The climate change argument may never be won, but that doesn't mean it can be ignored
The Lefties may have hijacked the debate, but Mrs Thatcher saw the need for action 27 years ago
30 Nov 2015
Is global warming a great big Leftie conspiracy? I only ask because pretty much the same people normally found on anti-austerity, stop-the-war, scrap nukes or save-the-badger protests were out on the streets again at the weekend with their Carbon is Death banners to mark the opening of the Paris summit on climate change. As Charles Moore observed, activists who 30 years ago marched alongside Arthur Scargill demanding a reprieve for the pits now want to close down every coalmine in the world. Jobs mattered in West Yorkshire in 1984, but not in West Virginia in 2015, it seems.
"What we would all like is to ensure that future generations are not bequeathed a planet that is difficult to inhabit – but without causing great disruption to our own lives"
Campaigners would doubtless argue that we didn’t know then what we know now – that the world is heating up and the burning of fossil fuels is responsible. But while that is something that affects us all, climate change activism has been hijacked by anti-capitalist organisations, which makes many of us suspicious about their motives.
That has not always been true. The first leading world politician to draw attention to the possibility that industrialisation may be contributing to rising temperatures was not some superannuated Trot or Scandinavian eco-warrior. It was Margaret Thatcher.
In an address to the Royal Society in September 1988, she said: “For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world’s systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.”
That was 27 years ago; and yet here we are with world leaders gathered in Paris still arguing over what to do about it. The Rio summit in 1992 was supposed to start the transfer of £37 billion annually from rich to poor nations to help them stop global deforestation, atmospheric pollution and the degradation of biological diversity. It didn’t happen.
Ten years later, the Kyoto Protocol, which also tried to reduce world CO2 emissions, was hardly worth the paper it was written on. Copenhagen in 2009 ended in chaos and mutual recrimination as an agreement to reduce carbon emissions failed to materialise. Is it too late?
Listening to the apocalyptic predictions of scientists, I fear for humanity’s future. Yet then I read Christopher Booker or Nigel Lawson on the subject and say: “Hang on a minute. Is the ice melting or not? Is the temperature rising or not?” And even more fundamentally: “Does CO2 cause warming or not?” Those of a sceptical bent look at the predictions made a few years ago and ask why they haven’t materialised. For instance, we were told that there would be more hurricanes in the Caribbean – but in recent years there have been fewer. Pacific islands that should have been under water by now have not seen the forecast rise in sea levels.
Actually, none of these arguments matter. The vast majority of climate academics subscribe to the idea that global warming is manmade and every political leader in the world accepts this view. Sceptics (or deniers, as they are called by detractors) are marginalised, even excoriated, despite the fact that scientific consensus has been wrong before. Have we forgotten the Millennium Bug?
But scouring temperature statistics to show that assertions about warming are not supported by the evidence is pretty pointless now. We are going to move to a lower-carbon future whether it is needed or not, because 150 countries have pledged in Paris to reduce fossil fuel demand by up to 40 per cent over the next 20 years. While there are doubts over whether the biggest CO2 producers – America, China and India – will actually fulfil their promises, the direction of travel is clear and irreversible.
What we would all like, of course, is to ensure that future generations are not bequeathed a planet that is increasingly difficult to inhabit – but without causing great disruption to our own lives. A great deal is heard in this debate about the science, but little about the moral dimension. While it is crucial that cause and effect are properly and scientifically established, it is equally important to recognise that we cannot simply carry on as we have; that it is actually a good thing to stop burning fossil fuels.
Not only is it wrong to continue to dig a finite resource from the earth and then invite our grandchildren and theirs to make do with what’s left; it is also daft. Why would we want to continue to be beholden to the main producers of fossil fuels in the Middle East and Russia, always fearful that a war or a malign government could cut off our supply of energy?
Nuclear and solar are much more sustainable and less polluting sources of power; it’s just a shame we did not invest more heavily in them long ago. But we are doing so now; and what the Left never understands is that if capitalism is the problem, it is also the solution. Capitalism will be best able to adapt to the new business opportunities that a low- or non‑carbon future offers.
The climate change argument may never be won. If we cut CO2 emissions, only for the planet to warm anyway because of meteorological phenomena beyond our control, we will merely expose our hubris in the face of Nature. On the other hand, if we reduce emissions and the predicted disaster never happens, it will be impossible to show that the whole thing was alarmist nonsense, since campaigners will claim the credit.
But doing nothing makes no sense. On the insurance risk principle, there is sufficient worry that something bad might happen to make action to prevent or prepare for it a perfectly rational, even a necessary response. So even those of us who have been climate-change sceptics should be cheering on the Paris gathering rather than scornfully dismissing it as hot air.
As Mrs Thatcher said more than a quarter of a century ago: “We must have continued economic growth in order to generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment. But it must be growth which does not plunder the planet today and leave our children to deal with the consequences tomorrow.” Who knew the Iron Lady was such an old Leftie?
30 Nov 2015
Is global warming a great big Leftie conspiracy? I only ask because pretty much the same people normally found on anti-austerity, stop-the-war, scrap nukes or save-the-badger protests were out on the streets again at the weekend with their Carbon is Death banners to mark the opening of the Paris summit on climate change. As Charles Moore observed, activists who 30 years ago marched alongside Arthur Scargill demanding a reprieve for the pits now want to close down every coalmine in the world. Jobs mattered in West Yorkshire in 1984, but not in West Virginia in 2015, it seems.
"What we would all like is to ensure that future generations are not bequeathed a planet that is difficult to inhabit – but without causing great disruption to our own lives"
Campaigners would doubtless argue that we didn’t know then what we know now – that the world is heating up and the burning of fossil fuels is responsible. But while that is something that affects us all, climate change activism has been hijacked by anti-capitalist organisations, which makes many of us suspicious about their motives.
That has not always been true. The first leading world politician to draw attention to the possibility that industrialisation may be contributing to rising temperatures was not some superannuated Trot or Scandinavian eco-warrior. It was Margaret Thatcher.
In an address to the Royal Society in September 1988, she said: “For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world’s systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.”
That was 27 years ago; and yet here we are with world leaders gathered in Paris still arguing over what to do about it. The Rio summit in 1992 was supposed to start the transfer of £37 billion annually from rich to poor nations to help them stop global deforestation, atmospheric pollution and the degradation of biological diversity. It didn’t happen.
Ten years later, the Kyoto Protocol, which also tried to reduce world CO2 emissions, was hardly worth the paper it was written on. Copenhagen in 2009 ended in chaos and mutual recrimination as an agreement to reduce carbon emissions failed to materialise. Is it too late?
Listening to the apocalyptic predictions of scientists, I fear for humanity’s future. Yet then I read Christopher Booker or Nigel Lawson on the subject and say: “Hang on a minute. Is the ice melting or not? Is the temperature rising or not?” And even more fundamentally: “Does CO2 cause warming or not?” Those of a sceptical bent look at the predictions made a few years ago and ask why they haven’t materialised. For instance, we were told that there would be more hurricanes in the Caribbean – but in recent years there have been fewer. Pacific islands that should have been under water by now have not seen the forecast rise in sea levels.
Actually, none of these arguments matter. The vast majority of climate academics subscribe to the idea that global warming is manmade and every political leader in the world accepts this view. Sceptics (or deniers, as they are called by detractors) are marginalised, even excoriated, despite the fact that scientific consensus has been wrong before. Have we forgotten the Millennium Bug?
But scouring temperature statistics to show that assertions about warming are not supported by the evidence is pretty pointless now. We are going to move to a lower-carbon future whether it is needed or not, because 150 countries have pledged in Paris to reduce fossil fuel demand by up to 40 per cent over the next 20 years. While there are doubts over whether the biggest CO2 producers – America, China and India – will actually fulfil their promises, the direction of travel is clear and irreversible.
What we would all like, of course, is to ensure that future generations are not bequeathed a planet that is increasingly difficult to inhabit – but without causing great disruption to our own lives. A great deal is heard in this debate about the science, but little about the moral dimension. While it is crucial that cause and effect are properly and scientifically established, it is equally important to recognise that we cannot simply carry on as we have; that it is actually a good thing to stop burning fossil fuels.
Not only is it wrong to continue to dig a finite resource from the earth and then invite our grandchildren and theirs to make do with what’s left; it is also daft. Why would we want to continue to be beholden to the main producers of fossil fuels in the Middle East and Russia, always fearful that a war or a malign government could cut off our supply of energy?
Nuclear and solar are much more sustainable and less polluting sources of power; it’s just a shame we did not invest more heavily in them long ago. But we are doing so now; and what the Left never understands is that if capitalism is the problem, it is also the solution. Capitalism will be best able to adapt to the new business opportunities that a low- or non‑carbon future offers.
The climate change argument may never be won. If we cut CO2 emissions, only for the planet to warm anyway because of meteorological phenomena beyond our control, we will merely expose our hubris in the face of Nature. On the other hand, if we reduce emissions and the predicted disaster never happens, it will be impossible to show that the whole thing was alarmist nonsense, since campaigners will claim the credit.
But doing nothing makes no sense. On the insurance risk principle, there is sufficient worry that something bad might happen to make action to prevent or prepare for it a perfectly rational, even a necessary response. So even those of us who have been climate-change sceptics should be cheering on the Paris gathering rather than scornfully dismissing it as hot air.
As Mrs Thatcher said more than a quarter of a century ago: “We must have continued economic growth in order to generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment. But it must be growth which does not plunder the planet today and leave our children to deal with the consequences tomorrow.” Who knew the Iron Lady was such an old Leftie?
AT A GLANCE
Greenhouse gas emissions
Alamy
The world's top greenhouse gas emitters (% of total emissions):
- China - 24%
- United States - 15.5%
- European Union - 10.8%
- India - 6.4 %
- Russia - 4.9 %
- Japan - 2.9%
- Brazil - 2%
- Iran - 1.6 %
- Indonesia - 1.6%
- Canada - 1.5%
Source: Climate Action Tracker
