There are many who argue that we are facing such an emergency with the climate that ordinary respect for freedom of thought and speech should be suspended. Yet even in an emergency it is important to keep a cool head. Throwing a liquid onto a fire is not sensible if the liquid is paraffin!
In the name of ‘fighting climate change’ we have already seen a number of actions with demonstrably harmful consequences. For example,
The move from petrol to diesel powered cars, as advocated by the UK’s ‘Chief Scientist’ of the time, has resulted in increased air pollution and deaths from lung diseases.
The proliferation of wind turbines has spoiled large areas of countryside and is killing large numbers of birds and bats. Some people who live near such turbines complain of migraines and poor sleep. According to the RSPB, who have supported wind turbines, those placed offshore could be the ‘final nail in the coffin for Britain’s seabird populations’.
The very generous subsidies given to well off homeowners and landowners with solar PV and wind turbines on their land have resulted in large increases in the price of electricity, pushing tens of thousands into fuel poverty.
The denial of cheap electricity for developing nations is trapping many in below subsistence-level poverty.
The most ardent supporters of extreme ‘environmental’ measures tend to come from well off backgrounds so it may be necessary to translate phrases such as ‘fuel poverty’ into its more emotional, tangible reality.
It means parents weighing up choices such as eating hot food or heating the house adequately. It means widowed pensioners leaving the house all day to find somewhere warm to pass the hours and save on heating costs.
Those of us who care for the environment have a responsibility to ensure that the actions we support are doing more good than harm. Is it better for the environment to have a nuclear power plant, a fracking well and gas turbine or an array of wind turbines? How can we find out?
The answer is we know how to find out. Scientists, economists and researchers need to take measurements and make calculations, publish their results and allow everyone to engage in a process of debate, of weighing up the pros and cons of each.
There are costs and benefits of all options. Electric car engines do not pollute much when used but at the moment there are still very high environmental costs in their manufacture in Chinese factories, and in the mining of rare earth metals in places like the DRC where child labour is often used.
Some researchers who have attempted to quantify this believe that they are more environmentally harmful overall than their petrol powered equivalents.
If only one view is allowed, and all the alternative views are silenced, it is almost certain that bad decisions will be made, with the environment being damaged far more than is needed. Meanwhile, certain vested interests will cash in and make large profits.
Just in case there is some confusion, I would like to state that I am sure the future will be ‘green’. There will be incredible technological breakthroughs providing abundant, low polluting, low cost energy for everyone on the planet.
Predicting the future is always hard but I expect that I will live to see many incredible breakthroughs. In my old age I hope to travel to see my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren in a safe, affordable, quiet, non-polluting self driving electric car.
The quality of food will get better and better, taking up less and less land, while greater areas will be rewilded so that the great predators of wolves and bears can once again roam in the UK.
There are already huge incentives to be the first to invent really effective batteries and solar electric converters: the profits will be enormous! Many brilliant minds are already on the case.
There is a strong case for taxing all forms of pollution and encouraging as much research as possible, but beyond that it is surely wrong to try to force through solutions that can clearly be seen to fail the cost benefit test.
The objective thinking of brilliant minds will eventually solve all our environmental problems: the desire to do so is unstoppable. There is no need to try and short circuit this process by closing down genuine differences of opinion and interpretation on these issues.