Blimey, truth from Tony Blair

Climate change can be tackled with small reductions in flying and driving and we can continue eating meat and dairy, according to a report by Tony Blair’s think tank.

It rebuts claims that meeting the UK’s legally binding target of net zero by 2050 will require a “total transformation” of people’s daily lives and says the number of behaviour changes needed over the next 15 years is “relatively limited”.

Yes.

The report argues that people calling for radical behavioural change, including many supporters of the activist group Extinction Rebellion, have a wider political agenda, such as supporting veganism or opposing consumerism.

Quite so.

This truth is actually there in the IPCC reports themselves.

Absolutely every economic model used predicts a vastly richer – between 5 and 11 times – world. A globalised and capitalist/free market one does better than a localised an regional one. No one even modelled the stupidity of a socialist world, although we do get social democracy against a more red in tooth and claw capitalist.

In each and every model the only problem is emissions. And it’s entirely possible – because these are indeed what the models the IPCC is using say. We can’t say the IPCC is right that we must do something without looking at the models, accepting the models, the IPCC uses to say so – for us to have that richer world via either the social democracy or the capitalism route without the climate change. We just need to do summat about the fossil fuels.

Yes, I know, endless numbers of people telling me the whole things rubbish. But my point is that even within the constraints of what “the science” tells us – or the lies if you prefer – then it’s still not true that we need to close down industrial civilisation. Because the science used at the IPCC says exactly that. Reduce emissions and we’re done. The rest of it doesn’t need to happen.

25 thoughts on “Blimey, truth from Tony Blair”

  1. Bliar is running the old “half a loaf” caper. Trying to make his lying marxistic bullshit look “reasonable” next to obvious scum like XR etc.

    After mad plans then a “reasonable” plan is proposed that is still evil shite but doesn’t sound as crazy as the previous lunacy that has been floated.

    Nixon was ruined by such a scam. The Watergate mugs first proposed a plan for dozens of burglaries/buggings and several assassinations. Nixon broke out in a fever so the mugs said-“well lets just do the one burglary/bugging” which Nixon was dumb enough to accept. The rest is history.

    Bliar can shove his “restrictions on driving/flying” or anything else up his arsehole. Along with every single sentence of his and his scummy gangs plans.

  2. Driving is already happening. All this remote work stuff means less commuting. Even before Covid, it was noticeable on the M4 and driving into Reading. What was nearly a car park 10 years ago was busy, but generally moving.

    Covid has increased deliveries=better for the environment

    e-bike and scooter growth.

    This still means some uses for cars but how much? A lot of it will be things like going to Longleat or to visit granny, where a car is as environmentally friendly as anything else.

    And all of this is about greed, not being a good Green citizen. I mean, that’s nice too. But people are mostly using scooters because they’re cheaper than cabs and more flexible than a bus.

  3. I wish these wankers would give us the true ‘cost-benefit’ of their proposals =
    Q:
    1.How much will it cost?
    2.What difference will it make?

    A:
    1. Currently, one third of your household energy bill is paying for renewable energy and this will rise significantly.
    2. No difference whatsoever.

    None of this ‘every little helps’ or ‘the UK needs to show the way’ nonsense.

  4. Bloke in North Korea (Germany province)

    I just love the factoid that the interweb already emits more carbon than the entire commercial aviation industry. Veggie greenies streaming Sex and the City doing more to rape mother earth (do they have an Oedipus complex or something?) than my pre-covid globetrotting.

    The meat thing I have never understood, but perhaps I am not supposed to. Every atom of carbon you eat from a plant or an animal (and subseuqently breathe back into the atmosphere) is one that was recently extracted from the atmosphere by the plant, or by a plant the animal ate. On land fit only for sheep and goats, large quantities of atmospheric carbon are pooed on to the land and dwell there for some time.

    It’s just an ideology isn’t it? Nothing else. It’s the old sackcloth and ashes, world about to end shit, just in new clothes.

  5. “Reduce emissions and we’re done”
    Everything you eat, wear or do is saturated in fossil fuel energy. Fertiliser, ploughing, harvesting, freezing, distribution – just for the food.
    Portugal may not need much heating, but Northern Europe and much of the USA do: apart from the bits that are only habitable with aircon.
    A global economy requires transport: lots of it. Container ships. Cargo aircraft.
    All of this energy is fossil fuel. A very tiny part, of the small proportion that is delivered by electricity, is generated from windmills and hydro. A small, and dying portion, is fission power.
    All the rest is fossil fuel. No scope for radical expansion of hydro. The greens won’t let us build nukes, even if we still knew how. Windmills are hopeless, and dont work when the wind isnt blowing. Solar power stops at night, and all winter, when you want to put the lights and heating on.

    So sorry, but it’s fossil fuel or stone age subsistence farming for the surviving 0.001% of the world population: if the nuclear fallout from the death-throes of civilisation don’t get them.

    Carbon capture is brainless psuedo science: at best, its just a scam from the moochers. At worst, its pure evil speaking.

    The world faces a choice indeed. 50 years of high intensitty fossil fuel usage, while building fission power stations at 10 a week. Maybe, one day, fusion will work, or cucumbers, whatver. But those the choices avalaible nop: fossil fuel + massive build of nukes, or death to humanity.
    Fortunatley, I no longer care.

  6. BiNK, that would be new organic sackcloth.

    “What the best dressed penients are wearing this year…”

  7. @BiG

    “The meat thing I have never understood, but perhaps I am not supposed to. Every atom of carbon you eat from a plant or an animal (and subseuqently breathe back into the atmosphere) is one that was recently extracted from the atmosphere by the plant, or by a plant the animal ate.”

    I suppose their (insane) argument would be that if you reforested Wales and got rid of the sheep then the carbon would be locked up in the trees for longer. They can fuck off anyway. I’m eating meat and that’s that.

    @Tim

    You persist in taking them at their word. This isn’t designed to do anything about ‘climate change’, it’s about getting hands in your pockets and around your throat.

  8. I don’t know how true it is, but I understand the argument against eating meat:

    Cattle farming releases large quantities of methane (cow farts) into the atmosphere and it is supposedly a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.

  9. There are many good reasons for reducing pollution, waste and dependence on fossile fuels

    Climate change is not one of them

    Unfortunately the zealots, marxists,idiots, lobbyists and snakeoil salesmen have gobne all-in on climate change as the bogeyman to force change and profits

    The problem is that bogeymen depend on gullible fools

    I think the general population has woken up to the scam

  10. Standard negotiating tactic, Ecksy. Demand heaven & the stars. Allow yourself to be negotiated back to the moon, which was what you wanted at this stage. Soft man hard man with Blair’s croney’s, as ever, playing the soft man.

    “Climate change can be tackled with small reductions in flying and driving and we can continue eating meat and dairy, according to a report by Tony Blair’s think tank.”

    Yeah right. But that’s going to be total reductions. Which’ll mean the privileged(Blair’s cronies) carry on with their flying & driving ( & their steaks in cream sauce) whilst the reductions come from the non-privileged.

  11. Cattle farming releases large quantities of methane (cow farts) into the atmosphere and it is supposedly a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2

    As I understand it, the cow farts are generated from bacteria in the cows’ guts that break down the grass. The exact same bacteria that are in the soil, breaking down the grass that is not eaten by the cows.

    So whether the cow is present or not, the equivalent amount of methane is emitted.

  12. @BiW
    Any animal eats cellulose has similar gut bacteria. The only organism I’m aware of, doesn’t go that route, are fungi. Or is it just different bacteria with them but same methane?

  13. Anyone understand the chemistry on this. Is the only route for extracting energy from cellulose a producer of methane? Apart from straight oxidising. Like photosynthesis by chlorophyll produces oxygen. It’s not the purpose of the reaction. It’s a pollutant by-product.

  14. . . . the only problem is emissions.

    The UK produces 1% of your problem. Whether we double up, carry on as we are or revert to the stone age makes not one jot of difference. The developing world isn’t going to take heed of any example we set. The Han Chinese especially don’t give a toss, except to encourage us to continue committing suicide.

  15. @PJF
    Indeed, China is building coal power staions by the hundred, as the best choice to power their country with their resources. meantime, they are expanding nuclear, and researching new fission designs, including molten salt/thorium, for when the coal is just too expensive to extract/import.

    They must be laughing their heads off at the gullible round-eyes.

    Military communication from 2025: “The Chinese Navy ship just opened fire on us Sir!. Multiple incoming. Flight time 2 minutes. Request permission to fire anti-missile defence and return fire on attacker, Sir!”
    Captain: “Hmm, yes, just let me fill in the Environmental Impact Statement first, then get approval from the local Green authority. Should be with you in, oh around a month or three. When was that impact expected, then one you were concerned about…oh dear. Goodb”

  16. Bloke in North Dorset

    Around 2010 (I can’t be bothered looking it up) BBC R4 Analysis did a program about Watermelons and they interviewed a woman who organised conferences for greenies. Having seen these people first hand she was very sceptical of their motives.

    She reckoned that if she stood on the stage in front of them and said she had a magic wand that fixed the science so that CO2 wasn’t produced by fossil fuels and asked how many wanted her to wave it she said probably no more than 10%. If she tried it nowadays she’d probably get lynched as they tried to get the wand to destroy it.

  17. Methane is a red herring. Sure, it’s a greenhouse gas (15 x more than CO2) but there isn’t much of it in the atmosphere because it breaks down quite quickly. The greenhouse effect of clouds is some thousand times stronger.

  18. The greenhouse effect of clouds is some thousand times stronger.

    Clouds reflect more solar energy during the day than they trap infrared at night. More clouds, less surface warming.
    Amusingly, clouds with more aerosols are better at reflecting solar energy than “clean” clouds. The Chinese might be killing themselves with their smog but saving the rest of us.

  19. Re “methane”… ISTR reading somewhere that the world’s termites emit more methane than the world’s ruminants. Best of luck trying to eradicate termites in toto.

    And, as “Philip” says, methane is a far more reactive gas than CO2 and has an atmospheric “residency” time of only a few days.

  20. rjb – what about the herds of buffalo in North America?

    Slaughtering them probably did everyone a favour.

  21. “I suppose their (insane) argument would be that if you reforested Wales and got rid of the sheep then the carbon would be locked up in the trees for longer.”

    Longer maybe, but not indefinitely. Trees have a finite lifespan and will eventually die and rot away, so all the carbon taken out of the atmosphere as they grew will eventually be returned. Growing trees as a ‘solution’ to ‘climate change’ is pure theatre.

  22. “Growing trees as a ‘solution’ to ‘climate change’ is pure theatre.”
    So is shoving it in a hole in the ground (aka “Carbon Capture”).

    See what happens:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster

    That one was natural, as we haven’t yet acheived a similar reservoir of ‘captured’ CO2.
    But give it time.
    Not to be done within 100 miles of any inhabited region. Except, possibly, Westminster and Washington D.C.

  23. TTC, if we must pump carbon back into the ground, I naturally feel we should first attach it to a hydrogen atom. That way, when we get over the nonsense, we can pump it out again and burn it.

  24. I wonder what would transpire if the cretins got their way and everybody stopped using oil and coal and the climate remained within accustomed ranges? What bullshit ban would they come up with next?

  25. Change the models. They’ve no scientific basis as predictors of anything, let alone changes in climate. I’ve been keeping logs of the speed of the auto over the past week but find that it has no relevance to predicting what the speed of the auto will next week, to say nothing of a week out in the year 2030. A very neato model, though.

Leave a Reply

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