The Guardian Admits Climate Action Costs Jobs

Skid Row Los Angeles
Skid Row Los Angeles – victims of the Californian Government’s climate policies. Jorobeq at English Wikipedia [CC BY 2.5], via Wikimedia Commons

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Greens usually try to sidestep questions about the cost of their proposals, but occasionally they slip up and reveal the true pain their agenda would inflict on ordinary working people.

Behind the smokescreen, the Coalition’s stance on climate change hasn’t changed at all

Greg Jericho

Saying you agree with the science of climate change but that you believe the government’s current plan is adequate is like saying you agree with vaccination, but you chose to only get one of your three kids immunised because, heck, that is more affordable.

Greg Jericho 

The cheapest way to deal with the cost of climate change is to reduce our emissions and prevent, as much as is possible, further increases in global temperatures.

Dealing with climate change will be tough – people will lose jobs, the prices of some things will rise, but the cost of inaction is going to be much greater and more damaging – both to our economy and to our society.

Read more:

This admission that climate action is expensive and would cause hardship echoes Obamas speech in 2009, in which he promised to make electricity prices skyrocket;

I applaud Guardian author Greg Jericho his honesty, but not his judgement.

It is easy to talk about hardship in abstract terms when your job is not on the line, but we don’t have to look far to see what a serious commitment to climate action would do to the lives of ordinary people. The government of California has ruined the lives of thousands in their manic quest for climate leadership.

But surely all this pain is worth it, to save the lives of our children?

The problem with this argument is there is no evidence further global warming, if it occurs, would inflict significant damage on the global economy.

2C of warming is the equivalent of moving around 160 miles closer to the equator. In the Northern Hemisphere you can experience a 2C warmer world by driving 160 miles South.

What you will also see if you drive South is a lack of dead people. The people you see 160 miles South of your current hometown, or even a thousand miles South, will mostly be doing just fine, going about their ordinary lives much the same as you do. Although you might see more old people – older people frequently move to warmer climates, for better quality of life.

As for sea level rise – if an alarmist like President Obama doesn’t take sea level rise seriously, why should you?

My point is, there is no good reason why even one job should be lost to the effort to address the alleged climate crisis, until climate action advocates come up with convincing evidence that there is actually a problem.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 19, 2020 6:09 am

If The Guardian is not a credible source it’s not a credible source. Not consistent to embrace them as credible when we agree and not credible otherwise. I think the whole of the MSM has a climate agenda that makes it impossible for them to be an objective analyst of the climate change issue.

Reply to  Chaamjamal
January 19, 2020 6:44 am

You can generally trust even a non-credible source when the author writes something that goes against his prevailing dogma or admits a flaw in his reasoning.

Reply to  ScarletMacaw
January 19, 2020 7:53 am

ScarletMacaw: Or more accurately, you can sometimes trust the accurate statement of a dubious source, as long as that accurate statement is not selectively chosen to mislead or manipulate you. The most effective liars will use truth to deceive.

Reply to  Richard
January 19, 2020 8:30 am

Richard: “The most effective liars will use truth to deceive.”

This article is a good example. Greg Jericho says there will be financial pain (True) but it will be worth it (Lie).

As others have pointed out trying to prevent the climate from changing would be financially disasterous. Paying present dollars to prevent something that may or may not happen in a reasonable future timeframe, and there is no evidence that any amount of money would have any effect, is economic suicide. We also can’t be certain that the next major change in climate will be warmer. That’s speculation and the next major change may have the Earth headed for another glacial period.

Whereas adapting to a changing climate, when it happens, uses future dollars at the point in the future where they are needed for adaption. Adaption is not speculative. If it comes down to it, one can buy a Winter coat or add an air conditioner and the correct problem will be addressed.

I have to give you a +1 +a-few-more because you have pointed out exactly what Greg Jericho is doing.; a smidge of truth to set up the lies.

Reply to  H.R.
January 19, 2020 10:06 am

Accurately stated Richard and H. R.!

H. R. intimates that even the small portion of truth is a lie; a point that is very accurate.

“Dealing with climate change will be tough – people will lose jobs…”

Notice the diminution of job loss impacts? A point which never mentions the distress of the former workers and their families?

A) Cost of electricity will skyrocket as the quality and consistency of that electricity plummets.
Reliability of that electricity does not exist; it will be unreliable.
• i) Unless industry supplies their own reliable means of electrical generation, it will be forced to close and move.

B) Fossil fuel derived fertilizers, plastics, fabrics, rubber, heating/cooling, mining, smelting, refining, food planting, tilling, harvest, transport, storage and presentation; all vanish.
• i) when business/farming/mining production disappears, their jobs and salaries also vanish.

C) Computers and networks depend upon quality consistent electricity. Unreliable inconsistent electricity greatly harms the digital world and those jobs.

“Dealing with climate change will be tough – …the prices of some things will rise…”

N.B. “prices of some things will rise”?

a) Hand harvested fiber crops?
b) Hand cleaned and carded fiber? The cotton gin started the industrial revolution, peasants will, onceagain, manually hand crank machines to clean and card fiber.
c) Fabrics hand spun, woven and sewn into clothes?
d) Manually tilled, planted, weeded, insect removal, poorly fertilized crops?
e) Hand harvested foods? With unknown transportation modes?
f) Without factories, tools will be uncommon?
g) etc. etc.

A) Prices will not rise on just a few products. Cost of manufacture and scarcity will drive prices up in a meteoric rise! 🙂

“Dealing with climate change will be tough… but the cost of inaction is going to be much greater and more damaging – both to our economy and to our society.”

After thirty years of alarmists attributing fear, fright, suffering and great damage to their version of climate change, they’ve not changed their tactics, methods or lies.

Nor have they been able to explain why modern warming is different from all prior Optimums that were so benficient to Earth, plants, wildlife and mankind.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Richard
January 19, 2020 2:03 pm

Liars are no more than confidence tricksters. These slimeballs NEVER tell a completre lie, & NEVER tell the whole truth! They intermingle & mix it all up, so that by the time you’ve worked out what is true & what isn’t, it’s too late, you’ve been had & scammed, often out of oodles of dosh (money). Sounds familiar? It’s called Manmade Climate Change! The rich get even richer, whilst the rest of us get poorer, the ruling intellectual elites rule over us! As the 19th century French philosopher & writer said, “If you you want to know who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticise!”.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Alan the Brit
January 19, 2020 2:04 pm

As the 19th century French philosopher & writer, Voltaire said, “If you you want to know who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticise!”.

Self-corrected, oops!

John Garrett
Reply to  Chaamjamal
January 19, 2020 7:21 am

Not only does print and broadcast media have an “agenda,” they actually have a formalized agreement.

If it seems like print and broadcast media are engaged in an orchestrated and concerted climate propaganda effort, there’s a reason it seems that way— THEY ARE:
(Columbia Journalism Review)

It’s the most amazing and astonishing thing I’ve ever witnessed. It is an outright, brazen, formal effort by the media to bend the news.

And you thought “journalism” was supposed to be non-partisan, honest and objective.

The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics clearly states,

…first and foremost:

“Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.”

And specifically directs journalists to:

“Label advocacy and commentary.”

Steve Case
Reply to  John Garrett
January 19, 2020 7:39 am

John Garrett January 19, 2020 at 7:21 am

I’ve known about that for several months now, and it’s still very depressing.

President Trump should make that part of his upcoming state of the union speech.

Reply to  John Garrett
January 19, 2020 7:56 am

There is a reason the media is also losing followers and the more they preach rather than report the more they bleed.

Reply to  LdB
January 19, 2020 8:53 am

I have not tuned in any of the CBSNBCABC’s for going on 2 decades. Rarely I might in case of something major going on, but otherwise? OH HELL NO!!

F.LEGHORN in Alabama
Reply to  Cosmic
January 19, 2020 12:03 pm

Yep. Maybe if we’re in a tornado watch.

Reply to  Cosmic
January 21, 2020 7:22 am

My awakening came back when Dan Rather was the nightly talker on CBS and did a special on the job situation under Ronald Reagan. He did a story about a girl who had done her 4 years at college and gotten her degree in some form of basket weaving but could not find a job. Reagan’s fault was the message, not that the dingbat should have gotten some marketable degree. I have not watched network news since.

Next was US News and World Report, I had stopped reading Time and Newsweek years before and kept getting US News because it would give you information, not opinions, but by the end of Reagan, they were an opinion rag also.

Then came FOX. Finally I could watch news again and get facts, not propaganda, but until about 3 months ago I could not watch the primary “news” anchor because Shepard Smith, always a little left, had turned anti TRUMP! propagandist. Glad he is gone, now I can get back to watching news when desired.

FOX commentary programs clearly state they are such. CNN, etc. not so much. Don Lemon claims to be NEWS. BS

Paul M
Reply to  Drake
January 21, 2020 7:37 am

if I was benevolent-dictator-of-the-world, I would mandate that newspapers use different typefaces for facts vs opinions and intepretations. some newspapers would then obviously be entirely commentary.

John McLean-Hodgson
Reply to  Drake
January 21, 2020 6:47 pm

It is not happening

Reply to  John Garrett
January 19, 2020 9:23 am

“It’s the most amazing and astonishing thing I’ve ever witnessed. It is an outright, brazen, formal effort by the media to bend the news.”

This is part and parcel of the 1963 curriculum change in Schools of Journalism in which they began explicitly teaching that the role of the Journalist was to interpret the facts so that the reader/listener arrived at the correct conclusion.

Reply to  John Garrett
January 19, 2020 3:07 pm

This appalling fraud generated this kind of grotesque media buffoonery: :

Who can still read these clowns apart to have fun from time to time ?

January 19, 2020 6:35 am

“****and to prevent as much as possible further increases in global temperatures.”

Faith is belief in things you can’t see. I live just north of Chicago. I didn’t get any trick or treaters this Halloween because where I live there was a snow storm on Halloween. It never snowed on Halloween when I was a boy. This morning the thermometer in my backyard is reading a temperature of zero degrees Fahrenheit. I simply don’t see any global warming. Matter of fact I don’t see any trend in the weather. I don’t think anyone else does either. Faith is belief in things you can’t see.

Reply to  Marty
January 19, 2020 7:04 am

Chicago isn’t global 😀

Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 19, 2020 8:07 am

Name one location that is “global”.
Climate, like weather is always local.
Global climate is an abstraction.

January 19, 2020 8:37 am

Hadn’t we had a “global tree” for a global climate reconstruction ? 😀

Did no one see the 😀 in my comment ? 😀

Rich Davis
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 19, 2020 3:38 pm

You refer to Mann-made global warming.

January 19, 2020 9:38 am

David, I make this point at every opportunity.
When people talk at me about “the climate”, my usual first response is –
“which climate? Depending which scientific source you use, there are between 5 and 30-odd climates around the world.”
And they all work differently at the same time.
So the notion of an average climate construct is arrant nonsense.

Reply to  Mr.
January 19, 2020 8:07 pm

According to the alarmist climate change deniers at NOAA, humanity evolved in “one climatic state”:

“…human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state, and now a new set of climatic conditions are taking shape.”

This humiliatingly stupid remark was once on NOAA’s website, but has been deleted. (so bad that even the entire server was deleted. 😉 )

But it can still be found at:

And they call US the deniers! Sheesh!

James Francisco
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 19, 2020 8:14 am

KG thinks that the climate is changing everywhere except for Chicago.

Reply to  James Francisco
January 19, 2020 8:35 am

Certainely not 😀

Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 19, 2020 8:17 am

But Chicago isn’t on Mars either.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 19, 2020 8:43 am

Bill Powers
Reply to  Marty
January 19, 2020 7:20 am

Global Warming alarmism is unquestioningly a faith based religion but one of pessimism with no up side. They are praying to a non-sentient watery rock orbiting a burning star that will one day expand and die or and/or be swallowed by a black hole in the center of our galaxy.

According to the tenants of their religion, we live a comfortable life and the planet dies (or ‘so say’ their 97% consensus). If The Planet is to live, your life will have to suck. That is a clearly articulated penance. They don’t make a big deal about how the church leaders will, by necessity, be spreading the gossip, and therefore need to live lives of luxury in order to fulfill their mission. Said mission will necessitate, at least twice a year, a meeting of church clergy in luxurious locations and require guest celebrities to perform affirmations to the faithful.

At these meeting and at least once a decade, a new saint will be canonized. For the 2010 decade the statuary will be of a young girl from Sweden with Asperger disease. Young girls with “Ass burgers”are beyond reproach and criticism, don’t you see. This adorable child will henceforth be known as Saint Greta and all shall bow down to her thunderous scorn as she pronounces the wailing of the righteous and prophesizes our eminent doom should the wicked prevail.

For it is essential that we save this orbiting rock even if it means that all of mankind need perish in the attempt. Marty it is amazing what a little faith can do for the wicked.

Reply to  Bill Powers
January 19, 2020 8:33 am

Everyone must to save mankind and we must also destroy the environment to save it.

Reply to  Scissor
January 19, 2020 11:16 am

I’m not all that sure that saving mankind is high on the eco-nut agenda. Or is even on it at all.

Given the number of neo-Malthusians who are on record as describing, in varying levels of personal insult, their opposition to humanity and all its works and even its existence, I am inclined to think that the elimination of mankind (themselves excluded probably) is the aim.

We must be the only species which includes a subset intent on destroying the species as a prime objective!

Reply to  Bill Powers
January 19, 2020 8:56 am

I think people’s whose lives already suck are just trying to justify their bummer by inflicting it on the rest of us.

What they miss is there is ZERO correlation between CO2 and “planetary warming,” itself a dubious construction of more dubious statistics full of holes. Therefore, NO amount of “climate action” is going to change the weather one iota. Humans do not control Earth’s thermostat, full stop.

It’s about time the scientifically literate, like y’all hereabouts, stopped refuting the alarmists’ religious arguments as though they had a scientific leg to stand on. They do not.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  Bill Powers
January 19, 2020 10:41 am

Even though (we / they) tend to push the youth into the (negative) limelight, the Green movement is by and large a movement of elders. Greta did not emerge from the foam, fully-dysfunctional, on a scallop shell. The Boomer generation created the culture that gave us the young marchers and protesters.

“Boomer Socialism Led to Bernie Sanders” WSJ Opinion, January 18-19

Edward Glaeser, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, makes the case that it was the boomers themselves who made rebellion synonymous with youth.” In effect, he says, we’ve promulgated policies that have made it difficult for youth to succeed on their own without the redistributive help of Big Government. Examples he gives:

Strict development laws passed on our watch have led to escalating housing prices. (Houses are beyond the financial reach of young professionals.) We formed interest groups such as guilds and unions that restrict change and favor the “old guard”. We endorse government spending to support government’s own minions in retirement. We lard the “gig economy” with restrictions and certification requirements. (It takes 15 permits, Glaesaer says, to sell milk in an inner-city grocery store). And we’ve derided the value of competition and capitalism with our own rhetoric about “greed”.

As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy… and it is us.”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bill Parsons
January 19, 2020 1:31 pm

“Edward Glaeser, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, makes the case that it was the boomers themselves who made rebellion synonymous with youth.”

This gives the impression that all Baby Boomers think the same way. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Baby boomers fought in the Vietnam war, and Baby boomers protested against the Vietnam war. Just like today with the nation being split on ideology, so too the Baby boomers are split on ideology. There are socialist Baby Boomers and there are conservative Baby Boomers.

One could claim that everyone in the USA thinks like a Democrat, but they would be wrong. One could also claim that all Baby Boomers are socialists, but they would be wrong, too.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 19, 2020 7:33 pm

However we got here, Tom…

In 1974, pollster Daniel Yankelovich found that three-quarters of Americans 25 to 34 felt the country had “moved dangerously close to socialism.”

But today:

Fifty percent of adults under 38 told the Harris Poll last year that they would “prefer living in a socialist country.”

So something has changed in the last 50 years.

The Cato Institute confirms this polling result:

39% of Americans have a favorable view of the word “socialism,” while 59% view socialism negatively.

Glaeser argues that several things seem to be driving young people leftward: restrictive government policies and laws, lack of affordable housing around the best jobs, exclusionary practices of powerful entities such as unions; and the influences of liberalism in our teachinginstitutions, our universities. (I would add secondary schools aren’t far behind.)

As a former teacher I can say that my conservate values rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. English is a tough sell in the typical inner city clasroom when you’re supposed to be teaching “language arts”. I was out before the climate hysteria became the hot meme of the day, but the youth who wish to say “shame on you,” are just the latest face of the intolerant elders who gave them their twisted frame of reference. They aren’t just born. They’re made.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 20, 2020 8:39 am

“Glaeser argues that several things seem to be driving young people leftward”

I would say the main driver is the Leftwing Media and the Leftwing takeover of the educational system. In other words: Leftwing propaganda and lots of it is what is driving young people leftward.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 20, 2020 1:50 pm

I have to agree Tom. Given that all forms of media are pretty much leftist now, the propaganda machine is just churning out one point of view and actively deriding any other.

Amos E. Stone
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 20, 2020 11:44 am

Youth has always been rebellious.

Socrates, or maybe Plato had a go, but I like this from Peter the Hermit in A.D. 1274, (maybe).
“The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of
today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for
parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as
if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is
foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest
and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress.”

and, more to the point:

“If you’re not a socialist before you’re twenty-five, you have no heart; if you are a socialist after twenty-five, you have no head.”
Attributed to everyone from Edmund Burke, Anselme Batbie, Victor Hugo, King Oscar II of Sweden, George Bernard Shaw…. to Winston Churchill.

Even Greta might grow up.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Bill Powers
January 19, 2020 11:32 am

“According to the tenants of their religion”


Bill Powers
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 20, 2020 5:24 am

Sorry Tenet, Pedant.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Bill Powers
January 23, 2020 10:15 pm

And proud of it. 🙂

John mclean-hodgson
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 25, 2020 2:43 pm

Yo are right

Mark Broderick
January 19, 2020 6:56 am

“Dealing with climate change will be tough – people will lose jobs, the prices of some things will rise”

Wrong, the cost of every single item will rise because they all need to be transported by fossil fuels ! PERIOD !

Reply to  Mark Broderick
January 19, 2020 9:28 am

they left out the “except in China and the rest of the developing world”….

…all of the increase in CO2 has come from them

Lorne Newell
Reply to  Latitude
January 19, 2020 2:22 pm

Listen close. LISTEN. CO2 is not the problem.

Curious George
January 19, 2020 7:10 am

The Skid Row in Los Angeles is not a recent development.

Ron Long
January 19, 2020 7:37 am

There you go again, Eric, using those logic tricks you like to use. Feelings! That is what’s important.

January 19, 2020 7:53 am

The funniest part of that whole article by Greg Jericho was the statement

The need for action on climate change is the need to reduce emissions and to also take a leading role in that fight on the international stage.

Why would Australia want to take a leading role on the international stage?

If you assume there is a solution then it follows there is absolutely no upside to being a leader and considerable downside. The first country to master the transition will pay a massive inflated price compared to other countries that will simply follow the model. The general public want to be followers not leaders.

It is like leftist who want Australia to be a greater and better player in the UN … and they can’t understand why the general public are repelled by that idea. At the moment if the Australian public got a vote on it they would likely want out of the UN. The two big main reasons for the sentiment shift is
(1) Lack of the UN being able to do anything meaningful with Russia and the downing of MH17
(2) UNHRC attacks by UN on Australia over it’s refugee detention policies

Kevin kilty
January 19, 2020 8:21 am

To continue the thought of “LdB”, above the statement by Jericho,

The need for action on climate change is the need to reduce emissions and to also take a leading role in that fight on the international stage.

is one repeated over and over by millions of people — many of whom are not stupid. It suggests thinking completely ignorant of how even genuinely good ideas diffuse through society. Rogers back in the early 1960s studied diffusion of innovation and found that the first “innovators” (I put that in quotations here because of context) are often ruined. It is the second wave of innovators who do well. This second wave are composed of people who have observed the problems and catastrophes suffered by the innovators, and do not wish to suffer similarly. Thus, they hang back until bugs are worked out.

The urge to plunge into “doing something” about climate change is not necessarily even a good idea in my opinion, but supposing it were, everyone, even those not fully aware of why they were doing so, would hold back to see how it all worked out for the innovators. It is a sensible approach to hedging of huge uncertainty.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
January 19, 2020 9:00 am

I’ve yet to see even the loudest advocates of “doing something” model the behaviors they’d like society to adopt; growing their own vegan food, living without modern fossil-fuel based conveniences and transportation, and in general regressing to an 18th-century subsistence mode of living.
Not. One.

At this point I think most people are seeing the hypocrisy.

F.LEGHORN in Alabama
Reply to  Goldrider
January 19, 2020 12:18 pm

The Unabomber lived exactly that way. In a lot of ways he’s the epitome of the “green movement”.

January 19, 2020 8:26 am

There seems to be a race to see who can economically self destruct first. The UK and Germany seem to be leading the pack early. But there is still room for others to move to the front on global stupidity.

Reply to  Marc
January 19, 2020 5:25 pm

I think Australia is very close in the race Marc. I read that there was a report put out Dec 2019 that Australia will meet it’s ‘Paris agreement’ target by 2025, five years early. It also said that pro rata we were among the top countries to roll out wind and solar renewables.

The leftists keep spouting that we’re ‘not doing enough’, the government is closing down coal fire power stations and refuse to talk about nuclear or gas.

I’ve said before on this site, in regards to the domino effect, Australia will be easy to push over. Once it goes…

Andy Pattullo
January 19, 2020 8:41 am

It appears that arguments based in reason and founded on observational evidence have no place in the global warming debate. It has become a purely faith-based cult that has far too much influence on politics and society for the safety of both people and the biosphere they inhabit. It was never enough to observe that there has been some very welcome but modest warming coming out of the little ice age, and that human actions and CO2 emissions may have played some potentially minor part in that. In spite of all evidence to the contrary it has to be cataclysmically dangerous, end-of-times inspiring and an excuse to drop everything the human race has been doing for the past several centuries to make life on the planet better for us and our fellow flora and fauna. Somewhere deep in the primal heart of humans there is a need to believe that all is lost and only our mass suicide by stupidity will cleanse our souls. “Believers” total Ignore the hypocrisy of claiming this is all for the good of the earth when any simple reasoning shows that 7.7 billion people trying to survive the collapse of society will not be a friendly event for any part of the natural world. “Climate-change deniers” (a nonexistent breed of humans) are guilty of relying on facts and observations rather than swilling back the cool-aide and joining in the Armageddon chorus.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
January 19, 2020 1:49 pm

“mass suicide by stupidity”

That’s where the Western world’s socialist leaders appear to be headed. All because they have been fooled by the Catasrophic Human-Caused Climate Change narrative and the Charlatans who promote it.

January 19, 2020 8:47 am

Dang it do I detest these leftist pigs. Disgusting hoodwinked creeps.

January 19, 2020 9:10 am

Not just jobs
The Guardian also reported this for the UK. We could do with some warming.

“Last winter, there were nearly 46,000 excess winter deaths among people aged 65 and over – a shocking 92% of all excess deaths – equating to 379 older people a day. These distressing figures are now the highest we’ve seen in over 40 years.”

Reply to  Adrian Kerton
January 19, 2020 11:21 am

But did they draw the obvious conclusion?

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Newminster
January 19, 2020 9:45 pm

Obvious! Global Warming(tm) causes old people to lose their natural resistance to the cold.

If the world wasn’t warmer they wouldn’t feel the cold as much.


Now where is my Nobel Prize?


(or, since this IS the Guardian we are talking about, “Capitalism has failed the elderly, BREXIT must be cancelled, parliament suspended and a full ‘People’s Committee’ be raised to workshop a new classless and equal system of distributing the wealth. Also the Guardian editors offer – out of the compassionate depths of their hearts – to chair and oversee the People’s Committee to ensure the correct conclusions are reached.)

Julian Flood
January 19, 2020 10:08 am

“In the Northern Hemisphere you can experience a 2C warmer world by driving 160 miles South.”

Or climbing a 600 ft hill.

Mrs May (an erstwhile British Prime Minister) proposed mitigation measures that will cost £15,000 per head. Old and young, children, wage slaves, toffs and peasants, £15,000 each. Some can afford it easily, some will struggle, some — the old, the poor and the sick –will fail to keep warm in winter and suffer the health consequences.


January 19, 2020 11:55 am

This isn’t as convincing as it sounds, in my experience Jericho pretty much gets everything wrong.

Reply to  harry
January 20, 2020 2:23 am

Not just Jericho – the entire Guardian is pretty much wrong about everything, all the time.

January 19, 2020 12:23 pm

In answering the direct question on the cost of its climate policy Bill Shorten answered. What is the cost of doing nothing? No matter what the real answer is in dollars, when a politician gives you this evasive an answer you know it has a 1 in the front and heaps of zeros. This non answer was an important part of the reason that the Labor party lost the unloseable election in Australia.
The other point in your post which is that why is 2 degrees of warming even bad? I can’t understand how people have been able to be freaked out by such a concept. For decades now the ability to lower or increase the temperature has been at the touch of a button. Not just 1 or 2 degrees different but 10 or 15 degrees : it’s called air conditioning . The only way that this ability of humans to not create the “perfect” temperature is if electricity becomes either too expensive or two unreliable. In a recent hot spell the breakdown of our air conditioner gave me a taste of how we take that ability to adjust the weather for was extremely uncomfortable for a few days till it was fixed.
I have always thought rather than fight against climate change ( if you believe in it) a better and cheaper solution would be to continue to use the cheapest source of electricity generation ie coal make it available to as many people around the world as possible and buy everyone who can’t afford it an air conditioner. Without doing the sums I suspect it would be significantly cheaper than trying to change the climate with windmills and solar panels and electric cars and getting rid of cows.

Mark Broderick
January 19, 2020 12:51 pm

“Greta Warns World Leaders at Climate Protest Before Davos”

“Lausanne (AFP) – Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg issued a warning to world leaders at a protest in the Swiss city of Lausanne on Friday, days before the start of the Davos summit of the world’s political and business elites.”

“So far during this decade we are seeing no sign whatsoever that real climate action is coming,” the 17-year-old eco-warrior said to a rock-star welcome from the mostly teenage crowd.”

“Greta Thunberg: “This is just the beginning. You haven’t seen anything yet. We assure you of that!”

Getting desperate ?

Coeur de Lion
January 19, 2020 12:59 pm

Maybe the general public inertia and disinterest in the ‘climate question’ will crack up as the policies start to affect real world jobs and expenses ( already have w electricity prices but gradual and not necessarily connected in their minds) and people will ask serious questions about the facts. Maybe things like Prof David Kelly’s GWPF paper showing UK ‘decarbonisation’ to be ludicrous will GAIN TRACTION.

Ian Coleman
January 19, 2020 1:50 pm

The climate change people have an unseemly, barely disguised enthusiasm for ruining other people’s happiness. Consider Canada’s carbon tax: You can read any twenty randomly chosen articles extolling the tax and not one will state outright that the tax is designed to make operating a gasoline-powered automobile so expensive that many people who can now afford to drive will have to give it up. Now and then an environmentalists slips up and says that a given emission suppression protocol will be the equivalent of taking thousands of cars off the road. Of course, that’s thousands of cars driven by working class people, who are probably unjustly happy already, because their I.Q. scores are too low to understand that they should be living in fear of the future, like all the smart people who can afford to fly in airplanes, or buy electric cars.

Show me an environmental activist who has ridden on a city bus in the last five years.

Stephen Skinner
January 19, 2020 4:02 pm

“But surely all this pain is worth it, to save the lives of our children?”
And we do that by removing the very fuel that allowed more children than ever to survive. Where did 7 billion people come from?

Paul M
January 19, 2020 4:06 pm

It’s too bad that economic changes and progress has destroyed entire job sectors. All those miners digging for coal, and the jobs they created in the NHS dealing with emphysema and other diseases, and then of course the effects of smog which also led to boom periods of employment for undertakers.

Before we had cars, there were people employed to collect horse dung from the streets. Talking of such things, emptying cess pits was also a career before mains drainage. I’m sure lots of people regret the coming of sewers, it was far more convenient to empty a chamber pot out of the window into the street below.

OK, serious point now. transitions in technology render old jobs obsolete and create new ones. the printing press. the steam engine. spinning, knitting, and weaving machines. steel works. 3d printing. electric vehicles. solar power.
You’ve got to learn to get on and ride the bulldozer of progress, or, be crushed underneath.

John Dilks
Reply to  Paul M
January 20, 2020 8:49 am

Paul M January 19, 2020 at 4:06 pm
“. electric vehicles. solar power.”
Those are not progress, they are regression.

Paul M
Reply to  John Dilks
January 20, 2020 10:33 am

I’m sure the people dying from diesel pollution around the world, but particularly in London, might disagree.

Craig from Oz
January 19, 2020 4:06 pm

I think young Greg might be about to be ‘spoken to’ by his social betters.

Consider this line from the article:

“… and prevent, as much as is possible, further increases in global temperatures… ”

As much as possible.

There you go, in young Greg’s own words we only have to do as much as possible. And since it is impossible our work here is done.

Pack it up Climate Kids. Job’s over.

January 19, 2020 4:25 pm

Last Friday the Sydney Morning Herald had a feature article on tackling climate change in a “ real way” on the part of the Federal Government. As with the Guardian it said that the necessary action would be tough.
In answer to the perennial question, “ How much will it cost?”, the article quoted Professor Ross Garnaut’s Review(2011).
According to Garnaut it will cost “one third to two thirds of the growth in Australia’s annual GDP going forward”.
I don’t believe in such economic forecasting as there is no way anyone could make such a projection that is reliable.
But the amount?
If the GDP growth is 2.9 % (2017-18) or say now 1 to 2%, and GDP is even say $2.9 trillion the amount being one third to two thirds thereof is a manageable few $ billions.
What a snip with still remaining economic growth!
But there are significant doubts and this is only the domestic cost.
How much are we exposed to internationally by signing up to Paris?
Heaven only knows.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Herbert
January 19, 2020 6:30 pm

Has Ross Garnaut’s economic forecasts ever been in any way accurate? I don’t recall any. He was involved in gold mining in PNG dumping mining waste in to local rivers so he’s not too bothered abut climate change now he’s made his wealth.

January 19, 2020 10:01 pm

This is way of topic, but it is a fascinating video on the potential of water memory. …

Alan the Brit
January 19, 2020 11:53 pm

To my dear friends in the Virginian Colonies, this is slightly OT, but listening to & then watching Breakfast tv on radion then tv, the not-so-good old BBC, I note that they truly do stick to their Royal Charter of impartiality like no other, referring to President Obama as precisely that, yet nearly always refer to the current incumbent of the White House as merely Trump! Curious!

January 20, 2020 9:40 am

“Although you might see more old people – older people frequently move to warmer climates, for better quality of life.”

Oh no! How long before we see headlines screaming:

“Research shows that the climate crisis will result in more older people”
Researchers have determined that increasing temperatures result in an older population. This could have a devastating impact on Medicare, Medicaid, and the cost of healthcare. “If we don’t immediately end all production of CO2, this will soon be a country of geriatrics. The science is unequivocal,” said Dr. Mannsfried, as he boarded a private jet to a crucial conference on global warming in Fuji.

January 20, 2020 5:51 pm

It is not happening it is not due CO2

Rudolf Huber
January 24, 2020 11:48 am

Climate Action costs jobs. Climate Action costs money. Climate Action will reduce your quality of life by a very significant margin. And Climate Action will accomplish nothing to change the climate. Because mere humans are like ants on this planet. We cannot compete with the big yellow disc in the sky that makes our climate. Yes, we think we play god when we increase the CO2 in our atmosphere from 0,02 to 0,04% but the climate does not even give a silent fart. Its insignificant. When the big yellow disc burps, our climate changes quite drastically. If we increase CO2 by a factor of 10 even, nothing happens except that plants grow better. For that certainty, we shall pay with our jobs, with our money, with our well being. What are the odds of people going along with that?

John McLean-Hodgson
Reply to  Rudolf Huber
January 24, 2020 8:00 pm

You right

Verified by MonsterInsights