Cryptic gestures in the face of global climate catastrophe

A comment piece in today's Independent by the environment editor Michael McCarthy reads very much like a response to those who have emailed him recently following his despairing article in The Tablet (see media alert "Is the Earth Really Finished?", 1 March, 2005).

McCarthy writes, in rather vague terms, of the need for a global Manhattan Project: not a new idea, and reminiscent of Al Gore's call for a global Marshall Plan in his 1992 book, "Earth in the Balance". And no mention of the powerful profit-led interests that would obstruct such a move with every fibre of their being. But, yes, it will likely take something of that worldwide magnitude and commitment to turn things around (just don't expect world leaders to hand it to us on a plate).

And still no mention of the proposal of contraction and convergence, which is the logical and equitable global framework for achieving the necessary cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (www.gci.org.uk). Why is McCarthy trying so hard to avoid mentioning it?

The article is a classic case of what David Edwards calls cryptic gesturing in the direction of the truth.