A short primer on climate change and the greenhouse issue

Third, one could perhaps justify the expenditure purely on the grounds of the precautionary principle. Most people would wish to prevent the possibility of some unforseen and disastrous change of climate which might basically alter the structure and economic well-being of human society.

Fourth, one could perhaps justify the expenditure on the grounds that there are indeed significant risks for the smaller and less economically diverse countries. One can argue that it is the moral responsibility of the wealthier nations to remove such risks.

Finally, one can of course justify a 'no regrets' policy of encouraging expenditure on actions which are otherwise sensible. Among these are improvements in the efficiency of machinery and forms of transport which rely on petroleum fuel.

The fundamental question still to be answered is whether, in view of the uncertainties associated both with the science and the economics of the matter, it would be cheaper and more sensible to spend money on adaptation to climate change if and when it occurs. The question has been more-or-less deliberately excluded from much of the national and international debate in order not to divert attention from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emission.

Climate change is now essentially a problem for politicians and social scientists. Their task has become peculiarly difficult because the overall issue has become something of a symbol – almost a religious symbol – of all that is bad or profligate about human society.