Science or survivalism?

Perhaps New Scientist should rename itself New Survivalist? The weekly science magazine often comes with a pronounced green tinge.

This week (25 February) includes an editorial and feature on geo-engineering. Sadly it sees it as an emergency “Plan B” rather than as part of a positive conscious effort to manage the climate. Its comment concludes that climate scientists:

“reluctantly acknowledge the sad truth that we haven’t managed to reorder the world fast enough to reduce CO2 emissions and that perhaps, given enough funding, research and political muscle, we can indeed design, test and regulate geoengineering projects in time to avert the more horrifying consequences of climate change.”

Its cover story is on “surviving in a warmer world”. It raises the possibility of a “vegetarian dystopia” where only a fraction of the world’s population survive and there has to be a mass migration to areas of high latitude.

Meanwhile, Nature, a more venerable science journal than New Scientist, has a special Recession watch section in its 18 February issue.

Sadly several of the contributors have environmentalist sympathies. It would probably be best if Nature stuck to natural science rather than entertaining often dubious social theories. There are plenty of other places to read contemporary economic ideas.