Bali idiocy. Mud slinging will not stop the carbon.

EU members have shown their worst features at Bali.

The EU lectures the rest of the world on the need for targets, whilst several of its members will not hit their own Kyoto targets. Others like the Uk are allowing their carbon to rise after a good start at reductions years ago.

It thinks it is better to sign up to targets it has no ability to hit, instead of being honest and refusing to sign up to the targets in the first place.

It personalises its disagreements to the USA, when Japan and Russia are also against new tough targets, when Australia appears reluctant, and when India and China are standing apart from any idea of mandatory targets.

The EU should grow up, and learn that if the world is to reduce its carbon output it requires goodwill and understanding on all sides, not a combination of bullying and vain posturing. We will not cure the world’s CO2 problem unless India and China, Japan and Russia are involved as well as the USA.

The problem surrounds the belief in targets. There is a target to cut hospital acquired infections in the UK. I am sure all involved want to hit it. They do not stamp the diseases out, because they have spent all their energies on posturing and target setting, and not enough time working out how to solve the problem.

The world is in danger of being forced into the same nonsense over carbon output. Journalists should ask the people who want tough targets how they think they are going to be hit? Then they should ask why the things needed to hit the targets are not already been done anyway, as these same governments always tell us this is the most serious crisis facing mankind.

If we are to curb our carbon output we need to incentivise countries and people to do so. We need to sit down and discuss how we can share technologies and apply new ideas to cutting carbon output. Governments need to provide a lead, showing how they themselves can cut their own carbon footprint. I have had little response from the UK government to the long list of energy saving proposals I sent them. I recommend energy efficiency because it saves money and reduces our dependence on imports. The UK governemnt is well behind best practise in industry.

These governments also need to show some humility about the limits to their powers. They do not yet control every pensioner’s thermostat and every family’s oven. Until they do so they cannot guarantee to deliver a given figure by a given date.

They will not win the carbon war by going off to exotic locations by plane in large numbers, staying in classy air conditioned hotels, and having flaming rows with each other. Why should the rest of us have to pay for that? Why should we cut our own travel, heating and use of electric appliances, when our political masters do exactly the opposite? Why should we regard Al Gore as a role model, when we have seen his own large personal carbon footprint planted on the world?

I would take all these posturing governments more seriously on this subject if they showed some restraint. If they looked as if they were trying to get on with each other, to shorten the meeting and avoid the need for another carbon intensive junket, they would have more chance of getting the rest of us to follow. If they practised what they preached they would command more respect.

The BBC of course as part of its daily climate change propoganda just assumes the EU is right and the USA is wrong on all this. Even if that were true, it is not the way to get the world to an agreement. They should stop rowing about targets and get on to discussing what practical changes could be made so that people would be willing give up their carbon generating activities, or replace them with better technology to do the job.


  1. Stuart Fairney
    December 14, 2007

    Al Gore – Over-indulged loser, why on earth does anyone take him seriously?

  2. Letters From A Tory
    December 14, 2007

    The EU has to take the lead on this. There is no point politely asking the USA and China to jump on the climate change bandwagon – you have to get them incentives to do so and introduce enormous disincentives for them not doing so.

  3. Roger Thornhill
    December 14, 2007

    I am against any form of extra-territorial system with compulsory fines and targets. The EU "landfill tax" is an example of this. BTW, I do *NOT* consider the EU as part of our territory – it is a foreign entity.

  4. Neil Craig
    December 14, 2007

    Saw the BBC news last night. They said, as a statement of fact, that "global warming is happening".
    Since it is a matter of fact that temperatures have declined since 1998 & this year is set to be lower again that statement is simply untrue.

    It is bad enough for the BBC to show a bias in how they report facts but deliberate censorship & lying is beyond the pale, yet is clearly the standard at which the BBC aim.

  5. Bazman
    December 14, 2007

    Banning the incandescent light bulb would be a start.

    There is no excuse now for using the old fashioned ones as there is so many types of fluorescent ones available.
    If you are not willing to do this, then what will you do? You will not pay more for electricity and will not save any. Technology might improve but you won't like that light source either!
    The progress of lighting is a mark of progress by man in a way.

  6. schober
    December 14, 2007

    1) the idea the earthis warming is only a hypothesis
    2) that co2 is responsible os also a hypothesis

    both are based on poor evidence and there is a surprising ammount of contrary evidence
    a perusal of the links ofn this page should give some pause for thought
    even the data is wrong only 13% of us climate stations pass muster; the remaining 87% read too high!!!

    to base economic policy on two doubtful hypothese which use bad data is the height of madness!!!

  7. APL
    December 14, 2007

    Bazman: "Banning the incandescent light bulb would be a start."

    Flourescent lights are implicated with migrane fits and seizures. In actual fact they are dangeous.

    In any case, incandescent bulbs wil be banned, because the new aristocracy in Brussels are already on the bandwagon:

    What this implies is that every fitting in every house in the country is going to have to be changed at ridiculous expence because of an unsubstantiated claim – the impact on the environment.

    By the way, just recently, they have banned instruments that include mercury, on grounds of health and safety. Never once had the urge to eat a thermometer – but you never know, better safe than sorry.

    What they don't tell you, or are too stupid to know themselves, is that flourescent lighting includes significant amounts of mercury in the manufacturing process.

    Eurocrats, bless.

  8. Bazman
    December 14, 2007

    This all sounds like the banning of the pint. Or the massive cost of changing all pint glasses to show a line. The medical reasons are false. Modern bulbs do not flicker. I take it you would like all tungsten bulbs to be plastic coated as they often shatter, and have an electrician change them.
    It is true they do contain mercury and cost more energy/money to produce, but the total energy and cost saving is much more than a traditional tungsten bulb and is set to get greater.
    In the future LED (Light Emitting Diodes) May provide the solution and might require their own small and separate power supply from the grid. Like broadband is now. Progress ain't easy.
    This is a serious and real way to save electricity and money. Not to mention the environment at this moment in time. Easy too!

  9. Mike H
    December 14, 2007

    JR – "They do not yet control every pensioner's thermostat and every family's oven. Until they do so they cannot guarantee to deliver a given figure by a given date".

    This government, ably assisted by the EU, already seeks to interfere and control wherever it can. I wonder how long it will be before there's an EU proposal for 'the harmonisation of the domestic environment' that requires that the control of room and oven temperature be externally regulated by an appropriate and competent authority to be established in each member state?

    Best keep such suggestions to yourself, John, lest the Euro-wonks in Brussels are listening.

  10. schober
    December 14, 2007

    interesting to note that the un wont tolerate non believers
    Skeptical Scientists Kicked Off UN Press Schedule in Bali … Again
    Dec 13 08:09 AM US/Eastern
    Lone Voice of Dissent Censored by United Nations
    CHICAGO, Dec. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — For the second time this week, the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) was kicked off the press schedule for the United Nations' climate conference in Bali, Indonesia………………more

    rather like the eu turning the cameras off in the eu parliament when the sceptics protested about the lack of referenda on the "lisbon treaty"/constitution ??? is there a conection i wonder

  11. apl
    December 15, 2007


Comments are closed.