 | | | 
 | 
Sponsored by the Natural Environment Research Council |  |  | 
|  |  | | (This debate is closed and is a read-only archive) | | The morality of the debate
[24-Dec-2001]
| The question of man's impact on the climate (Din, Reader responses, 11 Dec; Guldberg, The debate to date) is the clearest indication of how much of the debate is driven by moral concerns rather than practical and scientific ones. Why would it be important that some of the climate change observed and projected is down to man's activities? Do trees impact climate? Do algae? Of course, but it is only man that can be held morally responsible.
| The only reason the question of man's impact might be of any importance is because, as rational beings, we could do something about it - change our behaviour is the most frequent demand. This is where the moralism of the debate again appears, and mitigating strategies like Kyoto become an oxymoron. As a scientist, I for one would fully support any large-scale programme to put the climate under man's control. But nobody is suggesting such a programme, and I suspect that the those wishing to implement Kyoto would reel back in horror at the arrogance and hubris of such an idea - as it would expose us to too much risk, and we don't know enough about the climate to predict the consequences.
| Paul Wight, UK
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
