Ed Miliband “I Like Wind Farms – Vote Labour”
Ed Miliband “Opposition to wind farms should become as socially unacceptable as failing to wear a seatbelt.”
From the outset Anthropogenic Global Warming was always an attractive political outlook for those on the left of the political spectrum, the anti capitalists, hippies, tree huggers, bunny botherers, politicians and the water walkers of the Green NGOs, in short AGW was always going to be big hit for those who go through life with a chest full of unexplored ideas as the core of their belief, or politically expedient, belief system.
Prior to COP15 and Climategate there was no political doubt about Man Made Climate Change, however the timely release of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) from the University of East Anglia (UEA) showed exactly what the so called climate scientists were up too, producing science to match a previously declared political intention called Agenda 21.
Since COP15 endled in failure the whole UN AGW boondoggle has continued to decline, the relentless failed predictions of environmental disaster and 16 years of no warming have continued to erode the political impetus that the Climate Change agenda once had.
As Climate Change has dropped off the mainstream global political agenda, so once again the left are donning their free trade sustainable ethically manufactured Green armour and getting back into the fear and doom scenarios so beloved by the Green environmental movement.
A case in point is the strange egg creature from Fraggle Rock Leader of Her Majesty’s opposition strange egg creature from Fraggle Rock that goes by the name of Ed Miliband:
Ed Miliband MP, Leader of the Labour Party, will today call on the government to commit to the 2030 de-carbonisation target.
In a speech at Whitelee Wind Farm in Scotland, he will criticise the Government for throwing away the massive opportunities presented by the green economy and betraying its promises on the environment.
And Mr Miliband will declare that wind energy is good for Scotland and the UK showing that – by tackling climate change together – we can be better off together.
The 2030 carbon target amounts to little more than the de-industrialisation of Britain and an even greater reliance on heavily tax payer subsidised intermittent Green energy.
The cost of energy bills will continue to increase because of the Green subsidies for wind and solar, with energy bills rising a further £178 to keep paying rich land owners and foreign energy companies even more money, than they are already grabbing from the Green trough.
The Britain tackling climate change line is one of the most stupid lies that is relentlessly pontificated by the Greens, at 1.6% of global CO2 emissions Britain is irrelevant in global terms, thus tackling climate change is a political gesture paid for by families in energy poverty, jobs lost and an increasing cost of living so Green socialists can feel good and hope the rest of the world will follow Britain’s lead and commit economic suicide.
Australia has introduced a carbon tax that is causing massive economic problems, still Gillard and her Green coalition morons are leading by example, an example the rest of the world has yet to follow.
“Other countries around the world are watching to see whether Britain signs up to the 2030 decarbonisation target. We are not getting leadership from this government in Westminster. All we get is dither and delay.
“Today, I am calling on the Government to commit in the energy bill to the 2030 de-carbonisation target. That is what I would do if I was in Downing Street now and that is what this Prime Minister – who once flew halfway across Europe to hug a huskie – should do.
Ed Miliband was a major player in warming alarmism in the disastrous Labour government of Gordon Brown where post COP15 Miliband worked hard to keep the AGW scam alive.
The bad news for those hoping for a 2030 carbon target, is that DECC now say there will not be one:
A decarbonisation target for the sector, which many, including the Committee on Climate Change and Labour leader, Ed Miliband had called for, will not be included in this Energy Bill.
Instead, DECC has said that the decision on whether to ‘set a range for carbon emissions in 2030’ will be taken when the Committee on Climate Change has ‘provided advice in 2016 on the 5th Carbon Budget which will cover the corresponding period (2028-2033), and once the government has set that budget’.
Miliband is an enthusiastic supporter enforcer for wind farms:
Opposition to wind farms should become as socially unacceptable as failing to wear a seatbelt, Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, has said.
Speaking at a screening in London of the climate change documentary The Age of Stupid, Miliband said the government needed to be stronger in facing down local opposition to wind farms.
He said: “The government needs to be saying, ‘It is socially unacceptable to be against wind turbines in your area – like not wearing your seatbelt or driving past a zebra crossing’.”
Posted on November 23, 2012, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climate Change, Global Warming, Green Jobs Lie, Green Lies, Green Taxation, Renewables, Social Engineering, Sustainable Development, Wind Power and tagged Agenda 21, Climate Change Act 2008, Ed Miliband. Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.
Tory Aardvark 
Can Mankind control Climate by reducing a small part of its CO2 emissions?
Examining the paradox Keeping the numbers in proportion
The Western world is continually being pressured by propaganda and has widely enacted legislation about “Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Climate Disruption”. These definitions have meant that any adverse weather event can be ascribed to “Climate Change” and thus be blamed on the destructive actions of Mankind. The Catastrophic Climate Change Alarmists back every horse whichever way it runs. Nonetheless all Alarmist policy recommendations are only intended to control excessive Global Overheating by the reduction of Man-made CO2 emissions.
It is not clear how reducing CO2 emissions would help save the world from a climate change towards a cooling world nor how it could ameliorate severe weather events.
This is the Blinding Paradox of Catastrophic Global Warming / Climate Change / Climate Disruption Alarmism.
This paradox has been bought into, acted upon, legislated on or ignored by a minority of the world’s Nations, so far only including the EU, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. They are trying to influence climate by reducing their CO2 emissions.
That has to raise some real questions: what if ?
• CO2 is an essential trace gas in the atmosphere, without which life on earth could not exist?
• CO2, whether the major part naturally created within the biosphere or Man-made, is not pollutant ?
• any extra atmospheric CO2 fertilises all plant growth and makes plants more drought resistant?
• any current warming since 1850 is largely a natural occurrence recovering from the Little Ice Age?
• all Mankind’s small additional CO2 emissions cannot affect the worlds’ climate in any significant way?
• CO2’s effect on temperature has already radically diminished with its increasing concentration and only ~12% of CO2’s potential as a greenhouse gas remains?
• it is scientifically clear, that the much vaunted upper political target of +2.0°C is could never be reached however much more CO2 was emitted by Mankind?
• it is officially acknowledged that there has been no significant global warming for the past 16 years?
• Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is negated by serious science?
• the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Cause / quasi Religion is a politically and emotionally driven misconception?
The misconception gives rise to ‘noble cause corruption’, where any deception or misrepresentation is thought to be acceptable in supporting the “Cause”.
The resulting policies have many adverse, unintended consequences, such as the destabilisation of European electricity supplies or the escalation of 3rd world food prices, because so much of the USA corn crop is diverted to bioethanol production.
• is a comparatively minor reduction of Man-made CO2 emissions, from a few nations, with insignificant effects on world temperature justifiable?
• do the participating governments realise that the increasing CO2 emissions from the developing world, (China, the other developing nations and India), make all their efforts at CO2 reduction irrelevant?
• in any case are partial limits on CO2 emissions a rational way to save the World?
• what precisely is the World being saved from?
A warmer world with higher levels of CO2 is probably a rather better, more agriculturally productive world, with longer growing seasons and with less violent weather. This was certainly the case in the earlier Medieval and Roman warm periods and throughout the earlier Holocene epoch.
Alarmist predictions of inevitable catastrophe from runaway warming are speculative.
Do participating Western governments understand:
• that with reducing sunspot activity and adversely changing ocean circulations, (PDO and AMO), the world is entering a period of natural cooling?
• that the world appears to be moving towards Little Ice Age climate patterns, for example the recent Jetstream shift giving rise to the poor summers and cold winters in Northern Europe?
• that in geological timescales, the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD has been the coolest of the current Holocene interglacial period?
• that the end of the current, benign 12,000 year long Holocene epoch is now overdue, with the nearer prospect of a real Ice-age?
• that a cooling, rather than a warming, world leads to:
• a reduction in agricultural productivity with huge deprivation for Mankind worldwide?
• more extreme weather events, (possibly like hurricane Sandy)?
There is good reason to expect this effect, because in a cooler world the temperature differential between the tropics and the poles will be enhanced.
• with CO2 emissions still growing rapidly but with a stabilisation of current world temperatures, the probability is:
• that any current global warming in the recent past has been a natural process, not man-made?
• that in any event climate could be not be influenced by Mankind, let alone by the essentially minor remedial actions taken by just a few of the world’s Nations?
As the remedies proposed and already in effect are so vast and so onerous:
• where are the full comparative cost benefit analyses ?
• where is or rather was the open-minded, even-handed due diligence?
• have the reports used as the basis for policy action been questioned and critically examined:
• the IPCC reports after Climategate?
• the Stern review?
• are the massive efforts and extreme costs already being expended and still being planned by Western Nations reasonable: they only represent a small proportion of world CO2 emissions?
• is it sensible for a few Western Nations to deliberately commit themselves to the immense economic risks of damaged energy security and loss of worldwide competitiveness for a questionable and unverified theory?
• do the participating Western governments have robust contingency plans for when their lights go out?
Instead is it not likely that any current global warming is within normal limits and is probably beneficial to Mankind?
That prospect should be welcomed with universal and unmitigated joy.
In that case:
• a warmer climate within natural variation would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development.
• all concern over CO2 as a Man-made pollutant can be discounted.
• any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility of all plant life on the planet.
• decarbonisation of Western economies is a pointless ambition.
• all CO2 emission reduction targets are irrelevant and wasteful.
• all renewable energy alternatives, except hydropower, are unnecessary and costly for consumers.
• carbon capture and storage (CCS), if it were achievable, would be an expensive mechanism to throw away small amounts of useful plant food.
• but sadly, if Global Warming is not occurring at all, it is not necessary to do disproportionate damage the economies of Western world to no real purpose.
The sooner these facts are understood, in spite of:
• the overpowering media propaganda
• the massive public relations efforts
• lost academic funding and credibility
• and the huge business and government monetary capital already invested
the sooner the Western world can be released from its self-imposed, economically destructive straightjacket.
All these huge efforts are intended to avert a small, indefinable risk in the distant future.
However if cooling is in progress those vast but locally limited efforts are entirely unnecessary.
Nonetheless it remains absolutely clear that our planet is vastly damaged by many human activities such as:
• toxic environmental pollution.
• over fishing.
• forest clearance.
• industrial monoculture farming.
• farming for bio-fuels.
• and other habitat destruction.
The world should indeed be strenuously finding ways to improve these situations.
But the unwarranted concentration on reducing CO2 emissions is deflecting even well-intentioned green / environmental activists from these more immediate and more worthwhile objectives.
There are many more investments that should be prioritised for the benefit of Mankind particularly in the third world including:
• controlling malaria.
• clean water.
• stopping deforestation
• AIDS prevention, etc.
At the same time, this is absolutely not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy and conserving its energy use.
There may be a need to wean the world off the continued expenditure of fossil fuels on the grounds of:
• security of supply, including making investments into new forms of nuclear electricity generation.
• their apparent scarcity: although with mounting fossil fuel prices amazing quantities of further long term reserves continue to be discovered.
• using fossil fuels as the future feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.
As global temperatures have already been cooling or static over the last fifteen years or more, the World should fear the real and detrimental effects of global cooling rather than being hysterical about limited or either non-existent or beneficial warming.
Nonetheless in spite of these facts, the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory or perhaps more correctly the CAGW religion even now retains much influence and traction.
Dr Patrick Moore the founder and former director of Greenpeace in his book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace dropout: the making of a sensible environmentalist”, explained this continuing political preoccupation with CAGW succinctly in temperate terms:
“Fear of climate change results in a convergence of interests among activists seeking funding, scientists applying for grants, the media selling advertising, businesses promoting themselves as green, and politicians looking for votes. It may not be a conspiracy, but it is a very powerful alignment that is mutually reinforcing.”
our politicians should first learn the difference between kW and kWh then they wouldn’t say things like that
Pingback: Each British Wind Farm Job Requires £100,000 Green Subsidy | Tory Aardvark