I have compiled the following information as a response to a friend of mine who has been following the reaction to Ian Plimer’s arguments against human induced Climate Change in his recently published book ‘Heaven and Earth’. I thought it would be a good idea to share the main points with others regarding the release of this controversial book. I can’t really analyse the scientific evidence because I’m not a climate scientist nor am I qualified in any similar fields. For this I rely on others who have the knowledge and experience. But I believe it is important to look at both views on the subject to keep the conversation going.

1. Fortunately we live in a free society where people can offer alternative views to what is accepted by others (even if it is the majority). This obviously applies to scientific stance as well. People have the right to hear both sides of an argument and make up their own minds. It is a radical move though on Plimer’s behalf to publish a book (Heaven and Earth) on such a ‘hot topic’ (excuse the punt) as Climate Change, thus giving ammunition to the deniers who don’t believe that humans have anything to do with global warming. No doubt there are lots of people out there who find comfort in believing that we humans are not responsible for destroying our environment and so they welcome the evidence proposed by Ian Plimer in his book on Climate Change.

2. Nevertheless, all media attention is useful because it brings the topic back into the limelight and initiates and/or continues a public debate on Climate Change. Just consider all the articles published as a result of Plimer’s book and all the other media interviews with both sides of the argument (The Guardian and The Spectator have widely covered this as has the The Australian – see references below). The public wants to hear answers from all the well-known scientists involved in the ongoing debate (and even politicians feel the need to comment on these issues). The blog spots are also running hot with comments on the book and on the exchanges between Plimer, Monbiet, Karoly, Lambert, Enting, Lambeck, Ashley etc. All this attention has resulted in keeping the debate alive and in the end it helps us in reinforcing the importance of doing something about Climate Change.

3. Drawing attention to Climate Change and the challenging of the general consensus in Heaven and Earth has worked because the debate has been taken up by the experts in the appropriate scientific disciplines. They (such as David Karoly and Tim Flannery) have disputed many of Plimer’s points by simply pointing out how unreliable and unsubstantiated the ‘scientific’ facts in his book are. There are lots of inaccuracies and reproductions of scientific explanations by others that were never properly cited or in some cases the actual results that were contrary to his points have been left out of his book. Meanwhile other evidence has been changed to support his arguments – according to these authorities on the subject.

4. The discussion of Climate Change in the media and on internet blogs is very timely as the United Nations Climate Change Conference is only a couple of months away from the 7^th December 2009 in Copenhagen.

The following are links related to this topic:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3659606/the-modern-heresy-of-true-science.thtml

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6804961.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism

http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=page&id=14&chapter=0

http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/Monbiot-Plimer_Debate

Since I read the draft of Climate Code Red by David Spratt and Philip Sutton just under two years go I’m now setting up an annual routine of looking up the Arctic summer ice thickness in mid September, when the ice extent is at a minimum.

Climate Code Red alerted me and many other Australians to the rapid loss of Arctic Ice, with the Arctic compared to the “canary in the coal mine” when it comes to global warming. I wrote an article which I posted on Squidoo about this towards the end of 2007, which summarised my understanding of Climate Code Red.  Now in September 2009 the need to rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions is no less urgent. And if anything – as indicated locally by the bushfires in Victoria in February and the record breaking weather of August – climate change is happening quicker than we thought.

Now for an update on the Arctic. Science Daily recently reported on research which has correlated satellite data with submarine records. This shows that in the winter of 1980 Arctic ice averaged 3.64 meters in thickness. By the end of  2007 the average was 1.89 meters.  Over 27 years the depth of Arctic ice halved.

Over the same time the extent of the summer sea ice has greatly reduced.  The summer of 2007 had the lowest extent of summer sea ice. In September 2009, as reported by the Examiner, the ice extent is somewhat more than in September 2007, but still well below the 1979 to 2000 average.

The canary in the coal mine is still alive, but its future isn’t looking good. We need to keep on cutting carbon emissions.

Lawrence Berkerley National lab reported November last year on some fantastic research into how “cool roofs” can help slow global warming. White surfaces reflect rather than absorb radiation, and can be effective in re-radiating heat back into space. I’ve only just come across this research today, and the potential greenhouse gas savings are enormous.

Most roofs are dark in colour, the research by Akbari, Menon and Rosenfield calculated the CO2 offset achieved by increasing the solar reflectance of urban surfaces. For a 100 m2 roof making a dark roof white (with a long term solar reflectance of 0.60 or more) will offset around 10 tonnes of CO2 per year.

A 10 tonne saving per 100 m2 is a large saving. In hot climates white roofs also reduce air conditioning loads. So called “cool coloured” surfaces apparently have only half the benefit.

In California its been law since 2005 that flat roofs be painted white. We should have the same laws in Australia, and should also be legislating that sloped roofs should be white, or at least “cool coloured” as has been the case in California since July.

Assuming it costs $1,700 to clean and paint a 100m2 tiled roof white, and thus save 10 tonnes of carbon, this one measure will provide more climate benefit implementing all of the following:

• Replacing you gas hot water system with a solar hot water heater (gas boosted)
• Installing a 2 kW solar PV system on your roof
• And implementing energy conservation measures that save 16 kWh per day

* Assuming an emissions factor of 1 kg CO2/kWh.

If you don’t have an air conditioner “geo engineering” by painting your roof white won’t save you any money. But in terms of tonnes of greenhouse gas saved per dollar invested painting your roof white - whether at home or at work - could be one of the least expensive ways of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. And it may help you avoid the need to get an air conditioner.

If you have a low carbon footprint to start with, based on this research, painting your roof white could actually neutralise your other emissions. And someone with a white roof is doing more to slow global warming than someone with a 5 kW PV system on their dark roof.

In the Hans Christian Anderson fairytale an emperor is proudly dressed in clothes that supposedly only the wise can see until a boy shouts out “the emperor has no clothes”.

When it comes to the climate change response the seemingly obvious first step, to a large extent, is being obscured. The first step being simply using less energy. The emperor isn’t totally naked – he might have underwear on – but to a large extent energy conservation – or using less energy - isn’t being pursued with the vigour it should be. And in a world in economic crisis – where saving energy saves money -  its crazy to be focussing the climate change debate on how much we need to spend rather than how much we can save.

There is common consensus that to slow climate change, to avoid run-away global warming, to provide a stable climate for future generations that we need to urgently reduce carbon emissions now. Some very experienced, respected and prominent climate change scientists, such as James Hansen, are saying that we actually need to go beyond reducing carbon emissions, we need to actually remove carbon from the air, as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are already far too high.

The obvious starting point to solving the climate change challenge is using less energy, and thus producing less carbon.

• Obvious because using less energy results in money being saved, not spent.
• Obvious because the money saved can then be invested in cleaner power sources.
• Obvious because in the current economic climate we all want to cut expenses.

Using less energy is clearly a win – win. It reduces carbon emissions. It saves money. To put it bluntly it’s a no-brainer.

Substituting fossil fuel power sources with clean energy sources comes next on the list. But this doesn’t give the financial return of energy conservation, as renewable power is still more expensive than black power.

Along with the switch from fossil fuel to renewable energy sources comes sequestration – removing carbon out of the atmosphere. This however costs money too.

So in order to minimise the cost of response to climate change the obvious strategy, to me anyway, is to reduce energy consumption, thus saving some money, then use the savings to purchase green power and fund carbon offsets. And becoming carbon positive, so that the net impact is extraction of carbon from the atmosphere. And to do this as fast as possible. Wouldn’t you agree?

Now the exciting thing is that if pursued vigorously, with focus, the savings from energy conservation – or energy efficiency, will more than cover the cost of green-power and the carbon offsets needed. So even becoming carbon positive can be a win-win.

An example is our office. We have a strong culture of energy conservation. Our energy consumption is around 1/3rd of the consumption of other offices the same size. This saving pays for 100% green power, carbon offsets, and some additional carbon sequestration over and beyond offsetting our organisation’s travel related emissions. We are saving money, and are climate positive. How good is that?!

Unfortunately however the climate change debate is largely centred around costs. The very real threat of dangerous climate change is compared with the cost of responding to it. A lose-lose scenario comes through strongly. Do nothing and planetary climate stability is at risk. Do something to avoid dangerous climate change and the economic system as we know it is at risk.

But this attitude is very dangerous because it causes paralysis. Why do anything if you will only lose no matter what you do?

However for many organisations, the savings from an aggressive carbon conservation approach will pay for the cost of becoming carbon neutral or even carbon positive. I am not saying that in all cases that carbon neutrality can be achieved at no cost, but based on my experience with thousands of buildings, if a choice is made to aggressively conserve carbon in many cases climate neutrality can be achieved and money left on the table.

In fact the carbon inefficiencies in most organisations are so gross – wasteful buildings, fat car fleets, very poor use of carbon saving communication technologies – that I believe the developed world could become carbon neutral at no net cost – if carbon conservation is passionately pursued. (And we build renewable generation fast enough and have the capacity to sequester any remaining emissions).

Finally, even if becoming carbon neutral or climate positive does come at a cost, is this cost going to destroy your organisation? For the vast majority of businesses the cost of energy is around 1 % of total operating revenue. Even if energy costs doubled in order to achieve carbon neutrality would that force the company into bankruptcy? I doubt it.

Significant carbon conservation requires cultural changes in attitudes to energy, no doubt about it. But with a positive approach to the challenge of climate change, and passionate carbon conservation, we might just create a world with a stable climate that is cleaner, greener and wealthier.