The Editorial in the latest Listener is well worth a read.
The “aspiration of carbon-neutrality” was a poll-driven phrase typical of politicians feeling pressured by headlines and focus groups into making responses that may be unworkable and have unexpected consequences. An attempt by the US to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, for example, has led to fodder and food crops being replaced by subsidised biofuel crops, decreasing the amount of food available in the world and contributing significantly to its cost. A recent report showed that the grain required to fill a Range Rover’s petrol tank could feed a person for a year.
In talking about climate change last year, former Norwegian Prime Minister and now UN special envoy for climate change Gro Harlem Brundtland said it was “irresponsible, reckless and deeply amoral to question the seriousness of the situation. The time for diagnosis is over. The time to act is now.” It is correct that now is the time to act. There is sufficient concurrence in the scientific evidence to come down on the side of action. But it is wrong, and will always be wrong, to suggest that it is irresponsible and reckless to question the basis of government policy and pronouncements. There must always be scrutiny to ensure policy responses are, and remain, appropriate. An overzealous and damaging political response must be guarded against just as vigorously as we all – individually and collectively – tackle climate change.
