Environment

IPN's environment program analyses global topics including agriculture, water, climate change, often intersecting development issues. In recent years there has been a great deal of scientific and public debate on climate change and global warming. IPN emphasises the role of economic development and technological progress in eliminating poverty and enabling people to cope with adverse effects of climate change and other problems. When looking into issues of water problems IPN found that more people die from dirty water than from wars and violence. The finger is pointed at agriculture – responsible for 70% of global water use, huge waste and contamination through fertiliser and sewage run-off. There are also many issues in China as they have regular shortages, depletion of groundwater and high pollution from industry, farming and sewage which are often causing floods and killing thousands. IPN have also looked into how Chile have "adopted a comprehensive approach to water reform, creating a far more sustainable use of water, nearly universal water connection, and a dramatic improvement in sewage treatment in a very short time". Julian Morris, Kendra Okonski, Indur M. Goklany and Paul Reiter published a book “Environment & Health: Myths & Realities, June 2004. The book challenges the conventional wisdom that human health problems are being caused modern industrial society, they show that many environment and health risks have been exaggerated, to the detriment of scientific research and public policy they believe that pressure groups care more about media coverage than protecting human health and achieving environmental protection. IPN also shows that subsidising “green jobs” wastes resources and reduces growth without necessarily protecting the environment. They speak of how Green investment isn’t even a reliable way to improve the environment. ' IPN have stated 'To deal with climate change, we should adopt policies that promote human well-being both today and in the future. We could do this today by eliminating disease and poverty, developing new technologies, and reducing humanity's vulnerability to climate change’. IPN's executive director, Julian Morris, told the BBC: "There are basically 3 groups that benefit from the global warming myth: government, scientists and environmentalists. Environmentalists benefit because they are able to present a scary scenario to the general public, and because of their desire to maintain revenues scary scenarios are good business for them, it means the general public are more likely to give them money." ' In November 2004, the IPN published a report claiming that climate change modellers were exaggerating the potential dangers of climate change: "Climate modellers differ from aircraft engineers in another way: whereas most aircraft engineers are employed by the private sector and are rewarded according to the usefulness of their designs to the travelling public, climate modellers are funded primarily by governments, and are rewarded according to the extent to which their models are useful to politicians and their entourage. Since politicians seem more willing to fund research when the outcome might give them an excuse to impose regulations and/or taxes, we cannot be surprised that the modellers have responded to these incentives by generating models that exaggerate the impact of humanity’s impact on the climate." However The Observer reported that: The director of the IPN was attacked in the House of Commons for the fact that its view on climate change happens to concur with that of one of its major funders. Norman Baker MP said: "We may be able to deduce from the comments of Julian Morris that there is an ulterior motive behind his denial of climate change." '