Hugo Rifkind is depressed. Everyone has a reason for thinking they're right, he says. "On climate change, though, I just can't see it." Rifkind says in today's Times:
"If Copenhagen collapses, that's a triumph for the layman sceptic, newly armed with their half-understood leaked emails from the University of East Anglia."
He complains about the quality of debate but does nothing to enhance it when he asks:
"Layman sceptics, how did we end up with those? They're depressing enough in themselves. They're a sign that the internet has not raised the quality of debate, but lowered it to a bicker. Maybe that's the future. People who know slightly more than nothing, shouting."
Everyone has a reason to be sceptical, and some sceptics know more than others. They have a right to be heard. But Rifkind has a point when he adds:
"What gives them the nerve? If they doubt the science, with the stakes so high, how can they not doubt themselves? How can they not wake up at night, dripping in sweat, suddenly wondering if, for the sake of a snappy column or a pithy post on a blog, they've just helped to drown their own great-grandchildren?"
This is another way of saying something that I don't think I've read or heard for a while, but it deserves a hearing. It's about the precautionary approach.
The fact that the Copenhagen conference is happening at all shows that the vast majority of scientists and policymakers all over the world accept that something must be done to avoid catastrophic climate change. If I was not convinced of that I would have to ask myself, in the face of the "overwhelming" evidence:
"What if I'm wrong?"
As a CAFOD volunteer I was interested to see CIDSE, a coalition of 16 Catholic development agencies, say this in a November 2008 policy paper:
"CIDSE underscores the precautionary approach affirmed by the UNFCCC and believe that enough is known to justify and obligate preventive action on climate change, in particular because of its disproportionate and devastating impact on the poor."
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change said at Article 3.3:
"The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost."
There you are. Lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures. It makes sense because there is only one chance to get this right. It makes sense because no-one can prove what will or will not happen, but we get only one chance. As Bryan Appleyard put it, in the Sunday Times:
"The climate is warming. It is almost certain this is caused by emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. Nobody has come up with an alternative explanation that stands up. If the present warming trend continues, nasty things will probably start happening to humans within the next century, possibly the next decade. Something must be done. If nothing is done, then the benign climatic conditions that have sustained human civilisation for 10,000 years are in danger of collapse to be replaced by ... well, write your own disaster movie. You will note that there is some wiggle room in these statements. It is 'almost certain' that humans are responsible; nasty things will 'probably' happen. That is because all science can ever be is the best guess of the best minds."
