Comments on: Rhubarb-Rhubarb and Custard

By: Mike RH

Mike RH — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:14:20 +0000

Good Article.
But one thing struck me from Leila Deen’s comments. Where does this “Ninety per cent of scientists now agree that climate change is a very real threat, that it’s already occurring, that it’s man-made, and that our last chance is going to run out within the next ten years” actually come from? I googled it and found nothing. Has she got confused with the IPCC Report comment that “global warming is happening – and is getting worse, and there is >90% chance that human beings are responsible for it”? It wouldn’t surprise me – misusing “facts”. But if Ms Deen’s statement is true I’m not sure it is worth much – I’m not very interested in what a microbiologist (or most other scientists) thinks of global warming as compared to a meteorologist.
I would be interested to know what others think.

By: George Carty

George Carty — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:43:02 +0000

It’s called the “Jevons paradox”, Stefan – I’ve often seen it mentioned on the pro-nuclear blogs I frequent. (Of course a lot of the people there justify their support for nuclear energy within the framework of AGWCC…)

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 07:31:34 +0000

Nice article

I despair of our ‘free press’. None of them are capable of independent critical analysis when it comes to green….. they just follow the party line. Afterall the ‘green’ correspondents are hardly going to put themselves out of a job by actually considering facts and the non viability of the green agenda.

Thats why blogging/the internet is the only way now of serious commentary

By: Stefan

Stefan — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:42:58 +0000

Regarding loft lagging, I’m skeptical of such efforts to reduce overall energy use. I was taught by a lecturer in Building Science that when people found they could heat their homes more efficiently, they turned up the thermostat higher.

So I am wary of any analysis that doesn’t appear to consider possible complex counterintuitive and unexpected responses.

By: Robert Wood

Robert Wood — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:42:26 +0000

The Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty, said almost identical nonsense when announcing his Green Energy Act …

http://www.mei.gov.on.ca.wsd6.korax.net/english/energy/gea/

…which has cut straight to enforcement and enviro-police with rights of entry to property.

By: Alex Cull

Alex Cull — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:24:08 +0000

Geoff, I think that’s true about the loft lagging – it’s about the only specific example of a UK green job I’ve encountered so far. It’s pretty basic and low tech – even I could do it, with minimal training. And you’re right – people have it done to keep warm, not to save CO2. To be honest, if there were no practical or financial benefits to these CO2 saving measures, would people generally do them? I think not; that’s why the government has to offer carrots (save money, keep warm) and perhaps start thinking about brandishing a stick (legislation?)

Also, isn’t Gordon falling for the “broken windows” fallacy? Here’s an article from Forbes.com which suggests this: http://tinyurl.com/9zdrxf

I like this quote from the article:
“Indeed, if maximum employment were the goal of energy policy then having humans push turbines, a la Conan the Barbarian, would create far more jobs per kilowatt hour.”

To take this to an extreme, every able-bodied person could be drafted into the green economy, taking their turn to power treadles (especially on calm or cloudy days!) or spread humanure on the fields, so that Britain can achieve total energy and food self-sufficiency, plus full employment. And ecopsychologists would no doubt rejoice at a happy population engaged in hard physical labour, no longer alienated from “flesh and blood experience”, at one with nature and purged of all our consumer addictions and climate change denial. What joy!

By: Lee Jones

Lee Jones — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 09:45:56 +0000

What struck me most of all was Brown’s line that what “we need is now a national endeavour that gives us purpose for years to come”. Too right – and how sad to have latched onto the apocalypse. As you imply, the idea that you can have your cake (be green) and eat it (have a new, employment-generating industrial revolution) is probably complete nonsense. The reality is that cutting emissions by 80% as this government has committed itself to doing will require swingeing cuts in all sorts of areas.

By: joblo

joblo — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 06:34:23 +0000

> .. a ship of foolish Chicken Littles, struggling to sustain their political legitimacy.

Now that was very funny.

By: geoff chambers

geoff chambers — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 06:22:27 +0000

Excellent article. It can’t be pointed out too often how removed from reality are all statistics on green jobs etc. This kind of criticism used to be done by radical campaigning journalists on the left, but of course they can’t any more because they’ve all gone green.

Note that those 400,000 low carbon jobs include loft lagging. People don’t lag their lofts to reduce their carbon output, they do it to keep warm – the same reason as they wear pullovers. Why not count the whole textile industry, and the hot water bottle manufacturers, as providers green jobs?

The most telling quote is surely this, from the Innovas report, where it states:
“Some of this growth in employment might be due to displacement activity…”
Displacement activity is defined by Wikipaedia as:
“the result of two contradicting instincts in a particular situation. Birds, for example, may peck at grass when uncertain whether to attack or flee from an opponent; similarly, a human may scratch its head when it does not know which of two options to choose”.

Exactly.