Will the Government warm up to tackling climate change?
Posted by Ellee on Nov 16, 2006 in Uncategorized | 26 commentsI wonder how long will it take Tony Blair to form his Carbon Committee. Who will it
compromise of? Will it seek world leading experts or rely on community focus groups, just like its derided advisory nuclear waste power group, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management?
I hope they will have learned lessons from that experience. For those of you who don’t remember, a leading scientist resigned from the group in exasperation at the way focus groups were being pampered at the expense of experts’ advice.
I decided to find out for myself if this was true and joined a handful of interested residents from East Anglia to discuss this. Sure enough, I had to tick boxes indicating my preference on the future of our nuclear waste disposal. I know no more about this than how to fly to the moon - and disposing it in space had already been discounted!
I expect Tony Juniper, from Friends of the Earth, will be included on the committee. I met him in Cambridge this year and he couldn’t praise David Cameron’s green lead enough and expressed great disappointed about Tony Blair’s lack of support. He also said that unless a Climate Change Bill was introduced this year by the Government, then he would do so himself, he had enough cross-party support for it to happen.
All round disappointment has been expressed at the lack of substance outlined in the Climate Change Bill during yesterday’s Queen’s Speech, the fact that it makes no reference to an annual reduction of carbon emissions.
This was something urged by the outspoken former Environment Secretary Michael Meacher, who I hope will be included on the Carbon Committee, he seems to be on the right wavelength. In May 2005 he introduced the Climate Change EDM[5] to parliament, which called on the government to commit to yearly CO2 emission reductions of 3%; we are still waiting.
But then who can beat Maggie Thatcher’s perceptive vision of what lie ahead when 16 years ago she spoke passionately at the 2nd World Climate Change Conference and warned:
“The threat to our world comes not only from tyrants and their tanks, it can be more insidious though less visible. The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices so that we do not live at the expense of future generations.
“Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world’s environment will be perhaps the greatest test of how far we can act as a world community. No-one should under-estimate the imagination that will be required, nor the scientific effort, nor the unprecedented co-operation we shall have to show.”
Was she right? Will Gordon Brown be committed to tackling climate change if he becomes Labour leader? Who do you feel should serve on the Government’s Climate Committee?
Wow! its “hot ‘ in the kitchen! newmania…Um seriously…? i do not agree with “one-world order” either and yes there will be politicians who will take advantage of cercumstances.. But you cannot seriously think that ALL the people in the world are making no impact and that is is no change for the worse?
come to Australia & have a look.
Newmania, Of course you are right the history science it littered with scoundrels and charlatons and those whose wish to advance their owin interests and greed. Look no further than Lamark. For a long time I was myself open-minded but there comes a time when the evidence is simply too overwhelming to be ignored and the null hypothesis has to be rejected. However, I sincerely hope that you are right, that nothing is wrong and we can all carry on in the same old selfish profligate way, ignoring the costs of externalities.
I suggest trial by oreal eg Ducking stool .After you
Newmania, You certainly livened up the debate, I think we will have to agree to disagree.
Jim
Would you admit that the “scientific evidence� has been seriously undermined by systematic attempts to cook the books as exposed in the DT .
Would you generally explain to non scientists that scientific theories are no objective and generally demonstrate either pre existing assumptions or the wishes of the grant giver .( The state , the tobacco industry , the oil industry and so on)
Would you also admit that correlating climate change to CO2 in the atmosphere lacks any agreed norm against which to measure such change. For example the Sun being , apparently , especially hot . Or the unavailability of an agreed axis ( hence the importance of the medieval problem which is real )
Why , from your mighty position in environmental academe do you omit many problems of which you yourself must be aware if only on the presentation of statistics .
Would you agree that the entire history of Scientific evidence provided to bolster legislation is such as to make the default position of the , sane disbelief ?
Ellee
You are too young and lovely to remember but we were heading for an ice age in the seventies a population apocalypse and Armageddons of all sorts ever since . Politically it is used for extending the damned state, as you well know , and for general re branding purposes by Cameron for example . Bad bad bad. In fact there is no top down solution and there will, never be a global government, thank god. Cameron only likes it to please the girls on the left.
The long term solution is the creation of Western free economies that , within a legal frame work , will become greener as ours have .( Notably more so than the erstwhile statist alternative model )
That is why this hugely over-blown panic and gesturing is taking us in exactly the wrong direction , as are increased taxes of any sort .
So Ellee , for all your gamine charm and good nature , not only are you not helping the environment but you are helping to crush freedom. Tut tut . Paradoxically, by doing as I damn well please, I am the responsible one. The govt. will not provide free market inducements .Green party nutcutlets hate growth hate the modern world and hate people This is the bizarre new agey cocktail of nonsense both parties want to align themselves with.Nu Lab style press lead law making
PS I am a sceptic not a denyer . Looking at the 20thbcentury it would be surprising if there was no effect. This is has nothing to do with this weeks pin up cause , evil Kens taxes and illiberal legislation of all sorts justified by enviromania.
Jim, Please don’t feel constrained, it’s really helpful to have an expert view.
Newmania, Mayabe one day VAT will be scapped on green products, or alternatively, those items/modes of transport which are not deemed environmentally friendly will be slapped with an extra tax, which seems to be the way we are heading.
Excellent post, Jim. Although I rather hope you are wrong on the ‘point of no return’ argument. Newmania, I am not sure I necessarily see a unified approach from the left and right on the question of Europe BTW.
Sorry, Ellee, if it looks as if I’m hogging this, but obviously it’s a hot topic (pun intended
But I did want to say that agree with Newmania that there are clearly local and transitory phenomena called “weather” which is notorious variable and unpredicatable. Statistically we are going to have broken records by chance. The hottest July since records began blah blah blah are statistical certainties, given enough time. What is disconcerting in the global context is the sheer rate at which these extremes are occurring. Think of a graph showing the stock market. On a day to day basis the indices can appear to zig-zag up and down apparently chaotically with no pattern. But look at the graph over, say, a five-year span and a clear upward (or downward) trend is easily perceived. This is the same with average global temperatures over the last 100 years or so.
I promise not to comment again on this particular posting
Nemwania, just for the record, I am a Principal Lecturer in Environmental Biology and a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society. What is disconcerting is the rate of increase in the average global temperature in the last 100 years or so which correlates absolutely with the rate of increase in output of CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution. Taxes etc are a political strategy beyond my conpetance to comment. What I find disturbing is that if Britain was to cut it’s emissions to zero by tomorrow the reduction would be more than offset by China’s emissions withing two years. Scary. Obviously an international approach is needed but I’m afraid I’m one of those whose considers we have already passed the ‘point of no return’ and the next generations will face a very different world with catastrophic affects on biodiversity. As the great man said “The meek shall inherit the earth”. Indeed – rodents, reptiles and insects which can most easily adapt to desert conditions.
Droughts are “the weather”, Ellee.It is colder than it was and increased taxation on cars will not be tolerated.
Two questions then
1 Why is it colder significantly , than 600 years ago
2 Why not scrap VAT on Green products ( if you belive it all)
There is a unified approach from the left and right . As there is, more or less on Europe . Of course there would be amongst the political class ,if there is an excuse for taking power to the state .
Simon, I read about your weather in our press, I wonder if we are in for a big freeze here too.
Newmania, I don’t understand why you find it difficult to accept scientific evidence, we cetainly can’t sit around and do nothing, waiting for time to prove which one of us is right.
There is a really interesting comment on this subject from Simon about global warming in Australia.In fact, it is so interesting, I’m going to cut and paste it here specially for you.http://elleeseymour.com/2006/10/30/are-carbon-footprint-passports-the-way-forward/
“I have spent 4 weeks in outback and coastal Australia. We are currently in a 7 year drought. I was with Dr Jim Fowler a leading British biologist, ornathologist and statistician. He has spent time in Antartica, the Arctic circle and continues to travel the world to witness the effects of global warming.
On inspection of our drought affected areas he “gaveâ€? Australia 50 years before our agricultural situation would implode and be utterly “rootedâ€?. I thought he was just being a typical pom – negative. We then met a German biologist Dr Ingrid Witte,who is the manager of the Sturt Stoney Desert National Park. She said exactly the same thing ( without prompting). In outback Australia we have lost 6 feet of top soil for hundreds of thousands of hectares and it no longer sustains agriculture.
You have to see it to believe it. I am/was shocked…
On returning to Sydney it was announced (on the news) by a leading government scientist that the Murray-Darling river catchment area will be declared dead ( Australia largest river system and one of the largest in the world. I was also announced that our agricultural production is down 50% on last year. WITH NO RECOVERY IN SITE.
Many country towns in NSW have to TRUCK water in because dams are empty. Many children have NEVER seen rain!
Scientists are showing that even our trees are starting to emit carbon becasue they are stressed because of the drought.. THESE ARE TREES AND VEGETATION DESIGNED FOR DROUGHT!
So…. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING we can do to slow the acceleration of global warming is critical. Walk when you can, ride a bike when you can. Switch off your lights, computer. Think about the packaging your food comes in..refuse to believe that we cannot do anything.. by doing nothing the world is as good as dead…
I know what I suggest sounds small but “you eat an elephant one bite at a time..�
Sorry to waffle but I am very passionate about the impact throughout the world.. ”
Simon, Thank you again for such an excellent, thought provoking comment.
Also its annoying because it allows wet lettuces everywhere to be in favour of good and against evil .ANNUVER FING..a lot of the moonbat leftists enviromaniacs actually want us to go back to wood fires and bodkins for weird people hating reasons of their own.
Most important it takes up time and energy that should be spent on the real problems facing our country .Admit it , most of you love any excuse to get rid of nasty �unnatural� modernity . It is a religion substitute and provides the many exquisite joys of self denial by the sanitary bucket load
I tend to agree with Jim and many others. As an issue, climate change cuts across and carries far more importance than conventional party labels. It’s not a hoax and it is not a form of substitute religion. Inaction is not an option. It is an issue that will compel both left and right to seek a common approach, uncomfortable as that may be. The majority of the public will demand nothing less…
Thats called the weather.It has , on avegage , got colder for the last 600 years which is a problem the “scientists ” . They have tried to cover it up . I am not a climate change “denier”, I am a sceptic. The picture has been misprepresented. The solution has been misrepresented (as domestic), and state and superstate control must be resisted.
Tax breaks on behaviour and technology .( If anything)
I am not at all astonished how many people have launched themselves into this climate hysteria like a new religion
Newmania, it’s science, not religion. The amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere can be measured; the rising average global temperatures can be measured. There is a statistically highly significant correlation between increasing atmospheric CO2 levels and average global temperature. Notice the key work is average. This does not rule out local anomalies where temperatures might actually fall (e.g. rapid melting of polar ice caps can have uncertsin effects on local sea currents and local climate). Indeed predictive models of climate change expect extremes, and anomalies such as Simon described. How many times have you heard of some meteorolical record being broken in the last few years? Almost every month some new record is broken. Such instability is itself very strong evidence that the global climate is heating up.
To unify the world (potentially.)!!!!!
You think this is a good thing , to be ruled by an unaccountable collection of crooks dictators and their bureaucrats. This is a nightmare . I do not wish to be unified .
I `ve had an idea why not have antional parliament accountable to the electorate that cededs sovereignty a bare minimum? Can we try that? Isn`t that called democracy or something ? Grrrrrrrrrr
Ah you Bill Jones . I am not at all astonished how many people have launched themselves into this climate hysteria like a new religion.
Why – Is it significantly colder in London than during the period of Chaucer ?
Why have governement lackey scienstists covered this up as per DT
When will anyone suggest tax breaks for (supposedly) green behaviour
NEVER !!!! Thus NEVER is the exact time I will start believing it is anything other than another reason for the state to suck out my soul.
Are you all so naieve as to imagine taxing 4 by 4s is something to do with the enviroment. It is a way of introducing the progressice principle into local taxation god knows they are trying everyhthing
The enviroment pshaw ;and if by any chance there is small truth behind the hype taxbreaks are the answer
I like her quote, and she is right. I think it will be the one and only issue that will rise above politics, religion etc. To unify the world (potentially.)
The greatest danger is lack of action.
Yesterday it was 4c. It snowed where I live AND there was a bush fire at the same time….It never snows this time of year…
coldest November day on record…
I’m still astonished people cling onto the possibility that the whole thing is a ‘hoax’; also that people say they are not doing anything to cut their own emissions until other countries weigh in like USA etc. Surely this is too serious to wait for such reactions. In World War II one would not have with-held support for the fight against Hitler until the guy next door did?
Climate change hardly seems a Blair or Brown topic.
Ellee, you are invited to the Enterprise Christmas Party, due to start week commencing Monday 4th December.
The closing date for submitting your entry is Wednesday 29th November.
For full details, visit my Journal at http://jlpicard.blogspot.com/
The question of tackling climate change may require thinking that goes beyond traditional ideological definition. And I say that as a loyal Conservative.
Lady (then Mrs) Thatcher is a chemist.
But I would say that she was right in a way that maybe we could learn from even now. It requires, as she says, “imagination”. Cameron’s response, to slap a tax on it, may well placate Tony Juniper but it shouldn’t please any Conservative. It is not a Conservative solution!
I hate to admit it, but it seems Mrs Thatcher was right. I, too, hate this time-wasting with focus groups instead of consulting experts. I agree that a cross-party approach might be best.
Jim, Thatcher’s scientific background obviously contributed towards her concerns about climate change. I wonder what she is thinking about it all now, if she is saying, “told you so”!
I agree there is no reason why the committee couldn’t be cross-party, all sides are in agreement about the seriousness of climate change, but it will also need global experts so we can be truly confident and lead on this.
Mrs Thatcher was actually of a scientific background (having a degree in chemistry, I believe) and therefore had a real understanding of these issues. I think the problem for any party considering the environment is making unpopular decisions now for benefits that won’t accrue until the next generation. What party feels it will get elected on a manifesto of higher taxes, for example?
Maybe environmental issues should be an area for a coalition (rather than party-political) approach so the electorate will be faced with the same unpalatable decisions, whoever they vote for.