UK Chief Scientific Adviser makes a surprising amount of sense

I went to an interesting lecture at UCL last night featuring Professor John Beddington, who is Chief Scientific Adviser to HM Government.

I was pretty impressed by what I heard - it helps that he has a background that blends various scientific disciplines plus a bit of economics and philosophy thrown in as well.

His big pitches were around insulation for buildings, and also carbon capture and storage (CCS). He also nodded to the roles of wave/tidal power, near-term use of nuclear fission - and, unusually for someone in a prominent role, even seemed interested in ways to accelerate the emergence of fusion. He even dropped in a slide on geoengineering, speaking in a way that acknowledged its controversial status, but implying an open mind.

He had some very compelling charts that put climate issues into a more human context - specifically, talking about expected population growth, urbanisation and poverty. He also highlighted that whatever we aim to do with CO2 or methane emissions, we need to factor in a likely need for 50% more food, 50% more energy and 30% more water by 2030.

The food / water issues are clearly intertwined with the environmental issues here, given the importance of climate on crop yields, fresh water supply etc. And of course crops need water, food production implies the need for arable land - and the fact that "wealthier" (ie >$2 per day) people in emerging countries tend to demand more meat and dairy products.

He also seemed pragmatic about the realistic role of renewable energy sources globally - pointing out that in order to satisfy the demand for cheap energy by another couple of billion people in near-poverty, it was inevitable that a large amount of the gap would be serviced by coal and natural gas. Yes, we can put up expensive windfarms in Europe, but ultimately nobody is going to persuade people of the need subsidise their costs for all of China, India and other places, when they have abundant supplies of local coal.

So the logic goes: more people = more energy = more coal use = need for CCS, irrespective of everything else. And if we have to develop CCS anyway for that reason, we might as well look to use it in developed economies as well, as we should benefit from the scale economies. And therefore we should start investing much more in it right now. I agree.

He also made very sensible points about the need for much better climate models, as well as data collection from monitors and sensors. Again, I agree - although I then asked the question "Clearly, computing & communication technology is going to be an essential enabler of all of this. How do we protect the IT industry to make sure that otherwise worthy environmental concerns and controls don't dampen its development?"

His response "Good question, but I don't know the answer" should raise some concerns.

Overall though, a highly intelligent & thought provoking talk. Two last nuggets:

"The only UK government department which doesn't have a chief scientific adviser is The Treasury"

"Rather than breaking into airports and offices campaigning against flights, maybe activists should instead break into homes and install cavity wall insulation"

Population - the elephant in the room

It's pretty rare that I find myself agreeing with Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the hideous and misanthropic "Sustainable Development Commission", but I have to agree with his stance on a move to encourage people to have a maximum of two children. I hadn't realised that he is also involved in an organisation called the Optimum Population Trust, which seems to be much less objectionable than most environmental campaign groups.

Population is the elephant in the room when it comes to climate change. It's easy to criticise people who bring the topic up - usually it takes about 5 seconds before the word "Malthus" crops up. Also - as I found when I raised it as a question at a recent debate on climate change policy and lifestyle, the discussion inevitably gets side-tracked by references to developing economies. I was pretty shocked that the FoE participant said that the organisation didn't have a policy on this area, when after he'd cited Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms", I asked if the right-to-breed was a fifth.

My view is that China has long got it right on this issue. I'd go further and say that in all the discussion of "personal carbon allowances", there needs to be a quite specific category for "having children" alongside "driving", "flying" and "energy use in the home".

It's a choice. The CO2 footprint of a newborn child is huge. If you want one, go ahead. But don't expect me to give you a "carbon subsidy" to satisfy your whims.