Robin, I am glad that we share an appreciation of environmental standards. Some (many?) skeptics treat environmental protection as an avoidable evil and nature as a smorgasbord of delights to cull or eat at their pleasure. But would it be a misinterpretation to say you oppose any environmental protection that doesn't demonstrably benefit people? For example, I want whales, lions, tigers, and million more species (and subspecies, as one prolific skeptic dismissively referred to some extinctions) and their habitats to survive not because of their financial value to me or to humans but for the intrinsic value as a part of our world.

On the narrow issue of UK reductions "benefiting" the UK, I cannot claim there will be short term gains to the financial bottom line as a result of our actions. But I do believe it is the right thing to do and I have seen no evidence (and I mean evidence, not hand waving) that action will damage us or lead to our impoverishment.

Chandra "yet there are still large parts of the world without access to energy, clean water, food. The fuels haven't done them much good, have they?"

I don't know, most countries have growing populations and those that don't are largely victims of warfare and internal violence not fossil fuels. Once the West had access to cheap, reliable energy we were able to devote the time and money to medecine and social improvement. Slavery ended because machines could work longer and harder. Land is more productive than ever before, meaning that larger populations can be supported by the same amount of land. More people live in cities which means there's less pressure on the countrside. Women in industrialised countries have far better opportunities than at any other period in history. Part of that improvement means not having to produce many children to provide support in old age. Were the poor to have access to an electricity grid and affordable energy, then they could give up 'green' renewable wood fires and have longer lives, less prone to lung disease. Countries like India and Brazil are catching up fast. China is even faster. They haven't had easy access to fossil fuels long enough to take them for granted.

The UK is one of the least 'natural' landscapes in the World. Almost every inch of it has been managed and changed by man. Is it such a terrible place to live? I too would love to save the tiger and other creatures like them but if that meant keeping them in my garden I might be... no, I would be less enamoured. I despise the bushmeat trade but if that was all that stood between me and my family starving, I'd chow down.

When people look down on fossil fuels and airily decide it's time for them to go, they do not imagine a return to the past, when energy was scarce. They have a fuzzy gap between shutting the coal mines and us all living on renewables. You cannot run society on stop start energy and you certainly can't compete with countries on full power. Our industry is already decimated and many of our other sources of income need reliability. "I'm sorry UK banking is closed until the power comes back on. Please hold."

Of course if you favour unilateralism then not one of us will disagree with you. You are at liberty to cut your own CO2, any time you like.

Robin,

(1) I understand the policy is to reduce emissions by 80% by some date in the future. So by definition, yes.

(2) CO2 emissions reduction is necessary. I have seen no evidence that moving to renewables will be damaging. So we should do it.

(3) There is always a risk of power outages. Concentrating power generation in a few huge power stations is arguably more of a risk than distributing generation across the country and interconnecting with the continent. I've seen no evidence that Germany or Denmark or other countries with higher renewables penetration than the UK have suffered as a result of their renewables.

> Do you not agree that fossil fuels have done all these people a lot of good?

Of course, why do you think I would dispute that?

TinyCO2, slavery didn't end because "machines could work longer and harder". Where did you get that poisonous nonsense? It has never ended and probably never will. The American kind "ended" doubtless for many reasons including civil war.

Chandra, as far as I know there are no countries of the World where slavery is officially acceptable, with the exception of maybe North Korea and they have one of the lowest carbon footprints on the planet. Slavery is now largely a feature of criminality or local lawlessness (eg sex slaves). Certainly some workers will be being paid so little and have so few options that it is tantamount to slavery but that should ultimately decline in the same way it happened in Europe and the US. My ancestors didn't come out of the cotton mills because they went back to hand weaving in a cottage industry but because they became more useful working elsewhere. Their brains became more valuable than their muscles. Go further back and people feared machines would do them out of pitifully paid and dangerous jobs. Did they relish their 'slavery'? Should society have listened to them and forgot about machines?

Cheap, reliable energy is the key to freedom and it's working for a great many people. Unilaterally giving up fossil fuels would be a voluntary step back in prosperity and progress. Nobody is prepared to do that when the crunch comes. Not the US, not Europe and especially not Russia or China. AR5 is scary enough to convene endless conferences but not bad enough to justify economic suicide.

of all the fatuous comments that Chandra has supplid to various threads, I nominate this one for the prize:

(1) I understand the policy is to reduce emissions by 80% by some date in the future. So by definition, yes.
Oct 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterChandra

So if a government declares a policy objective, it will always meet it. Try a moderating influence on your wacky baccy next time you have a smoke.

Robin, are you a schoolmaster by any chance? Or an army Sergeant Major? For evidence of my "nasty assertion", look no further than the American right's attempts to de-fund the EPA and the Monckton.

> What's the point of emission reduction if hardly anyone else is doing it?

It is the right thing to do and I have seen no evidence that moving to renewables will be damaging.

Chandra, would you like to comment on Der Spiegel's energy coverage?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-offshore-wind-industry-goes-from-boom-to-bust-a-914158.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html

" I have seen no evidence that moving to renewables will be damaging". Pay attention in class!

"Some (many?) skeptics treat ......nature as a smorgasbord of delights to cull or eat at their pleasure."

My doctor keeps telling me that I need to eat more, animal protein in particular. Do you not eat? Do you perhaps eat, but without taking pleasure in the process?

Strange. I'd guessed, from your postings, that you are a mammal. If not, please enlighten us.

Greenie, it's an old adage, but don't believe all you read in the papers. And whether there is truth in the Spiegel report or not (Spiegel has a similar relationship with the truth on the Energiewende as the Mail here) you have still not shown that this is economically damaging. US shale gas companies have written off huge investments but nobody here is going to say they are damaging (even given a cup of gassified water to drink they'd say, mmm just how I like it). BTW I'm a vegetarian.

Robin, your Sergeant Major routine is wearing thin. Go and listen to the odious Monckton yourself if you doubt me. Lots of things in life are "the right thing to do" even done alone. If you have to ask for examples you are a lesser intellect than I had assumed.

Or alternatively cut your own CO2 unilaterally and work on those who say they believe in CAGW to do the same. I'm sure it would be effective.

Robin, you say that you understand the concept of doing the right thing independent of others' actions. But you question it as it applies to CO2. My guess is that you are a pragmatist like most people and do the right thing unless it "costs" too much (in some not necessarily financial sense) to justify the moral gain. In the case of CO2 you reject the climate science (which for a speaker on technology seems an odd thing to do) and so clearly think the "right thing" is to do nothing. But you also question my AGW-believer assertion that we should do the right thing, presumably on the basis that you think the cost of action is too great, damaging the economy, destroying society, taking us back to the middle ages etc as your alarmist friends would say. As someone so involved with technology and with a public persona to protect, you must have some evidence to support that assertion. What is it?

The Monckton has never said anything that any reasonable person could interpret as being anti-environment. He regards environmental protection as a cornerstone of western society and would be loath to weaken it just for some grubby industrial advantage. He loves the environment, values nature in all its glory and wants the highest levels of protection. He's a thoroughgoing good egg and in no way odious.

Oh and, Robin Guenier does not reject climate science. He loves it.

Happy now?

You didn't challenge my assertion that, "you also question my AGW-believer assertion that we should do the right thing, presumably on the basis that you think the cost of action is too great, damaging the economy, destroying society, taking us back to the middle ages etc as your alarmist friends would say."

Do you really think that the cost of action is too great, would damage the economy, destroy society or take us back to the middle ages?

Chandra, you ask for evidence and then dismiss the evidence, even when it is staring you in the face.

Human health and life-expectancy correlate very highly with with human wealth. The benefits that come from living in an advanced industrial economy, largely built on the energy from fossil-fuels, are manifest. When people are given this choice, they overwhelmingly take it. That so many in the world remain in poverty is because they have NOT been afforded this choice in a meaningful way. Not yet.

I can seen no justifiable ethical or moral reasons to deny humans this choice. It appears you wish to deny these benefits to the majority of the worlds population. Your accusations of crocodile tears on my part is baseless and hypocritical.

Michael, the items in your middle paragraph are not disputed. You could have added so text on the benefits of good nutrition and modern medicines for all the use it was. You then set up a strawman, "I can seen no justifiable ethical or moral reasons to deny humans this choice", and then attack it. Why bother? Do you win brownie points at Bishop Hill for such antics? Why not address something I have said and not something you wish I had said?

Robin, don't be obtuse. CO2 emissions reduction is necessary because of its effects on climate. You dispute that but you know that I consider it true. That is all the justification I need to make reducing emissions the right thing to do, independent of other countries' actions. Suddenly stopping fossil fuel use would be effective at cutting our 1.7% but nobody in their right mind would suggest that, right thing to do or not. Gradually replacing them with renewables or nuclear will be effective over the longer term and you are remarkably reluctant to explain why you think that would be "damaging". Other countries will also cut as they all know it is necessary - witness AR5, which was negotiated line by line by representatives of all countries until they agreed.