The podcast is now up for our final plenary class of this term – a panel debate entilted “Energy without greenhouse gases: pipedream or attainable reality?”. You can listen to and download it from the college media site.

The debate was chaired by Geoffrey Maitland FREng with Richard Green (Professor of Sustainable Energy Business), Richard Templer (Professor of Biophysical Chemistry), Robert Gross (Director of the Centre for Energy Policy and Technology) and James Barber (Professor of Biochemistry) on the panel.

During the debate, several people mentioned the 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. The author of that report, Nicolas Stern, is now Chair of the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics and he happened to give a short series of lectures there last month, which touched on engineering policy (and, I thought, really showed how interlinked issues of science, ethics and economics and technology policy are when it comes to climate change). You can find podcasts of these lectures at the LSE website.

The panel also mentioned wind power, partly because of the recent Guardian splash, so you might be interested to know Rob Gross was talking about the subject on the Imperial podcast this month. You can find this interview here (or subscribe through iTunes).

Last week’s lecture was from Nigel Brandon, Professor of Sustainable Development in Energy and Director of Imperial’s Energy Futures Laboratory. A podcast of the event is now available (and you can download the slides too).

The lecture’s title was ‘Engineering solutions to Climate Change’ but Brandon wasn’t about to give a simple prescription, focusing more on technology options and inviting us to discuss these. As he started his talk:

“I’ve got quite a tough challenge I think tonight, because I understand you’ve had a number of talks about the problem, trying to understand climate change [...] and I’m one of the people trying to tell you whether there are any answers to this, and I’m not certain I’m going to tell you whether there are any answers. But I’m hoping that we’ll discuss some of the issues and perhaps between us we can explore some of the choices that society has about whether it chooses to find some of the answers. I think if you were to ask an engineer today if they could build you a low carbon energy system, then the answer is “yes we can build you a low carbon energy system now if you want one. It’s just that it’ll be quite expensive”. So it’s not a matter of whether we can do it, but how we can do it, how we do it cost effectively and who is going to pay for it.”

Our forth lecture came from Marianne Talbot, Director of Studies in Philosophy, Department of Continuing Education at Oxford University. We turned our usual audio recording into a video podcast, so you can see the slides as she talks.

Even if you don’t listen to the talk, you might be interested in Talbot’s finishing questions:

• Can you think of a situation in which you have – apparently sincerely – argued for a belief to which you don’t in fact subscribe?
• To what extent is it morally acceptable for scientists to refuse to engage in debate about climate change? Is there anything scientists could – and should – do about the fact that media-run debates are often unacceptably polarised?
• To what extent does the fact that certainty is unobtainable relieve a scientist of the obligation to search for truth?
• Do you agree with Kant that it is irrational to be immoral?
• Do you agree that humans, when they act immorally, must be ignorant rather than corrupt or weak-willed?

Interestingly she disagreed with Lord Oxburgh when he told us, a few weeks ago, that “science is about uncertainty”.

“We know that certaniny is impossible to achieve. We’re not in the business of being able to claim that we’re certain about anything. And therefore it’s easy to tell ourselves and others to take the easy way out and just say nothing is certain here. But sometimes it’s necessary to go out on a limb. If you really think, if you look at the balance of evidence, that there is reason to believe that climate change is happening, perhaps you need to say so. There is plenty more we could do to get nearer the truth and we mustn’t use “uncertainty” and the fact that you’re not going to eliminate uncertainty as a sort of mask [...] I don’t agree with [Oxburgh...] I think science is about reducing uncertainty, it’s not about uncertainty. No scientist should be happy with uncertainty. What we’re searching for is ever-more certainty.”

Stained Glass Window at Royal Society.

Joe Smith from the OU has written a blogpost about climate science in the media based on his contribution to our debate last month. Smith argues climate science is a bad fit for the mass media, especially television. It’s too slow moving, too complex, too uncertain. So, journalists try to spice things up and will, perhaps understandably, reach for the sorts of shouty, two-sided debates many in climate science so deplore. Smith’s point is that rather than simply complaining that the media gets things wrong, climate science needs to offer new, better stories. As the blogpost’s title puts it: don’t shoot the pianist, offer a different tune.

When it comes to offering these new tunes, I sometimes wonder if climate science is especially badly served when it comes to public relations, even compared to other areas of science. Smith talks about a time he sat next to someone from the IPCC press office at a conference and realised “to my horror that I was sitting next to almost allof the IPCC press office…”. Maybe climate science need to take a leaf out of high energy physics and poach some of the CERN communications team?

Or maybe it’s unfair to compare climate science with high energy physics. Maybe more PR in climate science would just add to criticisms of spin. Maybe we need something else.

Next week’s lecture is from Nigel Brandon, Professor of Sustainable Development in Energy at Imperial, and the Director of the Energy Futures Laboratory.

He’s sent over some suggested readings in advance:

• Sustainable energy without the hot air, David McKay. Available free online at Professor McKay’s website.
• DECC energy statistics.
• IEA World energy outlook (this should be available through the library).
• Nate Lewis, Caltech, Challenges for Global Energy.

The third lecture in Imperial Horizons – Paolo Vineis, Professor of Environmental Epidemiology, on the impact of Climate Change on Global Health – is now available as a podcast. You can also download his slides (opens pdf).

It was a great lecture, touching on issues of public policy and ethics as well as the fascinatingly complex science of climate related mortality.

Satellite image of Bangladesh, one of Vineis’ slides.

As Professor Vineis argues, health issues brings into focus some of the key inequalities of exposure to climate change on a global scale, the disparity between those who make the climate change and those who are the victims of it, be this via floods, drought and infectious diseases. It was also fascinating, for me, to see how much of the issues came down to issues of water (issues which are already a huge global health challenge in their own right, but exacerbated by climate change).

If you want to read up any more, Professor Vineis suggests the following papers:

• McMichael AJ, Lindgren E. Climate change: present and future risks to health, and necessary responses. J Intern Med. 2011 Nov;270(5):401-13.
• Climate change epidemiology: methodological challenges. Xun WW, Khan AE, Michael E, Vineis P. Int J Public Health. 2010 Apr;55(2):85-96.

One of our tutors, Abeed Visram, emailed me with some listings of debates on climate change and energy policy happening this term which Horizons students might be interested in. I’ve had a bit of a dig around some of the other London colleges and our neighbouring museums to add to this, and come up with the following. I’m sure I’ve missed loads, so do let me know of any more in the comments section.

7 February 2012, 18.00. Imperial College: Energy Futures Lab lecture series. G16, Sir Alexander Fleming Building. “Alternative Energy: Is it an appropriate investment domain for entrepreneurs?” – Dr Dominic Emery of BP speaks on alternative energy ventures

7 February 2012, 19:00. Dana Centre, Science Museum. Future Skies?

15 February 2012, 13:00. Imperial College: CEP Lunchtime Seminar. Mechanical Engineering Lecture Theatre 342. Arturo Castillo Castillo, ‘Solid Waste Management and Recycling Regulation’ (title tbc).

15 February 2012, 18:30. UCL: Sociology Network Guest Lecture. Roberts GO6 Sir Ambrose Fleming Lecture Theatre. ‘Sociology and Climate Change’, Professor Tony Giddens.

21 February 2012, 19:00. Dana Centre, Science Museum. Crowdwise: Engineering the future of energy.

21 February 2012, 18:30. LSE: Lionel Robbins Memorial Lectures (1/3). Old Theatre, Old Building. “Climate Change and the New Industrial Revolution – What we risk and how we should cast the economics and ethics”, Professor Lord Stern.

22 February 2012, 18:30. LSE: Lionel Robbins Memorial Lectures (2/3). Old Theatre, Old Building. “Climate Change and the New Industrial Revolution – How we can respond and prosper”, Professor Lord Stern.

22 February 2012, 18.30. Imperial College: Grantham Special Lecture. Lecture Theatre 308, Huxley Building. “The God Species” – Mark Lynas, author of books on climate change and advisor on climate change to the President of the Maldives.

22 February 2012, 19:00. Natural History Museum: Earth Debates (watch online). Beyond GDP – how can we measure progress?

23 February 2012, 18:30. LSE: Lionel Robbins Memorial Lectures (3/3). Old Theatre, Old Building. “Climate Change and the New Industrial Revolution – How we can get there: building national and international action”, Professor Lord Stern.

29 February, 13:00. Imperial College: CEP Lunchtime Seminar. Mechanical Engineering Lecture Theatre 342. Behdeen Oraee-Mirzamani and Slavina Georgieva – ‘Carbon Capture and Storage, Regulation and Liability’ (title tbc).

1 March 2012, 5pm. UCL: Public Policy events. Gustave Tuck Lecture Theatre, Wilkins Building. Climate Change and Financial Risk.

13 March 2012, 19:00. Dana Centre, Science Museum. Crowdwise: Engineering the future of transport.

14 March 2012, 18:30. Imperial College. Lecture Theatre G16, Sir Alexander Fleming Building. Special lecture from Jeremy Grantham, co-founder and Chief Strategist of GMO, LLC and founder of the Grantham Institutes at Imperial and LSE: ‘Attitudes in America to Investing, Resource Limitations and Global Warming’. Free, but please register.

14 March 2012, 19:00. Natural History Museum: Earth Debates (watch online). Green cities in a green economy – how to pioneer a sustainable transition?

20 March 2012, 17.30. Imperial College: Grantham Special Lecture. G34, Sir Alexander Fleming Building. “New insights into China’s energy future” – A Grantham Special Lecture by Dr Yang Yufeng of the Energy Research Institute (ERI) of China’s National Development and Reform Commission.

21 March, 13:00. Imperial College: CEP Lunchtime Seminar. Mechanical Engineering Lecture Theatre 342. Nicole Kalas and Mireille Rack, ‘ Biofuels and Biomass – Perspectives in Implementation’ (title tbc).

22 March 2012, 18.30. Imperial College: Grantham Special Lecture. 311, Huxley Building. “Critical transitions in nature and society” – Professor Marten Scheffer, Center for Water and Climate Wageningen University, The Netherlands.

30 March 2012, 17:30. Kings College London: The Environment, politics and Development Group Annual Lecture. Safra Lecture Theatre, Strand Campus. ‘Climate-Challenged Society’ Richard B. Norgaard, Professor of Energy and Resources, University of California, Berkeley.

George Bush used to say, in his generous way, that the science [of climate change] is uncertain. But it’s an almost content free statement because science is about uncertainty.

Lord Oxburgh FRS, Imperial College, 30th January 2012.

The above quote comes from the debate on climate change in the mass media we held as the second session in Imperial Horizons. The debate was chaired by Lord Oxburgh, with a panel comprising of Louise Gray (Environment Correspondent, Telegraph), James Randerson (Environment and Science News Editor, Guardian), James Painter (Reuters Institute, University of Oxford) and Joe Smith (Open University). You can find a podcast of the debate at the college media site.

Apologies in advance that there’s a bit of feedback at the start. The sound quality does improve,  I promise. I should also note that we don’t have a copy of James Painter’s slides, though you should really be able to make out his key points from what he says. If you want the detail of his research, you’ll need to get a copy of his report (or the Carbon Brief blog has a good overview).

A couple of students and tutors have said they thought the panelists were too similar, that there wasn’t enough ‘debate’. I think that’s a fair criticism and take it as useful feedback for the future, but I do also disagree a bit too. There was, if you listen carefully, a fair bit of diversity within this discussion. It wasn’t one side vs. the other, and the panellists tended to be polite and smile and nod at each other, but that didn’t mean they were all coming from exactly the same position, or that they covered the same issues.

It’s worth reflecting on how we identify a ‘debate’ here. Debates do not always have to be a battle of two opposing views. We might even argue a polarised debate the least productive sort you can have. Indeed, this question of how we structure and spot the debate within climate science was a key topic of this particular event, as it was in our last week’s lecture, with Brian Hoskins, with panellists noting the different types of uncertainites and spaces for disagreement as well as disagreeing (slightly, politely) about whether there was too much consensus around climate science and if we needed more of an ‘edge’ to the public debate here.

For me, this point was made best in a response from Gray to one of the student questions: ‘there’s a lot of heat and fire around a few sceptical people, but maybe that is the wrong focus’.

Maybe you disagree though.

If you are even the slightest bit interested in science and technology policy, you really should keep an eye on the publication page of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST).

POST is the UK Parliament’s in-house office for analysis of science policy issues. About 20-30 times a year they publish briefing notes on specific issues. These vary, but can be brilliantly clear overviews of the sorts of complex, multi-disciplinary and sometimes highly uncertain global challenges our new Imperial Horizons programme aims to explore.

I flag this up because they’ve just published their 400th POSTnote, on climate variability and weather, but the whole archive is worth a look. It’s a great resource.

A podcast of our first lecture is now up on the Imperial media site. You can also download the slides for the lecture here.

I’m really pleased to be able to share it with a broader audience, because it’s a lovely introduction to some of the science and politics of climate change from Sir Brian Hoskins, Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial.

The lecture is presented with humour and humility. It’s a lovely listen, focused on the science but with some lovely little asides based on Hoskins’ experience, as a senior scientist in this field, of interacting with policy and the mass media:

There was one COP [annual UN climate talks] in Copenhagen where everything was going to be sorted. I was there. The snow was coming down and it was absolute chaos

He also spoke about his personal involvement in “Climategate” - the surprise of having a rather everyday email he’d sent end up in the Daily Mail and the way it lightly oddly rendered quite everyday scientific debate public property – as well as challenges for climate policy when the problem is such a complex, uncertain and long-term one.

Personally, I really liked this lecture. Have a listen and see what you think.