What the frack?

I've generally tried to avoid involving myself in the fracking debate, particularly as questions about the future of this fledgling industry demanded a level of foresight that was entirely incompatible with my knowledge or the government's confusing and divided approach to energy policy. However, following publication of the 'once in a generation' energy bill, and the decision to lift restrictions on exploratory fracking, it would appear as if the way has been cleared for natural gas companies to invest and for me to venture an opinion. Many environmental campaigners have been dismayed by this apparent endorsement of Osborne's 'dash for gas,' but has the treasury really achieved the victory it wanted? From what I can see, there are still a couple of stumbling blocks before fracking can make a meaningful contribution to our energy mix.

Please note before I make any further comments that I'm not trying to deal with the ethical question of whether or not we should encourage fracking as something positive, or indeed whether it would even be a useful means of lowering energy prices or lowering emissions, I simply wish to highlight a few apparent inconsistencies at the heart of government policy. 

Unlike governments, which can plan in five-year election cycles, energy companies have to think in terms of decades-long investment projects, each of which can consume several billions of pounds. The upfront costs are often so large that it can be many years before a company can even think of turning a profit. As a result, before such important strategic decisions can be made, investors will want assurances that energy policy will not be radically altered by political whim or electoral upheaval. When we examine the framework laid down by the energy bill, these assurances are simply not in place.

For example, the lack of a 2030 decarbonisation target was acknowledged as a victory for Osborne and the fracking lobby, but the resulting compromise - a delay in the decision until 2015 - is hardly an outright win. In May of that year we can look forward to a general election. Given current polling, and Ed Milliband's vow to impose a 2030 target if Labour are elected, no company can be confident that the rules of the game will not be radically altered in three years time.

Moreover, the imposition of a decarbonisation target would pretty much make the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology a requirement of all gas-fired power plants in the future. The problem is that not a single demonstration plant of this kind exists anywhere, in the world. This is not to suggest that CCS is a pipe-dream, just that it is extremely far from being rolled out on a commercial scale. The government is providing some funding as part of the new energy package, but not enough progress has been made, I would venture, to assuage the fears of investors who, quite understandably, don't want to deal with this extra expense themselves. 

I'd be interested to know the opinions of those who support fracking assiduously, but as the renewables industry can attest, an unclear policy pipeline is the last thing that investors in the energy business are looking for. In this bill, it is hard to see how the gas industry can look any further than the next three years. Given that a power plant has a lifespan of around forty years, decisions taken now could have very costly consequnces.

My thoughts on Owen Paterson

"From my own direct constituency experience I don’t personally think that inland wind farms are effective at reducing carbon. I don’t even think they are effective at producing energy."

These words were recently uttered by new Defra head Owen Paterson in an interview with Farmers Weekly. Rather gratifyingly, the interview occurred on the same day that the UK generated 4.1GW of wind power, the largest quantity ever achieved in this country and enough to power more than 3 million homes. The timing was also fortunate because only a matter of weeks previously the Institute for Public Policy Research published a report demonstrating that wind farms were effective at reducing carbon, and were also effective at producing energy. It could be argued that Paterson was, therefore, talking out of his bottom.

A quick look over his credentials demonstrates rather determined opposition to wind power, and also gives the impression that Paterson is not really the type of forward-thinking, game-changing environmental minister needed at a time of deep crisis. He seems to be cut more from the nimbyish, pastoral cloth that yearns for a picture postcard, pre-industrialised Britain, whilst simultaneously encouraging free-market solutions to environmental problems. Paterson has mentioned his love of trees, and apparently once owned two badgers, but he bemoans subsidies for the renewables sector, and has supported his constituents in protests against wind farms, as well as voting against the hunting ban. His profile seems to be that of a classic social Conservative combined with an economic Liberal: often a dangerous mix when it comes to environmental policy.

I don't believe that Paterson is a climate change sceptic, but it seems pretty clear that green groups and the already nervous renewables sector should be concerned by his appointment. Whilst top amongst those who will be gratified by the move is George Osbourne. After surely playing a role in Caroline Spelman's sacking, the treasury will expect Paterson to be a much more pliable figure than his predecessor. Although it's really too early to jump to conclusions, my hunch is that environmental concerns will be forced even further down the government's agenda after this appointment.

We need a more holistic approach to food culture

A recent scientific study has caused some alarm after it demonstrated, shock horror, that organic produce was likely no better for you than eating food produced by more conventional means. For some time now, certain eccentric corners of the green movement have warned of the apparent dangers of ingesting low levels of pesticides used to cultivate much of our supermarket produce, and praise organic food as a healthier alternative. The empirical ground for this claim was always flimsy, and it would appear that this line of reasoning has been dealt another blow. Knowing the dogmatic nature of many beholden to this view, I unfortunately don't see them changing tack anytime soon.

This is something of a pity as there are other more important, and more scientifically sound, reasons to support organic farming. What the furore over this recent study has revealed is that we often think about food production in ways that are much too narrow or simplistic. If we want to support organic farming, we need to question our assumptions about what organic farming is, how it differs from conventional farming, and what the benefits of choosing organic really are. My contribution to this question would be to suggest that the true value of organic food lies not in its flavour or its supposed health benefits, but in its contribution to limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Again, however, it would be a mistake to base our choices on this assumption alone - it's not as simple as organic = good and conventional = bad. I think we can best demonstrate the complexity of the issue by looking at a few specific examples.

Let's take French beans. It might seem self-evident that if we buy French beans grown in the UK, rather than beans imported from Nigeria, we would be doing the environment a favour. Things aren't that simple, though. If it turns out that the beans we bought in the UK, though local, were grown using mechanised labour and high levels of pesticides, the emissions associated with their production actually outweigh the emissions produced by the transportation of the beans from Nigeria. Provided the Nigerian beans were, as is likely, grown using more organic methods like hand-picking, it turns out they are the more sustainable product.

Another example: British tomatoes are often a good choice of sustainable produce when bought in the warmest summer months. However, if we buy British tomatoes towards the end of the season, or out of season, they are often grown using energy-intensive heated polytunnels or greenhouses. If we were to instead purchase tomatoes that had been grown in the warmer Spanish climate, we would actually be saving carbon emissions comparatively.

Aware of complications like these, the Soil Association decided to continue awarding organic status to food that had been transported by air, provided it met a certain criteria of cultivation. This decision was made in spite of the emissions associated with transportation of food to the UK, and recognised that looking at 'food miles' alone does not always give us the full picture. Whilst air-freighting remains a contentious issue, the Soil Association did at least try to recognise the complexity of establishing what is or is not organic or environmentally sustainable produce. What they demonstrated is that you can't simply focus on one aspect of food production, like transportation. Just as important as where our food comes from, is the question of how it is produced.

The difficulties do not stop there. Let me give you a final example. Chickpeas, as I'm sure you know, tend to come either raw and packaged in bags, or pre-cooked in tins. On the face of it, one might quite logically assume that purchasing the raw chickpeas was the more sustainable option. After all they are simply picked then dried in the sun before packaging. In this instance, it is the way the two products are cooked that causes the discrepancy. Raw chickpeas will be taken home and cooked in reasonably small quantities as needed, which is a relatively carbon-intensive process depending on your cooking method. This contrasts sharply with the tinned chickpeas which have also been cooked but in far greater quantities. The industrialised cooking of the tinned chickpeas actually makes them the more sustainable product.

Hopefully these examples will make you appreciate some of the challenges facing the conscientious consumer. Trying to find the most environmentally friendly produce is difficult enough when we consider individual products in isolation. The problem becomes magnified when you come to pre-cooked meals, for example, which contain many different individual ingredients. We can't, even at our most self-righteous, expect people to be able to make informed decisions about everything they buy. Quite simply they don't have the time, the information, or often the inclination.

The answer from many quarters has been to establish labelling systems for supermarket food, and I'm sure you will have noticed dozens of labels attached to a variety of produce. What you might not necessarily be aware of is the criteria that these organisations apply to the product you purchase. Red Tractor, for example, characterises its label as one that guarantees high standards of animal welfare. It has, however, been beset by accusations that many of the farms working with the organisation are in fact riddled with animal cruelty. It is only by knowing the values that your label represents that you can be sure that it meets the criteria you expect.

This leaves us in a bit of a quandary. In the same way as we can't legitimately expect people to research every product they buy, we can't also expect them to thoroughly research the evaluative methods employed by the organisations that label the produce in the first place. Short of labelling the labelers, what can be done? My answer to this question would be to suggest that without government intervention, most likely very little will change. Labels will remain confusing, companies will continue to place profits and customers above the demands of the planet and our food system will become ever more unsustainable. The sad but also completely understandable fact is that a great many people simply do not think about these issues, and changing the attitude of a nation towards food is something that takes an awful long time. Progress has doubtless been made, but progress is what it remains.

To achieve definite success, national or European government involvement is essential. In the same way as the EU has sought to provide minimum standards of animal welfare, by banning battery caging for hens and sow-stalls for pigs, so we must also look to provide minimum environmental standards across all food crops. A joint consultation between government, the public, and industry needs to take place to understand how far any change in our current model would impact upon food prices for both consumer and producer. But we should not forget that the planet has been made to bear the cost of our unsustainable food system for too long, and now, with time pressing, we should act to try and change it.

Adaptation and the myth of a technological saviour

Sorry for the rather long absence. My mind has been more than a little preoccupied, but I will now be returning to the blogging like a starved hyena to rotting flesh. Hopefully you'll forgive the delay, as well as that terrible simile.

Technology has been on my mind recently, particularly in relation to the increasingly voluble argument that adaptation is key to our battle against climate change. Now, perhaps contrary to what I said in a post some time back, adaptation is a necessary consequence of changes which we have already unleashed in the earth's climate. Whether we like it or not, we are going to have to adapt to an extent. What I want to emphasise now is that whilst this is true, it in no way provides an alternative to the need to try to mitigate climate change by limiting our carbon emissions.

It was recently revealed that ice in the Arctic had melted to unprecedented levels with time still remaining of summer for it to shrink even further. On the same day, the most prominent story around was Tim Yeo's insistence that what we need to get out of our economic mess is to build another runway at Heathrow. I wasn't the only one amazed by this as George Monbiot went on a highly entertaining rant on twitter culminating in attacks on Libertarians. Quite why he bothers trying to reason with Libertarians is anybodies guess. His point, though, is that we seem to have some sort of collective cognitive dissonance when it comes to climate change. On a day when the worst excesses of fossil-fuel driven capitalism were laid bare for all to see, we were fixated on the possibility of pumping yet more CO2 into the atmosphere.

As chair of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, you might have thought that Yeo might be aware that planes tend to produce rather a lot of harmful emissions but he seemed convinced that regulations put in place by the European emissions trading scheme (ETS) would nullify any potential increase in CO2. As James Murray of Business Green points out, however, Yeo's argument is flawed both because the ETS is currently ineffective due to an unrealistically low carbon price, and because if the carbon price was at the correct level an increase in flights would necessarily lead to huge hikes in ticket prices. Moreover, it rests on the notion that other sectors will significantly lower their own carbon emissions, something that has been rather sorely lacking to date.

This brings me to the point about technology. Louise Mensch, the now redundant Tory MP and self-promoter extraordinaire, chimed in by suggesting that the real way to pursue environmental goals was not by changing 'human behaviour' (which apparently involves flying to Alicante) but by investing our hopes in technology. The problem with this position is that it not only ignores the magnitude of the task we face, but also because it places faith in a highly uncertain solution.

Whilst it is plausible that technological development might happen to the extent that we might reverse some of the damage caused by emissions, or adapt sufficiently to handle large temperature increases, it really is putting a lot of eggs in one basket. What happens exactly if such a technology does not present itself? Don't worry, they say, human ingenuity is such that we will overcome this challenge. As a plan that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

The problem is amplified by the fact that many of those that campaign most vociferously for adaptation, rather than mitigation, are those least in favour of government investment in low carbon industry. Mitigation and adaptation are united in the sense that it is investment in mitigation technologies that will give us the tools to adapt to necessary changes. Government funding for research and development of renewable energy, for example, may help to create exactly the technologies to help extract us from our predicament. But those who most loudly exult man's creative capacity are also those most vehemently opposed to subsidies for the renewable sector. These people are in a position in which they claim technology to be our saviour, whilst simultaneously refusing the means by which such a technology might be born. This is why I've come to the conclusion that those promoting adaptation alone are basically promoting another form of denial.

The Green Deal: Does it go far enough?

The Green Deal is being attacked for a number of reasons - some with and some without substance - providing further demonstration of the Tories environmental agenda approach of 'if it's liable to tick of Paul Dacre, then best left well alone.' The most provocative part of the Green Deal is its insistence that households pay interest on government loans acquired to help make their home more environmentally efficient. The idea being that the money subsequently saved on fuel bills will be great enough offset the repayments from the loan. This is the so-called 'golden rule' and it is the key means of convincing consumers to invest in energy efficiency. Of course, savings depend greatly on the type of house, as well as the scale of work undertaken, the energy use of the property, the number of occupants and so forth. For this reason, it can be extremely difficult to know how great a particular household's savings or otherwise might be. The right wing press has jumped all over this uncertainty, adding false and distorted information to an already complicated picture, ostensibly on the basis of saving homeowners from stealth taxation.

This is a problem for anyone who wants to see the Green Deal succeed because a lot of people, particularly those whose priorities are economic before environmental, will not be swayed unless they are absolutely guaranteed to get a return. Preferably a sizable one because, let's face it, for many this will be perceived as a bit of a faff to sort out. What's more, private firms, no doubt concerned about the negative publicity stoked up by the Mail and Telegraph, are growing more reluctant to be associated with the legislation further limiting household options and dissuading them of the merits of the enterprise.

This is a pretty sad turn of events because, on paper at least, the Green Deal sounds like a very attractive proposition, and one that could claim to be genuinely cross-party in its approach. Conservatives could get on board because government involvement is kept to a minimum and it shouldn't cost the taxpayer substantially, Lib Dems could like it because it's the only decent thing they've managed to extract from the coalition to date, and Labour could support it because it backs up Miliband's recent attacks on unscrupulous energy providers.

The furore has, however, brought about what could be another defining moment for the coalition. If the bill is dropped, or watered down so much as to render it largely ineffective, the already strained relations between Conservatives and Lib Dems could be stretched further still. For all their lack of backbone, environmental issues have long been a core concern of many in the yellow corner and a Tory dismemberment may just push them closer to the edge. It could also be the moment that Cameron reveals his true colours on climate change, and we discover whether his fondness for Huskies extends to genuine action. Considering how vital energy efficiency is to any hope of reducing emissions to an acceptable level over the next 10 years or so, failure to back the Green Deal will strip him of any last pretence of environmental concern, particularly as he has demonstrated strong support for it in the past. This will mean him potentially going up against his chancellor, which could prove rather tasty.

Of course, know one can no for sure how the Green Deal will fare until it is launched, but it already appears that there is room for potential improvement. So how exactly does one go about making the Green Deal more attractive? Well, in this instance, I find myself in partial agreement with Guy Newey, a senior research fellow at Policy Exchange. As he rightly points out in Leo Hickman's blog, energy efficiency is one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing our CO2 emissions, and we certainly cannot afford to turn our back on energy efficiency as a concept. For this reason, he appears to suggest that extra sweeteners may be added to the deal over time to increase its appeal to households. Because of it's cost-effectiveness, there is ample economic and environmental evidence to suggest that further incentives could and perhaps should be forthcoming. Maybe the Green Deal simply doesn't go far enough?

I find this idea particularly appealing because it leaves the right wing press with little room for manoeuvre. Having based its arguments against the Green Deal on the potential, and often fictitious, costs to households, if that criticism is assuaged, then the Mail will be forced to give up its assault or change tack. The only conceivable option available will be to criticise the Deal on the basis that it is an antidote to a fictitious problem. It will have to deny the environmental good of energy efficiency. This argument, being much more limited and necessarily doomed to failure, will be far easier to ignore. Of course, one must never underestimate the press' capacity to distort, but I think people are far more likely to be concerned by a hit to their wallets than by the possibility of contributing towards minimising CO2 emissions, no matter where they stand on global warming as an issue.

As with any market, the Green Deal will produce winners and losers - those who make 'returns,' and those who don't. What I would add to Newey's point is that every effort must be made to ensure that those who are most vulnerable to future increases in the price of energy, receive greater assurances than those for whom fiscal security is less of an issue. Those that would truly benefit from lower energy bills must be made to feel that the investment will be worth it. I would also add, and here I fear I may stand in contrast to Policy Exchange, that any future sweeteners added to the Green Deal should not come at the expense of other projects, like renewable energy, which will also help to lower our GHG emissions. Indeed, what we must realise is that the less electricity we use overall, the more and more effective renewable electricity becomes. Once we don't use as much, we don't have to produce as much.

Climate Change: A Question of Expediency or Ideology?

Most scientists are of the opinion that climate change is a matter of empirical evidence, rather than belief. They essentially see themselves operating in a very different realm from politicians, and certainly from political theorists. Their role, as they see it, is to provide the evidence. The evidence then forms the backdrop from which policy may be pursued. In other words, the reality frames the action rather than the other way around.

Of course from the perspective of an empiricist this is perfectly correct, but problems arise when we take science out of the private realm of research and place it in a public context where it will be scrutinised by people with very different perspectives on the world, and very different views about the role of government. At this point, vested interests, cultural beliefs, and social attitudes seemingly become as important as an ability to grasp the science itself. In this situation, is it still expedient for proponents for action on climate change to continue to press their argument on the basis of evidence alone? David Corner, writing in the Guardian a few weeks ago, suggested that whilst it may not be the most logical way to tackle scepticism about climate change, we should nonetheless frame the debate in terms of "belief" rather than empiricism.

Corner presents his own evidence for this opinion by citing a number of studies, including his own, that reveal the existence of "biased assimilation" when it comes to questions of climate change. Simply put, one is more or less likely to attribute persuasiveness to evidence depending on your already pre-formed belief about climate change. If you do not believe in climate change initially, exposure to overwhelming evidence is unlikely to change your mind.

Because of this phenomenon, Corner suggests, we should not and cannot look to science to solve a problem that is in fact social in nature:

"It follows that the answer to overcoming climate change scepticism is to stop reiterating the science, and start engaging with what climate change scepticism is really about - competing visions of how people see the world, and what they want the future to look like."

The work of Corner and his colleagues does highlight some very important aspects of climate scepticism, and illustrates further the power that cultural attitudes hold over our interpretation of the world. However, I would challenge his conclusion that those who have acknowledged the existence of man-made climate change should re-frame the debate to accommodate those who remain unconvinced.

For a start, I do not believe it to be helpful or prudent to frame a question that is essentially one of expediency in terms of belief or non-belief. Drawing ideological dividing lines is a sure fire way to conflict, and united action is our best hope of successfully challenging the growing threat of environmental disaster.

In my opinion, it is far more productive to acknowledge that the severity of the threat faced implies that no ideology or political belief can benefit from inaction on climate change. A true Conservative must recognise that action will help to protect traditional institutions, rather than undermine them, and that wide-scale pollution is in fact a serious violation of property rights and something to be fought. A true Libertarian likewise must acknowledge that freedom and liberty are not best served by potentially impoverishing a good proportion of the world's population. Belief does not have to be undermined by climate science, it can be reinforced. The best way to challenge false belief is not by postulating in terms of rival beliefs, but by denying the viability of holding a belief when strong evidence suggests its contrary to be true.

The question remains, however, of how one goes about persuading people of the reality of global warming without recourse to empirical evidence which will not be of persuasive value. My answer is that climate change provides a perfect example of an instance in which ideology in general is shown to be obstructive. That is, when it exists without basis in actuality. Indeed, the existence of climate change forces us to re-examine some of our basic political presuppositions about the role of society, the shape of the economy, and the power of the state, but unless we do this with reference to the world as it exists around us then we will always be in conflict with reality.

We have been confronted with the stark realisation that our political principles are flawed, and many things often taken for eternal truths are in fact historical anomaly. Faith in an unencumbered free market, belief in a small state, acceptance of economic growth as an absolute good. All of these positions are expressions of political circumstance, not ultimate values, and they are expressions that must now be re-evaluated in the face of new developments. I would not frame a debate about expediency in terms of belief, because belief itself is a product of expediency.

That is a key lesson that we can draw from this scenario. Quite simply, it is neither desirable nor beneficial to attempt to seperate reason from faith (or vice versa).

Politicians, climate policy and cognitive dissonance

I think I've made it pretty clear where I stand on the subject of climate change denial, but to a certain extent, I've grown to admire the commitment of deniers to their ignorance. Despite having been consistently shown to be fools lacking basic scientific knowledge or human empathy, deniers tend to show an awful lot of resilience. Either they've simply given up on rational thought, or they've realised that if they cave now they'd have to own up to being massive tools. Whatever it is, like a stubborn stain in a toilet bowl, they won't disappear easily.

What is perhaps more pressing, at least in a political sense, is the stance of those who have accepted the facts of global warming but have so far failed to act with anything like the speed required. Obviously, certain aspects of climate policy are notoriously difficult to articulate because of uncertainties, but the urgency with which we must proceed is not in doubt. Action and clear targets need to be enforced now. Investment and commitment is a must.

I recently read an interview with Jon Huntsman in which he perfectly articulated everything I find distasteful about this wishy-washy approach to climate questions, so I thought I would use this opportunity to make a few points. For those of you who do not know him, Huntsman is seemingly one of the few rational human beings still part of the Republican Party in the US. Prior to his decision to run for the GOP nomination, a rather doomed enterprise considering his rather centrist views, Huntsman had accepted the qualified opinion of the scientific community on the question of anthropogenic climate change to the extent that he famously tweeted towards the start of the race: "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

Sadly, the initial optimism surrounding Huntsman's faith in science was dashed last December when he parroted the denialist line that "the scientific community owes us more in terms of a better description or explanation." Because of this, he continued, there is simply "not enough info right now to be able to formulate policies."

Obviously, Huntsman was always going to be playing to a hostile crowd on the subject of environmentalism, but it was nonetheless disheartening to be confronted with a GOP race in which none of the candidates were prepared to act on decades of qualified research.

When asked recently by Grist about his apparent volte-face Huntsman maintained his position, arguing that "there is confusion in the minds of a lot of Americans about where the science is because the debate is still going on in the scientific community." Without "consistent and scientifically backed data," he insists, "you can't get good public policy." 

This could be taken straight out of a denialist handbook. Right from the get-go climate scientists have been adamant about the absolute necessity of curbing CO2 emissions. For more than two decades now, the IPCC has insisted on the vital importance of acting sooner rather than later. Lyndon Johnson even addressed congress on the subject back in 1965. There is still confusion in the science, but only in the particulars. By calling for further research, delay, and 'clarity,' you are simply inviting catastrophe. The solid facts of man-made global warming have been known about for a very long time, and Huntsman's failure to acknowledge this speaks volumes about his priorities.

These priorities become more clear later in the interview when Huntsman notes that "the problem [of climate change] has become eclipsed by the jobs deficit right now...There ain't a whole lot of bandwidth for anything else." Climate change is simply "taking a backseat to some of these other more urgent issues that are economics related. I'm not following the issue like I was several years ago." Most tellingly, he claims, "people aren't going to hear out the scientific community until such time as the economy rebounds."

Personally I find it hard to conceive of anything more urgent that combating the greatest environmental threat that mankind has ever faced, but Huntsman's rhetoric is simply indicative of the position of many politicians on both sides of the barricade. A fallacy has emerged, suggesting that we have to make a choice between economic recovery and jobs or a clean energy future. Not only does this position eschew the reality of job creation in the low carbon sector, it fails to account for the absolutely enormous potential of a switch to green energy. Not just in jobs, but in terms of growth as well. Technological innovation through research and development could well spark the industries of the future, and there are clear indications that renewables are growing ever more competitive on an economic level. The furore over the British government's decision to cut solar FITs is, in this respect, something of a promising development. In addition, failure to act now could result in gigantic costs further down the line. Economic transformation is simply not something that might happen, it's something that has to happen unless we want to embrace economic ruin in the long term.

Which neatly points us to another wholly distasteful element of modern politics that is totally at odds with climate reality: ferociously aggressive short-termism. When GDP is all that matters, and political careers rest on its fluctuations, it becomes incredibly difficult to persuade public figures of the necessity of revolutionising entire economies. When the immediate consequences of emissions are hidden by lags, moreover, this task becomes ever more challenging.

Although not a problem of Huntsman's making, short-termism is an issue which we need to deal with and one which politicians needs to discuss openly. There are signs that this conversation is beginning. In the UK, for example, Rupert Read has suggested the creation of a third house of 'Guardians' that would monitor and vet legislation to ensure that it does not adversely affect the generations that will come after us. Cross-party agreement on long-term goals and policy is, in my opinion, a necessity, unless we want to continue to see our interest in the environment vary along with the stock market.

Moreover, the most frustrating element of Huntsman's position is his apparent unwillingness to account for market failure. Pure and simple, environmental decimation brought about through man-made warming is the unseen or ignored consequence of industrialised capitalism. Had environmental factors been costed properly in the first place, it seems highly unlikely that we would find ourselves in such a precarious position. To continue to ignore this market failure, and prioritise fossil fuels in the immediate future, is sheer lunacy. It is the decision to abandon the real world for a fantasy universe in which the laws of physics do not apply. Markets must be logically bound by the parameters of the world in which they exist, so to suggest that the environment can take a backseat to economic development is frankly absurd. Economic development should not and can not be divorced from environmental well-being. Reality has to frame economic development, not the other way around, and until politicians realise this the real world will continue to suffer.