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 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.
