Climate change and the roles of the UN

Phew! What a relief. They have agreed to limit the temperature in 2100 to only 1.5 degrees Celsius higher than the level before industrialisation began. The elite tell us that is great news. We can all sleep easier in our beds. I admire their certainty and the precision of their forecasts.

So now that is sorted, can we get on and tackle the problems of people in 2015? Let’s start with the shortage of affordable energy, and go on to deal with the lack of clean drinking water and piped supplies in many places. Let’s tackle the poverty of the poorest countries of the world with programmes based on trade, investment and free enterprise. Lets tackle low incomes at home with policies to promote better paid jobs, wider ownership, and access to more affordable energy, water, broadband and services.

If we wish to tackle world poverty, as I do, it helps to start with more efforts to end wars and heal civil conflicts. One of the main drivers of poverty in African countries is endemic lawlessness and wanton violence which prevent normal commercial activity and the quiet ways of peace. The efforts 196 countries and the UN put into the climate change agreement needs to be more than matched with political initiatives to teach the arts of peace and orderly government to places that lack them.Where people think they are forced to live together in the wrong country there needs to be referenda and a political process to determine better borders. Where there are corrupt and tyrannical governments that damage freedom and prosperity there needs to be support for a national conversation which can gradually change those societies from within, as the great democracies achieved many years ago through their own internal stirrings and opposition forces.

The wars now raging in parts of the Middle East are visibly destroying buildings and commercial assets, as well as impeding commerce and killing and mutilating local residents. Whilst the deaths are the worst feature of the madness of war, the way it prevents civilian business and advancement can become a self reinforcing mechanism to prosper only the thugs and the military commanders. Where is there hope when so many young men are either out of work or in a violent gang? Where is the better future when a young man thinks his best hope of advancement is to show skill in visiting violence on his neighbours? How does a society survive when warring bands fight to plunder the diminishing assets of the territory fought over?

I am no pacifist. Sometimes violence requires superior force to deal with it so others can live in peace. That is why the victor nations from the last world war set up the UN, to authorise and help guide state force against evil governments and out of control insurgencies. We also need to recognise that after the violence, or to end the violence, there does always need to be a political process. War is a means of shifting the balance of forces to change the politics decisively, and can sometimes do that for the better. It is no permanent substitute for politics or for a peace process. It is in itself always destructive, always imposes a high price in lives and lost economic activity, and always has to be replaced by stable government and economic repair for anyone to claim it has had a worthwhile outcome. Will the UN today show some decisive concern about these weighty current matters now it has fixed the weather in 2100?

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

79 Comments

  1. Mike Stallard
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood, in the 19th century in India, this would have gone down well. Dalhousie firmly believed such things and carried them out. It led to the Indian Mutiny.
    In 1945, Britain was bankrupt. We had to entrust development to a set of local people. Sometimes (Singapore, Hong Kong, maybe Ghana, UAE) it worked very well. Sometimes (Uganda, Rhodesia) it was a total disaster. Sometimes it led to a slow decay (Kenya, Britain, Yemen, Jamaica). As the white race throughout the world stops producing children, the world will come more and more to rely on people who are not British, and many of these will not necessarily follow British ideals. Get used to it.
    Not everybody in the world wants your kind of progress. Some people are warriors and they like to form into groups that fight. etc ed

  2. Dame Rita Webb
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    “Where there are corrupt and tyrannical governments that damage freedom and prosperity there needs to be support for a national conversation which can gradually change those societies from within, as the great democracies achieved many years ago through their own internal stirrings and opposition forces.”

    And its just a local problem eh? What about all those Western businesses that go out of their way to corrupt the political leadership of those societies with bribes and other inducements? Companies that do get caught usually get fined, but the only people who get punished here are the respective shareholders. For all the misery that it causes you will only deter this Western malfeasance with some serious jail time for bent CEOs. Of it will not happen will it?

    • Edward2
      Posted December 13, 2015 at 9:43 am | Permalink

      You assume it is wicked businesses offering bribes to otherwise decent honest civil servants in export markets.
      It is amazing how shockingly open some officials are in asking for “extra payments” in order to facilitate an order.
      The corruption in some countries is a way of life and a part of their normal business process.

      • Dame Rita Webb
        Posted December 13, 2015 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

        I am not looking at them as being some sort of noble savages, however it is well documented on how Western companies get up to stuff in the Third World that they would not do at home. How about the illegal dumping of toxic waste (go to the the “Guardian” website to find out about the legal wrangling that was involved in trying to uncover one recent scandal). What about big pharma and the ethics associated with their medical trials? Where do the tobacco companies make a lot of their money these days? Best of all what about the pushing of baby formula where there is no clean water supply?

        • Edward2
          Posted December 13, 2015 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

          First you were talking about bribery now it’s every anti capitalist story printed in the ever so reliable Guardian.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted December 13, 2015 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

            What exactly is the dividing line between paid “consultancy” and “lobbying” done by some MPs and Lords and bribery (notably in the “green” area and “arms dealing”.

            If you look as some of the absurd regulations and laws passed by the EU and UK governments it is surely very clear the damage this does. With its conspiracy against the tax payer, public and bill payers.

          • Dame Rita Webb
            Posted December 13, 2015 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

            If you are supportive of what passes as capitalism these days you deserve what is coming to you.

          • Edward2
            Posted December 14, 2015 at 11:53 am | Permalink

            If you have evidence of wrongdoing or criminal offences Rita then pass them onto the authorities.
            Otherwise your claims are just examples of the current fashion for attacking capitalism.

      • waramess
        Posted December 13, 2015 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

        I think you just need to get over it. Corporatism is just that; it will do anything to secure business and just as well that it does because others do the same.

        That is no reason why the British taxpayer should be handed the bill and I believe our host is making that point; the only reason why such behaviour exists in the first place is because governments get involved.

        Far better to leave such behaviour to others, we will not be materially impaired by losing a few low profit armament contracts, for example and we will be able to far more efficiently stimulate our own economy by focusing attention on problems at home.

        12 billion pounds is a lot of money and, the poor of this realm are by far the greatest contributors to the pot.

        High energy costs are the greatest threat to the UK economy and high energy costs are also the greatest contributor to poverty.

  3. The Prangwizard
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    It was sickening to watch the posturing fraudsters and the tin-pot leaders who will look forward to using this in the furtherance of their blackmail. And no doubt our Cameron and his clique along with the support of the BBC and others who bought the lie years ago will tell us that they are right and we are wrong while they press ahead with giving away billions of our hard-earned money and impoverish the country.

    Down the line it will be a problem for the next set of Elites while the people here continue to have their pockets picked.

  4. Margaret
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    The instigators of war often seem to be those with defective personalities. The megalomaniacs think they were born to conquer the world . They worship violence of the worst kind. We ae only in GB beginning get to grips with a few simple anti violence stances. We do not hit our children, we try to negotiate, we try to reason , we do not think that those in positions of authority have a different set of rules from ourselves . This is civil progress ,but many countries out there have a long way to go .When the perpetrators of violence step onto our ground they are stopped ( if we can find them) , but should we spread our wings like the old style Christianity and teach them about peace and non aggression or rather just provide water and the basics for life so the competition for vital resource would not be as pressing ?

  5. DaveM
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    Excellent post Mr R.

    The answer to your final sentence is of course ‘no’. Because the people who have been elected/appointed to deal with our current problems don’t have the gumption to do so. They can only deal in unquantifiable abstracts and theories…….like global warming for example.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted December 13, 2015 at 9:55 am | Permalink

      Indeed for easier for politicians to solve a non problem in 100 years than do anything real about the many current problems around the World that kill so many every day. Dirty water, lack of basic medicine and sanitation, inoculations, better nutrition, disease control. They cannot even sort out the “priority in three letters” dreadfully run NHS that kill so many each week.

      Excellent piece JR how can anyone sensible disagree and yet so many do. It seems they enjoy these absurd summits so much many funded by others taxes. Taxes the tax payers would have spend far, far more wisely themselves.

  6. Ex-expat Colin
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    Trouble is the UN has not succeeded in achieving anything as regards weather (anything else?). Variation will range from benign to a right old hammering. The Climate will flip in slow time within parameters that enable life..or perhaps not. This is about a job like fixing Africa, won’t get done!

    A further trouble is the widespread maniacal belief that money can fix the climate. It can barely forecast the weather with a whole bunch of configured silicone and sensors. Seems the notion of fixing everything is realised using versions of computing..suitably miniaturised? Garbage in and guess what out…guesses?

    Anyway, the BBC and its disciples knows best. The UN girded by a most unremarkable and weak document (31 pages) will no doubt kiss itself and carry on a achieving little…at great expense. The only hope….might be Trump?

  7. Mark B
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    So, how much does each and every individual in the UK have to pay to keep this SCAM going ?

    The problem with Africa simply cannot be solved by giving more trade and growing the Middle Class. You need to factor in tribal loyalties and religion as well. The continent is awash with corruption and that will never end anytime soon. Best not get your hopes up too much.

    James Delingpole recently wrote an article explaining that the deals were already done and that this was just all show for the politicians to look important and ‘seen to be’ doing something.

    Funny old world, which will keep on spinning long after we are gone, plus or minus a few degrees C.

  8. APL
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    JR: “Let’s start with the shortage of affordable energy, and go on to deal with the lack of clean drinking water and piped supplies in many places.”

    We have been tackling these problems for over a century, during the colonial period, and then post colonial with straight forward charity and government grants. It is time to take stock and ask, have we really made a difference, is a hundred years a long enough experiment to decide – can w make these barbaric places more compatible with the West?

    • Robert Christopher
      Posted December 13, 2015 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

      No, not if everyone, apart from any (STEM) Educated, Christian, White Man, has a valid point of view of equal value.

      And when it all goes wrong, guess whose fault it will be!

    • APL
      Posted December 14, 2015 at 10:51 am | Permalink

      “can we make these barbaric places more compatible with the West?”

      And a supplementary question.

      If not, are we right to make the West more like these barbaric places?

  9. Antisthenes
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    Your article says it all and nails the problems and solutions precisely hardly requires commenting on. Indeed if the same effort was put into solving today’s problems as has been put into solving a very nebulous one a century away the world would become a better place for all relatively quickly. The world leaders however appear to want to want spend their time in expending hot air in greater quantities than CO2 emissions on the least important matters. At the same empire building by creating more government and institutions that only in the end cost us taxpayers more and more without it being of much benefit to us.

    The UN was set up as forum for nations to hammer out their differences it does not do that well but it is a necessary mechanism all the same. However the UN has grown topsy -turvy adding more roles and institutions. The benefit some would say is that it creates more jobs( for bureaucrats) forgetting that jobs are a cost not a benefit. These bureaucrats then make more decisions for us when the only people who should be making our decisions for us is ourselves. The new climate agreement scam will now require a vast new army of bureaucrats to implement it.

    This fixation to create more government and institutions has given us the EU, quangos and the like that are relentlessly expanding their roles. Ideal for corruption to flourish and for inefficiency and waste and for depleting the pockets usually by force of the people they have been set up supposedly to help. Us.

    • hefner
      Posted December 13, 2015 at 9:43 am | Permalink

      OK, you’re angry, but what do you really know about the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, the various Multilateral Development Banks and how they leverage one dollar given once by the UK into two to five dollars every year for development?

      In terms of hot air, a non-negligible amount is produced here almost every day thanks to the populist way JR has in presenting his chosen daily topics. But that’s what a good politician has to do to survive.

      • yosarion
        Posted December 13, 2015 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

        Would that be the same UN that still have a Buffer zone in Cyprus, you know the one the EUSSR said would have to come down if Cyprus were to enter the EUSSR, now those the other side of the zone are getting Billions to keep refugees out of the EUSSR.
        Both Turkey and Greece are part of NATO though face each other across a fence since 1974, as others have implied this has got to be the biggest long grass shot by the Worlds leaders who know dam well they won’t be around to see if the Science is right.

        • APL
          Posted December 14, 2015 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

          yosarion: “Both Turkey and Greece are part of NATO though face each other across a fence since 1974,”

          With it’s attempt to provoke a confrontation between Russia and NATO by shooting down a Russian aircraft that might have strayed briefly through Turkish airspace ( The UK would have scrambled a jet and invited the aircraft to leave first ), Erdogan has demonstrated he is not our ally nor an ally of the West.

          Turkey was only in NATO as an expedient measure during the cold war.

          This war, does not need to between Western civilisation which Russia is a part. The cold war is over, and we don’t need mischievous little twerps like Erdogan trying for his own ends to reignite it.

      • Antisthenes
        Posted December 13, 2015 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

        You are right I am angry perhaps I should change my name from Antisthenes to Mr. Angry. I am not against the concept and the reasons behind why the UN, IMF, EU, domestic governments and the like were set up. All from good intentions I am sure but as we all know good intentions do not always make for good outcomes.

        What I am against is the proliferation and expansion of governments and associated institutions often taking on roles and doing things that they have no right to do. Also never when it is on our behalf doing it better than we can do it for ourselves. We either have free market capitalism where we make out own choices, we have democracy and where we can have control over our own lives and seek and get redress against any who do us harm or wish to. Or we can carry on down this socialist path where eventually we can have none of that as there will be only politicians, bureaucrats and the so called experts who control the lives of the rest of us who will all be public sector workers.

        As for Mr Redwood putting forward populist views that he is not guilty of. Views he has most of which I agree with him on sometimes I do not but he does not mind praise or criticism. The views he has I am sure are basically his and he holds them on principle however I believe he does amend them sometimes from information he gathers on this blog and other places. In fact he takes some shifting from things he believes in. His views which by necessity have to be couched tactfully and they must go some way toward respecting his readers and voters views as well do not make them populist.

        • hefner
          Posted December 15, 2015 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

          Thanks.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted December 14, 2015 at 7:23 am | Permalink

        Pah, if it’s leverage you want one dollar to two or five is nothing; Juncker’s eurozone development plan would turn one euro into fifteen.

        http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-priorities-2020/junckers-eu315bn-investment-plan-unveiled-fifteenfold-leverage-and

        “Juncker’s €315bn investment plan unveiled: fifteenfold leverage and solidarity for the south”

        Allegedly.

  10. agricola
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    I share the cynicism of your first paragraph. Those with a shore line could practice their “Canute” talents with the tides.

    I would like to see considerable effort put behind Fusion Energy, because indications are that we are getting closer. Fracked gas seems to be in the hands of the Nimby and Yurt dwelling elements. Parliament needs to impose itself. How much effort is being put into cleaning up the coal burning process for continued cheap energy? There is a great need for a national water grid lest future summers are to suffer constant hose pipe bans. As of yesterdays submission, population needs to be cut to 45 Million, so reducing the demand for all the above.

    Face up to it, Africa is a corrupt, lawless, tribal place. Frankly I think Empire left it far too early. Short of a return to Empire it will continue that way for centuries to come because that is the way their leadership likes it.

    The Middle East was highly civilised and cultured when we wore woad. Here we can if willing, eliminate the forces of evil, support the population and return them to civilised normality. It will be a long haul but worth the effort.

    The UN, like the Paris Conference is a talking shop that allows many people to feel better about themselves, but in reality achieves little. The future is in the hands of single ,powerful nations of democratic integrity to take the lead. Both the USA and UK, for different reasons , await the return of their integrity and national will to take that lead.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted December 13, 2015 at 11:54 am | Permalink

      I was quite pleased to hear that our dear Amber is going to carry on with her legislation regarding renewable energy but not so happy that she is continuing to support off shore wind. The whole lot of subsidies, tax cuts etc should be stopped today for all renewables and they should be taxed out of existence. Is she not aware that for all the talk about these cuts Scotland is still awash with applications for wind farms? The big boys have made so much out of the generous handouts that they can afford to carry on building them. Some of them have been sold on already in the knowledge that the companies that have bought them are set to make millions from them for providing the country with insecure power. Watch them sell them on again when they age and then the new owners walk away when it comes to dismantling them just as they have in America.

      I have never seen such a smug looking lot of idiots as was portrayed last night in Paris. This is all about money and the corrupt governments of Africa and other nations grabbing all the money will go on to have a more luxurious lifestyle at the expense of their people. It is an utter disgrace and one that we have to pay for. Much of the poverty in this world could be solved tomorrow if we threw as much money as we have at the real causes and not at the wealthy, greedy pigs with their noses in the troughs and that goes for those in this country too.

  11. alan jutson
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    Agreed John, fantastic news that climate change will now not be a problem any more.

    I can rest easy in my bed now knowing that the world will be saved for my grandchildren and their offspring.

    Given all of the above, does that now mean we have reached the point at which taxes and energy prices will no longer rise above the level of inflation, I will not get cold in my home, will still have enough energy to cook my food, and that factories will still be able to make the consumer goods I require.

    If so, brilliant Job done, if it was this simple (just a one week conference) why has it not been done before ?

  12. alan jutson
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    World peace, certainly a worthy aim.

    Problem is someone has to remove the present people who are causing all of the problems.

    It is not as simple as it was a few centuries ago, when so called leaders fought at the front and with their armies, and the greater force usually won.

    Now leaders tend to fight from the back, very often hidden behind a desk, and their own personal security force, unlike times of old they do not even send their own sons and daughters into areas of danger, but they all still seem to amount masses of personal wealth and power over people.

    Perhaps we do need a World police force or army (many thought the UN would be the organisation) but then who is going to give the orders, oversee the policies and fund it all.

    Talking is perhaps the only real way forward, but whilst you can silence talk with guns, bullets and bombs, it may be a long wait.

    Perhaps we should ban all arms exports throughout the World as a start.?

  13. Iain Moore
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    It comes to something when a dark ages King , Canute , was more enlightened when he attempted to show the limitations of his power by failing to hold back the sea, our lot think they can stop the weather.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted December 13, 2015 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

      Absolutely

  14. dennisambler
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 9:43 am | Permalink

    It means they will be able to continue with the annual beanfest known as the Conference of the Parties and all the other less publicised ones during the year, involving thousands of government apparatchiks and NGO activists travelling many hundreds of thousands of miles , in order to exhort us to cut down on our travelling and energy use and save the planet.

  15. Edward2
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    It is becoming more obvious with each of these climate jamborees that the real reason behind them is to facilitate the transfer of large sums of money from richer Western nations to the rest of the world.

    • Ian wragg
      Posted December 13, 2015 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

      Read up on Agenda 21.

      • turbo terrier
        Posted December 13, 2015 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

        Ian Wragg

        Absolutely correct.

    • Bob
      Posted December 14, 2015 at 9:03 am | Permalink

      @Edward2

      “the real reason behind them is to facilitate the transfer of large sums of money from richer Western nations to the rest of the world.”

      But it won’t work, they just keep multiplying and holding out their hands for more, just like our domestic welfare dependent community.

  16. Antisthenes
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    Delving deeper into the new climate deal it can be seen that it is a sham as I have already described it to be as it does not commit anyone except the most altruistic and foolish and we know who we are don’t we to do anything. It does however give every nations politicians every five years a chance to go through the same charade, have a jolly and tell us all how they have saved the world (Brown has a lot to answer for for coining that phrase).

    A quick calculation on the back of an envelop tells us that the cost of implementation would be enormous for us all. Retarding growth and much else and and therefore make tackling real problems like poverty much more difficult. The whole agreement is unworkable and anyone who tries is going to drive their citizens into poverty. So undoubtedly the EU will give it a go they always go for what is the most stupid way to do something, some others will make half hearted attempts and the rest will just carry on as before and grow richer because they are.

  17. Denis Cooper
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    I well remember my old dad saying that religion had caused more wars than anything else, and as usual there was something in what he said.

    Not least because some religions have failed to keep up with the march of science and technology. They refuse to accept that when the divine injunction “Go forth and multiply” was delivered that was to just the very first couple, two people, not seven billion.

    For ages the multiplication was tightly restricted by high rates of premature deaths – of infants and children, of their mothers during one of the oft repeated episodes of childbirth, of all who survived to adulthood – but science and technology have cut those death rates dramatically.

    Science and technology have also provided cheap, convenient and reliable methods to cut conception rates, as well, but those religions still do their best to prevent the use of such methods by their adherents ; and the result has been populations exploding at rates which often end up causing violent conflicts.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted December 14, 2015 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

      “I well remember my old dad saying that religion had caused more wars than anything else”

      That is often said by atheists but even a cursory examination shows it to be complete rubbish – try naming a few wars caused by religion. Crusades, English Civil War (at a push), any others ? On the other side wars not caused by religion include, WW-I, WW-II, Korean War, Vietnam, Napoleonic etc. etc. and that’s not even factoring in the tens of millions killed by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. in what were effectively civil wars.

      • Mitchel
        Posted December 14, 2015 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

        “any others?”

        The Crimean War for one… and a whole series of other wars between the Sultans and the Tsars from the 17th to the 20th centuries!I’m sure there are examples in Africa and Asia too.Your view is a little too anglocentric!

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted December 15, 2015 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

        Guess what, the statement “religion had caused more wars than anything else” does not preclude some wars having other causes, and the statement “as usual there was something in what he said” does not signify complete agreement with what he said.

        And now rather than quibbling over the precise division of past wars through history on the basis of whether or not they were caused by religion, how about dealing with the main point?

        Which is that some religions – purely by coincidence, of course, notably the two with the largest numbers of adherents, together getting on for half of the total of the world population – are still preaching that God wants that world population to increase indefinitely, that is to say increase to infinity, on a planet which is clearly finite?

        etc ed

  18. Bert Young
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    So the swan song came to a belated end with the great Obama speaking for the world . A defunct UN and weak kneed leaders (Putin excepted) who seek self glorification tell us they have saved the planet ! . I don’t approve of swearing in responses but , today , I am dangerously close .

    The scars of Africa and the Middle East where corruption is rife , where wars and tribal factions are at each others throats for centuries , do not have a case of influence . The meetings in Paris will mean nothing ; the world will continue to go its way according to each and every single initiative .

  19. Gary
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Eminently sensible, sane critique in a world gone mad.

    There is an insane elite, power drunk and grasping that are bent on global control via death and destruction through permanent wars and imposed serfdom.

    The solution, as you say or imply, is through free trade, free enterprise, lifting people out of poverty through education and opportunity and their own enterprise. That way we stop population growth (middle class people that can provide for their own retirement don’t need 10 kids to do it for them), and solve housing,food and water problems through enterprising ingenuity.

    instead we have a dead hand state, filled with what seems like elite psychopaths who are hell bent on destruction and monopolization, to keep everyone in permanent serfdom, except themselves.

    I believe that technology is our best chance to free ourselves from these Satanists. Peer to peer, distributed networking is the kryptonite.

    • stred
      Posted December 14, 2015 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      Re- satanists and psychopaths. The first person I saw chosen to comment on the box yesterday was John Prescott, who thought we should increase carbon tax more, then firms would adapt. Mind you, he was talking about his home in Hull, where they will be going out to mend the turbines on Dogger Bank, instead of finding cod. He could have run his jag over to the closing steelworks, aluminium smelters or chemical works and tried to explain the idea to his comrades there.

      My inclination is that old thumper is not a satanist. Amiable idiot may be a more accurate description.

  20. Gary
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    But, we need govt to “take care of the vulnerable”, say the socialists. Socialists do trust people. Socialists, through their own misogyny, think people all hate each other. Freedom lovers believe in the inane goodness and enterprise of the vast majority of people , if provided with opportunity and choice they will provide for their families and help those relatively few who are absolutely incapable of helping themselves.

    Socialists have such a low opinion of people (and it’s probably a projection), that they insist that only they know what is good for others. It is the psychology of the psychopath.

    • libertarian
      Posted December 13, 2015 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

      Gary

      Very true.

      I had a snorter of a “debate ” with a senior Union Organiser from RMT on Friday night. He was somewhat stumped when I put forward the following

      Me. So you think that businesses, health, the railways etc are all better off nationalised and run by the government ?

      Union Man. Yes without a shadow of a doubt it removes greed and evil

      Me. What do you think of the present government ?

      Union Man. They are the most evil, wicked & greedy government we’ve ever had

      Me. Ha ha ha ha fell about laughing…. and these are the people that you want to run everything?

      Union Man. No not that government, another one

      Socialists are deluded

  21. Gary
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    should read : “socialists don’t trust people”

    • Gary
      Posted December 13, 2015 at 11:16 am | Permalink

      apologies for the typo’s . predictive text can be very unpredictable.

  22. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    I still hope John Forbes Kerry, US Secretary of State, was being heavily satirical referring to Assad’s Syrian army having used chemical weapons.
    Paraphrasing, he said that after the Second World War, all CIVILIZED countries of the World came together to ban the use of chemical weapons.
    It was his use of “civilised ” countries which made me scour the internet and my history books in desperate search for his “civilised” countries. Let’s be honest, and rhetorically ask which countries marked themselves out as “civilised” after those millions killed on all sides.
    Churchill and Roosevelt conspired in the construction and use of two jolly big bombs. Churchill was privately engaged like a schoolboy’s stamp collecting hobby in the research and production of anthrax up on that island near Ullapool ( which by the way somewhat spoiled my holiday around 1980 when I was prevented from visiting as the spores were still a active ).And we were the Goodies!
    After 200 years of the UK’s cack-handling of Catholic and Protestants relationships in Ireland, let alone far more complex scenarios, one can only be gobsmacked the UK dares to speak at all at the UN. But then it is merely joining with other foul blood-drenched We Wrote the History nations.
    UN nations will do what they have done over the past 100 years, kill 160,000,000 in combat. Possibly adding an updated more efficient gas fire in one or two homes for good measure.

  23. Antisthenes
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    Tim Worstall appears to have the most sane and workable solution when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions. That is the simple expediency of a carbon tax set at a rate that incentives producers themselves to find the solutions to reduce it. They will undoubtedly find ways much more quickly and cheaply than politicians and bureaucrats ever will. That also allows taxes to be reduced elsewhere to make it tax neutral. Being sane and practicable means of course no one will accept it. No, subsidies will continue for far more expensive means to reduce it which as we know is highly inefficient forcing many to invest in polluting generators for when the sun does not appear, the wind does not blow and fossil fuel plants are closed down or too few to cover our energy needs. So is self defeating. Not forgetting paying foreigners like EDF to provide us at exorbitant cost some of our energy needs.

  24. English Pensioner
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    Bangladesh was blaming all their flooding on global warming and asking for help. If we decide to give help, we should insist any flood relief works are carried out by British companies whom we would pay directly, rather than by giving money to the country where it would line politicians’ pockets.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted December 13, 2015 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

      Alas British Governments structures are far from being honest and clean in the “investment” of tax payers money. That is why we have some many laws and regulations that do nothing for anyone but a few vested interests who lobby well or have good contacts and “consultants”. As we say particularly with some MPs (some in the Tories party) who acted as “advisers” on the Greencrap lets get some grants religion.

    • hefner
      Posted December 13, 2015 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

      If one believes various reports (last I found was published on 21/09/2012, see Guardian report), this is already the case: most UK DfID money goes to UK companies, very often not even leaving this country.

    • stred
      Posted December 14, 2015 at 9:24 am | Permalink

      Bangladesh is a country where much land is on a large low level river delta. It is sinking slowly, as the weight of the sediment builds. Sea levels have not risen any more than than the original small annual rise, as measured by tidal guages. The 1.5m rises estimated by the warmists is based on a larger rise measured by satellite and theoretical temperature rise, and these have not been occuring.

      East Anglia has similar problems, but the most similar country must be Holland, where the Rhine brings sediment from Europe as far as the Alps.
      In he UK, our experts tend to think ‘managed retreat’ and giving back the land to nature is the correct thing to do. It may be a better idea to get the Dutch to help make Bangladesh secure and learn how to use the sediment to make more fertile ground.

  25. Tad Davison
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    This is why I stated you would make a good Foreign Secretary John, and I feel vindicated for making my feelings known in certain circles at the time of the last re-shuffle.

    In that role, you would be most effective, more so than the lacklustre Mr Cameron is as Prime Minister. Whom it seems, will achieve precisely what most of us have been saying all along with his much vaunted re-negotiations – very, very little. The name ‘Mr Capitulation’ is most apt, and I see the papers are taking him to pieces this morning.

    It is pretty clear that the EU wants us to contribute massively to their project financially, but have little or no political say based on the size of that contribution. The place is beyond redemption. If the UK were out of the EU altogether, we could adopt those principles you (and I suggest most thinking people) espouse, and make the world a better place.

    Tad Davison

    Cambridge

    • CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
      Posted December 13, 2015 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

      I don’t think JR would be able of to make a good UK Foreign Secretary. Falling prostrate full frontal with arms wide open before the representatives of US Foreign policy ( in private ) and otherwise ambling with trembling legs like a big girl’s blouse ten paces behind them in international meetings is unbecoming. Those good at such things are already doing it.

      • fedupsoutherner
        Posted December 13, 2015 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

        Mercia, I totally endorse your comments.

  26. DHE Wokingham
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    A nice blend of cynicism and optimism, Mr Redwood. Of course these things can be done, given the will and tenacity. Setbacks there will be but let us not ignore the little successes of noble charities – WaterAid for instance. Thanks for the reminder that the Western nations (Britain in particular) made our countries what they are by good men staying put and fighting the evils which existed in their own countries over the centuries; not by looking for a better life in nations which had already solved their major internal problems.

    • Mitchel
      Posted December 14, 2015 at 10:23 am | Permalink

      There is a poignant verse from Requiem by the Russian poet Anna Akhmatova who stayed on through the Revolution,Civil war and Stalin’s terror:-

      I am not one of those who left the land,
      No foreign sky protected me,
      No stranger’s wing shielded my face,
      I stand as witness to the common lot,
      Survivor of that time,that place.

      It should be read to all the able bodied young men fleeing the ME- before they are given basic training and a rifle and sent back to fight for their country(rather than fleeing conscription which is,I gather,what many young Syrian men have been doing).

  27. Ex-expat Colin
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    In the rush to mouth babble on air about the 3rd runway at Heatkrow, I heard, “we need it for more trade with the world”.

    oh dear. For shovelling out the money we borrow by chance?

  28. Mactheknife
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    As you normally censor any comment on DECC, then I’ll be careful what I say. The previous inhabitants of DECC (I’ll not name names as you’ll only delete them) bought into the AGW meme and drove UK policy down that particular cul-de-sac, so its up to the current inhabitants of DECC to change policy and make sure we have affordable energy. But they don’t really have the gumption to do it. Amber Rudd has gone some way, but no where near what is needed and we now have an energy industry attached to the government teat.

    As for the UN, if you go back in the history of AGW it was actually the UN who stated that global warming existed and was man made. They formed the IPCC to demonstrate to everyone just how bad it will be. Again I’ll watch what I say, but lets just say that the “scientivists” took over and delivered some outrageous claims which were swallowed by world governments enabled by civil servants re-writing the report in the form of the Summary for Policy Makers. Even the outrageous claims made by the IPCC AR’s were ‘reinterpreted’ by civil servants to make them even more scientifically illiterate.

    So what’s it really all about ? Well if you go back to previous summits the smaller developing countries jumped on the bandwagon demanding financial reparations from the western governments. Gordon Broon talked out our “climate debt” to the third world and said we should hand over 100 Billion now. AGW is nothing more than a financial device developed by the UN to transfer wealth from 1st to 3rd world nations.

    Until we understand what is going on and why, we cannot possible tackle the problems of 2015 or 2100 either here in the UK or globally. This is a political issue not scientific – all the current science via empirical evidence is telling us that the computer based predictions climate predictions are woefully wrong- so it really does tell you that this is political.

  29. forthurst
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    Hat tip Peter Davies: Piers Corbyn’s interview on rt.com, Sputnik Dec12 Episode 102 Part 1 (only), is excellent. Piers is quite clearly a deadly weapon aimed at the heart of the Global warming scam. Mandatory viewing for Hefner.

    https

  30. Horatio McSherry
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    It’s strange (no, it isn’t) that none of these people ever mention where the two degrees figure comes from. They are guilty (by omission) of misleading the public about how critical or not this is.

    Hans Joachim Schellnhuber is the man who first spoke about the two degrees, and he himself admitted: ‘Two degrees is not a magical limit. It’s clearly a political goal. The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.’

    Schellnhuber also was an advisor to the pope, which shows you where the credibilty of the science is.

  31. A different Simon
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    Quote “They have agreed to limit the temperature in 2100 to only 1.5 degrees Celsius higher than the level before industrialisation began.”

    This is a meaninglessly vague statement which makes it impossible for the people to hold them to account .

    1) It is not possible to come up with a single figure for the average temperature of the whole earth over a whole year .

    2) Even if 1) was possible , it would not be possible to calculate what the corresponding figure was at the start of the industrial revolution .

    3) Even if 2) was possible , it would not be possible to compare 1) with 2) .

    The methods of measurement and thermometers have changed , the locations where measurements were taken have been built up , water tables underneath measurement stations have changed , historic data has been aided and abetted etc , etc .

    • hefner
      Posted December 13, 2015 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

      Regarding your points 1, 2, and 3, have you ever considered the possibility that some people have not waited for you to state the problem, and have been working on exactly those points, sometimes for tens of years.

      etc ed

  32. Dennis
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    “Let’s start with the shortage of affordable energy,….”

    Can you tell us if this affordable energy is actually available or can be available and from where? – pray tell please.

  33. Mark
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    This agreement is utterly worthless. Consider for example Article 28:

    Article 28
    1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
    2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
    3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this Agreement.

    Don’t believe the hype from the BBC – read the agreement, which is here:

    http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf

    Lots of “requests”, “should”, “aims”, “efforts”, “voluntary”, etc.

    • Mark
      Posted December 13, 2015 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps we need this Article 28 as a replacement for Article 50, TFEU.

      28-gate is of course the secretive conference held by the BBC when it decided to inflict its unremitting climate agenda on unsuspecting licence payers.

  34. GM Lindsay
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

    What an utter farce this COP21 debate and conclusions are. First we had anthropocentric global warming (AGW) and because global temperatures didn’t increase as CO2 levels increased we had climate change claiming increased levels of extreme climate events such as hurricanes, tornadoes etc. Hmmm this didn’t happen so we’re back to global temperature increase BUT since there has been little or no temperature increase, the bar has been lowered to 1.5 o C (from 2.o oC). If this keeps up, could we have AGW when the actual measured temperature decreases??

  35. adam
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    Now that this has been agreed can we finally cut off the BBCs electricity supply.

    I am very confused by their agreement, its going to cost $20 trillion over a few decades, but all they are promising is 2C above pre-industrial levels, isn’t that the temperature average we currently have.

    It seems to me they have come back into line with common sense. 1C expected (natural), +0.5C if the CO2 Greenhouse effect turns out to be right. trillions in money is just to waste Capitalist GDP or as further handouts to mass murderers in the third world.

  36. Iain Gill
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    Sadly when the politically correct have control, and decimate our industry only to see the same production restart in India and China producing more pollution for the same processes than we ever did pushing up overall world pollution. When we have completely out of control immigration and promises to curb it are just hot air and no substance. When we have people who have fought for Isis in Syria walking our streets, while salt of the earth decent people are hammered for minor motoring infringements. You can understand why (people ed) like Mr Trump emerge. The political class are complacent and are destroying our country and ignore the mainstream real life experiences of the majority which they think are not worthy of an ear.

    We really need to do a whole lot better.

  37. Original Richard
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    The problem with our current aid programs is that they are delivering overpopulation in areas which cannot sustain such population growth, funding armed conflict, driving and funding migration into Europe and filling Swiss bank accounts.

  38. Anonymous
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

    Puting down endemic lawlessness and wanton violence in foreign countries sounds like we are coming very close to colonialism again.

    Both are natural states in the history of mankind. Our civilisation is the rarity and we’d do well to remember that once lost it will be gone forever. Our failure is our simplistic belief that all cultures are benign and equal.

    • Original Richard
      Posted December 14, 2015 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

      Anonymous, I agree with you 100%.

      It seems to me that our leaders are working towards a Europe which looks like a combination of Middle Eastern and African countries.

  39. fedupsoutherner
    Posted December 13, 2015 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

    Following Statement from the GWPF.

    GWPF Welcomes Non-Binding And Toothless Un Climate Deal *)

    London 12 December: Dr Benny Peiser, the director of the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF), has welcomed the non-binding and toothless UN climate agreement which was adopted in Paris tonight.*)

    Dr Peiser said:

    “The Paris agreement is another acknowledgement of international reality. The deal is further proof, if any was needed, that the developing world will not agree to any legally binding caps, never mind reductions of their CO2 emissions.”

    “As seasoned observers predicted, the Paris deal is based on a voluntary basis which allows nations to set their own voluntary CO2 targets and policies without any legally binding caps or international oversight.”

    “In contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris deal removes all legal obligations for governments to cap or reduce CO2 emissions. This voluntary agreement also removes the mad rush into unrealistic decarbonisation policies that are both economically and politically unsustainable.”

    Lord Nigel Lawson, Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Forum, added:

    “The UK’s unilateral Climate Change Act is forcing British industry and British households to suffer an excessively high cost of electricity to no purpose. Following Paris, it is clearer than ever that the Act should be suspended until such time as a binding global agreement has been secured.”

    *) We would like to apologise to editors and correspondents as this is exactly the same statement we issued a year ago, with the sole change of Paris for Lima; but since there has been no substantive change in the COP21 deal there is no change in our assessment.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted December 14, 2015 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

      Is there a reason my previous post above has not been included John?

  40. Colin Hart
    Posted December 14, 2015 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    I look forward to the service of thanksgiving in Westminster Abbey now that the world has been saved from disaster. Prayers will be led by Archbishop Wellbeing and lessons read by Prince Charles and Mark Carney.

  41. stred
    Posted December 14, 2015 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    JR. You write that, where people are forced to live together in the wrong country, there should be a referendum. Should this include eastern Ukraine and should the Crimea be heped to have a second internationally approved referendum to verify the 95% vote? If we could, then it would no longer be a case for the damaging confontation between US/EU expansionists and Russia.

    Reply I recommended a properly supervised referendum at the time.

  42. Atlas
    Posted December 14, 2015 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    John,

    Was the temperature rise to be limited to 1.49 deg or to 1.51 deg in 2100 ??

    Aaah, such precision…

  • 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