UN Report Issues “Code Red” On Climate Change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report on “Climate Change 2021: the Physical Science Basis” doesn’t tell us more than what we already know.

There is no doubt that climate change is happening. Climate change is no longer a fiery apocalypse that we expect to happen in the far-off future. It is real and devastating. Rising sea levels, wild-fires, heatwaves and extreme weather events are already wreaking havoc everywhere. Moreover, there’s little doubt that large-scale use of fossil fuels tops the list of factors contributing to climate change according to data from many credible sources.

But the continuous bombardment of its destructive impact on the globe by media, environmental scientists and doomsday seers is not only infuriating a huge section of the world’s population but it is also putting their backs out.

This begs the question that if there is such concrete evidence that fossil fuels contribute to climate change and other environmental problems, then why do we still use them? Why haven’t we already quit using them? Why is it proving so hard to replace them?

However, the issue isn’t that simple. In order to have a nuanced discussion of climate change and global energy transition, we should objectively discuss claims about excessive weather conditions caused by climate change, drop unsubstantiated claims by environmental activists and divestment campaigners and accept facts as basis of the discussions.

If we go back in history to when records started we could easily find that the very same rising sea levels, wild-fires, heatwaves, and extreme weather conditions had also happened years before. Environmental science has yet to establish unequivocally whether these were caused by human beings alone using fossil fuels or as a result of natural developments or both.

Yet, environmentalists who call for an abrupt end to fossil fuels and a sudden adoption of renewable energy fail to recognize the obvious lack of logic in this.

On their own, renewables aren’t capable of satisfying global energy demand because of their intermittent nature. Moreover, global energy transition won’t succeed without major contributions from both natural gas and nuclear energy. Furthermore, the global economy will come to an immediate standstill without oil.

So the global situation boils down to two options. The first is to eliminate fossil fuels from the face of the earth and the second is to continue using them wisely while endeavour to mitigate their adverse impact on the environment.

The first eventuality means the demise of both the global economy and civilization as we know and enjoy with apocalyptic outcome including wide scale starvation, plague, destructive nuclear wars and annihilation of the human race. Human beings would rather tolerate a rise of temperature, flooding, heat waves and rising sea levels as preferable to the end of the human race and life on earth.

The only rational and practical way to combat climate change is to continue using fossil fuels wisely while taking the utmost measures to mitigate their harmful emissions and accelerate . global energy transition.

A final word is that while I respect Greta Thunberg’s valiant and impressive defence of the environment, I don’t think she is well qualified to tell us that the IPCC report is “a solid (but cautious) summary of the current best available science”.

Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
International Oil Economist
Visiting Professor of Energy Economics at ESCP Europe Business School, London