Reporter’s Blog

As I was blown around the station platform last week, watching the delay to my train extend even further I couldn’t help but think it wouldn’t be too long until […]

Register now!

By Tom Gibson

As I was blown around the station platform last week, watching the delay to my train extend even further I couldn’t help but think it wouldn’t be too long until that old scapegoat of global warming took some of the rap for this recent spate of blustery weather. As floods and droughts, wind and rain, snow and sunshine are all supposedly on the increase I’m starting to wonder what doesn’t constitute global warming. I suppose its handy records for most things didn’t exist pre-1800.

What worries me most is the moral high ground many organisations take by condemning those who simply question whether such green arguments have any real footing. If you speak to anyone who doesn’t work in the energy sector they think the world’s melting but can anyone really back such views? I think most people agree churning out filthy coal emissions can’t be good for the environment but do we really know how bad they are?

The constant barrage of conflicting science certainly doesn’t help. One corner claims levels of CO2 will cause alarming rates of climate change, the other says it is staving off the next ice age. One says levels of CO2 have never been as high, others say levels were higher during the time of the dinosaurs.

The more often the green camp assert that everything but electric cars and wind farms are killing us, the more I wonder when the anti-green backlash will happen. Now I say this as someone who isn’t averse to the odd green measure- I’d certainly like to see less smog in cities, cleaner rivers and a fair fight between whales and whalers but does anyone else get a bit turned off by some of the tunnel-vision rants of some of the renewable lot? I can’t help but think such aggressive stances not only ignore the much bigger and more serious picture of energy security but just rub people up the wrong way.

I suppose that, in this day of science and reasoning, the whole climate change argument doesn’t sound very reasonable to me. If global agreements can’t be made to enforce other countries to reduce emissions then shouldn’t we concentrate on keeping energy available and cheap so people’s lives are better now?