Backwards Reasoning

August 30, 2013

Could fracking prevent climate change denial?

By George Monbiot, published on the Guardian’s website, 30th August 2013

Many of those who deny that climate change is taking place reached that position as a result of their opposition to wind farms. This, for example, was the route taken by David Bellamy, who stumbled disastrously into the debate a decade ago.

During one of our discussions, he set me the following challenge:

“Why are the so-called greens backing a cartel of multinational companies which are hell bent on covering some of the best of our countryside with so-called wind farms, which can neither provide us with a sustainable source of future energy nor have any measurable effect reducing the amount of carbon dioxide pouring into the atmosphere? If he [George Monbiot] can disprove the latter – which is the mathematical truth – I will fall into line over global warming”.

In other words, if I could disprove his contention that windfarms are useless, he would accept climate change science.

I don’t mean to disinter an ancient and long-settled debate, but to use this as an example of a common phenomenom, to which all of us succumb from time to time. When we don’t like an outcome, we reject the premise.

Some of those who oppose an airstrike on Syria, for example, are more inclined to question the premise that Bashar Al-Assad ordered a chemical weapons strike against his own people. Those who support the intervention are more likely to disregard calls for hard evidence.

Once the UK government decided that it would instigate a badger cull, it began dismissing or downplaying the results of the £49m trial commissioned by its predecessor, which showed that the cull is likely to be useless or worse than useless. Those who oppose the cull, on the other hand, are more inclined than its supporters to reject the evidence that badgers are a source of bovine tuberculosis.

In other words, we reason backwards. It’s a constant temptation, to which none of us is immune. It explains, I believe, much of the refusal to accept the overwhelming evidence for manmade global warming. For people who reject regulation or other restraints on profit-making, or who believe they have a fundamental right to use as much fossil fuel as they wish while driving or flying or heating their swimming pools, or who hate the thought of wind turbines spoiling their view, the temptation to reject the science seems overwhelming.

Conversely, those of us who lament the ever-escalating pace of life, who love peace and quiet, who hate the damage done to the natural world by the extraction of fossil fuels, who believe society has become too materialistic and self-serving, are inclined to embrace the science with fervour.

Doing so does not necessarily make us more scientific or more rational than our opponents: it’s just that in this case the weight of evidence happens to accord with our values and beliefs. In other cases, the same instincts are just as likely to estrange us from the evidence (our wildly exaggerated fear of radiation from nuclear power plants comes to mind, but I’ll leave that for another occasion).

Accidents of history and geology have ensured that, in the UK and many other parts of the world, our backwards reasoning has made people disinclined to accept the science of manmade climate change. The problem can be summarised as follows: most of our means of generating power seldom intrude into people’s consciousness.

Thermal power stations are highly concentrated sources of electricity, which means that few people have to live close to them and suffer from the visual intrusion and local pollution they cause.

Most of our gas and oil is either imported from far away or extracted from under the seabed, through rigs situated beyond the horizon.

Opencast coal mines are mostly dug close to former mining communities, whose people tend to have little political power and little access to the media. So they are seldom the subject of major campaigns, and are largely ignored by most of the public. This was the basis of my old argument with the Campaign to Protect Rural England, and the, er, electric encounter with its chief executive that the Guardian filmed. CPRE was campaigning fiercely against wind farms, but not against opencast coal mines.

Since then, I’m glad to say, CPRE has amended its policy, and is now campaigning against opencast coal.

In other words, fossil fuels seldom bother us, so we seldom consider their wider impacts.

Wind turbines, on the other hand, are widely distributed, close to home and highly visible. They intrude upon the views of rich and poor alike: both unemployed miners and Telegraph leader writers. Many people don’t like them, and follow the irrational evolution of thought to which David Bellamy succumbed, rejecting climate science because they don’t like low carbon energy.

[continued ...]

Good article. I think the part about Quote:
is going to set our Chimp friend in action. I've been telling him exactly that, but he's disinclined to buy it because of reverse reasoning.

I'll say this though - conventional nuclear power is getting expensive, especially for a greenfields project in Australia, but there are certain other advantages in going down the thorium fission route. 

I'm a supporter of coal seam methane for two main reasons, both of which are related to greenhouse gas emissions.  The fact of life is that methane is being emitted from coal mining. If we allow all that methane to be emitted to atmosphere, then the overall effect is much greater than that of burning it, because methane has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of  25 on a 100 year time horizon, compared to CO2=1.

Secondly, LNG has the potential to displace coal for energy generation, again reducing the carbon footprint.

A lot comes down to local environmental effects versus global, and local unfortunately seems to have more clout because it's in your face.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

# wrote on Sep 5^th, 2013 at 8:49pm:


Every energy source has its downside, but I don't disagree with you. My point is more pragmatic. If we must have coal mining (and it's not going away any time soon) at least let's make use of the methane in the short term.

I think that coal mining is always going to be required for petrochemicals anyway.

I'm thinking in terms of what can be done overall to reduce carbon emissions.  Realistically we have to go with the flow in many cases, but do what is possible given socio-political constraints, because these are very real considerations. 

Yes, Well I guess you can get your guitar out and play kumbaya in a weed induced haze or you can do something effective and practical.

Coal mining for energy has to go as soon as possible, but unless you want to plunge us into the mother of all recessions, you can't do that immediately.

A country that goes broke is totally impotent when it comes to environmental initiatives. I've seen what happens in poor countries. We need a strong economy.

Coal mining will continue to be needed for petrochemicals and steel production.

I'm against fracking under current legislation.

The corporations should be held accountable for their actions.

I'm sure there are much better ways to extract the gas without contaminating underground water reservoirs.

Problem is it may cost more, therefore these corporations as usual do it dirty and cheap.

The other thing is the poor old farmers from memory of a 4 corners program they receive $250 odd dollars per annum for every well.

Yet every well produces at least $1 million dollars per annum of gas.

LNG is much cleaner and i'm in favour of it being used over coal.

But we aren't a cash cow, they see us a laudy piece of asre that virtually has no obstacles in terms of legislation so they come here and do what they want how they want and when they want.

Its like Rudd complaining about Murdoch..??

Someone should stand up and say well aren't you responsible for giving him 70% of the market.

Not to mention supermarkets etc etc.

Until our governments pass legislation so corporations can treat Australia decently, they will always see us as a whore with her legs wide open.

Ajax wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 11:13am:


I agree with most of your points. Maybe the LNP will clean up the regulations.

They had better. If it's any indication, NSW Libs have gone down that track:

https://www.nsw.liberal.org.au/news/state-news/nsw-toughest-csg-water-protection...

http://insidewater.ewater.com.au/2011/08/23/abbott-wades-into-csg-debate/
Quote: