What’s your carbon reduction strategy?

Dear Editor

In an undergraduate course we run on the "Global Environment and
Human Health" here in the University of Bristol, we set about, with a
group of 24 medical students, to try and reach balanced conclusions about
the science of climate change. But in seeking to diagnose the ailments of
the planetary system we soon found we couldn't really understand the
primary research.

As is so often the case with medicine also, we relied on secondary
sources; books, articles, IPCC summaries (both sceptical and fanatical).
We did however have one unique source of knowledge in the form of Prof
Paul Valdes, one of our Geography professors and co-author of the latest
IPCC report.

What a breath of fresh air! He explained the political process
whereby painstaking research is transmogrified into summaries, editorials
and media rhetoric. He said for instance that no climate scientist of
repute thought that Hurricane Katrina could be pinned on GW.

He explained that the rise in global CO2 is nearly 100% anthropogenic
(isotopes have proved this), that the "Medieval Warm Period" was a
European not a global warming and that the 2007 reworking of the
(in)famous "Mann et al" paper convincingly demonstrates a late 20th rise
in average global temperature (the hockey-stick curve much doubted by
sceptics).

The message is, unfortunately, not clear-cut. Clouds are a mystery.
Sea-level rises exceptionally hard to predict because we are not yet sure
what is happening with the glaciers. His uncertainty made me more inclined
to believe what he was certain about.

I now, unlike before, don't think it is scientifically reasonable, or
even responsible, to doubt the reality of GW. The students reached this
same conclusion. The impact of that reality and what we can do about it
are even more complex questions. But given the possibilities for a major
screw-up in the global system a "precautionary" approach seems wise,

Faithfully

Trevor Thompson

Competing interests:
None declared

Dear Fiona Godlee,
Your editorial seems to have settled the question that anthropogenic
global warming is a “scientific” certainty. Is it that simple? Are there
other, equally strong, points to ponder over in this vital area?

Professor Bob Carter of the James Cook University, Queensland and
University of Adelaide has a different opinion based on his forty years’
of research experience. He has the following views: “The alarmist IPCC
view of human caused global warming is not settled science. Despite $50
Billion being spent on climate research since 1990, no discernible human
impact on the global climate has been detected.”

NASA’s Aqua Satellite also does not fully support the view. That
probably shows that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” is not a
true adage!

Lawrence Solomon, in his classic “The Deniers” (published by National
Post in 2007), has collected some of the best scientific brains to give
their opinions on this vital subject. Global warming movement seems to be
having a hidden agenda if one believes in the science fiction movie made
by Al Gore.

Most of the recent increase in environmental surface temperature has
been attributed to water vapour from evaporation of sea water! There have
also been cycles of global warming and cooling in the distant past without
impacting human existence significantly.

I am a bit confused after reading your editorial. We doctors have
many more mundane matters to worry about in addition to putting our house
in order. Our Giga problem seems to be our inability to eradicate the
mother of all illnesses, poverty, what with its attendant epidemic of NIDS
(Nutritional Immune Deficiency Syndrome) that makes AIDS pale into
insignificance.

As a profession what are our plans to eradicate poverty on a global
scale which affects more than 975 million human beings all over?

Yours ever,
bmhegde

Competing interests:
None declared

In 2005 the Manx government set its Health Service the target of a
20%
reduction in carbon emissions by 2010. This included patient transport
services. The Estates Management Team took up the lead role. When I
visited
recently I was shown the figures: in the year 2004/5 the Health Service
used 55
million kwH of gas, oil and electricity. But last year (2007/8) this was
down to 46
million kwH, a reduction of 16% already.

The team put their success down to a number of features: support from

politicians and staff, the Carbon Trust, and good cost/benefit analyses of

technical fixes. Solutions included a new combined heat and power unit in
Nobles Hospital, variable fan speeds to ensure optimal ventilation flows,
optimising systems which compute when to turn heating on and off to get
rooms to the correct temperatures at only the required times, log books
for
each building with monthly consumption figures by staff, automatic switch
off
devices where possible, and draught and insulation assessment of buildings

which fall outside expected energy consumption. They even have a plant
making
biodiesel from the waste cooking oils. It seems initial gains can be quick
and
cost effective but for the major gains radical restructuring of transport,

procurement and energy generation will still be vital. It would indeed be
ironic if
we, the NHS, were a major contributor to future health disasters by our
inaction
now.

Competing interests:
None declared