Quantcast
Channel: Comments on: Climate change human rights litigation: is it so radical? Nicola Peart
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 5

By: Bryan Murphy

$
0
0

JohnD

Indeed, but the difference is that no-one seriously disputed that the Clean Air Act was necessary or the cause and effect of the Great Smog.

You might just as well say that climate change belongs with the other scare stories of old such as peak oil (supposed to run out by the end of the 70s), reds under the bed, Aids, Ebola, the millennium bug, MRSA, Bird Flu, Islamic terrorism, Mad Cow disease, Foot and Mouth and so on and so forth. Some of those had a basis in scientific fact, and measurable harm ensued. But none brought about the end of Western Civilisation as feared.

My main problem with climate change is that obsessing about carbon emissions can come at the expense of much more immediate and realistic issues. For example a while ago regulations started favouring diesel cars in London, because their carbon emissions were lower. But diesel is a real airborne pollutant, with severe and obvious effects. The tiny amount of carbon saved wasn’t going to make a blind bit of difference, but the extra diesel certainly did. Similarly, a local authority decided to reduce street lighting to save electricity and therefore CO2 emissions. But that led to extra crime and more dangerous roads – real and immediate effects. Or the move to biofuels – which cut into arable land and raised food prices, with obvious consequences.

In any event, of course, Britain’s own CO2 emissions are globally irrelevant. So whether we should murder our economy by furiously trying to reduce carbon is questionable.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 5

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images