Because it’s a shit idea that shouldn’t be enacted

If now isn’t the time for a Green New deal, why not?

From our ever popular series, Ritchiebollock questions that we can answer.

In slightly more detail, the Stern Review insisted that we should not try to plan our response to climate change, Instead, stick on a carbon tax and allow the answer to be emergent. Largely on the grounds that if we did try to plan it then we’d end up with purebred bollocks like the Green New Deal. The planners of which are so amazingly incompetent they think jobs are a benefit instead of what they are, a cost.

Plus, of course, we really want to turn over the design of our entire economy to Caroline Lucas and Richard Murphy, right?

17 thoughts on “Because it’s a shit idea that shouldn’t be enacted”

  1. The Stern Review was no less bollocks than the Green New Deal, neither should form the basis of policy in a rational world.

  2. I’m with the Doc on this… Carbon taxes and carbon trading seem far too much like selling indulgences rather than a rational response to what may, or may not, be a genuine problem.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    DocBud +1

    The Green New Deal is just an attempt to turn the clock back and make Britain about as poor as Haiti. If anyone tried it, they would be hanging from the trees by Wednesday.

    Almost enough to make me wish they would try.

  4. Do us a favour, Tim. Stop promoting this carbon tax bollocks. Stern’s a stupid cvnt should be sectioned. Ignores reality. In theory, a CT is supposed to be tax neutral. Revenues from CT replace existing revenues. In practise you just give governments an alibi to raise total taxation. WTF makes you think any politician worth his place at the trough won’t use it?
    Fucking economists. Economics is a useful branch of history. The last people you want coming up with clever ideas for the future are economists. This is Capt Potato territory

  5. I don’t understand the CO2 tax objections, really don’t. Nature has banked a load of fossil fuels in the ground for us over the aeons, and in the last 2 hundred years we’ve pulled them out of the ground and burned them to make useful things like energy and plastics.
    That’s going to have an effect on the climate which might be net positive if natural processes are pulling the other way, and might be net negative if it’s pushing in the same way as natural forces. Move the climate of Champagne to Suffolk overnight then that’s going to inflict net pain in my view. Move it there gradually over a couple of human lifetimes, then it might be net positive. Those vines are going to be replaced anyway at some time, and the buildings pulled down too.
    So some method of restraint is needed, and I’d rather it be pricing into markets than alternative methods such as socialism.

  6. @bongo Suffolk with the climate of Champagne’ll be Suffolk with the climate of Paris. Or Suffolk, with added garlic

  7. If CO2 has an effect on the climate then why doesn’t it? If you actually take the time to look at records for temperatures, rainfall, winds or any other indicators, from all over the world, it is near impossible to find any kind of consistent trends. There has been a moderate amount of warming since the end of the little ice age which is entirely to be expected really. There has been no acceleration of this warming since the industrial revolution happened. It levelled of around the turn of the century and has gone nowhere since.

  8. Stonyground,

    In “climate science”, the output of climate models trumps real world observations, to the extent that science actually plays a role in the debate. In the main, however, policies are driven by the media and activists showing films of calving glaciers and icebergs, cyclones, flooding, steam rising from power station cooling towers and polar bears, while screaming about a climate emergency and demanding that we listen to the science.

  9. Does anyone else share my hatred of the definite article? The science, The new normal, The data, etc.

  10. Philip, just speak English in a Russian accent. You won’t have to bother with artikli any more

  11. Perfect example of climate hysteria:

    “Prof Liz Bentley, chief executive of the Royal Meteorological Society, said the swing from record-breaking wet weather to the months of sunshine was “unprecedented” and “concerning” because it showed how much the UK’s climate was changing.”

    Every single word of this statement is untrue. There is nothing unprecedented about this spring. Weather like this has occurred many times in the past and it is not unusual in any way. Nor is it concerning. Since it has happened many times before it means that, rather than changing, the climate is much the same as it has always been. Instead of endlessly fretting and predicting doom and gloom, why not just enjoy the fabulous weather?

  12. Even if our current lovely Spring was unique (it’s not: my memory stretches back as far as 2012), the heating we’re experiencing in recent weeks has been occurring in the absence of most of the ICEs and intercontinental jetliner we’re used to.

    Send the bill to Greta.

  13. @M’Lud…

    ISTR that the temperatures climbed slightly during the ATC strike in the USA. One suggestion was that the condensation trails of airlines etc acted as “mini-clouds” and shielded Gaia from the nasty sun..

    Same today maybe?

  14. So Much For Subtlety

    philip May 31, 2020 at 2:57 pm – “Does anyone else share my hatred of the definite article? The science, The new normal, The data, etc.”

    I don’t know. I am trying to save it for countries. You know, The Argentine. The Ukraine. The Wales doesn’t sound as good but I think I can make it work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *