The world is healthier, wealthier, and safer than it ever has been. And most of this progress has been achieved in the era of global warming. The green story does not add up.
Ben - thanks for the article. However, intuition may have led you to invert the meaning of the precautionary principle. Under the precautionary principle, caution must be exercised by proposers of innovations with irreversible potential for causing harm when sufficient scientific knowledge is lacking.
In this case, the innovation is the abandonment of our existing energy system, and the scientific knowledge that is lacking is of the dynamics of the climate system.
In fact, climate catastrophists are violating, not exercising, the precautionary principle.
Under the precautionary principle, it is the responsibility of the proposer of the innovation to demonstrate that innovation is warranted - in this case, (i) that catastrophic changes are taking place in the climate and (ii) the proposed alterations to the energy system (a.k.a "Net Zero") are achievable and likely to produce net benefit. It further proposes that the process that the proposer must use to demonstrate these is the scientific method.
Within the scientific method, the former is unprovable, and the latter provably false. Under the precautionary principle, therefore, "Net Zero" policies should be abandoned.
What you sometimes get is an inversion of the principle: that it is "inaction" (i.e. unwillingness to transform our energy arrangements) that is the innovation, and that the proposer of inaction shoiuld demonstrate that there is no harm e.g. from climate change. This is to be rejected.
Ben - thanks for the article. However, intuition may have led you to invert the meaning of the precautionary principle. Under the precautionary principle, caution must be exercised by proposers of innovations with irreversible potential for causing harm when sufficient scientific knowledge is lacking.
In this case, the innovation is the abandonment of our existing energy system, and the scientific knowledge that is lacking is of the dynamics of the climate system.
In fact, climate catastrophists are violating, not exercising, the precautionary principle.
Under the precautionary principle, it is the responsibility of the proposer of the innovation to demonstrate that innovation is warranted - in this case, (i) that catastrophic changes are taking place in the climate and (ii) the proposed alterations to the energy system (a.k.a "Net Zero") are achievable and likely to produce net benefit. It further proposes that the process that the proposer must use to demonstrate these is the scientific method.
Within the scientific method, the former is unprovable, and the latter provably false. Under the precautionary principle, therefore, "Net Zero" policies should be abandoned.
What you sometimes get is an inversion of the principle: that it is "inaction" (i.e. unwillingness to transform our energy arrangements) that is the innovation, and that the proposer of inaction shoiuld demonstrate that there is no harm e.g. from climate change. This is to be rejected.