It is no secret that I don’t hold the Labour Party candidate, Julian Ware-Lane, in high regard but his inability to grasp the implications of the greatest threat humanity faces (climate change) is breath-taking. In this article you will see his attack upon me for daring to speak up for the most vulnerable people on the planet: –
Julian completely ignores the many speeches by his party leader, Ed Miliband, who like me recognises that the science on climate change is now certain and all debate on the core facts ended with the landmark IPCC report in 2004. Here Ed sets out his concerns: –
But it is not just the main three political parties that reject Julian’s bizarre anti-science assertions, we are also receiving some incredibly powerful comments from our religious leaders, including the Pope and the CofE: –
Indeed all the main religions have begun to speak out vehemently on the threat posed by climate change and demand action by both citizens and governments.
Julian also fails to grasp the implications of climate change upon our national security. Is he seriously suggesting that the eco-intelligent should ignore warnings such as these from the Pentagon: –
And what of the implications for the global economy? The IMF, OECD, World Bank and The Bank of England have a lot to say on the threat posed by climate change. Indeed the latter two bodies are now warning investors to take very great care to divest before they are left with worthless fossil fuel reserves. The pace of climate change is forcing the governments of the world to realise that 80% of fossil fuels are going to have to be left in the ground. Marks Carney’s point (Governor of the Bank of England) is that pension funds & other large investors may think they are sitting on a £10 Billion asset, but in 20 years time it may be worthless.
Is Julian seriously suggesting that people like me should ignore the warnings from those charged with maintaining global economic stability?
The Climate Change Holocaust
While each of these points all deliver fatal blows to Julian’s thinking, for me the overriding, core issue is the mass loss of human life. The World Health Organisation told us nearly 15 years ago that hundreds of thousands of people are being killed each year. The WHO explained that the largest number killed are infants under the age of 1 year, dying as a result of the increased spread of disease in our rapidly warming world.
A number of scientific bodies have looked at this research, confirmed it is accurate and the deaths are increasing. This is the latest: –
The number of infants now being killed is 340,000 per annum and this will increase rapidly: –
The UN body charged with informing the governments of the world on the science and implications of climate change is the IPCC. Julian’s leader, Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg all accept the findings of the IPCC. This body has warned that parts of Africa will suffer a 50% reduction in agricultural production by the 2020s and parts of Asia will suffer a 30% reduction in production by the 2030s. Julian, indeed all in government, should take a few minutes to read the summary reports on mitigation & adaptation for policy makers. These were, after all, published for people in his position: –
Is killing 340,000 infants immoral, particularly when you don’t need to? After all we now have the technology to do everything we do now, but with zero carbon technologies, or to capture and sequester those greenhouse gas emissions that cannot yet be stopped. When I read that so many children were being killed it seems my reaction was very different to Julian’s – I went and read the reports published by the authors. I then checked the scientific journals to see if this number was challenged and found that the world of science accepts this.
Having established that so many people, in the world’s very poorest countries, are being killed principally so that the wealthiest can drive, fly and consume as much as they like, it seemed obvious to me that I should speak out. I thought long and hard about what the NASA scientist James Hansen had to say about this loss of life. In 2007 he described it as a ‘Holocaust’. But this ‘Holocaust’ is principally an attack upon the world’s youngest and most vulnerable children. Over the coming years the hundreds of thousands will turn into millions and then hundreds of millions. Is that a ‘Holocaust’?
What is now certain is that because politicians like Julian Ware-Lane continue to support the expansion of polluting industries (he is particularly keen on the expansion of aviation), humanity will witness a loss of life greater than that inflicted by all the 20th Century dictators.
Julian and other pro-pollution politicians may want people like James Hansen and me to fall silent, to keep quiet as millions die, but we will not. I recently had an article published in the local paper, The Echo, in which I argued that this was not manslaughter – it is murder. Our politicians don’t want to kill vulnerable children but they know they will, and will do so in very large numbers.
In 5 years time we will all be using the word ‘Holocaust’, arguing that we should have heeded the warnings from history. But for all those politicians who support expansion of polluting industries I have another word; a word they will probably consider to be even more obscene than ‘Holocaust’. After the word ‘Holocaust’ comes the word – ‘Prosecution’ !