Climate change

Arise Lord Prescott

It’s John Prescott’s birthday – or Lord Prescott, as he will soon be. How odd of JP to don the ermine, given that he is on record saying that he hates titles, flunkery and ‘flooding’ the House of Lords with appointees – a practice in which he and Blair excelled as it happens.  He appeared on the Today programme this morning to defend his lordly person and was emphatically unintelligible. Listen to it; it’s a classic. You know Prescott’s the EU’s environment ‘rapporteur’? Terrifying.   John Humphrys objected to Prescott’s hypocrisy, but if Prescott doesn’t want to retire from public life then he must sit in the Lords. Which is an argument for

Climate kamikaze

Several months ago, European leaders went to Copenhagen to save the planet. China, India and Brazil on the other hand went to the climate negotiations in Denmark to showcase the changed distribution of power in the world. Unsurprisingly, the Europeans came home empty-handed, shut out of the key negotiations and powerless despite what was meant to be a standard-setting promise of 20 percent cut in the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. The US and the rising powers struck a non-binding deal, the value of which is still being determined. Reading today’s cover story in The Times, the lesson the eco-friendly EU Commission seems to have drawn from this experience is that

Goldsmith’s declaration of independence

Make what you will of his political agenda, but I think this is quite a refreshing admission from Zac Goldsmith today: “There are various things I have said in this campaign with absolute certainty. I said there will be no Heathrow expansion under our Government, there will be no charges for parking in Richmond Park and Kingston Hospital will be safe. If any of those promises are broken I will trigger a by-election and allow people to penalise my party.” It’s bound to rile some of his Tory colleagues, of course – particularly this close to the election.  But one of the upshots of Parliament’s recent spate of scandals is

A week to forget for Andrew Adonis

The weekend cannot come quick enough for Andrew Adonis. What an awful week. The BA strike wrecked travel; the absurd Stephen Byers dragged him into the lobbying scandal; the RMT voted in favour of Bob Crow’s surreal steam-era fantasy; and today comes the coup de grace: the High Court decides that the third Heathrow runway is ‘untenable’. Transport is beginning to make Northern Ireland look like a soft brief, but Adonis hides his perturbation. He responded to this morning’s news by saying: “I welcome this court ruling. Heathrow is Britain’s principal hub airport. It is vital not only to the national economy but also enables millions of citizens to keep

A cosmic comedy

Not long ago I had an email from a friend, wondering if I’d yet read the new Ian McEwan. Not long ago I had an email from a friend, wondering if I’d yet read the new Ian McEwan. ‘Talk about a bolt from the blue,’ she said. ‘McEwan does slapstick. I never saw that coming.’ She added (unfairly, I thought) that you might class On Chesil Beach as slapstick of an unintentional sort, but her point holds. Here, in a book around a scientific theme of considerable seriousness — global warming and renewable energy — McEwan has written the closest thing he’s ever done to a farce. Told in three

Rationalism enters the climate change debate

I have been gripped by The Guardian’s climate change investigation and reporting these last few days. We do like to tease George Monbiot but he was one of the first to denounce spinning of the data and science by the University of East Anglia’s climate unit. It’s a mark of his professionalism and seriousness: global warming is a cause important to him, and he resents attempts to misrepresent things by his own side, or by his enemies. The Guardian seems to take the same view, and has sent David Leigh and others out on the investigation trail, and the final in the four-part series is printed today. It shows how

Oh no, the Tories are consulting Lord Stern

According to Laura Kuenssberg, Lord Stern is not an official advisor but confirms that he is consulting with the Tories on their climate change policy. As Iain Martin notes, what bizarre timing. The UEA and IPCC scandals simmer and Ed Miliband recently declared war on reason – which has almost certainly reduced James Delingpole to tears of fear. Even more extraordinary, The Sunday Telegraph reported that findings in the Stern report, which defined climate change policy, were “severely edited” before publication. ‘But it can be revealed that when the report was printed by Cambridge University Press in January 2007, some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific

It’s war!

Politicians have to shout to be heard over the lurid tale of John Terry’s bordello, but Ed Miliband’s fervour for climate change is sufficiently shrill. He has declared “war” on “sceptics”, who have been rather jaunty of late. As Fraser noted yesterday, the press’ climate change narrative is shifting – scepticism, in its proper sense, is replacing blind subscription. In this context, Miliband’s comments are extraordinary. His intellectual complacency is irritating, his sanctimony nauseating and his hypocrisy palpable. “It’s right that there’s rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it’s somehow used to undermine the overwhelming

George Monbiot’s Alternative Universe

George Monbiot isn’t everyone’s cup of char, not least in these parts. I don’t write much about climate change because the subject* bores me and so I’m happy for Monbiot to promise that the end of the world is just around the corner and I don’t spend too much time worrying about it. I suspect, for what little it’s worth, that he’s an anti-Cassandra: wrong but believed. Anyway, I do write about American politics so I feel confident in saying that Monbiot doesn’t appear to know anything about the realities of life in Washington. In his Guardian column this week he complains that Copenhagen was a dud and that: The

I blame Bono for the Copenhagen failure

So who or what is to blame for the failure of the Copenhagen gathering to achieve what most people hoped for? Polly Toynbee says that the nature of politics is to blame. Personally I blame U2’s Bono. I don’t blame him for the failure of world leaders to agree a legally-binding agreement, of course. But I do blame him for the unrealistic expectations that were raised in the run-up to the meeting. Issue-based campaigning, of which the climate change movement is the latest example, came into its own with the debt-relief campaign of Jubilee 2000, which the Irish singer spearheaded. Since then, every global issue has been approached in much

The relevance of politics

This morning’s papers share a unifying theme: the failure of political leadership to secure a deal at Copenhagen. Now, I applaud politicians for not succombing to enormous pressure and making a series of pledges that would risk grinding the world’s poor ever deeper into the dirt. For those who take a different view, it is not that politicians have failed, but that high politics is an irrelevance, a vanity. I know Coffee Housers loathe her opinions, but Polly Toynbee is at her polemical best today. She writes: ‘Politics is being weighed in the balance and found wanting. The writing is on the wall. The leadership required within and between each

The spectre at the climate change feast

Today the TaxPayers’ Alliance is releasing a new report which sets out the huge and excessive burden that green taxes impose on families and business across the UK. At the moment, 14 percent of domestic bill costs are the result of climate change policies.  Increasing the price of energy hits the poor and elderly hardest – which, in turn, increases poverty and benefit dependency.  At the same time, 21 percent of industrial electricity bills are the result of climate change policies.  If we want to make our economy less dependent on financial services, driving up a major part of many manufacturing firms’ costs isn’t the way to do it. Despite

Should Prince Charles be getting involved in the Copenhagen debate?

I’m of the view that climate change is happening and that the evidence suggests that man’s actions are playing a significant role in this. I’m even in favour of a carbon tax to deal with the problem. But I’ll admit that this is a political issue as well as a scientific, and one that will become more politicised in the years to come. All of which makes me wonder if it is wise for Prince Charles to have gone to Copenhagen to warn that there are “only seven years before we lose the levers of control”. In his speech, the Prince proposed a series of measures designed to combat global

My week as a climate change denier

The Spectator’s Global Warming special is only in the shops for a couple more days.  If you’ve missed it – or if you still need convincing to buy it – here’s an extended version of the article by Amanda Baillieu from within its pages: When a work colleague sent a tweet to his 2000 followers comparing me to Nick Griffin I realised I was heading for my Jan Moir moment. A few days before, I had written an opinion piece with the rather attention seeking headline Is global warming hot air?  I’d wanted to see if my readers, who are mainly architects, agreed with the line now adopted by the

Copenhagen dispatch

I make my second foray into the climate debate with trepidation. But visiting Denmark a few days before COP 15, it is impossible to escape the subject. Whether I speak to friends, family or strangers on the bus, everyone has a view and wants to share it. TV coverage of the forthcoming climate talks is relentless and there is even a separate passport queue for COP participants at Copenhagen’s stylish airport.   The latest “story” to emerge has pitted the new Climate Change Minister, the former commentator Lykke Friis against the Speaker of Parliament, Thor Pedersen. Though they are both from the same centre-right/liberal party, Mr. Pedersen has made himself

Fraser Nelson

The truth about global warming

Anyone interested in climate change should buy The Spectator today. We don’t normally make such naked plugs here on Coffee House, but our global warming special has a line-up of the variety and quality which I guarantee you will find in no other British magazine or newspaper. As the FT’s Samuel Brittan says: we dare to debate. You’ve seen the piece about why the Maldives aren’t sinking, from a world-leading sea levels expert who has made six field trips to the islands. We also have the Freakonomics guys showing how geo-engineering has such potential, even though the environmentalists don’t seem interested. We unearth a never-seen-before CIA file from 1974 which

What happens when you try to debate climate change…

Sky News invited me around for what I expected would be a civil debate on climate change at 2:30pm today – but for people like Bob Ward, there’s no such thing. He is policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the LSE. The debate proceeded along the bizarre path that these types so frequently tread. I was asked about what the climategate emails mean: I said it shows people putting spin first and science second. And raised the prospect of data manipulation. Hope replied by saying, “it’s remarkable about how the so-called sceptics have been using this as a propaganda tool to promote political end… People

“Saboteur” or realist?

Lord Lawson is Andrew Neil’s guest on this week’s BBC Straight Talk and, among other topics, the former chancellor rebuffs Ed Miliband’s accusation of climate change heresy. Lawson said: “I hope that all parties…take a good hard look at this, we don’t want a sort of Stalinist monolithic line in everything.  But I do think, because of the damage that will be done to the economy, that is why, and for very little good, if any, that is why we have got to take a good hard look at the fact that we can’t get a global agreement on this anyway, as will be seen in Copenhagen…So, I think you

Why the Maldives aren’t sinking

The President of the Maldives recently held a Cabinet meeting underwater, saying his islands may be submerged. In an open letter, taken from the climate change supplement in the latest issue of the The Spectator, Nils-Axel Mörner assures him his country is safe: Dear Mr President, You are obviously very concerned about the effect that sea level rises may have on the Maldives. Your Cabinet has been photographed meeting underwater, and you have even declared that ‘we are going to die’ if the climate change summit in Copenhagen fails. I am now writing with what I hope will be some good news. The scientific side of the situation is quite

Countdown to Copenhagen

How seriously are we to take Lord Stern on the economics of climate change? At the LSE yesterday, he rather hysterically claimed that the Copenhagen summit will be “the most important international gathering since the Second World War”. Crucially, he added that the cost of dealing with the problem may reach 5 percent of GDP. Even so, “it would still be a good deal,” he said. Really? Losing world economic growth condemns millions in the Third World to poverty: the globalisation of the last 15 years has been the greatest anti-poverty tool ever invented. So we should not be blasé about sacrificing growth, as if all it means is smaller