The worlds climate is changing, it always has and it always will. What is the cause? The earth keeping itself in balance as it evolves. But what part do human beings play with said Earth’s functionality? Not that much. The last time I checked there was no “Earth spinning in its orbit” committee , or a “Make sure the grass continues to grow” focus group, or even an inter-governmental committee on “Annual purification of the air and water supply”. Add to that list ensuring that food continues to grow in abundance year after year even though we still have the same seeds; the tomatoes growing today are the descendants of tomatoes growing a million years ago, the only difference is they taste better. Just as you are the descendant of the human beings who lived on earth millions of years ago, and you’re better; kinder, more loving, cleverer, more beautiful (look at the youngsters walking around the planet and tell me they aren’t the best yet)
This is life. It is abundant and magnificent, and getting better all the time. But there are plenty of things happening which fall well outside of any human influence (even the well meaning, all seeing eye of the EU).
So no, I don’t believe a word of the notion of man made climate change. We global warming heretics may be in a minority, just as those who originally thought the world was round when most thought it was flat were not popular, but it didn’t make them wrong. On the plus side, we are gaining more and more support, and our view will be validated in due course so we’ll just wait it out.
If you haven’t seen it, check out The Great Global Warming Swindle which was made back at a time when there wasn’t as much religious fervour around the subject of man made climate change, when heretics were less likely to be burned at the stake and a programme like this could be aired on channel 4.
Governments think they know best which means their policies are very often flawed in their basis. In this case the false premise is that CO2 is bad for the planet – last time I checked plants needed CO2 to grow, and plants are a good thing. The fundamentals of how this came to be established science are explained in the great global warming swindle, so I won’t spoil that for you.
CO2 is a perfect government Trojan Horse. It was designed as a 21st century straw man, the ‘good baddie’, a patsy that could never be found guilty (the science of climate is about as measurable and predictable as the weather), and most importantly one that you could generate business around and usefully levy taxes on, against all calls to the contrary (who in their right mind could reasonably argue against a policy which is designed to save the planet?)
‘Bad Carbon’ created a multi billion pound industry out of nothing. There is no real issue with coal or the carbon that comes from it, or oil running out, but even so we now have millions of individuals engaged in the low carbon economy, trying to save carbon, trade carbon, offset carbon, count carbon, cheat carbon tests etc etc. Such is the momentum, that this ship will continue to sail for a while yet.
Mis-selling of carbon (the carbon fraud that world governments have been engaged in) is what has led to a number of ridiculous situations; from closing down British coal fired power stations (which could have been cleaned up to reduce real pollution – and no I’m not talking about CO2 – adding to our energy security) to the EU emissions debacle; where Europe’s largest manufacturing sector has been routinely cheating emissions tests to justify the low carbon emissions of their diesel vehicles.
These vehicle manufacturers are chasing carbon targets rather than pollution targets. The recent news that the UK government is considering raising taxes on diesel cars shows government policy on carbon as the missed point that it is. I should know, I work in the renewable energy sector, and I see how government subsidies skew markets and make them as dysfunctional as to be practically ineffective.
The government’s role, if it has anything of value to add, is firstly to hire people who know what they’re talking about (not the yes men on the IPCC), to tax elements they dislike (pollution, and by pollution I don’t mean CO2, I mean nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulates for example) and let the market find a way to achieve within these constraints. They might want to tax carbon consumption, by raising fuel duty, which would encourage drivers to buy more fuel efficient cars.
‘Bad carbon’ tax is really a tax on the consumption of energy, which is a tax on wealth, and on productivity. But really it should have been a tax on pollution from the outset. Because diesel engines are more efficient than petrol ones (the nature of Compression ignition vs. Spark ignition) diesel is seen as less polluting. But CO2 is not bad for the environment, where by-products of diesel combustion are much worse than those of petrol.
Just as we have seen with all well meaning, government actioned policy, they have managed to encourage the very opposite. In trying to prevent pollution, they’ve actually created more. Governments, when will they learn to develop a light touch, speaking of which, remember to Vote Leave on June 23rd, and leave EU bureaucracy behind.