DFD on bug tracking system
In Green World 63 a series of articles appeared which emphasised the Green Party’s policy of not supporting nuclear power. Green Party member and author Mark Lynas is one of a number of environmentalists who now advocate nuclear power as a sensible response to the climate crisis. Being as he was mentioned in the one of the articles, Mark asked for the opportunity to clarify his position on the issue. We obliged, but asked Jeremy Leggett, opposite, to defend the Green Party stance.
Us greens are well-accustomed to taking science seriously. Our view of a planet in peril is substantially informed by scientific endeavour. Unlike climate change deniers, who cherry-pick scientific data to suit their arguments or ignore science altogether, we allow our worldview to change as information changes about the state of the planet. This, surely, is our great strength. Our politics comes from a rational assessment of the threats to the natural world and human civilisation, and our strategies and values are based on this.
On climate change, the story is clear and unequivocal. The most recent scientific meeting in Copenhagen agreed that most climate indicators are changing at rates at or above the IPCC’s worst-case scenarios. Greenhouse gas emissions are above business-as-usual forecasts. At a recent meeting of marine biologists I attended in London, there was significant debate about the likely fate of the coral reefs – whether they would be functionally extinct by 2030, or a couple of decades later. The entire marine ecosystem is threatened by ocean acidification and warming.
Driven by a rising sense of desperation, many scientists are now moving into making policy suggestions too. The national science academies of the G8+5 countries (the Royal Society in the UK, the National Academy of Sciences in the US, and others) issued a statement in June which strongly argued for the “very rapid worldwide implementation of all currently available low carbon technologies”. This
Us greens are well-accustomed to taking science seriously. Our view of a planet in peril is substantially informed by scientific endeavour. Unlike climate change deniers, who cherry-pick scientific data to suit their arguments or ignore science altogether, we allow our worldview to change as information changes about the state of the planet. This, surely, is our great strength. Our politics comes from a rational assessment of the threats to the natural world and human civilisation, and our strategies and values are based on this.
On climate change, the story is clear and unequivocal. The most recent scientific meeting in Copenhagen agreed that most climate indicators are changing at rates at or above the IPCC’s worst-case scenarios. Greenhouse gas emissions are above business-as-usual forecasts. At a recent meeting of marine biologists I attended in London, there was significant debate about the likely fate of the coral reefs – whether they would be functionally extinct by 2030, or a couple of decades later. The entire marine ecosystem is threatened by ocean acidification and warming.
Driven by a rising sense of desperation, many scientists are now moving into making policy suggestions too. The national science academies of the G8+5 countries (the Royal Society in the UK, the National Academy of Sciences in the US, and others) issued a statement in June which strongly argued for the “very rapid worldwide implementation of all currently available low carbon technologies”. This