Greenhouse Gases

cow1.jpg

If you want to be green – kill a cow

Stop, stop. I can feel the guilt building up already. I can feel the self-loathing welling in my skull, the horror at my appallingly affluent consumerist lifestyle.

In just a few short months, I will be taking the whole family off on holiday again, and once again our plane will contribute to the cat’s cradle of CO2 that is swaddling the globe. Out of the nozzles of the Rolls-Royce turbo jets the lethal vapours will spew into the defenceless stratosphere, and, far beneath us, a startled look will pass over the features of another poor polar bear as he plops through the deliquescing floes.


I must atone! I must make a sacrifice! I must offset my emissions and appease the great irascible Sun-god as he prepares to griddle us all. I had heard somewhere that you could be “carbon-neutral” by planting trees before you fly. That’s right. Shove in a few poplars, I was told, and bingo, you can feel all good about your skiing holiday or your winter break in Tunisia.

So I dialled up the eco-websites and — what’s this? It turns out they have got it all wrong! Guilt-stricken Western holidaymakers and others have so far paid £300 million to have trees planted in their name by carbon offset companies, and the whole thing turns out to be a complete nonsense.

It now appears the scientists think the trees just make things worse. Far from soaking up your share of CO2, most trees in non-tropical areas are thought to trap heat and thereby increase global warming.

Aaaargh! Bad trees! Killer trees! But what can I do to exculpate my sin? Here I am, a caring, modern, green politician, proposing some time before the end of this year to take about six people in a plane for no better purpose than simple recreation. Like Tony Blair, I must deal with the hate and rage of the new green puritans; and also, it goes without saying, I genuinely want to make amends for any damage I am doing.

So I have done my homework, and I have come up with a far more effective solution. As ever, I have consulted the ancient texts, and have been reminded that the Greeks and Romans were also convinced of the importance of making a sacrifice before any tricky voyage. You will recall that the Greek task force for Troy actually killed Iphigenia, daughter of Agamemnon, in the hope of guaranteeing good sailing weather — with bad consequences for Agamemnon’s conjugal relations.

Now we are only taking a family holiday, and I don’t think Zeus or Jupiter would desire anything so extreme. A single cow would be about right. If I were an ancient Roman setting out on a family holiday, I would get some old milker and do her up as if for a party. She’d have her hair washed and combed and cut, and there would be ribbons and purple woollen fillets about her horns.

Then my chums and I would decently cover our heads and we’d drone loads of stuff in Latin and chuck some sacred meal about the place; and then one of us would hold a handful of food under the poor old girl’s nose, and as she bent her head to snuffle it up we would take this — praise be! — as a sign that she had assented to her death, and at that auspicious moment she would be whopped hard on the side of the head and her throat would be cut; and then Jupiter would nod, and Olympus would tremble, and the whole family would be able to go off on holidays with a clear conscience.

And the funny thing is that, if we wanted to pay our debt to the great green earth-goddess Gaia, and neutralise the ill-effects of going up in a plane, then, as far as I can see, killing a cow is still exactly the right thing to do, two thousand years later.

I mean it. There are 1.3 billion cows on this planet, and every year each cow produces about 90kg of methane, and as greenhouse gases go, methane is about 24 times worse than CO2 in sealing the heat in the air. According to a recent report by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, agriculture produces 18 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent — and that, my friends, is more than is produced by the entire human transport industry.

Think of it: for every cow you killed, you would be ridding the world of 90kg of methane a year — easily enough, surely, to justify an Easyjet flight.

Now it may be that you are repelled by the idea of killing a cow, and you may think that the poor farmers will only be driven to breed a new one to replace it. But there are still plenty of other things you could do that would make more sense than planting trees with these carbon offset companies. You could make sure that your house was properly insulated.

You could turn down the central heating and wear more sweaters; and if you really wanted to tackle global CO2 emissions, you would campaign for nuclear energy, since power production is responsible for 24 per cent of global emissions.

Or better still you could help do something to stop Third World countries from burning the forests, which produces 18 per cent of CO2.

But, of course, people aren’t interested in these kinds of facts. They want the religion. They want the sweet moralistic feeling of telling someone to stop doing something. They want to be able to rage about Chelsea Tractors and Tony Blair’s flights, and they want to give vent to their feelings of disgust at the whole triumph of Western consumerist capitalism; and what worries me is that, in the end, the moralising mumbo-jumbo becomes more important than the scientific reality.

We face huge decisions, such as whether or not to allow scientists to use human genetic material in animal cells; and I want those decisions taken on the basis of whether or not the advance can help cure disease, not on the basis of “Frankenbunny” headlines.

We should cease our pagan yammering for sacrifice, and look at what the science really demands. It is a sign of our terrifying ignorance that so many would still prefer to plant a heat-producing tree than see the wisdom of the ancients, and kill a flatulent cow.

115 thoughts on “Greenhouse Gases”

  1. I posted the following a couple of hours ago on the Environmentalism discussion thread. It would do just as well here (even if the science is now apparently entirely passé):

    It’s notable that environmentalists always immediately fix their attention on some hitherto innocuous pleasure – in this case cheap holiday flights. This reveals their true puritan agenda: they hate people enjoying themselves.

    I’ve recently found myself contemplating one way in which these puritans, masquerading as concerned environmentalists, might launch an assault on another hitherto innocuous pleasure – gardening.

    Gardeners are forever mowing, weeding and pruning, taking delight in growing flower beds, herbaceous borders, and the like. The environmental attack on gardeners would point out that these people were hacking down plants that would otherwise be absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and reducing global warming. An ‘Environmental Gardener’ movement would end this dangerous practice, and encourage the end of all mowing, weeding, and pruning, so as to create gardens which absorbed the greatest possible amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They would encourage the planting of fast growing plants, hitherto called ‘weeds’, in place of roses and dahlias and lupins and the like. A respectable ‘environmental garden’ would be an impenetrable thicket of brambles, nettles, ivy, and so forth, quite possibly 50 feet thick. Traditional gardeners would be shunned, demonised, and finally incarcerated in (environmentally friendly) prisons. The environmental gardening movement would furthermore encourage the planting of weeds along the centre of roads, motorway lanes, and rail tracks. Extreme ‘environmental gardeners’ would even wear hats fashioned from brambles and ivy, to make a tiny extra contribution to the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

  2. Without wanting to blow our collective trumpets, Idlex, Paul and I have been chuntering away on this precise subject over on the forum for some time. It is this lack of interest in the facts that should be of great concern to everyone. After all, if an issue is genuinely worthy of our concern, then you shouldn’t need to be misrepresented. I make the point in a more feverish manner here.

  3. Indeed, Tayles. But, according to James Lovelock, originator of the idea of Gaia, we’re pretty much all doomed anyway:

    GLOBAL warming is irreversible and billions of people will die over the next century, one of the world’s leading climate change scientists claimed yesterday. Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed the Gaia principle (that Earth is a self-regulating, interconnected system), claimed that by the year 2100 the only place where humans will be able to survive will be the Arctic.

    If so, and there’s nothing we can do anyway, why bother doing anything, never mind sacricing cows? What are Arctic house prices like, these days?

    There is, however, the ever-so-faint possibility that Lovelock is completely mistaken.

  4. I read a book by Lovelock that was meant to be a popular rather han technical explanation of his Gaia hypothesis. By the end of the book I still could not say what the Gaia hypothesis was, except that in some way ‘all things are connected’. That is, the kind of grand sounding, vague platitude one would expect from a slightly weird cultic offshoot of one of the eastern religions fashionable among hippies in the 1960s; although in the ‘Gaia’ case given an air of authority through inclusion of loosely connected bits of science.

    At one point Lovelock included a photograph of a picturesque hill in Devon, as “a place where God and Gaia meet”; or, perhaps, where science and fairy tales meet?

    This does not prove that Lovelock is wrong about global warming. However, it does mean that he is capable of letting himself be carried away with his own cleverness, and his views should be treated with caution accordingly.

    Personally, I think there is good reason to be worried about climate change. I have little patience with the ‘nothing to do with me’ type excuses people put forward along the lines of “don’t blame air travel, blame cows” or “don’t blame the West blame China”, or vice versa. This sort of argument will mean that everyone leaves it to someone else to do something, and no one will actually do anything.

    Probably if serious climate developments are to be averted almost everyone should be doing something. However, we cannot expect many normal people to be willing to give up all holidays abroad. Nor can we realistically expect most of them to give up having cars, grow beards, become Guardian readers or replace roast beef and Yorkshire Pudding in their diet with Tofu and Mung Beans.

    Many of those who want to Save the World from the consequences of claimate change are sometimes their own worst enemies, their own virtuous austerity repelling many people who might otherwise be persuaded to go at least part of the way with them.

    Any movement, political, religious, environmental or pacifist, that hopes to Save the World attracts self-righteous zealots. That is, people who prefer to enjoy the vanity of ideological purity than to achieve anything; who sneer at and alienate some of those who could with a little moderation and flexibility have been enlisted as allies.

    There has almost always, in the last century or so, been some such movement in Great Britain, often vaguely linked to liberal politics and Nonconformist Christianity. It began with the Victorian Temperance movement, then the League of Nations and peace Pledge Unions between the wars, CND in the Cold War and now the ‘Green’ movement. Although their aims wre different, each one attracted the same earnest sorts of people, and each ultimately failed, being better at winning the enthusiasm of a minority than gently persuading the majority.

    I hope that things will be different this time, since climate change is a real danger to us.

  5. “GLOBAL warming is irreversible and billions of people will die over the next century,”

    1. Global warming is not exactly irreversible. The climate goes in cycles and the climate has been due to undergo changes around about now anyway. The human impact is not really that great, according to most reputable scientists the human impact might advance the inevitable by about a hundred years or so. I have heard quite a lot of things in the news this year about how this has been the hottest summer for over a century etc. Well all that really means is that it was hotter a century ago before the advent of cars and planes so it really does not panic me that much.

    2. Yes billons of people will die over the next century. What does he think is supposed to happen, everybody tackles global warming and are rewarded by God with immortality. There are six billon people (I think)on the planet right now (and this number is increasing) and since no human being has ever made it past one hundred and thirty it is guanteed that billons of people will die in the next century.

  6. If, as Idlex reported Lovelock as saying: “Billions of people will die as a result of global warming over the next century”, then surely this is a simple example of a corrective feedback mechanism in operation.
    People cause global warming, the earth responds by killing lots of people and, hey presto! equilibrium is restored. Sounds like a perfectly good engineering feedback loop to me.

  7. I think this study said that trees in temperate regions would not doing any good, but I think it was tress in areas of high latitude that would release more CO2 than they use. However, there was another study a few years ago that said all trees were bas since as the temperature increased so did their respiration rate. So there you go, we damned every which way.

  8. James Lovelock is also reported as writing in his latest book, The Revenge of Gaia:

    “What should a sensible European government be doing now? I think we have little option but to prepare for the worst, and assume that we have passed the threshold.”

    One wonders what measures he has in mind. Should we start evacuating all our coastal cities, and move to higher ground? Is the next Tory or Labour government going to implement any such policy? Well, no, they aren’t. Even NuLabour aren’t that barmy.

    If sea levels were actually rising dramatically, rather than by a millimetre or two (if that), and all coastal towns were regularly getting flooded, then we’d have to take steps to do something about it. But they aren’t, so we won’t. Realistic, sensible people with their head more or less screwed on respond to what actually happens, rather than to what they fear or believe might happen at some point in the future. The best name for the latter behaviour is panic.

    Climate science is in its infancy, along with much of our other science. We still can’t even predict the weather next week, never mind 10 or 20 years from now. Therefore the predictions of Lovelock, and any other climate scientist, should be taken with an extremely large pinch of salt – and almost entirely dismissed as being the interesting intellectual constructs that they actually are.

  9. Thought provoking comments – I need time for reflection!
    As I was drawned reading the history of Britain online – ACCess was Denied to continue – So I am resorting to the power of networking for help! It worked last time that I sought help !

  10. People cause global warming, (Chris Morriss)

    No they don’t. We have had a whole succession of ice ages for the last few hundred thousand years, interrupted by interglacials every 100,000 years or so, which correspond to periods of global warming. Did human activity cause any of these episodes of global warming? No. They caused none of them whatsoever.

  11. Of greater worry than climate change is the rate at which we get through minerals and ores. Millions of tons of precious and semi-precious metals are dumped in landfill sites around the world, partly due to the fashion for battery-powered gadgets.

    Certainly there are recycling schemes on the go but they only recover a certain amount. Cadmium, nickel, silver, gold, lithium, platinum, rhodium, palladium… once it’s gone, it’s gone.

    There will always be another cow to fart – and we have Zoe Ball and Anneka Rice to look after wildlife (who saw that toe-curlingly awful series, EXTINCT?)

  12. I think idlex makes a good point (i know, i’m amazed we are in agreement, I wonder what Mac would say?!) However, I think that dismissing the whole global warming issue brings with it a danger of taking all human ecological impact lightly. When you consider the effects of pollutants such as DDT in rivers and synthetic oestrogens in the water table having an impact on fertility in males, then I think dismissal is unwise.

  13. Boris is probably correct in his assertion that nuclear energy is the only viable future option. Probably the reason why the Russkies used Polonium-210 to poison Litvinenko, was to create mass paranoia whenever the big N word is used, thus ensnaring us to their fossil fuel.

  14. You don’t have to be a denier to be a sceptic . Our destruction is always imminent for some reason or other and a few things concern me about the whole thing.
    1 Why was it significantly warmer in Chaucer’s time than now
    2 Why is weather constantly and misleadingly referred to as climate change
    3 Who ever got a grant by saying theres nothing much to worry about
    4 Politically where is the party that is all for destroying the world . In other words why do they keep talking about it . Contemporary baby kissing I suspect
    5 As domestic environmental policy is a laughable concept , will we need the legislation o=f some world authority…see the UN and child rape to imagine what that would be like
    6 Why is it always tax punishments and no tax breaks for good things like growth employment and green products
    7 Why not scrap VAT on green products
    8 Why is the cost always born by he poor be they countries denied economic developklment or people denied holidays
    9 Why is green policy always an excuse for more illiberal and intrusive legislation.
    10 Why is it that the misrepresentation of climate panics , well documented is not better known
    11 Given that the subject can only be thought of as part of the whole economic and political context what is the point of one issue party who are, in practice, Liberals.

    I will start taking it seriously when I is not clearly an excuse for increased taxation and increased state and , worse still ,super state , control

  15. “Boris is probably correct in his assertion that nuclear energy is the only viable future option. Probably the reason why the Russkies used Polonium-210 to poison Litvinenko, was to create mass paranoia whenever the big N word is used, thus ensnaring us to their fossil fuel.”

    I knew the green debate would end up becoming a debate about nuclear weapons. Fossil fuels and the resultant CO2 may speed up global warming a tiny (and I mean timy) amount, but nuclear power will lead to an increase in nuclear weapons, which have the possibility of destroying the world as we know it.

  16. Kill a cow? Boris, really, my comments about Mrs Thatcher have only ever been a tiny fraction serious. Yes, she did irreparable damage to the planet, and is as ugly as a sack of hippo’s buttocks, but as a fully paid up member of the commie treehugger’s club, I cannot condone violence. Be stoical and resolute, Bozza old banana and let nature take its course.
    I don’t see the point of your carrying on this debate. The sides are already firmly established, and neither will change their minds. The right broadly believes that not even the end of the world should interfere with the entrepreneurial spirit, and therefore nothing should be done to prevent the destruction of our beautiful world. The left believe that everything the right says or does is wrong, that it is too late. I haven’t read any of the comments here. Your supporters probably won’t read mine, and if they do they will dismiss them as the ramblings of a demented idealistic quasihippy.
    So let’s just wish each other a happy new year.

  17. I stand corrected. Apparently, according to someone who actually knows what they are talking about not all nuclear power plants can produce products for nuclear weapons. Also apparently accidents are incredibly unlikely since the tehnology has moved on a great deal since chenobyl. So that will teach me for falling into the knee jerk reaction trap.

  18. Idlex said, in response to a posting of mine:
    “No they don’t. We have had a whole succession of ice ages for the last few hundred thousand years, interrupted by interglacials every 100,000 years or so, which correspond to periods of global warming. Did human activity cause any of these episodes of global warming? No. They caused none of them whatsoever.”

    Absolutely, people had nothing to do with those. Not surprising as the population in those times was an insignificant fraction of what it is today, and they were not busy heating up the planet either. Too many people are the root cause of today’s problems with global warming, and a sensible long-term programme to reduce the world’s population is the ONLY answer.
    It may have taken longer than Malthus thought it would, but his predictions are starting to come true now.

  19. The Brit Antarctic Survey has measured the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere via ice cores, and at over 2000 metres down the icesheet they’ve looked past several ice ages and warmings. 200 years of industrial and agricultural human activities have released much more GG’s, I forget the exact figure, 3X more?, then at any point in 400 000 years. So the swing to hotter temperatures will be more extreme, thanks to human activities. Extreme enough to do away with us all? Nobody really knows, but measures now to restrict the size of the swing can only be wise. But which measures? Personally, all that worries me is ocean acidity: we need plankton, and killing them off in swathes will cause the atmospheric oxygen level to drop to unsustainable levels for all mammels, not just us. This is the real worry, not losing coastal towns and so on.

  20. K, I was about to take you to task on that comment about nuclear reactors but you beat me to it. Congrats for being so honest. If only some of our leaders were so ready to review their prejudices in the light of new evidence.

    Boris is one who admits to changing his mind as events develop (eg Iraq war). This is not a sign of weakness but of someone who has thought about it. Too many politicians are afraid of “Bloggins takes a U-turn” headlines, as if this was a terrible thing. Such an attitude is conceited – a mark of someone who cannot bear to admit they may have been wrong – and most unnatural. There cannot be a living soul aged, say, 50, who feels exactly the same way about everything as he did at 30 or 40.

  21. Climate change! What’s summer and winter then?

    Why are Labour NOW getting all hot under the collar about this? Simple: plenty of scope for political grandstanding, lots of opportunity for sanctimonious posturing about how green they are individually and it gives Blair yet another excuse for a ton of pointless, confusing, un-enforcable legislation.

    So what.

  22. Absolutely, people had nothing to do with those. Not surprising as the population in those times was an insignificant fraction of what it is today, and they were not busy heating up the planet either. Too many people are the root cause of today’s problems with global warming, and a sensible long-term programme to reduce the world’s population is the ONLY answer. It may have taken longer than Malthus thought it would, but his predictions are starting to come true now. (Chris Morriss)

    I’m glad you recognise that the global warming that caused interglacials over the past few hundred thousand years (or evn past few million years) were not caused by humans, and that humans don’t cause global warming.

    We may well be adding to the global warming that has caused our current interglacial, but what makes you think that it is the sheer numbers of humans that create the effect. Most climate scientists put it down to our industrial output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, not human respiration.

    And since when did Thomas Malthus know anything about Global Warming? I don’t believe either his 1798 Essay on Population mentions it at all. But perhaps you can show me where?

  23. Too many people are the root cause of today’s problems with global warming, and a sensible long-term programme to reduce the world’s population is the ONLY answer. It may have taken longer than Malthus thought it would, but his predictions are starting to come true now. – Chris Morriss

    People have been banging on about too many people for years, predicting that it would leave to disaster. They were wrong then and they’re wrong now, because as humans we adapt our environment to suit us. We become more productive and more ingenious in our use of resources. Our capacity to solve problems expands faster than the problems themselves. It is harder to defend a modern city against a flood or an earthquake. But alongside the technologies that enabled us to build modern cities we have created solutions that make them resilient to natural disasters. That is why life is better in the more developed parts of the world.

    The traditional Malthusian argument that food production could not keep up with population growth was discredited over the last century. As a result, the Malthusian movement has sought out new arguments to justify its objective of population control: unemployment, disease, global warming and even terrorism. If anything, today’s Malthusian thinking is far more dismal and misanthropic than the original thing. In the past, followers of Malthus disparaged people who came from the ‘wrong classes’ or the ‘wrong races’, but despite their prejudices they affirmed the special status of the human species. Today’s neo-Malthusians share the old prejudices, but also harbour a powerful loathing against the species itself.

    Malthusians used to justify their fears on the basis that the human race lacked the capacity and ingenuity to feed itself. Today, they decry the fact that humanity has become all too successful at reproducing itself – and human ingenuity and development are depicted as the greatest threat to the wellbeing of the planet. All of today’s various doomsday scenarios emphasise human culpability. Their premise is that the human species is essentially destructive and morally bankrupt. Human-centred ideology is said to be destroying the environment. These attitudes, which imply that having an impact on the environment is necessarily a bad thing, are rarely criticised for their misanthropic assumptions.

    Not since the Dark Ages has there been so much concern about the evil passions that afflict humanity. This is a dangerous outlook and needs to be challenged. How we view humanity really matters. If we insist on seeing people as morally degraded parasites, then every significant problem will be feared as a potential catastrophe beyond our control. What if the resources run out? What if people make the wrong decisions? What if we fail? Well, what if we succeed? Everything worthwhile in human civilisation has come from taking such gambles and achieving such successes. The question that concerns us should not be “what if we fail?”, but “what if we do not try?”

  24. Personally, all that worries me is ocean acidity: we need plankton, and killing them off in swathes will cause the atmospheric oxygen level to drop to unsustainable levels for all mammels, not just us. This is the real worry, not losing coastal towns and so on. (Blakev)

    But James Lovelock is worried about rising sea levels, it seems:

    He goes on: “We have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act, and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can.” He believes that the world’s governments should plan to secure energy and food supplies in the global hothouse, and defences against the expected rise in sea levels. The scientist’s vision of what human society may ultimately be reduced to through climate change is ” a broken rabble led by brutal warlords.”

    But perhaps we should be more worried about the brutal warlords that Lovelock also – amazingly – predicts.

  25. idlex – you’ve cracked the formatting, excellent!

    It does make posts easier to read and understand folks, doncha think?

    I agree with global population control and the monitoring of it’s impact. I seem to remember that there was a body set up to do this and I think Stanley Johnson was once involved but I’m not sure.

  26. It’s one thing to make spurious claims about enivronmental catastrophe; it’s another to conclude that in the aftermath the survivors will be “a broken rabble led by brutal warlords”. I think this kind of Mad Max fantasy tells us what to think of Lovelock’s opinions.

  27. I think idlex makes a good point (i know, i’m amazed we are in agreement, I wonder what Mac would say?!) (Jaq)

    I’m sure we’ve agreed plenty of times before, Jaq. I can’t remember any disagreements we’ve had, off hand. And I doubt that Mac can either.

    And I cracked the formatting quite a while back.

  28. Am I right in thinking that noone has said anything serious about enviromental problems so far. If the UK went back to the dark ages and dropped all power, the Chisese economy would take up the difference in about 8 months.

    This is a global geopolitical problem for which global agrement is required.Imagine the hoorror of that..

  29. TAYLES-Mad Max fantasy

    This is getting better. I think the position of Warrior Overlord with attendant female supplicants sounds a distinct improvement on Insurance. I `m just off to drive my ridiculous car around a bit .

    I `m not sure some of the green religionistas aren`t bonkers enough to believe some of this stuff. They are often to be found in alternative subcultural book shops with the animal rights campaigners.Dogs on strings people my wife calls them . One of them actually holds the balance of power in Islington`s Coucil at the moment; its hilarious.Reminds me a bit of the way my life is run by my 16 month old son.

    ” Oh come oonnnnn you can`t still be crying !!”

    Savagery to come hilarity now .I `m really coming round to the green movement

  30. idlex – yes, I can’t remember any disagreements, just some cracking opposing opinions between you and Mac, and I would usually support Mac and here I find myself supporting your argument. I suppose I was just wondering what Mac’s point of view would have been. I think of him often. I realise you had cracked formatting but wanted to highlight your post as a perfect example of many formatting options being used together to aid understanding of a comment.

  31. I prefer to think that he simply hasn’t posted for a while now – but might pop up any day with a bit of poetry.

    A bit like raincoaster – driven offline by storm damage.

  32. Am I right in thinking that noone has said anything serious about enviromental problems so far. (newmania)

    Is there something serious to be said?

    Your question seems to suppose that if some bunch of self-appointed experts in some matter (global warming, passive smoking, close encounters of the the third kind) express some opinion about it, the rest of us are supposed to take their opinion seriously, and do something about it.

    But what if we don’t believe in close encounters of the the third kind? What if we think the whole thing is pure unadulterated bullsh*t? What if we don’t trust these ‘authorities’ further than we can throw them?

  33. I had occasion at one time to socialise with professors, a number of whom couldn’t tie their shoelaces without their wife’s help and who spouted complete twaddle. Thing is, if you had no real knowledge of their subject and were inpressed by their credentials, you wouldn’t know it was twaddle.

    Argument is very valuable.

    Is there something serious to be said about environmental problems Newmania? I think so but I think it’s your serve..

  34. I conclude from Boris’s article that he is a climate change sceptic and rather than join his parlimentary colleagues in politicising science he prefers to put a classics spin on the topic.
    You may not remember the politicising of the eugenics theory in the first half of the twentieth century which postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The superior human beings were not breeding as fast as the inferior ones. ie. thedegenerates, the unfit and the feeble minded. It was a respected British scientist who first speculated this but his ideas where taken far beyond anything he intended by the worlds politicians including Churchill and Roosevelt and eventually Hitler aand hence the second world war.
    Politicising climate change is unlikely to result in the same dire consequences but it does amaze me that politicians, journalists and even some socalled scientists express surprise that our climate is changing. It has been doing so continually since the earth was formed 4500 million years ago. In fact since its existance as a continent Europe has been covered in ice north of thhe alps for 80% of the time.
    Personally I am a committed supporter of reducing pollution and developing alternative sources of energy prodution as long as they are economically viable which has to be e prerequisite to maintaining the competiveness of British industry. I am however totally opposed to the imposition of taxes in whatever form justified on the basis of hypothetical science.
    It appears that justification for action to combat climate change starts from the hypothesis that the worlds climate would be in equilibrium if it were not for the intevention of mankind. The idea that carbon dioxide emmissions from the burning of fossil fuels are solely responsible for climate change is frankly naive particularly since predictions are invariably based on so called computer modelling. as an example of the falibility of computer modelling climate changes, last year (2006) was predicted to be another damaging year for hurricane activity in the Gulf of Mexico. The prediction, based on so-called computer modelling at the University of Colorado Department of Atmospheric Science was for 17 storms, 5 of them with the intencity of Katrina in 2005. This prediction did not come to pass, in fact there were no hurricanes of any force hitting the gulf coast in 2006 which emphasises that if all the variables and their relative influence are not known computer models are liable to dramatic failure. The confidence placed on this particular computer prediction was a significant contributer to the rise in crude oil prices suffered during the second half of 2006.
    It has been shown that carbon dioxide has only a marginal influence on global warming approximately 1% that of water vapor in the form of clouds. Furthermore carbon dioxide cannot be classed as a pollutant when it is an essential component of the earth’s atmosphere and all forms of life on earth depend on it.
    Enough for now. I could write a book.
    Mike Gaunt (retired scientist prepared to present the facts without worrying about political correctness, research funding or publicity for a book I have written)

  35. It was a respected British scientist who first speculated this (Mike Gaunt)

    Francis Galton?

    I completely agree about fallacy of the assumption that the world climate maintains some sort of equilibrium, which we humans disturb. The reality, as you say, is that the world climate is always changing, and if we humans lived for 700,000 years rather than a mere 70, we would notice the world continually changing, seas rising and falling, mountains rising and eroding away. It’s because we only have this brief life snapshot of the world that we assume that it never changes.

    Except now we build computer simulation models (and I’ve written dozens) which model dynamic processes of change, but if you change the initial conditions fractionally, you get a completely different result at the end – so no surprise that post-Katrina forecast was entirely wrong.

  36. Off topic, but did anyone see Bliar standing on the deck of some battleship today and banging on about the need to fight wars everywhere? It was all horrible, gibbering, crazed, toe-curling bilge.

    I think he must have bribed every TV channel with the promise that if they show him on the news every night, prattling emptily about something or other, he’ll leave office a month early. It’s the only explanation that makes sense to me.

  37. I think the main thing I miss about Mac,
    And the thing that I think there’s a lack:
    Is the lack of a Mac who could take a new tack,
    And soothe what seemed so white and black,
    And with a gentle wisecrack, could bring us all back
    To a world rather kinder – Alack!!

  38. Brilliant idlex – I agree.

    Mike Gaunt – most interesting, especially the economic viability aspect. I keep coming back to China and India on the subject of Global warming and the reality of the UK’s contributions being negligable in comparison. But the danger is the transfer of industry to countries with little time/respect for this issue and no green taxes/industrial restrictions.

  39. IDLEX- What if we don’t trust these ‘authorities’ further than we can throw them?

    I agree and yet it would be suprising if the vast chnages of the 20th century had no affect. I meant that nmoone had got into the global poltical implications if doing anything meaningful.

    I greatly fear what those why enjoy power will use this issue for but I don`t entirely belive it can be ignored

  40. Ok here is an idea.
    I have been reading about the growing obesity problem with today’s teenagers. Apparently some nursery schools are so worried that they have been buying mini-treadmills for toddlers to get some exercise. So how about this for a solution to the problem of co2 emmissions…
    All teenagers (particulary the ones who wear hoodies and hang around outside newsagents in th evening)should be made to take p.e lessons wear they spend an hour on a treadmill (or exrcise bike or cross trainer to give them a bit of variety). These exercise machines can n turn be wired up to a power plant and used to generate environmentally friendly energy. Think about it, this is a win-win solution, teenagers stay healthy, co2 emmissions are cut and teenagers can get buckets loads of self respect for playing a major part in helping the environment. This idea could be extended so that we have whole gyms wired up and those that are worried about the damage they are doing to th environment can exercise away thier guilt! lol

  41. Bad idea, k.

    All that exercise would result in higher metabolic rates, increased respiration, and consequently increased CO2 emissions – because all physical work that anyone does entails combustion which generates CO2 and water.

    In addition, the efficiency of conversion of mechanical work into electricity would probably be near zero, because a great deal of the work done would simply be in accelerating and decelerating bodies, limbs, and exercise machines during exercise.

    No, the hoodies would have less of an environmental impact hanging around outside newsagents. It would in fact be best to provide them with seating, to allow them to reduce their metabolic rates still further, and reduce their environmental impact to a minimum.

    By the same token, all unnecessary physical exercise – particularly marathons – should be banned, and competitors dispersed with water cannon. Or maybe just cannon.

  42. It might be remarked, in addition, that the wearing of hoods is a practice that should be encouraged rather than discouraged. According to some estimates, some 50% of body heat loss takes place from the head, and thus the wearing of hoods or hats as insulation is a useful energy conservation measure.

    The only problem with hoods is that they leave the face exposed to ambient air, which can cause lip and particularly nose temperatures to drop dangerously low. However the use of a small, mouth-held, heating device will alleviate this problem. Such devices are popularly known as ‘cigarettes’.

  43. k – brilliant idea but I would say that all households should have such machines. It might stop my children dive-bombing each other from the top of the sofa when I’m out of the room.

    Actually I think some encouragement to change house building practice would be worthwhile. The technology is there to just use less energy. I wouldn’t be surprised if I pollute the environment more using electric and gas than when I lived in a cottage with coal fires. It’s the net carbon footprint that must be considered.

  44. Some info for k.
    Mammals including humans inhale 0.036% carbon dioxide and exhale 4%. The atomic weight of carbon dioxide is 44 therefore 1 cubic metre of CO2 weighs 44gms. Assuming the average respiratory rate of humans is 80per/min and average lung capacity is approx. 1 litre you can work out human contributions to CO2 emmissions. Since 1800 the earths population has increased from 1 billion to 6 billion hence the human contribution to CO2 emmissions has risen by 600%. Add to this the increase in animal population including Boris’s 1.3 million cows—-. I’ve not done the calculations but I imagine the graph of the worlds respiratory based CO2 emmissions 1800 to present shows a similar exponential trend to the fossil fuel emmission graph we’re contiually reminded of. Anybody fancy having a go at the calculation? A nice little mathematical challenge for a sunday afternoon? Answers by monday morning please.
    Mike Gaunt

  45. It is very strange, indeed wholly perverse, that environmentalists are launching a powerful attack on cheap holiday flights, and therefore upon foreign holidays.

    But if one may suppose that, most probably, these one or two week holidays largely consist in sitting round swimming pools, or lying on beaches, idly doing nothing but sipping the occasional beer, the energy expenditure in taking holiday-makers to and from their destinations is quite possibly entirely offset by their reduced energy expenditure during the period of their holiday.

    If holidays were to be abolished (as it seems puritanical environmentalists would prefer), these same people would instead be commuting to and from work every day, and spending their days manufacturing, say, ornamental porcelain plates depicting Constable’s Haywain, with all the energy required to fire the clay, and transport raw materials and finished products to and from their various suppliers and retailers (some of whom might be on the far side of the world), as well as maintain office and factory heating and lighting.

    Thus it isn’t holiday-makers who expend most energy, but working people, who are very frequently making something entirely as unnecessary and frivolous as Haywain-decorated porcelain plates. It is, in short, not play which is the cause of most greenhouse gases and other forms of pollution, but work. Indeed, almost by definition, it is our gargantuan industry which generates almost the entirety of our polluting greenhouse gases.

    Accordingly, if we want to make a serious attempt to reduce greenhouse gases, we should be reducing work, and increasing play, rather than vice versa. And instead of working 50 weeks a year and taking 2 weeks holiday, we should be considering 50 week holidays, and 2 weeks of work. And then we might complain about the emissions of the flights that take us to and from these brief episodes of work, and suspend these altogether.

  46. Assuming the average respiratory rate of humans is 80per/min and average lung capacity is approx. 1 litre (Mike Gaunt)

    80/min??? That’s over one breath every second! Positively panting! I’m not sure that I can breathe that fast. I got out my watch and timed my own respiratory rate, and it came out at approximately 10/min. However, since your post is addressed to k and and her furiously pedalling hoodies, perhaps they would indeed be panting that hard.

    And again, it appears that human lung capacities are generally in the range of 4 to 6 litres, rather than one litre. So k’s hoodies must presumably be small juvenile hoodies – and quite possibly even baby hoodies.

    And are we to take it that the respiratory rates and lung capacities of cows are the same, and that our fields are full of tiny, panting cows?

    Answers by monday morning please.

    Do we win a prize for the first right answer? An Easyjet return flight to Seville, for example?

  47. Idlex – glad to see you leaping to the defence of the hoodies. Clearly, we should all adopt them immediately. However, I have a further refinement – if we modified the design to cover our mouth, nose, and forehead, we’d be EVEN WARMER. The only bit we really need exposed to get about is our eyes.

    We could call such a garment… oh, I don’t know… How about a Burqa?

  48. Idlex, your right. I got my wires crossed and quoted pulse rate. Respiratory rate we should take as 15 per/min. Although maximum lung capacity is around 5 litres it’s by no means all used during normal breathing. Maybe marathon runners might get close during copetition but normal folk I guess only use 20 to 30% during the day and less at night. 1 litre probably isn’t far out.
    Mike Gaunt

  49. Yes the ban on cheap foreign flights will not be long coming and togethr with the tax on domestic “bed and breakfasts” of a few months ago we will be taking holidays in between a rock and a hard place.

    David Cameron was saying what Irwin Selzer said recently ,that taxes on bad things like poisoning the enviroment would be fine so long as there were tax breaks on good things like enterprise and employment.

    Scrap VAT on Green products ? Why is such an idea not even on the table .

    BTW The boy king david was very good this morning but Europe is going to be difficult for him The suppport of a twit like Mathew D`Anconna can only hurt

  50. Boris, you are right, methane from animals is a really big problem. The question is, which you ducked, is what can be done about it? One option is to encourage widespread adoption of vegetarianism. However it’s difficult enough to persuade people not to fly and this is a relatively recent innovation. So I would suggest that asking people not to eat meat, something people have done for years, so that other people can fly is just a step too far, at least in 2007.

    Of course, if influential commentators like yourself supported such a move, the environmental lobby would most likely welcome it and support it.

  51. Idlex stated (perhaps in jest):
    “According to some estimates, some 50% of body heat loss takes place from the head”.

    This is of course a modern-day myth, which is comprehensively debunked in many easy-to-find places on the web.
    Although possibly the modern-day fashion for perfectly normal males in their 20s and 30s to almost shave their heads and immediately age 20 years and look like wizened 55 year old slap-heads may well increase the net loss 🙂

  52. The question here is not whether cheap flights are a serious problem (that they are not is beyond any serious debate), it’s how and why this issue has been driven so far up the public agenda. By dragging people into a debate about the individual culprits of CO2 emissions, environmentalists effectively force a consensus on the whole theory of global warming. The airline boss who argues over his industry’s contribution to global emissions (only 3%, by the way) tacitly accepts that emissions are a problem.

    The argument over the existence of manmade global warming has never been won; it was simply announced as fact by a raft of influential organisations, including the government and the BBC. Other political parties jumped onto the bandwagon for reasons of expediency and, along with most journalists, because the conclusions drawn by global warming theory appeal to their prejudices. This has left us with virtually no public figures fighting for the defence, and no platform for them to stand on. Those few that manage to make themselves heard are dismissed as grasping capitalists (or global warming ‘deniers’ – a word with worrying historical connotations).

    The fact that these prejudices sit so neatly alongside the other big issues of today demonstrates that we are dealing with a pre-existing agenda. The belief that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions sticks the blame on economic progress, big business and the wretched masses that support it. Only the caring middle classes stand between the evil businessmen, the feckless plebs and disaster. The same attitude can be transposed onto any number of fashionable causes today – obesity, smoking, fair trade – and the same conclusions drawn.

    This worldview appeals on several levels. On the most part, it’s pure snobbery. Trying to tax and regulate people into penury and misery is a way of protecting luxuries that were once the preserve of the rich, and to temper the pleasures of the masses to keep them in their place. Also, there’s nothing like ticking off the behaviour of your social inferiors for maintaining a sense of superiority. Going Green is just another way of elevating yourself above the rabble. For others of a more Left-leaning disposition, blaming capitalism, aspiration and wealth for disaster is a way of satisfying their grievances. All the calls to turn off, cut down and make-do-and-mend are a way of putting a downward force on society, ensuring that no upstarts go and stoke the fires of envy and resentment by bettering themselves.

    Whatever the motivation for supporting the global warming theory, the message is always the same: human beings are screwing up the planet. This deeply misanthropic sentiment is not only destroying our faith in humanity and our respect for each other, it is damaging our best chance of tackling the effects of (naturally occurring) climate change when it happens.

  53. Tayles stated:
    “Whatever the motivation for supporting the global warming theory, the message is always the same: human beings are screwing up the planet.”

    Global warming apart (and I do accept that the evidence for the man-made nature of this is ambivalent), do you REALLY not believe that human beings are screwing up the planet? As I have stated before, and been howled down by the urban elite who post their London-centred opinions here, that the quality of life in this country of ours has been quite appallingly damaged by the uncontrolled population growth that the country has suffered in my lifetime. The same or even worse effects have been seen across the majority of the earth.

  54. The quality of life in this country of ours has been quite appallingly damaged by the uncontrolled population growth that the country has suffered in my lifetime. – Chris Morriss

    If you hold, as I do, a human-centric view of the world, then you must accept that the population of the planet will continue to grow, and that this is not necessarily a bad thing. It will continue to grow, we will continue to innovate and adapt, and one day we will leave this planet and do the same elsewhere.

    Because I have a positive attitude towards mankind’s potential and try to put things in a historical perspective, I am optimistic about the future. Those who are fundamentally misanthropic, only see black clouds on the horizon. The sort of sentiment that sees people complain about the ‘wrong’ kind of people clogging up their planet is mean-spirited NIMBYism.

    Read my earlier comments here for my views on Malthusian theory.

  55. Do you REALLY not believe that human beings are screwing up the planet?

    Sorry – forgot to answer that bit. The idea that humans are screwing up the planet depends on whether you consider the inevitable consequence of human progress to constitute damage.

    This touches on the point that Idlex has been making: that the earth is this virgin entity, unchanged since its creation, and that we should seek to preserve it this way. This attitude is founded on the belief that the Earth’s environment has some mystical intrinsic value. In truth, the only value in nature is that which we derive from it. And the only authority that can decide the future direction of human progress is our authority. To hold ourselves back and conform to the imagined needs of a mindless aggregate of flora and fauna is a tragic waste of potential.

    Our ability to adapt our own environment shows that we have separated from nature. The attempts of doomsayers to suggest otherwise, or to imply that we are paying the price of hubris, is merely an attempt to bring us down to earth – the same mean-spirited instinct that takes satisfaction of watching successful people fail.

  56. Tayles stated:
    “In truth, the only value in nature is that which we derive from it. And the only authority that can decide the future direction of human progress is our authority. To hold ourselves back and conform to the imagined needs of a mindless aggregate of flora and fauna is a tragic waste of potential.”

    Aah, we do indeed have diametrically opposed views here. The views you have expressed as quoted above are exactly those that were used in the 17th century to justify vivisection of live creatures purely for curiosity.

    You wouldn’t be a Christian fundamentalist by any chance would you? I don’t wish to be offensive in asking this, but the only other person I know who believes that mankind has the authority to do whatever it pleases in this world is one of those.

  57. You wouldn’t be a Christian fundamentalist by any chance would you?

    Er, no. I’m not even a ‘believer’. Nor do I believe in the vivisection of live animals for fun. I do however, believe that the interests of mankind should be put before those of plants and animals.

    In my experience, those who are keen to have us subjugate our needs to those of the natural world are hostile to the notion of all hierarchies – be it between individuals or between mankind and nature. The idea that plants, animals and landscapes have rights is misguided, since if they do have rights, they also have responsibilities, which they cannot possibly comply with. As Roger Scruton says:

    Those who tell us that we have no special place in the scheme of things create a place for us that is just as special. By focusing our human attitudes on animals, we are playing at God, standing always apart from and above our victims, smiling down on their innocent ways, removed from the possibility of judgment ourselves, and, in our exaltation, imagining that we confer the greatest benefit on those whom we patronize.

  58. I suppose you could say that everything we do is “natural”. This will not be much of a comfort when we are burning in lakes of liquid metal with our flesh falling from our bones like a discarded overcoat.
    Actually I agree Talyes that the case for global warming is far less secure than we might imagine. It has in fact been deliberately falsified and misrepresented for a variety of reasons but common sense would tell you that the rate of growth of the 20th century was bound to have an affect. I don’t have a neo Malthusian view its just that our invention may need to be directed towards the real cost of consumption. There is no problem for a free market thinker here . Friedman, for example, was in favour of toll roads as precisely a market lead solution. The problem is that we get Road tax , fines , fuel duty and toll roads which is rather a different matter. We are about the most taxed motoring class in the world . Cynics will suggest that the new target , air travel , is merely the next revenue source on the list.

    Irwin Selzer the US market economist saw no problem with green taxes if they replaced taxes on good things like growth and employment. David Cameron agrees . He was keen to understand the dangers of associating normal prudence with obsessive doom mongering , high tax and social control. To me that seems a sensible approach.

    The great danger is this . The truth is that all green gestures here are irrelevant. Marks and Spencer , for example are about to start a grand greening of packaging and process. At the same time they are piling into the newly opened Indian Markets in moves that , with other retailers , will create 25,000,000 new jobs in the booming Sub Continent. It will , incidentally negate any environmentally friendly gestures. In any case they maintain there current predominance by out sourcing to countries with little interest in matching our standards in many ways . China for example .The environment is a global issue if it is to be discussed meaningfully and I fear terribly that it will be used to accelerate the creeping global governance that is slithering into existence by each ceding of national authority.

    Meanwhile ken Livingstone has just announced that in London we will never recycle properly until he gets more power. See what I mean…. This enviromental cause must be handled with cynical resistance at every stage even if you are not againsthe supposed objective

  59. I think the real issue here is that, even if we accept the fanciful notion that scientists, working with unreliable data and questionable methods, can predict what the weather will be like in a century’s time, it does not automatically follow that we must pursue the course of action recommended by environmentalists. A swift glance at the figures tells us that we can do nothing to sufficiently reduce emissions, so there’s little point in trying. Any such action would only serve as an act of self-flagellation – a kind of Hail Mary to appease Mother Nature.

    Even if we managed to get the co-operation of China, India and the USA, the costs of slamming progress into reverse would surely outweigh the benefits. The basis of such a consideration is rooted in this dubious idea of innate value, which is simply an attempt to counter mankind’s hubris. This insidious concept speaks more about the bitter grievances of its adherents than any legitimate moral imperative to lower our horizons. Our efforts would be better served dealing with problems in the here and now, and developing the means of coping with climate change, which, manmade or not, is going to happen at some point anyway.

  60. the quality of life in this country of ours has been quite appallingly damaged by the uncontrolled population growth that the country has suffered in my lifetime. (Chris Morriss)

    How old are you? 200 years? 300 years? The greater bulk of UK population growth was in the 19th century, as public health measures and improved health care reduced infant mortality. In general, most prosperous countries are now reproducing at below replacement levels – it seems that once people become fairly prosperous, they no longer want to have 5 or 10 children. Which is one reason why both Europe and America have increasing immigrant populations to provide cheap labour.

  61. You’re all barking!

    Nobody from Adam to Adolf cares about the present. (or grammer)

    So what if the world is about to end!

    Repent Boris.

  62. Tayles”Also, there’s nothing like ticking off the behaviour of your social inferiors for maintaining a sense of superiority. Going Green is just another way of elevating yourself above the rabble.”
    The basis for this argument is weak -as it is a rational gesture to make up for your lower social status by going green. It is confidence building. Others choose to involve in crime and destructive behaviour to get over their inferiority.

    “imagining that we confer the greatest benefit on those whom we patronize”. One might interpret it as patronizing but it is for the most part, a question of life management, and ecological necessity that we have to preserve flora and fauna – if we want to ignore other values for how enchanting animals are for humans.

    Newmania” This environmental cause must be handled with cynical resistance at every stage even if you are not againsthe supposed objective”

    I understand what you fear, but I would rather put it this way: the environmental cause must be imposed globally on all countries before natural resources on earth are overconsumed entirely by emerging economies. I believe environment is strong motivating factor for bringing the world together and turn it to everyone’s business, a collective issue, much more powerful than peace rhetoric. Britain can be recognized to take the reward as precursor, such as becoming the world financial center for carbon trading.

  63. the environmental cause must be imposed globally on all countries (nasrin)

    “Imposed” being the operative word. Demoscracy be damned, you wish for an environmental dictatorship.

  64. Nasrin
    Yes, going green may make certain types feel good about themselves and give them a sense of superiority, but that is all it does. Going green by recycling and cutting down on CO2 emmissions does not help the environment very much at all. If anything some green acts may be counter constructive-swapping domestic air travel for travel on a train for instanc or paying out for extra bins to b made and extra bin waggon journeys in order to recycle which itself requires a lot of energy, recycling paper at great energy cost and causing fewer trees to be planted etc. All of these things do, however, make the green brigade feel very happy with themselves.

  65. The question here is not whether cheap flights are a serious problem (that they are not is beyond any serious debate), it’s how and why this issue has been driven so far up the public agenda. (Tayles)

    In many ways, if there is a consensus on global warming (or any other matter), it is purely a mainstream media consensus, which is served up daily on TV and in newspapers. With relatively few proprietors, editors, columnists, and pundits, it’s fairly easy to manufacture such consensus.

    Much the same applied in the US after 9/11, when more or less the entire mainstream media swung in behind George W Bush, with all dissent silenced as “supporting the terrorists”. In the US, it was primarily on the internet that any real dissent and debate was to be found. If Bush’s approval ratings have been in steady decline since 9/11, it is almost entirely thanks to the internet, on which disturbingly counter-consensual news stories didn’t get spiked, and on which free (and frequently acrimonious) debate continued. Over the past year or two, the US mainstream media have begun to discover, to their dismay and chagrin, that many people pay more attention to upstart online bloggers and news sources than to their established mainstream wisdom. The real debate had upped sticks, and gone elsewhere.

    And if everyone simply stopped reading newspapers, or watching TV, every single one of their various manufactured consensus positions would dissolve into insignificance overnight. I no longer buy a newspaper, and I increasingly switch off the TV. In this respect, the upcoming TV conversion to digital may well prove a wonderful blessing, when I turn on my old analogue box one day – and find the screen completely and mercifully blank.

  66. Yes indeed Idlex ,”imposed”, is the give away word. In a world worth being alive in such unaccountable authority cannot exist ,and it cannot work anyway. I think it equally likely that the threat may come from the spread of supra-national law emanating from disparate treaties .It now appears to have gained a validity of its own.

    What does the phrase illegal war mean?In what court ?Underpinned by what mandate?

    ..and so it begins.

    K I believe you are right that Greenery has tapped into a sense of hubris and , in my view, ridiculous nostalgia for an imagined Edenic purity.
    To such people I always say “Dentistry” . Come to think of it its getting pretty hard to fuind a dentists again , perhaps they will get there wish for an endless hair shirt.

  67. Excellent article, fun and instructive. We should also look at the horrendous impact of pig farming (especially here in the US but in many EU countries it is equally bad) on local and regional environments. Maybe it should be “kill a cow, or a sow”…

  68. the environmental cause must be imposed globally on all countries before natural resources on earth are overconsumed entirely by emerging economies. (Nasrin)

    These environmentalists. They say:

    “We know better than you what must be done. You and your insignificant little personal concerns – for family, for friendship, for personal freedom – are as nothing next to our vast, sweeping vision. We are concerned with the fate of the entire world, and the future of humanity, nay indeed of life itself. You small-minded little people are merely concerned with the price of butter and houses, your local hospital beds, your children’s education, the thin gruel of everyday cares. Pah!! You think in minutes rather than millennia.”

    “And you, idlex, are the worst of all: you only want to be able to smoke cigarettes in your pub, you miserable, pathetic little wretch! Not for you our immense intellectual vistas! Nor any of our noble and comprehensive science! You can’t see further than the end of the grubby little roll-ups to which you are addicted!

    “You will all be swept aside by our superior wisdom. You people with your petty little concerns just get in the way of our far more profound and chilly perspectives. So we will impose our superior vision upon you. In the end you will recognise that it was for your own good, and you will humbly thank us, and you will give us flowers. Not that we care about small and trivial little things like flowers…”

  69. Idlex, I was born in 1952 when the official UK population figure was 50.3 million. The current figure is 61 million. That seems like uncontrolled growth to me, especially as only 20 years ago it was forecast that the UK population was expected to start falling.

    Human beings are not ants or bees, that normally live their totalitarian existance in ‘hive’ conditions. The conditions in we are increasingly being forced to live might suit people who are used to a ghetto existance in inner-city London, (God help them), but others out here can’t tolerate it much longer.
    A trip over to Brittany to check out properties there looks like being on the cards for me after Easter.

  70. Newmania, idlex – inspired posts and am with you totally.

    Joseph Neil – pig farming in America (if my experience is representative, which I believe it is) is disgusting. Not because it’s not seemingly clean, though I spotted one carcass rotting in a sty whilst the living rooted around it – a perennial problem apparently. But more because the pigs were fed antibiotics in their drinking water, constantly, whether they were ill or not, just normal practice. These antibiotics get into the food chain thus and weaken our immune system, leaving us more susceptible to infections for which we need… antibiotics which now have little or no effect. And on and on. I wonder what other farmed species are treated in this way? This is not sensible, it may be profitable, but it is NOT sensible.

  71. The environmental cause must be imposed globally on all countries before natural resources on earth are overconsumed entirely by emerging economies. (Nasrin)

    Yes, God forbid that we actually work towards helping these emerging economies enjoying the same luxuries as us. Pull up the ladder and tell them that sorry, but we used it all up. Yes, we know you wanted to drive, fly and live comfortable, affluent, modern lives, but you missed the boat. Go back to scrabbling in the dirt. That’s it. Remember your place.

  72. Tayles – yes we could help these emerging economies, rather than just letting them make all the same mistakes.

    If a Conservative government was in power, what suggestions would you have to help countries like China and India? And how would you handle the gas/oil reserve crisis?

  73. Tayles is at the heart of the real problem in my view and the argument is slightly more subtle . We say to then yes you can have your growth but you must do it burdened with a lot of costs that we , now realise , are ones we should have been paying all along Their reply is that they will start paying them when they reach our level of pollution per person . I have the figures somewhere but that level is a very long way off between important blocks like the US and China .
    It is not likely to be politically possible to tax petrol much and the cost is ridiculously low so there are other stumbling blocks .

    There is real limit to what we can do domestically but we should be pushing for proper progress with the US and in the world . the only answer has to be technology and the best idea I can come up with is attractive tax breaks for researching Green processes and also for importing products with a Green process for raw material to final product. Such things cannot be imposed they can only be encouraged and unless we are going to deny growth to the emerging economies, which we cannot afford to do , we have to influence the outcome by offering new Freedoms and incentives.

    Take VAT off Green products
    Make Green research deductible from Corporation tax (which is killing us anyway )
    At all points offer advantages and opportunities not protectionism.
    Encourage moves like the M and S campaign
    Govt. in partnership with right thinking companies work on the future as process not a diktat
    With such a package of measures there is scope for limited taxes on bad things like air travel. These must be linked into the removal of taxes at the lower end where up to 95 % marginal rates are possible
    Get out of the EU so we can be free to take these measures which will fall foul of their protectionist instincts.

    That would be my idea of the sort of approach a Conservative Government should have but we should not over estimate our importance in all this. The environment is not really this cosy green bin feel good waste of time , that’s called tidying up . It is more a brutal realpolitical apportioning of the world’s resources and raw power will , I am sure , be used as Tayles describes. David Cameron has hinted his interest and intention to follow the sort of virtuous ideas I have mentioned and also his awareness of the concerns of an Idlex or a Newmania .

    I think he is getting right its time to start offering support as well as advice

  74. Tayles – yes we could help these emerging economies, rather than just letting them make all the same mistakes. If a Conservative government was in power, what suggestions would you have to help countries like China and India? And how would you handle the gas/oil reserve crisis? – Jaq

    It depends what you mean by mistakes. If you mean burning fossil fuels, then this is only really a problem if you buy into the whole environmental apocalypse theories. Personally, I don’t, so I don’t see any pressing urgency for them to do things any differently to us. It might be more efficient and far-sighted of them to go with nuclear power instead of coal-fired power stations, but that’s a decision for them to make. If their current programme enables them to drag themselves into the 21st Century, then more power to their elbow. It’s a tad hypocritical, not to mention patronising, to preach a ‘do as we say, not as we do’ philosophy to the developing world. As for the gas/oil situation, I would like to see Britain build more nuclear power station, so we don’t rely on other nations.

    There is real limit to what we can do domestically but we should be pushing for proper progress with the US and in the world. – Newmania

    Newmania makes some sensible suggestions about incentivising Green choices, but this still accepts that urgently something needs to be done. As I mentioned earlier, this is how campaigners get an issue embedded in the public psyche. They relentlessly plug a certain point of view and attack anyone who disagrees as uncaring, reactionary and selfish. As Lenin said, a told often enough becomes the truth; and this has never been better demonstrated than with environmentalism. They have succeeded in getting every discussion about environmentalism to start from the preconception that manmade global warming is a fact and that Something Must Be Done. Suddenly, everyone is on the defensive, feeling guilty for breaking wind.

    If capitalism has taught us anything, it is that market forces drive progress, productivity and innovation. More efficient means of production and energy are in the best interests of business and I have little doubt that, as has always been the case, things will improve. Sticking tax on aviation fuel won’t force airlines to become more efficient. BA, for example, spends £1.4 billion each year on fuel; so any technology that can save fuel is already worth adopting. This is why airlines spend billions on new generations of aircraft and why jets replaced propellers decades ago. As I’ve said before, the Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stone, and they same will apply for the burning of fossil fuels.

    But of course, most of the people who obsess over rich Westerners despoiling the earth still view the world through a Marxist prism. The idea of finding an economic solution to a problem like this is an anathema. And the idea that the kind of people they are intent on hurting might actually profit from solving such a problem – real or imagined – is their nightmare scenario.

  75. Tayles said -> “It depends what you mean by mistakes

    I mean for example; having coal fired power stations that run at 20% efficiency when they could have power stations that run at 80% efficiency. They have a lot of coal and you seem to assume I’m saying ‘no coal’. No, what I’m saying is ‘we could show you how to get the most out of what you’ve got without greatly spoiling the nest we all live in’ in other words – don’t make all the same mistakes when they could learn from ours. If only we would let them know what they are!

    Take bicycles – I’m not saying don’t ride a bike, I’m saying don’t ride a bone-shaker when we could teach you the benefits of derailleur gears. Don’t make the same mistakes puffing and blowing in thick fog – go straight to derailleur gears.

  76. The problem is as soon as a developing country say they are going to use nuclear power the western world get thier knickers in a complete twist so they are damned if thy do and damned if they don’t.

    The problem with developing countries may only gt worse if britain continues to hurl green tax after green tax onto the british. The more expensive it is to do business in britian then the more attractive doing business with countries such as China will seem and so developing countries will increase their manufacturing. Perhaps, instead of taxinf families going abroad on holiday (what is the point of being in Europe if we cannot even visit other European countries?), we should impose tarriffs on imports from countries such as China.

  77. Gentlemen and Ladies,
    No matter how hard we try we are not going to win the global warming argument. We don’t have the media platform. Are you aware of the Heidelberg Appeal published just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 by 250 of the worlds leading scientists, including 27 Nobel Prize winners which said in part:
    “We are worried at the dawn of the 21st century at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific progress and social development. We contend that a natural constant state sometimes idealised by organisaations with a tendancy to want to maintain a status quo does not exist and has never existed since man first appeared in the biosphere, insofar as humanity has always progressed by harnessing nature to its needs and not the reverse. The greatest evils which stalk our earth are ignorance and oppression and not science, technology and industries whose instruments when adequately managed are indispensible tools of a future shaped by humanity by itself and for itself.”
    Fat lot of notice the politicians and journalists have taken of this profound advise.
    As far as concerns about self distruction of the human race go accoording to geological evidence there have been five mass extinctions of flora and fauna in the earths history. These may have been caused by great changes in climate which may have resulted from meteorites hitting the earth or immense volcanic eruptions. Each of these extinctions heralded the end of a period. The consequences of these events was breathtaking – mor than 99 percent of all the species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct! So we should feel privileged that we have lived in a golden age of the earths climate and be thankful.
    In any case it is rather presumptuous of Tony Blair and his fellow politicians to think that by taxing us they can control mother nature. My enduring wish is that mother nature with her numerous powers reverses the trend in atmospheric CO2 concentrations before the politicians can claim that it is due to their action to reduce human induced emmissions.
    NMG

  78. Mike Gaunt said:
    “My enduring wish is that mother nature with her numerous powers reverses the trend in atmospheric CO2 concentrations before the politicians can claim that it is due to their action to reduce human induced emmissions.”

    Oh yes, ‘Mother Nature’ will indeed come up with something to reduce the CO2 atmospheric concentration. She has tried AIDS as a starter, but that failed to kill off enough humans. She’ll evolve something a bit stronger next time.

  79. Oh yes, ‘Mother Nature’ will indeed come up with something to reduce the CO2 atmospheric concentration. She has tried AIDS as a starter, but that failed to kill off enough humans. She’ll evolve something a bit stronger next time. – Chris Morriss

    I think this comment tells us everything we need to know about your attitude to humans.

  80. Tayles put on his rose-coloured spectacles and said:

    “I think this comment tells us everything we need to know about your attitude to humans.”

    Yes, you’re right it does, and your comment tells us everything we need to know about your attitude to common sense.

    OK, I’ll leave this thread for now, to getting into a flare-up!

  81. Chris – No flare up needed. Like Thomas Malthus, you doubt the ability of mankind to adapt to a growth in population. His theories were discredited last century. Like it or not, the population will continue to grow in the long term and we had better get used to the idea.

    I have no doubt we will be become more ingenious in our use of currently uninhabited (and uninhabitable) parts of the world and that our advances in food production will ensure that people do not go hungry. This is not dumb, pie-in-the-sky, rose-tinted thinking; it is grounded in an appreciation of history and, yes, optimism in the adaptability of mankind.

    Doomsayers have been willing Malthusian theory to come true for two centuries now. Whereas in the past this was due to a lack of foresight and optimism, nowadays this is more to do with people’s desire to see misery befall others and have their hateful fantasies fulfilled.

    I would say that the kind of response I am recommending is going to be more helpful and constructive in dealing with future population growth than one which wills a deadly virus on humanity for its own good – the mentality behind which beggars belief.

  82. Hi, I am back with my imposing rhetoric -I missed my chances, as it appears that Monday night I instigated a vivid debate.
    Tayle: Yes, God forbid that we actually work towards helping these emerging economies enjoying the same luxuries as us. Pull up the ladder and tell them that sorry, but we used it all up.”
    I agree with Jag that emerging economies don’t have to go down the same road, can you imagine extra 300-400 million cars, refrigerators, washing machine and so on what will do to the environment. There is no other rational way than thinking of growth and poverty alleviation as a constant search for new technologies to introduce innovative business ideas.
    I like to add that – Tayle you don’t have to feel guilty for the luxury you are living, the pace of growth in developing countries will soon exceed. And why do you think that luxurious urban living is the best option, I would give my life now if I had the opportunity to live in a little rural house with small piece of land and a bike (hopefully with the access to Oxford University).
    And about imposing – it is just as I can see that the more we are civilized and considerate the easier we are pushed aside by vulgarity and becoming vulnerable. Trust me I have put my whole life on this concept. It just doest work, if you want to survive you have to impose, otherwise you are were I am now – entirely confiscated and pushed in a corner !!!

  83. Hi, I am back with my imposing rhetoric -I missed my chances, as it appears that Monday night I instigated a vivid debate. – nasrin azadeh

    Yep, it was all down to you. Boris’s article didn’t instigate it at all.

    Tayle you don’t have to feel guilty for the luxury you are living, the pace of growth in developing countries will soon exceed.

    What is it with my name? Is that ‘S’ on the end some kind of optical illusion that people can’t quite see? Anyway, I don’t feel guilty – far from it in fact. I would have no issues with developing countries exceeding the relative luxury that I enjoy. The problem is that they are being warned off the folly of affluence by a bunch of flag waving anti-capitalists, trying to divert people down a different path.

    And why do you think that luxurious urban living is the best option, I would give my life now if I had the opportunity to live in a little rural house with small piece of land and a bike (hopefully with the access to Oxford University).

    Good for you. What I’m talking about is a modern, affluent society. That doesn’t mean urban; you have simply chosen to interpret it that way. I don’t live in the city and have no desire to. But I would say that an increase in living standards is something that everyone could benefit from. Greater affluence means a higher quality of life, a healthier life and a longer life, with more freedom and greater choice. I hope that you get your cottage and your bike, but I presume you aren’t saying that we should all have to live the ‘Good Life’, growing our own veg and rearing our own animals. While this is an idyllic existence for some, the work-a-day drudgery and toil that it involves is an anathema for others.

    What sickens me to the stomach is those who hold up the kind of miserable existences of people in the developing world as some kind of noble lifestyle choice that deliberately shuns Western decadence. They are calling for a world in which the West becomes more like those who live in poor countries. From such a perspective, equality means levelling everyone down rather than raising the living standards of the poor. It means giving up the battle to resist the vagaries of nature. Our aspiration for the world should be to give the poor the advantages of affluence enjoyed by us in the West. These individuals are so consumed by a hatred for successful, aspirational, confident people that they would see the world suffer

    And about imposing – it is just as I can see that the more we are civilized and considerate the easier we are pushed aside by vulgarity and becoming vulnerable. Trust me I have put my whole life on this concept. It just doest work, if you want to survive you have to impose, otherwise you are were I am now – entirely confiscated and pushed in a corner !!!

    I’m not sure what you are on about here, but I suspect that you doubt the ability of people to make the ‘right’ choices. Personally, I’d like to live in a country where we are free to make the ‘wrong’ choices. Coercing people into living a certain way is a vile and illiberal suggestion. And exaggerating problems to justify such measures is the kind of Leftist nonsense I was hoping we’d seen the last of. However, if you mean that we are a country devoid of shared values or any sense of responsibility or duty to others, then I agree with you. However, this is a consequence of the same politically correct, non-judgmental dogma responsible for the anti-development, anti-progress, anti-human sentiments outlined above.

  84. Newmania, perhaps you agree with this: “The four ‘ways of life’ identified by Douglas’ Cultural Theory draw comprehensive picture of forces active in the society that include: civil society (fatalists), government (hierarchists), civil movements and NGOs (ethicists) and the private sector (entrepreneurs). Those engaged in the government way of life and those who are driven by ethical principles are keen on control and regulation. They believe they know best (Allan, 2005).

  85. Boris suggests killing a flatulent cow, but surely [Ed: inappropriate suggestion]. The likes of John McCain are at least taking the issue seriously.

  86. Tayles I think you may be ascribing an unpleasant attitude to Chris Morriss where non existed. I didn’t understand CM to want a disease like AIDS or any other natural occurance that kills the population, he merely recorded that these things tend to happen. I took it that his comment was about the natural balance of the world rather than any unpleasant desires towards the people in it.

    Chris Morriss – please feel free to contradict me and don’t feel you have to leave.

  87. Thanks Jaq, that was my intention, though I have to admit, I am more than a little like a misanthropic (and grumpy) old man!

    Although not a believer in the Gaia hypothesis, I do think that the earth may cure its problems itself in a manner that isn’t very coducive to humanity having a pleasant time while it is doing so. Much better to take pre-emptive action first.

    Although I would like society to view it as morally contemptible for anyone to have more than three children, I wouldn’t (as a libertarian) try to ban anyone from doing so. I would simply make it financially crippling for them to do so through by the normal graduated tax mechanism.

    (A real Fascist would not use the tax system, but would use eugenic means, such as only allowing people with an IQ over 100 to reproduce. However useful that might prove to be, it is not acceptable)

  88. CM – actually the Gaia hypothesis makes some sense to me. I’m stalled by the accepted meaning of ‘life’ as it seems to refer to aerobic life only and I seem to remember, from the dustbins of my memory, that there was anaerobic life on this planet for quite some time. I can’t remember if the analogy was that if all life was a day then humans have been around for about half an hour or if just aerobic life was contained in a day, we’ve been around for half an hour. I can’t remember if a distinction was made.
    Anyway, good point that requires further reading on my part. Thanks for that.

  89. Andrew,
    You obviously don’t have a scientific background and have forgotten what you learnt at school about ‘the carbon cycle’ and photosynthesis. You have also been taken in by the journalists and politicians. Suggest you read all the comments here to balance your views.

  90. the Heidelberg Appeal published just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 by 250 of the worlds leading scientists, including 27 Nobel Prize winners which said in part: “We are worried at the dawn of the 21st century at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific progress and social development. We contend that a natural constant state sometimes idealised by organisaations with a tendency to want to maintain a status quo does not exist and has never existed since man first appeared in the biosphere (Mike Gaunt)

    What sensible scientists! It is, however, not just in global warming that irrational ideology has taken over. It is to be found everywhere. Its methods are, very broadly, to decide in advance the conclusions it wishes to reach, and then to perform ‘research’ that reaches the desired conclusions. The same applies at the highest levels of governemt, as indicated by the Downing Street Memo:

    C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

    The result, in this latter case, has been disaster. One may predict with equal certainty that the results will be equally disastrous in every other case.

  91. < Boris suggests killing a flatulent cow, but surely killing Bush … would achieve more. (Andrew)<

    I guess it depends where you stand. I reckon there would be a reaction in the markets.

    Firstly I reckon stock indexes would fall in the USA and then the UK the next day. Oil prices might surge a little bit due to uncertaincy around middle east policy. I reckon people (well people with money) would be tempted to cram more into gold.

    In all it might create a bigger bubble in gold (have fun when this bursts everyone) and the increased oil prices would help UK inflation along nicely (yippee higher interest rates/inflation will suit me fine). Hell, I don’t know what I’m really talking about, but all sounds good to me.

    Except I’ve got a soft-spot for Bush. I never used to like him, but I’ve kind of grown accustomed to him now. Let’s keep him til’ the end of the course and see what happens anyway.

  92. “Although I would like society to view it as morally contemptible for anyone to have more than three children, I wouldn’t (as a libertarian) try to ban anyone from doing so. I would simply make it financially crippling for them to do so through by the normal graduated tax mechanism.”

    Not exactly a libertarian then, are you. Your comment is a bit like saying everyone is free to go to university so long as they can pay, it does not actually mean much.

    Also I do not think AID’s was the best example you could come up with. Firstly AID’s is actually a collection of diseases which have been around for years and years and are in themselves nothing new. HIV, is also a very weak virus in itself, which is why it is very difficult for the average person to catch (look at how many pregnancies there are compared to new cases of HIV). There is also speculation that HIV has only occurred in humans due to human error and if that is the case it cannot be called a natural population control.

    As has been mentioned before globl warming and climate changes are supposed to occur and the Earth has seen many different climates as a result so it is quite short sighted to blame global warming on humans. In the big scheme of things our impact is rather insignificant when it comes to global warming. i think people would be better spending their time on issues that we can have an impcat upon such as the rainforests, pollutted oceans and endangered species.

  93. < There is also speculation that HIV has only occurred in humans due to human error (k)<

    I heard someone did the dirty with a monkey, is that true? If so, kind of serves us right.

  94. < There is also speculation that HIV has only occurred in humans due to human error (k)<

    I heard someone did the dirty with a monkey, is that true? If so, kind of serves us right.

  95. AIDS

    I thought the most likely explanation was that it occurred naturally in a small population and by incrreasing cntact reached critical level and expoded outward. Like most plagues in fact. Somwthing about the African secret laboratory theory doesn1`t sound very plausible to me.
    On the climate I have some questions. Thoughts in a Garden was written by Andrew Marvellwho dies in 1678.
    What a wondrous life is this I lead
    Ripe apples drop about my head
    The luscious clusters of the vine
    About my mouth do crush their wine
    The nectarines and curious peach
    Into my hands themselves do reach
    Stumbling on melons as I pass
    Ensnared with Flowers I fall on grass
    Judging by the Loire valley conditions evidently prevailing it would appear the world has got a lot colder. Then the questions keep coming …
    Why are air taxes set at such a level as to not to make any change in behaviour?
    In 1421 Why was a Chinese naval squadron able to sail around the North Pole and find no ice?
    Why is the Antartic gaining ice consistently over the past 30 years ?
    6000 bore holes world wide show that temperatures were higher in the middle ages than now ?
    Why is this problem absent from UN assessments ?
    Why is the fact that the doomsday predictions of criminologists are often disproved ignored. For example James Hansen in 1988told the US Congress in 1988 that the sea would rise several feet by 2000. It rose one inch ?
    Why are questions of scale so childishly misrepresented by scare mongers who openly refer to the weather as the “climate”?
    Why did Al Gore emote about the snows leaving kilimanjaro when he knows there has been no rise in temperature and it is entirely the result of deforestation and consequent dehydration ? He is absolutely aware of this even if you are not .
    Why are the most conspicuous consumers always the most self righteous . Prince Charles bought his “staff” bikes?
    (He has asked for a Greener fleet of vehicles but will retain his Bentley , a Jaguar and an Aston Martin)
    Why would the government monitor every car from the sky and feed that information into combined data bases than increase fuel tax ?
    Why do people refer to a consensus on “climate change” when there is no such thing ?
    I know what I think its all to do with this last question What did Jaques Chirac mean by the terrifying phrase” Creating World Government” ?

    I `m not sure I even want to know the answers

  96. Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
    Francis Bacon

    Tayles, with s, I am not living in England – sort of on the wrong side of planet, but hopefully will return soon.

    you said ” you aren’t saying that we should all have to live the ‘Good Life’, growing our own veg and rearing our own animals. While this is an idyllic existence for some, the work-a-day drudgery and toil that it involves is an anathema for others.”

    I was questioning your definition of poverty.

  97. I notice that my modest proposal has been censored as “inappropriate”. There seems to be a strange double standard operating on this site. You are allowed to propose the slaughter of an innocent animal, but not a criminally negligible president. Ask yourself which would do more good.

  98. Andrew – come the revolution I’m sure we’d all have a list we could put against the wall, but untill that day homicide is still illegal in this country and for an argument on capital punishment, please see previous thread.

    Newmania – Prince Charles? Appeal to ridicule old chap.

  99. What is it with my name? Is that ‘S’ on the end some kind of optical illusion that people can’t quite see?

    Sorry but the ‘S’ gives an impression as I am talking to so many of you, one is already too many for convincing argument…I admire your positive thinking and optimism, I wish it would realize.

    Tayles:”the population will continue to grow in the long term and we had better get used to the idea.”

    Chris Morries:Although I would like society to view it as morally contemptible for anyone to have more than three children, I wouldn’t (as a libertarian) try to ban anyone from doing so.”

    Improving only one side of the equation (in health) while ignoring the impacts is mismanagement.

    Dont you have any compassion for indian girls as young as 11 who are giving birth to new born. This is child abuse.

    Over last three decades, population growth have been mostly due to ignorance and stupidity not liberty. Children should not be born into appalling life, powerless and hopeless to improve their condition, if you respect human rights.

  100. …terrifying phrase, Creating World Government (newmania)

    Exactly how I see it, except that I would add the euphemism ‘Socialist’ to World Government. This would be a socialist world order run for the benefit of the corporate giants, politicians and their minions , of course.

  101. Boris sahib, please not cows, which are sacred to Hindus. Kill horses instead. Yours kindly, Bhola

Comments are closed.