New Scientist 2018 sep

52 | NewScientist | 8 September 2018

[email protected] @newscientist newscientist

LETTERS

I bring good news and

bad news on methane

From Iain Climie,

Whitchurch, Hampshire, UK

Ilkka Savolainen points to the

importance of reducing methane

emissions to combat climate

change (Letters, 18 August).

I have good and bad news.

Much methane is emitted by

ruminant livestock. The good

news is the success of tests on

the methane-reducing effect of

adding the seaweed Asparagopsis

taxiformis to livestock food

(Letters, 18 November 2017).

The bad news is that there are

signs of massive methane releases

from previously frozen deposits

(27 July 2013, p 16). These could

easily outweigh any reductions in

emissions from human activities.

I suspect the current mess is

due to three major blunders. The

first was the emphasis on setting

targets to cut emissions instead of

controlling levels of greenhouse

gases. Second, many measures

that are essential if conventional

wisdom is correct – from reducing

waste and developing alternatives

to fossil fuels to cutting livestock’s

impact – are sensible regardless of

the effect of human activities on

climate change, and would be even

if the world were cooling. Instead

of pursuing such win-win options,

effort was wasted bickering about

whether human activities

mattered. Third, and predictably,

nobody wanted to pay to address

these concerns or to have their

consumer convenience affected.

Neoliberal capitalism

is a Ponzi scheme

From John O’Hara, Mount

Waverley, Victoria, Australia

Whatever value Earth Overshoot

Day may have as a measure of the

From Daniel Hackett, London, UK

Fred Pearce reports how lawsuits over

climate change might bring justice

along the lines of “polluter pays”

(18 August, p 38). But from where

might the payee raise the fines?

From taxes or from energy charges,

no doubt. There is thus a risk of

sending money in circles, unless the

EDITOR’S PICK

fines are all spent on preventative or at

least remedial works. This could make

the exercise of suing nearly pointless,

and could even bring into question the

whole idea of the value of money.

There will be little progress until

some system can be devised in which

economies aren’t pitted against each

other. Until then, the environment will

always be the loser because it has not

been costed or is a common resource,

as in the case of the atmosphere and

the oceans, with their capacity as a

heat-sink. When a truer cost-benefit

analysis of our lifestyle is calculated,

we will all have to admit we are out of

our depth. Fatalism based on religion

will have to be tackled, since humans

are the only agency that could solve

this. So bring on the court cases –

but realise this is but the opening

shot in a massive upheaval.

Polluter pays – but pays to whom?