News & Opinion - Fri 11th Dec 2009

No matter where people stand on the global warming debate, there is no doubt that the doubters or non-believers are fast becoming today's heretics.  Anyone arguing against the now accepted media-backed government opinion, that we humans are solely to blame for the rise in global temperatures, sets themselves up for vilification.

The problem is that all the evidence that apparently points to humans as being the culprits in the climate change debate has, until recently, been locked down by the media and the green lobby.  Politicians of all political persuasions are constantly trying to "out green" each other to score political points over each other and yet recent surveys show a high proportion of the UK electorate has still to be convinced that human activity is a problem for the planet.

We shouldn't be surprised that half of the population doubt the "facts" because everywhere they look they are likely to see inconsistencies.  If we take motoring, for example, we can see how these inconsistencies manifest themselves.  Motorists are heavily taxed in this country, providing the Exchequer with a regular supply of much-needed income.  The government earns money from the tax, excise and VAT that we pay for our petrol (a litre of petrol would actually cost a fraction of its pump price were it no so heaviliy taxed), it is there when we pay for our road tax (ironically little of that money actually ends up financing the roads) and unless you park your car on your own drive then you're also paying for when you park anywhere and trying to do your best to shop locally (out of town shopping centres have no parking charges). Then, of course, there is the tax on the sale of cars and VAT on every garage bill.  

Whilst governments won't even open up new rail routes for fear of a drop in car-generated tax revenues they are, at the same time, doing all they can to encourage motorists to drive their vehicles less often, and this is a major inconsistency.  If governments really were concerned that road transport was a cause of increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere they would be reversing Beeching's rail closure programme, actively welcoming us on board fleets of new trains and they would not be widening motorways that will encourage more people on to the roads.  But no, there is a network of cycle lanes and bridle ways that were once arterial transport routes whilst the motorist has to struggle along increasingly congested roads,

In the real world of having to make family budgets go as far as they can, drivers of modest 2-litre family estate cars must be wondering why the road tax on their vehicles will soon be £400.00 a year, which is double what they were paying until recently.  The argument is that the drivers of "gas guzzlers" must be forced to pay for the damage they inflict on the environment.  However, until relatively recently the term "gas guzzler" was only ever applied to big American vehicles powered by huge V8 engines; they truly deserved to be labelled thus, because they did about 10 miles to the gallon.  Using the term today is politically-motivated spin that automatically sets the politician up as the saviour of the planet by taxing these so-called irresponsible drivers off the road.

The whole climate change agenda needs balance and requires both sides of the argument to be properly heard; the media should not be taking sides in the argument but simply presenting each side of the debate dispassionately and fairly.

It is no good getting scientists to harp on about their "robust" data, or how 2010 will be the hottest year since records began.  Such records only go back about 100 years, compared to the planet that is about 4.5 billion years old that has, in its recent history, gone through periods of cooling and warming millions of years before mankind appeared.

Scientists, of course, have a role to play in the debate but we should not forget that as recently as the 1850s it was scientific fact that miasma (airborne pollution) was the cause of the diseases such as cholera, a theory that dated back to the Middle Ages.  Such theories were eventually rejected as medical science advanced.

For the sake of balance and fairness we need to open up the debate so that all opinions can be heard so that the right decisions can be made based on information that is not politically driven or biased by interest groups.

Until that time many people are going to remain understandably unconvinced.

 

 

comments [0] permalink