Is the teaching of the science of global warming and climate change flawed?
Richard Pike and Janet Moxley
ECG Bulletin January 2008
ECG Bulletin January 2008
In January 2007 the Chief Executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry, Dr Richard Pike, issued a widely-circulated press release on climate change. The aim of this statement, which is reproduced below, was to encourage better teaching of the science behind climate change. However, Environmental Chemistry Group member, Dr Janet Moxley, was concerned that the ‘four key facts’ on the environment explained in this press release, which ‘children should know’, were themselves a distortion of the true position. We therefore invited Dr Moxley to present her point-by-point rebuttal of Dr Pike’s press release. To conclude this dialogue, we also append Dr Pike’s reply to Dr Moxley’s comments.
“Teaching of global warming flawed”, says chemistry chief
Climate change and global warming teaching in schools is flawed through omission, simplification and misrepresentation, says the Royal Society of Chemistry’s chief executive. “The problem needs to be addressed if the UK is to play a key role in tackling the issues raised, and exploiting related business opportunities,” says Dr Richard Pike.
He added: “These deficiencies are partly the result of needing to give youngsters easily digested concepts, but many teachers now agree that in doing so there is the risk of losing sight of the bigger picture.” That picture is not being articulated because of the very limited, quantitative references to climate change in school text books, if at all, says the head of the 43,000-member society.
“Support from web-based organisations is making progress, but is fragmented and lacks engagement with leading academics and industrialists in the field.”
These, says Dr Pike, are the four key facts children should know, but have been distorted or overlooked:
Dr Pike added: “Young people are clearly concerned about global warming and we all have a collective responsibility to ensure that they are well informed and feel confident in challenging the status quo for the benefit of us all.”
Climate change and global warming teaching in schools is flawed through omission, simplification and misrepresentation, says the Royal Society of Chemistry’s chief executive. “The problem needs to be addressed if the UK is to play a key role in tackling the issues raised, and exploiting related business opportunities,” says Dr Richard Pike.
He added: “These deficiencies are partly the result of needing to give youngsters easily digested concepts, but many teachers now agree that in doing so there is the risk of losing sight of the bigger picture.” That picture is not being articulated because of the very limited, quantitative references to climate change in school text books, if at all, says the head of the 43,000-member society.
“Support from web-based organisations is making progress, but is fragmented and lacks engagement with leading academics and industrialists in the field.”
These, says Dr Pike, are the four key facts children should know, but have been distorted or overlooked:
- Water vapour, not smoke, emerges from cooling towers. These structures are needed whether the heat source is from bio-fuels, concentrated solar rays, coal, gas or nuclear, and are necessary to cool down the circulating vapour (usually steam) that drives the turbines for electricity generation. The heating of water for high-pressure steam to pass through the turbines, followed by condensation, is a fundamental process in the power industry. The use of pictures of cooling towers as ‘iconic’ representations of global warming, therefore, is completely false, as even ‘green’ energy will need these facilities. Additionally, the water vapour emitted from these towers forms part of the natural water cycle.
- Very low-sulphur fuels can be worse for the environment than higher-sulphur fuels. Although they are attractive for consuming countries, their manufacture from oil, gas or coal elsewhere is energy-intensive, and therefore globally can leave a larger carbon footprint than conventional higher-sulphur fuels. In the extreme, a tonne of natural gas will produce only half a tonne of liquid fuel, with the remaining half tonne being consumed in the manufacturing process, with associated releases of carbon dioxide. This emphasises the need for full life-cycle analysis of energy processes. This example also illustrates the difficult balance between reducing pollution and acid rain at one location, while adding inadvertently to global warming.
- Oil and other fossil fuels may be burned for another century. Whatever advances are made in renewable and nuclear power, there is likely to be a transition period of at least 100 years during which fossil fuels will continue to be burned globally, driven by the inertia of millions of people depending on their countries’ oil, gas and coal production for their own economic prosperity. High priority must be placed on the technologies of carbon dioxide capture and storage, and the coordination of this. Even today, throughout the world, tens of millions of tonnes per day of carbon dioxide would need to be removed from the atmosphere, just to keep the concentration of this gas constant. This puts into perspective the scale of all other activities to reduce global warming. Perversely, even when use of fossil fuels ceases, there could still be further warming. This is because there will less particulate matter in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight, and a greater proportion of the sun’s energy will then reach the Earth’s surface.
- Energy storage and transportation (as electricity or hydrogen generated from electricity) will be essential for long-term sustainability. Like many of the energy issues for the future, these will be resolved only through the application of an innovative scientific base in this country, coupled with strong leadership linking education with society’s needs, and encouraging constructive engagement amongst all interested parties.
Dr Pike added: “Young people are clearly concerned about global warming and we all have a collective responsibility to ensure that they are well informed and feel confident in challenging the status quo for the benefit of us all.”
Dr Janet Moxley’s response to Richard Pike’s press release
Dr Richard Pike’s press release purported to encourage better teaching of the science behind climate change, but itself contained several errors and statements more likely to confuse those being taught about this issue at secondary school level than to give a clear picture of the mechanisms causing climate change and possible mitigation technologies.
The strangest thing about the statement was the items which Dr Pike suggested should be “the four key facts children should know” about climate change. These four facts were (in summary):
I would have expected something more along the lines that:
Dr Pike has subsequently informed me that he took these points as ‘read’. But given the concerns about the quality of science teaching in general, not to mention subsequent reporting of the remarks in the general press, it is unwise to take anything as given and they should be re-iterated firmly before going into any further detail.
Even if my points are taken as ‘read’, Dr Pike’s statement contains some misleading and inaccurate information. Most dangerous is the assertion that oil and other fossil fuels may be burned for another century, as it implies that we can safety sit back and do nothing for another hundred years. Dr Pike’s main reason for this is the “inertia of millions of people”. While this is indeed a HUGE challenge, it is not an excuse and every effort must be made by scientists, educators and governments to counter it. After all there was similar public complacency about the health risks of smoking or the unacceptability of drink driving until very recently. People can change their behaviour en masse and learn to use new technology in very short periods of time as the growth of internet and email usage over the last 15 years proves.
Dr Pike mentions carbon capture and storage as a possible technology which should be investigated to collect carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning. While of possible assistance in some cases, this technology is not fully proven and it may be many years before it can play a major role. Where carbon capture and storage has been deployed to date, using the carbon dioxide to extract oil which would not otherwise be economic from depleted reservoirs has been as much of a consideration as preventing greenhouse gas emissions. Thus the benefit of burying the carbon is counteracted by burning the fossil fuel extracted. In any case, carbon capture and storage would not be able to address emissions from diffuse emission sources such as domestic heating systems and transport.
In the same point Dr Pike speculates that reducing the soot emissions associated with burning fossil fuels could accelerate global warming by reducing the amount of sunlight reflected into space. However, this is a complex area which has not been fully modelled. Dark soot such as carbon black which arises from inefficient fossil fuel combustion absorbs sunlight and adds to warming. Only light colour particulates such as nitrate and sulphate reflect it. The effects of particulates are further complicated by their role in cloud formation. Maintaining levels of atmospheric soot is not a valid reason to continue fossil fuel burning.
Dr Richard Pike’s press release purported to encourage better teaching of the science behind climate change, but itself contained several errors and statements more likely to confuse those being taught about this issue at secondary school level than to give a clear picture of the mechanisms causing climate change and possible mitigation technologies.
The strangest thing about the statement was the items which Dr Pike suggested should be “the four key facts children should know” about climate change. These four facts were (in summary):
- Water vapour, not smoke, emerges from cooling towers.
- Very low-sulphur fuels can be worse for the environment than higher-sulphur fuels.
- Oil and other fossil fuels may be burned for another century.
- Energy storage and transportation (as electricity or hydrogen generated from electricity) will be essential for long-term sustainability.
I would have expected something more along the lines that:
- Climate change is real. (Note 1)
- The climate change is caused by human activities which lead to emissions of greenhouse gases primarily carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. (Note 2)
- Urgent action is needed to tackle climate change, as 60 – 90% reductions in emissions are needed by 2030 – 2050 if temperatures increases are to be kept to safe levels of no more than 2 °C. Larger temperature increases would lead to positive feedbacks, such as production of greenhouse gases from warming soils and decreased update by vegetation reaching the level where climate change continues even without any further anthropogenic emissions. (Note 3)
- No one solution is likely to provide the complete answer. Tackling climate change will need a variety of technologies covering both power generation and energy efficiency, as well as major changes in the behaviour of individuals in the developed world. (Note 4)
Dr Pike has subsequently informed me that he took these points as ‘read’. But given the concerns about the quality of science teaching in general, not to mention subsequent reporting of the remarks in the general press, it is unwise to take anything as given and they should be re-iterated firmly before going into any further detail.
Even if my points are taken as ‘read’, Dr Pike’s statement contains some misleading and inaccurate information. Most dangerous is the assertion that oil and other fossil fuels may be burned for another century, as it implies that we can safety sit back and do nothing for another hundred years. Dr Pike’s main reason for this is the “inertia of millions of people”. While this is indeed a HUGE challenge, it is not an excuse and every effort must be made by scientists, educators and governments to counter it. After all there was similar public complacency about the health risks of smoking or the unacceptability of drink driving until very recently. People can change their behaviour en masse and learn to use new technology in very short periods of time as the growth of internet and email usage over the last 15 years proves.
Dr Pike mentions carbon capture and storage as a possible technology which should be investigated to collect carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning. While of possible assistance in some cases, this technology is not fully proven and it may be many years before it can play a major role. Where carbon capture and storage has been deployed to date, using the carbon dioxide to extract oil which would not otherwise be economic from depleted reservoirs has been as much of a consideration as preventing greenhouse gas emissions. Thus the benefit of burying the carbon is counteracted by burning the fossil fuel extracted. In any case, carbon capture and storage would not be able to address emissions from diffuse emission sources such as domestic heating systems and transport.
In the same point Dr Pike speculates that reducing the soot emissions associated with burning fossil fuels could accelerate global warming by reducing the amount of sunlight reflected into space. However, this is a complex area which has not been fully modelled. Dark soot such as carbon black which arises from inefficient fossil fuel combustion absorbs sunlight and adds to warming. Only light colour particulates such as nitrate and sulphate reflect it. The effects of particulates are further complicated by their role in cloud formation. Maintaining levels of atmospheric soot is not a valid reason to continue fossil fuel burning.
The other “key facts” also contain worrying inaccuracies and omissions. For example:
A major concern about the statement was that it gave the impression that it had the support of the 43,000 members of RSC, whereas the press release was essentially Dr Pike’s personal view and was issued without consulting the Society’s Environmental Chemistry Group or, seemingly, other experts within the RSC membership. Dr Pike is entitled to his views, but it would have been probably more prudent to allow expert groups to review his comments. This would add weight to any statement issued.
Few would disagree with Dr Pike’s final statement that “Young people are clearly concerned about global warming and we all have a collective responsibility to ensure that they are well informed and feel confident in challenging the status quo for the benefit of us all”. The RSC has a duty to them to ensure that they are indeed provided with valid information and the scientific literacy needed to make properly informed choices. Chemistry World and the ECG Bulletin have already carried excellent articles covering this area, but these do not have the impact in the wider world that press releases do, and therefore it is vital that when these are issued on behalf of RSC they are well grounded in established science.
JANET MOXLEY
November 2007
The views in this article are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer, SEPA.
Notes to Dr Moxley’s response
Note 1. ‘Climate change is real.’ S. Solomon et al in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Avery, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, Section TS 3.1.1 http://www.ipcc.ch/
Note 2. ‘Climate change is caused by human activities which lead to emissions of greenhouse gases primarily carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.’ S. Solomon et al, ibidem, Sections TS 2.1.1, TS 2.5, TS 4.1 and Table TS 4.
Note 3. ‘Urgent action is needed to tackle climate change as 60 - 90% reductions in emissions are needed by 2030 - 2050 if temperature are to be kept to safe levels of no more than 2 °C.’
(a) B. Hare, ‘Relationship between Increases in Global Mean Temperature and Impacts on Ecosystems, Food Productions. Water and Socio-Economic Systems’, in Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change H. J. Schellnhuber (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006, pp 191 – 9.
(b) H. Grassl et al, Climate Protection Strategies for the 21st Century; Kyoto and Beyond, Wissenschaftliche Beirat des Bundesregierung Globale Umweltverangerung (German Advisory Council on Global Change) Special Report, Berlin, 2003.
(c) European Council target limit on global temperature increase: CEU—Council of the European Union (1996), 1939th Council Meeting, Luxembourg, 25 June 1996. For a comment on this policy, see R. S. J. Tol, ‘Europe’s long-term climate target. A critical evaluation’, Energy Policy, 2007, 35, 424-432.
Note 4. ‘No one solution is likely to provide the answer.’
(a) Climate Change the UK Programme 2006, HM Government, 2006 (pdf version available on the web).
(b) Inquiry into Energy Issues in Scotland, Royal Society of Edinburgh, 2006 (pdf version available on the web).
(c) Changing Our Ways: Scotland’s Climate Change Programme, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh, 2006 (pdf version available on the web).
(d) George Monbiot, Heat: How We Can Stop the Planet Burning, Penguin Paperback, 2007.
(e) Dave Reay, Climate Change Begins at Home, Macmillan Science, 2005.
Biographical Note: Janet Moxley is an environmental chemist who works for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). Dr Moxley’s interest in the chemistry associated with climate change arises from studying for a PhD with Keith Smith’s group at Edinburgh University. For her PhD, Janet investigated carbon monoxide exchanges between soils and the atmosphere. Carbon monoxide affects the sink for greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide, which also have sources and sinks in soils. Prior to her PhD research, Janet obtained a BSc in Chemistry, and an MSc in Analytical Chemistry from Aberdeen University.
Dr Richard Pike’s reply
I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to Dr Janet Moxley’s commentary on my press release. Whilst we might disagree on the emphasis on the future make-up of the world’s energy supply, there is no disagreement over the seriousness of the climate change threat we face or the need to react positively and directly to address these critical issues.
The major criticism in the comment piece is really about the issue of media releases. Media releases can be powerful tools in shaping debates, and the RSC has been successful in recent years in setting the agenda in the media in several areas using this form of communication. Media releases have to be used with care because they are not, and cannot be, ‘balanced’ articles. Media releases are most effective and have greatest impact when the points made are incisive and challenging, either setting the agenda on a topic or responding to a specific issue. Taken out of context, media releases may appear as ‘incomplete stories’ or even ‘one-sided’.
The media release cited above was in response to a specific story about science teaching on climate change. It built upon what is taught but also sought to highlight some of the other issues that need to be addressed. The points raised are scientifically consistent and the positions stated draw upon the RSC policy position. All media statements are carefully checked before they are issued for alignment with RSC policies.
I’m sorry if what I have said has caused concern. I and my colleagues on the staff see our role as promoting good debate on science issues. I’d welcome the opportunity to come to one of your meetings to discuss these issues with you. By open debate we could explore how to develop new channels to help move the public’s need to address the issue of global warming and climate change.
RICHARD PIKE
December 2007
- While it is true that water vapour, not smoke, emerges from cooling towers, this vapour demonstrates the inefficiency of generating electricity from fossil fuels, as it represents a huge amount of waste heat. So cooling towers could indeed be considered “iconic” of the waste of energy which is leading to global warming.
- Dr Pike suggests that cooling towers are needed for all forms of energy generation. However, they are certainly not needed for turbines powered by renewables such as hydro, wind, wave or tidal power, or for solar water heating or photovoltaic systems. Nor are they needed when electricity generation is part of CHP schemes.
- Dr Pike’s discussion of low-sulphur fuels confuses two issues. Low sulphur fuels combat acid rain. But their CO2 content makes the same contribution to global warming as that in other fuels. Dr Pike implies that we should tackle one problem or the other but not both. However reducing fossil fuel use and vehicle use addresses both problems.
A major concern about the statement was that it gave the impression that it had the support of the 43,000 members of RSC, whereas the press release was essentially Dr Pike’s personal view and was issued without consulting the Society’s Environmental Chemistry Group or, seemingly, other experts within the RSC membership. Dr Pike is entitled to his views, but it would have been probably more prudent to allow expert groups to review his comments. This would add weight to any statement issued.
Few would disagree with Dr Pike’s final statement that “Young people are clearly concerned about global warming and we all have a collective responsibility to ensure that they are well informed and feel confident in challenging the status quo for the benefit of us all”. The RSC has a duty to them to ensure that they are indeed provided with valid information and the scientific literacy needed to make properly informed choices. Chemistry World and the ECG Bulletin have already carried excellent articles covering this area, but these do not have the impact in the wider world that press releases do, and therefore it is vital that when these are issued on behalf of RSC they are well grounded in established science.
JANET MOXLEY
November 2007
The views in this article are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer, SEPA.
Notes to Dr Moxley’s response
Note 1. ‘Climate change is real.’ S. Solomon et al in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Avery, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, Section TS 3.1.1 http://www.ipcc.ch/
Note 2. ‘Climate change is caused by human activities which lead to emissions of greenhouse gases primarily carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.’ S. Solomon et al, ibidem, Sections TS 2.1.1, TS 2.5, TS 4.1 and Table TS 4.
Note 3. ‘Urgent action is needed to tackle climate change as 60 - 90% reductions in emissions are needed by 2030 - 2050 if temperature are to be kept to safe levels of no more than 2 °C.’
(a) B. Hare, ‘Relationship between Increases in Global Mean Temperature and Impacts on Ecosystems, Food Productions. Water and Socio-Economic Systems’, in Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change H. J. Schellnhuber (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006, pp 191 – 9.
(b) H. Grassl et al, Climate Protection Strategies for the 21st Century; Kyoto and Beyond, Wissenschaftliche Beirat des Bundesregierung Globale Umweltverangerung (German Advisory Council on Global Change) Special Report, Berlin, 2003.
(c) European Council target limit on global temperature increase: CEU—Council of the European Union (1996), 1939th Council Meeting, Luxembourg, 25 June 1996. For a comment on this policy, see R. S. J. Tol, ‘Europe’s long-term climate target. A critical evaluation’, Energy Policy, 2007, 35, 424-432.
Note 4. ‘No one solution is likely to provide the answer.’
(a) Climate Change the UK Programme 2006, HM Government, 2006 (pdf version available on the web).
(b) Inquiry into Energy Issues in Scotland, Royal Society of Edinburgh, 2006 (pdf version available on the web).
(c) Changing Our Ways: Scotland’s Climate Change Programme, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh, 2006 (pdf version available on the web).
(d) George Monbiot, Heat: How We Can Stop the Planet Burning, Penguin Paperback, 2007.
(e) Dave Reay, Climate Change Begins at Home, Macmillan Science, 2005.
Biographical Note: Janet Moxley is an environmental chemist who works for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). Dr Moxley’s interest in the chemistry associated with climate change arises from studying for a PhD with Keith Smith’s group at Edinburgh University. For her PhD, Janet investigated carbon monoxide exchanges between soils and the atmosphere. Carbon monoxide affects the sink for greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide, which also have sources and sinks in soils. Prior to her PhD research, Janet obtained a BSc in Chemistry, and an MSc in Analytical Chemistry from Aberdeen University.
Dr Richard Pike’s reply
I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to Dr Janet Moxley’s commentary on my press release. Whilst we might disagree on the emphasis on the future make-up of the world’s energy supply, there is no disagreement over the seriousness of the climate change threat we face or the need to react positively and directly to address these critical issues.
The major criticism in the comment piece is really about the issue of media releases. Media releases can be powerful tools in shaping debates, and the RSC has been successful in recent years in setting the agenda in the media in several areas using this form of communication. Media releases have to be used with care because they are not, and cannot be, ‘balanced’ articles. Media releases are most effective and have greatest impact when the points made are incisive and challenging, either setting the agenda on a topic or responding to a specific issue. Taken out of context, media releases may appear as ‘incomplete stories’ or even ‘one-sided’.
The media release cited above was in response to a specific story about science teaching on climate change. It built upon what is taught but also sought to highlight some of the other issues that need to be addressed. The points raised are scientifically consistent and the positions stated draw upon the RSC policy position. All media statements are carefully checked before they are issued for alignment with RSC policies.
I’m sorry if what I have said has caused concern. I and my colleagues on the staff see our role as promoting good debate on science issues. I’d welcome the opportunity to come to one of your meetings to discuss these issues with you. By open debate we could explore how to develop new channels to help move the public’s need to address the issue of global warming and climate change.
RICHARD PIKE
December 2007
