Thursday, May 24, 2012

4681.txt

date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:48:41 -0000
from: "Boswell Andrew Dr (ITCS) s139" <A.BoswellatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Anti-Kyoto letter in EDP
to: "Hulme Michael Prof (ENV)" <M.HulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>


Dear Mike,

The EDP had a letter on Tuesday from John Jewell (scanned version attached)
which quotes the work of Richard Lindzen and includes the statement that the
"politicised Kyoto summary was written by government representatives who
conjured up scary scenarios without evidence".

I am not familiar with the work of Lindzen, although
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html seems to be an article
representing his view. I assume that his work is well known to climate
scientists, and that there is a good body of work and literature to refute
it.

I am writing to ask if you, and/or colleagues, in the Tyndall Centre would
write a letter to the EDP as climate science experts, which refutes
Lindzen's findings and Jewell's letter, and presents the case for climate
change and supporting Kyoto.

Jewell's letter is a response to a letter by myself and Dr Rupert Read, as
members of Norwich Green Party, and I wanted to give you a bit more
background, and make clear that my request to you relates only to the
climate science aspects of debate.

We were writing following an article by Ian Collins, earlier in the year,
which highlighted Kyoto and AIDs as areas which needed urgent attention.
Our letter contained the paragraph "Ian Collins' excellent article also
calls for global co-operation through the United Nations. This
co-operative spirit needs to be underpinned by well thought out sustainable
policies which address environmental protection and the elimination of the
mass killers in the third world. New international law is required to frame
a sustainable and environmental world order, including a World Environmental
Court as recently suggested by Michael Meacher."

((A full draft of our letter is below - the EDP edited it as per usual and I
haven't had a chance to scan in their version yet, but it is largely as
below.))

Jewell seems to think we were trying to make a scientific link between AIDS
and global warming, although it is clear we were saying that the environment
and poverty and epidemics needed to be underpinned by a common,
international, sustainable policy. I think he has just missed the point
here.

However, I am very interested in his point about the "cost of implementing
Kyoto". I would like to know more about this, and how we can respond. Is
there a literature on the economics of Kyoto?, and is there any consensus as
to cost etc? Presumably different scenarios etc. I recently heard that 6
US states (and 6 Canadian?) are starting to implement Kyoto policy although
the US government is opposed to ratifying. This in itself is surely good
evidence that the costs are realisasable - I am thinking of using this as
part of a response on this point.

Please let us know if and how you could follow this up. Clearly, Climate
Science is best defended by experts like yourself. Rupert Read and myself
are discussing how to respond, and if the climate science aspect is dealt
with by some one else, then we can concentrate on the other issues raised in
a separate letter.

I hope you may be able to help

With best wishes

Andrew Boswell

=====================================================
Commentary on Ian Collins' excellent article, January 5th, for your letters
page from Norwich Green Party.


Dear Editor,

Globally poverty, starvation, disease, and poor sanitation kill between
50,000 and 100,000 per day, that is a Hiroshima every two days. These are
the real weapons of mass destruction, and every year is an appalling year.
(Ian Collins: "Appaling year must not be repeated").

Our grandchildren may rightly judge leaders who put their "head in the sand"
on these issues (Mbeki on Aids, Bush and Putin on Kyoto) to be indulging in
the appeasement of our era. Ignoring these threats amounts to giving in to
them and leading the planet and the human race towards disaster.

A terrible consequence of the post 9-11 security crisis is that resources,
both human and financial, which could be directed to solving these problems
have been diverted. Witness, the first phase $85 billion required to
rebuild Iraq and also an annual global arms budget which runs close to $1
trillion. Britain has diverted major funds from international development
to projects in Iraq, and the resources of many development charities have
been diverted to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Huge military spending, western dependence on fossil fuels, excessive
consumption, and environmental destruction are part of the same complex,
interrelated system as Aids and climate change. The world needs courageous
and responsible leaders who will identify these issues as our real enemies,
will address them head on, and disarm them.

Bob Geldof suggested to Tony Blair earlier this week a great opportunity to
do just this. Sir Bob is lobbying for a British-led global initiative to
eradicate poverty in this 20th anniversary of Live Aid year. Britain is
president of both the EU and the G8. THIS COUNTRY has the ideal chance to
break the deadlock in global trade talks and enable the doubling of global
aid to $100bn (�55bn) a year. Come on, Prime Minister, let's do it!

Ian Collins' excellent article also calls for global co-operation through
the United Nations. This co-operative spirit needs to be underpinned by
well thought out sustainable policies which address environmental protection
and the elimination of the mass killers in the third world. New
international law is required to frame a sustainable and environmental world
order, including a World Environmental Court as suggested by Michael
Meacher.

Sincerely,
Dr. Andrew Boswell and Dr. Rupert Read, Norwich Green Party. UEA
Norwich
NR4 7TJ

Tel.: 01603 592079 / 592349









Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\27.01.2004 letter about kyoto.doc"

No comments:

Post a Comment