I’ve just been listening to the BBC’s One Planet podcast. The latest pod features an interesting interview with Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace.
In the interview, as he did in an interview with us here, back in 2003 (What can I say, we’re six years ahead of the BBC :), he expounds the virtues of nuclear power, and offers his views on the uncertainty of the science around climate change and man being the primary cause.
Normally I dismiss such sceptics as ideologues. But Moore doesn’t fit in that category, particularly when he discuses what he calls a current period of global cooling and emerging uncertainty over current received wisdom.
No doubt his views are hugely unpopular with 99.9% of the environmental movement. A bit like Bjorn Lomborg, he claims the over-riding current focus on one issue (man’s contribution to climate change) is supplanting other issues which are just as important, but less popular for activists. These include air pollution and toxic waste.
There’s definitely a point there. We desperately need more debate on some of these issues.
The UK is set to run out of landfill in just a few years time, for example. Where’s the robust public debate on what that means?
On the upside, the Economist has a great piece a couple of weeks ago, from its more objective science and technology section, on the potential and history of biochar. Take a look at it, here.
From what I hear, it really does look like being part of the solution to carbon sequestration. And in part, to developing world soot pollution. Craig Sams, founder of Green & Blacks, is a big fan. He has a project on it called Carbon Gold.
Biochar: It’s not sexy, but it seems to work…