I’m even greener than I realised

The BBC’s fixation with global warming produced a new insight this morning. It opened up a whole new line of questioning for the Green movement, which left their spokesman advocating that people should have a higher carbon footprint, for fear of sounding as if he wanted to kill off all the much loved cats and dogs we keep as pets.

The new topic was the carbon paw print of mogs and dogs. Apparently a large dog requires as much as 1 ton of carbon a year, or around 7% of the average British person’s carbon footprint. As I do not currently keep a pet, that makes me even greener than I realised.

The interviewer made a very good point. Turning to the green spokesman, she asked if people should stop owning pets to cut their carbon footprint. I assume she was kind enough to mean as nature takes its course with all the lovely animals people currently own. He realised the trap, and defended pet ownership as a pleasure we might need, suggesting pet owners should drive less to compensate. The last thing he wanted was the headline “Greens propose mass doggy and moggy murders to save the planet”. The greens always unite against the car, though it represents a modest proportion of the carbon total.

Not to miss the trick, the interviewer countered by saying why couldn’t people without pets buy a gas guzzling vehicle for their pleasure, as this would produce less additional carbon than a large dog? The Green spokesman was bright enough to have to follow the logic, and effectively conceded that non pet owners might well legitimately want to drive more, as long as everyone kept to a sensible average carbon footrpint.

I wonder if this question of the carbon paw print will develop legs? Will someone come forward with the idea that we should start to wean our furry friends off meat, and try and breed vegan pets with special low carbon impacts? Will someone else propose a recommended size limitation on animals we keep at home? It certainly makes a change from the endless discussions of how we should limit personal mobility.

What we need is some commonsense in this debate, an acceptance that we want to become greener and cleaner, to recycle more and waste less, to generate power in a more efficient way and to lift our fuel efficiency at home, on the move and at work as rapidly as possible. We need to cut our dependence on imported fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Cutting down on pets or stopping people driving should not be part of such a commonsense approach.

This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

59 Comments

  1. Lola
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Dogs "pant pant pant lick lick lick wag wag wag wag"
    Me: "You want breakfast? "
    Dogs: "wag wag lick"
    Me: "Sorry mate. No can do. Greenies say no."
    Dog: "Ggrrrrrrrrrr humpph humphh""
    Me: "Quite"
    Dogs "yap bark yap yap"
    Me: "You want to bite the greenies where?"
    Dogs: "grrr yap"
    Me: "OK. Go for it. Good boys"

    • Stuart Fairney
      Posted February 6, 2010 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

      ha ha ha ha…..

      Brilliant

  2. Norman Dee
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    It does also raise the question of balance as far as the moggies go, if we get rid of the carbon paw print of every mog in the UK would this be offset by the increased effect on the environment of the 60million song birds that wouldn't get killed every year

    • Robin Rowles
      Posted February 6, 2010 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

      Or perhaps not feeding our cats and dogs will result in them eating the rats and mice that have started to reappear thanks to the cutbacks in dustbin collections?

  3. Alex Cull
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    What I think would help to restore some commonsense to the debate is to drop the word "green", which has increasingly become a byword for joyless, life-denying, contradictory, quasi-religious craziness.

    We should be able to extract a few worthwhile elements from the green movement, such as energy efficiency, nature conservation, waste reduction, thrift and the clever husbanding of resources.

    The rest of it, including the carbon cult madness, should be sensibly consigned to where all unwanted greenery should go – the compost heap.

  4. Donna W
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Well I don't have a pet (since foxy-loxy got to the rabbit last summer) and I don't have a gas-guzzler. I also don't jet 500,000 miles round the earth – like Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, who likes to lecture the world about the dangers of climate change whilst relying on dodgy science.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/716581

    As my carbon footprint is so low, can I please be exempted from using the food waste 'slop bucket' which Guildford Council has now forced on us.

    • Stuart Fairney
      Posted February 6, 2010 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

      I imagine you eat out all the time and therefore generate no food waste at all and thus have no need of the slop bucket?

      Bearing this in mind, why not simply return it to them?* The schemes won't work if we don't meekly comply. So don't ask for exemption, self-exempt. I've never recycled a single thing in Basingstoke & Deane in over a decade and they don't do anything.

      (* A tory council ! The sort of nonsense you expect from the Lib Dems but not from otherwise sensible local tories)

      • Donna W
        Posted February 6, 2010 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

        No – I don't eat out all the time; I can and do cook. (They taught us how when I was at school.) We don't generate much food waste but over Christmas/NY and during the recent severe weather, when Guildford Council declined to collect our refuse for about 3 weeks, even I managed to fill the bucket. It's disgusting and if I thought the Lib Dems would cancel the scheme, I'd be voting for them next time around – but they're likely to be worse.!

        As for ignoring the green/recycle/climate change brigade at the Local Authorities – if you don't comply and they find the wrong item in the receptacles they provide they refuse to remove any household waste.

        • Stuart Fairney
          Posted February 7, 2010 at 9:10 am | Permalink

          Ah well, I didn't really think you ate out all the time(!) but there are ways and ways to play this game.

          If your bin men are like mine, do you think they even look? Some people for example, simply wrap up their food waste in newspapers. They won't rummage through a bin full of my son's nappies to look for orange peel. And who is to say you put it in the bin, it could be a neighbour.

          Don't play their game, just be sensible about it. I bag most of mine anyway and chuck it in the wheelie bin. I have never seen anyone opening the bags and frankly I don't blame them.

          Don't play the game. When enough of us say no, the scheme collapses. They rely on compliance.

        • Lola
          Posted February 7, 2010 at 10:58 am | Permalink

          Stuart Fairney. Well, 'gaming' is just what you are doing. When bureaucracies try and apply their absurd and unworkable nonsenses to sensible men and women all that happens is that the millions of sensible people work out how to circumvent the stupidities. They 'game' the system. This of course drives bureaucrats mad. Good. They are collectively stupid, whilst the free actions of sensible human beings are collectively wise.

          During a recent extended hospital stay I watched the clinicians game the NHS bureaucracy day be day.

          I game our entirely useless regulator the FSA. If I didn't I could never ever serve my clients properly.

          The more bureaucracy and stupid bureaucratic rules there are the more gaming goes on.

          My favourite example of this is the Russian second hand light bulb market. In Soviet Russian there were no new lightbulbs on general sale. Offices and factories had plenty of light bulbs. If your work light bulb failed you took it to your superviser who gave you a chit for the stores bloke to issue you with a new light bulb. But if you bought a new lamp without a light bulb how do you get a brand new one? Well, of course a market develops in broken lightbulbs. You buy one of these take it into work and get a chit to get a new light bulb.

          New Labour's epic crushing stupidity is driving us straight towards the second hand light bulb market. Look at Mr R's and other posts on the electricity supply failure. To solve it within the existing reg-yew-lay-shun structure will require the UK to engage in some nifty international game play.

      • Mike Stallard
        Posted February 6, 2010 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

        Dr Pachauri in fact started all this up by trying to forbid cows because of their huge methane footprint. This would be hilarious if he didn't happen to be the Chairman of the IPCC.
        Coincidentally, he happens to be a devout Hindu……

    • alan jutson
      Posted February 7, 2010 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

      Donna W

      Know what you mean about a slop bucket or slop bin.

      We were on holiday in Devon last year where they have such a service, only the slop bin was only collected every two weeks !!!!

      The instructions for use were: nothing could be wrapped, so neat food waste (peelings, skins, vegitation old flowers etc etc) had to go from slop bucket to slop wheelie bin, and sit there for two weeks in summer weather.

      Said bin area was infested with flies, maggots and the like and stank. We complained to the owner of the property we were renting from who said that Council were thinking of now collecting once a week, but nothing decided yet.

      We wrapped up our waste in plastic bags or paper and put it in the normal bin which Council empty each week.

      Whilst you comply with these stupid people they will make your life a misery.

      During the War 1939-1945 such waste was collected (in pig bins) one large bin for a number of households, once a day, and as suggested by the name, fed to pigs so that as a Nation were more self sufficient. Thus waste was sensibly recycled.

      As usual the modern trend is to use old ideas and bastardise them so that they are usless. Unless you want to breed flies, rats and any other vermin.

      Progress ? its a sick joke.

      • OurSally
        Posted February 8, 2010 at 9:57 am | Permalink

        How strange. We have a wheelie bin for bio-degradable waste. I use a paper liner for the little bin inside and put newspaper and egg cartons in the bottom of the big bin outside. To reduce moisture we wrap wet stuff in newspaper. (This is OK in Germany because newspaper is not poisonous.)

        No moisture, no smell and no flies. They pick it up every two weeks. Normally it is no problem.

        If we do get flies and hence maggots, I leave the bin lid open and watch the birds having a feast.

        • alan jutson
          Posted February 8, 2010 at 11:45 am | Permalink

          OurSally

          Can only repeat what the owner of the property said to us at the time, that his Council did not allow any paper at all in the slop bin, otherwise they would not empty it.

          This just highlights the differing rules by diiffering Councils, which leads to absolute confusion all round, as what is acceptable in one area, seems not to be in another.

  5. adam
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clim

  6. David Cooper
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    Alex is absolutely right. One small but significant additional gesture would be for Greg Clark's job title to be altered to Shadow Sec of State for Energy and "Conservation", not the "CC words".

    I cannot resist repeating the closing phrase (a passing tribute to Daniel Hannan in Lisbon Treaty debates) that I have frequently used on ConHome threads upon this issue: –

    Repugnandi sunt citrulli: virides extra, ruberes intra.

    (Colloquial translation – Say no to the watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.)

  7. Mark
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Can I have a pet rather than flying to a conference full of hot air in Copenhagen?

    Perhaps next the Greens will come up with the novel idea we shouldn't keep children as pets either, because they'll have an even bigger carbon footprint. Then they'll cotton on that nuclear weapons are even more efficient at reducing populations – and nuclear winters are much cooler.

    • Mark
      Posted February 6, 2010 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

      Just "A modest proposal"…

    • D K MCGREGOR
      Posted February 6, 2010 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

      Children are definitely off their menu , this whole thing evolved out of the overcrowded world (Malthus etc.) they are determined to save us from.

      • Mark
        Posted February 7, 2010 at 11:51 am | Permalink

        It was Swift who put children ON the menu!

  8. John Bowman
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    You missed the obvious Mr Redwood, what is needed is a carbon tax on pets fixed according to their relative carbon paw/claw prints.

    We can then have a scheme where non-pet owners can trade their carbon credits with non-pet owners.

    I am starting up a company PetCarb Trading Ltd (petcarb.com) and need a financial director – would you be interested in the post?

    I expect Government will introduce a carbon tax on pet foods to be used to subsidise new companies making low-emission pet foods and a breeding programme for low-emission pets, so opportunities there too.

  9. james harries
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    "I wonder if this question of the carbon paw print will develop legs?"
    I doubt it. Isn't all just wind and p…?

  10. John Bowman
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    Correction: "…non pet-owners can trade their carbon credits with pet-owners."

  11. English Pensioner
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    We also keep hearing from the Global Warming zealots about the number of animals which are becoming extinct due to global warming. It logically follows that if they do become extinct there will be less global warming.
    Could this be in accordance with the concept of the survival of the fittest? I'd love to hear the Greens and various wildlife charities on the subject.

  12. alan jutson
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

    Simple solution

    Everyone buy a hampster, link up its excercise wheel to the National Grid.

    There you have it 60,000,000 hamsters used as mini generators throughout the Country.

    Good spin on the Power shortage Policy, no need to worry about blackouts in the coming years, or for that matter nuclear power stations.

    Just out of interest anyone prepared to calculate the power which may be generated, because we could be onto something big here.

    • Mark
      Posted February 6, 2010 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

      There is a research project under way:
      http://www.otherpower.com/hamster.html

      • Mark
        Posted February 6, 2010 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

        But its prospects aren't that good:
        http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325862.30

        • alan jutson
          Posted February 8, 2010 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

          Mark

          Very many thanks for this.

          Interesting that they have actually worked out how many hampsters are needed to power the World, or even an individual house.

          I wonder if the research was Government funded ??????.

    • Adrian Peirson
      Posted February 7, 2010 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

      One hamster couldn't run that PC, it could barely light a few Led's.

      • alan jutson
        Posted February 7, 2010 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

        Adrian Pearson

        Then perhaps we could have two or three.

        Certainly I could increase/double my capacity quicker than we can build a new Power Station.

        I was going to say they multiply like rabbits, but rabbits eat more and so are probably less carbon efficient.

        Never know, maybe Hampster trade offs, Hampster futures, Hampster hedge funds, etc.

  13. JohnRS
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    If I have a big dog, is that like having a 4×4? Will I have greenies pointing at me and hissing as I walk past beacuse of the very high carbon paw-print of my canine friend?

    Conversely will I get a round of applause if it's just me walking to the shops unecumbered by carbon exuding pets of any kind?

    Are these people completely barking?

    • APL
      Posted February 6, 2010 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

      JohnRS: "Are these people completely barking?"

      Yes.

  14. Steve Cox
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    While as a scientist and engineer I do not buy into the AGW hypothesis/hysteria, I fully support you when you say that, “We need to cut our dependence on imported fossil fuels as quickly as possible.” Why? Well, Islam and the Arab world, where the bulk of the world’s oil reserves are located, have shown over the last 3 or 4 decades that they are no friends to the West, to its primarily Judaeo-Christian heritage, to its free-market economies, or to its over-riding belief in democracy. There is not the slightest sign of any of the major Middle Eastern oil exporters trying to change for the better (at least in our terms), so we are really left with no alternative but to beggar them by weaning ourselves off their only export. Any other strategy would be foolhardy, but do not think that “as quickly as possible” can be achieved in a few years. It will take decades, but gradually we will get there if we have the will, together with a sensible and balanced plan to replace imported hydrocarbons. That does not mean staking almost everything on wind power, for heaven’s sake, as the current imbeciles are doing.

    • Lola
      Posted February 6, 2010 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

      Generally agree, but…..

      Price will drive us to innovate alternatives. F'rinstance the UK has hundreds of years of coal. We are coal island luckily cut off from Europe. When the oil price is driven up by scarcity (unlikely for a looooong time) or politics and anarchy (very likely) we can set about making oil from that coal……or re-invent the steam care. Now, that. I'd like!

    • Ian Pennell
      Posted February 6, 2010 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

      FROM: Ian Pennell, ALSTON, Cumbria. CA9 3LQ

      Dear John Redwood

      I am not too sure how much you read the replies and comments on your excellent blog, Sir but I do think Steve Cox has a point about energy policy. You would do well to get a publication called "Oil Apocalypse" by a retired doctor called Vernon Coleman. This publication, which I was able to get off Amazon, gives a frightening insight into our possible future as the oil runs out. Most oil producing countries passed "Peak Oil" quite some time ago and annual production rates are in decline.

      Much has been made of the possible catastrophic consequences of Gordon Brown's debts should Britain be downgraded for its creditworthiness; a full-blown energy crisis caused by rapidly declining oil reserves around the world would be a calamity. Is Greg Clark, the Shadow Energy Minister, aware of this very serious matter that Labour seems to have swept under the carpet? The British Government should, instead of spending large sums on free nursery places for all two year olds, be paying about £10 billion a year for the construction of new nuclear power stations (and fast-tracking the planning stages) and also increasing Britain's storage capacity for oil and gas.

      We also need to expand the construction of offshore wind farms, hydroelectric and wave power plants on a large scale and quickly. If we don't act quickly in the next few years there will be power blackouts which will make those of the early 1970s look tame in comparision.

      Sir David Cameron needs to make this a much greater priority for funding than it has been under Labour. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions are important, but so too is guaranteeing our future energy security for the next 30 to 40 years. We really NEED to be spending about £10 billion on nuclear power stations and buying up Uranium to fuel them for the next 15 to 20 years. We also need to invest in the production of electric cars and buses and scientists also need to work on patenting electric aeroplanes; because nothing that needs petrol or diesel will work when there is no longer any oil!

      In the meantime, we have an election to win. How is the Conservative Leadership going on developing a stronger economic narrative with a strong Conservative USP for small businesses and the middle and lower classes. Any sign of some real meat in the form of tax cuts, with this and debt reductions to be funded by scrapping the £100 billion of waste identfied by the Taxpayers Alliance. We grassroots Conservatives await with bated breath…..!

      Ian Pennell

    • eddyh
      Posted February 6, 2010 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

      It's not true that we are dependant on Middle east oil supplies. We have 800 years worth of coal in this country which we are being prevented from using by the global warming lobby and the EUSSR.

      • BillyB
        Posted February 7, 2010 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

        I thought it was coz Maggie closed all our mines. ..

        • eddyh
          Posted February 8, 2010 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

          We could reopen them , preferably without benefit of Aurthur Scargill.

        • Stuart Fairney
          Posted February 9, 2010 at 9:40 am | Permalink

          Er.. the market closed the mines

  15. Chris Hammond
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

    I'm curious, do you know what the carbon footprint of having a child is, compared with a dog or gas-guzzler?

    • Lola
      Posted February 6, 2010 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

      I am not sure that it is the 'carbon footprint' that is in itself important. Surely it is the recyclability? I mean for example that although you can recycle a 'gas-guzzler' it is much easier to recycle dogs – they do it all the time in Korea, The Land of Chin and Vietnam, I understand. The problem then remains that although I like children, I couldn't eat a whole one.

  16. Kenneth Morton
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    I keep worms, year round, to consume my edible waste and to produce an end product that is particularly beneficial for my garden, greenhouse and pot plants.

    The worms never sleep. They just eat and procreate. In human society this life style would be looked down upon by caring worthies such as members of the Green Party.

    (On a different topic -ed) Perhaps they should now reassess the nation's underclass and decide whether is something beneficial about being a chav.
    The Greens obviously have a flair for discussing such topics which have replaced the proverbial angels dancing on pinheads in our modern conversations.

  17. Bill
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    Wouldn't vegan cats and dogs result in more methane – even worse than CO2?

  18. Demetrius
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    The past tells us that climate can and does change and within general climatic conditions weather patterns might shift and vary. It is a very complex set of interactions and difficult enough to work out what really did happen and how in the past. Now we are trying to second guess what the planet and the solar system might do in the immediate future. Of necessity disagreements and conflicts of opinion will occur. Those of us on volcano watch and other geophysical lurches will know that it could happen fast at any time. One interesting item this week was the melting of the Iceland glaciers as a result of any warming might release immense volcanic powers that will end in global cooling. Two for the price of one. I am not either taking or making bets.

  19. Mark
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    I have been reminded that the government advertised that a consequence of global warming in their opinion will be drowning puppies. Did they mean it was a benefit, or a disbenefit?

  20. Phil C
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    The Green spokesman's understandable sensitivity regarding the carbon pawprint of pets should be more widely exploited. The principle being that there are more important issues than carbon emissions. Such as future energy sources, the economy, population growth, agriculture. Lots could be done without inducing guilt and fear, especially should the science proves to be erroneous.

  21. A.Sedgwick
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    Sounds like a great idea for a board game – named of course – CARBON.

  22. TK
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    DON'T START MOVING THE GOALPOSTS.

    The "kill small furry animals to save the planet" meme is not new. There are some swivel-eyed maniacal greenies who would advocate just such a policy.

    Similarly, there is a conspiracy theory that posits that DDT, the only really effective anti-mosquito mass controller, was banned so that malaria would remain a serious killer in the tropics and thus keep the population.

    Realists are already all over this one – change the green agenda, focus to something more palatable than the now discredited AGW hysterics and allow that fool Cameron to save face and carry on doing his master's bidding.

    This means slavishly advocating EU policy and pacifying corrupt EU commissars I rather the cat is now out of the bag and the scams that result in gross and unfair taxation will be treated the same way as AGW. There are too many clever and educated people onto these schemes.

    The general population (no insult intended) are wising up to the scare stories and "keep them frightened" agenda of politicians and their bag carriers.

    Cameron would score a lot of Brownie points if he 'fessed up and admitted he was fooled along with so many others.

    GROW A PAIR.

  23. Anoneumouse
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

    Time to Eat the Dog?: I tackled this subject on my blog last October, I even produced a new logo for the Act on CO2 propagandists.

  24. Norman
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    It certainly gives a new slant to the recent reprehensible drowning puppy advert the government spent our money on!

  25. gac
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

    This carbon footprint garbage is the biggest con since Gordon Brown ended boom and bust.

    CO2 increase in the atmosphere is a consequence not a cause of climate change.

    This if course does not suit politicians (some) nor 'greens' who have to have some cause or other to vent their bodily gases on.

  26. Jane
    Posted February 6, 2010 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

    Love the hamster and wheel idea! Too funny.

    I don't believe we need to be deprived of the simple joys of owning a pet.

    Seriously, I think this is all mostly about basic common-sense ideas that we should be utilizing in our everyday lives like recycling, energy conservation and more of that nature.

  27. DiscoveredJoys
    Posted February 7, 2010 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

    Your blog has reminded me of one of my 'pet peeves' (pun intended but fortuitous).

    If I want to know the relative costs of particular activities or possessions there is no authoritative single place (that I know of) where I can access the information.

    Irrespective of the debate about global warming, I would like to be able to make informed choices about conserving resources.

    How does the 'resource cost' of a pet compare with turning the thermostat on the central heating down by 1 degree centigrade? Is it less costly in resources to go to London by car or coach or train for one person, for four, for 20?

    When does it become justifiable, in resource terms, for me to upgrade the technology of my computer, or washing machine, or car? Should I have an allotment? If so does the optimum size depend on whether or not I go organic?

    I know that there is no single measure of such things, but a single web site showing the energy cost of manufacture, the energy cost of recycling, and the energy cost of consumption per year (or event) would be a good start.

    If people want to add further data for carbon dioxide produced, or rare resources depleted, then fair enough. But at least I would have some idea about how my choices affect the planet, not some vague arm wavy stuff from a pressure group.

  28. Gordon the Clown
    Posted February 7, 2010 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    What about my goldfish? How much carbon does he emit? I use a bicycle so I can't drive less- does that mean my little fishy has to go?
    The warmists get more absurd with every announcement.

  29. Adrian Peirson
    Posted February 7, 2010 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

    This is about theft and control over our lives.

    We have absolutely no need to be dependant on foreign oil, we could grow our own in the form of Veg oil which I and many others regularly use in my deisel car.

    Richard Branson has just flight tested an aircraft engine using veg oil. the US military are turning to it.
    The Carbon it releases is only that which was absorbed during its growing season so it is a perpetual, self regenerating carbon neutral source of fuel which you could buy from your local farmer if we could break the monopoly of Big Govt and the Petrochemical Lobby.

    Veg Oil deisel http://tinyurl.com/yjelqow

  30. Adrian Peirson
    Posted February 7, 2010 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    In addition to this we are sitting on 300yrs worth of coal,
    even if Carbon were a problem, planting 500 Billion trees over the next 50 yrs would absorb well over 2 Trillion tons of the stuff.
    This captured carbon could be used as a perpetual source of building material,

    even fuel.

    Wood fired Power stations http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/03/

  31. Martin
    Posted February 8, 2010 at 1:43 am | Permalink

    In spite of what is to follow, I have to say that you, Mr Redwood, are the Tory politician I have in recent years respected the most. I always regarded the failure of the party to make you leader as nothing short of a national disaster. Many who write here probably agree, especially in the light of what has followed on after that.

    However I am now beginning to wonder if you have taken leave of your senses, as the Tory front bench clearly did some time ago (if they ever had any).

    The wheels are coming off the global warming hysteria/religion/scam in the biggest possible way, as almost every day new revelations of the depth and scope of the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the public come out, not just in the blogosphere as in the past, but in the MSM. That fraud will cost the public dearly and they, we, know it. A Times poll a few weeks back showed a majority of Tory voters saw through the AGW lie. That poll was taken before the criminal skullduggery at the CRU was uncovered!

    Tory front bench has already reneged on the EU referendum and spending cuts, and now have taken the palpably lunatic step of co-opting Stern, whose report was an absolute disgrace, as I am sure you of all people must be very well aware.

    We have had thirteen years of the most indescribably mad governance that the country has ever experienced even from Labour, and yet there is every chance the Tories will lose the next election, such is their determination to ape Labour at every turn.

    At this critical point in time you're pretending to jump on the doomed greeny bandwagon and blather on about carbon paw-prints. I'd like to say you should be ashamed of yourself, but then I have to remind myself that you are the only Tory who had the courage to stand against the idiot Major, so I won't, out of respect.

    I don't want to see this rotten crew putting the finishing touches to their project of turning Britain into a totalitarian hell-hole, but on current Tory front bench showing we all haven't any hope whatsoever of avoiding that grisly fate, if you taken into account the well known biases in the electoral system that decisively favour Labour.

    Reply: Why don't you try reading it again to get my real message? I think you have misunderstood it.

    • Martin
      Posted February 8, 2010 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

      Thank you for your comment. Like many people I'm desperate that the madness that has destroyed our land (hardly even a country any more) should not be allowed to continue to its inevitable conclusion. For that to happen the Tories need, not to copy Labour, but to oppose, and to give the lie to every single lunacy that has been forced on us. As I have said, Labour has a huge electoral advantage, so competing for the Labour vote isn't going to win the election – when it comes to idiocy Labour can always beat the Tories hands down, so they will always prevail in a contest on that basis.

      I can think of barely a single measure passed in the last thirteen benighted years that shouldn't be repealed immediately, yet there is not the slightest prospect of this front bench repealing a single one. At the moment the Tories give the impression they are doing everything in their power to alienate their own supporters.

      Time is running out. As I said above, on current showing this land is heading towards a catastrophe, unless the Tories change their tune NOW.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page