If we get another winter like that of 1947 (which was also halfway through an economically incompetent Labour government), then every bien-pensant Guardian reader will, through chattering teeth, be demanding that the open-cast coal cutters be sent in to prevent the Nation freezing to death. We need more coal-fired stations now: good enough for the Chinese, good enough for us.
Another masterly post. I watched Newsnight last night with my mouth open in horror at what was being discussed.
I agree with all that you wrote, but the other thing which shocked me was the fact the this plan was authored by the chairman of the FSA. Considering that many of the problems in the City stem from poor regulation by the FSA, one would have thought that Lord Turner would have rather a lot on his plate. It is obvious that he has been spending rather too much time following this pie in the sky eco stuff instead of performing his day job!
The economic benefits of coal make it win win win - bloody hippies. Chuck the savings into a contingency slush fund with R&D and see how manybpeople want an unworkable nuke station in their county. Ridiculous.
> And sure, burning fossil fuel sounds like it might be A Really Really Bad Idea
Except for those who understand what Chlorophyll is and does.
The energy producer spokesperson was somewhat bemused by the whole thing.
At one point he seemed to shrug, smile and say "If you do that, the lights go out then."
They just kept talking and ignored what he said, oh well.
Tim Worstall points out that the recent Climate Change Bill fails on cost/benefit grounds according to the governments own impact assessment.
For those have not seen a credible repost to the IPCC bandwagon, I recommend viewing a presentation by prominent science analyst Peter Taylor. He is well known in ecological circles, but his independent research has put him at odds with the greens. His alternative view is worth watching, not least for the inside picture of the how the science "consensus" came about:
http://video.google.com/
videopla...938246449800148
It's not just the Beeb, the FT are at it too... http://www.ft.com/climatechangeseries
A sample quote from Part One:
"An editorial in Nature, the peer-reviewed science journal, published to coincide with last year’s IPCC report, put it in these words: “The climate-science community... has been advocating meaningful action to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions. This requirement has been disputed by a collection of money-men and some isolated scientists, in alliance with the current president of the US and a handful of like-minded ideologues.”
Nature concluded: “[The IPCC report] has served a useful purpose in removing the last ground from under the climate-change sceptics’ feet, leaving them looking marooned and ridiculous. However, this predicament was already clear enough.” "
Perhaps political betting would be the best place to post this comment...
When are we going to have the first politico's power station? The power station that will be dedicated to supplying MP's homes with electricity?
All the luxury flats in Belgravia will be nationalised and all MPs will move into the flat of their choice, to be supplied by the nastiest coal fired power station available.
This will be shortly after they have arranged a deal with the Saudis to supply petrol for their 4x4s.
You heard it here first...
Nationalised mortgage arrears anyone?
You think you have a real problem. So you create a gigantic corporate lobby group vaguely pointed in the direction and put Adair Turner in charge of it. His first action: to demand more action - i.e. yet more forced transfers from the public to his cohorts to do whatever it is they do, because now what they do (much of which they haven't decided yet) is an unquestionable good.
It has nothing to do with climate change, whatever the model. Even if its only product is flying round the world to conferences and lobbying for regulation to favour its members even more from flashy air-conditioned offices, you can gurantee that this particular perpetual motion machine will carry on.
If burning fossil hydrocarbons is the problem, then the way to deal with it is to penalise *that* and let economics and independent innovation sort out the alternatives and the savings.
If the 1% reduction is off trend growth then it is relatively benign. But if it is off GDP itself then the cost is mind boggling. Say trend growth is 2%. Then over a century:
1.02^100 = 7.24
(1 + 0.02 x 0.99)^100 = 7.10 (approx 2% less)
(0.99 x 1.02)^100 = 2.65
7.24/2.65 = 2.73
So a one percent reduction in GDP over a century results in GDP being only 36% of what it would be otherwise.
Commenting by HaloScan
