Day 2 of Mr Miliband’s Green budgets

After hearing Mr Miliband announce the dawn of the new low carbon era and after a later vote I walked my way to the tube to go to a meeting about the economy outside Westminster. To my surprise there were still large numbers of Ministerial cars parked all round the Commons waiting to drive their Ministers back the few hundred yards to their Whitehall offices.

When I returned to the Commons the air conditioning was still on full, keeping the place cooler than I would like, with all the lights blazing on a summer afternoon. Ministers and their supportive MPs were still busy planning long trips by air to visit foreign countries.

Is the new low carbon era just to be a private sector phenomenon? Apparently the government has two policies which are going to push our carbon use down sharply – recession, followed by running out of electricity.

I asked Mr Miliband when his much advertised new nuclear stations and carbon storage schemes were going to be built. If there is no action soon I suggested the epitaph of the government would be they had turned the lights off and left us all in the dark.

Mr Miliband misinformed the House that I must have spent a lot of time rehearsing that one, before avoiding answering it. Let me reassure Mr Miliband that I made it up once I had heard his statement. It’s an old fashioned approach to Parliament to listen to what others say before joining in, but one I would recommend to him. Answering questions would also be helpful.


  1. Brigham
    July 16, 2009

    I liked your phrase “misinformed the house” To put it my way, Anyone in the government that is asked a question, either doesn’t answer, or lies. Surely the Speaker must insist that questions are answered. This should be one of his duties. At PMQ’s how refreshing it would be to hear the Speaker say, “I am suspending the PM for blatently refusing to answer the question that has been asked.”

  2. alan jutson
    July 16, 2009

    New laws are made for others.

    You seem to be in the minority, you assume MP’s should also be included.

    Like your comment about listening first.

    Perhaps you have been on a sales traing course at some time in the past.

    “Two ears one mouth” use them in that order.

    Many of our other MP’s could perhaps do with some of your logic.

  3. Freddy
    July 16, 2009

    Please stop talking about the “new low carbon era” as though you accept its inevitability. You’re scaring the pants off me.

    Go and have a chat with Lord Lawson about the global warming scam. He is the only person in Westminster whom I have heard talking sense on the subject.

    reply: Did you not detect a hint of irony in my use of the government’s phrase in my post today?

    1. Number 6
      July 16, 2009

      Yes, but sadly it seems that Dave ‘Boy Green’ Cameron is on board with the carbon con. More taxes on the productive class under the ‘save the planet, man’ bs dished up by Zac Goldsmith/Al Gore and his fellow travellers – incidentially most of those fellow travellers use private jets as they fly around to save the world but of course they can afford to plant a few trees to ‘offest’ their air travel. We are going to pay for this madness with a heavier tax burden, (although of course the soically and economically disadvantaged will be exempt) another layer of government jobsworths (paid for by the productive tax paying class of course) inspecting homes businesses and possibly cows farting in the field. The Goons and Monty Python have nothing on the current crowd of ‘greens’ and their political handmaidens.

      I sincerely hope Dave wakes up and realises that the proverbial man down t’pub knows that the green scam is up and it is just another ruse to tax us. If he does and says so, watch the votes go up. People are really sick of being preached to by self-righteous greens and their mouthpieces in parliament.

    2. APL
      July 16, 2009

      JR: “Is the new low carbon era just to be a private sector phenomenon?”

      It is looking like we are gong to meet the challenging ‘carbon’ reduction targets, with ease. But those advocates of ‘carbon’ reduction won’t like the result.

      The US seems to be looking at a 20% decline in GDP.

      Since our economy is less diverse, much smaller and with a larger government sector, we could see a 30% decline in GDP.

      I am sure the Eurozone will be no better off either.

      We are already seeing it now, but stupid politicians who exhort us to reduce our ‘carbon footprint’ are at the same time expecting us to borrow and spend more to keep the economy going.

      Yet, borrowing and spending more is the same as asking us to increase our ‘Carbon footprint’. Talk about schizophrenic.

      Reply: I think your forecasts are a bit too pessimistic, even for this government

    3. April Ryan
      July 16, 2009

      You can, in a few hours, Google sufficient information on global warming to discover that those who try to convince the easily led that it’s a ‘natural phenomenon’ or a ‘hoax’ all have some connection to the major oil companies. (The only exception is David Bellamy).

      However, if you want to believe it’s some kind of hoax designed to raise taxes then fine but how do you argue away Peak Oil.

      Sorry guys, but the party is over one way or another and we are simply going to have to find renewable energy sources for the future and yes, it’s going to cost more. But then did we not imagine there was going to be a day of reckoning as we ravaged this planet of its resources?

      I can only think that it’s a good thing that demand for oil is now starting to outstrip supply because that will put a natural brake on our carbon consumption.

      1. Kevin Lohse
        July 16, 2009

        April Ryan Last year in the USA, the oil barons porked something in the region of well over $10 billion from the “Green ” budget.

        Which oil company is paying for the peer-reviewed findings of the foremost expert in Polar Bear population which show that the population is in fact increasing?

        Since 2000 AD, the mean global temperature has been decreasing year-on-year.

        Polar ice is in fact increasing in amount and the Antarctic is getting colder.

        You can, in a few hours, google sufficient information on Alarmist Global Warming to realise that AGW is a political hoax led by Al Gore and his progressive liberal friends, with very little scientific basis, AGW bears the same relationship to Earth Science as Astrology does to Astronomy. Every major proposition of the AGW community has not stood the test of Scientific Peer Review or publishing the results for public consumption

        I’m glad you mentioned Bellamy. Ever since he made his opinions known, the BBC have dropped him from their programming, presumably because his conclusions, based on solid science are, “unhelpful” to David Attenborough’s alarmist agenda. His solution to an increase in the partial pressure of free CO2 in the atmosphere is to grow a few more trees.

        Attempting to scare an electorate into aquiescence is a recognised Progressive policy. Two examples are Blairs “WMD’s in 40 minutes” and swine flu being ramped up as the new Black Death.

        1. April Ryan
          July 19, 2009
      2. jean baker
        July 16, 2009

        According to reports, there’s a surplus in Russian oil. Nulabor has systematically failed to protect our best interests, including energy.
        British consumers are charged more by French & German suppliers.

        Energy: A British company has devised a system which handles unsorted waste, is transportable to landfill sites, emission free, sorts products into recyclable waste, biomass used for electricity and ethanol – used in Brazil in place of petrol. Unit cost is recoverable within two years.

        There are positive answers to every negative – Nulabor merely enhances ‘negatives’ for taxation and staying in ‘power’.

      3. [[NAME EDITED]]
        July 16, 2009

        You don’t mention nuclear power; why is that?

      4. Freddy
        July 16, 2009

        You can also, in a few hours, Google sufficient information to discover that the royal family, Tony Blair, and most of the opposition front bench are actually alien lizards in human form, intent on enslaving humanity. That doesn’t make it true.
        (Resisting temptation for cheap shot about Blair … )
        Given that you have access to Google, I suggest you broaden your search beyond the single-minded advocacy sites you have been looking at, and have a look at the actual scientific discussion.
        I recommend , the 2007 Weblog Awards winner for Best Science Blog, if your maths is up to it. ( Do you realise how much of the supposed “conclusive evidence” for global warming is shoddy statistical interpretation of grossly imperfect datasets ? )
        If that’s too difficult for you, then try which is easier to understand. (And which happens to be the 2008 Weblog Awards winner for Best Science Blog.)

        And, for the record, I do not have any connection with any major oil companies, beyond popping in to a petrol station from time to time.

        You ask “how do you argue away Peak Oil”. Very easily, as it happens. Lefties have been predicting imminent exhaustion of natural resources ever since the 1970s, or possibly even the 19602. Go look up Paul Ehrlich, for example, or any of his many fellow travellers. They have all been wrong EVERY time. I have no doubt that the same will be true of “peak oil”. Get government and the activist parasites out of the way, and I have no doubt the oil men will find plenty more oil yet.

        For the rest of your post … I hope for your sake that you’re one of these very well-off greenies who likes talking this rubbish because it makes it easier to fit in at dinner parties. If you are not well-off, and if the greenies succeed in their bid for world power, then you are going to get an awful lot poorer very fast.

        1. Adam Collyer
          July 17, 2009

          Freddy, you are so right. Another good site is

          I remember when I was a kid my vaguely leftish father confidently telling me that oil would run out by the year 2000. That was in between telling me that the task of the British government was management of decline, and that the National Health Service was “the envy of the world”.

      5. John Brown
        July 16, 2009

        Don’t confuse Peak Oil with “Climate Change/Global Warming” – the former is a supply issue, which will be addressed to a degree by changes in extraction technology and by the increased efficiency of oil using business – that is simple market forces and competitive pressure. However “Climate Change/Global Warming” is a political fad – the so called ‘science’ supporting it is full of holes and very far from settled (unless you are a member of the grant funded climate change industry which dominates the media coverage.
        The real danger with the so called ‘carbon’ taxes is that they distort the market for energy and undermine the implementation of rational economic decision making. The business case for wind turbines is non-existent if you strip away the subsidy from the renewables obligation subsidy. This is not good business, certainly not sustainable and will damage the UK economy.

        JR – the Conservatives really need to start talking sense on this. lets stop the ‘greenwash’ and politically correct arm waving and start planning how the UK’s energy needs are going to be addressed when the energy gap opens as a result of the decommissioning of the current nuclear power stations – time for action not more hot air.

      6. Emil
        July 16, 2009

        That wasn’t actually John’s point.

      7. APL
        July 16, 2009

        April Ryan: “… we are simply going to have to find renewable energy sources for the future ..”

        Of course, Coal and oil are renewable, it’s just a matter of a few trees or the carcasses of a few marine animals, if you are patient enough, in a few years, viola!

        April Ryan: “.. But then did we not imagine there was going to be a day of reckoning as we ravaged this planet of its resources?”

        You know, you are right, why should we pick on terra ferma, lets get off this old rock, and ravage a few other planets too.

        April Ryan: “I can only think that it’s a good thing that demand for oil is now starting to outstrip supply”

        No, April, you are a bit behind the times, the demand for oil has plummeted, as well as the price.

      8. adam
        July 19, 2009

        peak oil is easier to argue away than global warming, after all, coal can be converted to oil relatively cheaply and there is an enormous amount of coal.
        Global warming is a genuine scientific theory but only in the hands of scientists. Once it gets into the hands of politicians it quickly becomes distorted.

  4. Mick Anderson
    July 16, 2009

    Ministers make rules for everybody else to comply with. If they led by example, perhaps they might be viewed with less ridicule.

    They also don’t have the imagination to consider the possibility that you can both listen to their diatribes and think of a response at the same time. Witless, in more than one sense.

    Perhaps many of them were educated under previous Labour governments. That would explain why so many of them can’t do basic maths, and understand that wind turbines are not viable providers for mass electricity generation. We need efficiency and reliable generation, not expensive sops to lobbyists. It’s not even as though they benefit British manufacturing.

    There are many possible reasons why they can’t answer a question. Maybe it’s part of their lack of imagination – they can’t listen and consider a reply at the same time, having to recite or read prepared statements in reply to every question. If that’s the case, there is no point in having debates. It will always just turn into a party political advert.

    Your suggestion that their solution to the energy problem is to backrupt the country through recession rings true. I have also wondered whether the government policy to persecute motorists into loss of driving licences had something to do with identifying suspects when the minister in charge of speed cameras might be assaulted.

  5. jean baker
    July 16, 2009


    The basis of any civilized, democratic society is openness, honesty and two way conversation. These basic principles, your views and expectations in the House, are not ‘old fashioned’.

    Miliband displays the attitude and behaviour of a ‘dictator’, neither acceptable nor ‘fashionable’ in civilized, democratic Britain.

    1. Deborah
      July 16, 2009

      Milliband’s response sounds very like the sneering rudeness used by the portfolio holders of my local district Council to avoid givng a straight answer to a straight question. Unfortunately, over the last ten years, civilised, democratic Britain seems to have all but disappeared from political life.
      Too many chairmen (including the speaker) fail to insist on the civility and proper process which is necessary for democratically elected representatives to hold the executive to account.

      1. jean baker
        July 17, 2009

        Sounds as if you’re the victim of a labour-run Council – all Councils, and parishes, in our area continue to respect and operate on the basis of democracy and transparency for the good of the community. It’s how they become/remain elected members.

        Bercow’s appointment by the ‘ruling party’ was preordained; his (reported) arrogance is apparently on a par with Miliband’s – father (reportedly) was a Marxist.

        1. Deborah
          July 17, 2009

          I am sorry to say that is not the case. My local District Council behaves as though it was Labour-run, but actually has a Conservative majority of 41 out of 50.
          Safe seats can be a serious problem. The public is very trusting and assumes that the party has taken due care in selecting its candidates. Anyone wearing a blue rosette will be elected.
          When a small coterie chooses candidates who will toe the line scrutiny becomes a charade and democracy and transparency disappear. Those in charge can behave as they wish.

        2. jean baker
          July 18, 2009


          How very unusual – the name of the Council in question is ?

        3. Deborah
          July 18, 2009

          I would prefer not to name the Council on here, but would be happy to email John with the name.

        4. jean baker
          July 19, 2009

          Seems you’re willing to make statements, but unwilling to substantiate them, so best taken with a good pinch of salt.

        5. alan jutson
          July 19, 2009


          You may find that Deborah actually works for said Council, and thus is preserving her Job !!!!!!

          Which is a good reason not to disclose the name.

          Not all Conservative Councils are run as efficiently as they could be, or are the best thing since sliced bread.

          It is simply not the case that all Labour Councils are Bad, and all Conservative Councils are good.

          Our own Conservative Council (Wokinghham) lost £5,000,000 in Iceland. Although by and large they seem not bad. JR thankfully has some sensible comment to make when thay are being unusually silly, like trying to ban short term 30 min free carparking spaces in the Town recently.

        6. jean baker
          July 19, 2009

          Alan Jutson,

          Deborah’s identity couldn’t be traced by her employer (or anyone else) unless she was subjected to illegal hacking.

          It would seem that Wokingham Council worked in line with government directives to invest in high interest rate Icelandic Banks, whereas others used their own initiative and better judgment.

        7. Deborah
          July 19, 2009

          Your accusation at 8.45 is completely disingenuous and insulting.
          I have offered to substantiate my claims direct to John Redwood and would be happy to do so. I do not wish to name and shame a Conservative council on John’s website without his permission.
          I suggest you open your mind.

        8. alan jutson
          July 19, 2009

          Exactly my point with regard to our Council.
          As you say others used their own initiative and better judgement.
          Would you trust Labour information ????

          Many Labour Councils did not have money in Iceland, and therefore excercised better judgement on this matter than our Conservative Council.

          Easy to track anyone who publishes anything on the web if you really want to, especially if they use their real name.

          Some of us are not bothered, as we believe in free speech, others are rather more circumspect.

  6. Brian Tomkinson
    July 16, 2009

    Just why the Miliband brothers are regarded as being ministers of high intellect escapes me. Dumb and dumber would seem more appropriate. As usual within all the rhetoric and hot air was the little fact that, surprise, surprise, the poor old consumer is going to have to pay more for their energy. I know that ministers and most MPs aren’t used to paying household bills like the rest of us but if they were they would know just how cripplingly high those bills are right now. They have increased massively over recent years in case Westminster has forgotten. Who is going to end this relentless drive to impoverish us all?

    1. jean baker
      July 16, 2009

      ” … poor old consumer is going to have to pay more for their energy”.

      Are massively high energy consumers, such as Tesco, charged the same unit price as domestic consumers ? Or is it a case of ‘the more you use, the cheapers it gets’ with energy suppliers ?

      1. Brian Tomkinson
        July 16, 2009

        If Tesco and other supermarkets are charged more they will pass it on to their customers in higher prices as will other businesses.

        1. jean baker
          July 17, 2009

          It’s clearly profitable for high energy users to remain environmentally detrimental. Customers are paying for the supply and disposal of mountains of unwanted non-recyclable material used by supermarkets and all the costs of recycling.
          Toxic environmental effects on carbon emissions from global transportation and toxic landfill sites are well documented.

          “Every little helps … ” to wreak environmental damage.

      2. Ruth
        July 16, 2009

        Big users can buy their fuel on the wholesale markets, so no, they don’t pay the same rates as us. It’s a sliding scale, but basically the percentage saving is up to 50% compared to us, I think.

        That’s if you’re canny about it, I would be surprised if the government has rates like that as they couldn’t organise themselves enough.

        1. jean baker
          July 17, 2009

          Labour is a passengers party – always works in it’s own and ‘associates’ best interests.

  7. oldrightie
    July 16, 2009

    It never ceases to amaze me how so many Labour Ministers are closely related to other Labourites. They obviously create brilliant marriages, partnerships and/or kids in Labour’s socialist Utopia. Still there is only one James aka Jimmy, Brown. Or is the?
    As for the global warming industry, it’s all about new tax draconian nonsense. Like all tax it will not affect the Government hierarchy one jot.

  8. no one
    July 16, 2009

    I think the biggest scandal is the vast number of Chauffeur driven limos waiting outside the Scottish parliament many days waiting to drive off the thousand and one members of the scottish parliament

    I just dont believe we need so many people being driven around at the public expense

  9. Acorn
    July 16, 2009

    If you get the opportunity JR, please could you ask the government what its plans are to increase the interconnection of the GB electricity grid with those on the other side of the North Sea and the English Channel.

    If the projected 16,000 MW of wind turbines turn up by 2015, there is going to be a large requirement for “stand-by” plant that will have to kick in when the wind don’t blow. The owners of this plant will want paying handsomely for being the generator of last resort. So, not only will we be paying through the nose for wind generated electricity, we will be paying to insure the grid system against wind turbines going into “scarecrow” mode.

    The only large importing interconnector coming soon is the BritNed link. There was talk of a similar link with Norway, but this has gone quiet. Interconnectors increase competition, so you can understand why vested interests in the UK electricity business, don’t want them.

    1. alan jutson
      July 16, 2009

      Interesting that one of the largest wind turbine manufacturers in the Uk, who’s factory is currently located on the Isle of Wight, is shutting up shop and moving abroad.

      Does anyone know the real reason, or is it that so much hot air is now coming from Parliament, that they feel they are no longer required.

      If Wind power does take off in a big way, (tidal power is better) I can only assume this Company feels that its profitability will be better put to use elsewhere.

      Meantime the new technology which the Government is promoting, has not helped the workers in this instance, who have been made redundant.

      1. jean baker
        July 16, 2009

        It has the hallmarks of a Nulabor taxpayer funded PFI – profitable for executives, job losses at ‘ground level’ (same as the NHS !)

    2. james harries
      July 17, 2009

      thank you for the link, and i looked up the national grid’s ideas for an interconnector.
      as a statement of the bleedin’ obvious it could hardly be bettered.
      i was also distracted by thoughts of what the ng website / blog was for? the obvious reply is PR, but it’s couched in such consultant-speak it’s hard to say.
      maybe it’s a real effort to analyse a complex engineering-economic question. if so, it’s a jejune effort.
      having taxed the north sea to the point where marginal production is unviable i’d suppose that there must be some idle plant floating about (it’s either feast or famine) which could be had cheap. so why aren’t we preparing the tenders now?

  10. Super Blue
    July 16, 2009

    Scientists are very divided about whether there is any anthropogenic global warming (AGW) – and I have personally met three leading sceptics. However, many politicians say that there is concensus – some because it will harm their careers otherwise and some who actually believe it.
    John, you are clearly in neither category.

  11. Citizen Responsible
    July 16, 2009

    Ed Miliband was interviewed on Channel 4 news last night about the governments low carbon plan for the next 10 years. The CBI rep. made the point that the private sector will be expected to spend £150 billion to fund the plans which I assume must be added to their customers bills. The government had announced it would cost each household £200, but this figure has been suddenly reduced to £92 when offset by the savings in energy use e.g. loft lagging etc. Mr Miliband said the cost to households would not be spread evenly. There would be “social tariffs”. He talked a lot about “persuasion” and climate change as a fact was never questioned. After quite a soft interview, with a couple of wind turbines turning in the studio, Jon Snow thanked him for “risking the lion’s den”.

  12. Ruth
    July 16, 2009

    If you stand on the London Eye at night and look across the Thames, you will see a long line of offices facing you, all empty and all with every light blazing. It’s the MOD. We can’t afford helicopters but we can afford to leave every light on in every office, 24 hours a day apparently.

    In the offices of my former private sector employer a few miles away, one of the security staff would go round between 7 and 8 every evening and again at 10, turning off/turning down the lights until the bare minimum was reached for security purposes. Many of the lights were also movement sensitive. This reduced fuel bills enormously.

    It occurs to me that if the MOD wastage is standard across government, the reduction in carbon could be reached tomorrow simply by turning off lights and incidentally it would cost a lot less to run every office, thus saving us taxpayers money. Will they do it, do you think?

  13. Neil Craig
    July 16, 2009

    There is nothing inherently wrong with a “wasteful” use of energy if there is no shortage of it. There is no technological reason for any shortage – there are hundreds of years worth of coal around & CO2 is beneficial rather than a problem; there is more than enough uranium & thorium in the Earth’s crust to keep going until the Sun turns to a Red Giant (5 bn yrs); the amount of energy available in orbit to solar power satellites is, in human terms, infinite. All of these are available – the first 2 would cost less than we are currently spending on windmillery, the 3rd not much more in the short term & far less in the long term because, with no weather in orbit, SPS will alst almost forever.

    The disgusting thing is not so much the hypocrisy of our elected leaders in not switching off the airconditioning but the callous & criminal neglect of their duty to the welbeing of their constituents. Every time a pensioner dies of complications relating to hypothermia it is a preventable & deliberate murder & it happens about 25,000 times each winter.

    1. james harries
      July 17, 2009

      yes craig you’re right. essentially the first law of thermodynamics is your point.
      the second law of thermodynamics involves the cost of the effort to concentrate energy. there’s the rub.
      the second law (look it up on wikipedia, but for short let’s call it entropy) is well demonstrated in the lights on noone home scenario. the boiler is blazing, hot air is escaping out of the chimney, the aircon is on, cold air is escaping out the windows. the hot and cold air mix above to arrive at a stable temperature… by consuming lots of energy by the boiler and the aircon plant.
      while i’m disgusted by our leaders too, i try to think of them as stupid rather than wicked, so as to sleep at night.

      1. Neil Craig
        July 17, 2009

        Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it
        — Mark Twain

        Unfortunately after considerable thought I just cannot believe the Milibands are qjite as imbecilic as their remarks would suggest & think the world is only explicable if most politicians are putting promoting false scare stories far ahead of any duty to provide competent government & go with Mencken that

        “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

        Catastrophic global warming came to the fore just as the Berlin Wall came down & we no longer had the Soviets to menace us.

  14. Adrian Peirson
    July 16, 2009

    Personally I’m with Gordon Brown on this one, the Way to solve problems caused by Carbon Emmisions, landfill problems, and road congestion is to flood the country through mass mass mass mass mass immigration, then tax every one, obviously, the more people, the more taxes raised to solve problems like road congestion, landfill problems and carbon emmissions caused by mass mass mass mass immigration.
    It’s Brilliant.

    Sadly most do not have intellect to appreciate the sheer Brilliance of the plan.

    1. Deborah
      July 16, 2009

      Thanks – it’s good to smile in these miserable times.

    2. alan jutson
      July 16, 2009


      You could then have a bonus payment for a mass euthanasia programme for people at the end of their working/productive life of paying taxes.

      Would not only solve the population explosion and congestion you suggest, but also the housing, pension, and elderly care problems, at the same time.

      Debt problem solved, only those working and paying taxes allowed to live, those that had savings to pass onto their families would have all monies confiscated by the state.

      Again another very simple plan.

      Hang on, did not someone else think this was a good idea about 70 years ago.

      1. Adrian Peirson
        July 17, 2009

        You do realise gordon actually looks into this blog on occaision, you’ve very probably just given him ideas, I hope you’re not close to ‘retirement’ age.

        1. alan jutson
          July 18, 2009

          Not too far away in age, but if the policy comes in, I am ready for work !!!!

          Hows that for a politically correct answer!!!!!!!

          Just out of interest how do you Know Gordon reads this ?
          I would of thought one of his minnions may, Unless of course you are Gordon in disguise !!!!!!

          Perhaps if Gordon does read this, he may pick up on some of the themes and realise that he needs to give a sensible answer to some sensible questions for a change, instead of just preaching and evasion.
          Come to think of it most politicians (of all Party’s) need to do the same.

  15. AndrewSouthLondon
    July 16, 2009

    Full orchestration of media management this morning courtesy of the London Metro’s army of press release pattern-knitters aka “freesheet journalists”

    “Green future will come at a big price” the headline says. Followed by quotes from Ed Milliband ( Minister for Climate Alarmism), Caroline Lucas (Creature from the Green Lagoon) and Greenpeace chief watermelon John Sauven.

    Thats it. No discussion, no balance, no “but not everyone agrees” Nothing. PR stitch-up.

    For fun I amended my copy of the Metro with the words “Climate Change = Lies” and left it on the seat opposite. Later a student back from Uni sat down and picked it up. “Oh look – “climate change = lies” she tittered to her friend. How silly some people are.

    Never forget there is a lost generation out there who believe every word of it, betrayed by our educators, and the Vichy scientists, the hacks, the client Met Office, and the Department of Green Taxes.

  16. Rupert
    July 16, 2009

    The figures given by nulabour are ludicrously low for their utopian goals. Under the Heat and Energy Saving Strategy (affectionately known as HESS) they propose that all buildings will reduce their emissions by 80% on average by 2050. Their are tough mid-term targets set as well. Frankly why they are setting targets for beyond May 2010 is beyond me, never mind 2050! The cost of upgrading a typical house to reduce its emissions by 80% will be at least £20,000 – possibly nearer £40,000 – unless we invent some miracle products. I work in the building industry and have not just guessed these figures from nowhere. 25 million homes x £40k is £1 trillion. Then there’s the non-domestic sector on top of that. So we are probably looking at £1-2 trillion. That bears no resemblance to £77 extra per household from 2015.

    I accept that we need to sort out the issue of green energy generated in the UK. It will cost lots of money – let’s have some honest discussions which include finances. The HESS document never discusses money – which is the one thing that you cannot ignore. As a nation we don’t have a spare £1 trillion – we are in debt.

    My concern for the Tories is that you have never taken over after 12 years of nulabour – it will take you at least a year to begin to even understand what they have created.

  17. Bazman
    July 16, 2009

    The world will never run out of energy This is a fact. The problem is how this energy will be produced, its conservation and the lie in how this will be paid for. Maybe it can be produced from the chicken droppings of Boris’s 250 grand, prince Charles objections to materialism, and banker realities.

  18. jeff todd
    July 17, 2009

    If extra taxes are to stop us using oil, then there will be no extra revenue to invest.

    Extra money money will only exist IF we continue to use oil.

    Energy costs drive business out – look at what the insane green agenda has done to California.

    By all means seek a viable alternative, but overtaxing and squandering money on next to useless windmills/solar panels is madness.

  19. Mike Stallard
    July 17, 2009

    I was at the gym this morning when – bingo! all the lights went out. Those of us who were pedalling furiously on the machinery still kept going, but the other people had to exercise by the faint sunlight of a very rainy day.
    After about three minutes, we were all chucked out into the cold just as the rain started teeming down.
    On the way home, all the traffic lights were down, there was very little on the road and people stood, outside their dark shops, some smoking. Luckily I had a full tank of petrol, because electricity is needed for the pumps.
    When I got home, my wife told me that the power cut had meant that she couldn’t cook the lunch.
    Welcome to the wonderful green world of Edward Milliband!

    1. Adrian Peirson
      July 17, 2009

      Sounds more like black than Green, of course our Farmers could, if we had a sensible population balance, grow our fuel in the form of biofuels, but no, Govt wants the country flooded to around 100 Million.
      I guess the reason beiing if we are on our Knees, govt will be better able to control us, can’t have an independant and affluent population, got to bring em to their knees if you want to control them.

    2. alan jutson
      July 18, 2009


      You sound a very sensible man from your regular Blogs.

      Why not rig up the cycle wheels to a generator then all of you at the gym could power the lights, what better incentive, no point in wasting energy. Then next shift could take over while you could have a drink (water that is from the tap)

      It would give a new meaning to spinning.

      Tell me why do all those who go to the gym always want to park near to the entrance ?

      If you want excercise I would have thought that they would all park furthest away.

      Just think of all of that energy from all who attend the gym being wasted, all making hot air which needs an air conditioning unit to cool them all down.

      And you pay as well !!!!!

      Suggest you all dig the garden and grow a few vegetables, then come the revolution you could still feed yourself and family.

      Sure you will take this in the spirit it is written !!!!

      Keep healthy.

  20. adam
    July 19, 2009

    If we give everyone a bit of uranium they can power their house off that, problem solved.
    As long as we can OK it with health and safety.

    1. alan jutson
      July 19, 2009


      You may be interested to note that you (the general public) cannot object under current Planning rules, for anything which threatens health and safety of the population in any Planning application.

      Neither which may cause you distress, such as noise or dust.

      So there you go, only need to convince a few planners to be on your side, and hey presto no one could object.

Comments are closed.