Debunking the Monkton debate

1. Debunking the Monckton Myth.
Climate Capital was formed with a vision to rebalance humanity and nature.
That vision was borne out of recognition that we live in a world of finite resources.
Consumption of those resources has, for example, seen predictions of “peak oil”
in the next ten to twenty years and – arguably closer to home – “peak
phosphorous” for Australian farmers having been passed in recent years.
Some scientists have determined that the capacity of the world to sustainably
support our population was exceeded in the mid-80s. This has been likened to
moving from living off the interest of our environmental superannuation fund to
living off the capital. Just like a superannuation fund in the same circumstances,
the environmental capital will one day run out. The cornerstones of our existence
(food, energy and water) give rise to waste. Our demand for food, energy and
water (and consequent waste) is, by all accounts, growing at an infinitely faster
rate than the earth can supply.
We evidence a severe imbalance which is predicted to require meaningful
(some would say, huge) amounts of capital and behavioural change to return to
a sustainable existence.
This seems a daunting prospect but, like a dying man in the desert who can see a
bottle of water in the distance, humanity is unlikely to give up on the possibility of
turning the tide on our consumption of the resources available to it.
Recent commentary by Lord Monckton of the UK has incited climate skeptics to
suggest we need do nothing to remedy the observed changes in our
environment. This is both an incorrect interpretation of what Monckton proposes
and distracts from the fundamental demand/supply imbalance which we
evidence and which Monckton acknowledges.
This paper aims to clarify Monckton’s commentary and proposes a pragmatic
interpretation.
One of the most famous climate skeptics of the last decade is Lord Christopher
Monckton, UK. Monckton is widely critical of the theory of anthropogenic causes
for climate change and the stated scope of it. He disputes that global warming is
man-made, suggests that is unlikely to prove catastrophic and has criticised the
science presented by bodies including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC).
He has also argued the recommendation to invest the proposed small
percentages of global GDP in climate change mitigation would be ineffective, as
would the introduction of carbon taxes and emissions trading as a means of
curbing carbon emissions.
Level 23, COMALCO Building, 12 Creek Street Brisbane QLD 4000 Australia
T: 1800 CLIMATE F: +61 (07) 5533 3012 W: www.climatecapital.com.au
Sydney - Brisbane - Melbourne - Adelaide

2. He has been described as a "former science adviser to British Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher and a world-renowned scholar.” However, his credentials as
a commentator on climate change have been strongly questioned with
allegations that he has "no training whatsoever in science", and widely promoted
criticisms that his assertions are merely based on "unfounded self-promotion.”
Monckton is currently advocating for an independent royal commission to
reassess the climate science.
At the very least, one needs to be highly suspicious when an apparent amateur
raises objections about such a technical subject, which has been researched by
an incredibly diverse range of international scientific scholars, at enormous
expense, for several decades.
Despite his controversial position on global warming, Monckton’s issues are wider
than global warming and many are of substance. For instance, he is a strong
environmental advocate for reducing carbon emissions, addressing
deforestation, animal extinction, overfishing etc. He is also openly advocating
nuclear energy as a means to reduce carbon emissions.
Global warming debate aside, the world’s staggering consumption of its finite
resources is a largely uncontested topic. Few would debate that energy cannot
be used over and over indefinitely. The available usable energy is a finite
resource. While there are still supplies of coal, oil and natural gas, the demand is
increasing as the amount of new supplies being found is decreasing.
Many scientists have recently criticised a major review of the world's remaining oil
reserves, warning that the end of oil is coming sooner than governments and oil
companies are prepared to admit. Scientists led by the London-based Oil
Depletion Analysis Centre, say that global production of oil is set to peak in the
next four years before entering a steepening decline which will have massive
consequences for the world economy and the way that we live our lives.
Deforestation without sufficient reforestation has occurred on a very large scale
worldwide resulting in damage to habitat, biodiversity loss, aridity and has
adverse impacts on biosequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. It has been
estimated that we are losing 137 plants, animal and insect species every single
day due to rainforest deforestation, which equates to 50,000 species a year.
Demand growth on the world’s resources shows no sign of slowing and now it
seems to be accelerating. This demand can be attributed largely to our increase
per capita energy use and the exponential growth of the world's human
population. As more of the developing world becomes more industrialized, the
more energy humans will need. There is an immediate and dire need for the
world to aggressively pursue alternative energy sources and to take immediate
action to conserve our resources before it is too late. Whether a tax is imposed,
legislation is enacted or treaties are signed is secondary. Our very existence as a
race is counting on collective action and each individual and corporation must
play a role in fighting this vital cause.