Despite all the divisions in the world on religion (and what a waste of time and lives that is) the one I struggle most with is the creed of climate change. It isn’t that I’m in denial as climate change sceptic or that I’m a rabid environmentalist. I guess I’m what you’d call a climate change agnostic.
Take this, for instance, from the Guardian:
In 2004, 73% of the growth in global emissions came from developing economies, which comprise 80% of the world’s population. However, when the scientists looked at total emissions for the year, they found developed countries, including the former Soviet Union, contributed about 60%.
Assuming carbon emissions are the problem, what does this tell us? That developing economies account four in ten people and yet less than three-quarters of the bad stuff? And the former Soviet Union weighs in with 60% which makes 143% even before I’ve weighed in with the CO2 tonnage of the 8,000 miles a year I do pootling about in my Fiesta.
See what I mean? The sums just don’t add up, at least to the layman (sorry person) who spends so much energy re-cycling anything that would otherwise get chucked in the the bin to “save the planet”.
Anyway, I’m still doing my best as an undecided voter, but the Angry Economist does make a case for a different take on this subject. And the money we are futilely wasting.