Views in denial on climate science

Far from encouraging positivity on climate action, Victoria White (Opinion, Feb 21) instead promotes effective denial of climate science and increases my despair for our future.

White strongly endorses the National Economic and Social Council (NESC) conclusions on reframing climate change policy, which concentrate on reducing the need for ‘how much’ targets in favour of ‘how to’ innovation. Like NESC, though, she makes no argument to support the idea that targets somehow impede innovation. The experience from Ireland’s ‘stretch’ wind energy targets, pushing previously thought unfeasible development, is just one of many examples that disprove this fallacy, yet White supports it.

It is also worrying that White also commends NESC for saying: “action on climate change has to feed economic recovery” and “no-one knows exactly how a developed economy can get to carbon neutrality because it’s never been done before.”

These views show a touching, but deeply misplaced, belief that the atmosphere ‘cares’ whether action will feed economic recovery or if we can get to carbon-neutral. It does not. Because we have delayed action for so long, there is now no guarantee that we can limit economically catastrophic climate change and have economic growth now — much as we might wish the science showed otherwise.

NESC aim to ‘reframe the climate challenge’ yet seem profoundly unaware of the strong science showing that deep and immediate cuts to our emissions are critical to limiting future warming. Recent science and economics are saying that urgent and immediate emissions reduction will be less costly and more certain than the deeply uncertain, delayed-action results of the adaptation and innovation strategy that NESC promotes.

NESC’s short-termism may be politically satisfying but it is academically deficient, and it condemns our children and the poor to increased future suffering.

On Dec 13, White wrote, “Somehow we’ve got to find the strength to persuade Enda Kenny and his comrades to lead the charge for a new, mandatory EU greenhouse gas reduction target for 2030 of 40% below 1990 levels. And it would certainly be a start if he could get Big Phil to put the targets back in the Climate Bill.”

Now, in contrast, White uncritically endorses a NESC report that downgrades targets and accepts that we will not meet our 2020 targets without paying for offsets. She was right in December: Better to have some targets than no waymarkers to safety at all.

Facing up to the brutal reality of climate science is not negative, on the contrary, it means clearly spelling out that our current destination, within our children’s lifetime, is one that we must avoid at literally all costs.

Paul Price and Éilis McDonnell

East Library Road

Dún Laoghaire

Co Dublin