May 25 2007
Global greenery, or greenery in one country?
In the early days of communism after the Russian revolution there was a titanic struggle between those who thought communism should concentrate on the one country that had adopted it, Russia, and those who thought it must be a global movement through continuous revolution. Stalin led the Russians, Trotsky the internationalists. Stalin won, the Russians suffered, and in the end the free world so showed the superiority of its system that communism in Russia collapsed. In a way Trotsky was right - it was only if they wiped away the alternative that communism had a chance of controlling all of the people all of the time.
The greens are similarly split today. The ultra greens have a messianic creed. They think there is only one
RSS Feed
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
I agree with everything you say. What you put forward is what I believe the majority of people feel-we need to take a common sense approach rather than the one being pushed by some of the more fanatical elements in the green lobby that for some bizarre reason seems to be driving so much just now.
Actual evidence for ‘global warming’ is still very dubious. Unfortunately, largely due to self obsessed sections of the green lobby, a media frenzy and some opportunism by politicians (some more than others!) it is just about impossible to have a real measured debate and proper analysis of the situation. We urgently need to change this and get some perspective and context to this issue or one day we will wake up and realise we have been conned by the green lobby at a high price.
JR, is it not reasonable to ask how much CO2 humans produce globally, and what percentage that figure is of the overall annual global total? The answer will surprise you I suspect, and it puts this debate in the proper perspective.
In addition, there is a correlation between temperature increase and CO2, but as any statistician will know, that does not imply causality.
There are still many questions on the subject of global warming that need to be answered. Unilateral carbon reductions will only damage the competitiveness of the nation involved. As you say it will only shift CO2 production to elsewhere.
I agree fully with your kind of greenery. As to CO2, Stuart Fairney is right.
JR: Unlike many members of parliament, I have great respect for both your intellect and your honesty. I cannot say the same for Dr Reid. Has he forgotten the basic maths of the current position?
I pay his salary, he does not pay mine. Ergo, he works for me, and answers to me. I do not answer to him, so long as I commit no crimes. His proposals change the fundamental relationship between citizen and state. I have committed no crimes and I will not be asked, nor will I volunteer to prove this.
If he doubts this basic proposition, I invite him to prove it before a dozen of my randomly selected peers. If he cannot do so, beyond reasonable doubt, then he has no case.
I will not live as a serf, cowering before the almighty state. Both my wife and I are professionals, and if New Labour doesn’t want anything from us save for excessive tax and to suspect us of crimes on no evidence? Well, the world is a very, very big place which welcomes honest, skilled, net taxpayers.
We are very, very significant net contributors to the exchequer, not pack animals. And we will not be treated as such.
It seems to me that the only way to move forward on the CO2 problem (if there is a significant problem) is to build more nuclear power stations.
I’ve long held the view that setting up some standard power station designs that can be used royalty free on a world wide basis could bring cheap power where it’s needed in the developing world, while reducing our requirement on Oil in the western world.
You can build as many electric cars as you want, if your electricity is still made from gas and coal, you’ll actually be increasing CO2 output, not reducing it.