Discussion > Current climate policy is pointless – we need a new approach
It should - but it probably won't.
You pointing it out, on this blog and others, can only increase the probability of good sense winning out. Don't think 'journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step'. Think tiny snowball at top of mountain. Of course you may 'get stuck' before reaching the bottom. Or a real avalanche might develop, well outside the control of any of us. And never has a self-indulgent school of thought deserved such a deluge of reality.
Richard Drake
Did you notice, during that RTE panel discussion, that, trying to respond to Peiser's calm assertion that it was too late for Europe as China, India etc. were not going to cut their emissions anyway, the dreadful shouty eco guy blustered 'but that will just let the politicians off the hook' (or words to that effect)? It seems people like him simply want the West to be punished for its alleged sins - even if that punishment cannot possibly solve the 'problem'.
It won't be easy for good sense to overcome attitudes like that.
Robin Guenier
I don't usually have much time for the US right wing press but this is perceptive. It demonstrates why Britain's energy policy is not just pointless - it's seriously dangerous.
The final paragraph:
The Crimean crisis is revealing what history has proven over and over again — a country that develops a powerful economy on a firm foundation of energy resources can push its weight around on the world stage, and a country that lets its economy languish can believe itself much more powerful than it really is.Amen to that.
Robin Guenier
Mike Jackson, do you have some evidence that the planet is cooling?
Robin Guenier
> The Crimean crisis is revealing what history has proven
over and over again — a country that develops a powerful
economy on a firm foundation of energy resources can push
its weight around on the world stage, and a country that
lets its economy languish can believe itself much more
powerful than it really is.
Is it your desire that the UK "push its weight around on the world stage". Like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan? How much did that lot cost and what did we gain from it? We didn't even get the oil in Iraq!
Seems to me that the Crimean crisis shows that if you are a big country with a dictatorially inclined president, a weak neighbour, a big army and any sort of pretext you can break treaties you signed and invade. If you think there will be no consequences however, you might be disappointed. All right minded European countries will be looking for ways to diversify energy sources and avoid Russian gas. If that is in Russia's interest then maybe being able to push your weight around on the world stage is a worthy aim. But I doubt it.
Chandra
Chandra: "Is it your desire that the UK "push its weight around on the world stage". Like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Certainly not. But neither do I want to see Britain continue with policies that are likely to put us in a position where we can be pushed around; and where we are increasingly less able to look after our poor and vulnerable. To avoid that position we need a strong economy. And, as China for example is demonstrating, a strong economy requires reliable, affordable energy. Current policies cannot provide that. And, in any case, are pointless.
Robin Guenier
Chandra
Did you actually understand what I wrote?
You keep on behaving as if English is not your native language. If that is the case I need to rephrase idiomatic English for your benefit which I will do if I must but I need to know.
Robin Guenier
Yes, the "letting politicians off the hook" is quite significant. See my recent comments about the warmists' over-arching need to WIN!
Punishment for alleged sins is a major part of what drives the political left (especially in the UK — I think I used the phrase 'post-imperial guilt', or some such) and the eco-activists who see government as the ultimate destroyer of the environment ignoring the fact that the "environment" they see being destroyed is largely man-made to start with and it is very doubtful that they would like the alternative any better.
As you say, not an easy mindset to overcome.
Mike Jackson
Mike: I agree about 'post-imperial guilt'. Yet paradoxically it's often the same people who, in defending our current climate policies, like to talk of Britain 'taking a lead'. There’s something embarrassingly arrogant about the concept of Britain taking a lead: it smacks of an outdated, neocolonial, 'White Man's Burden' view of the world. Do they really think that, for example, China and India - whom we exploited and looked down on for hundreds of years - care a jot about what Britain does?
Robin Guenier
It is paradoxical but is also a form of penance.
Having dragged "these wogs" out of the darkness into the glorious light of civilised behaviour (and I'm only partly being sarcastic) the heirs of those who genuinely thought that it was the job of the White Man — traders, missionaries, colonial civil servants, et al — to bring education and brassieres to the benighted masses are having qualms of conscience.
Too late!
No, the Indians and the Chinese — who, lest we forget, had thriving civilisations (who was it that invented paper, again?) long before we did — do not give a toss what this small island off the NW coast of Europe does except that if its people are stupid enough to shoot themselves in the economic foot ... well, I mean, it would be rude not to supply the bullets, wouldn't it?
Mike Jackson
Robin, the quote that tickled your fancy contained:
"...a country that develops a powerful economy on a firm foundation of energy resources can push its weight around on the world stage, ..."
Do you consider Russia to have a powerful economy? Take away oil and gas and how powerful is it? UK policies on energy are far less ambitious than those of Germany. Doesn't Germany's powerful economy disprove your assertion? They have no gas or oil.
Mike Jackson:
> It may well be that the winter storms were
climate-related.
Indeed. I'm surprised that you confirm that.
> If so, it was because the climate is cooling
rather than warming.
But you don't have evidence of that.
> That is, as climate history tells us without the need for
computer models, the more likely scenario.
So is there some evidence of your more likely scenario? Or is this just a model in your head?
> Warmer=better in virtually every aspect of human existence, storms especially.
Why did industrial society develop in some of the colder parts of the words?
Chandra
Chandra: perhaps you didn’t read my previous response to you. Here it is again:
[For the reasons I stated] we need a strong economy. And, as China for example is demonstrating, a strong economy requires reliable, affordable energy. Current policies cannot provide that. And, in any case, are pointless.Clear now?
Robin Guenier
Robin, so you are back-pedalling on your support for one semi-dictatorial country, Russia, and engaging instead the support of a another dictatorial country, China. I'm getting to see a pattern here.
Germany's has no oil or gas and has more expensive domestic electricity than the UK. Its industrial electricity is cheap but I doubt you would approve of the means by which that has been achieved. Its economy is more powerful and more successful than that of the UK. Its people don't yearn to be able to push weaker countries around. And yet you say, "a strong economy requires reliable, affordable energy", for which the UK would appear to be in much the same, if not a better position than Germany. Yet you prefer Russia and China as role models. Very interesting.
Chandra
Chandra
You are being thick again.
It may well be that the winter storms were climate-related.I never confirmed anything. I speculated .
Indeed. I'm surprised that you confirm that.
If so, it was because the climate is cooling rather than warming.The words "if so" are the giveaway
But you don't have evidence of that.
That is, as climate history tells us without the need for computer models, the more likely scenario.I think I just said we don't need models to reach the conclusion since climate history tells us that stormy weather is more likely in times of cooling than times of warming. Look it all up for yourself.
So is there some evidence of your more likely scenario? Or is this just a model in your head?
Warmer=better in virtually every aspect of human existence, storms especially.Your question is irrelevant. Markedly greater progress has always been made when the climate has been more benign. If you aren't aware of these things then I suggest you try to correct your ignorance rather than persist in demonstrating it for all to see.
Why did industrial society develop in some of the colder parts of the words?
Mike Jackson
Oh how I despise the 'we have to lead the way' meme. And 'because we're better [more moral] than them' as is sometimes added or at least hinted at. Positively racist and narcissistic. I do think the Chinese sometimes wonder if we'd make all this fuss over something that wasn't real and I don't suppose Chinese leaders are much more intelligent than our own so they're as susceptible to the 'scientists say' mantra. Definitely they're happy to make solar panels if we're daft enough to buy them and they won't lose any sleep if we run our countries into power nightmare territory. Middle level bureacrats are ecstatic about having endless meetings in exotic and well catered places. Why would they seek to end the madness?
TinyCO2
Personally I don't think there is much we can or should do about Russia taking the Crimea. As far as I can see the people voted to change sides of the border. It's what might happen in Scotland. Shrug. I hope they don't regret their decision.
Europe can't do much about it anyway becuase we are too tied to the Russians. France with defence contracts, Germany needs their gas and the UK needs the bank and business connections. I once read the definition of partnership was where two people have their hands so far down the other's pocket that to pull apart would hard both parties. Russia too has it's vulnerabilities but it might be too arrogant to admit it.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/21/eu-mobilises-trade-war-russia-crimea-ukraine
However it is time we scrapped the UN because it's clear it does nothing at all to protect international law.
TinyCO2
HURT both parties
I swear my fingers are on strike today.
TinyCO2
Since bluster is about all we can manage against Russia we could at least make ourselves look diplomatic and vaguely statesman-like by recognising Crimea's right to self-determination while at the same time making it known "through channels" that the Russians are doing themselves no favours by interfering. Oddly enough they do actually care what people think of them. A quiet word that any move in the Baltic would be met with sterner opposition wouldn't come amiss either.
This would also be a good time for Hague to assemble a coalition to block EU attempts to impose sanctions. At the same time I suspect there is a big enough bloc prepared to put a stop to Brussels' insane ambition of a Europe stretching from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean and from the Atlantic to the Urals. It's the "to the Urals" bit that's got Putin pissed off and rightly so. I doubt that Germany is keen on the expansionist plans of the bureaucrats. Been there, done that, and it didn't work out terribly well.
Mike Jackson
Chandra: you're not paying attention. The message of this thread is (see my initial post) that Britain should
face up to the reality that there’s no longer much point in emission mitigation and instead take account of what’s actually happening in the world by an overall strengthening of our economy, energy supply and infrastructure and the prioritisation of long-term adaptation to whatever climate change may occur.That's what we're discussing. And, as demonstrated by China, a strong economy requires reliable, affordable energy. But that doesn't mean I prefer China's (or Russia's) system of government or consider it preferable to Germany's. Far from it.
A proposal: if you really want to discuss the system of government most likely to be conducive to an improved climate, I suggest you start a separate Discussion. It could be interesting.
Robin Guenier
There is another blog on the adaptation argument, expressed in quite an entertaining way,
http://cliffmass.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/moses-versus-joseph-biblical-lesson-in.html
(ht judith curry's latest blog)
Paul Matthews
Mike: with respect, your debate with Chandra, although interesting, is completely off topic - may I suggest you (both) give it a rest? Or discuss it elsewhere.
Robin Guenier
Robin Guenier, no, not really off topic. Russia and its gas is very relevant to Europe waking up to energy security. One of the things that irked me about the BBCs recent Bang Goes the Theory about the lights going out, they talked about electricity security but didn't address the big issue, what if the gas runs out? Losing coal energy isn't so bad if you have enough gas and nuclear to replace it. Expensive but possible. Losing nuclear is possible too. But if all you have is gas and wind and the gas runs short it wouldn't even matter if the wind was still blowing, we'd be in deep trouble.
Europe is learning a timely lesson.
TinyCO2
Thanks, Paul, for getting us back on topic: by promoting 'the prioritisation of long-term adaptation' Pharaoh got it right.
Oh no, I shouldn't have said that. Now I suppose Chandra will accuse me of supporting yet another dictatorial country - and this time it's the dreaded slave-dependent ancient Egypt.
Robin Guenier
That's a very good point, Tiny. Thanks.
Robin Guenier
Robin, you introduced the idea that being an undemocratic bully with lots of energy reserves is something positive, not me. "Amen to that", you said. (Oh, religion again. Seems to be creeping out of its hiding place)
Why use China, another undemocratic bully, as second example? Germany is a perfect example of a country with a strong economy, its electricity supply is the most reliable worldwide, its energy is affordable and increasingly coming from renewables (ah, that's why) often owned by local communities.
Chandra
Affordable energy for whom and why?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9d6ba56a-a633-11e3-8a2a-00144feab7de.html#axzz2wiR9W5MU
Big industry is heavily subsidised and, despite grumblings from the EU about illegality, this will probably continue.
http://www.tax-news.com/news/Germany_Set_To_Retain_Contentious_Energy_Tax_Break____64090.html
And even then it's suffering
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/352dfaf4-9efc-11e3-8663-00144feab7de.html#axzz2wiTOC82K
In the long run Germany will look after Germany even if it means ignoring the rules and emissions.
TinyCO2
In my opening post, I noted that only the EU (representing a mere 10% of global CO2 emissions) seemed likely to agree to a binding commitment to make reductions. Now even that is in doubt - LINK. This is described, by 'activists' as
It's further described as making Europe So much for that hoped-for 'strong leadership role'.This should disabuse anyone who held it of the idea that there's any point at all in Britain's current climate policies. It should - but it probably won't.