-
This article was downloaded by: [177.40.198.21]On: 24 July 2014,
At: 19:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and
Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of EnvironmentalStudiesPublication
details, including instructions for authors andsubscription
information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/genv20
On climate change and catastropheHugo A. Meynellaa ,, #309, 1320
8th Ave. SE, Calgary, Alberta, T2G 0M9, Canada.Published online: 21
Oct 2013.
To cite this article: Hugo A. Meynell (2013) On climate change
and catastrophe, InternationalJournal of Environmental Studies,
70:5, 800-807, DOI: 10.1080/00207233.2013.817201
To link to this article:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2013.817201
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy
of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications
on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe
accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are
the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or
endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be
liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs,
expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private
study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply,
or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
&Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
-
On climate change and catastrophe
HUGO A. MEYNELL*
#309, 1320 8th Ave. SE, Calgary, Alberta T2G 0M9, Canada
Climate change, and what is to be done about it, is a matter of
enormous importance and urgency,on which every educated citizen in
a democracy ought to try to make up her mind. It is stronglyurged
that holders of opposed views on the matter should not be too ready
to dismiss one anotheras knaves or fools. It is concluded, with
some regret, that alarmists, who hold that we are headedfor
catastrophe unless we take drastic steps, have made a better case
than have their opponents.
Keywords: Climate change; Alarmists; Nay-sayers; Tribalism;
Scholasticism; Tarsands
There is an urgent question, and one of the utmost importance,
on which all educatedcitizens in a democracy have to decide. Is the
way of life to which many people in Europeand North America have
become accustomed virtually certain to lead, sooner or later,
toecological disaster by way of climate change? If so, can we avert
this catastrophe, or atleast mitigate it, only by an immediate and
radical change in our manner of living? (ASwedish scientist has
compared our plight to that of a person about to have a
precipitousfall; she has the option of either preparing a cushion
to fall on, at some inconvenience andexpense to herself; or of
undergoing the full and terrible consequences).1
As labels will prove handy in the subsequent discussion, I
propose to call those whohold this position alarmist; those who
think we may as well carry on as we are doing thenay-sayers. To
many users of the term, alarmist has negative implications; such
that tobe an alarmist is of itself to exaggerate the likelihood or
the badness of a prospectivesituation. I do not intend my use of
the term in what follows to carry such connotations.Sometimes, it
is proper to be alarmist in the sense in which I shall use the term
forexample, if your friend is about to go out in the late evening
into a street renowned forrobbery while carrying a fat wad of cash;
or if she intends to visit a country for whichinoculations are
strongly advised, without having any. I think no-one would deny
that thesituation which some think threatens us, if indeed one
believes that it is likely to occur, issuch as to justify
alarm.
1. On the ethics of controversy
Rather than approaching our topic directly, I nd it necessary to
make some preliminarygeneral observations about the morality and
proprieties of public controversy on disputedissues which are of
importance. In doing this, I hope, I shall disappoint a substantial
class
*Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Environmental Studies, 2013Vol. 70, No.
5, 800807, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2013.817201
2013 Taylor & Francis
Dow
nloa
ded
by [1
77.40
.198.2
1] at
19:01
24 Ju
ly 20
14
-
of readers. For an exemplary instance of how matters which are
of serious public concernshould not be discussed, I shall take an
article by Lonnie Goldstein which was publishedshortly before the
Copenhagen summit on climate change of December 2009 [1]. Ifyoure
wondering how the robot-like March of the worlds politicians
towards Copenhagencan possibly continue in the face of the scientic
scandal dubbed climategate, itsbecause Big Government, Big Business
and Big Green dont care a s (sic) about thescience. They never
have. What climategate suggests is many of the worlds
leadingclimate scientists didnt either. Apparently they stied their
own doubts about recent globalcooling not explained by their
computer models, manipulated data, plotted ways to avoidreleasing
it under freedom of information laws and attacked fellow scientists
and scienticjournals for publishing even peer-reviewed literature
of which they did not approve.There is evoked here the noble image
of the rugged independent individual, free to do
what the hell he likes, especially to make money. It is to be
answered that individualautonomy is an important right, but no sane
person really believes that it is an indefeasibleone; law and
morality are largely a matter of establishing its limits, so that
the autonomyof other people can be preserved. How to reconcile
these desiderata is perhaps the funda-mental problem of politics.
The climategate affair alluded to by Goldstein, where, in
asupposedly scientic investigation of the matter at issue, unfair
pressures were exerted byalarmists on colleagues who adduced
evidence in favour of the nay-saying option, wasundeniably
deplorable. Yet, it may well be argued that the worst of the affair
was thepretext it provided for nay-sayers to avert their eyes from
the abundant evidence for thealarmist position. Although such
behaviour is often evidence that one is dishonestlydefending a
position which goes against the relevant data, those who behave
like this maystill be correct about the position that they hold. As
the actor remarked to the bishop, Iproclaim falsehoods as though
they were truths; you proclaim truths as though they
werefalsehoods. I concede that such evidence as there may be for
recent global cooling shouldcertainly be taken into account in a
properly objective account of our overall situation.Goldstein also
evokes the latent contempt of plain women or men for all that
scienticand theoretical jargon which has nothing to do with the
common sense of which the ordin-ary person justly prides herself.
But I would have thought that, for all the extent of thearea over
which common sense is and ought to be sovereign, the question of
climatechange and the human contribution to it is best left to the
authority of scientists.It is deplorable to talk of ecopap, as some
do; this insinuates not only that the alarm-
ists are wrong, but that they have no case. No doubt there is
some sloppy thinking andwriting on their side too, but that is
hardly to the point. To dilate contemptuously, say, onthe lackeys
and lapdogs of the oil companies would, of course, be no better.It
may be complained that the present writer is a mere egghead to
bother about things at
this level of generality and abstraction, rather than going
straight into the mutual mudsling-ing which is so usual in public
debate about this and related issues. I admit thatmudslinging is
fun; but beg leave to raise the question whether it is really the
best methodof nding out what is true, and what is the best thing to
do about it. Some writing on thistopic uses tactics which are
shamelessly ad hominem in this instance I prefer not toname names.
One nay-sayer, much of whose writing on this and related topics
makesgood points well, has attacked a prominent alarmist for his
confession, in quite a differ-ent context, that he thought about
sex an inordinate amount. To nd this relevant to theissue in
question could only be evidence either of stupidity or of a corrupt
mind.It seems a useful overall maxim in such discussion, that one
should not too readily treat
ones opponents with contempt; or at least should only do so
after one has shown that
On climate change and catastrophe 801
Dow
nloa
ded
by [1
77.40
.198.2
1] at
19:01
24 Ju
ly 20
14
-
such contempt is justied. Besides, one should select those who
appear to be the leastcontemptible of ones opponents to argue with.
I have found by recent experience, andregard it as regrettable,
that in approaching issues which are controversial, fraught
withemotion and apt to make people divide into opposed parties, a
common reaction is essen-tially (to use Dan Hardocks useful term,
(personal communication)) tribal. What doesthe group with which I
identify think, or at least proclaim that it thinks, on this
issue?How can I shore up my conviction that we are right and good,
and that those opposed tous are knaves or fools or both? This
tribal tendency is unfortunately built into our natureas determined
in palaeolithic times over some forty thousand years; my tribe
survives bydint of elimination of yours, and the ladies are
disposed to mate with the most successfuland assiduous
eliminators.Radically opposed to this is the medieval scholastic
training and habit, which lines up
opposed opinions on any serious subject; and considers as coolly
as possible the case forand against them. (I shall label this the
scholastic as opposed to the tribal attitude).Towards the beginning
of his Summa Theologiae [2], Thomas Aquinas brings up the ques-tion
whether God exists, a matter which he regarded as of some
importance, and aboutwhich he might have been expected to be
disposed to get hot under the collar. He writes, Itseems that God
does not exist, for the following reasons. He then produces some
rathergood reasons for not believing that there is a God like the
presence of evil in the universe,and the question of whether the
existence of an innite being would leave room for that ofany nite
beings. After this, he says I answer that , and goes on to give
reasons forbelieving that there is a God all the same; he concludes
the section by answering theobjections which he has raised. It
appears to me that, on serious and disputed issues, the
con-scientious and educated citizen, especially in a democracy, has
the duty to cultivate the sec-ond (scholastic) attitude and
sedulously to avoid the rst (tribal) one, thus coming to thebest
opinion available to her on the topic in question. (I note that
some adversary willprobably say, Dr Meynell is recommending
attitudes that are positively medieval.)If you go on saying on the
one hand, on the other hand, youll never come to any
conclusion or decision at all. On the contrary, your conclusion
will be much moreconvincing to right-thinking people, if you have
given a fair hearing to views that differfrom yours. I admit that
one can fail to make a judgement or decision when one should,when
the relevant evidence is in and has been properly considered. It is
not rational todoubt whether the earth is approximately spherical,
whether Hitler had an aversion toJews, or whether, given the
relevant available evidence, quantum theory at least approxi-mates
to the truth about events at the sub-atomic level more closely than
its predecessors.
2. But how can we laypeople come to know the truth, or even to
reach the mostprobable opinion, on a matter where the experts, and
our leaders, notoriouslydisagree?
A few years ago, I concluded that, as a conscientious citizen in
a democracy, I had theduty to come to the most well-informed
opinion that I could on this subject of climatechange and the human
contribution to it. I was already inclined to suppose, on the basis
ofsuch reading as I had done on the subject that an unusual amount
of change in the earthsclimatic conditions was indeed going on; but
I considered it doubtful how much humanbeings were contributing to
this. I therefore consulted two persons; one, a well-read,
well-informed layman; the other a biochemist. Both gave me much the
same answer. A large
802 H.A. Meynell
Dow
nloa
ded
by [1
77.40
.198.2
1] at
19:01
24 Ju
ly 20
14
-
majority of specialists in the relevant sciences, especially
climatology, were in the alarmistcamp. The layman suggested that
most of them had kept quiet because they felt it wasuseless to make
a protest, when the public had no political will to do anything
about thematter. Those who were nay-sayers often were in the pay of
corporations who had a vestedinterest in preserving the status
quo.The biochemist referred me to an article by Dr Stuart Jordan
[3]. The article both
conrmed my previously-held opinion about the reality of global
warming, and convincedme that human beings were largely if not
wholly responsible for it by their carbon dioxideemissions. The
article greatly impressed me by its method, tone and manner. The
hectoringand hysterical tone of much journalism on this issue it
would be invidious to cite moreexamples was notably absent. The
possible alternative explanations of present globalwarming events
in the sun, ocean currents were presented, and grounds were given
forrejecting them, which were backed by copious references. The
paper offered, as it said,compelling evidence from a large body of
research that global climate change caused byglobal warming is
already underway and requires our immediate attention. The research
inquestion appears in refereed scientic literature, and most of it
reects a broad consensusof the worldwide climatology community. The
probability is extremely high that human-generated greenhouse
gases, with carbon dioxide as the major offender, are the
primarycause. And is there any remedy for this situation? Much can
be done now to mitigate theeffects of global warming and the
associated climate change. Difculties in addressing theproblem are
not caused primarily by unavailable technology, but by the lack of
sufcientincentives to implement the new technologies more
aggressively [3, p. 150f].
3. Difcult as some readers may nd it to believe, I have heard
all the followingsuggestions made
(i) Its too late to do anything now.2 This dismal complacency
reminds me of thepreacher in Stella Gibbons Cold Comfort Farm (I
quote from memory): Yereall damned. And theres nothin whatever ye
can do about it. The QuiveringBrethren quivered with satisfaction;
this was evidently going to be a good morn-ing. Most informed
alarmists, in any case, agree with Dr. Jordan that there aresteps
which we can take, for all that they may not be altogether
convenient.
(ii) Lets wait till the crisis hits, and then take the necessary
steps.3 I would havethought that it was among the most elementary
theorems of practical reasoning, thatone should be prepared to go
through some, perhaps considerable, inconvenience,in order to avoid
probable disaster later on.
(iii) The science underlying the alarmist position is uncertain;
it does not yieldproof. We have this on the authority of Danielle
Smith, the leader of our WildRose Party in Alberta. Now there is an
important sense in which all empiricalscience is uncertain; it only
gives you the best hypothesis on the available experi-mental or
observational evidence. It does not provide proof in the strict
deductivesense. Science proves is generally a prelude to loose
talk.
On the other hand, it is easy to produce proofs of anything one
likes at the drop of ahat. That Julius Caesar is a spotted frog is
validly proved by the following argument.All Roman generals are
spotted frogs. Julius Caesar is a Roman general. Therefore
Julius
On climate change and catastrophe 803
Dow
nloa
ded
by [1
77.40
.198.2
1] at
19:01
24 Ju
ly 20
14
-
Caesar is a spotted frog. The trouble, as the attentive reader
will have noted, is in thefalsity of the rst premiss. In the cases
of the sciences, the premises from which, togetherwith relevant
data, deductions are to be derived, are only arrived at as a result
of arduousinquiry and testing of hypotheses over hundreds of years.
Are Einsteins theoreticalpremises, as set out in the general theory
of relativity, correct, or are those of IsaacNewton? Certain
observations were made, which came out in favour of Einstein.Doubts
by nay-sayers on the science of climate change can seem comparable
to doubts
by Christian fundamentalists of the theory of evolution. There
is a proper sense in whichone can say, This is settled, say, of the
truth of the oxygen theory of combustion, and thefalsity of the
phlogiston theory. And I think many climatologists would say in
this sensewith regard to the alarmist scenario, the relevant
science is settled. Someone mightprotest, It is conceivable that
the present virtual consensus of experts might be shown tobe wrong
by further investigation. It is just about conceivable there are
occasional caseswhere the executed man turns out not to have
committed the murder after all, and whereGrandfather may have
happened to identify the real murderer after scrutinizing
histea-leaves. But that does not imply that scrupulous
investigation of a crime scene andactive detective work culminating
in prosecution of an accused in a law-court with
skilfulcross-examination are not the best way of getting at the
truth about such matters.
(i) Global warming, granted that it is occurring, is due to
events in the sun overwhich human beings have no control. I read
recently that an organization calledThe Friends of Science
condently afrms this account of the matter. If they areright, it is
surprising how many persons, including some who appear to have
thehighest qualications, must be either deluded or lying. And it is
hard to see whattheir motives could be for either. (Of course, all
of us have strong motives forbeing nay-sayers, since the
consequences of the alarmist scenario are so incon-venient.) As I
write this, I am informed of a (d)istinguished climate envoy,
JohnAshton, an alarmist who calls for mobilization equivalent to
war to deal withthe issue [4]. I have heard it said that the label
Friends of Science is preposterousas afxed to this organization,
but God knows that, when it comes to topics as con-troversial as
this, one should not believe everything one hears or reads.
(ii) I have repeatedly heard it said, by an alarmist or a
nay-sayer a propos of her orhis opponents, They dont think. No
doubt some people on both sides, and proba-bly not the least vocal,
do not think as much as they should, and in particular, as Ihave
already complained, do not take sufcient account of the arguments
of theiropponents. But it would be strange to claim that no
alarmist had ever thought aboutthe issue, or that no nay-sayer had
done so. There is a well-known logical fallacyinto which the
structure of the English language is apt to betray the unwary
wherean illegitimate move is made from some to all. Thus I may
declare, on the basisof several incontestable cases, that
conservialist politicians are venal and lecherous;and invalidly
infer, Mr Harclair is a conservialist politician; therefore Mr
Harclair isvenal and lecherous. But that some are so does not imply
that all are so.
(iii) There is a distinguished political scientist whose opinion
I often value again Iprefer not to name names who has come out with
the remarkable assertion,Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Nor is
water; but the fact remains that one canhave too much of the stuff
in the wrong place, and oods may be a nuisance.
(iv) Youve no business pointing to the problem unless you can
propose a solution. Iwould contest the general principle in any
case; but even if I did not, plenty of
804 H.A. Meynell
Dow
nloa
ded
by [1
77.40
.198.2
1] at
19:01
24 Ju
ly 20
14
-
immediate practical consequences can be drawn for the conduct of
the ordinarycitizen: Travel less; walk more; eat locally-grown
vegetables and fruit. (Is it reallynecessary for people in Britain
or the USA to eat peas grown in Uganda?) Conservenon-renewable
resources, especially oil, as much as you can; and plan for a
futurewithout it. Cultivate satisfactions which do not either
involve the consumption ofnon-renewable resources, or add to the
human emission of carbon dioxide.
(v) Everything that we can do, or can reasonably be asked to do,
is a drop in thebucket. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, when this
comment was made about her workamong the destitute of that city,
memorably commented that otherwise the bucketwould be empty. In his
excellent recent book [5], Chris Turner has described thevery
useful work being done, for example in Germany and various US
jurisdictions,to develop renewable sources of energy, for example
through sun-panels and windturbines. How far our energy
requirements can be met by such means is moot;some authorities have
an interest in exaggerating, others in minimizing, the extentto
which they can. At all events what is mainly required, if the
alarmists are right,is a radical change in the behaviour of those
who live in the First World.
(vi) It would be stupid to take drastic measures, involving
changes in our whole wayof life, until we are absolutely sure of
what we are doing. Absolute certainty, as Ihave already argued, is
in the nature of the case not available. But it might still
beinsisted that, given what is the most probable scenario on the
available evidence,perhaps the most stupid option is continuing
with the status quo which mightreasonably be compared to a motorist
driving at 100 kph. towards the edge of aprecipice. Presumably, all
would agree that we should not do anything stupid, orwithout
careful consideration.
4. You Tarsands, I Jane
In Alberta, the dispute is polarized between alarmists and
nay-sayers, due to theoilsands in the north of our province.
Recently, the European Union, in spite of Canadianofcial protests,
refused to withdraw a report which stigmatized the bitumen
extracted asdirty oil.
(i) We dont pollute as badly as others, whether in the
extraction of bitumen from theAlberta oilsands, or in other
respects. It is surely better for us to get our own oil ina
comparatively harmless way, than by importing it from less
scrupulous regimes.How good an excuse is it for committing a crime,
that other peoples crimes arearguably worse?
(ii) Human ingenuity will not be frustrated. (This was said, in
effect, by the CEO ofan oil company who was defending present
policies with respect to the oilsandsagainst alarmist critics.)
Perhaps human ingenuity may be better employed inworking out and
implementing a sustainable way of life, than in nding the
mosteffective short-term way of supporting the Albertan or Canadian
standard of living,whether sustainable or not.
(iii) The same CEO exhorts us to take the Hollywood out of
oilsands. The insinuation,that no real expert takes a radically
critical position about the present exploitationof the oilsands, is
evidently and outrageously false. And I do not see why thosewho
have a high public prole in other elds, if they regard this as a
serious moral
On climate change and catastrophe 805
Dow
nloa
ded
by [1
77.40
.198.2
1] at
19:01
24 Ju
ly 20
14
-
and political issue, should not exert their inuence in order to
facilitate the promo-tion of what they regard as the right public
attitude to it. Certainly, they will quiterightly get egg on their
faces, if they do not do their homework properly. AndJames Cameron
did not end his visit to the oilsands with an entirely
negativereaction; he said that, so far as he was concerned, the
work should go on roughlyas it was, but with due attention to
concerns about the environment.
(iv) Sometimes, nay-sayers make a patriotic appeal to alarmists:
Youre neglectingthe crucial contribution of the present manner of
development of the oilsands toAlbertan, indeed to Canadian,
prosperity. It is not to be denied that the mainte-nance of the
present standard of living of Canadians is a positive and
importantvalue. But possibly its implementation is in conict with
that of still greater values the avoidance of climatic catastrophe,
and the handing-on of a habitable environ-ment to future
generations. And ought not the inundation of inhabited
Pacicislands, due to the shrinkage of the Greenland ice sheet, be a
matter of someconcern to North Americans and Europeans? Sometimes
we are confronted by con-ict between real values like the
maintenance of sh stocks as against the preser-vation of the
traditional way of life of shing communities, or the saving
ofpristine forest as opposed to the economics of the logging
industry. I have foundthat many people do not care to contemplate
the possibility of such conicts ofgenuine positive value, and that
this provides an additional motive for turning ablind eye to
inconvenient evidence.
(v) Some people seem deceived by a false alternative, between
closing down theoilsands altogether, or developing them just as is
being done at present. EvenAndrew Nikiforuk, hardly a friend to
nay-sayers, recommends that the oilsandsdevelopment should not be
closed down, but should operate with a view to long-term
sustainability and preservation of the environment [6].
(vi) Some say that the strictest environmental standards are
already being applied,whereas others have a very different story to
tell about the effect of carcinogenson Native Canadian populations
lower down the Athabasca River, and so on. Onehas, of course, to
take account of the differing motivations of those who give
theconicting accounts. Nikiforuk writes that Alberta Premier Ed
Stelnack, in a speechdelivered in May 2009 to European investors,
claimed that the rms extracting bitu-men from the oilsands were
observing the most stringent environmental regulationsin the world;
and that the government was doing everything in its power to
protectthe environment. On the other hand, a study which appeared
in the same year, byGlobal Forest Watch, reported persistent and
chronic failure in the air monitoringsystem recurring problems,
improper maintenance, leaks and componentsthat were frozen and
unable to be inspected. Moreover, the region exceededrecommended
air quality levels for a potent brain toxin, hydrogen sulde,
361times in 2007 [7].
Everyone would agree that the episode of the dead ducks and the
tailponds was a regret-table blunder. But there is a nice question
of the kind of blunder that it was. Was it anincidental mistake due
to temporary lack of vigilance in applying established
procedures?Or was it a more or less inevitable consequence of the
nature of the whole operation,which it was embarrassing to the oil
companies should get in the public eye?
806 H.A. Meynell
Dow
nloa
ded
by [1
77.40
.198.2
1] at
19:01
24 Ju
ly 20
14
-
5. Ezekiels watchman
I have a brief concluding comment to make on the role of
religion in this controversy. Iwould certainly not invoke the
rapture (I Thessalonians 4.17), supposed in some
circlesconveniently to rescue Christians from the consequences of
the ecological crimes at whichthey have connived. More to the point
is that, since the lives of Christians are hid withChrist in God
(Colossians 3:3), this should give them courage to envisage what
seems onthe evidence to be the truth, and to implement what appear
to be the best policies, in spiteof selshness and social pressures.
Ezekiels account of the duties of the watchman (chap-ter 33) may
serve as a salutary reminder that it may be the worse for
Christians if they failthus to act. Buddhists may well point out,
that our present ecological plight is merelywhere the indulgence as
opposed to elimination of our cravings has inevitably brought
us.
Notes
1. In preparing this article, I have enormously proted from
conversations with JimmieSteen, who has also introduced me to a
great deal of relevant literature. But, I do notsuppose she would
agree with all of my conclusions. I have also greatly benetted
fromextended discussions with Mr. Lloyd Northcott and Dr Tristram
Chivers. I am entirelyresponsible for any use I have made of their
views.
2. This opinion was mentioned to me by Ms. Vere Kenny; but I do
not think she wascommitting herself to it.
3. This was suggested in a short article in the Calgary Herald,
for which I regret that Icannot now nd the reference.
References
[1] 2009, Why climategate wont stop greens, Calgary Sun, 26
November 2009.[2] Part I, article ii.[3] Jordan, S.D., 2009, Global
climate change triggered by global warming. In K. Frazier (Ed.)
Science Under
Siege. Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience (Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books).[4] Press Release from School of Oriental and
African Studies, for public lecture, On Climate Change: a war
by
other means, The 2013 Annual Lecture of the Centre for
International Studies and Diplomacy (CISD) atSOAS, University of
London, delivered by Mr John Ashton CBE, 23 May 2013.
[5] Turner, C., 2011, The Leap. How to Survive and Thrive in the
Sustainable Economy (Toronto: RandomHouse).
[6] Nikiforuk, A. (Ed.), 2010, Tar Sands, Dirty Oil and the
Future of a Continent (Vancouver, Toronto andBerkeley: Greystone
Books), 213. The original French version of the book bears the
subtitle, La Honte deCanada.
[7] See also Abbott, E., 2013. International Journal of
Environmental Studies, 70, 106130: Review, Boyd, D.R.(Ed.), 2011,
The Right to a Healthy Environment: Revitalizing Canadas
Constitution (Vancouver and Toronto:UBC Press).
On climate change and catastrophe 807
Dow
nloa
ded
by [1
77.40
.198.2
1] at
19:01
24 Ju
ly 20
14
