Entrevista Destrói a Defesa da Mudança Climática

Eu acho que deveria estar escrevendo sobre a Arábia Saudita, que começou a atacar os xiitas que moram na parte que tem mais petróleo do mundo. Mas, vi no blog de James Delingpole que o jornalista australiano Andrew Bolt do jornal Herald Sun entrevistou ontem  Jill Duggan (foto acima) da Diretoria Geral da Comissão Européia para Mudança Climática.

Bolt, com a entrevista, destruiu a idéia de controle de gases de efeito estufa pela Europa. Duggan mostrou que não sabe quanto custa a meta de redução de 20% das emissões européias até 2020, nem se funciona. Sabe apenas, o que é pior, que a meta não adianta nada, mesmo se houvesse mudança climática provocada pelo homem. Duggan estava na Austrália para convencer o país a seguir o modelo europeu. Não conseguiu.

Delingpole, no seu blog, mostrou o aúdio da entrevista, mas eu encontrei o blog do próprio Andrew Bolt, e ele reproduz toda a entrevista. Aqui você consegue ler toda a entrevista. Mostro abaixo a parte mais relevante. Onde estiver AB, leia-se Andrew Bolt, e JD, para Jill Duggan.

AB:  Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?
JD:  Yes.
AB:  Can you tell me how much - to the nearest billions - is that going to cost Europe do you think?
JD:  No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so  it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.
AB:  Right.  You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol - who’s not a climate sceptic - but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin?  He values it at about $250 billion.  You wouldn’t quarrel with that?
JD:  I probably would actually.  I mean, I don’t know.  It’s very, very difficult to quantify.  You get different changes, don’t you?  And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments - such as the UK government and the German government - would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.
AB:  Right.  Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.
JD:  I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures.
AB:  That’s right.  You don’t know but that’s the figure that I’ve got in front of me.  For that investment.  Or for whatever the investment is.  What’s your estimation of how much - because the object ultimately of course is to lower the world’s temperatures - what sort of temperature reduction do you imagine from that kind of investment?
JD:  Well, what we do know is that to have an evens chance of keeping temperature increases globally to 2°C - so that’s increases - you’ve got to reduce emissions globally by 50% by 2050.
AB:  Yes, I accept that, but from the $250 billion - or whatever you think the figure is - what do you think Europe can achieve with this 20% reduction in terms of cutting the world’s temperature?  Because that’s, in fact, what’s necessary.  What do you think the temperature reduction will be?
JD:  Well, obviously, Europe accounts for 14% of global emissions.  It’s 500 or 550 million people.  On its own it cannot do that.  That is absolutely clear.
AB:  Have you got a figure in your mind?  You don’t know the cost.  Do you know the result?
JD:  I don’t have a cost figure in my mind.  Nor, one thing I do know, obviously, is that Europe acting alone will not solve this problem alone.
AB:  So if I put a figure to you - I find it odd that you don’t know the cost and you don’t know the outcome - would you quarrel with this assessment:  that by 2100 - if you go your way and if you’re successful - the world’s temperatures will fall by 0.05°C?  Would you agree with that?
JD:  Sorry, can you just pass that by me again?  You’re saying that if Europe acts alone?
AB:  If just Europe alone - for this massive investment - will lower the world’s temperature with this 20% target (if it sustains that until the end of this century) by 0.05°C.  Would you quarrel with that?
JD:  Well, I think the climate science would not be that precise.  Would it?
AB:  Ah, no, actually it is, Jill.  You see this is what I’m curious about;  that you’re in charge of a massive program to re-jig an economy.  You don’t know what it costs.  And you don’t know what it’ll achieve.
JD:  Well, I think you can look at lots of modelling which will come up with lots of different costs.
AB:  Well what’s your modelling?  That’s the one that everyone’s quoting.  What’s your modelling?
JD:  Well, ah, ah. Let me talk about what we have done in Europe and what we have seen as the benefits.  In Europe, in Germany you could look at, there’s over a million new jobs that have been created by tackling climate change, by putting in place climate policies.  In the UK there’s many hundreds of thousand of jobs.
AB:  Actually, that’s not right, is it?  I just saw research.  Did you see this?  It came last week. Verso Economics saying that, for example, in Scotland the investment in green power has cost 3.7 jobs for every one green job created.  And there are similar figures; I’m looking at Italy here, Germany, Spain.  They’re all the same figures.
JD:  They’re not all the same figures.  You can pick figures to support any argument.  What I’m saying is that the experience in Europe is we’ve done things well and we’ve had some things which we wish we’d done differently at the start.  The impact on the economy has been that it has stimulated growth in jobs that will last.  It’s not been noticeable in the impact on households.  Not compared to gas and oil prices and the impact that they have on households.  And that we actually have governments in Europe including the UK, Germany and France who are asking for tougher targets now.  Now governments aren’t in the business of trying to undermine their economies.  They want their economies to grow.  If the UK, Germany and France did not believe that this was good for their economies and good for the planet they would not be asking for tougher targets.
AB:  I wish I could believe that.  We’re talking about a region - Europe - that has unemployment at 10% and a growth forecast this year of 1.6%.  I don’t know what we could learn from Europe actually.
JD:  Well.  Europe is not all the same.  Different bits of Europe have different experiences, clearly, and different economies.  Germany is an economy that’s a coal state like Australia and there may be things that you can learn from Germany.  I would not pretend that the UK is the same as Australia.  I recognise that Australia has its own special circumstances.  But I think if you look at how you want an economy to grow over the next 40, 50 years then you can either embrace what is going to be the way forward - and what the rest of the world is looking towards doing (including China and India) - or you can say “No, I’m not going to look at this, I’m going to stick with the same old ways of doing things”.  Now, actually, it takes time to change and it takes a lot of creativity and thought and I’m not saying that every country in the world should change at the same rate.  But this is a serious issue.  I realise that I’m talking to climate sceptics here.
AB:  Ah, look, economic sceptics as well, Jill.  Because, really, when you say for example that China and India will do something: they won’t.  China will, in fact, be responsible for more than three quarters of the world’s growth of emission in the next 20 years. But look, I know we are not going to agree on this…
JD:  That’s right.  There are 1.3 billion people in China who would probably like the same standard of living that Australians enjoy.
AB: Precisely my point. Exactly my point.
JD: But they are also investing very heavily in wind.  They’re the largest manufacturers of wind turbines in the world now.
AB:  We won’t get into an argument because they’re building a coal-fired power station every week.  Thank you for joining us. 

Acho que a CNBB (ver post abaixo) deveria ler (o papa não precisa), além dos repórteres que fazem o Jornal Nacional. Ai minha paciência! toda vez que vejo o assunto mudança climática na televisão brasileira.