Dec 17 2009
International socialism
Gordon Brown, like several of his unpopular predecessors as Prime Minister, clearly feels more at home and more loved out of the country than in it. He volunteered to “save the world” from the banking crisis. This week he is going for the spin jackpot, by trying to save the world from gobal warming. Saving the world once may not have impressed voters as much as he would like, but surely saving it twice will get some favourable attention?
As we sit here in the UK, in the perishing cold, waiting for the snow, we are entitled to ask how effective is Mr Brown at saving the world? Doesn’t he know how we feel in this bleak economic winter? Can’t he see the irony of his claims about banks and global warming? Wouldn’t it be better to have a Prime Minister who was a little less ambitious for the world, and a little more attentive to the needs and wishes of UK taxpayers? We have been dragged through a financial hedge backwards by the current administration, and need someone who starts to put that right rather than making it worse.
Mr Brown’s first attempt to save us was the worst UK policy disaster I have had the misfortune to witness. Far from saving the banks, the authorities briefed that they were weak and dangerously exposed, and then forced them to recapitalise on the spot, having undermined their chances of doing so in the private sector. The government set out to nationalise three large banks, and seemed cross when they only managed to ensnare two. It is true the US did something similar, but have you noticed how all the US banks are now repaying their taxpayer loans with interest, whilst UK taxpayers stay mired in two large banks, owning equity they cannot sell for anything like the price we had to pay? To add insult to injury, a year after the “crisis” had been “resolved”, taxpayers are put on risk for all the worst debts of RBS in yet another damaging deal for UK solvency and the taxpayers’ pocket. There were cheaper and better ways to sort out the huge regulatory mistakes the UK and US authorities made in the run up to 2007.
Mr Brown’s second attempt to save the world sees him closeted as a sherpa or functionary at the global warming talks before the big players turn up to try to broker a final deal. His credentials for handling this problem are far from assured. The UK is only hitting its Kyoto targets thanks to the previous Conservative government’s policy of electricity privatisation and the consequent dash for gas. This government has failed over 12 years to come up with a plan for nuclear power replacement, let alone any increase in nuclear generation. They are far behind the EU’s requirements on renewable energy and have made little impact on millions of underinsulated homes with inefficient boilers. They have enjoyed themselves in the back of Ministerial limos or the front of airplanes whilst lecturing the rest of us to lay off the flash transport.
Mr Brown has a partial answer to the socialist approach that lies behind much of the row in Copenhagen. He wants to tax the world more, to give more money to the poorer countries as compensation for the anti global warming policies he wants them to adopt. The premise of the many at the conference is that we can make the poor rich by making the rich poorer. Rich countries have both to accept taxes and regulations that will limit their economic performance, whilst making large transfer payments to poorer countries. They do not seem to have learnt that trade, not aid, is the best lubricant of growth. They do not seem to grasp that government to government cash is the least efficient way to transfer resources and the most prone to political distortion or worse. If you weaken the strong you do not strengthen the weak. You just make the whole world poorer, as they did in dramatic style last year. They cannot resolve the conundrum that poorer countries wish to become richer, and in doing so will produce a lot more carbon dioxide as they buy the fridges and central heating systems we take for granted.
Mr Brown seems to think a Tobin tax, a turnover tax, on financial institutions could become an eternal fountain of cash to save the world. He seems to regard tight carbon dioxide targets for future governments in the UK as desirable and achievable, whilst the government he was prominent in failed to make any impression on its very own Kyoto plus target they established under Mr Blair.
He should come down to earth and back to the UK. It would be helpful to assist people insulate and improve the fuel efficiency of their homes, as many are struggling with the energy bills. It would be great to have a government which wished to reduce congestion by sensible road and rail strategies, so we burn less fuel in traffic jams. It would be a good idea to get our money back by selling off the banks. More tax and more regulation will just add to the dole queues and the bleak prospects. Meanwhile, what is his remedy for the wish of the many in poorer countries to have a better lifestyle? How does he plan for that to be “carbon free”? Is he going to try to borrow the money he plans to give to the poorer countries from them after he has given it to them?
54 Responses to “International socialism”
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
Our home is fully insulated – even the walls are filled. And it is lovely and warm!
And now Al Gore has been caught out in yet another little porkie.
Whom are we to believe as the Brooding Genius wobbles around Copenhagen?
aeroplanes, surely?
All the taxes from the west and lectures from our politicians will achieve nothing if the 3rd world countries are not required to develop effective population control measures – ie educate and empower women and provide free contraception. I would happily contribute via increased taxes if it were to pay towards the latter (providing the Catholic Church and Muslim Madrassas were not involved anywhere in the education process).
But I know when I’m being taken for a ride by politicians, using the excuse of man-made global warming. The countries currently holding out the begging bowl for yet more aid from the west would do well to offer something in return ie guaranteed population control.
What I am REALLY looking forward to is Gordon’s speech declaring that he has personally brokered a deal – by meeting Obama in the toilet this time – and thanks to him the UK has been saved from the horrors of climate change ……. just as the UK is blanketed in relatively rare pre-Christmas snow.
Stuart Fairney Reply:
December 17th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I agree with you, but can I just express my surprise that comments about Brown meeting Obama in the toilet made it through moderation!
Donna W Reply:
December 17th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
So am I. I expected a redaction!
In the event, though it was even funnier. Gordon led the prophet of Doom, Al Gore, into a cupboard to talk to him. What a p!llock.
A government should only ever represent the interests of their own people in a harsh world.
Whilst the military are making savage cut-backs to pay for Chinnooks our PM gifts third world despots with £1.5bn.
Until there is a politician that says they’re standing in the interests of Britain and in defence of the British people in this harsh world I’m spoiling my ballot paper again.
alan jutson Reply:
December 17th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Kevin
“Until there iws a politician that says they’re standing in the interests of britain and in defence of British people in this harsh World I’m spoiling my ballot paper again”
I can understand that view.
Many of us feel the same way.
But sadly, you may have a very long wait.
D.H.Boater Reply:
December 17th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
There is a man and a party that will stand up for Britain,but I can not mention his name here.I also think that if Mr. Redwood were leader of the opposition,we would not be in the state we are.
John
What you describe sounds just like Socialism, or a touch of Communism, so why are you surprised.
The State will provide for the poor, from the taxes on the perceived rich, until they become poor.
Eventually the whole lot crashes around their ears through lack of money, because the State only takes and spends, it does not generate cash (I exclude printing as it devalues the existing cash in circulation).
Gordon claerly is not satisfied having made many poorer in the UK, he now wants to infect the rest of the World with a similar Policy, only this time under the mantra of Saving the World from ourselves.
Gordon Knows best in this Robin Hood World of fantasy, of give aways.
Lola Reply:
December 17th, 2009 at 10:10 am
I object to anyone taking Robin Hood’s name in vain, especially in the distorted use of ‘robbing from the rich to give to the poor’. That’s just a quote from a lefty TV series, not from the legend.
Robin Hood was anti totalitarian – he challenged the dictatorial and violently and coercively enforced rule of the entirely evil Sherrif of Nottingham, a ’state’ figure. He robbed from the church, in his time the biggest commercial corporation in the land operating in an entirely monopolistic way and ruthless to anyone that challenged its teachings, not on Faith, but on liberty. Furthermore it was supported by a poll tax – tithes – levied on everyone.
But he did believe in God and supported Faith as a necessary philosophical bedrock for a workable society. And he supported the Church where she worked for the people, exemplified by Friar Tuck, the archetypal example of robust Christianity. Yet if you believe the risible Kevin Costner film he was also tolerant of other Faiths. (That film contains one of the best stupid lines of any film . Kostner walking ashore in what is portrayed as Kent says to Morgan Freeman ‘Come on, we have to be in Nottingham by nightfall’. How? By helicopter!). He aslo knew that strong families are fundamental to a successful society.
Robin himself was of aristocratic blood, a bit of a hat tip to the idea that the poor could only be liberated by their ‘elders and betters’, but he was anti-establishment. He also knew that the rule of law was essential to freedom.
In truth Robin knew that Freedom was the fundamental value that underpinned all other values. He knew that taxes must be low fair and certain. He knew that totalitarianism was bad and that some form of local accountability was the right way. He knew that monopolies were bad, especially those supported by taxes. He knew that landownership permitted landowners to profit from quasi tax income.
In no way do I think he would have had any time at all for Gordon Brown’s New Labour.
Just a thought.
alan jutson Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Lola
Many thanks for the info. Many things here I was not aware of.
Having visited the Robin Hood the legend, visitor centre in Sherwood Forest a couple of years ago, I was struck by some of the contradictions.
They promote the major oak tree (still standing with support) in which he is supposed to have hidden (in the trunk) from The dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham during one escape, and that tree is given an age, problem is that in the visitor centre it gives the supposed period of time when Robin Hood and his merry men were supposed to be living in the forest, and it was about 150 years before the tree started to grow.
So a few inconsistancies about the legend.
When posting I was simply thinking of the probable popular version that most people think of for Robin Hood.
Richard Greene was the man around in my childhood.
On second thoughts not a good example to compare Gordon with, as he takes from almost everyone, to feed his own pet projects.
Very good article. Contradictions abound.
As the world freezes I turn the heating up, or may be I should fly out the Italian farmhouse this weekend to save on my carbon output.
There is an underlying question here, which was also implied in your earlier post about trying to get a straight answer from Mrs Balls. The question is are Labour really as mind bogglingly stupid as they seem or to they have unpublished objectives which may make their action more easy to understand ?
Remember Labour gave us political lift music, spin, emoting, the narrative and stealth taxes.
The are committed to any message that gets the re-elected. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t doing anything coherent behind the scenes.
Labour have nationalised the banks, destroyed education, destroyed the military, and are busy tying us into a European and now world government ( none of which they said they would do).
Could it be they have learnt the secret to socialist success is just to lie and keep on lying ?
But John, the Conservatives do not think much differently. Cameron was going to back anything Brown agreed at Copenhagen – see his Blue Blog; and the outpouring of anger in the comments. Now the position has moved a little and the Nigel Lawson position of adapt to the climate changes when they happen seems to be coming to the fore, as well as technology investment and insulation. A slightly more sensible approach. However, with carbon trading and emmission still words of choice, I have no confidence that the Conservatives understand what has really happened in the last few weeks to bring the ’scientific’ claims tumbling down, or the full situation with regards third world politics.
The third world countries have been encouraged to blame all their ills on the West, and they are. They now rampage begging bowls in hand dreaming of Mercs and Jimmy Choo’s on the one hand and the glory of Allah on the other.
This MMGW scam has indeed created a tinderbox, and our grandchildren and great grandchildren may well suffer greatly and curse us. But not because the climate of the world has changed !!! Will the Conservatives wake up in time???
You have to understand that these are moments that Gordon Brown lives for. He can make a big announcement – big sums pledged to the developing world to help with climate change. Politicians, particularly of the left justify themselves in terms of the motivation and the good feeling it gives them – to help the underdog and the disadvantaged. This is where their moral authority stems from. This is why they are an altogether superior form of being than politicians of the right. The fact that the outcome is very rarely what is billed is irrelevant. Indeed failure is the impulse for even more of the same.
So £1.5bn is a large sum. The world is watching. Gordon is making a difference. That is why he came into politics he can whisper to himself. The uncomfortable facts that it is not his money, that his moral authority to agree this kind of thing on our behalf is shot through, that the exchequer he represents is bankrupt, that all the evidence is that any funds that are actually dispensed will do little good but be used to support the regime in power or be corruptly squirrelled away —– well that is of no import. He can smile away, live in his fantasy worlds and indulge himself in a manner that he has been doing for most of his life. If that is not masturbation, then I don’t know what is.
Well hopefully it seems as if all we will get from Copenhagen with be some kind of face-saving empty political statement of intent.
O/T John, it would seem that the Digital Economy Bill recently waved through by parliament contains a rather nasty enabling clause that gives the government the right to arbitrarily instruct ISPs to block any portion of the internet that takes their fancy, without warning or consultation – were you aware, is this true and perhaps you could comment?
]
Stuart Fairney Reply:
December 17th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
It’s a nasty but worthless clause with proxy servers and internet access everywhere these days. Rather symbolic of a bunch of old duffers trying to ineffectually ban what they don’t understand.
If the generous taxpayer insulates my house it will be warmer. So I use less energy. Good thing. But what if I decide I’d like to be warmer – in terms of money it costs the same, so I’ll turn up the thermostat. Or perhaps I’ll stay at the same temperature and buy an iPod.
If we want to reduce energy consumption – raise the price.
Yes Mr Redwood, and the alternative offered from the Conservatives is?
“The political declaration agreed at Copenhagen must not allow warming to go above 2C, it must include a proper mechanism for funding adaptation for poorest countries, and it has got to have a proper policy to protect rainforests,”
“A very small number of people take a different view on the science, but the policy is driven by me, and that is the way it is going to be.”
It is all very well attacking Gordon Brown, but then a political party vying for power would perhaps be better advised to offer a different vision to the voters. Instead, all we get is a promise of more of the same and noises off, supplied no doubt to suggest that an alternative exists when patently it does not.
The world could be saved simply and cheaply if people turned their heating down to 55F and wore hats in the house. They would save much money and feel much healthier. They could also eat as much as they liked and not put on weight because the calories would be burned off keeping up body heat. Everyone used to do it in the pre-central heating era. Now we’d rather see the planet burn that forfeit our divine right to slob about in shorts and T-shirts in mid-January.
By gum, it’s parky in ‘ere! Chuck another polar bear cub on t’fire, Betty!
Do I do it myself? No. But I used to, and as I cut my own firewood and heat my modest house off that I’m entitled to pontificate – unlike that humbugging, mansion-inhabiting, globe-trotting, carbon-guzzling, (etc etc ed) Al Gore.
Steve Tierney Reply:
December 17th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Actually, I tried to do something last Christmas. Kept two rooms warm only using localised heat and turned the central heating off. I was okay with it, but my wife was very, very unhappy. It’s pretty hard to wean your family off central heating now it is so ‘taken for granted’. Maybe I’ll have another go this year. We’ll see.
waramess Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Cant you afford it then? Or are you just trying to save……..
Steve Tierney Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I was just trying to save. Also, I’m of the opinion that if we could wean ourselves off central heating and go back to localised heat and an extra jumper, we’d actually feel better for it in ourselves. But its a tough move to make.
alan jutson Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Waramess
Or perhaps he had been given too many jumpers for Xmas and wanted to try them out.
But seriously, it is something that many may have to adopt, many of our older folk have to by need.
Why heat the whole house (especially a larger house when only two people live in it), when you usually only use one room at a time.
John
Brown is out of control on this one, who knows how much more debt he will ramp up throwing our money about in search of a legacy(and it is the poor citizens in this country who will be further taxed to give to rich people in Africa to do precisely nothing about climate change -step forward Mugabe).
Sadly though Cameron (and Greg Clark) seem equally as committed to this Western guiltfest , whilst the vast majority of the population are more worried about paying their rents and mortgages, feeding their families, and being able to afford to heat their homes.
I wonder if privately you despair at the complete fools you have to work with.
Banks, again! The RBS CEO Stephen Hester has accused politicians in Westminster and Brussels of wiping £15 billion from the value of the company in just 3 months, based on the change in the company’s share price. He blamed the European competition ruling on state aid, leading to more asset sales than were expected, and the UK Treasury’s decision to introduce a cap on the size of the bonus pool.
Mr Hester seems to think that the UK government should provide support for 5 years until RBS can be both large and profitable. He does not seem to recognise that UK taxpayers may have different goals, such as ending support soon and introducing more competition into the banking system. Mr Hester clearly thinks that, because the board and investment managers of the RBS ancien regime have been cleared out, he can do as he likes and the government should be a sleeping partner.
Life isn’t like that, Mr Hester. RBS is a FAILED COMPANY and we are the major shareholder, and he who pays the piper calls the tune. WE want our involvement to end within 18 months and want RBS to be broken up except where there are clear economies of scale. Asset sales and limitation of the bonus pool are just what the doctor ordered.
This country is up to its eyeballs in debt and yet Gordon Brown still chucks a cool £1.5 billion of taxpayer’s money into the global warming scam without batting an eyelid let alone seeking parliament’s approval. How is he allowed to pillage the public purse in this way, as if he were some third world despot?
WTH Reply:
December 17th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
And the last time we checked, there was no ‘Money’ in the purse to spend, has anyone bothered to ask where it all comes from?
It is privately owned currency, we do not own it, it belongs to someone else, we just pay for the privelage of using someone else’s currency.
It is enslavement pure and simple, these ‘Political Parties’ are not there to make things better, they are there to keep things just the way they are!.
MP’s cannot solve problems, its their job to create them, problems make money, but the money doesn’t go to the people, it comes from the people……..are we getting this yet?
If no one elected a Party or PM, then they are irrelevant, if no one wanted them, then why are we even discussing their ideas, why do people think their votes held any water in the first place?, get rid of these people and their ’secret societies’, none of it is for your benefit!.
Now admittedly there are those MPs out there that want to make a real difference, but if they have no real power, ask yourselves why?.
Talking of ‘International Socialism’ and its running dog Fascism,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/17/lord-monckton-reports-on-pachauris-eye-opening-copenhagen-presentation/
And look who Gordon Brown is ’smoozing’ these days ..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8417520.stm
Can you imagine the headline if it has been a ‘right of centre’ politician?
‘So and So’ takes wrong turning!
‘Such and such’ in dead end!
‘right wing political hate figure of the Left’ performs ‘U turn’.
The BBC, it has to go.
The manner in which AGW obsessives do not stop and think is arrogance of the highest order.these questions in very dangerous to the well being of people.
Firstly, they believe we can now predict the future with absolute ceratinty.
Secondly they believe we can influence nature itself.
Therefore, why will we still have volcanic eruprtions, earthquakes and other “natural” disasters? If mankind is so bloody clever, why do we not stop these occurences? Still Socialism never was any good at predicting human behaviour. We are all the same, aren’t we?
The daftest bit is that the1.5 billion will be borrowed off the Chinese, via the bond Market, to give to the Chinese.
Completely bonkers and the first cut in any sensible incoming government.
An excellent summary and criticism of Brown’s sanctimonious and economically disasterous posturing. One point though: selling the banks will not be possible. The government could order them to wind down, sell off businesses and assets. It should do so in order to limit the huge liabilities of taxpayers. But we should be under no illusion that there is any chance that there will be any residual equity value – the equity invested in RBS, Northern Rock and LLoyds has gone. Labour ministers frequently refer to the potential to sell the banks at a profit – hoodwinking the public into thinking that at some future time this might even look like a good policy. But the minute the state is no longer behind these institutions and attempts to sell, the price of the equity can only be zero.
Excellent piece! If only you could convince David Cameron of the folly of all these pointless targets.
Without radical new technology, there is no way they can be achieved.
By the way, did you see the bit of propaganda on Newsnight last night? The experiment demonstrated
that CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’. But that is of course not in question. Then Sir David King tried to frighten
the audience by saying that if the whole of Greenland were to melt, sea level would rise by 6 meters.
That is true as well, but the question is whether this is likely any time soon. He seemed to suggest that
this could happen in his grandchildren’s life time. That would be within 50 years’ time or so, I suppose.
Of course, there was nobody there who could object. Still, I am not sure that the audience was swayed.
Current mean sea level rise is roughly 2-3 mm per year. This is a tour de force to measure, because
there are various effects to compensate for, i.e. local land movement and various currents and wave motion.
By my calculations (see http://www.stp.dias.ie/~dorlas/papers.html) about 2mm can be accounted for due to
thermal expansion, which leaves very little for melting of Greenland and Antarctica. Of course, this could
change in the future, but to argue for a dramatic change, one needs strong arguments esp. if that is the
main reason for jeopardising the entire western economy, which is in a dire state as it is already!
Emil Reply:
December 17th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
The beauty of this perfect scam is very few of us will be around in 50 years time to know whether all these predictions of what could happen are anywhere near true.
However in the very likely scenario that most of this hysteria has been deliberately exagerrated doesn’t happen the future scientific community, and their political masters, will pat themselves on the back and say it was all down to the “bold” actions they all took back in 2009.
alan jutson Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Emil
Just like they stopped Asian Flu, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, and many other problems which were going to decimate the World.
Also the hype that went with the development of nuclear fuel.
“The Queen Mary will be able to sail forever on a cupfull”.
Its the fuel that will solve all our energy problems, as it will cost pennies to produce and use (at the time no talk of toxic waste, decomissioning costs etc)
Now we have the big push on solar power, wind power etc etc Until that is you do the financial calculations and factor in the lifetime of the equipment, then all of a sudden its very expensive.
The problem it seems is crying wolf, rather too often.
Citizen Responsible Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
And don’t forget the Y2K problem, also known as the millennium bug. Countries which spent little or nothing tackling it such as Italy, South Korea and Russia, experienced as few problems (or zilch ) as those such as the U.K and U.S who spent millions on it.
I’m in the undecided camp on whether this particular cycle of the climate can be solely blamed on CO2 emissions (as the ’science is settled’ scientists tell us) but I am now firmly in favour of immediately planning for environmental disasters in the near future – if Mr Brown’s attention is now going to be applied to saving the global environment and assuming he will achieve similar results as he has with Britain’s finances the prospects are truly frightening!
i really am staggered how much money we are giving away to other nations, be it international aid, be it subs for membership of europe, be it climate change nonsense
we are not rich enough to be such a generous benefactor, indeed we are significnatly in debt
and really sending money to countries not playing fair by the rules is all getting out of hand
as the steel workers of teeside would tell you
Redistributing wealth as benefits is a major driver for the creation of sink estates in towns and cities; if wealth is redistributed to countries which are poor because their corrupt administrations cream of just about all there is going, we’ll see whole “sink” sections of continents.
Ejoyed the article and agree. Mind you it would have had more impact if Dave had said it. Is he still around?
Unless the Conservative leadership make more of Labour’s failings the impression will continue to grow that DC and Co just dont have the bottle.
The Tories have to be far more vocal if they hope to win the GE – its no good placidly expecting the Labour party to lose.
Astute observations,Mr Redwood,but as Ken Adams at 9:50am points out,the Conservatives at present offer little which differs substantially from Labour.The position taken on the environment is the same ‘conscensus,tackling climate change,saving the planet’ nonscientific drivel heard from many quarters.Mr Cameron’s refusal to recognize that there is a wealth of evidence indicating that CO2 is not a major problem and his dismissal of those who don’t accept the current dogma,particularly in light of evidence that the ’science’ is uncertain,partially fraudulant and partially incompetant,doesn’t inspire confidence in those of us wish a change of government.If he persists,UKIP will gain many votes.If you were shadow chancellor some doubts would be allayed but I can’t see that happening.
I watch watching Robert Mugabe lecture us about starvation on the news yesterday. He’s not in line for any of these handouts is he?
Gordon Brown seems to be following the Macmillan strategy of 1957-1959 in many ways. The Conservative Party was on the ropes in Spring 1957, but won the election of 1959 when many commentators at the time were certain they would be defeated. Macmillan did a lot of chasing about abroad mending fences, making concessions, and playing the world leader, and it did the trick. For me the glass is always half empty.
Think you are forgetting Brown won an international award. He’s led on this crisis while your mates Dave and Gideon haven’t had a clue.
You might have some ideas John but your front bench have lacked any. The banks were hours away from folding and your party would have been happy to see the country come to a stop.
Do the Conservatives believe that we owe any (carbon) debt to the third world?
Why offer to pay Africa anything? Why not just scrap farm subsiidies and tariff barriers on agricultural imports?
Africa could industrialise its farming, grow more – so absorbing more CO2, if that is what keeps everybody happy – and grow economically as well.
SCRAP the CAP!
Socrato Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Part of the problem here, if we are truly to get a handle on the various aspects to the Global Warming debate, is to bring large-scale, single crop agriculture – largely based on oil and oil-based products, and intensive use of water resources into the front line. Most of the sort of commentary I listen to is focusing on how consumers should moderate their energy use, recycle etc. However, I hear less about the systemic nature of our problems. The whole direction our societies have developed, especially in terms of industrialisation, urbanisation and the rise of mass agriculture and the increased need to transport all sorts of products thousands of miles is predicated on on the existence of large amounts of cheap oil. Peak oil is here – yet we continue to live in denial. The focus in the debate is on patching the symptoms rather than looking at the root cause – we argue about the existence of the phenomenon and its metrics ‘the science’, and people seem polarised into 2 camps, beleivers and sceptics. We must find out more about the direct nature of the problems for ourselves.
I(weblink left out as no time to check it)
Your comment about how industrialising farming could absorb more CO2 struck me. It seems that large areas of forest are being cut in order to make farmland. I doubt this means more absorption of CO2.
John Moss Reply:
December 19th, 2009 at 9:01 am
I would contrast the uncultivated areas of scrub and grassland which makes up most of the southern hemisphere portion of Africa with the central African rain forest area and the northern desert region.
Southern Africa could probably feed most of the world, Zimbabwe alone used to feed most of the south of Africa, but only if its agriculture is industrialised. What grows there now absorbs minimal amounts of C02 because it is of minimal intensity. Mugabe’s rape of his country has reduced what is grown even further.
What Africa has is more sunshine, rain and fertile soil than much of the northern hemisphere’s agricultural lands, so crops need less chemical support and they could, without the shameful tariffs and subsidies ranged against them, grow crops not just for food, but also for fuel, like cane sugar and beets.
We will never be bale to afford the costs of adapting to climate chnage if we do not secure strong trade growth and that can only come from reducing global trade barriers.
Scrap the CAP, get Doha done, then, if we are still worried about global warming, address it with the proceeds of the global growth they release.
Aid: they take taxpayers’ money and put it in the Swiss bank accounts of tyrants. Why should global warning aid be any different?
What I’ve always wondered… Do the persons transferring this cash to Switzerland get any kind of fee? Sort of, a few percent rubbing off into their own Swiss accounts? If not, why are they always so keen to give it away, since corruption is so widespread and well known?
Maybe the Telegraph could look into this.
**********************
If you really want to help the third world, everyone living over 45 degrees north stop buying solar panels and leave them to the people who need them.
Emil Reply:
December 18th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
The point about where the monye goes was raised with Brown on BBC yesterday, predictably he completely failed to address it.
But given Brown’s damoclean conversion (until roughly 50 days ago he had nothing to say on this issue, step forward Alistair Campbell) I’m sure any amount of borrowed billions thrown around like confetti is a price worth paying to keep somebody who couldn’t be less suited to a job in that position for another 5 years.
Perhaps someone needs to invade us in the name of justifiable regime change and to install democracy.
WTH Reply:
December 20th, 2009 at 10:54 am
The people need to govern themselves, we don’t need invading and we don’t need to invade anyone else. These people that claim to govern us do what they want when they want to do it, they ignore everything the people want, it is a dictatorship by people with medevil beliefs.
Like I said before, these people need to be removed and the only way to do that is to stop relying on them for solutions, they have had decades to do their job, and the apathetic british keep giving them chances!.
While they are left to their own devices they will continue with their agenda for their own interests, they have demonstrated this time and time again, anyone that tries to make a difference is very swiftly removed.
Now if Mr Redwood is really on our side, can he please tell us all the truth about what is really going on…..I wonder?!.
Never mind CO2 from machinary, manufacturing and fuels etc, these people that claim to work in our interests have convinced the rest of the sleeping world that CO2 is a big problem, ask yourself this, if us humans expell CO2 when we breath, how long do you think it will be before paid ‘experts’, ‘professionals’, ‘main stream paid scientists’ and of course Ministers tell us that it is actually us that is the problem, I don’t suppose the BBC or any other mainstream media told people about any long term plans……..look at the Georgia Guide Stones and what they state!.
Thanks for spending the time to make clear the terminlogy to the newbies!
Not too certain how I found this blog but glad I did find it. Think I was looking for something else on the search engines. Not sure I agree 100% with what you say, but have bookmaked and will pop back to go through to see if you add any more posts. Carry on the excellent work.