Is the fight against climate change a bigger threat?

Are we destroying ourselves in our fight against supposed climate change?

Are some of our strategies for battling the alleged threat of global warming more dangerous than the possibility of global warming itself?

No issue has gripped mankind and the planet so profoundly and totally in recent years. As a species we have a huge capacity to cause harm and pollution to our one and only home, but conversely, we also have a deep seated desire to try to do better as a species and to find ways of successfully living in harmony with nature on a clean and healthy planet. This is why the issue of potential global warming is such an emotive and challenging one for us in the 21st century.

There has been much debate recently about the scientific evidence for global warming and whether the climate is actually warming up to any significant extent or not, and now there is also increasing debate about the potential interventions being suggested, many of which have some very worrying side effects. The question of whether global warming is actually occurring or not, has become a highly controversial one. In October 2010 we had the ‘Kiwigate’ issue where NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmosphere Research) was legally challenged through the New Zealand High Court and forced into a back down on the legitimacy of the NZ temperature data that it used to put forwards to the New Zealand government with regards evidence of increasing temperatures in New Zealand. This manipulated data used by NIWA, which has since been destroyed, showed a significant warming in New Zealand over the past 150 years whereas the non manipulated raw data showed virtually no increase in temperature. This situation is a carbon copy of the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal with the CRU (Climate Research Unit) in the UK, and these incidents have cast significant doubts over the scientific validity, credibility, and ethics of the global warming evidence and theories. In response to these controversies the Minister for Climate Change Issues, Hon Dr Nick Smith, stated “I've made it quite plain to the New Zealand scientific fraternity that those sorts of slip-ups will not be tolerated and they need to make sure the advice they are giving myself and my cabinet colleagues is straight science and robust science, because the credibility of the climate change problem gets into question”.

However, putting these issues aside for the moment, let’s take a look at several of the potential global warming interventions being considered and their possible negative effects. One of the major strategies being suggested globally at the moment is the use of carbon taxes to encourage industries and individuals to find ways to reduce their carbon output or else pay a tax to the government. As well as significantly hitting New Zealanders in the pocket even further, the impact would be severe on third world countries such as many parts of Africa, which are desperately trying to raise their standards of living by creating a more industrialised society. This becomes vastly more challenging for these nations because the costs of implementing ‘carbon friendly’ energy and power sources such as wind and solar power are many times higher than more traditional carbon creating energy sources, and in many cases this may make it virtually impossible for these nations to progress and develop. Therefore we are potentially preventing many hundreds of millions of people from progressing out of extreme poverty, famine, and diminished life expectancy into a better and healthier lifestyle.

Basic needs such as having power for cooking, and refrigeration at medical centres for medicine and vaccines are very much more difficult to achieve. These are issues of hugely significant humanitarian concern, so considerable caution and thought is required with these types of global legislation. And as with the scientific data about global temperatures, the scientific evidence suggesting that increased carbon causes increased temperature is equally now being contested by scientific evidence presented from more independent and non government sources around the world. Therefore, are we condemning hundreds of millions of people to continued suffering on potentially incorrect or inaccurate information?

While the carbon tax strategy certainly requires much debate, other potential solutions being looked at here in New Zealand are equally controversial and radical. As well as trying to reduce the amount of carbon that mankind produces, other strategies for combating the alleged global warming involve techniques for removing existing CO2 from the atmosphere, known as CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal), and techniques for reducing the amount of solar energy that is reaching the earth, known as SRM (Solar Radiation Management). Together, CDR and SRM form what climate scientists refer to as the field of ‘Climate Geoengineering’, and governments all over the world have been discussing and researching potential climate geoengineering techniques for many years now. On March 8th, 2011 The Royal Society of New Zealand held a conference in Wellington to bring together approximately 40 leading scientists and policy makers from around New Zealand to discuss this very issue of climate geoengineering and its potential impact in New Zealand. Conference representative Dr Chris Law from NIWA stated that the conference was aimed at discussing and agreeing policies for potential geoengineering strategies in New Zealand. According to the conference organisers, “In the absence of mitigation, geoengineering could offer an alternative option by preventing the potentially catastrophic climate change tipping points that face us”, and the conference looked at how New Zealand should deal with geoengineering and the regional effects of geoengineering. One of the strategies high on the list of favourable options was the technique known as ‘Aerosol Injection’.

The aerosol injection technique involves spraying into the atmosphere, either from balloons or from aircraft, large volumes of aerosol substances which then spread out to form a hazy artificial cloud cover that will reflect some of the solar radiation. Whilst there are several possible chemical substances suggested for use with this technique, the substance that the world’s top geoengineers seem to favour is very fine particles of aluminium oxide because of its high level of reflectivity relative to its surface area. The very great danger that comes with this technique, as geoengineering scientists all over the world, including NZ, readily admit, is that they have absolutely no idea what the human and environmental side effects will be, including the effects when all this aluminium oxide falls to the earth. Of even greater concern is that this aerosol injection technique very much looks like it is already being tested or is in operation in many parts of the world, including here in New Zealand, and that it is having an extremely worrying effect on the environment. Laboratory tests in many parts of the United States where this aerosol testing has been occurring for some years now show levels of aluminium in the soil and rain water that are many times the safe level. As a result many scientists and concerned citizens in the United States are now in the process of mounting widespread legal action as a result of these recent test results to try to get this aerosol practice stopped. Another very real cause for concern is that the giant United States corporation Monsanto has now developed genetically modified crop seeds that are resistant to high levels of aluminium, and this is despite the fact that aluminium is not normally present in soil in any significant quantity. What do they know?

Aluminium is a highly toxic substance to plants, animals, and humans, and the levels at which it is now showing up in the soil and water where this experimental aerosol injection is taking place is alarming to say the least. It is clear that this aerosol testing has already been taking place by someone in a number of areas of New Zealand over the last year or more. Hundreds of eyewitness reports with photo and video evidence show the tell tale signs of this aerosol injection technique in operation and aluminium has begun showing up in water tests in some of these areas.

March 2010 Taranaki December 2010 Nelson

So, once again on this issue of combating alleged global warming, we must be very careful to weigh up all the scientific evidence and all the potential effects. The technique of aerosol injection seems extremely dangerous to the environment and human health, and very radical. NIWA scientist Mike Harvey, who made a presentation on the aerosol injection technique at the geoengineering conference stated in his presentation that “New Zealand is known for its clear sky and good air quality and visibility. A high aerosol environment would significantly degrade this”. Is this what clean, pristine New Zealand wants? Are the New Zealand people happy to accept significantly degraded air quality, visibility, and clarity of our skies and potential toxins entering our environment on the basis of trying to save ourselves from something with highly questionable scientific evidence?

The issue of climate change and global warming is a very emotive one. The scientific evidence for whether it is happening or not is highly contentious and we should be very careful at how we approach this in terms of implementing interventions which could be very harmful to humanity and the environment. Mankind absolutely needs to actively seek and embrace positive strategies and technologies for living in greater harmony with the environment. As a nation, New Zealand prides itself on striving to be at the forefront of this endeavour; however, should we really be potentially destroying ourselves in order to try to save ourselves from the dangers of global warming when a groundswell of science around the world is now strongly suggesting that this is not occurring?

ends

© Scoop Media