, can significantly reduce emissions. On the other hand, decisions about improving rural access to modern energy sources for example may not have much influence on global GHG emissions. [Emphasis added.]

See also Comment 123, page 104 and Comment 129, page 109.

Thus the above statement by Shikwati is a clear and very serious misrepresentation of the facts; and an apparent attempt to mislead the viewers about the economics of climate change, presumably with the aim of reducing public support for emissions reduction policies.]

(In breach of Ofcom 5.7)