Global warming: it's all about the money.

Life used to be so much simpler in the old days, but then everything changed.  A key date is 15 June 1989, on which day the Green Party polled more than two million votes in the European Parliament elections.  This was widely interpreted as the British electorate indicating that they wanted the major parties to focus more on environmental issues.

The two major issues which were gaining a lot of attention at the time were global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer, and those issues are still with us today, except that there is now a high level of public scepticism – especially where global warming is concerned.

Many years ago I was discussing this topic with a man who was very much into the green scaremongering.  I mentioned to him that I had read an essay in a magazine which argued that the scaremongering was not based on good science.  If I remember rightly, it observed among other things that the hole in the ozone layer was merely seasonal.

I was then taken aback when the man retorted to the effect that big business would want to hide the truth.  He did not enlarge on that, probably because there was very little substance in what he was saying.

I concede that any company which is in the business of making money may be tempted to conceal the truth on occasions, but it is also fair to say that businesses can often make money out of environmental scaremongering.  Before 15 June 1989, the only way to sell washing powder was to argue that it cleaned your clothes.  Afterwards you could also argue that it contained fewer chemicals, and so was less harmful to the environment – and I can recall at least one television commercial which took that exact line.

Suppose you run a company which manufactures wind turbines.  Generally speaking, wind turbines are ugly and useless, and the only reason they are prolific is because they attract generous subsidies.  These subsidies are justified by environmental scaremongering, and so your company’s fortunes depend heavily upon the acceptance of the scare stories – even if they are completely untrue.

Suppose also that you are the director of an environmental lobby organisation.  Your income derives largely from membership dues paid by ordinary members of the public.  It is therefore vital that at least some people believe the latest environmental scare stories, because otherwise your organisation would probably have to close owing to a lack of money.

Global warming has kept many people on the gravy train, and I don’t expect that to change any time soon.

Some readers may accuse me of overlooking the compelling scientific evidence, and yes I’m sure the evidence is compelling to anyone whose place on the gravy train depends on us believing in scare stories.

Related previous posts include:

BBC bias: criminal law and global warming