Complaint to Ofcom Regarding “The Great Global Warming Swindle”

The policies he announced related only to fuels and new technologies, and did not include any targets for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, or even any apparent willingness to consider implementing such targets.

The levels of future temperature change that would be “dangerous” are highly uncertain – not least because defining “dangerous” is difficult. However, a wide range of scientific literature, and the European Union, have suggested that global mean temperatures should not exceed 2°C above pre-industrial levels (see for example Oppenheimer and Petsonk, 2004, at http://tinyurl.com/3x32qq, and the Council of the European Union report at http://tinyurl.com/325t2j).

To achieve temperature stabilisation at less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, it is thought that atmospheric greenhouse gas levels will need to peak at around 475 ppm CO₂-equivalent and then fall to, and stabilise at, around 400ppm. For a description of the science behind these figures, see Realclimate: http://tinyurl.com/274oxn: or for a much more detailed discussion, den Elzen and Meinshausen (2006), Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Cambridge University Press (http://tinyurl.com/33yju4, 16MB PDF). See also Table SPM.5 in the IPCC 2007 Working Group III report at http://tinyurl.com/ysxugh.

What these figures mean is that global greenhouse gas emissions will have to decrease by a large percentage in order to avoid “dangerous” temperature stabilisation levels. There is a great deal of uncertainty about how large the global emissions reduction will have to be, but estimates range between a 50-80% cut in emissions relative to 2000 levels by 2050 (den Elzen and Meinshausen (as above); Rive et al, 2007, Climatic Change journal, http://tinyurl.com/3awvrl).

The longer governments wait before taking serious action to cut emissions, the greater the eventual cut will have to be. The IPCC 2007 Working Group III report states on page 22: “The lower the stabilization level, the more quickly this peak and decline would need to occur. Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilization levels.” And Kallbekken and Rive, http://tinyurl.com/2rjbcl, states: “a 20-year delay means that we must reduce emissions at an annual rate that is 5 to 11 times greater than with early climate action.”

Despite this, the US administration still does not accept mandatory emissions reduction targets: see http://tinyurl.com/259tzt [US Department of State], http://tinyurl.com/2z92l8 [US Environmental Protection Agency]: and the analysis at http://tinyurl.com/35q69b, which points out that current US greenhouse gas intensity targets (for reducing, not total emissions, but only the rate of growth of emissions), even if met, would imply US greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 that are 32% higher than the 1990 level – little deviation from the “business as usual” pathway.

Furthermore, not only does the US government still maintain its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, but it very recently ruled out talks that had been planned for December 2007 to change the Kyoto pact’s parent treaty, the Convention on Climate Change – a necessary step to extending Kyoto beyond 2012 (see: Reuters, 18 May 2007, http://tinyurl.com/239ep7).

Continued …