There’s no such thing as junk science, just polluters in denial

What’s it like to be a Peruvian chicken? Christine Lagarde says we’re going to find out if we continue to fail to take action on climate change. “Fried, grilled, toasted and roasted,” was how she described the likely outcomes for us during a panel discussion in Lima. She’s right but, in a welcome move, the head of the International Monetary Fund sought to offer some solutions for dealing with the problem – in contrast to a green lobby that does rather have a tendency to declare that “we’re all doomed”. And I say that as a supporter.

She wants to see the removal of carbon subsidies worth $5trn (£3trn) a year that are showered on the energy industry, and the imposition of carbon taxes. Combined, these could provide a wealth of funds for research into clean replacements for fossil fuels. Her opponents will, of course, do what they usually do. They will trash her – because, in short order, she’s French, she’s a woman, and she works for a global financial organisation out to destroy truth, justice and the American way.

They will also claim her arguments are based on “junk science”, when there is no such thing. There is only science.

Perhaps the answer for Ms Lagarde, and other world leaders who see the problem, might be to point to “poor science” – by which I mean economics.

They might like to note that there will be a brutal economic price to pay for doing nothing. And there is already evidence that businesses are starting to pay it.

The insurance industry, which is quietly frightened witless at the potential claims impact of the extreme weather caused by venting millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere ever year, is adjusting premiums upwards. Its more progressive leaders are also trying to make the same sort of points Ms Lagarde has made.

We are, in fact, rapidly getting to the stage where the cost of doing nothing is going to outstrip the cost of doing something, because higher insurance premiums are just the start.