Last night, while washing up, I switched on the radio and
found I was listening to "The Moral Maze". I’m not sure of the exact moral issue
under discussion, but it was something to do with the contribution of science
to policy-making. The witnesses sounded a pretty sensible bunch.
Then at the end of the programme came a summing up from the
panel, and I was taken aback to hear Michael Portillo saying that he was
inclined to doubt climate change science because so many of the people who warn
about the current environmental crisis are anti-capitalist. Michael Portillo
has reinvented himself, since the abrupt termination of his career in
government, as a friendly TV presenter whose programmes range from nice tourist
ones about trains to intelligent and moving ones about Picasso. He also gives
good value on Andrew Neil’s political sofa in the middle of the night. But here
he was implying – I don’t recall the exact words, so I apologise if I
misrepresent him – that climate change scientists are untrustworthy because
they are anti-capitalist.
Well, where to begin….
1. Even those who prefer capitalism to socialism (a very
reasonable position considering the dreadful history of extreme socialism in
action) must surely admit (assuming they are humane people of goodwill) that
unrestrained capitalism is brutal and life-destroying. In the mid-nineteenth
century roughly a thousand coal miners a year were killed in Britain and
roughly a thousand merchant seamen were drowned. Only health and safety laws
prevented market forces from carrying on in this murderous way. Those
corporations who export their factories to countries where labour is cheap and
safety regulations unenforced do not do so out of a desire to further
international development, and even if factories collapse or neighbourhoods are
poisoned, they only change their ways when obliged to do so.
Exactly the same point applies to global environmental
considerations. Under capitalism money-making schemes that wreck the
environment will only be prevented by legislation and global treaty, rigorously
enforced.
Incidentally, if anyone wants to know my own position, I’m
an old-fashioned Butskillite, born when Attlee was Prime Minister. We need
market forces and an enterprise economy, but we also need the best possible
regulatory system to make sure that the rich, powerful, energetic and lucky
don’t exploit to the utmost the weak, tired, poor and unlucky.
2. It is probably
true that some of the people who are concerned about the current environmental
crisis are what might be caricatured as rent-a-mob radicals. There may be
others who have jumped on the environmental train for sinister private
ambitions. There are others, of course, who see a handy chance to make money
out of our fears, as we buy solar panels and install carbon-capturing
power-stations.
It may also be true that some scientists, who should know
better, and some campaigners and journalists – anyone whose job includes sexing
up the truth – have damaged the cause by one-sided or distorted arguments of
various sorts.
But none of this means that there is no environmental crisis. None of this means that human activity is not making the environmental crisis worse.
3. Some things are matters of opinion, some things are
matters of judgement, some things are matters of fact. The number of absolutely
irrefutable facts in this world is comparatively few, but that does not excuse
us from basing our judgments on evidence. Scientists in the western liberal
tradition are very cautious about claiming that their current state of
knowledge is irrefutable fact, but that does not mean that their findings are
worthless. The consensus in the scientific community at the moment is that the
world is heating up, that the climate is changing, that the oceans are dying
and that the rate at which species are becoming extinct is speeding up
alarmingly. I am, as I say, astonished, to hear intelligent and well-informed
politicians and journalists arguing so vehemently against this consensus. As
for throwing out vague allegations that climate change science is merely
anti-capitalism, well, that is just fantastical.
This is only a blog-post not an academic paper, so I may
have mis-remembered the quotation. But did not J M Keynes once say: “When the
facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?” What indeed!
Good essay always has an effective introduction. The introduction briefly explains the theme and material of the essay. The structure of the essay is also mentioned in the outline of the essay. Now you can get my favorite professional writing service which has satisfied many people around the world.
ReplyDelete