Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Nicholas Soames, grandson of legendary British WW2 leader Winston Churchill, has attacked President Trump’s climate policies with a claim that Churchill would have opposed President Trump’s climate policies. Soames also claims that cutting carbon emissions “helps your economy grow faster”.
Dear President Trump: Churchill would have been a climate leader
By Sir Nicholas Soames
Updated 1558 GMT (2358 HKT) January 15, 2018
There could be no starker illustration of the profound differences that exist between Washington and London — despite alignment on many other issues — than comments this week by our two leaders on climate change and the environment.
For President Trump, the Paris Agreement is a bad deal that will close US businesses — perhaps even has closed some already.
Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s man at the Environmental Protection Agency, added the detail — promising to repeal regulations protecting US watercourses from pollution and reduce power plant emissions.The best-performing nation on growth is also, notably, the best at cutting emissions.
And it is… the UK. In that period, the average Briton has grown 45% wealthier, while reducing his/her carbon footprint by 33%. The USA has not done badly, coming mid-table on both measures. But the overall conclusion is obvious: there is no conflict between making your people richer and cutting greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, from the evidence, one could well draw the opposite conclusion — a consistent goal and a systematic plan for cutting carbon emissions helps your economy grow faster.
The key figure in starting all this was another Conservative figure for whom I hope the President would have some regard: Margaret Thatcher. And it has brought no threat to energy security, or to jobs.
The evidence, therefore, is entirely against the world view of Donald Trump and entirely consistent with that of Theresa May.
My grandfather, Sir Winston Churchill, knew a thing or two about courage. President Trump is, I gather, a fan, having a bust of him in the Oval Office. Without Churchill’s determination, the Nazis would have won the war in Europe. But this is equally true of his respect for evidence. You cannot defeat an enemy of markedly superior forces unless you have better information and make better decisions.
Were he our Prime Minister today, it is pretty clear he would have said the same things on climate change as Theresa May has this week. Because, simply, she is right, and she is acting in the interests of her people.
Back in the real world, poverty in Britain is getting worse – in part thanks to high energy prices.
Poverty hits more children and pensioners, says charity
4 December 2017
Thousands of people are struggling to make ends meet in the UK every day, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said.
An additional 700,000 UK children and pensioners have fallen into relative poverty – households with less than 60% the median income – over the past four years.
The charity said it was the first time in 20 years that poverty in these groups had seen sustained rises.
Ministers say their support is helping pensioners and families out of poverty.
…
The charity says ending the benefits freeze is the single biggest change the government could do to help the 14m people – 4m children and 1.9m pensioners – now living in poverty.
New threats to the poorest households include rising housing costs, higher food and energy bills, debts and not being able to contribute to a pension, said the foundation.
The latest figures represent a “real warning sign that our hard-fought progress is in peril,” Mr Robb added.
…
Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42218682
The full JRF Report is available here
I once met and spoke with Nicholas Soames. My impression wasn’t good. He is no Winston Churchill.
President Trump won people’s trust because he promised to address their concerns, because he understood people’s concerns. Trump promised to remove the roadblocks to American prosperity, to ease the cost of living burdens and security concerns of ordinary Americans.
Contrast this with Nicholas Soames, and his arrogant claim that life in Britain is better than the USA, that expensive green energy policies enhance prosperity.
For some people, likely the kind of people Soames normally hangs out with, life undoubtably is good. Owners of vast, desolate, windswept hereditary estates have done very well out of Britain’s green energy revolution. But for hundreds of thousands of Soames’ fellow Britons, even people with full time jobs, life is a brutal struggle to feed their children and heat their homes.
Britain’s hideously expensive green energy policies are hurting poor people. In my opinion, to claim that expensive green energy helps alleviate poverty verges on delusional.
Sir Nicholas Soames was about 17 when his Grandfather died.
That was long before caGW reared its ugly head. How can he know what his Grandfather’s opinion would have been?
He’s just using his name.
Not unlike a modern Rockefeller and their very Leftist foundation which was built by an Oil Empire. Or of Tom Steyer, who multi-billion dollar wealth was built by fossil fuel trading. Or of Al Gore’s wealth, the bulk of which has come from his sale of his network to Al Jezeera, paid for with Sheik oil money.
You left out Al’s family’s oil and tobacco fortunes.
But that’s what got him started. Can’t fault him for how his Dad and Granddad made their money. But selling his network? He owns that hypocrisy himself.
My bad.
Nicholas Soames is an arrogant ignorant blowhard. Winston Churchill won people’s trust and support because he addressed their genuine concerns, just as President Trump does. He did not and Trump does not pander to riduculous unproven scientific hypotheses. Winston Churchill took effective action against real external threats to the independence and liberty of Britain. Churchill did not waste time tackling imaginary problems that were invented to further wild political theories of a small greedy and malevolent group.
“ntesdorf January 22, 2018 at 2:07 pm
He did not and Trump does not pander to riduculous unproven scientific hypotheses.”
Churchill was a strong believer and supporter of Eugenics. He also supported The Feeble Minded Persons bill of 1912 that, thankfully, never made it in to law.
“Churchill was a strong believer and supporter of Eugenics.”
As are herdsmen (sheep, cattle) and dog breeders.
“Michael 2 January 22, 2018 at 4:44 pm”
Given is was of the silver spoon elite, I would not be surprised if he considered his subordinates to be mere cattle or even dogs.
Patrick MJD writes “Given he was of the silver spoon elite, I would not be surprised if he considered his subordinates to be mere cattle or even dogs.”
A good observation of elite behavior. But you don’t have to actually BE elite to think that way; it seems common.
Let it be remembered that Soames was a vehement Remainer during our Referendum campaign and had the utter gall to suggest that his Grandfather would have voted to remain in the EU too. Hardly likely given his Zurich Speech of 1946. Moreover Winston was never one to court the current political fad – look at his years fighting the craven appeasement of Hitler. Soames is a complete muppet
Churchill gave us a pretty hard time in South wales during the the miners/general strike in the 1920s. However, he was just the man for the job in WW2. So, pros and cons. Overall, we benefitted from his existence.
“Churchill gave us a pretty hard time in South wales”
& Tonypandy 1910 and 1911,
Llanelli 1911 two men, shot dead by troops
1915/16, Gallipoli campaign was thought up by Winston Churchill to end the war early by creating a new war front; result…58,000 allied soldiers & 87,000 Ottoman Turkish troops died for nothing.
1944/45 Churchill handed over 36,000 Cossack Prisoners of War to Stalin who killed them all.
Sir, It is worth noting that Gallipoli failed in part because those tasked with the effort did not take advantage of surprise when it was there. The initial landing and the later descent at Suvla Bay saw troops failing to advance to take the high ground. The latter was criminal given the experience of the first landing!
The handing over of Russian POW’s and others who had fought for Germany at the end of WW2 is not just Churchill’s fault, but must be laid at the door of the Allies in general. By 1945 Britain was a worn out bankrupt nation beholden to the United States and it overwhelming rsources. Whatever Churchill wanted to do was soon taken from him following electoral defeat within weeks of VE Day.
While it is certainly not his best source of external income, Nicholas Soames, MP, is listed in the UK Government members interests as a Non-executive director of Aggregated Micro Power plc; renewable energy investment business.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/180108/soames_nicholas.htm
For this he receives £3,750 per quarter for an expected commitment of 10 hours.
£375 per hour. If only big oil would pay commenters at WUWT so handsomely….
The issue of MPs having business interests which conflict with their role as a policy maker has arisen many times in the UK, and whenever they are in the renewables sector they seem to get away with it. Basically, corruption at work.
I know a number of contractors who make hourly figures in that range.
They are generally worth it, I have no idea if Nicholas Soames is or is not.
Well, if the danger posed by Hitler wasn’t recognized in the UK, the danger posed by the growing political power of the military in Japan certainly wasn’t seen by the USA.
It could also be noted that Hitler gained popular acclaim in Germany by providing jobs. Many Germans tried to pretend the executions and other atrocities weren’t happening, but they knew they were supporting what was basically a gangster regime. When the Allied bombing of their cities started they changed their minds about Hitler, but by that time he was too powerful to be ousted.
What amazes here is how so many appear to have no idea of WSC’s life and accomplishments. Instead they prefer to make up ludicrous stories about what he was supposed to have done, this includes his grandson Mr Soames.
Wow. Lots of opinions and interesting comments about Winston Churchill, history and more.
As far as the “Climate Crisis” goes, the only Churchill worth considering is the one in Manitoba, where all the fat starving polar bears are thriving their way to imminent unextinction.
This twit is just Monty Python material.
Dear Sir Nicholas
I don’t think Pres. Trump cares about what you think and what Churchill or Theresa May would have done. You’re even an American citizen and Trump doesn’t idolize Churchill or May. Following Reagan’s footsteps is more like it. By the way, you don’t seem to know that Thatcher became a global warming skeptic after seeing its folly.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html
You said:
“Without Churchill’s determination, the Nazis would have won the war in Europe.”
With due respect to Churchill, the British and Allied soldiers fought and won the war. As soldiers said of Gen. Patton: guts and blood. His guts, our blood.
“You cannot defeat an enemy of markedly superior forces unless you have better information and make better decisions.”
The Nazis were against the British and two military powers – US and USSR. Nazis had missiles and fighter jets but US had the atomic bomb. US would have nuke Germany. USSR has a million soldiers eager to destroy Germany. The “better information and better decisions” were UK’s secret weapon. Turing and British code breakers broke the German Enigma code. Churchill was a good leader but they were many heroes. Victory is not due to one man. I suggest you study history and climate science to be better informed.
Typo error – that should be “you’re not even an American citizen
Not to overlook Lady Houston, without whose financial support -and her correct views that Hitler was a danger- the Spitfire would not have been ready. Like you say, no single hero, but a lot of people who put their time and effort into safeguarding our nation.
There was also private support for the Hurricane. After the government in 1936 or 1937 declined to place an order for the prototype Hurricane, the owner of the company went ahead and produced 150 (or more) of them on spec. Without them on hand the Battle of Britain would or might have been lost.
I believe it was the Poles who first broke enigma.
The Poles did break the 3 tumbler Enigma machine. It was Turing and his computer that eventually broke the 4 tumbler Enigma machine.
Nobody knows what Churchill would have thought about global warming so why should we take any interest in what people claim he would have thought.
Not sure about Churchill’s political view on this but it’s likely that Einstein’s scientific view on catastrophic human caused climate change would have been that of a skeptic.
I am almost positive that Winston Churchill would be a big cheerleader for AGW as long as he thought it would benefit the Empire and harm his geo-strategic competitors. Which is basically the intent of the EU, UN-IPCC et al. How do we get the most dynamic economy on the planet, the US, to unilaterally saddle itself with expensive inefficient energy and give away vast amounts of money? While everyone else gets a free run for decades to use massive amounts of coal etc. In fact, as devious as Winnie was he would probably admire the hutzpah of the con.
20 odd years ago Nicholas Soames sneered at Prescott the Labour deputy Prime minister in Parliament not because Prescott was an idiot but because in the past he had worked as a steward on the Queen Elizabeth. Soames who never did any work revealed himself as an appalling snob and unfit to wipe the bottom of either Prescott or his ( possibly) illustrious grandfather. What the hell the opinion of such a bottom wipe as this has to do with sensible climate debate evades me.
Churchill a visionary? Yeah, right. He stood boots and all in the way of giving women the right to vote. Thick as
Graham, seeking a clue, wrote “He stood boots and all in the way of giving women the right to vote.”
Here’s the clue: What can be given can also be taken away, and if it can be taken away, how then is it a “right”? In other words, how did it fall to W.C. to “give” women the right to vote? How is it his to give?
Rights exist the moment you imagine it into existence, and then you spend the rest of your life defending it and persuading others that it exists. Rights vanish just as easily.
Perhaps you imagine you have some rights that are yours to give or take away, such as the right to association, to freedom of speech, and so on. These are not universal. They were brought into existence by pure will and defended by force of arms, against those who imagine different rights and also have will and arms.
The United States of America was created by a rather small number of men. They created the terms of government, of voting, of suffrage, and every other detail. There was near Easton a miller, an ancestor of mine from Basle. I doubt anyone asked him for his opinion regarding the King of England, or what rights anyone ought to have.
The Constitution of the US acknowledges the existence of rights it did not create; by saying things like “Congress shall pass no law infringing upon the right to…”
Had a group of women created the government, it is likely the tables would have been turned. The Creator of a thing makes the rules thereof.