The FT is reporting on a new study that casts doubt on some of the core assumptions of the green movement: that we currently live in the best of all possible climates, and that any departure from that ideal state due to global warming is necessarily a bad thing:
But it also forecasts several benefits of global warming, including the chance to grow commercial crops more suited to warmer climates, and what it calls the “potentially very large” social and economic benefits of falling demand for winter heating that could add up to more than £1bn a year by the 2050s. […]The agriculture section cites many climate risks, such as increases in drought, pests and disease. But it also discusses possible benefits from higher yields for crops, such as wheat and sugar beet.
Although there would likely be benefits to global warming, it would be wrong to use this as an excuse not to look into the problems it poses. Like any other natural phenomenon, warming would have many effects: some good, some bad, and many impossible to predict.It seems obvious that these calculations should be taken into account in environmental policy. Yet there have been few serious attempts to determine the costs-minus-benefits of global warming or how much time and energy it makes sense to spend trying to prevent it. The greens have been largely responsible for this oversight. Indeed they have been prepared to pillory anyone who dares suggest that science could lend support to any policy option but their own: a binding global treaty to regulate the economic output of every country on the earth.The refusal of greens to take seriously the question of netting out the plus and minus aspects of global warming is not an advertisement for the intellectual coherence of a movement that wants to reshape the world based on its projections about the future.