Letter: A climate of panic obscures the issues
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Your various correspondents (Letters, 7 February) on the need for this country to enter into firmer and tougher commitments to cut CO2 emissions to prevent the threat of climate change appeal to the so-called 'precautionary principle'. What they seem to mean by this is: 'Take action now when it is very expensive and it is not clear how far it is necessary, rather than later when we shall have a clearer idea how much of it we need and when cheaper technologies will be available to reduce carbon emissions per unit of output'.
In fact, the global economic effects of climate change will be far less alarming than many environmental activists would have us believe. Even on the basis of the 1990 climate change predictions, the overall effect on the world economy by the latter half of the next century would probably be negligible. And given that the average per capita income in the world as a whole will probably be three to four times as high by then as it is now, a small reduction in that income as a result of climate change would certainly not justify imposing heavy burdens on the current generation.
It is true that some reduction in carbon emissions can be achieved at low, or even negative cost. But the scope for doing so in an economically viable manner is nothing like as great as Michael Redclift seems to believe (unless we are to assume that industrialists are all hopelessly incompetent at minimising costs).
Nor does the threat of climate change justify diverting attention, time, energy, research and financial resources from more serious environmental problems facing the world today in rich and poor countries alike. These include, in the former, pollution of beaches and underwater aquifers, disposal of garbage and radioactive waste, traffic congestion and urban air conditions in some cities, and so on. In developing countries they consist primarily of access to clean drinking water and sanitation.
The global warming scare has a nice apocalyptic ring about it. But the fact is that we are not on the brink of the abyss. We have time to think.
Yours sincerely,
W. BECKERMAN
Oxford
8 February
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments