Should we be spending money on this?

Chris Huhne has said that Britain must lead the world in cutting carbon emissions. This means spending £2.9 billion of taxpayers' money on 'decarbonization'.

However, George Osborne, the Chancellor, has said that Britain will not cut emissions faster than other European countries.

This change in policy is to be welcomed; it is a step in the right direction.

India, an emerging industrial power, will not sign up to the same emissions cuts as richer nations. Nor will China. America has also refused.

It is surprising, therefore, that our own energy minister is continuing to promote the AGW agenda. As a minister, one would expect him to be supportive of British industry.

It is reported in several national newspapers today (5 Dec) that he is intending to use a report (presumably fictional) from the Met Office to show what may happen to the world if nothing is done to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions.

Meanwhile, in Durban, South Africa, a conference on climate is taking place. 190 countries are represented. They are discussing the direction in which they think energy policies should go.

Political activists at the conference, working in the environmental movement, are doing everything they can to keep their global warming alarmism, and their funding, alive.

In some ways their influence has already been far-reaching. My wife's rural church, for example, now has to have an 'energy audit', which has to be organised and paid for. It is the law.

As I've said on other pages, you couldn't make it up......


In case any reader needs reminding, before we get too far away from reality.......


Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas. Water vapour is a better absorber of infra-red than carbon dioxide. (I have given examples of published infra-red spectra on this site, and how they relate to climate.)

Most carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from nature, not from human activity.

The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is fifty to a hundred times greater than that of carbon dioxide, depending on the weather.

None of these points are disputed.

The conclusion: man-made carbon dioxide's effect on climate is negligible.


Why, therefore, does Mr. Huhne want to spend so much money on 'decarbonization'?

There are lots of good reasons why we should not waste the earth's resources, but none of them have anything to do with carbon dioxide or climate change.

Mr. Huhne should be aware that in a time of economic hardship, and perhaps looming unemployment, we should be spending less, not more.

Let us hope that Mr. Osborne will remain firm in protecting the interests of British companies.



ND, 5 Dec 11

Back to top