A recession that the green brigade can enjoy?

Rex Burr

A massive reduction in the size of the UK economy is the only chance that brown has of reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050.
I have yet to hear of any other serious proposals that will achieve it.
Perhaps he considers it a price worth paying to save the planet, well, our tiny contribution to saving the planet.
It's just as well that it not necessary anyway.

wonderfulforhisage

'I very much look forward to the first study calculating the "green dividend" of the recession.'

The triumph of hope over expectation?

Philip Wright

I fear you may see hell freeze over before you get any such study from the green brigade. They are only interested in using highly selective data which supports their propaganda aims.

The inconvenient truth (no apologies to Al Gore) is usually laid bare on a weekly basis by Christopher Booker in his Sunday Telegraph column, such as today's, which consistently points out the economic folly of how the climate change agenda will hamstring the UK (and others) for no plausible reason whatsoever.

Pot Head

I'm looking forward to the first study calculating the reduction of 'smug journalists dividend' of the recession.

I have already done my bit to hasten their demise on this organ and cancelled my Spectator subscription, I can read the damn thing on line for free & maybe I'll save a tree or two into the bargain.

TGF UKIP

Careful now, Fraser, carry on in this vein and your erstwhile best mate, Dave, won't be speaking to you anymore.

Lance Grundy

Mmm. Very true. Don’t forget that not only did Labour fail to fix the roof when the sun was shining, they didn’t fix the boiler either.

Britain has a looming power crisis that the government has totally failed to address. The resulting power cuts, in tandem with the decline in economic output you mention above, will mean we’ve got a very [dark] ‘green’ future ahead of us.

A green but not so pleasant land.

Max Kaye

Rex Burr, by saying "A massive reduction in the size of the UK economy is the only chance that brown has of reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050." are you seriously suggesting that Brown will still be around by 2050?

I hope not. I'd rather face armageddon.

Luckily, however, both Gordon Brown and believers in 'Global Warming/Climate Change' are delusional and will not last for much longer.

Rhoda Klapp

I don't think there's a sentence here that I wouldn't take exception to.

You do know it's a scam, don't you? Or are you again on the wrong side of the disconnect between the political class and real people?

RW

Lance: get yourself a woodburner. Totally independent of British Gas et al; you can cook on it as well, with a bit of Scout-style ingenuity, and heat the water too. And the flickering flames cast a nice romantic glow, albeit a bit murky. Very conducive to the oldest and most rewarding of pastimes. I suspect statisticians will soon be recording the "Gordon boom" in the population.

Travis Bickle

Gordon Brown doesn't believe in this scam any more than most of us do, but when there's tax to be grabbed why waste the opportunity?

Meanwhile some boffin at the met office claims that the cold winter would be even colder without global warming (FFS 1963 like winters now only every 1000 years when it was every 183 prior to 1850 (aka before records were kept)), and tosspot environmental nut from Express opines that his theory "fits the reality like a glove". Well only if you start with the glove and design the hand I guess.

Alf Tupper

If you are so sceptical of the aims and targets of the green lobby regarding emissions, then why is it such a big deal that those same targets will be more than met by the effects of the recession?

Our lower levels of activity shouldn't change everything as you state. In fact, nothing - piffle then, piffle now?

THX1138

TGF I thought I would have a look at the UKIP website & got these choice quotes from your UK Independence Party Energy and Environment Policy: January 2008

"favouring the idea of a ‘greener’ lifestyle"

"we accept climate change, and whilst global warming may be
a threat"

"To counter the ‘throwaway society’, UKIP would encourage a greater willingness to reduce demands, reuse products, and take better care of our planet."

"Ending or reversing the destruction of rain forest is a high priority"

"Carbon capture’ (carbon sequestration) at power stations might
ultimately provide a possible solution to the issue of emissions from the use of coal for electricity generation. We would consider grant support for such capital works. "

All sounds a bit Dave and Zac Goldsmith to me, in fact I agreed with quite a lot of it especially the nuclear stuff.

drakes drum

Mr Nelson.

As you are obviously another journalist taken in with this world wide conspiracy of 'Global Warming' may I recommend that you read the late Michael Crichton's well researched book 'STATE OF FEAR'written in 2004.

Or any of Christopher Brookers articles in the Sunday Telegraph.Endorsed by dear old Henry Kelly.

STATE OF FEAR has an appendix which tells readers of the last great worldwide scare 'eugenics'!!

We are in the midst of another gigantic, politically orchestrated, scare story to control the people!

It may give you something to consider when you next are drawn to writing another article which aids and abets this nonsensical scare story of global warming!

THX1138

Fraser- For the record do believe that human activity via the release of CO2, CH4 , N2O and other greenhouse gases is warming the Earth's climate?

Susan Hill

And when the recession reduces our carbon emissions by squillions they`ll claim that the global cooling which has actually been going on quietly for the last 11 years, but which they will then choose to acknowledge, was all down to that, won`t they ?

Fraser Nelson

Alf Tupper, it's a big deal because politcians of all hues would like to tax us more to meet these (largely pointless) goals. If they're being met anyway, we stand a greater chance of dodging the tax.

Travis, I suspect Brown is secretly with Tom Harris on this one.

THX1138 - yes I do believe in manmade global waming - inasmuch as I consider global warming a largely natural phenomenon exacerbated to an unknown degree by manmade COs. Crucially I have never seen any evidence suggesting government policies - Kyoto, Stern the works - can either halt or materially slow global warming. Proportionality is my beef with the whole argument. Sure, we can cut our CO2 - but it would slow global warming by how much? To believe in the global warming agenda, it is important not to ask yourself this question. My final word: the science is in its infancy, still. We're all still learning about global warming. So I class myself a sceptic rather than a "denier", but I'm willing to have my mind changed in either direction by new evidence as an when it comes out.

JohnAnt

Oh dear, Fraser, and you thought your irony was so obvious. You rechoned without the red haze of GW and Anti-GW fury.

Lindsay Nation

Mr Nelson

Your comments prior to your update are accurate as to the motivations of many "Green" groups here in Australia, some of whom receive public funding and other benefits.

Why therefore is your "Update" so craven in its apologetic tone, exemplified by your ready acceptance of "guilt" merely because another blogger agrees with you.

"Way too right wing"? You would have to be joking. That is becoming a quality less associated with the Spectator than at any time in the last 30 years that I have been reading it.

Just look at the articles in the Australian suppement for example--a topic for another time perhaps.

cuffleyburgers

I'm afraid there will be plenty on the eco-loon left who will be deriving more than a little satisfaction from the travails of the economy.

I agree that your appended apolgy is pathetically craven.

I think I agree with you. I am a sceptic more than a denier, and I believe there are more important priorities for the world to fix such as overfishing, shortage of drinking water, subsistence farming, war and ignorance (the ignorance being mostly in Brussels and Westminster).

If we can live our lives the way we want whilst consuming less that's a bonus.

THX1138

Fraser- Thanks for that. I do believe that we are warming the climate due to human activities. The experts in the field i.e. climate scientists rather than political pundits or dead SiFi writers appear to be convinced & increasingly worried. To ignore the science in favour of the mumbo jumbo unscientific twittering of a few journalists is reckless in the extreme.

Even ExxonMobil has given up the fight.

"The boss of ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company, has called for a carbon tax to tackle global warming"

And the CEO Mr Tillerson said

"As a businessman it is hard to speak favourably about any new tax. But a carbon tax strikes me as a more direct, a more transparent and a more effective approach."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oil-giant-comes-in-from-the-cold-1297558.html

Fraser Nelson

Lindsay/cuffleyburgers, I know there are some hardcore anticapitalist trust fund nut jobs in the environmentalist movement. And it was them whom I had in mind when I first blogged. But
in my experience, the majority of the green brigade are genuinely well-meaning, and have been simply misinformed by claims that a) we can make a meaningful difference to the trajectory of global warming and b) it's all caused by rich folk not recycling enough, rather than the poor world getting off its agrarian knees. The motives of the enoughisenough.org mob can be questioned, but not of the pensioner separating her plastic from her cardboard. Ultimately, this argument will be won by rational argument - of which there's far too little in the environmental debate.

Lindsay Nation

Fraser

I think you are very generous as to the motives of the "majority of the green brigade" but although I would not cavil with most of your 1120am reply one should be cautious when supping with a devil. I can't speak from UK experience but many mainstream green groups here would delight at a substantial destruction of Western indusrial economies.

As for the question posed by THX1138(@837pm) a definitve answer requires considerable study of many disciplines not least computer modelling, and many people pronounce judgment, indeed inevitable catastrophe, without such study. A burden of proof rests strongly on those seeking harsh measures to stop alleged man-made global warming. I care little what UKIP think or write about it.

THX1138

Bryan Appleyard has important post on just this subject.

http://www.bryanappleyard.com/blog/2009/01/melt.php

A quote from his post.

"this Economist vid says it all. Neither scientists, Guardian journalists nor tree-huggers are involved. Companies and countries are negotiating for the massive area of sea round the Arctic now made available by retreating ice. But I suppose they've just got it wrong and it's all some kind of weird trick of the light, snow blindness perhaps."

Can I also suggest you watch Economist video he links to.

Bickers

Fraser, you're right to point out that the green lobby will have a problem convincing us that we need to cut down our consumption when it's happening regardless because of the global recession . Remember, there's no scientific evidence (just fancy computer models - GIG0) that CO2 hs any discernable impact on Global Warming - water vapour is the major driver of the greenhouse effect).
The problem for the greens and all the individuals and academics that have benifitted from research money is that the scam they've been propogating for the last 15 years is not evident when the climate is looked at in the real World. Satellites tell us the World stopped warming 8-10 years ago - the last two winters in the have seen record low temperatures in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere - of course the greens will tell us that warming is causing cooling - you couldn't make it up - oh! they have!!