They are serious - by Richard... Tuesday, March 09, 2010

They are serious - by Richard... Tuesday, March 09, 2010

An article in the Western Mail gives a clue as to what is going on.

Under the heading, "House cattle – or we will have to sharply cut herds", we learn of recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from farming by permanently housing cattle, delivered to the Welsh rural affairs minister Elin Jones. They come from the Land Use Climate Change Group, established last year "to consider how agriculture and land use can reduce greenhouse gases and adapt to climate change."

The Welsh Assembly Government has saddled itself a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2040 and, having virtually destroyed any productive industry in the province, the government is casting around for ways of making this madness happen.

Up pops Professor Gareth Wyn Jones, who chaired the Land Use Climate Change Group, obligingly offering a "road map" to help them on their way to complete their economic suicide – in a region where the majority of the working-age population is either employed by the state or on benefits.

Jones is picking on probably the only productive enterprise left in Wales, proposing "a range of initiatives" including the introduction of anaerobic digestion to reduce methane emissions, improving farm productivity, including more efficient use of manure, fertilisers and energy, expanding woodlands and developing renewable energy sources.

His emphasis, however, is on maintaining intensive dairy, sheep and beef farming while diversifying and increasing vegetable crops. In the longer term, he recommends developing a more radical approach where much of the cattle herd is housed and methane emissions are captured.

In shroud-waving mode, Wyn Jones warns: "If we don't go down this road you are really into the scenario where people will say we have got to get rid of 60 to 70 percent of our animals and move away from livestock farming completely."

There is, of course, a delicious irony here, with the "green" agenda now pushing intensive animal husbandry as a means of saving the planet, putting the global warming alarmists on a collision course with the open-toed sandaled organic brigade which wants their animals au naturel.

The trouble is that the "planet savers" are serious. They have latched onto methane emissions from farming – arguing that the gas is 20-times more potent than CO2 – and onto nitrous oxide, which is oxide is approximately 250 to 300 times more "effective" as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Of course, the current enthusiasm for this issue may have something to do with Welsh universities being awarded £4 million last year to set up the Climate Change Consortium of Wales, aiming to build their fund to £10.2 million over five years.

But, as we noted yesterday, agriculture seems to be becoming the new target for the warmists, who are looking for a quick fix to kickstart their efforts to meet emission targets.

Even Rajendra Pachauri's private cash machine, TERI, is getting in the act, last year hosting a "workshop" in Delhi on methane reduction, managing to extract a $100,000 grant from the US Environmental Protection Agency to finance it.

Methane, it seems, is the new poster child, hence Geoffrey Lean's recent hyperventilation. And, although he gets a hard time from the comments, the money stacking up behind this obsession suggests that the warmists are not going to let go of it any time soon.

The only minor problem is that they are also set to stack up costs to such an extent that food - like energy - is likely to become an unaffordable luxury for an increasing proportion of the world's population.

CLIMATE CHANGE – END GAME

Print ready

Not over by Christmas - by Richard...

One baulks slightly at the dire Connie Hedegaard, EU commissioner on climate change, being called a "climate chief", although that rather puts her in the same league as Rajendra Pachauri – and that hasn't done him a great deal of good.

Anyhow, said "chief", according to the Financial Times and sundry others, is playing down the prospects of it brokering a new, all embracing climate treaty at the global conference this December in Mexico. Given the general incompetence of the EU in everything it touches, it is comforting to see this institution recognising its own limitations, although the obduracy of India and China might have something to do with the pessimism.

Hedegaard is being remarkably candid on this issue – not that she has much choice. "To get every detail set in the next nine months looks very difficult," she said. "Europe would love that to happen, and I would love that to happen . ... but my feeling is that it is going to be very difficult to get a treaty."

Her pessimism is shared by the outgoing Yvo de Boer, but far more important is German chancellor Angela Merkel. Wholly in tune with the mood music, she too is downplaying the prospects. But she is actually going further, expressing doubts that a new deal can be made in time to replace Kyoto by the time it runs out in 2012.

With Obama's "cap 'n' fade" running into problems and the Aussies having little local difficulties with their attempts to commit economic suicide, things are not looking too good for the warmists. However, their Lemming-like tendencies are not to be under-rated and they may yet pull something out of the bag ... even if the occasional one is wearing a lifebelt.

CLIMATE CHANGE – END GAME

Print ready

Jobs for the boys (and girls) - by Richard...

Climate Change Coordinator. Location: Camden, London, £22,797 to £23,997. 

For over 70 years Plan has been working with the world's poorest children, families and communities. Today, child centred community development is at the heart of our programmes with 11 million children in 48 developing countries. We are currently recruiting for a Climate Change Coordinator (fixed term contract to 31 January 2013) whose role will be to coordinate the implementation of a three year EC-funded project on climate change involving schools, youth groups and partner organisations in six countries (UK, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Kenya, Malawi and Senegal). This exciting new project is aimed at increasing public awareness of the links between climate change, poverty and child rights, and engaging ...

Green jobs anyone?

CLIMATE CHANGE – END GAME

Print ready

Neck and neck in the marginals - by Richard... Monday, March 08, 2010

Through the run of declining polls, the Tories have relied, almost as an article of faith, on their internal polling telling them that they were doing better in the key marginals.

However, a Populus poll in 100 key seats currently held by Labour and targeted by the Conservatives gives the lie to that optimism. According to The Times, Labour and the Conservatives are neck and neck, "raising doubts over David Cameron's ability to win a clear overall majority".

The poll has the two main parties on about 38 percent in the seats it polled, giving the Tories a 6.7 percent swing in their favour since 2005 - but not enough to give them an overall majority.

What the polls cannot measure very easily – if at all – is the UKIP effect, where very small numbers of voters can exercise a highly localised effect and rob candidates of seats they might otherwise have won.

Publicly at least, the main parties and all of the MSM pundits are ignoring this phenomenon, yet it was real enough in 2005, when I ventured the view that it could cost the Tories this election. 

It may not. As polling day draws close, the "tiddlers" could be caught in the classic two-party squeeze as sentiment polarises. But, given the current anti-politician sentiment and Cameron's lacklustre performance, it would be unwise to bet on it.

The Tories will no doubt continue to argue that a vote for any one of the minority parties is a vote for Brown – a simplistic vision that they hope will drive unenthusiastic voters into their camp.

However, with the possibility of a lower than average turnout and a degree of sophistication amongst those who do go out and vote, a different calculus could apply. 

An extremely narrow vote in favour of Brown could put him back in government with no overall majority, in an extremely unstable coalition, leading to a collapse within months – and certainly within a year.

Meanwhile, electoral defeat for the Tories would ensure a very rapid replacement of Cameron and a new leader who might be more responsive to the wishes of the core vote, taking a more robust stance on issues such as the EU and climate change.

A vote for Brown under those circumstances is in fact a vote for a new Tory leader, with the added advantage of forcing the Labour leader to confront his own mess, ensuring that the next election sweeps the newly invigorated Tories into power with a healthy majority.

Inevitably, this is speculation – but not wildly so. And in this strange, iconoclastic mood that afflicts the nation, anything is possible. At least ebay is doing its bit though.

COMMENT THREAD