Alexander Gillespie: Concerned scientists not just prophets of doom

Two separate commentaries on the possibility of large scale environmental change have been published in the Herald recently. One, quite correctly, warned us not to be too quick to draw conclusions from Hurricane Katrina and its possible link to climate change.

The other suggested that those who warn of large scale environmental disasters are typically non-rational and the antithesis of progress.

Both are linked to the idea of scepticism, and implicitly warn the public that they should not jump to conclusions. But it is equally foolish to adopt a sceptical approach to befuddle both the public and meaningful policy debate.

The first article suggested that Rachel Carson's analysis was mistaken about the long-term implications of persistent organic pollutants.

Carson suggested that there was an alternative to many of these chemicals some 39 years before the international community decided to strictly control these chemicals directly responsible for everything from Agent Orange to the deaths of tens of thousands of farm workers, and indirectly linked to everything from Parkinson's disease to lower sperm counts.

The second contention - that air pollution had been dealt with - is equally mistaken. Although traditional air pollution has been dealt with in many developed countries, the problem is expanding exponentially in the Third World, and Southeast Asia in particular.

Moreover, the nature of air-pollution has changed. While famous pea-soupers could kill thousands of Londoners, later air pollution, made up of similar constituents but of a much smaller size, will also end the lives of large numbers of people prematurely.

The scientists who warned about these problems in advance were not wrong, any more than those who warned about the human ability to destroy the ozone layer were mistaken when they first suggested the possibility in 1974.

Because numerous sceptics insisted that the theory be proven conclusively before substantive action was taken, humanity managed to burn up the ozone layer to such an extent that only our great-grandchildren may know what it is to live beneath a fully constituted stratosphere.

If humanity had acted in a precautionary way, the problem would have been avoided.

The debate about climate change is the exemplar of these problems. Scepticism over weather related matters combined with genuine scientific uncertainty makes the possible link between Hurricane Katrina and climate change difficult to navigate.

However, three separate scientific reports have reached strikingly similar conclusions, in that although the overall number of extreme storms is not increasing, the number of the most ferocious ones is on the rise.

To take such evidence alone as proof of climatic change would be shallow. But when such evidence is overlaid with recent reports concerning the relatively quick melting of the Arctic icecap, the retreat of many (but not all) glaciers, and additional evidence of changes in many animals and plants, such as the timing of bud breaking, hatching and/or migration, then there is cause for concern.

If humanity has managed to start changing the climate with our past and present achievements, we are about to rapidly speed up the process and embark on a global experiment of near unknowable consequences.

Within a few years, the Third World will contribute more greenhouse gas emissions than the industrialised countries. Failure to control these emissions will make attempts by the industrialised countries, as reflected in the Kyoto Protocol, absolutely meaningless. This is the point the international community is beginning to focus on.

Resolution of the Gordian knot of the right of the Third World to develop, and the global need of sustainable development is going to be one of the major debates of the 21st century.

This is the time to focus on that debate, and to act in a precautionary manner. This is not the time to attempt to equate ground-breaking scientists, who had the capacity to foresee that some of humanity's paths may have profound consequences, to religious zealots.

* Alexander Gillespie is a professor of law at the University of Waikato.