From The GWPF, newsbytes on the subject of UK Businesses Threaten To Flee Abroad To Escape Green Energy Levies
British industry’s ability to compete with companies overseas is under threat from punitive green energy costs, the new president of the CBI has told The Sunday Telegraph. Sir Roger Carr warns in an interview that the Coalition must give “some sort of support” over rising energy costs to UK manufacturers or else risk seeing businesses relocate abroad with the consequential loss of jobs. His comments – ahead of a CBI energy conference on Tuesday – come amid growing concern over the cost of renewable energy subsidies and so-called ‘green stealth taxes’. —The Sunday Telegraph, 12 June 2011
The CBI and Britain’s leading chemical firms have warned that the proposed UK “carbon floor” tax (unique in the world) will make our industry so uncompetitive that, unless the policy is changed, it will lead inevitably to mass plant closures and job losses. Similarly, the European Metals Association warned last week that the EU’s various “anti-carbon” policies are becoming so costly that they are already forcing steel, aluminium and other producers in their energy-intensive industry to relocate outside Europe, losing hundreds of thousands more jobs. Sooner or later, politicians must emerge with the sense and the courage to question this madness – as many other people are now beginning to do. But there is little sign of their emergence yet. —Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 June 2011
The Coalition’s obsession with climate change is damaging Britain’s recovery from recession, former Tory chancellor Nigel Lawson warns today. Writing in the Daily Mail, Lord Lawson delivers a scathing assessment of David Cameron’s so-called ‘green agenda’ and says it is ‘time this Government grew up’. Lord Lawson, one of the most respected Tory figures of recent decades, accuses the Prime Minister of risking Britain’s economy to make a ‘symbolic’ point. In a devastating verdict he writes: ‘The Government’s highly damaging decarbonisation policy, enshrined in the absurd Climate Change Act, does not have a leg to stand on. It is intended, at massive cost, to be symbolic: To make good David Cameron’s ambition to make his administration “the greenest government ever”. —Nigel Lawson, Daily Mail, 11 June 2011
It is time for Britain to walk away from its ridiculously stringent renewable energy plan.
This whole story is an instructive and depressing example of what happens when consensus rules. “The science is settled” was the line, and our politicians, few of them any more scientific than you or I, fell in with it. It was once famously said that, for evil to prosper, it is necessary only for good people to do nothing. But the peculiar hypocrisy of modern culture is such that it is when our leaders rush around trying most self-consciously to do good that the real damage is done. —Charles Moore, The Daily Telegraph, 11 June 2011
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
FWIW, at another place and time I where it is not off topic, I would present some information to correct your erroneous opinion. Suffice it for here and now to refer you to the books and stories regarding the Williamson County Massacre. There are still to this day no shortage of union members who do not hesitate to employ crimes and violence to achieve their goals and support anyone the Democrat Party pushes forward as a candidate, even a yellow dog as the old saying goes. Anyone who talks to them knows this and is not the least bit surprised. They make no secret of their hostility towards their critics and willngness to do just about anything it takes to get what they want.
Epigenes says:
June 13, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Tallbloke, thx for your response.
I dispute that you are being objective and I also consider that you are factually wrong. Mrs Thatcher ordered an investigation into AGW, as she was obliged to do, but ultimately rejected it. She lost power shortly after this and the scam was taken up by her successors. Her rejection was based on her scientific intuition as a research chemist.
Can you point me to the key statement she made rejecting the AGW hypothesis. Thanks.
There really is a rogues gallery of politicians out there more worthy of criticism than Mrs Thatcher in this matter and you know their names as well as I do. Not one of them has a scintilla of scientific intuition, or undertaken any training in science, but they are knowingly peddling lies and propaganda.
My last post on this.
Hmmm, not very logical. If they know no science, then they can say they went on what the IPCC ‘consensus’ said. Thatcher, according to her science and energy minister of the time Nigel Lawson, was made aware that there was nothing to worry about, but continued to peddle the lies and propaganda for another 8 years before being ousted. You seem overly keen to defend the indefensible for her. Maybe you are the one who isn’t being objective?
D. Patterson says:
June 13, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Suffice it for here and now to refer you to the books and stories regarding the Williamson County Massacre.
An interesting read, thanks for that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrin_massacre
Croly described the retaliation for the deaths of two strikers (the third had been mortally wounded) “atrocious”, but noted that while the perpetrators were likely to escape punishment, those who harmed strikers—such as Hamrock after Ludlow, or Wheeler after Bisbee—likewise frequently escaped justice.[16] Croly also observed that the local government of Herrin was sympathetic to the union, as was public sentiment, and under such circumstances, the union has a responsibility to police its own members.[17]
So the violent thugs with machine guns hired by the mine owner who reneged on his agreement with the union shot and killed union members before the union members retaliated.
Now you have a read about the Peterloo massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre
And then have a think about how much say the British people have in the crazy carbon dioxide policies of their government, given that, as Epigenes pointed out, all three main political parties subscribe to the AGW nonsense.
@ur momisugly Tallbloke: I agree with Epigenes that IMHO you are letting anti-Thatcher prejudice run away with you.
In 1990, while still Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher gave a speech to the Royal Society as at the following link:
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108046
The concern du jour was then acid rain on which the speech centred, but about half-way through (at “To take as an example the problem of greenhouse gas”) she gave a well-nuanced resume of the arguments on each side of the debate showing clearly that she understood the main issues (prior to the hockey team’s contributions of course). And she was the democratically elected prime minister of the UK entitled to put HMG’s views to the UN – but they needed acceptance by many other countries before UN action could be taken.
The IPCC was set up in 1988 and issued its first AR in 1990. You say that Thatcher, having being advised there was nothing to worry about, “continued to peddle the lies and propaganda for another 8 years before being ousted” (in 1990, so as from 1982). On the basis that WUWT contributors for the most part accept that the science still isn’t settled today, I’m afraid your polemics just don’t stack up with the facts or the state of scientific knowledge, as in 1982 or today.
@TimC thx for your support.
Tallbloke posts like a typical AGW troll. No objectivity, posts lies and has no sense of priority. When, like the troll, it loses the debate it reverts to making impossible demands.
This individual is supposed to be a moderator but is waging war on just about every poster on this thread.
Epigenes says:
June 14, 2011 at 6:58 am
Tallbloke posts like a typical AGW troll. No objectivity, posts lies and has no sense of priority. When, like the troll, it loses the debate it reverts to making impossible demands.
If asking for a link to the statement Thatcher made recanting her belief in AGW as you say she did is an impossible demand, then no such statement exists, and so her alleged recantation of AGW belief is unproven. You need to sort out your logic as a priority
This individual is supposed to be a moderator but is waging war on just about every poster on this thread.
I’m not ‘supposed to be a moderator’ Epigenes, I AM a moderator. Which has exactly nothing to do with the views I express as an individual. I have expressed agreement with several other posters on this thread (and several have expressed agreement with me too) and said clearly I see fauilts in all the political parties approach to AGW. Your problem is your blind love for Margaret Thatcher and blind rage against anyone who dares revile her. It’s tawdry, and unbecoming for a man of your age.
Now, that’s one each, so instead of trading further insult, why don’t you just substantiate your claim that “in the end she rejected it” and tell us when she did so.
Thanks
Tallbloke: to come to Epigenes’ aid, while I have not read the book myself the URL below refers to a Christopher Booker article in the Daily Telegraph saying “In 2003, towards the end of her last book Statecraft … [Thatcher] issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views…” (the rest of the article no doubt speaks for itself):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html
Adopting a similar approach to that mentioned in another recent WUWT article, will you please show us where in this thread Epigenes has demonstrated either “blind love” or “blind rage”, as you referred to it, towards Mrs Thatcher or her detractors?
Thanks. I do not seem able to find this myself.
TimC, thanks. My main point is that according to the GGWS documentary, she was told by her scientific advisers that there was no big need for concern at a much earlier stage, but continued to grandstand AGW both for her political purpose in killing the mining communities and for her personal aggrandisement at the UNFCCC conferences.
I can only suppose such dishonesty and callous disregard for people’s livelihoods passes for ‘Statesmanship’ these days.
Epigenes says:
June 13, 2011 at 11:56 am
@James Baldwin Sexton
I read the otiose, patronising garbage you posted but I’ve no idea what point you are trying to make re your reply to my post.
Prolixity is no substitute for being incisive.
Apparently tallbloke is a moderator here, at least so it has informed me. I thought that any individual given that responsibility would see the benefit to this blog of refraining from posting its political prejudice. Is going off topic not against the rules because that is what it did?
I will be succinct, James. My point was valid yours is incoherent. After all, I did upset tallbloke.
============================================================================
lol, wow, seems I’ve made a friend. You point was valid? What I commented on, was your errant assumption that TallBloke was, and I quote, an “uninformed American ignoramuse[s]” and your errant assumptions about this blog. In other words, I tried to help.
You don’t like my tone? Sorry, perhaps you should check yours at the door. I typically wouldn’t have commented, but, apparently you were confused about some things. While I understand, it may sound patronizing, you obviously needed some clear, yet gentle wording to clear up your misunderstanding. Further, I don’t believe you can describe your comments to me as succinct, when you fail to connect historical politics with economic policy.
Epigenes, TB doesn’t need my help, and neither does this blog, but I’ve been here for a long time, and when I see people making errant assumptions and sweeping generalizations about some of the other long time regulars here and this blog itself, I tend to be a bit offensive, and intentionally so.
For what its worth, I like TB, but he is indeed capable of much more cerebral offerings.(He’s plenty of posts in the archives here, and I’d invite you to peruse them, or you can pop by his blog.) I thought it well known that M. Thatcher recanted her views on AGW. (TimC provides a link above.) Personally, I adored Maggie Thatcher. Yes, she was on the wrong side of history re this one topic, but for anyone who served as long as she did, it would be impossible not to see errors with the benefit of hindsight. And, I would have engaged in the conversation, but, as you did so succinctly put it, (paraphrasing) ‘Uninformed American ignoramuses probably shouldn’t engage in a discussion with Brits about Britain’s political history. And, taking a page from another American fan of M. Thatcher, I am much chagrin to speak ill of a fellow compatriot of cause.
Really? Wordy? lol, no, you haven’t seen wordy from me.
Best wishes,
James
Tallbloke: thank you, but do I then have it right that the only authority on which you rely for your “lies and propaganda” (and now “dishonesty”) comment is second-hand (hearsay) remarks in a documentary film which even Channel 4 described as controversial when screening it? Don’t you look for rather more evidence before using as pejorative terms as these?
How would you have handled the 1984 miner’s strike, when NUM had already brought down the Heath government in 1974 and Scargill clearly hoped to bring down the Thatcher government too (re-elected just the previous year with a 144 seat majority)? Given way to the NUM’s demands to keep open pits until NUM itself decided otherwise? Why should the miners alone be insulated from economic and industrial developments –and why then didn’t Blair’s government look at re-opening the pits when later elected with a whopping majority?
We will obviously never see eye-to-eye over this, and it’s gone on too long anyway. Feel free just to treat my questions as hypothetical – I’m not minded to post again on this thread.