Indeed, contrary to the Stern Report’s claims, Lawson argues that the current costs of the proposed actions may be greater than the notional savings centuries hence. Even the generally gloomy Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change extrapolates that the cost of global warming will mean that in 100 years’ time living standards in the developing world will be 8.5 times higher rather than 9.5 times higher than today. As doom-laden predictions go, this one leaves Lawson musing whether ‘Save the Planet’ might be ‘a strong contender for the most ludicrous slogan ever coined’.
Lawson’s case is not an appeal to do nothing, but to avoid doing something stupid. The giant leap towards subsidy-devouring and highly inefficient wind farms or the vast replanting of the Earth with biofuels are but two panic responses we may come to regret. From the threat to species diversity caused by deforestation to the clogging-up of landfill sites nearer to home, many of us are rightly fearful of the effects man is having on the environment. A focussed response to these and other crimes of our times may provide a better return on our investment rather than unilateral attempts to make the cost of energy prohibitive in Europe while China and India chug along the smoky path to prosperity. Hope of a binding worldwide agreement is a chimera.
Lawson asks us to accept that global warming will have positive as well as negative consequences for the planet and that a sensible response involves constant if piecemeal adaptation rather than prohibitively expensive and possibly futile grand gestures. Practical measures will involve improved flood defences in some areas and bringing new crops into cultivation in others. With vastly fewer resources, earlier generations of Europeans dealt with greater changes in climate than are predicted for our future.
The adaptation approach has generally been overlooked in the great panic. Outright mitigation, through carbon cutting, has been proclaimed, and those wishing to investigate alternative paths cannot expect funding. Bombarded with the zealous certainties of those deaf to reasoned argument on this most important of issues, it is intensely refreshing to find in Nigel Lawson someone who, without claiming to have all the answers, is at least brave enough to ask eminently sensible questions.



Comments
Graham Young
April 27th, 2008 11:27amYou may be interested to know that a paragraph from this article has been taken out of context and used by an Australian Broadcasting Commission presenter to suggest that people without science qualifications should not comment on global warming. You can read about it at http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/002975.html. I'm happy if you don't publish this comment, but I'd like the writer of the article to know.
Report this comment
Simon Marquis
April 24th, 2008 6:37pmLawson's book is that rare thing in the global warming issue - a healthy dose of common sense and scepticism. I hope it gets the attention it deserves and makes the alarmists think twice about pedalling propaganda instead of known facts. What Lawson reveals is not just the absurdity of most of the political responses to the global warming threat but the out and out dangerousness of them to generations present and future.
Report this comment
Richard
April 21st, 2008 10:37amWould that Lawson's Appeal to Reason replace Al Gore's 'scientific' obscenity as the required environmental reference in schools, if there must be one. This whole Global Warming abomination is the pure malevolent product of ecoactivists, duplicitous politics and journalistic sensationalism. It has grossly warped genuine research into Earth Processes, and has visited immense harm and corruption to science.
Report this comment
James Petrie
April 18th, 2008 1:19pm"When there is so much data suggesting the world’s climate is heating up"
"So much data"
What Data?
Report this comment