On monday 19th, yet another pressure group gathered in Washington and held a press conference, appealing to Congress to enact tough laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. They want a firm committment to reduce emissions, by 2050, to a level 60-90% below those in 1990.

But what are their motives?

We've been told by various skeptics that those who accept the mainstream AGW view of current climate change are motivated largely by political ideology rather than science; a combination of "mediaeval back-to-nature environmentalism" (as Martin Durkin put it) with old-fashioned left-wing anti-capitalism. Hence, the hatred of capitalism, consumerism and materialism; hence, the desire to desire to restrict and hamstring big business and hold back economic progress.

This, we're told, is the radical ideology which now holds sway in such notorious left-wing, radically anti-technology, anti-progress, unabomber-style enclaves as NASA and the Ministry of Defence (which runs the Met office and hence, the Hadley climate research centre), not to mention every major national scientific association in the world (with the sole exception, I'm told, of the Association of Petroleum Geologists). It's a massive, all-embracing, all-encompassing conspiracy; the biggest con-trick and cover-up of all time (I bet Dan Brown is already working on the novel).

But surely, hard-nosed, no-nonsense capitalists, fananciers and business leaders won't be taken in for a moment by all this extremist nonsense... Especially since so many vocal skeptics out there can see right through it! Surely, fananciers, investors and business-leaders will look at the scientific arguments cautiously, with an eye to their own balance sheets -- and make a sober, careful and sensible judgement, in their own best business interests. Anti-capitalist ideological biases certainly wouldn't sway people like that... And they surely won't welcome costly restrictions, unless they're absolutely convinced that they're necessary.

So who was that pressure group in Washington on Monday?

Well, strangely enough, it was led by a group of financial giants, including Calvert, Merill Linch, Capricorn, F&C Asset Management and some 250 others. The group is called "Investor Network on Climate Risk" -- and it's members collectively manage a whopping $4trillion of American savings. They were joined by the CEO's of a dozen major US businesses, including BP America, Allianz, PG&E, DuPont, Alcoa, Sun Microsystems and National Grid.

Check out their press-release here: http://incr.com/index.php?page=news&nid=276
And their "Call to Action" document, here: http://www.ceres.org/Call_to_Action/index.php

Their view is that AGW is almost certainly a reality -- and it represents an enormous threat to capitalism. The economic effects of serious global warming are potentially devastating; that's why action is necessary. Yes, it may be costly; but the cost of doing nothing will be far greater.

Far from wishing to destroy, restrain or or hold-back capitalism, these financial instititions are calling for a sensible strategy to save it.


I'm sure most of the skeptics will take all this in their stride. No doubt, all these massive corporations and fanancial institutions have been hoodwinked by the radical environmental "alarmists" and extremists... I guess this is just more proof that the evil greenies are taking over the world, eh?

As a footnote to the above, if AGW is scientifically unsound, why are insurance companies so worried about it?

In the insurance industry, profits, losses and competitive edge depend crucially upon sound, dispassionate, objective evaluations of risk. Of necessity, insurance companies need to understand and evaluate the science of predicting potential hazards, be they natural or man-made, from earthquakes and tornados to terrorism -- and now, climate change.

If their smartest experts could see gaping flaws in the mainstream climate-science... if they could see any plausible merit in the highly publicised arguments of GW-skeptics, insurance companies would surely have little to worry about. If anything, they'd weigh in on the skeptical side, for the sake of combatting spurious "global warming" claims.

But as recent reports make clear, that's certainly not the view the industry is now taking.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1013/p01s01-usec.html

Reinsurers -- who insure insurance companies against the risk of multiple claims, which may happen in disaster situations such as floods, severe storms etc -- are especially worried. Back in 2004, the worlds largest reinsurance company, Swiss Re, published a report revealing how climate change is rising on the corporate agenda.

According to Swiss Re, the economic costs of global warming are likely to to double to $150 billion (81 billion pounds) a year in 10 years time, hitting insurers with $30-40 billion in claims, or the equivalent of one World Trade Centre attack annually. "There is a danger that human intervention will accelerate and intensify natural climate changes to such a point that it will become impossible to adapt our socio-economic systems in time."

Check out these links, on the Swiss Re website:

http://www.swissre.com/INTERNET/pwswpspr.nsf/fmBookMark...-62wbgq?OpenDocument
http://www.swissre.com/INTERNET/pwswpspr.nsf/fmBookMark...-6sgg55?OpenDocument
http://www.swissre.com/INTERNET/pwswpspr.nsf/fmBookMark...-569h46?OpenDocument

Swiss Re's admirably balanced statement of climate policy does not deny that climate science is uncertain.

"Despite advances in research, climate development is and will remain uncertain. Immediate action must be taken nevertheless, as even natural climatic variability carries risks far greater than generally assumed, and man’s influence on the climate system will aggravate these risks even further."