Well done for noticing this, Richard. Maybe Roger Harrabin (and the BBC?) is beginning to have his (its?) doubts. To even hint that it might be unwise to change economic policy when the reason for so doing was uncertain is a small step towards accepting my view about the pointlessness of "climate action". Or maybe I'm being over optimistic? As for that "disastrous" - well, it was certainly disastrous for many, not least for the BBC in view of its position on AGW at the time. Maybe that's what he meant.

Richard: you're right to draw attention to the humanitarian aspect of all this. And, taking that and my pointlessness observation and the "Malala" analogy, the New York climate summit delegates really should be hearing from a young African mother. Just image the impact of her venting her frustration at world leaders over how the lives of her babies were threatened from having to live in proximity to "renewable" energy from burning dung and wood for cooking and warmth. Compare that, she might say, with her "sisters" in China who, because of the availability of cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels, had access, not only to healthy cooking and warming facilities, but to clean water, proper sanitation, fresh food, adequate health care, better education, etc. Why, she might ask, should her children have any hope of a better life destroyed because comfortable people in the West, people who take reliable energy for granted, are obsessed by fashionable concerns about climate change?

That would have a massive impact - potentially with world-wide repercussions. But it ain't gonna happen. More's the pity.

PS to Jit: you're right to be cross. But it's getting away from the topic of this thread. stewgreen has a thread on BBC bias here. Perhaps you might make your point there?

In launching the UK's climate strategy today, Ed Davey criticised other countries' progress and "regrettable examples of backsliding". He commented:

"When countries see they are behind the pack, they will get worried.”

Seems we're back with the Solitary Lemming.

Reading Charles Moore's article in the Telegraph this morning I felt I should perhaps sue him for breach of copyright:

Even if Britain and the whole of the EU were to stick to our emissions targets (which we surely won’t), and to hit them (which, actually, we can’t), we would still not come anywhere close to what we are told is needed to save the planet. This is for a very simple reason: the rest of the world won’t do it.

Last year, carbon emissions per head in China exceeded those of Britain for the first time, and China has more than 20 times as many heads as we do. The EU is responsible for less than 10 per cent of global emissions, so when we set our targets we knew – and said – that we were in no position to stop global warming. The point was to set a lead which others would follow.

They haven’t. Since the debacle of the Copenhagen Summit of 2009 when the developed world failed to persuade the developing one to join our saintly masochism, this has been obvious.

Mike Atway:

I agree with much of what you say. But I suggest you may have rather missed my point. To put that into context, here's an extract from an early comment I made on this thread:

Of course much depends on the definition of the challenge. For me it’s this: persuading Government that, in view of international political reality, it’s in the UK’s best interest to abandon its pointless obsession with reducing emissions and instead prioritise a strong economy, underpinned by reliable affordable energy.

So that’s the challenge – and it seems that it’s one with which you agree. OK – but I believe that the only way it can be achieved is by bypassing scientific debate and focusing on the harsh reality that, even if ‘climate change is a present and immediate danger’, there’s nothing at all the UK can do about it – for the reasons I spelled out in my opening post. That way, I believe, offers at least some possibility that politicians might change their policies without having to perform a public volte-face on their understanding of the science. Indeed, I might argue, if their interpretation of the science is valid, that’s all the more reason for changing policy so as to provide the UK with at least some prospect of dealing with what they must believe is a pending catastrophe.

It’s my view that continuing what is obviously a hopeless crusade to persuade politicians that they’re misunderstanding the science offers no such possibility of policy change. In other words, my argument at this stage is really with the ‘sceptic warriors’. As I said before:

… it’s all about whether people really want to bring about a critical change in our society – or whether they’re more interested in a fascinating intellectual struggle.

You ask for a ‘more optimistic scenario’. Well, mine is based on the developing reality that’s there’s no longer any prospect of a global GHG reduction deal in Paris next year. This was confirmed yet again yesterday with the failure of the last of this year’s three ‘crucial’ UN negotiating sessions in Bonn (LINK1 LINK2), despite absurd claims that EU ‘leadership’ would make a difference: LINK. I’m sure that over the next year – as we approach the Paris conference – this reality will become increasingly clear. The objective of anyone who truly wants to change UK policy must, I believe, be to keep drawing attention to that harsh truth. I’m sure it offers at least the prospect of our politicians using it as an excuse for, as michael hart put it, ‘retreating from where the green-spleen has moved them to in recent decades’.

I hope, Mike, that I haven't been giving the impression that my proposed route out of this mess would be easy. I refer only to 'some possibility' of a political change of heart and suggest only that 'it offers at least the prospect of' of change. I'm trying to get traction on this because IMO the alternative - continual harping on about the 'science' - offers no such prospect. The landing may well be hard. But that's better than a disastrous crash.

It's interesting that alarmists don't seem to know how to counter my approach. For example, my comments on their websites sometimes languish in moderation for so long that the issue under consideration is no longer topical. RTCC is especially fond of this solution - although they did post a recent comment here - no one responded. (Interestingly, I was proved wholly right when on Friday the Bonn negotiations ended in failure despite the EU 'deal' - needless to say, my post pointing this out has not yet appeared.) Another approach is to ignore me altogether. You may have come across 'The Conversation' - an online forum for alarmist academics. Any sceptic posting there is immediately tackled (sometimes with aggression, sometimes courtesy). But I'm ignored. See this and this. There's another example here - where this time I'm the sole commentator on a website (ECIU) that was set up to support 'informed debate on energy and climate change issues in the UK'.

I can't decide whether I should be encouraged or discouraged by this treatment.

The five Tory MPs (Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Peter Lilley, Andrew Tyrie and Ann Widdecombe) who voted against the Climate Change Bill in 2008 have issued the following statement:

“The five of us have seen nothing in the intervening six years to change our view that the Climate Change Act was a profound mistake. The Act was intended as an example to the world which would lead to a binding global agreement. Despite a succession of conferences devoted to this objective, no such global agreement has proved possible.

“The UK accounts for less than 2 per cent of global emissions. It is time to bring to an end the pointless damage being inflicted on British households, British industry and the British economy by the unilateral commitment to unnecessarily expensive energy, and to suspend the Climate Change Act’s unilateral targets until such time as a binding global agreement has been secured. A full reconsideration of the deeply flawed economic methodology to support the Act is also now urgently needed. This served as the justification for so many regulatory and other measures that has forced up energy prices for millions of householders, without any clear long term benefit.”

The story can be found here - behind a paywall.