Look, I think we need renewable energy projects. But it doesn’t follow that every such project is therefore good.

“So, Rumbold, are you on the side of the mad, bad Bjorn Lomborg, or on the side of sense?”

Well, as you ask the question in such a neutral way, I would say that I am on the side of those who want to do something about climate change, while also defending people’s right to over dissenting views without being branded ‘deniers’, ‘paedos’, etc.

Then why do you persist in regurgitating Spiked/RCP talking points?

Says it all.

I think, always have, that avoiding the outcomes he mentions might be the tipping point about us claiming to be an intelligent species….

So, Rumbold, are you on the side of the mad, bad Bjorn Lomborg, or on the side of sense?

It is frankly not a political point. It is about survival…

He’s just one man ultimately, and his training is in political science and statistics. In that interview, when he talks about rising sea levels, he takes the IPCC report as gospel. I understand the 4th IPCC report focusses on linear changes, at the expense of possible feedbacks and tipping points. The sea level figures he talks about take no account of the melting of land-based ice-sheets, which might cause sea level rises an order of magnitude or two higher, and put large numbers of coastal cities at risk. Otherwise, it takes no account of the release of methane from melting tundra, which could have a severe effect on temperature rises. He is assuming a fundamental predictability in the climate, which would be justified if we were capable of modelling it long-term. The reality is we are faced with an incredibly complex and perhaps chaotic system which we do not understand, into which we are throwing a spanner.

He says that even if we implemented Kyoto, it would delay global warming by about six years by 2100 (meaning that overall its impact would be little) and yet it would cost about 150 billion dollars every year for the rest of this century.
He reckons we could do better things with that money.

Hmmmm. Who knows? (Not me)

I agree that Britain needs to reduce her carbon frontprint. But I don’t think that it is anti-science to question whether such schemes are desirable, and whether other schemes would have less of a negative impact on the environment.

If you ever look down here. I think it is anti science to debate whether this is ‘desireable’ or not. Of course it isn’t desireable. It is, on the balance of the probabilities, less undesireable. It has less impact. That is the measure we have to take now. Because we have allowed, encouraged, broken hearts like yours to stand in the way of dealing with our issues, on the lack of, it must be said, your assumption that our effort would be a waste of time.

No, it does not have to be that way. Lets all get behind the reversal and see where that leads?

I agree that Britain needs to reduce her carbon frontprint. But I don’t think that it is anti-science to question whether such schemes are desirable, and whether other schemes would have less of a negative impact on the environment.

I never get offended by your words because I know that you are not attacking me personally: you are simply passionate.

Of course it is completely legitimate to ask what impact any project – not just ones that are likely to have a beneficial impact on the countries entire carbon footprint are likely to have on the environment and to look at alternatives. But, it seems to me, that cavilling over a few fish or a nesting habitat for some birds misses the point that elsewhere, these habitats will be destroyed completely. I wonder whether a local consultation on the Severn Tidal Power Scheme is ever likely to give proper weight:

firstly to the need for each nation on Earth to make whatever provisions they can to reduce their carbon footprint?

and secondly, whether the likely loss of many other habitats – such as the Wash – would be considered at all.

This is national level – indeed international level – politics, and not really something that ought to be decided locally. I fully expect this to get fudged, mainly because corporate interests, whacky Greens and local interests coincide.

To stretch an overused metaphor to beyond breaking point, we do indeed live in a global village and the pooh that we allow to fester in our house stinks out the whole town.

The only way we are going to get out of this fix is by using what little grey matter we have, and indeed, it may already be too late.

I apologise for the continual barrage of anti-libertarian flak that I send your way. You know that I have a high opinion of you both as a writer and as a friend. However this seemed a particularily ‘political’ piece for you, and is indeed revelling in the kind of anti-science bullshit that Greens are all to keen on promulgating. Hence the diatribe.

I don’t think that I was being nimbyish when I raised these concenrs. Surely it is legitimate to ask what impact an environmental project would have on the environment. We know from history that constructions like dams can cause huge suffering (see Mirpur), and be ecological disasters. In fact, surely my stance is an anti-nimby one, as the dam would benefit me at no direct ecological cost.

I don’t calim any expertise in the matters, which was why I tried to avoid saying that everything Charles Clover said was right and instead pointed out that we need more of these discussions.

I have a lot of affection and respect for you Douglas. But I don’t know Devil’s Kitchen- I have never even met him. Yes, we share some of the same beliefs, but that is about it. And I don’t see why arguing for a change in the tax system is a libertarian idea (as opposed to being a liberal idea, conservative idea, etc.).

Whatever happened to Devils’ Kitchen, the sweary Libertarian that couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper bag on climate change? Used to try to comment here? Is he still a leading light with you Libertarian chaps?

You have to admit, our ‘new friends’ the BNP are more persistent, although equally thick.

Though in different and even more sinister ways…

Though denial, whether from Libertarians, or the BNP about what actually goes down, annoys the hell out of me…

Still, my friend, I only say these things because you transcend the boundries that you – yes, you -set for yourself.

And then, with one bound, you set yourself free!

Perhaps you are an entryist into the Libertarian Party, what with your commitment to, lets see, IKWRO, Black Sisters, etc, etc. You would not get a Rizla Paper between thee and me on issues like that. There is rarely an article that you write here that I disagree with.

You know that.

This is one of those rare occasions. When you spout Libertarian nonsense on behalf of whom, Rumbold, who, exactly?

The three fucking monkeys?

Exxon, Shell and Mobil?

C’mon, you are far, far better than that…..

This weeks copy of the New Scientist has this article in it:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.300-sea-level-rise-its-worse-than-we-thought.html

My point being, rather tentatively, that mud flats – that your birds sit on – are probably not much above the existing sea level. So your, and cjcjc’s idea, that ‘doing nothing’ is a solution to habitat loss is actually hypocricy. It is to be expected that mud flats and other geographical features will eventually re-establish themselves, further inland what with the rising sea levels that New Scientist mentions. And these areas will be reinhabited by either the same species, or ones like them. Those that managed to adapt. Whilst the Nimbys whose houses are knee deep in mud, will be homeless. Ain’t Mother Nature wonderful?

I know this is evil of me, but I really do hope both you and cjcjc have bought beach front properties on next to unaffordable mortgages.

Now that would be putting your money where your mouths are!

Frankly, this is why I am not a Libertarian, nor a petrol head Tory. They can’t see the wood from the trees.

Cry me a river….

Not all of what is alleged about tidal power that is quoted in that article is true. Wikipedia, far from agreeing that a turbine is a mincing machine, mentions one such scheme on the St Lawrence, where the fish kill is zero.

The environmental impact of the La Rance plant in France – which, I’d agree, is not directly comparable – suggests that there has been ecological substitution rather than a loss of diversity.

Frankly I think that this is the worst sort of Nimbyism, where the global loss of habitat through climate change is not being weighed in the balance of local concerns.

I agree to some extent, but those people are also the one’s who are going to pioneer expensive new technology and (to an extent) lifestyle changes, which the rest of us can adopt later. You might also say that is the role of Britain worldwide, to find a way to maintain our standard of living without damaging the environment.

Now, we need a lot more than just convincing individual members of society to change. We need systems to offer up to these people -what are we actually offering apart from low-energy lightbulbs, a bit of insulation here and there? Nothing substantial, nothing at all. And all the climate campaigning around air travel is frankly absolutely useless without real alternatives. Given the exorbitant prices of rail travel both within England and Europe, really – what have we got to offer people? Nothing.

Those simple solutions are extremely important though, and that low-hanging fruit has to be taken. On air travel, it is not just about not flying, but changing the culture around it. For instance, persuading people against the idea of weekend breaks. Better to fly once a year on a longer holiday than to regularly take these short breaks. Much more realistic though to change these things through taxation, rather than through ethics alone. I favour the carbon card idea, to give individuals a free allowance balanced across heating, electricity, fuel and flights before taxation kicks in.

Also, I agree with your implicit suggestion about funding more high-speed lines. We should be connected much more into the european network- overnight trains (say, from Manchester to Barcelona) would be great.

Screw that. In the future, people can, should and will be richer, i.e. have access to more energy. The status quo is clearly unacceptable to anyone other than a few percent of the population of the planet.

That means we need _both_ green energy _and_ carbon taxes or similar, with the one financing the other. If a small fraction of the upper fringe of the few comfortable percent want to go off and indulge themselves with a low-energy lifestyle, that is fine as long as it is understood it is a fad of the same type as feng shui; nothing to do with actual environmentalism.

I like a lot of what you say too, but I think that you are wrong on this.

“Fiddling with taxes and hectoring the public in one small country IS lip service. A global programme of adaptation and R&D is what is needed, but I would hazard a guess that the green movement would treat anything other than drops in standards of living as heresy. It is as if the vision rather than the impact matters.”

I agree that despite what Gordon Brown would have us believe, he can’t save the world on its own. But we can make a start, and give a lead. If other countries see that our system is working, then they might be persuaded to follow suit.

“Put another way, you can probably quite easily convince the public that littering is bad (and having just emerged victorious from a fight to the death with the council about some fly-tipping, I certainly know!) but you are applying it here to aspirations to travel and the like.

The two are very different and I have always found it quite surprising that many in the green movement just seem unable to see the shades of grey here. It is an inability that leaves me suspecting that the agenda is as much about disapproval of others as it is about saving the world.”

But my point is about when one person’s right collides with another person’s right. So having the right to travel is fine, but it does mean that if travelling has an impact beyond the seller and buyer, we should look at the impact. I agree that there are shades of grey, and we shouldn’t demonise, but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do anything.

Moderated is simply in reference to toxicity. In the same way that one has to moderate personal salt or alcohol intake. That is merely a description of reality, if you don’t believe in harming other members of society, which is a basic tenet of our society.

The argument is not what the problem is, but the correct solution. You suggest subsidizing the purchase of electric cars. The problem is that does not most efficiently allocate resources. The person driving a lot is the person we all want to use the electric car, so why not reward him proportionately. And this is as much about reward as punishment- a green tax would be revenue neutral, which gives those people willing to make more-or-less irrelevant changes (lifestyle wise) to electric cars, CF lightbulbs or decent insulation get back what otherwise would have gone straight to the government on income tax.

The third world argument is relevant in industry, but not in car use. I am here, next to the motorway, someone else is in the car, or the reverse (I don’t drive, but I am a regular passenger). We both live in the same society. The driver’s commute cannot be subcontracted to the third world, and someone driving in the third world is not causing respiratory problem here.

You mention solar panels. On a recent visit to Eastern Europe I was impressed at quite how many houses had them, and they were subsidised – in a relatively poor country! But the panels I saw would not survive a brush with the NIMBYs and the planning system here. These are the battles that need to be waged, not hitting people in the pockets because you happen to dislike how they live.

Firstly solar panels, photovoltaic and hot water, don’t require planning permission in the UK, except in conservation areas, which do not cover much of the country. The problem is cost, and not NIMBYism.

Then photovoltaic panels are a good example of short-term misallocation of resources. Long-term they are an interesting source of energy, but join me in a calculation: This pdf gives approximate figures for a photovoltaic installation. A 1KwPk system would be expected to generate 700-750 KWh per year, and cost £4000-9000. In contrast, replacing 5 100w incandescent light-bulbs with CFLs (80w reduction each), each running for 5 hours a day for a year, saves 730 KWh, and costs about £40. That is a perfect example of why the market should be used to find energy efficiencies, and not government agencies.