Carbon not key to change

Last updated 05:00 17/06/2014

Relevant offers

Your climate change message for world leaders

'The debt of the previous generations' Climate change: more than words My biggest concern about climate change Carbon not key to change Climate change a 'scary legacy' for our kids Courage to change climate change It's too late to stop climate change Climate change: The 'biggest threat' to humanity

If you could give world leaders a message on climate change, what would it be? We asked Stuff Nation readers to share their message with us. Andy Cockroft says it's about mitigating impacts.

Nobody seems to look at the social benefits of carbon, all we hear are the costs or negatives.

Without carbon-based fuels, Western society would never have evolved. We would have an average life-expectancy of 45, and manual labour would be dominating humankind.

As it is, we have health services, education, a social-welfare system, and a lifestyle that affords rest and recreation. All fueled by carbon and the Industrial Revolution.

What we are seeing are shrill voices on the left-wing of politics, basing their estimates of future climatic conditions on computer models. Models that have failed to predict the current 17-year pause in surface temperatures.

With accuracy like that, why should we trust them to forecast even five years ahead, let alone 100 years?

The West seems hell-bent on denying emerging nations the benefits of exploiting their carbon, insisting that Third World families continue to cook over open fires, suffering respiratory disease and early death.

Sea-level rise stubbornly refuses to follow projection. Storm intensity is not increasing, indeed the Atlantic is in the middle of a record-breaking dearth of level 3 cyclones making landfall.

Heat-waves are no more than have been experienced historically, despite what the media would have us believe. And more die from record cold than record heat.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity has calculated that preventing temperature rises as the IPCC would have us do is at least 50 times more costly than simple mitigation. 

It would also useful to aid transparency, if all scientists would allow scrutiny. 

View all contributions
Ad Feedback


Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content