Now that Kyoto is dead and the president’s “so-called ‘Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development and climate’, a counter-Kyoto grouping of the United States, China, India, Australia, Japan and South Korea,” is starting to look like the coming thing, it’s a good time to take a serious look at global warming. Here is a well-staffed take from Britain’s Lord Lawson, Chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher.
It is well established that since about 1860 there has been a significant warming in global temperature, around 0.6 deg Celsius—which coincided with the start of reliable temperature records.
But the earth has experienced warming before.
It is well established, for example, that a thousand years ago, well before industrialisation, there was what has become known as the mediaeval warm period, when temperatures were probably almost as high as, if not higher than, they are today. Going back even further, during the Roman empire, it was even warmer — so much so that the Romans were able to produce drinkable wine in the north of England. More recently, during the 17th and early 18th centuries, there was what has become known as the little ice age, when the Thames was regularly frozen over in winter, and substantial ice fairs held on the frozen river became a popular attraction.
And, of course, we don’t know why it was warm in Roman times and cold in the Little Ice Age.
So what should we do about global warming, if there is global warming, and if it has harmful consequences.
Far and away the most cost-effective policy for the world to adopt is to identify the most harmful consequences that may flow from global warming and, if they start to occur, to take action to counter them.
In other words, if the ocean really does start threatening low lying areas with inundation, we take action to mitigate the inundation.
That, coincidentally, is what the president’s policy is designed to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment