Comments on: 80% and the Climate Change Aristocracy http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/10/80-and-the-climate-change-aristocracy.html Challenging Climate Orthodoxy Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Pete http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/10/80-and-the-climate-change-aristocracy.html#comment-753 Pete Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:11:50 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=223#comment-753 Further to JMW's comment above, it seems the fanciful thinking and posturing of the Green era have hit the rock of financial reality in these chastened times. Stocks in Green ideas and environmental thinking seem to be taking a battering... A turning point? Maybe. Silver linings and all: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/ Further to JMW’s comment above, it seems the fanciful thinking and posturing of the Green era have hit the rock of financial reality in these chastened times.

Stocks in Green ideas and environmental thinking seem to be taking a battering…

A turning point? Maybe.

Silver linings and all:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/

]]> By: JMW http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/10/80-and-the-climate-change-aristocracy.html#comment-752 JMW Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:29:11 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=223#comment-752 And for some good news, it seems that wrapping yourself up in green didn't work for Liberal leader Stephane Dion in the federal elections we had here in Canada yesterday... "If Mr. Harper’s big campaign error was blowing potential gains in Quebec, Mr. Dion’s was building a campaign around the Green Shift. Electorally, it was a shift that simply didn’t work for the Liberals. It shifted old supporters out of the party in fear that it would raise their energy costs, but did not seem to shift idealistic new ones in. Although Mr. Dion was, as he fairly claimed, the greenest mainstream party leader on offer, green voters didn’t come to him in any numbers in the end. The shift was beyond what mainstream voters were ready to do for the environment; the green vanguard proved fickle and so the great green gamble was a fizzle. For this and for betting so much on this huge sales job before he had sold the public on himself, Mr. Dion is going to have a hard fight holding on to the Liberal leadership, if he still wants it. And the failure of even greens to rally around the Green Shift may ensure that it’s a very long time before another party leader goes out on a green limb again." http://thechronicleherald.ca/Editorials/1084798.html Maybe there's hope yet? And for some good news, it seems that wrapping yourself up in green didn’t work for Liberal leader Stephane Dion in the federal elections we had here in Canada yesterday…

“If Mr. Harper’s big campaign error was blowing potential gains in Quebec, Mr. Dion’s was building a campaign around the Green Shift.

Electorally, it was a shift that simply didn’t work for the Liberals. It shifted old supporters out of the party in fear that it would raise their energy costs, but did not seem to shift idealistic new ones in.

Although Mr. Dion was, as he fairly claimed, the greenest mainstream party leader on offer, green voters didn’t come to him in any numbers in the end. The shift was beyond what mainstream voters were ready to do for the environment; the green vanguard proved fickle and so the great green gamble was a fizzle.

For this and for betting so much on this huge sales job before he had sold the public on himself, Mr. Dion is going to have a hard fight holding on to the Liberal leadership, if he still wants it.

And the failure of even greens to rally around the Green Shift may ensure that it’s a very long time before another party leader goes out on a green limb again.”

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Editorials/1084798.html

Maybe there’s hope yet?

]]> By: Alex Cull http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/10/80-and-the-climate-change-aristocracy.html#comment-751 Alex Cull Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:30:21 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=223#comment-751 The National Farmer's Union are saying that an 80% cut to all UK greenhouse gas emissions will not do wonders for agriculture as we know it (understatement). From the Telegraph: "Allan Buckwell, director of policy at the Country Land and Business Association, said Britain should be producing more of its own food because of an impending food crisis caused by climate change and the growth in the global population. But he said this would be impossible to do while cutting green house gases without 'amazing new technology'. 'We simply do not know how to produce the current volume of food produced using 80 per cent less greenhouse gases,' he added. Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director, said the targets will 'revolutionise' farming." Yes, the targets would definitely 'revolutionise' farming if the entire population turned out to till the fields, much like they did in Cambodia in the 1970s. That would do the trick, I'm sure. :o) Otherwise, while we wait for the 'amazing new technology' to be developed, I suggest we continue with the effective technology we already have, in order to keep ourselves fed. The National Farmer’s Union are saying that an 80% cut to all UK greenhouse gas emissions will not do wonders for agriculture as we know it (understatement). From the Telegraph: “Allan Buckwell, director of policy at the Country Land and Business Association, said Britain should be producing more of its own food because of an impending food crisis caused by climate change and the growth in the global population. But he said this would be impossible to do while cutting green house gases without ‘amazing new technology’. ‘We simply do not know how to produce the current volume of food produced using 80 per cent less greenhouse gases,’ he added. Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director, said the targets will ‘revolutionise’ farming.”

Yes, the targets would definitely ‘revolutionise’ farming if the entire population turned out to till the fields, much like they did in Cambodia in the 1970s. That would do the trick, I’m sure. :o ) Otherwise, while we wait for the ‘amazing new technology’ to be developed, I suggest we continue with the effective technology we already have, in order to keep ourselves fed.

]]> By: geoff chambers http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/10/80-and-the-climate-change-aristocracy.html#comment-750 geoff chambers Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:42:41 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=223#comment-750 Ok, your article does a good job of showing up the arbitrary nature of government decisions. The vacuity of modern politics is being filled with the illusion of action based on scientific, and therefore objective, criteria. “Up from 60 to 80%! Wow! and all based on peer reviewed science!” we’re meant to exclaim admiringly. Years ago, a Labour government might have reacted to an economic crisis by raising top rate income tax from 60 to 80%, or Tories might have done the opposite. Political decisions, based on political criteria, to be challenged on political grounds. How 20th century! How much safer to propose arbitrary, non-realisable statistical targets treating a non-problem in the far future when current politicians will be dead. But once you’ve made this point (and you have, well and often) why argue over details over who did what? There’s currently a ferment of activity in the blogs covering the science and scientific propoganda of AGW (Climate Audit, Watts up with that, Jennifer Marohasy et al). As temperature proves to be cyclical, polar bears refuse to die, and China and India take on the white man’s burden of emitting energising CO2, something’s got to give politically (and, I would suggest, psychologically) in our collective cognitive dissonance. Will some bright far right politician lead a crusade against the red/green windmill weirdoes (and probably against a lot of other values most of us are attached to, like social justice, concern for the third world etc)? Or will we declare the third world war against third world fossil fuel burners? I don’t know. I’d like some second opinions. Most climate scare deniers seem to be small c American conservatives, happy as long as big government keeps off their backs. But there’s a bigger picture. Concern for the well-being of our planet is an honourable motivating force for political action, but it’s been hijacked by loonies who believe in the non-existent threat of global warming. Yours is the only active site I know providing intelligent political analysis. Pl ease focus on the big picture. (Sorry to always be carping)). Ok, your article does a good job of showing up the arbitrary nature of government decisions. The vacuity of modern politics is being filled with the illusion of action based on scientific, and therefore objective, criteria. “Up from 60 to 80%! Wow! and all based on peer reviewed science!” we’re meant to exclaim admiringly.
Years ago, a Labour government might have reacted to an economic crisis by raising top rate income tax from 60 to 80%, or Tories might have done the opposite. Political decisions, based on political criteria, to be challenged on political grounds. How 20th century! How much safer to propose arbitrary, non-realisable statistical targets treating a non-problem in the far future when current politicians will be dead.
But once you’ve made this point (and you have, well and often) why argue over details over who did what? There’s currently a ferment of activity in the blogs covering the science and scientific propoganda of AGW (Climate Audit, Watts up with that, Jennifer Marohasy et al). As temperature proves to be cyclical, polar bears refuse to die, and China and India take on the white man’s burden of emitting energising CO2, something’s got to give politically (and, I would suggest, psychologically) in our collective cognitive dissonance. Will some bright far right politician lead a crusade against the red/green windmill weirdoes (and probably against a lot of other values most of us are attached to, like social justice, concern for the third world etc)? Or will we declare the third world war against third world fossil fuel burners? I don’t know. I’d like some second opinions.
Most climate scare deniers seem to be small c American conservatives, happy as long as big government keeps off their backs. But there’s a bigger picture. Concern for the well-being of our planet is an honourable motivating force for political action, but it’s been hijacked by loonies who believe in the non-existent threat of global warming. Yours is the only active site I know providing intelligent political analysis. Pl ease focus on the big picture. (Sorry to always be carping)).

]]> By: Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut. http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/10/80-and-the-climate-change-aristocracy.html#comment-749 Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut. Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:33:10 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=223#comment-749 [...] just as you think things get get any worse, they do.  As this excellent post from the good folks over at Climate Resistance documents, green politics has become both mainstream [...] [...] just as you think things get get any worse, they do.  As this excellent post from the good folks over at Climate Resistance documents, green politics has become both mainstream [...]

]]> By: John Bailo http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/10/80-and-the-climate-change-aristocracy.html#comment-748 John Bailo Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:15:09 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=223#comment-748 Climate "Change" is more about the entrenched powers like Hansen and the IPCC and the Liberals trying to hold on to wealth in the face of real change. If the average temperature of the temperate and arctic zones were to go up significantly, it would do what the previous 180 years of warmth have done: increase human prosperity and opportunity. Climate “Change” is more about the entrenched powers like Hansen and the IPCC and the Liberals trying to hold on to wealth in the face of real change.

If the average temperature of the temperate and arctic zones were to go up significantly, it would do what the previous 180 years of warmth have done: increase human prosperity and opportunity.

]]> By: Alex Cull http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/10/80-and-the-climate-change-aristocracy.html#comment-747 Alex Cull Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:02:46 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=223#comment-747 Hi TDK, point taken re the time frame. We'll probably see enough scientific, technological and political changes from now until the 2050s to make these targets appear sillier with every year that passes. Hi TDK, point taken re the time frame. We’ll probably see enough scientific, technological and political changes from now until the 2050s to make these targets appear sillier with every year that passes.

]]> By: TDK http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/10/80-and-the-climate-change-aristocracy.html#comment-746 TDK Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:01:05 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=223#comment-746 Alex Cull you are surely right to accuse these people of plucking figures out of the air in an attempt to outdo each other, but wrong about the date. The important fact is every party is promising the make the cut by 2050. That's equivalent to a politicians before WWI making promises to be fulfilled in the 1950s. No politician will be alive to be held to account for their failure; so far better to bid up your opponents. Alex Cull you are surely right to accuse these people of plucking figures out of the air in an attempt to outdo each other, but wrong about the date. The important fact is every party is promising the make the cut by 2050. That’s equivalent to a politicians before WWI making promises to be fulfilled in the 1950s. No politician will be alive to be held to account for their failure; so far better to bid up your opponents.

]]> By: Editors http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/10/80-and-the-climate-change-aristocracy.html#comment-745 Editors Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:58:31 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=223#comment-745 Talisker is complaining about 'turgid and predictable reiteration'. Oh, the irony. Again. Talisker is complaining about ‘turgid and predictable reiteration’.

Oh, the irony. Again.

]]> By: talisker http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/10/80-and-the-climate-change-aristocracy.html#comment-744 talisker Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:42:12 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=223#comment-744 "Misanthropes"? "Anti-human"? Rob Lyon's piece is yet another turgid and predictable reiteration of the party line on environmentalism as laid down by former Revolutionary Communist Party Chairman Frank Furedi. Spiked churns out variations on this theme with the dismal regularity of the paeans to Kim Jong Il in the Pyong Yang Times. “Misanthropes”? “Anti-human”? Rob Lyon’s piece is yet another turgid and predictable reiteration of the party line on environmentalism as laid down by former Revolutionary Communist Party Chairman Frank Furedi. Spiked churns out variations on this theme with the dismal regularity of the paeans to Kim Jong Il in the Pyong Yang Times.

]]>