Letter: Action without proof
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Roger Bate, director of the environment unit at the Institute of Economic Affairs, misses the point when he says there is not sufficient proof to link carbon dioxide emissions to global warming ('Green tax on fossil fuels 'unwarranted' ', 4 April). Presumably he would also advocate doing nothing about lead in petrol or to control levels of pesticides in foodstuffs because there is no 'proof' that these are harmful to health. In both such examples science cannot 'prove' anything - it can only present a balance of probabilities.
The evidence, as judged by the vast majority of scientists working on the issue, is overwhelmingly in agreement that human interference in the climate is occurring. Uncertainty there may be, but it cuts both ways. If there is a small possibility that climate change is anything to worry about, there is similarly a small possibility of a catastrophic 'runaway' greenhouse effect, the consequences of which are likely to be second only to those of global thermonuclear war.
Failing to act on the basis of inevitable scientific uncertainty legitimises continued inefficient use of fuel and resources, and allows government to set a poor regulatory, fiscal and informational framework for promoting good practices.
Yours sincerely,
DOUG PARR
Head of Science, Greenpeace
London, N1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments