ONE of the big changes that the coronavirus pandemic has brought about, at least in the UK, is the increasing role of scientists in decision-making. Who can forget the wonderful assertion of Michael Gove last year that we all had had enough of experts? Now the Government will do nothing, whether it is comment on the value of certain types of PPE or develop a strategy for coming out of lockdown, without repeating the mantra "we will follow the science and the advice of the scientists".
I fully recognise the advantage for politicians of this approach. If things go wrong the scientists can be blamed. If things go well, then the politicians can pat themselves on the back for their ability to deliver the actions that the scientists have promoted. And, finally, if there are disagreements between scientists, which in the case of complex issues such as removing the lockdown there inevitably will be, the politicians have an opportunity for equivocation.
As a scientist, I am delighted that our role in public decision-making has become considerably more significant. However, much as we may fear the current pandemic, this is not the most important threat facing mankind, at least not according to the majority of environmental scientists and, most scientists of other disciplines. That threat is climate change, and it is a threat which is imminent unless we start to face up to it. there is general agreement in the scientific community that Climate Change can be stopped, or at least its effects can be reduced, if we start working on it now. But this will depend upon our politicians listening to the scientists and understanding the science.
The current situation makes it very convenient for politicians to listen to, and take the advice of, scientists. Will they still be willing to do this when the current pandemic is over and turn their attention to climate change? For the sake of the health of our planet and, indeed, the survival of our civilisation, I certainly hope so.
John Palfreyman, Coupar Angus.
UNSURPRISINGLY, a lot of hot topics have taken a back seat in the current crisis and in general, except Twitter and some media, the comment has been measured and understanding.
Perhaps when things return to normal we could hope for a more measured adult debate on climate change and fossil fuels, without which we would have little or no PPE. Ventilators and hospitals don’t run on thin air.
There are many things we can do to reduce our emissions and pollution, but we need to take into account our current reliance on products manufactured and powered by fossil fuels. The dire economic projections caused by shutting down economic activity should be a warning to us all of what can happen, and sadly the poorest will bear the burden.
So instead of having a polarised debate with climate warriors on one side and big fuel on the other, can we please have a sensible science-led adult debate on how we can resolve the climate emergency while not jeopardising our health and economic wellbeing while we do so.
Ian McNair, Cellardyke.
ONE useful result of the national lockdown is to give us a glimpse of the future that the Greens want for all of us: swathes of commerce shut down, limited imports, people only allowed out for necessary travel and to make restricted purchases of essential items.
To get the full flavour of the Green future, you just need to stop using any gas, as they want to ban it, and switch off your electricity, as when we only have wind turbines to rely on it, it will become a luxury item.
Of course, there are two fundamental flaws in the Greens' vision: firstly, a nation has to pay its way with industry and commerce, and, secondly, it’s no fun.
Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel