Climate Change: Health

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (CB) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, climate change has undoubtedly put an end to many species, most famously the dinosaurs. I am in your Lordships’ House as one of the last members of a species whose extinction is attributable to rather a different sort of change, namely constitutional change. In other words, I am a judicial dinosaur: one of the 12 Law Lords—or, more properly, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—who had sat dispensing justice as the voices of legal infallibility in this House since the 1870s. Then, in 2009, pursuant to the Constitutional Reform Act, the Law Lords jumped across Parliament Square to their new home in the Supreme Court—12 Lords a-leaping, as you might somewhat seasonably say.

Since then, I have been successively Master of the Rolls and more recently President of the Supreme Court, and, as such, excluded from this Chamber. I hope that that explains my near 11-year delay between introduction and maiden speech. It does seem a long time, but it is what we lawyers would call a de minimis compared with the age of the earth—4.5 billion years. It is clear that, throughout that period, the earth has been undergoing climate change, sometimes pretty extreme change. So human activity is by no means the sole potential cause of climate change. I should add the fact that climate change was occurring long before humans existed most certainly does not even begin to cast doubt on the notion that human activity can cause climate change.

Identifying the present and, even more, predicting the future extent and effects of climate change, and identifying the actual and potential causes of climate change, all involve experts, such as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, making scientific assessments based on evidence, logic and experience. Uncertainties are inevitable, owing to many factors, including the enormous amount of available evidence, inevitable variations and apparent inconsistencies in the evidence, and the vast numbers of potential causes and effects, all of which can fairly be said to be the sort of problems one encounters when seeking to analyse or predict the behaviour of a highly complex system.

Accordingly, it is inevitable that any such assessments will end up involving judgments, that any such assessments will be probabilities rather than certainties, and that any timeframes will be imprecise. It is for this reason that the precautionary principle was developed. The principle should strike a chord with those who are familiar with risk registers. Once the possibility of a specific serious problem occurring reaches a certain level of likelihood, it becomes appropriate—indeed, it becomes a duty on those responsible—to do something about it.

Some people, no doubt including some Members of this House, have serious doubts as to the correctness of the scientific consensus as to the extent to which human activities cause or contribute towards climate change. However, I respectfully suggest that it is hard to quarrel with the notion that the possibility of the consensus being correct, coupled with the seriousness of the problem if it is correct, must mean that something should be done, if possible, to mitigate or eradicate the risk.

Because of the nature and importance of the topic, it would seem obvious that any assessment as to the existence, cause and likely effect of climate change must be made, received and reviewed dispassionately. Very sadly, that is not how much of the most accessible public discussion on the topic of climate change is conducted. Views from experts are routinely not merely simplified but regularly exaggerated and often positively misrepresented. Many newspapers, many articles and many discussions on the topic leave one with the strong impression that the opinion of the writer or speaker on climate change is founded on quasi-religious dogma or blind faith rather than on any genuine attempt at dispassionately analysing the evidence.

Many writers and commentators approach the issue by reference to a visceral opinion as to whether climate change is occurring and, if so, how it is caused, an opinion which they then seek to justify by selecting or slanting the evidence and attacking the opposition. For example, when virtually all respected and experienced scientists in the field agree on a certain fact or prediction, someone who opposes the consensus will simply convict them of group thinking and dismiss their conclusions simply on that ground, without seriously addressing the argument on its merits.

In a sense, this is an extreme example of a more general problem. People do not naturally think scientifically; indeed, it is no exaggeration to suggest that scientific thought is close to the antithesis of the way in which public opinion is formed, at least by most people. A natural human instinct which governs most people’s thinking is confirmation bias, the search for and interpretation of data with a view to confirming one’s beliefs. But that is precisely the opposite of the attitude adopted by any good scientist or sensible policymaker, which relies on falsifiability and the null hypothesis. Most people want a definitive answer to complex problems, preferring a clear, if meretricious, analysis to an honest and measured analysis.

During the past three months, I have had the benefit of listening to informed and rationally conducted debates in your Lordships’ House, exemplified by the impressive contents of the preceding speeches, as well as by the kind welcoming comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I have also had the experience of observing and taking part in friendly and constructive discussions between Members of this House outside the Chamber. Accordingly, this seems a very fitting forum in terms of its open-mindedness and expertise as well as its constitutional character for a discussion of this important, complex and potentially contentious and divisive topic

I turn, finally, to the specific question of the consequences to the United Kingdom of the effect of climate change on human health. It seems clearly accepted by the great majority of reputable scientists in the field that, at least partly as a consequence of human activities, climate change is already occurring and posing a serious risk to human health, and that, unless drastic steps are taken, this is likely to get worse, possibly much worse.

The risk will continue to manifest itself in various ways, which have been touched on and summarised in the speeches preceding mine, including infectious and other diseases arising from extreme temperature changes, poor air quality, shortage and contamination of food and water, and other geographical occurrences. Some think that the United Kingdom will get off relatively lightly. Enjoying a temperate maritime climate, being an island and having a plentiful supply of natural water are all said to be beneficial factors, as is the quality of our medical and public health services. The position is said to be very different in other parts of the world, particularly in those countries near the equator. But we cannot be sure. On the contrary, as is clear from what has been said, based on evidence, in speeches preceding mine, there is no reason to be confident that we will be relatively unaffected. Even if we are relatively unaffected, that is no reason to sit on our hands. The fact that other countries will suffer more than the UK does not mean that we will not suffer. The fact that someone else may be hurt more than you in an accident is scarcely a reason for not trying to avoid the accident.

In any event, if people in other countries are going to suffer badly as a result of climate change, and bearing in mind this country’s unrivalled record in scientific advances and discoveries and consistent with our commendable record on foreign aid, this country should do its best to help the other countries. Not only would it be humane but it would be a source of soft power. Quite apart from that, even in the unlikely event that the UK was immune from the effects of climate change, it would be in our own interest to prevent or mitigate its effect in other countries.

Four hundred years ago, John Donne famously wrote that no man is an island. Had he been writing in the 21st century, with its ubiquitous and instantaneous means of communication, its speedy and accessible means of transport and our knowledge of the speed with which disease and pollution can spread, Donne may have written that no island is an island. As we look at climate change and its effect in other areas of the world, which may become uninhabitable due to risks to human health and human survival, migration and the spread of disease and pollution from those areas to all parts of the globe, even those rather less affected, seem likely.

I end by echoing what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, quoting from a report; namely, that while climate change is a threat, it is right for those on whom there is a duty to do something about it to regard it also as an opportunity.