Liz Suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value events

What is it about global warming that turns sane men into ranting alarmists?

Neil Collins

Tuesday, 1st July 2008

The science of climate change is far from settled, but one thing’s for sure: energy bills are set to rise. So why don’t Labour’s gurus offer practical policy ideas instead of doom-laden prophecies?

Nicholas Stern doesn’t want to alarm us, but by the end of the century he fears there may be alligators at the North Pole. Anthony Giddens is even more apocalyptic. He thinks dramatic climate change could happen in less than 10 years. Golly, we’re all doomed, then. Might as well jump into the Hummer and burn gas before it all runs out. Sorry kids, we screwed it up. All we can offer you is subsistence farming and a pony and trap – that’s if the pony hasn’t died of heatstroke or fallen into the alligator swamp.

Just what is it about the subject of global warming that makes normally (fairly) sane men into evangelical ranters? I can’t pretend I’ve ever been a fan of Lord Giddens, Tony Blair’s friend who invented the Third Way, a philosophy which can be summed up as: steer for the middle, and you’ll upset everybody, but not by enough to stop you muddling through. It’s more like old-fashioned compromise than philosophy, and his interminable books dress it up in impenetrable language. But hey, he’s built a career on the obfuscation of a simple idea, and good luck to him.

Lord Stern is a career civil servant, long enough in the trade to sense what his masters want almost before they ask, so we shouldn’t be surprised at the conclusions of his report into climate change. Make it as shocking as you can,’ might have been the brief. ‘It’ll give us a cast-iron excuse for more taxes, and we need the money.’

Thus it was that the pair of peers found themselves last month addressing a conference organised by Goldman Sachs, telling the assembled fat-cats that we have a one in two chance of destroying civilisation within the lifetime of our children (Stern), and that leaving it to the market is not a possible solution (Giddens). Both speakers claimed to point to scientific evidence to back up their visions of doom. Fortunately for the bankers and the planet, neither Giddens nor Stern is a climatologist. Stern studied maths and Giddens (you might have guessed) sociology.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next page

More articles from: Neil Collins | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (2)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Kit

July 4th, 2008 12:41pm

I assume Abby Taubin's "little financial encouragement" will mean higher taxes and energy bills for the rest of us. No thanks.
If micro-generation was financially viable or an efficient method of generating energy we would all be doing it.

Amelie

August 7th, 2008 2:47pm

Over the last few years I have read/watched with interest all the coverage on Global Warming and would like some straight answers.
Who are the main greenhouse polluters, I've read that 20% come from cows, and that 20% actually comes from the leaf degredation in the forests around the world, so my question is what percentage of the harmful gases are actually created by man, industry and driving cars ?
My impression is that we can actually have little affect overall, since we account for very little of the greenhouse gas creation.
Therefore is this just over hyped ? Is the Global warming industry too big for us to have a good look at the real facts and get back to reality ?