Ignoring ethics of climate
change
Madam, - Martyn Turner's cartoon in your edition of
December 15th. was the most effective rebuttal to Donal
Buckley's article "Buying carbon credits cost-effective
and necessary" (Opinion, December 14th).
It showed Environment Minister Dick Roche sweeping a pile
of polluted matter under a carpet labelled "Carbon
credits". The caption commented: "Carbon credits - it's
like getting rid of illegal dumps in Wicklow by moving
them to Kildare".
The most destructive aspect of the carbon trading ruse is
that it allows people in rich countries to think that we
can carry on polluting as long as we pay poor people to
clean up our mess.
The moral dimension of this issue is largely ignored. The
Catholic bishops were alarmed recently at the suggestion
that the legal age of consent for sex be reduced to 16.
They felt young people needed to be protected from the
prevalent trivialisation of sexuality.
Contrast this with the announcement during the Budget
debate that Brian Cowen had set aside €270 million
to buy carbon credits. At Kyoto in 1997, Ireland was
allowed to increase its carbon emission by 13 per cent.
Transport and building policies pursued by the Government
since then have resulted in a 23 per cent increase in our
greenhouse gas emissions. Brian Cowen's action means
that, rather than reducing our carbon footprint, we plan
to buy our way out of our obligations.
In contrast to the discussion on sexual morality, I have
not heard a single religious leader question the morality
of the Minister's decision even though scientists tell us
that climate change could have horrendous consequences
for the lives of tens of millions of people, especially
the poor and future generations.
Climate change is the most serious moral issue facing
humankind in the 21st century. For the past 20 years
scientists involved with the International Panel on
Climate Change have been warning us that the increase in
greenhouse gas levels is changing the global climate
significantly. The review by Sir Nicholas Stern, former
chief economist to the World Bank, stated that if we take
serious action now it would cost only about 1 per cent of
global GDP. If we wait 10 or 15 years it could cost
between 5 per cent and 20 per cent.
If I persisted in pouring a substance into another
person's house which made it impossible for them to live
there I am sure that reasonable people would come to
three conclusions very quickly. First, that what I was
doing was morally wrong. (My excuse that it was necessary
for my economic growth would be brushed aside.) Second,
that I should stop immediately. And, third, that I should
pay compensation for the wrong I had done.
The current threat from climate change is so serious that
every politician seeking a vote in the forthcoming
general election should be asked to spell out the
policies of her or his party on this issue.
On moral grounds, people should vote for the individuals
and parties with the most effective policies to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
- Yours, etc,
Fr. SEÁN McDONAGH,
St. Columban's,
Dalgan Park,
Navan,
Co. Meath.
© The Irish Times, 27th. December 2006.
