The bestseller on the CO2 issue

The English edition is a timely update of the original german version "Sündenbock CO2" edited for an international audience. 

Dr. Markus O. Häring has shown that while carbon dioxide has the greenhouse effect attributed to it, it is first and foremost an indispensable component for all life on Earth. At the moment this vital gas was designated a “pollutant”, respectable scientific debate on the CO2 question was effectively abandoned. On the basis of this false pretext, measures have been justified that lead to other environmental burdens instead of well thought-out solutions. This book points the way back to a prudent, reasoned environmental policy, without doomsday scenarios and without the sorts of medieval-style indulgences that only serve to satisfy particular interests.

"The most complete and balanced book I have seen on the CO2 debate.
Easy to read. Great job!"
(Harry Hendrickx, Economist, The Netherlands)

 Read the prologue

This book was first published in 2018 in German and was written for my fellow Swiss citizens. Some readers have suggested that I make this book accessible to English-speaking readers, precisely because some examples in the book refer to a country that in many respects wants to be a role model or believes it has to be. Certainly, our government tends to take on the role of “model pupil” in all UN bodies. Clichés such as “Swiss Efficiency” and “Heidi-land”, do not do justice to the complexity of this small nation. Switzerland is a densely populated country. Eight million inhabitants share a land area half of which is too mountainous for settlement and agricultural use, making it one of the most densely populated countries in Europe. Despite this, Switzerland is a rich country. It has one of the highest per capita gross domestic prod­ucts in the world. There are many reasons for this high level of prosperity. Switzerland has been spared acts of war for well over a hundred years and has, in fact, not participated directly in any wars during this period. Perhaps the most important reason for our wealth, however, is our long tradition of direct democratic structures in a strongly federal system. The political system allows its citizens to question all new laws via referen­dum. In a memorable vote on May 21, 2017, the Swiss electorate adopted a new energy law with a majority of 58.2 %. This law sets a target of re­ducing energy consumption by 43 % per person by 2035. It also prohibits the construction of new nuclear power plants. Energy efficiency and the environment are of great concern to the Swiss population. Unlike other European countries, it has no fossil fuel or mineral resources. However, thanks to its alpine topography and an abundance of water, it can produce more than half of the electrici­ty it needs with hydroelectric power. Despite a high rate of consumption, the CO2 emissions per capita, relevant to climate policy, are only 6.5 tons. Switzerland thus has the lowest CO2 emissions among the highly industrialized countries. The reason for this lies in electricity production from hydropower and nuclear energy, as well as in a less energy-intensive industrial structure. Energy-intensive industries were successively outsourced for economic rather than ecological reasons. This ostensibly advantageous starting position should not obscure the fact that the Swiss are among the world leaders in consumption-based emissions. Being an export country for high-quality products such as pharmaceuticals, watches and precision machinery, the country is de­pendent on the import of virtually all raw materials for these goods. Although Switzerland maintains a strong manufacturing base, today around 70 % of the active population works in service industries, ranging from tourism to engineering and medical to financial services. Bearing this in mind, the local issues discussed in this book are likely to be relevant for most industrialized countries as well as those that thrive on industrialization. As a child growing up in Basel, my parents encouraged me to think for myself. Later as a student in that city, during a time of considerable political activity at the universities, this was useful advice. It was a time when old hierarchies were breaking up and the future was—not surprisingly—as uncertain as it is today. I not only learned to debate with colleagues who had quite different views, but I also learned to think critically. Whatever our arguments were during those long discussion-filled nights in smoky pubs, we discussed things sociably over our beers and we remained friendly despite rarely coming to the same conclusions or opinions. The next day we continued working together on the same study tasks. Critical thinking not only defined our Zeitgeist, it also shaped our way of studying. It prepared me for my life as a geologist. In earth sci­ences, questions are asked, data are collected in the field, a hypothesis is made and finally, this is all compiled in a model. The conclusions are critically challenged by peers, after which you defend your ideas, correct your errors, and improve your work. This is how science works. But regardless of what you discover or whatever you find out, it will always remain an incomplete view of how nature works. Science is a never-ending process. The complexity of life and nature keeps you humble. Science helps us understand nature in increasingly greater detail. And while it may help us recognize future trends, it will never allow us to predict the future. Numerical models have become strong tools that test how well we understand natural processes. They can reproduce these processes to such an extent that they allow a glimpse forward. The best examples are weather forecasts. With increasing computing power, they have become more and more accurate. But predicting the weather for the next couple of days is nothing compared with the com­plexities of the Earth’s systems. Predictions have the inherent flaw that they cannot be verified, at least not until they have occurred. It is a difficult enough task to make predictions based on facts. But when forecasts are based on unproven assumptions, we are dealing with pseudoscience. This book concerns the science of climate change. As a geologist, I have lived and worked on various projects on four continents. For many years, I worked with oil companies. For some people, this would automatically indicate that I am biased in favor of fossil fuels. However, most of my professional career involved research concerning geothermal energy with the aim of finding substitutes for fossil fuel resources. The health of our planet often tends to be an afterthought. Sometimes damage is done because of a lack of ethical decision making. Other times, the damage occurs in spite of the best of intentions. During my career I have seen both situations: extreme pollution caused by what can only be described as a lack of conscientious decision making when drilling for oil; and unintended consequences despite all precautions being taken. In the latter scenario, I am referring to a geothermal energy project in Basel, which I managed in the early 2000s. Despite precautionary measures being taken, the project resulted in a series of tremors which registered between magnitudes 2.9 and 3.2 on the Richter Scale. The proj­ect was ultimately canceled in 2009. Even though we suffered a severe technical setback, we gained unprecedented amounts of new knowledge during this project1. Perhaps because of my work experience, I feel strongly that deci­sions concerning the future of our planet must be taken with care and must be grounded firmly in scientific fact. As a father, I am concerned about the world we are leaving for our children and grandchildren. I want them to have a healthy planet to live on—and a healthy climate to thrive in. However, when I look at current policies based on climate change, I do ask myself if we are on the right track. I feel that decisions are being made based on pseudoscience. I feel that some decisions serve special interests, and I feel that as a result of a singular focus on CO2 reductions, we are not only neglecting other solutions but other more pressing issues. This book is the result of my concern for a sustainable society and environment. The examples and references refer mainly to Swiss issues: However, reference is also made to our neighbor Germany, a country with which we maintain a friendly but critical relationship and which we often quite happily refer to as the “not like that” model. I wrote this book to encourage debate and independent thinking. We, as a society, need to do something for the good of our planet. But our actions should be based on scientifically proven results and not wishful thinking. After the publication of the German-language version of this book, I was actually accused of being a climate change denier. I will let you be the judge of that as you read this book. However, I do feel that pseudoscience has tainted the discussion on climate change and that not all of the policy decisions being made are being made in the best interest of our planet. As you read this book, I encourage you to form your own opinions by gathering facts. In short, I am asking you to “think for yourself” just as my parents encouraged me to do. With some concern I look at the polarization in political and scientific debates. I am even more concerned about the politicization of science. Perhaps we were a little ahead of our time when we, as students, argued our points of view. We certainly did so no less passionately than we would today but afterwards, we were still able to work together. If this book could inspire discussions that were less spiteful and polarizing than those that characterize many current debates, I would have achieved an important goal.

The author

 Dr. Markus O. Häring knows the energy scene from the ground up. After completing his doctorate in Earth Sciences at the University of Basel, he worked for eleven years as an exploration geologist on four continents. With his own company, he was committed to the development of sustainable resources long before the term ‘energy system transformation’ had even been coined. In Basel, he developed a highly regarded geothermal project which had to be discontinued due to noticeable seismic tremors, but which represented an invaluable advance in the research in this field. Whether for the protection of groundwater systems, the assessment of the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, the planning of investigation concepts for CO2 disposal, or for quality monitoring in the exploration of deep geological repositories, Markus Häring’s expertise on subsurface resources is regularly in demand from national and international bodies. He is a member of the Federal Geological Commission and is a founding member of the Carnot-Cournot-Network, an association of independent experts in economics, physics, engineering and natural sciences providing policy advice on energy issues. Markus Häring is married and has three grown daughters.