Rio +20: the world recoils from more global government

 

         Thank heavens for global warming say some who have organised summer events this year in the UK. Just imagine how cold it could have been without global warming.

          Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atantic at Rio the nation states assembled agreed to disagree. In “The Future We Want”, the “outcome document” for the summit there was much exhortation but little by way of new targets and firm global pledges.  The words urge governments to  develop the green economy, to promote corporate sustainability reporting, to go “beyond GDP to assess the wellbeing of a country” and to tackle “sustainable consumption and production”.

         As the Eurozone economy teeters dangerously, with more threats to the EU banking system identified by its regulators, Rio took second place in the minds of many in both the media and governments.

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

100 Comments

  1. lifelogic
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 6:43 am | Permalink

    Most of the world in indeed desperate for less government. Alas the tumour is now so large and democracy often so weak that the voters can do little to ever achieve it. The green economy is clearly a net job destroyer and an excuse for more government, more tax and more jobs for parasites.

    It is very funny listening to Miliband now as he pledges immigration curbs after Labour’s deliberate policy of the last few years, and what is his suggestion – if a company has more than 25% they have to contact the job centre. That will certainly do it Ed well done.

    The global warming scare scam is in its death throws – the loons will have to invent a new one perhaps a new ice age or a new bird flu?

    He has even less chance of anyone believing him on this, at the next election, than Cameron has on the EU issue.

    • backofanenvelope
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 10:11 am | Permalink

      There is a mint of hypocrisy around in discussion of immigration. Miliband talks of EU immigrants when most of us want to talk about the (numerous-ed) Pakistanis and Somalis they have (come here to live-ed). When I was a teenager my class at college had Polish girls from a nearby dp camp; they fitted in fine, except they would talk about boys in Polish!

      • Martyn
        Posted June 23, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

        It was mentioned on the news yesterday that the EU immigrant intake is around 20% of the total, the rest being economic or other type of immigrant. Nothing is said by anyone in government that I am aware of about the inbalance between those of the EU entitled to enter and those from outside the EU who are not necessarily entitled. Other than of course complaining that under EU Human Rights we cannot deport thugs and criminals of any background no matter how horrible or threatening to our citizens and way of life they may be.

        Oh well, with a schoolboy type of government I suppose we can expect nothing less….

      • Bazman
        Posted June 23, 2012 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

        It’s the EU immigrants that have been the game changer. Often young fleet footed intelligent and in many cases more desperate people doing menial work or undercutting the rate for more skilled work. The dead heads like in Britain stay at home. It is not real to expect a 50 year old family man or a local teenager to compete with them as they take local jobs from them and add to business profits for a few. Stopping them from coming here is also not real and could be detrimental to the country as it cannot be argued that fit dynamic young peole are a bad thing. A real problem they are everywhere as you can see in any town centre. I have even got one living in my house. My wife. Who unless you can speak/write Russian and German to business standard in this area, has not took your job.

        • Electro-Kevin
          Posted June 24, 2012 at 12:01 am | Permalink

          I don’t expect that the Tories are any different to Ed Miliband on this subject – that is to say that they don’t really care about it either.

          Bazman – may we agree on something here ? That Left wing educational and family policies have been so disasterous as to warrant the immigration of ‘fleet footed and intelligent’ people ?

          Otherwise what you’re saying is that our people were never any good.

          Anyway. Your argument fails to address two things:

          – if mass immigration is for the good of our people then why are so many dangerous criminals let in ?

          – why were the people never consulted about it ?

          We seem to be getting, on the whole, the policies you seem to like (this being a fringe blog, I’d say.) We shall get to see precisely how they turn out.

          • Bazman
            Posted June 24, 2012 at 9:16 am | Permalink

            The main political parties agreed on the fact that immigration was a good thing and the mainly working class population who would be in competition with them could ram it.
            Crime levels have dropped in some areas of eastern Europe due to the fact that they have headed west. You could not have stopped many of the eastern Europeans from coming here anyway, they are young smart people who want a better life and no government will ever stop them. As my wife jokes ……

          • Electro-Kevin
            Posted June 24, 2012 at 10:52 am | Permalink

            Reply to Bazman – We could not have stopped Eastern Europeans ?

            Well we did before. What changed then ?

            They are smart ?

            Not as smart as we were. What changed then ?

            You seem to confirm my belief that there is not much point in the working class voting for main stream parties.

          • APL
            Posted June 24, 2012 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

            Bazman: “.. and no government will ever stop them. As my wife jokes ……”

            Except the lousy government they are fleeing. And it must be bad there if they think it better in the UK!

            Or the welfare benefits are better here.
            Or they are working in the black economy.
            …….

    • Tad Davison
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 10:31 am | Permalink

      Peter Hitchens summed it up pretty well on BBC 2’s Daily Politics Show when he said, Miliband wanted people he hated to vote Labour. In other words, it’s a cynical con, and that is conclusively proven by how little Labour intends to do to put it right were they returned to power.

      My own view is Labour’s open doors policy was just a ploy to increase their ‘client state’. Study the demography, and it’s pretty clear that Labour get most of their support from areas with a high immigrant population.

      Yet Labour are not on their own in their use these dubious methods. To then not undo Labour’s damage, and reverse the policy, makes the present government just as culpable, but for different reasons. For them, it isn’t that they might benefit from immigration from the point of view of votes, but their reluctance to reverse the policy shows they aren’t prepared to stand up to the EU. By extension, they secretly want more of it, whilst telling everybody they are really Euro-sceptic. Now that REALLY IS duplicitous!

      A senior local Tory MP, Shailesh Vara, gave an interview on local radio yesterday, from the very place where Ed Moribund gave his address. I was quick to e-mail him, and sent a copy of the e-mail to the immigration minister, Damian Green. I don’t usually do this, but the e-mail is pasted below. Proof that I am pro-active, and I urge everyone else to do likewise.

      Tad Davison

      Cambridge

      Dear Mr Vara,

      I share your view that Labour need to apologise for their disastrous record on  immigration, allowing so many EU migrants into Britain with their ridiculous ‘open doors’ policy, but I don’t share your view that we can’t now do anything about it.  

      It depends on something called ‘guts’.

      I regard myself as a natural Conservative, and have voted that way all my life, but the complexion of the present government is far from true-blue, more a pale-pink.  They are hopeless, and should in fact be saying all the things UKIP are presently saying.  Indeed, they should make UKIP policy, the nucleus of Conservative party policy, or risk losing much of it’s traditional support to the former.

      I, or indeed any one of millions of other people,  could sort out the problem of EU migration.  First, we must withdraw from the EU and revert back to the only position the British people ever voted for.  A member of a free-trade area, and no more.

      Once out, we could then close the doors, and give those already here, a short amnesty to sort out their affairs before repatriation.  Nothing could be simpler, or more beneficial to Britain’s best interest.   But it takes guts.  Mr Cameron it seems, is waiting for the implementation of a raft of changes already in the pipeline, so he can thereafter, absolve himself of any responsibility, much the same as you did earlier on Chris Mann’s News Hour on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire.

      We quite evidently need the strong leadership of a Churchill, but instead, we get a lily-livered, toffee-nosed (version-ed) of a Chamberlain.

      Out of touch isn’t the word!

      Regards

      Tad Davison

      Cambridge

      Sent from my iPod

      • Tad Davison
        Posted June 23, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

        Where the above returns to topic, is the unsustainability of Labour’s policy of ‘packing’em all in regardless’.

        I once read the optimum level of population for modern Britain is 40 million. The physical size of the country isn’t getting any bigger, so more people must inevitably have a detrimental effect upon it’s resources and infrastructure. I could think of a whole swathe of people we could do without! (I could do without-ed) a lot of criminals for instance.

        Tad Davison

        Cambridge

        • APL
          Posted June 24, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

          Tad Davison: “Where the above returns to topic, is the unsustainability of Labour’s policy of ‘packing’em all in regardless’.”

          1. It is now the policy of the political class.

          2. The strain is showing on the infrastructure, traffic jams, overcrowding in our cities, water rationing, (next fuel rationing).

          Largely because the infrastructure was built with a much lower rate of population growth factored in.

    • zorro
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 11:13 am | Permalink

      I guess that they will stoke up a bit of bird flu to keep the masses worried. I read something the other day alleging that it might be making a comeback….

      Zorro

    • lifelogic
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

      There is an excellent (rather long) letter to the Bishop of Exeter on the subject of his foiled plan to plonk half a dozen bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes on church land in three pretty North Devon villages. On Delingpole’s blog and also on Rio today.

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/

      The usual BBC big state bias is seen in full flow over the morality of tax avoidance at the moment (they take is as a given, that paying more tax is moral). What on earth is moral about giving taxes to a government who just waste most of it (or worse use it to inconvenience the productive) when you can clearly use it better yourself.
      Especially if you are already paying about 20 times more than the average.

      Perhaps we can find out how much the BBC pays to personal service or production companies to save on PAYE for its “employees”.

  2. Andrew Henley
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    If genuine action is taken towards sustainable global development this could be a significant milestone. The fact it simply acknowledges things that have been widely known for 40/50yrs is tragic.

    Good growth has been sacrificed on a global scale in order to preserve the interests of short sighted profiteers. Through lobbyists being allowed to attend global summits and a lack of governmental accountability, we have been led down an unmanageable path.

    How can any government justify taking out debts (bonds) that don’t mature for 50 yrs? Effectively mortgaging unborn children and grandchildren. If these bonds are still being issued, surely they should only be spent on sustainable growth measures and infrastructure so as not be burdens to future generations?

    • lifelogic
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 9:18 am | Permalink

      “spent on sustainable growth measures and infrastructure” about as much chance of that, with this government, as there is of cast rubber Cameron taking any powers back from the EU or granting a referendum.

      Their ideas of sustainable growth measures and infrastructure investments are the Olympics, HS2, silly tram systems or littering the countryside with bat&bird killing & hugely uneconomic wind farms.

      • Andrew Henley
        Posted June 23, 2012 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

        Unfortunately true. Cameron is sold to special interest as opposed to national interest. He has no interest in referenda unless he is confident of the result he wants.

  3. Mike Stallard
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 7:52 am | Permalink

    “Your comrades chase e’en now the flyers and, but for, you possess the field.”

    Sir Arthur Hugh Clough’s words echo down the ages…..
    The Global Goblins are all but defeated.

  4. Bazman
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    Here’s an interesting piece. Is in fact all over the net. Who would be for this? Many I suspect.

    http://www.activistpost.com/2012/06/un-wants-complete-control-over-internet.html

    • Tad Davison
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

      Bazman,

      Thanks for the link. I think it’s dangerous and have fought against it. The internet revolution has given the people better access to information than ever before, and that will never do!

      As such, it threatens to take the power away from the controlling elite. That’s why China is so opposed to it, and could be the reason the Conservative Home Secretary, Teresa May wants to do a big U-turn and spend £1.8 billion at a time of austerity, on a snooping project which they said they were fundamentally opposed to. The last thing they want, is anyone to scupper their plans for a federal Europe!

      Tad

      • lifelogic
        Posted June 23, 2012 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

        Indeed.

    • uanime5
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

      Given that the Internet (well the servers that host the Internet) are property of the USA don’t expect them to become the property of the UN without US approval.

  5. oldtimer
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    Well that is a mercy. I was fearful that more governmentium was about to be inflicted upon us all. Governmentium was defined by Anon some time ago as follows:
    “Governmentium:

    To heck with copper or moly or niobium or germanium or gallium or arsenic,………….lets get some Governmentium.

    New research has led to the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

    These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 5 years; It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

    This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical level of concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.”

    • forthurst
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

      “Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert”

      “no free electrons” which would also be a pun, as well as exemplifing credible covalency, possibly?

      • Mark
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

        Forbidden bands in semiconductors also has a resonance, not to mention the strange case of the J/ψ with charm and obnoxiousness (anti-charm), but lacking truth or beauty: up, up, up and down, down, down but in the end it’s only round and round. Immigration as a topic is covered by the Pauli exclusion principle, while there is more than Heisenberg uncertainty about the budget deficit. The Westminster Hall effect on Berconium is large enough to cause a jump in spin quanta as predicted by the Clegg-Gordon numbers, whilst putting his wife in Jordan normal form (though there is nothing canonical about that). Too much politics is on the Heaviside layer.

  6. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    JR: “Rio +20: the world recoils from more global government”
    Perhaps they decided that first they need to have achieved European government via initially the eurozone and then the whole of the EU. By the “world” we are of course talking about politicians and bureaucrats who think they know best; what the people of the world really want is of no interest nor concern to them.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

      Amen to that! My first impression of most politicians, is how unimpressive they are. Yet despite not being able to hold their ground when challenged on their own views and values, they still think they know best. That shows amazing, if not reckless arrogance.

      Tad

  7. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    Ah, yes, the Euro zone. Apparently, Germany’s constitution forbids it to give €500 billion to the ESM, but the EU has a court (presumably created by the Lisbon ‘Treaty’) that can overrule the German constitutional court. Light blue touch paper and retire.

    Other news comes from Italy, hard on the heels of the summit of four. Angela Merkel said ‘Nein’ as usual. Silvio Berlusconi’s response was to say that it wouldn’t be the end of the world for Italy to leave the Euro zone and reinstate the lira. Truly, we live in interesting times.

    • uanime5
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

      It wouldn’t be the end of the world if Italy went bankrupted then was beset by floods and earthquakes. However it would be very bad for Italy.

      • Lindsay McDougall
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 11:05 am | Permalink

        No, it wouldn’t. Their currency would simply float and fairly soon their balance of payments would improve, generating a little economic growth. It would help both them and the rest of us. The same goes for Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece.

        Benchmark – when the UK left the ERM on WHITE Wednesday.

        Your idiotic attempt to create Fear Uncertainly and Doubt – (reference to a company and a past issue left out) – cuts no ice with me, nor with any of the other bloggers on this site.

      • APL
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

        uanime5: “However it would be very bad for Italy.”

        There is no way to escape ‘very bad’ for all of us!

        But we should take the time to identify the correct root cause of the disaster.

  8. Atlas
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    Perhaps if the Global Warming debate was being studied by people from heavy-weight sciences such as Physicists and not light-weight/vapour-weight Environmentalists then we would get somewhere…

    • uanime5
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

      Global warming is being studied by a variety of scientists, the vast majority of whom agree that it is real.

      • oldtimer
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 8:27 am | Permalink

        The real issue, as presumably you know, is not warming per se or climate change per se but the validity or otherwise of CAGW. The CAGW hypothesis was ruthlessly exploited to inflict the Climate Change Act on this country. I seem to recall that those of us who questioned the CAGW hypothesis were dismissed by no less a person than the PM of the day, Mr Gordon Brown, as “flat earthers”. Can we expect an apology from Mr Brown, or his successor as leader of the Labour party, Mr Miliband, now he is in an apologetic mood?

        • uanime5
          Posted June 24, 2012 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

          Did you have any real scientific evidence to support your argument? If not then that’s why you were treated as a flat earther. You shouldn’t expect the PM to side with you when the scientists have studies to prove their hypothesis while you have nothing to prove yours.

          • Sebastian Weetabix
            Posted June 25, 2012 at 9:07 am | Permalink

            What study proves the CAGW hypothesis? Where is the evidence of humans causing the recent warming rather than natural cycles? References please.

      • lifelogic
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 9:18 am | Permalink

        The vast majority of whom (the sensible ones anyway) agree that:

        c02 is one of very many factors that affect the weather
        It is impossible to predict the climate reliably long term as the system is far too chaotic and complex.
        The warming caused by c02 might well be positive anyway or just counteract other cooling effects.
        Any money available would be far better spent on clean water, basic nutrition and medical care where we know it would good very quickly.

        Can anyone sensible disagree with these?

        • APL
          Posted June 24, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

          lifelogic: “It is impossible to predict the climate reliably long term as the system is far too chaotic and complex.”

          Not least because the AGW brigade must as the foundation of their theory ignore a number of external influences on this planets atmospherics.

        • uanime5
          Posted June 24, 2012 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

          1) How exactly does CO2 effect the weather? Did you mean effect the climate, which is very different from the weather?

          2) Just because you don’t understand what the climate is or how it’s determined doesn’t mean it’s too complex for someone more intelligent to understand it.

          3) There’s no evidence that warming is good for the planet, especially for countries on the equator which are suffering most because of the rise in temperature.

          4) Clean water, basic nutrition, and medical care are all useless if you turn the land into a giant desert.

          • APL
            Posted June 25, 2012 at 9:08 am | Permalink

            Uanime5: “1”

            It doesn’t. Or more precisely the influence of CO2 is insignificant compared to the influence of, for example, H2O.

            Uanime5: “2”

            That blade cuts both ways. But in any case, the AGM loonies specifically exclude external influences on Earths atmospheric mechanics. They are wrong to do so.
            Being intelligent is not the same as being correct.

            Uanime5: “5”

            The contrary position is valid too.

            Cooling is very bad for the planet, as you can see if you take a look at Antarctica. Barely anything lives there.

            Uanime5: “4”

            Simply wrong.

            Clean water is even more important if you are living in a desert.
            But with clean water you are not obliged to live in a desert, as Israel has demonstrated.

          • Sebastian Weetabix
            Posted June 25, 2012 at 9:15 am | Permalink

            Ref your point 2: if you were familiar with the complexities of fluid flow modelling and the work of Edward Lorenz (see his work “Deterministic non-periodic Flow”) you would know that the climate cannot be accurately modelled over the long term which is why the met office’s long term forecasts (q.v. Barbecue summer etc) are crud. Yet you believe they can tell us with absolute certainty what the prevailing climate will be in a hundred years time.

            For all your chit chat about science, you strike me as an arts graduate.

          • Mactheknife
            Posted June 25, 2012 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

            Uanime5:

            After your comments on AGW on a previous thread where you showed your complete ignorance of science, I’d stop making rather stupid points. Liebour HQ will not be pleased with your efforts.

        • Bazman
          Posted June 25, 2012 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

          The consensus of science is that global warming is real. If you agree with this or not is up to you, but looking at some of the crackpot websites you see as reliable sources of information I would say you have already made up your mind. Many are religious and energy industry funded. Would you say that these people can have no bias? Do you take creationists seriously?

          • lifelogic
            Posted June 26, 2012 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

            Climate is average weather so the same thing over a longer time period.

            The consensus of science is that global warming caused by c02 is not significant in the overall scheme of things.

            Anyway consensus is about politics not science.

      • Richard
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

        Unanime5,
        Your statement reminds me of another:-

        “There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted”

        (Schopenhauer, Die Kunst Recht zu Behalten)

        • lifelogic
          Posted June 26, 2012 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

          generally adopted and profitable to them personally

          • Bazman
            Posted June 27, 2012 at 5:49 am | Permalink

            Like your crackpot websites and beliefs of the bias of the court system?

  9. David John Wilson
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    ” Thank heavens for global warming say some who have organised summer events this year in the UK”

    In particular those who organised the festival in the Isle of Wight.

    The effect of global warming on the jet stream is becoming an increasing problem for the British Isles. It is time that people who have no understanding of the science involved stopped knocking it by using evidence that is actually the current weather rather than anything to do with the real problem.

    • matthu
      Posted June 24, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

      And we definitiely know that the behaviour of the jet stream this time around has been caused by global warming, do we?

      Would that be because we have never experienced similar weather before?

      My tosh meter is spinning wildly.

    • Richard
      Posted June 24, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

      The real problem… for me is those who once stated the problem was rapidly increasing temperatures and sea level rises of 20 feet who now have moved to change the title of their belief systen to “climate change” from global warming when statistics dont bear out their dire predictions.

  10. Neil Craig
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    The BBC’s reporting once again avoided any attempt to report news rather than propaganda. Their headfine was that “activists devounce” the non-results. Only what the “activists” say gets reported though a far greater number of people welcome not being returned to the dark ages. Also the term “activist is entirely dishonest since it requires such people to be politicallt driven rather than merelt government flacks tet we know that the overwhelming majority of funding vome from government simply to propagandise this fraud. 70% of the money for 9 out of thec top 10 “environmental” charities comes from the EU and presumably 90% of the rest from our government. I doubt if more than a dozen of the 60,000 people going to Rio are not on the taxpayer’s money I have yet to find a “green” activist anywhere who does not get paid by the state.

    Of course the BBC would only cease censoring such things if they evet became somethying other than (adjectives left out-ed) propagandists willing to tell any lie and censor any fact in the interests of our corporate state – so no signs of that..

    • Tad Davison
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

      I agree Neil, but don’t let it rest there. We can’t change anything unless we take it on by complaining about it.

      Tad

  11. Richard
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Even amongst the summiteers there is now a noticeable cooling of the enthusiasm for further expensive action to try to stop global warming.
    Part of this is due to the poor state of the economies of the nations involved, and part due to growing levels of scepticism by their voters.
    Im not surprised at this growing scepticism. We have seen reduced warming from the turn of the century which the computer models were stating would not happen , (they were prediction expoential increases) and little sign of the huge sea level rises predicted by Mr Gore and his supporters.
    When soothsayers state the end of the world is nigh and these dates pass without trouble, scepticism will rise.
    Massaging statistics by the advocates of global warming has also led to a rise in scepticism and a common one used is the regularly made claim, in the absence of any recorded 21st century global warming, that “eleven of the last twelve years have been the warmest on record”.
    It is rather as if the world’s population had stopped rising and then all the demographers could then say that in the last 12 years 11 of them had the highest levels of population ever recorded.

  12. waramess
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Thank god for disagreement on GW and on the Euro. Maybe we can proceed with no more windmills and a Euro with proper governance.

    GW was a scam and so are the demands made for more money by the Europeans. Maybe the Germans have indeed had more than theiir fair share of prosperity but now is the time to cease the bleating and get on with the job of a recovery.

    A Greek default would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons but it might also lead to a more sustainable debt profile being proposed and a clear debt reduction profile being imposed by it’s new creditors in reespect of the old debt.

    We should remember that this whole collapse in the Euro was caused through the unserviceable debt permitted by the sovereign states’ creditors. Nothing else.

    Maybe we should also remember that the Euro, properly managed, is no more than the equivalent of the gold standard. No need for economies to converge in order for it to be workable, just well managed governance.

  13. NickW
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    My BBC DVD of the great barrier reef reminds us that 10,000 years ago the barrier reef was dry land because a much greater volume of ocean than now was locked up in the polar icecaps. (You have to listen hard). The ice age ended, the oceans rose, and the climate warmed considerably; 10,000 years ago without any assistance from mankind’s CO2 emissions.

    Der Speigel informs us that the “vanishing” South Pacific islands are not, on the whole, the victims of a rising sea level, but a falling land mass. The islands are over the meeting of two tectonic plates and are slowly being carried downwards as one plate folds below another.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/south-pacific-islands-threatened-by-more-than-just-rising-sea-levels-a-838675.html

    Nobody would argue that the climate is changing; we know it changed in the past without the influence of the human race. We need to concentrate on adaptation to the changes, not on a futile and ignorant effort to change a process which is completely beyond our control, at a cost which will ruin us.

    • uanime5
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

      The best way to adapt to climate change is to stop accelerating it.

      • lifelogic
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 9:19 am | Permalink

        Nonsense.

      • Electro-Kevin
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 10:56 am | Permalink

        What temperature would you like the planet to be, Bazman ?

        Can we at least settle on a figure so we can aim for consensus ?

        • Bazman
          Posted June 25, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

          Serious scientific consensus says that man made emissions are increasing climate change bringing more extreme weather conditions including cooling. Many of the sources cited by the contributors to this site have been debunked many times and often the websites and sources are crackpot right wing funded or from scientist widely regarded by respected scientists to be wrong. I am reading James Delingpole blogs and if you take this man seriously and other like him on anything then you are not to be taken seriously yourself.

      • Epigenes
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

        Utter garbage.

  14. Barbara
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 2:22 pm | Permalink
  15. Sue
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    The UN is one of the most corrupt shady organisations on this planet. They are the instigators of the One World Government and the whole Climate Scam.

    From 2009 “United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has again publicly admitted that the agenda behind the Copenhagen summit and the climate change fraud is the imposition of a global government and the end of national sovereignty”. Peter Sutherland’s disgraceful, undemocratic rhetoric last week confirmed again their Agenda 21 plans.

    “Former FG Attorney General, EU Commissioner, and Chairman of Goldman Sachs International, Peter Sutherland, in his role as UN special representative for migration has told the British parliament that the EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, stating that ‘the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural”.

    The only thing these people are going to achieve is the rise of very far right parties and a feeling of patriotism amongst indigenous peoples’. It will cause bad feeling and a massive failure in multiculturalism as people strive to assert their nationalism and democratic rights. We will fight them, you can be assured of that, even if you politicians can’t be bothered to.

    • uanime5
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

      Where are you quoting this nonsense from?

      • Barbara
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 9:48 am | Permalink
        • Anon
          Posted June 24, 2012 at 10:57 am | Permalink

          Touche’

        • uanime5
          Posted June 24, 2012 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

          Firstly you only provided a citation for the second quote, not the first one. I suspect this is because you don’t have any evidence that Ban Ki-moon declared climate change was a fraud.

          Secondly it’s bad form to quote where you read something instead of who was saying it. As these quotes are from Peter Sutherland, the non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, pretending they’re from the BBC or the EU just shows how fraudulent your argument is.

          Also Peter Sutherland is a former European Commissioner (1985–1989), the current Commission representing the UK is Catherine Ashton.

          • zorro
            Posted June 25, 2012 at 8:45 am | Permalink

            Try this for size on Sue’s first point……. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/16/world/la-fg-climate-ban16-2009dec16

            I have no idea what your problem is with the Sutherland quote….

            Zorro

          • Sue
            Posted June 25, 2012 at 9:01 am | Permalink

            You have to be a Liberal Democrat. This isn’t an academic paper, just a comment. Look up the quotes, they’re all on the internet. The UN is one of the most, if not the most corrupt organisations in the world.

          • Sebastian Weetabix
            Posted June 25, 2012 at 9:18 am | Permalink

            Peter Sutherland is an Irishman. He never represented the UK

      • zorro
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

        Pay attention uanime5, I quoted this on the blog the other day!

        zorro

  16. forthurst
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    “to go “beyond GDP to assess the wellbeing of a country””

    Oh dear, does this mean that politicians will no longer be able extol the wonders of unrestricted immigration despite the consequences of more taxes, more dependency, more poverty, more crime, more social alienation, more overcrowding, more resource shortages, so long as it achieves an increase in the magic GDP number?

    GDP is a useful measure for countries like China advancing from an agrarian Bolshevik-schooled terror state to a modern economy; however, its use for already industrialised nations (or ‘post’ industrial, therefore declining nations like GB) is limited. It is also misleading: sixty years ago, a TV or a car was relatively very expensive and very limited in its facilities compared with today, not because they were overpriced, but because technological advances in design and manufacturing yet to be developed meant that more man hours were required to produce a relatively inferior product. The same principle applies in the facilities available in modernised housing or retail distribution etc etc. GDP is not a measure of quality of living or anything like it; the only reasons that politicians want it to increase is in order to tax us more and spend more on things we do not want and did not ask for like donations to the EU and the third world, wars in the ME, meddlesome bureaucrats to constrain our lives, bribing those from the third world to come and subsist in our best houses at our expense and vote Labour etc.

    Have I become greenie?

    • uanime5
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

      GDP per capita is more useful than just GDP because it takes into account the different population sizes.

  17. merlin
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    The actual warming of planet earth is perfectly normal and goes in cycles and has not changed as a result of anthropogenic global warming. We are now actually in for 30 years of global cooling. The whole green movement is based on unproven science and it is astonoshing that no government seems to question this nonsense. Just recently a bunch of eco -loons have chained themselves to fracking equipment in derbyshire. Shale gas is one of the best hopes we have of reducing the price of natural gas and would benefit this country tremendously, it is perfectly safe. The price of natural gas in the USA has plummeted as a result of shale gas, take note

    • uanime5
      Posted June 23, 2012 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

      Actually for the past 30 years the average temperature has continued to rise. The strong scientific evidence for global warming is why most Government accept it as a fact.

      Fracking isn’t safe as it has resulted in water supplies in the US being contaminated with gas and toxic chemicals.

      • Lindsay McDougall
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 11:12 am | Permalink

        Evidence? List your sources. Let us see the source material of the research. Let us see ALL of the statistcs and not just hear the rhetoric of a bunch of self-serving pseuds. You are as aware as I am that some of the climate change researchers deliberately falsified the evidence so that they could protect their livelihoods.

      • APL
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

        uanime5: “Fracking has resulted in water supplies in the US being contaminated with gas and toxic chemicals.”

        No it hasn’t.

        Even if the water had been contaminated with gas (think about that for one second) and toxic chemicals, the whole water purification process that we pay an arm and a leg for means that;

        1. We don’t drink the ground water without it going through the purification process.

        2. If the water coming out of the tap is contaminated with chemicals and gas, then there must be something very, very wrong with the water boards purification processes.

        3. The vast majority of domestic consumers in the UK take water from the water authorities who are required by law to provide clean drinkable water to their customers.

        Can we now lay that old ‘gas and chemicals in the water supply’ canard to rest once and for all?

      • Epigenes
        Posted June 24, 2012 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

        unime, why do you repeatedly post lies and disinformation? You are either gullible or a propagandist.

        Your puerile posts are tiresome nonsense.

      • Mactheknife
        Posted June 25, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

        Wrong and wrong again…..when will you stop showing your ignorance ?

    • Electro-Kevin
      Posted June 24, 2012 at 12:29 am | Permalink

      Merlin – If dinosaurs can cause a mass extinction event by farting then I’m pretty sure that shale gas is isn’t going to be healthy for the environment either.

      Alas there is no choice but to go for it if we are to remain a first world economy, for what time remains anyway.

  18. BigJohn
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    Can we now repeal the Climate Change Act, stop all this green subsidies nonsense, and stop govenment funding these lobby organisations with taxpayers money.

    Can we then start prosecuting everybody who was involved in this scam, and get some of our money back using the Proceeds of Crime Act.

    • APL
      Posted June 24, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

      BigJohn: “Can we now repeal the Climate Change Act, stop all this green subsidies nonsense, ”

      John Redwood is in a minority in his party, which voted by a majority for the climate change bill.

  19. Martyn
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    I see that some German press (e.g. thelocal.de) is reporting comments such as “The recent surge in uncertainty in the eurozone is impacting the German economy,” said Ifo president Hans-Werner Sinn. And capital economics economist Jonathan Loynes said that, coming after the steep drop in the ZEW investor confidence survey earlier this week, the Ifo data “reinforce the message… that the eurozone’s growth engine has stalled.” In short, it was “another blow to hopes that strong growth and higher inflation in Germany would help to solve the eurozone crisis,” the analyst concluded.

    I wonder if this might have coloured their politicians and advisers thinking at the G20? Maybe to the extent that they think it is not such a good idea to chuck huge sums of money at saving the world from overheating and eventual melt-down. The botton line being, of course, that if and when that happens they will all be dead anyway, so let’s all keep schtumm until after the next election….

  20. Pete the Bike
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    All true, so why is the coalition pressing ahead with green taxes when they are clearly ridiculous and extremely damaging to the economy? Could it be just another rip off for the taxpayer and a back door subsidy to their friends in big business?

    • lifelogic
      Posted June 24, 2012 at 9:22 am | Permalink

      Because they want the money and this is the ruse to justify them.

  21. uanime5
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    Going beyond GDP to assess the well being of a country is a good idea as there are far more important indicators; such as literacy levels, infant mortality, life expectancy, access to electricity and water, etc.

    • Sebastian Weetabix
      Posted June 26, 2012 at 7:58 am | Permalink

      Hmm. Low GDP countries tend to have low life expectancy, high infant mortality, low literacy, etc. It’s a consequence of not having any money.

  22. david englehart
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

    thank you for the first paragraph.
    i beleive in humour taking the heat out of life and i was a bit down as my wife was in london for the day and i always miss her.
    i had a good laugh at your opening paragraph.
    recently on question time alan cummings launched into a humourless rant against melanie phillips and the daily mail in particular when melanie put her views on global warming forward.
    it was similar to the sort of hectoring and bully boy tactics one associates with labour.
    another example was a disgraceful personal attack on michael hitchens ,who was well able to look after himself,by the labour shadow attorney general on a subsequent question time.

    • stred
      Posted June 25, 2012 at 9:45 am | Permalink

      I saw the attack on P.Hitchens by the labour shadow minister- pure class warrior stuff from a single parent household with a giant grudge. She reminded me of someone from the past, then I realised that she resembled the late Mrs G. Dunwoody, the socialist battleaxe MP for Exeter. When about 17, I went to an election meeting there and one of the Liberals near me asked a question, calling her Mrs Dimwiddy. I had brought an umbrella, as it was raining. She ignored the question and called our section of the meeting ‘the rolled umbrella brigade’. The large majority of supporters turned and snarled at us like a pack of dogs.

      It really is scary to think this new inverted class warrior may well be in charge of our legal system in a few years time.

  23. Mactheknife
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    The eco-loons will not stop here. Despite the fact that the green religion of global warming is dying as the evidence is shown to be no more than outputs from computer models, which having now had the time to record empirical evidence, these models are shown to be wildly inaccurate. The green movement see AGW as a way to achieve their own aims and we see the move away from talk of “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” as the science becomes more spurious and disputed. We now hear talk of “climate disruption” as the science weakens further, and other green causes being brought in such as “sustainability” or “biodiversity” to bolster their diminishing case.

    There is also the issue of scientists who see climate research as a financial gravy train and the life blood of their institutions. Governments and the UN spend hundreds of millions on grants, so its little wonder some scientists lose their scientific principles. If you are not concerned about this then think again as these people are at the centre of the IPCC and are driving government policies.

    Rio amounted to nothing because the world faces bigger and more immediate challenges, but also because the AGW shills are being found out and their illusion fading. Sadly our own government are yet again behind the curve and are sticking with the AGW scam policies.

    • uanime5
      Posted June 24, 2012 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

      Global warming is one part of climate change. Do try to keep up.

      • Mactheknife
        Posted June 25, 2012 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

        Oh dear….. yet more ignorance from our resident troll. Please eductate yourself before commenting on a subject you have only read about in the Guardian.

  24. Electro-Kevin
    Posted June 24, 2012 at 12:22 am | Permalink

    The whole fiat system is base on credit – credit is based on growth.

    Growth and environmentalism are irreconcilable but we talk as though we can have both.

    The whole thing is schizophrenic – as is manifest in the hypocritical behaviours of princes, presidents and pop stars alike.

  25. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted June 24, 2012 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    It’s a point that has been made before but it bears repetition.

    How much jet engine fuel was consumed?
    How many unnecessary limo miles were generated?
    How much wasted food was thrown away by their 5-star hotels?
    How many trees were felled to provide paper for their memoranda and communiques?
    (I could go on)
    ……………. in order to achieve precisely nothing.

    I think that for the next few years a series of bi-lateral video conferences might be more useful. And it would be nice to see the source material – data and logic – of climate change research. I’m through with giving them the benefit of the doubt.

  26. DennisA
    Posted June 24, 2012 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    How sad that Oliver Letwyn, a significant advisor on policy, is so wrapped up in the green dream. You can read his article about “locking in green growth” in the December pre-Rio edition of the UNEP magazine, a publication edited by Geoffrey Lean of the Telegraph:

    http://www.unep.org/pdf/op_dec_2011/EN/OP-2011-12-EN-FULLVERSION.pdf

  27. Sebastian Weetabix
    Posted June 24, 2012 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    Mr. Redwood – did you vote in favour of the climate change act?

    Reply. No of course not

    • Sebastian Weetabix
      Posted June 25, 2012 at 9:20 am | Permalink

      I wondered because I didn’t see your name in the list of the three of voted against it.

  28. David Langley
    Posted June 24, 2012 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    I watched an EU debate the other day, it was about Immigration from the recent 8 countries of eastern Europe and Switzerland setting a quota of 2K per year being allowed to enter. It appears that the Swiss derogation had expired over a year ago allowing this quota, but the Swiss intelligently had reset it in contravention to the EU treaty. The faked ire of the delegates demanding from the council some sort of penalties and enforcement was pathetic and ignored by their own chairman and EU councillor. The fact is we could ignore most of the EU regulations and directives as they could not really do zip about it.

  29. end of the world
    Posted August 9, 2012 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    Your method of describing the whole thing in this piece of writing is genuinely fastidious, all can effortlessly understand it,
    Thanks a lot.

  30. nes rom
    Posted September 17, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    When I initially commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added” checkbox
    and now each time a comment is added I get four emails with the same comment.

    Is there any way you can remove people from that
    service? Thanks a lot!

  • 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