ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Immoral climate approach

| Wednesday, May 20, 2015, 9:00 p.m.

Regarding the Business column “Hot air aplenty in climate documentary” : A tragedy is unfolding because of the overconfidence of climate campaigners that we know the future of climate and can control it merely by regulating our carbon dioxide emissions.

Across the world, people suffer due to natural climate change. Yet aid agencies are unable to secure sufficient funds to help them because, of the $1 billion spent globally every day on climate finance, only 6 percent of it goes to help people adapt to climate change today. Because activists have convinced governments that we are the master controllers of climate, the remaining 94 percent is poured into mitigation, trying to stop phenomena that might someday happen. This is immoral, valuing the lives of people yet to be born more than those in need today.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change illustrates that, contrary to the assertions in documentaries like “Merchants of Doubt,” there are thousands of research papers published in leading science journals that refute, or at least question, the politically correct view of climate change. It's time to redirect our money and attention to environmental and other problems we know to be real.

Tom Harris

Ottawa, Canada

The writer is executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (www.climatescienceinternational.org).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me