Guest essay by Eric Worrall
An aristocratic British member of parliament has decided it is time to lecture the Australian colonies, on what they should be doing about climate change and carbon pricing.
According to MP Richard Benyon;
British Conservatives value climate science and finding market solutions to address the biggest environmental challenge of our era.
Seen from the other side of the world, the stance of Tony Abbott’s government on climate change is incomprehensible.
For a country visibly and increasingly exposed to impacts of climate change, Abbott’s decision to increase climate risks by becoming the first leader in the world to abolish a carbon price mystified many.
Cutting Australia’s renewable energy target was also bewildering, for a country blessed with almost unlimited renewable resources, the more so from a supposedly pro-business government. Meanwhile, the giant new coal mining and coal exporting operations on which Abbott appears to be betting Australia’s financial health look increasingly risky investments, with bank after bank refusing to back them and demand from China, the world’s biggest coal-burning nation, falling.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott made eliminating the carbon tax, to control spiralling energy prices, a prominent centrepiece of his election campaign. Eliminating the carbon tax was the will of the Australian people.
Member of parliament Richard Benyon has an estimated personal wealth of £110 million, so he is in no personal danger of experiencing fuel poverty – in fact Benyon has occasionally attracted criticism, thanks to his skilful application of generous government grants, for rich landlords like himself, who convert their rental tenancy properties to green energy.
It should be remembered that the minimum IQ requirement for a UK member of parliament is a score of 1 and that this ars@hole just scraped in!
Things are changing:
Green Deal funding to end, government announces
Roger Harrabin, BBC environment analyst is an angry man.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-33638903
We really need to get over the idea that bad ideas are supported by stupid people. For at least a hundred years a very high share of the bad ideas which have achieved popularity have appealed primarily to people of well above average education and intellgence. The world is being screwed up by the intelligent, not the dumb. This is one of the key background realities which we need to absorb as a culture to get better at avoiding both new recurring mistakes.
+10
The problem is that they aren’t “bad ideas.” Many of these ideas are great ideas: Let’s get energy from the sun! Hey, you know, that’s a stellar idea (Pun not intended, but fully embraced when realized). It’s cheap, doesn’t cause pollution of any kind (leaning more towards mercury and similar and not CO2), and the reactor itself should last about 5-6 billion years with no maintenance. But the implementation is where it breaks down: the real world in terms of our current, and even in-the-pipeline, technologies means that we can’t appreciably tap this resource without basically eradicating all other life for the footprint of the collectors.
On the flip side, there are many good ideas from intelligent people that ARE possible and attainable. In the US, for instance, we laid out the interstate highway system. This has been a massive boon to the United States and the citizenry. It was a good idea and, despite being a rather large undertaking, worked.
The problem isn’t that intelligent people come up with ideas, the problem is that they then cling to those ideas as if they were a life jacket from the Titanic: Nothing will wrest them loose. What we need to learn as a culture is a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. In my opinion, this would be best served by integrating the scientific method into our lives at just about every level. From political pronouncements and projects needing to be measured in a sound and reliable way to prove success to random beliefs and old wives’ tales being scientifically tested.
If the War on Drugs (War on Poverty. War on Terror. War on *) had been held to any standard, tactics to drive the desired outcome could have been tried long before now. For the last 40 years, data was showing it was ineffective, outside of a few years of good effect. Instead of looking at the data and going “We need to try something different!” basically everyone in positions of power looked at the program and doubled down on the same broken methodology each time the issue came up, expanding the program at every opportunity. Trying to get people off drugs was a good idea, but the implementation, just as with the solar collection above, was abysmal.
Do you mean those who let their schooling interfere with their education?
You might be interested in the costing of “Renewables”that Tony from Oz did http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/solar-activity-was-really-at-exceptional-lows-during-the-cold-maunder-minimum/#comment-1728933
Wot about Phill the Greek and his dozy son? Surely they are still opening their mouths wide enough to change feet?
As probably the only person on this blog to have actually met Richard Benyon, it is clear that the wiki link should be taken with a pinch of salt.
He was my near neighbour for many years and I also met him when he was an environment secretary and a passionate believer in being good custodians of the earth. This probably comes about through the family stewardship of his Englefield estate for many centuries, that has many diverse elements to it, woods, rivers quarries and farmland. As a minister he was very keen to get the nonsensical EU fishing policy overturned whereby dead catches of the wrong species are thrown back into the water.
He is a great charitable benefactor and his estate is often used for such things as charity walks.
Yes, he is a bit pompous but the idea that such a man can ‘lecture’ our ‘colonies’ is nonsensical;. This isn’t 1900..
His heart is in the right place, albeit I have had discussions with him about climate change which is central to his beliefs. But don’t forget that only around 5 of ALL MP’s voted against the UK climate change Act a few years ago so in that respect almost any UK MP is going to be ‘green.’
tonyb
Whatever his personal qualities, he appears to have been assimilated by the Borg; resistance is futile.
That’s minus one (-1) I take it?
But he is rich and that is one of the requirements for being an MP, no need for thinking. “His personal wealth is estimated at £110m, making him the richest MP in the House of Commons”(Wikipedia)
As distinct from the US where you don’t have to have to be rich to become President?
It is difficult to express my [thoughts] over the number of falsehoods in four short paragraphs.
thoughts
Magic…cut people some slack on the typos; there is no editing function for a reply on WUWT, unlike Disqus.
He was only fixing his own comment, not someone else’s.
In other words do not worry about it, unless the rest of us complain about it. We can read and understand what you meant, if not we will ask.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Thanks guys. I am obviously not a touch-typer. I look up and there it is.
Can we get one of those monuments placed on the mall in DC?
And the rich get richer…..all on the backs of the “regular” people. There is a never-ending supply of hypocracy.
Extract from the link re Mr Benyon:
“In 2014, Benyon’s family firm was part of a property consortium that PURCHASED New Era estate, one of the last affordable housing estates for working-class Londoners. The consortium increased the rents and announced plans to increase them further to match the rest of the market, effectively displacing its current residents.[17] Following negative publicity and protests by the tenants, Benyon Estate announced that it would sell its stake in the consortium back to the landlord, Westbrook Partners, a New York–based property INVESTMENT company.[18][19]”
Nice work if you can get it!
I like the word hypocracy right along with kleptocracy.
On behalf of most Brits, let me apologise to Australia for the mouthing-off of this buffoon, he does not represent the majority, and WTF is he doing suggesting that another country should follow the impending disaster that is the UK energy policy.
Well all of the good Aussies are descended from English jail birds anyhow; so it’s not in their jeans to behave themselves.
I’m trying to get John key in NZ to see the light, and join the Auslanders in saying nyet to all that Kyoto smoke and mirrors stuff.
g
[The mods note that it is the usual reproductive practice for one to get two another’s genes through their jeans to make three genes, but your mileage may vary. .mod]
As a Brit, when people were “Chosen” to go to Australia I feel that the selection policy must have been flawed. We let a lot of the sensible ones go and kept some of the nutters e.g. Benyon. Also, we kept this cold, pokey little island and let them have the sun-drenched, continental-sized island they call “God’s Own Country”.
I didn’t steal a loaf of bread to get to Aus. It cost me lots of $$’s to get here!
No need for an apology. We have more than our fair share of deluded apocalyptic politicians in Australia. If we start apologising to each other we may never stop.
However, Pwince UpChuck and his dottering clown of a father continue to make fools of Britain. The two sanctimonious sacks of scat would do better to retire to a place where nobody can either see or hear them. This fellow may be a buffoon, but those other two are an example of how the House of Hanover has been only marginally better than the Stuarts at best. Even then, the pair of them make James I of England look like a genius and Charles I of England look humble. By the way, did I mention that I do not think much of them? At least Elizabeth I of Scotland has the good sense to keep her mouth shut most of the time.
Germany or Greece?
The House of Hanover was brought in after Queen Anne of Britain died in the early 1700s. They attempted to change their name to Windsor around WW 1 to de-emphacise their German origin. I obviously do not regard them as German after 300 years, but the mental capacities of that house have not increased in the slightest. For all of it, George III was probably one of the best ones prior to the onset of his metabolic problems that rendered him insane.
climanrecon,
no need to apologise at all mate, as you probably well know we just love having cretins like Benyon shooting their little mouths off at us. It juts proves to us that the crimes of our forefathers has paid off so handsomely in so many ways.
By instinct, we would call him a whinging Pom but that would be unfair on the rest of your fine folk so lets agree then he is just an upper class twit at best. As for what he said, water off a platypus’s back.
My convict ancestor was from not far from Reading. Thank God he (allegedly) pinched that red cheese at the market that day. I might have ended up with this little tosser as my MP!
My convict ancestor was from York. He was a counterfeiter.
I’m a Brit as well, as are about 50 x 10^6 of our neighbours. Please don’t apologise to anyone on my behalf, if necessary, I can do that myself quite adequately. I guess that goes for the rest of us. Note that this has nothing to do with climate or environmentalism or anything else, except us. And our ancient rights as more-or-less free Brits, to speak for ourselves. On any subject we please. Even if you feel pressing need to represent us. Don’t.
Glad that Abbot got rid of the carbon tax, but I’m a little suspicious – since he is the big dog, why doesn’t he mandate that the BOM fess up with all the temp data for independent review.
He can’t push too hard right now. Abbott is on the brink of being replaced IMO. 2016 is not far off and I think Abbott will call an early election. Shorten and the ALP are no hopers IMO, but the LNP have that nasty fellow Turn(Coat)bull just waiting in the wings!
Tories, eh?
Those right-wingers once again pushing their green cr*p.
Thank goodness for the Labour opposition (like Graham Stringer, for a selective example).
I’m just pointing out, once again, that this AGW agenda is not a left/right issue in the UK.
M Courtney is right, it is not about politics, it’s about money and power. Climate Warming (Change) is the red herring and a smelly one.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Money and Power is politics
I wouldn’t label that many of the current tories as right-wingers. Certainly few at the top are. Centrists or centre-left with not much difference between them and blairites.
Leaving UKIP as the only sane choice on that issue. Egads! What’s a Socialist to do?
Virtually nothing is a left-right issue any more. We need to break out of that obsolete intellectual straihtjacket.
If you regard the current Government and most of its MPs as right wing you haven’t been paying attention.
Does Tony Abbot have a brother? If he does we need him in the UK as Prime Minister.
Roy, no, he has a sister and she’s too worried about gay rights and equality and useless arguments of the day.
Craig, a totally unnecessary and totally pointless and totally irrelevant comment. Grow up!
This is the British equivalent of Arnie Schwarzenegger. He has no understanding of the engineering/economic issues which support the assertion that the green scams do not work. He is just repeating what he has heard on the telly, boob tube.
Bad ideas that do not work due to basic engineering/economic issues, are bad ideas regardless of the party or person pushing the idea.
The green scams fail without including the cost and energy input for battery systems. The costs and energy input for battery systems are never discussed as the cost and CO2 ‘savings’ calculation becomes ridiculous, absurd if battery systems are included.
1)The number one pathetic analysis fact is the CO2 saving calculation does not include the CO2/energy required to construct the green scams and the reduce grid efficiency which is a consequence of forced on/off/on/off/on/off hydrocarbon back-up for the green scams. There is almost no energy savings and almost no CO2 savings from using green scams if the calculation is unbiased, accurate.
2)The number two pathetic analysis fact is due to fact one, it is not possible to say reduce CO2 emissions by let say 40% using green scams, regardless of how much money is spent. We are at point A in CO2 emissions, can never get to point B in CO2 emissions with the green scams. CO2 savings decrease exponentially as more green scams are added and cost increases exponentially the higher the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions without nuclear power and Stalin like restrictions on everyday life such as banning commercial air travel.
Comments:
A fundamental error/scam in the calculation and discussions is the cost comparison is not ‘green scam’ vs hydrocarbon, as 100% hydrocarbon backup is required in addition to the green scam. ‘Investing’ in green scams mean doubling the installed power equipment to power the grid, in addition to more power lines as power must move from region to region.
The second fundamental issue which is not understood by most people are the implications of the fact that wind speed varies independent of load requirements.
The power generated from a turbine varies as the cube of wind speed and can vary 30% in less than an hour and does vary from 0 to 100%. As a power system must always be balanced when the wind blows other power sources musts be shutdown and then restarted and then shutdown and then restarted and then shutdown and so on.
As the green scam energy increases beyond around 10% to 15% average of nameplate it is no longer possible to use combined cycle gas power plants in the grid. The combine cycle power plants are 20% more efficient than single cycle gas power plants but require 10 hours to start and must hence be left on for weeks. The 20% less efficient single cycle gas power plants can be shut on/off/on/off/off although there is a loss in efficiency for the roughly hour as they come up to temperature.
The wind power scam pushes talk about wind power nameplate power which is the maximum output of the wind farm. Germany average wind power output is less than 20% of nameplate.
Bill Gates unlike the above big talker, understands that facts do matter. A leader does not lead people off a cliff.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-renewable-energy-fantasy-1436104555
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
To be fair, most of our gullible MPs are only doing what Obama is telling them….
Probably got his climate education from SKS and the Guardian.
I wouldn’t get excited, Eric, it’s just one MP. And he isn’t the sharpest tool in the box.
He’s an MP. Aren’t they all blunt nails? Like our Congresscritters.
not in my name
It’s impossible for a member of the public here in the UK to enter into any meaningful discussion with MPs who are ‘believers’.
I’ve written in detail to my MP and also former Member of the European Parliament (MEP), with figures and
arguments galore. Neither would enter into a discussion of any of my points made.
This is one reply I got from my MEP after sending him all sorts of temperature data and more:
“I’m afraid that your descendants will be ashamed of those views of yours.”
And also:
“You know perfectly well that your last question cannot be answered precisely. I’m a scientist by education too. Why play games like that? I respect the collective advice of the United Nations. That sea levels are slowly rising. That tropical fauna are moving to our shores. How can you possibly be certain? A true scientist knows there is no certainty. So, why not admit that there is a possibility that Climate Change may be true? And therefore our planet needs to take precautionary measures?”
A nice cop-out, that one – “respecting the collective advice of the United Nations”! My reply included the following points:
“Please be assured that I’m not ‘playing games’. As a member of the public I’m responding to your initial questionnaire regarding political priorities, and simply letting you know my views on the subject of ‘climate change’. In the world of science, the collective view is not necessarily the correct one. I began to look into the whole business of ‘man made global warming’ after I read Al Gore’s book. It immediately struck me as a propaganda masterpiece, with its sweeping statements, bland assurances of the truth, and brightly coloured simple pictures worthy of a primary school wall. On the subject of sea level rise, there are many factors which I understand affect this, all of which may vary with time and place. These include erosion, silting, sediment transport, continental runoff, air pressure changes, storms, hurricanes, tsunamis, compaction, geoid deformation, seismotectonics and more. Given these, to attempt to pin any changes in sea level on the effects of human-produced carbon dioxide is very shaky territory indeed as far as I’m concerned. On the subject of migrating fauna, I think you will be interested to read the link below to a presentation to Parliament by Professor Paul Reiter. As with all things climate change related, the devil is in the detail: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we21.htm
Much has been made of the ‘hockey stick’ study, and the absence of the medieval warming period in the published graph. Yet on the internet you’ll find the following by Albert Hafner:
‘The Schnidejoch, at an altitude of 2756 m asl, is a pass in the Wildhorn region of the western Bernese Alps. It has yielded some of the earliest evidence of Neolithic human activity at high altitude in the Alps. The abundant assemblage of finds contains a number of unique artifacts, mainly from organic materials like leather, wood, bark, and fibers. The site clearly proves access to high-mountain areas as early as the 5th millennium BC, and the chronological distribution of the finds indicates that the Schnidejoch pass was used mainly during periods when glaciers were retreating.’
So, in response to your question ‘why not admit that there is a possibility that climate change may be true?’ – of course climate change occurs, this is well known. My point is that as I see it, if there is any influence at all from human generated carbon dioxide, it’s negligible. Take another look at the Central England Temperature record I sent to you, say for the month of August. Where is there any evidence of changes so drastic occurring that the EU proposes to spend ‘as much as 180 billion Euros’ on ‘climate spending’? In 1659 for example, the temperature was 16 degrees C, and 16.6 in 2012. Yet carbon dioxide, a trace gas, has risen from 313.26ppm in 1959 to 391.01 in 2012. That’s almost a 25% increase. Surely evidence against climatic disaster caused by mankind?”
The MEP’s reply?
“We shall have to profoundly disagree”.
The majority of politicians think that we’re in danger, and so the bandwagon rolls on. The Climate Change Act remains on the statute book.
All credit to the Australians – would that the majority of our UK politicians might demonstrate some evidence of thinking for themselves.
Carbon, our opposition leader, Bill Shorten, a detestable individual, has proclaimed at the next Australian election, the labor party will support a tax on carbon. Completely nuts. This party got booted out at the last election for bringing one in and this party wants to try it on again into the future. So, I assure you, your mp is as great a muppet as some of ours, it’s a question of whether we have enough pollies with the balls to repel this bulls##t.
Craig: they don’t learn, do they?
An ETS, not a tax on carbon (Amounts to the same I agree). He also stated that 50% Australia will be powered by “renewables” in a very short few years if the ALP wins in 2016. There is a strong leftist support for action on climate change (LMAO) here in Aus sadly.
“The majority of politicians think that we’re in danger”
I am sure some have this belief, but I’ll take the other side – the majority of politicians don’t believe there is danger – it all has to do with politics, not science. If they go against their Party or its leadership, forget about any support winning your next election bid – they may even generate a campaign to defeat your election bid, like Boehner and McConnell did.
The majority of politicians don’t care about the science.
Kokoda: An interesting comment!
According to a letter writer in the engineering journal Materials World, (May 2015 p26), during the last Parliament (2010 to 2015), 58 of the UK’s MPs had a background in a STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) related area.
Among these were people holding degrees in scientific and engineering disciplines (including two with a Ph.D.) and those having worked as chartered engineers.
If MPs who have worked in the medical profession are included, about 1 in 10 MPs had a specialist background in a scientific or engineering field.
All well and good.
However, given the poor quality of the reply to my points from an MEP with a mathematics degree (see my earlier post on this thread), I’m inclined to agree with you that it all has to do with politics, not science.
100 years ago the same arguments were put to support eugenics. “The poor and weak must suffer now for the greater good of our descendants.”
Strangely, we descendants aren’t proud of those campaigners and tend to try to forget they ever existed.
The same will happen with the Global Warming crowd.
M Courtney: I replied that my descendants wouldn’t in fact be ashamed of my views, because they were based on real-world figures and observations.
I expected a better quality response from a Member of the European Parliament, to say the least.
Did you really expect a better-quality response from an MEP? My opinion of MPs is extremely low, based on my 56 years of experience. We will only get ‘proper’ government when we get a referendum system like Switzerland. Until then, government is mostly self-serving, incompetent, and not up to the tasks required. I make sure I always vote, but have deliberately spoiled my voting paper three times. Look at the latest revelations about John Bercow today! And he was brought in due to the expenses cloud! They are mostly ignorant pigs.
Good effort Carbon but it was always doomed to failure. Parliament, the BBC and most of the other MSM are banned from discussing the issue. ‘My mind is made up so don’t confuse me with the facts’.
He’s just a backbencher and a parliament secretary, worth listening to?
It ain’t over till it’s over: what about the Queens Privy Council. They have embarrassed Australia before I believe. It’s not like the Royal Family is one the side of sensible energy policy.
If you are refering to possible legal measures, the Privy Council has not had any standing since the 1980s
“Appeals to the Privy Council from decisions of the High Court were effectively ended by the combined effects of the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 and the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975. However, a right of appeal to the Privy Council remained from State courts, in matters governed by State law, until the passage of the Australia Acts, both State and Federal, in the 1980s.”
source : http://www.hcourt.gov.au/about/history-of-the-high-court
A British Member of Parliament critical of Australia’s climate policy. Remind me, isn’t UEA in England and were not the climate gate emails leaked from there?
That is why my Oneida relatives in NY state fought with Washington at Ariskany, Saratoga and we fed them that winter at Valley Forge.
And every low born politician there has ever been in the United States has been wise, and principled, and dedicated to the well-being of the population as a whole rather than that of himself or his friends.
American independence was the result of the incompetence of a king who was a pure bred German, and who was opposed by the more aristocratic of the two English parties of the day (the Whigs).
Philip, to be fair, many Americans don’t read history. I know that’s a broad, and may be hurtful, point, but it is true. I have been stunned when talking to Americans about history and geography. As much as I like Americans, their education system must either be poorly structured, or they just aren’t interested.
Ghost:
According to a once famous Newsweek poll, 16% of Americans cannot locate the USA on a map of the world. Someone else commented that Americans learn Geography by declaring war. I can’t confirm either, but this has been recorded: “Canada! That’s a really nice city!” [CBC Radio this morning.]
In the U.S, history and geography were replaced in the school systems with “social studies” as subject matter taught.
Richard Benyon the richest MP of the House of Commons, with an estimated wealth of £110 million’ should learn some simple mantra:-
“Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!”
“Oi! Oi! Oi!”
“Abbott! Abbott! Abbott”
“Oi! Oi! Oi!”
“Abbott!”
“Oi!”
“Aussie”
“Oi!”
“Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!”
“Oi! Oi! Oi!”
Because the “colonials” have retained the ability to reason, whilst the old country has become incestuously simpleminded.
What smug prejudiced nonsense.
PS. The party to which Mr Kenyon belongs has just cut subsidies for green energy too.
“PS. The party to which Mr Kenyon belongs has just cut subsidies for green energy too.”
Good! Now tell me when the party to which Mr Kenyon belongs to is going to repeal the 2008 Climate Change Act? An act whose consequences are known to be detrimental to the well being of UK citizens.
Colonyoscopy.
I hope Abbott gets support and encouragement from somewhere. Bravery is commendable but not sustainable without some sign that he is not the only sane one there is.
The Queen is still the nominal head of state down there,I believe, or has that changed?
The operative word in this is “nominal”. In the real world … they are still represented by Phil the Greek and the Clown Prince. These are hardly compelling examples.
Australia is still a constitutional monarchy.
About the only power the queen of australia or her representative has, is the ability to call an election if there is an unresolvable deadlock between the house of representatives and the senate.
This power has been used once since Federation, in 1974.
I wish these British MP’s would stick to what they do best, wearing suspender belts, black stockings and high heels and molesting pineapple rings and let us run our own country.
No, that’s just *TORY* MP’s.
Considering politics, Donald Trump is really stirring up the S**t here in the U.S.. I love it. He is doing to the leftists and Obamas admin what they have been doing to the Conservative, reasonable, law abiding people… He is speaking out against the leftist Bulls**t in the same way they do but without being passive aggressive like they are. He just spits it out and it pisses them off and they have no way to respond. I would love to see a conservative president do to the liberals what Obama has done to the Right…Simply ignore the law and screw them for awhile like they were so giggly about doing to the conservatives.
He is also pointing out the weakness of the republicans and their bulls**T. All of them are liars and in the pockets of big $. Not for the people who elected them. It really gets under their skin that someone who has so much money and cannot be influenced is in the presidential race. Good. Really good. All of those asses in the Capitol and the white house need to be relieved of their positions.
And as far as the Iran deal. I really wish and hope and pray that Obama, Kerry and anyone who supports the idiotic deal with Iran (and their families) are the first to be subject to any horrors that issues from Iran because of their idiocy… Because they aren’t concerned with my family, friends or me. They are traitors as far as I am concerned, from observation.
Thank you, have a nice day.
Dalquist, July 23, 2015, 7:37 pm :
Let’s see, Rick Perry split the vote so George Bush Senior missed getting elected to a second term and the US got Bill Clinton.
Now we have Donald Trump potentially splitting the vote perhaps denying another Bush the Whitehouse and you get Hillary (Bengazi/computer server in her apartment) Clinton as President.
So, more of the same for the next 5 years?
(I live in the “Great White North” so I don’t have a dog in the race.)
[Ross Perot, not Rick Perry, split the vote in 1992, and again in 1996. .mod]