To hear the programme go to radio 4 'listen again' page and click the link under ICONOCLASTS to LISTEN AGAIN
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml



His point was that when there is such dire poverty and disease in the world we would do better spending our money on poverty, presumably in the form of aid to the third world. If he is right about the fact that little is being done to counter climate change this hardly acts as an argument to suggest that more would be done about poverty if we decided that climate change was not a problem.

Lucas argues well for the case that we cannot put a price on the potential destruction of the planet, much as we should not contemplate the saving we could make using nuclear power IF everything goes to plan and there is no meltdown. Equally she suggests that there are many values intrinsic to a healthy planet and human population which are not currently counted by the classical economists.

However there seems to be a glaring omission in the debate which was alluded to by a member of the audience from the so-called poor south, which was not fully brought home. He suggested that this debate is really a question of the rich west foisting its insecurities on the poor south and disguising it as a moral issue. My feeling is that climate change and the poverty of the south are caused by the same thing, namely the over-consumption and individualism of the west. Does anyone seriously believe that the poverty of the third world which is a consequence of western capitalism, is going to cause any more of a stir in the consciences of the rich than climate change currently does because it threatens their precious lifestyle?