Pro-Bush Think Tank: Global Warming 'may benefit man'

[Guest guest]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361276,00.html

 

 

 

Pro-Bush Think Tank: Global Warming 'may benefit man'

 

November 28, 2004

By: Antony Barnett

 

Observer, The

 

Climate change is 'a myth', sea levels are not rising and Britain's

chief scientist is 'an embarrassment' for believing catastrophe is

inevitable. These are the controversial views of a new London-based

think-tank that will publish a report tomorrow attacking the

apocalyptic view that man-made greenhouse gases will destroy the

planet. The International Policy Network will publish its long-awaited

study, claiming that the science warning of an environmental disaster

caused by climate change is 'fatally flawed'. It will state that

previous predictions of changes in sea level of a metre over the next

100 years were overestimates.

 

Instead, the report will say that sea level rises will reach a maximum

of just 20cms during the next century, adding that global warming

could, in fact, benefit mankind by increasing fish stocks.

 

The report's views closely mirror those held by many of President

George Bush's senior advisers, who have been accused of derailing

attempts to reach international agreement over how to prevent climate

change.

 

The report is set to cause controversy. The network, which has links

with some of the President's advisers, has received cash donations

from the US oil giant ExxonMobil, which has long lobbied against the

climate change agenda. Exxon lists the donation as part of its

'climate change outreach' programme.

 

Environmentalists yesterday said the network report was an attempt by

American neo-conservatives to sabotage the Prime Minister's attempts

to lead the world in tackling climate change.

 

Last week, the network's director Julian Morris attacked Britain's

highly respected chief scientist. 'David King is an embarrassment to

himself and an embarrassment to his country.' He criticised

preparations by Tony Blair to use his presidency of the world's most

powerful nations next year to lead attempts in tackling climate change.

 

Morris described Blair's plans to use his G8 tenure to halt global

warming as 'offensive'. Bush is understood to have objected to Blair

placing the issue at the top of the agenda and to the robust tone of

his recent speeches on climate change.

 

Blair, however, has garnered considerable international support for

describing the issue as 'the single, biggest long-term issue' facing

the world. According to the network, however, his passion on the

matter is not shared by the British public. A poll it commissioned

claims six out of 10 Britons believe Blair should not implement the

Kyoto protocol if it will harm the economy.

 

The executive director of the environment group Greenpeace, Stephen

Tindale, said: 'We've been watching how the network employs the same

tactics as Washington neo-cons, now we know they employ some of the

same people as well.

 

'For years, the tobacco companies blocked action on smoking by sowing

doubt about the science. Esso and its friends have done the same thing

in the US on climate change and now they're busy in Britain. Global

warming is the biggest threat we face, the science is certain.'

 

Environmentalists believe this week's report will provoke a similar

storm to that inspired by Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, who

maintains climate change is not the greatest threat facing mankind and

resources should be spent on more pressing issues, such as tackling HIV.

 

Tomorrow's findings echo a number of Lomborg's themes, as well as

maintaining that 'extreme weather' is more likely caused by a natural

cycle rather than man-made. It also challenges assumptions that

climate change will lead to a rise in malaria along with more positive

effects, such as increasing fish stocks in the north Atlantic and

reducing the incidence of temperature-related deaths among vulnerable

people.

 

Morris admitted receiving money from a number of companies, including

$50,000 from Exxon, but denied the organisation was a front for

neo-conservative opinion. 'I have written about these issues for many

years. If a company wants to provide money, then I'd be happy to

accept it.'

 

He added that his $1 million budget is small compared to those of

international groups, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.