A response to Simmon Hoggart's article about climate change 'true believers' in this Saturday's Guardian (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/feb/06/climate-change-simon-hoggarts-week) :
If Simon Hoggart is 'agnostic' about man-made global warming leading to irreversible climate change then he must be allowing for the possibility that the warnings are correct. What probability of that would he need in order to support urgent action on carbon reduction? One in six? If I played Russian roulette it would seem rather silly to boast that I was 'agnostic' about whether the spun cassette had landed on the one loaded chamber before pulling the trigger. But as I understand it, the scientific consensus is that at least five of the six chambers are loaded, most of them not with blanks. In which case we're talking, not about 'agnosticism' but stupidity. The fact that the 'gun' is pointed at the world's poor and our unborn grandchildren adds reckless irresponsibility to the score card.
Now factor in the quite separate issue of the probability that global demand for oil will outstrip maximum possible supply within eight years.
Now consider the low risk involved in action : weigh up the possibility that a low-carbon economy is not only achievable but that it could offer more political stability and a better quality of life to more people on the planet than the present set-up has proved capable of delivering.
Add it all together, and you have to conclude that his article is both silly and dangerously irresponsible. This is nothing to do with religious faith. I don't have to be a 'true believer' to say 'Put the gun down, Mr Hoggart. You don't have to do this.'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment