Monstrous stupidity on climate change

They really are being cretins here:

The UK is to put in place the most ambitious targets on greenhouse gases of any developed country, by halving carbon dioxide emissions by 2025, after a tumultuous week of cabinet rifts on the issue.

Agreeing the targets took weeks of wrangling among ministers, but late on Tuesday afternoon the energy and climate secretary, Chris Huhne, announced to parliament that the \”carbon budget\” – a 50% emissions cut averaged across the years 2023 to 2027, compared with 1990 levels – would be enshrined in law.

How lovely, politicians are going to pass a law.

Hasn\’t anyone pointed out to them the point of the Canute story? You can declare, demand, pose and posture all you like but reality will out despite the protestations of politicians.

And this is worse:

Connie Hedegaard, the European Union\’s climate change chief, hailed the outcome as \”very encouraging\” and \”an example\” to other countries, which she said showed that countries could pursue economic growth while cutting emissions.

No it bloody doesn\’t. It shows that politicians will claim to be able to cut emissions and pursue economic growth at the same time. we rather need to wait until 2027 to find out whether it is in fact possible.

And where did this foetid dewlap come from?

David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, the government advisory body that proposed the target, said: \”This is going to deliver higher [economic] growth for the UK. It could well give us lower electricity prices in the future than our competitors.\”

We\’re going to divert £200 billion or more of capital into inefficient and expensive energy generation and this is going to give us both more economic growth than doing something more useful with it and lower energy prices by making energy cost more?

What?

As you all know, I\’m generally on side over this climate change thing. It\’s happening, we\’re causing it and something must be done. but what they\’re actually doing is so cockamammie stupid that I\’m seriously tempted to say that the cure is worse than the disease.

Look, do what M\’Lord Stern said to do. Whack on a carbon tax equal to the externalities caused by emissions and then leave it alone. We\’re done, sorted. And get those bloody politicians out of trying to plan this crap. For what we\’re getting is not a solution at all, we\’re getting the imposition of the desires of a near religious minority.

14 comments on “Monstrous stupidity on climate change

  1. Tim

    Imagine how I feel. I am totally not on side. Lord Turnbull’s recent report is a good starting point for newcomers to the subject (I ‘m not suggesting you are)

    I am not dogmatic about what is or is not happening re the climate. But one thing I am now sure about is that NOBODY knows what is going to happen.

    All this legislation is based on KNOWING (so say) what is going to happen. I no longer can trust the people who KNOW. There is too much evidence to suggest that they DO NOT KNOW.

    So imagine how I feel. We are pulling the chain on our economic future (I agree with your analysis) and on top of everything I disagree with the scenario which they claim to be saving us from.

  2. But, Tim, we already know that politicians are a complete bunch of Cnuts, don’t we?

  3. If one looks at the submission by Mr J. Hampson C.Eng. FRSA. to the Economic Affairs Committee enquiry into The Economics of Renewable Energy one discovers that man-made CO2 is 3.2% of all the CO2. The UK contribution to this 2.2%. Mr. Huhne says we will halve this presumably to 1.1%. If achieved this 1.1% reduction will result in a reduction 0.1254 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere for the entirely reasonable cost of over £200,000,000,000.
    What is this new trend of Governments making laws about intentions? If the halving of CO2 is not met who gets sued or goes to jail? Is this a way of binding future parliaments? I thought that was not allowed.

  4. That 0% target for Burglary’s showing us that it can be done, so I don’t see a problem with this. Oh wait….

    Cnuts indeed.

  5. Niels its even worse

    the zero target for drugs is such a massive achievement

  6. From Here:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/14/historic-climate-change-deal-agreed-chris-huhne

    “However, failure to act now and decarbonise electricity generation would mean the UK would have to pay even more to replace power plants in future. “If we have to pay more in future that will slow economic growth, so we need to act now,” said Kennedy.”

    Maybe I just don’t understand what he is trying to say but doesn’t technology fall in price and get more efficient over time?
    So why higher costs in the future?

  7. We could have growth and lowered CO2 if we went for nuclear to the max (we would have far more growth if we just went for nuclear max without worrying about CO2). Of course the politicians who most want low CO2 are those most opposed to nuclear. There is a technical term for such – “corrupt lying, pensioner murdering eco-fascist parasites”

  8. “…we’re getting the imposition of the desires of a near religious minority”

    Not sure what the word “near” is doing in there.

  9. Herman,

    I was looking for an easy example. Drugs are tricky.

    “‘Drugs are so bad, drugs are so bad.’ Yeah, yeah, well how come Keith Richards still walks?
    Explain that, Mr Surgeon-General. You never hear the Surgeon-General mention Keith, do ya? Ahh, little hole in the theory there. Surgeon-General says, ‘Drugs are bad! Drugs are EVIL! . . .’Cept for that guy. Ha ha ha ha. They work real good for him. But the rest of ya.’ It’s like that commercial – the guy with the skillet?
    This is your brain: schhhhhhhh. ‘Here’s Keith’s brain: schh-hhhhhhh. Here’s Keith’s brain on drugs: (opening notes to‘Satisfaction’) Hey, that sounds pretty good. That’s him on drugs?Well, let’s give him some more.” – Bill Hicks

  10. Paul Coombs
    Manmade CO2 may only be 3.2% of all CO2 but CO2 is only 0.039% of the tota atmosphere so manmade CO2 is 0.001248% of the total atmosphere.

    I think I shall keep on breathing.

  11. Pingback: Tim Worstall, why did you impose the carbon tax? “I assumed that …” « Shub Niggurath Climate

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.