Cameron faces more friendly fire

Over the last few days there have been signs of restlessness amongst the Conservative and right-of-centre press.  Concerns were first expressed by The Business but have been more recently taken up by The Telegraph (on redistribution and the delayed exit from the EPP) and today by The Spectator.

This week's edition of The Spectator is the first after Boris Johnson's reign.  The weekly magazine prospered during that time as it moved to the centre and it often echoed the establishment views on such big issues as Iraq.  The interim team running the newspaper - no doubt influenced by Andrew Neil - have penned a leader that encourages the 'amiable' and 'skillful' new Tory leader to become more substantial.  Noting that Mr Cameron seems to be "enjoying his political ambiguity" it warns that he will not be able to"duck questions of policy for long".  It highlights Mr Cameron's consensual approach to Labour's Education White Paper and his Kyoto environmentalism as causes for concern:

Education: "Disturbingly, Mr Cameron already appears to be ditching his belief in allowing schools a free policy on selection: ‘Representing, as I do, small towns with one or two schools, the last thing you want is for one to be a selective school and the other not to be.’ But why would that be such a bad thing? And if it is, does Mr Cameron also now oppose the policy of his alma mater, Eton College, also to select its pupils on academic merit on the grounds that the only other school in the neighbourhood is a comprehensive? Mr Cameron must make it clear that he is a meritocratic Tory who wants to offer bright children from ordinary homes the chance to excel academically; otherwise he will be seen, however unfairly, as a patrician Tory who sees the needs of his own class to be different from those of lowlier birth."

Environment: "Kyoto will not stop global warming, but it will make the poor more vulnerable to climate change by restricting economic growth. For the cost of Kyoto to global development in a year, the world’s poor could be provided with clean running water and there would still be some money left over for flood defences."

All of the above titles are owned by the Barclay brothers but this morning's Murdoch-owned Sun has also fired a warning shot in Mr Cameron's direction this morning.  It warned against "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" on immigration policy.  Its 'Sun Says' column warns:

"Reminding voters they are not the Nasty Party is crucial to their re-election chances.  But is it true that ALL immigration has been “fantastic” for Britain, as their chairman says?  Not if you’re being shunted down the NHS waiting list because of benefit “tourists” who aren’t legally here.  Or if you’ve suffered crime at the hands of illegal immigrants."

The Sun was reacting to yesterday's call from Damian Green for the EU Worker Registration Scheme to be scrapped.  Download Damian_Green's_press_release here.

Comments

[Peter Franklin]

"Kyoto will not stop global warming, but it will make the poor more vulnerable to climate change by restricting economic growth. For the cost of Kyoto to global development in a year, the world’s poor could be provided with clean running water and there would still be some money left over for flood defences."

I don't suppose the Spectator actually provides any evidence for this extraordinary series of claims?

It's funny how those who dismiss the conclusions drawn from peer-reviewed science-based climate change models then take as gospel the results from much cruder economic models cobbled together by the big polluters' pocket think tanks.

Besides, if Kyoto had never come into force does that mean that any money supposedly "saved" would have gone into clean water for the developing world? Of course not. It would have added to the profits of the big polluters.

[Chris Palmer]

Constructive criticism. Let us hope it remains just that.

[Michael McGowan]

Peter, Martin Wolff at the FT, who can hardly be described as a representative of the big polluters' think tanks, wrote an excellent article in the FT three years ago whcih made the same point, rather better, that Kyoto would have minimal impact on global warming and would end up further impoverishing the poor. Which is of course why China and India quite rightly will have nothing to do with it.

[Editor]

Kyoto is largely a fraud, I'm afraid...

1. If implemented in full it would only make a very, very limited difference to global warming. Its advocates rarely tell the public that.

2. Few EU nations are set to meet their Kyoto targets.

3. Insofar as EU countries are meeting their Kyoto targets it is through exporting relevant industrial activity to developing world nations that do not participate in Kyoto.

Poorer countries are not going to sacrifice development for the sake of the west. Their peoples need and deserve economic progress and the health etc dividends that that progress affords. The only way to have a more just world AND a green world is through environmentally sensitive growth and that is the tech-based approach being promoted by the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development. It has its first major meeting soon and we must hope and pray that it is a serious initiative...

[Jaz]

they can continue to complain, and they won't get anything for cameron until mid-next year, he appears stubborn about his direction.

"Kyoto is largely a fraud, I'm afraid...

1. If implemented in full it would only make a very, very limited difference to global warming. Its advocates rarely tell the public that.

2. Few EU nations are set to meet their Kyoto targets.

3. Insofar as EU countries are meeting their Kyoto targets it is through exporting relevant industrial activity to developing world nations that do not participate in Kyoto."

Without a doubt, but atleast we are doing SOMETHING rather than nothing. You have to play politics with these issues, the majority just accepted them just to look good, and I really think Cameron will do the same...
Come to think of it, abandoning Kyoto just makes your own country look shamefully greedy (and this case the party).

The Sun can't cope with immigrants, its basically waging a war against these people, who some are here for good reasons. However, we need a strong immigration policy, and thats the end of it... Cameron needs this now to make the right-wing happy to some extent, frankly, they only seem to be concerned about immigration and europe.

[Ted]

Editor

Surely there's an AND theory here - we need to measure progress in greenhouse gas reduction/slower growth so we need targets such as maximum CO2 of 400 ppm or whatever AND we need to develop technologies to better use the energy sources available to us. Kyoto provided no solutions or direction so is largely a fraud.

I recognise targets are a feeble instrument - as you point out changes to gas instead of coal, migration of manufacturing all help UK meet its targets but push the problem elsewhere - but efective targets can drive technological change (California setting targets on emissions drove car manufactures towards cleaner engines).

For example : The advantage of higher oil & gas prices is that alternative fuel sources become cheaper - one of my cousins in central Africa is planting up a few acres of Jatropha now with aim of self sufficiency in energy use without giving up his Land Rovers, electric gadgets / household utensils while also having a cash surplus to market. It's feasible now because diesel / petrol prices are much higher than costs of biofuel setup and processing.

Increasing biofuel content of diesel and increasing use of diesel vehicles is a start of a technolgical alternative. Setting a target around proportion of cars using biofuels would drive government behaviour towards achieving this and manufactures would continue engine developments knowing there was a ready market but recognising they needed to compete for market share.

[Andy Peterkin]

Clearly we do need to re-examine the immigration system as a whole.

We need to have a sensible, rational procedure for economic immigration based on the ability of potential immigrants to fill skill gaps in the UK economy.

On the other hand, I have long been astounded that those seeking political asylum are simply allowed to wander the country at will in the period between their arrival and their hearing. They should be in comfortable, yet secure, accommodation for which they will be unable to abscond. After their hearing, they can either be released or swiftly deported.

This list seems pretty ineffective, and apparently, you don't have to register if you are self-employed, which is an enormous loophole. The problem is, the feeling is growing that we are making these pronouncements on immigration as part of Cameron's "de-nastification" programme, not as part of a serious, policy based strategy on immigration.

[Selsdon Man]

"Kyoto will not stop global warming, but it will make the poor more vulnerable to climate change by restricting economic growth. For the cost of Kyoto to global development in a year, the world’s poor could be provided with clean running water and there would still be some money left over for flood defences."

I don't suppose the Spectator actually provides any evidence for this extraordinary series of claims?"

They were made by Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg is the bete noire of the environmental movement. He is now an adviser to the Danish government.

[Selsdon Man]

"Come to think of it, abandoning Kyoto just makes your own country look shamefully greedy (and this case the party)."

No, Jaz, it does not. Kyoto will harm the poor in the developed world - higher costs of living etc. At most it will reduce global warming by 0.2 of a degree, it is an expensive sham. Of course, Britain is meeting its targets - as usual our "partners" in Europe are not.

I suggest that you read Bjorn Lomborg, a former green activist. There is plenty of material available on the web. You should also visit the sites of free market environmental web sites such as PERC and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

[Oberon Houston]

Tell me why we should be drawn into a debate with Sun editorials on immigration? This paper supported a third Labour Govt. and should not be lecturing anyone on immigration policy.

I also find the Spectator piece rather partisan, pompously rubbishing Kyoto and making the cast-away claim that Cameron has ditched selection - which he has not. They can go this way if they like, and watch their circulations numbers go the way of the Telegraph.

[Michael McGowan]

As I said earlier, Wolff made the same points as the Spectator on Kyoto some time ago. I suggest that you read the article online, Oberon. I think you will find it hard to describe as pompous rubbish.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Kyoto was a charade of minimal practical use:

It was useful to promote Blair as the, again, saviour of the world and another big picture which our Tone could star in.
It was useful to the UK and EU socialists and would enable them to tax companies and thus raise more money to buy votes. Not forgetting it provided another stick for the EU with which to beat the USA whilst the EU appeared holier than thou.

It was useful to the greenies, the weenies and the little in betweenies in the media including, of course, our very own public service broadcaster (please put your hands together and applaud the experts warning us of doomatic climatic change as provided daily by the 'impartial' BBC). As anyone heard the experts, climatologists, from the Stockholm Institute, America, Britain or Russia who disagree with the pedlars of the discredited 'Hockey stick' climate change theory - as anyone heard them on the BBC. No? Well, neither have I. The BBC, would it seems, favour doom, gloom and hysteria (whatever happened to BSE, Acid Rain and Bird Flu?)
Another bonus was that Bush (he invaded Iraq) could be excoriated for not supporting Kyoto even though it was first rejected by Congress under Clinton. You will have as much chance of hearing an impartial debate on climate change on the BBC as you would have on withdrawing from the socialist EU.

The recent meeting in Canada that dealt with climate change seemed to be somewhat hypocritical. The carbon emmissions of Canada (target 6% but now risen to 24%) and much of the EU have increased despite Kyoto whereas the USA's has decreased 1%. Global warming or climate change will not be dealt with by bashing GWB; it will be overcome as far as possible and in the main by technology. Mr Cameron, please take note.

[Jack Stone]

My God. David Cameron as been leader barely a month and the doubters, pessimists and moaners have started to come out from the woodwork.
The party needs to spend time examining all there policies and at the same time examine all the alternatives to those policies. This exercise should not be rushed as the party needs to get things right as we need to come up with a more comprehensive and better thought through platform than we did in May.
In the meantime we need to stay united and direct the full force of our fire on our political opponents. Lets fiight the fight!

[Bishop Hill]

In the light of the dropping of the policy on education vouchers and the possible backing away from selection, it will be interesting to see whether the forthcoming baby Cameron attends a private school or Notting Hill comp. Will this be before or after the next election I wonder?

[Richard Allen]

I'm glad to see that some of the right wing press are starting to wake upto the reality of what "Cameron's Conservatives" will be like.

[Peter Franklin]

"Kyoto is largely a fraud, I'm afraid..."

As in a criminal conspiracy to deceive? Golly, those dastardly europeans, out to wreck global economic growth. To think that Margaret Thatcher started it all!

"1. If implemented in full it would only make a very, very limited difference to global warming. Its advocates rarely tell the public that."

Kyoto is only the first stage in achieving the emission cuts required to stabilise CO2 levels. I mean you do want CO2 levels to stabilise, don't you? Or do you honestly think it doesn't matter what level they rise to? Please answer this point, because so far you haven't.

"2. Few EU nations are set to meet their Kyoto targets."

Yes, but they're making much more progress than the US.

"3. Insofar as EU countries are meeting their Kyoto targets it is through exporting relevant industrial activity to developing world nations that do not participate in Kyoto."

Gross over-simplification. The industry that remains in the West (rather a lot of it by the way -- e.g. Britain manufactures more cars than ever). Has reduced its emissions through investment in better processes. In any case, Industrial activity is only one source of emissions. The household and transport sectors are at least as important -- and progress has been made here too, thanks to energy efficiency measures etc. I can assure you that the EU is not exporting its houses and motorists to China.

"Poorer countries are not going to sacrifice development for the sake of the west."

If Russia can signup to Kyoto, so can China and India. In any case, carbon emissions from the really poor countries as opposed to the middle income big emitters, are insignificant and will remain so for decades to come. In fact, they are likely to be net beneficiaries from a system of global carbon trading. They will certainly benefit from the development of renewable and localised energy technologies which are particularly applicable to developing world conditions. On the other hand they will take the biggest hit from climate change. In short the whole Kyoto-will-hurt-the-poor-argument is the purest hypocrisy cooked up to protect the interests of the rich.

"Their peoples need and deserve economic progress and the health etc dividends that that progress affords."

That includes progress on clean energy tech that not only reduces global carbon emissions but local air pollution too -- which presents a truly horrendous problem in China and India thanks to unsustainable development.

"The only way to have a more just world AND a green world is through environmentally sensitive growth..."

That is the express purpose of Kyoto and the desired successor treaties. The targets are not restrictions on economic growth, but restrictions on emissions. These are distinct concepts. National efforts to meet targets are already incentivising massive investment in clean tech. The target mechanism ensures that each government does its bit to provide the necessary incentives, so that no nation freeloads off another.

"...and that is the tech-based approach being promoted by the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development. It has its first major meeting soon and we must hope and pray that it is a serious initiative..."

Well at least you admit that so far the Asia Pacific Partnership has done precisely nothing. But assuming they do come up with something, by what yardstick are you going to measure its effectiveness? Do you have any alternative to measuring emissions from each nation?

Pray tell.

Sorry we disagree so sharply on this one Mr Ed. This is otherwise a fantastic website.

[Selsdon Man]

In terms of the history of the planet, today's climate change is realtively modest. Environmentalism is like a new religion - worship Mother Earth who must be preserved in her current form at all costs.

[Editor]

PETER FRANKLIN: "Kyoto is only the first stage in achieving the emission cuts required to stabilise CO2 levels. I mean you do want CO2 levels to stabilise, don't you? Or do you honestly think it doesn't matter what level they rise to? Please answer this point, because so far you haven't."

It is the first stage but how many people REALLY know that? How many voters think that Kyoto (and its limited economic pain) IS the answer to global warming? How many people would buy into the second, third and fourth etc stages if the economic cost of real climate stabilisation was spelt out? Kyoto Stage I has not been sold honestly to people. My guess is that most people think Kyoto is a giant leap towards solving climate change problems. In reality it's a tiptoe forward and most countries are still struggling to deliver on it. More significantly: there's only going to be a second stage if the developing world sign up and I don't think they will. Montreal was platitudinous.

PETER FRANKLIN: "Yes, but [EU nations are] making much more progress than the US."

They're not making much progress. And how are we measuring progress? If activity reduction is key then perhaps Old Europe is doing slightly better but if its investment in - and adoption of -green technologies I'm not sure the US is a laggard.

PETER FRANKLIN: "Gross over-simplification" in response to my point about exporting industrial capacity.

I take that as a 'yes' (that this export is happening) and I'll agree that all countries have to do more about other sources of emission.

PETER FRANKLIN: "If Russia can signup to Kyoto, so can China and India."

Not necessarily. India and China are much more likely to be influenced by US and Australia than the EU (which cajoled Russia into signing Kyoto). Their biggest influence of all, of course, is the irresistable demands of their people for better standards of living.

PETER FRANKLIN: "That includes progress on clean energy tech that not only reduces global carbon emissions but local air pollution too -- which presents a truly horrendous problem in China and India thanks to unsustainable development."

Yes: The solution to this is the APPCD emphasis on clean development - not zero development.

PETER FRANKLIN: "Well at least you admit that so far the Asia Pacific Partnership has done precisely nothing."

The Partnership itself hasn't done much but it is showing a superior way forward. It's very new... but watch this space. Its delayed first meeting is scheduled, I think, for next month?

More important is the huge tech investment that the USA has committed to green technologies.

What we need in place of Kyoto is a global commitment to serious investment in green technology. When that technology is available it should be embraced by all countries. Until that technology is available the Kyoto straightjacket cripples development. You're right, Peter, Kyoto might encourage green R&D but it still necessitates emissions cut even if the technology isn't available and that's unacceptable.

Until the technology is available we should be investing more money in the priorities of Blomberg's Copenhagen Consensus - like malaria elimination.

I take the point that governments may not do this alternative good work but let's not forget that Bush's USA has increased aid more sharply than any western govt in recent history. Bush's America is not as bad as the BBC makes out.

***

Thanks for your kind comments about the site. It's a good website because people like you contribute.

[Derek]

Where is the evidence, Peter, that India and China are prepared to reduce their CO2 emissions? In which case as they accelerate their industrialisation, what we do in the UK where we are responsible for a total of 2.4% of the world's man-made CO2 will have no effect at all, other than making a gesture.

[Peter Franklin]

Ed:

I agree that most people don't know much about Kyoto. That it gives the impression that someone somewhere is "doing something about it" is enough for most people. However, our utterly trivialised political culture does not mean that Kyoto is wrong. It is part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which is all about providing for a multi-stage approach. And for what its worth its also based on the most serious climate change science that humanity has been able to come up with.

I also agree with you that progress so far has been insufficient. But the rational way forward is to go with those countries and companies that are making the most progress. Manifestly, this is not the US or the companies that have pumped cash into Kyoto-sceptic think tanks

But I have to disagree with everything you say that implies that Kyoto is about restricting growth. That is simply not the case. It is just as much about technology as the rival approach -- the difference lies in the incentives structures, where the Kyoto approach has much more definite mechanisms for ensuring international equity and also a heavier emphasis on the polluter pays principle.

I only half agree with your point about waiting for the right technologies. Sure we need much more progress on clean coal, hydrogen, biofuels and marine renewables -- but we already have mature technologies to cut carbon in the meantime. Above all there is energy efficiency, which we still aren't making enough use of despite the fact that it actually saves money. Sadly, some US kyoto-sceptics have actively campaigned against higher energy efficiency standards which they refer to as "energy rationing". Not only does this compromise the environment it compromises national security too.

Climate change is real. We must stabilise C02 levels. We already have the technologies to make the required start. Governments must agree to provide all the sticks and carrots necessary for uptake. It is our world at stake.

Selsdon: "In terms of the history of the planet, today's climate change is realtively modest. Environmentalism is like a new religion - worship Mother Earth who must be preserved in her current form at all costs."

It's the history of human civilisation that counts here. And the rate at which we're ramping-up CO2 levels is unprecedented. By the way I'm not a pagan!

Derek: "Where is the evidence, Peter, that India and China are prepared to reduce their CO2 emissions? In which case as they accelerate their industrialisation, what we do in the UK where we are responsible for a total of 2.4% of the world's man-made CO2 will have no effect at all, other than making a gesture."

There are plenty of Chinese and Indian scientists who know exactly what's going on. Of course, neither country will move unless America moves with them. The US must provide leadership. There is a very real possibility that it will do so post-Bush, presumably the interests that fund the anti-Kyoto effort think there must be a possibility too.

If, however, the US, China and India keep spewing carbon into the atmosphere for the next few decades, then you're quite right that our efforts will make little difference. If the international approach fails, we'd be better off using our money on flood defences etc (though of course there are all sorts of other reasons for weaning ourselves off fossil fuels).

[R UK]

What is DC doing to advance the hydrogen economy? Hydrogen is three times more power per kilogram of stored fuel as against petrol/diesel. Within two years will probably be cheaper than oil.

Why doesn't DC visit Rolls Royce who are developing power generating fuel cells, and publicise the new technologies?

These are where emissions will tumble. Biotechnology also could soon produce ethanol from waste agricultural products. Many countries such as Brasil already produce fuel from crops.

This is the future not Kyoto.

[James Hellyer]

How is thsi friendly fire? The Sun and Spectator (under Neil) are Conservative. Cameron is Conservative In Name Only.

[Peter Franklin]

R UK: "What is DC doing to advance the hydrogen economy? Hydrogen is three times more power per kilogram of stored fuel as against petrol/diesel. Within two years will probably be cheaper than oil."

Unfortunately we do not yet have methods of producing, storing and using hydrogen that are economically viable. Things are very much still at the research stage. Part of the price we put on carbon now needs to be invested in such research so that we have viable hydrogen technologies in the decade ahead. It will take more than two years though.

R UK: "Why doesn't DC visit Rolls Royce who are developing power generating fuel cells, and publicise the new technologies?"

I dare say he will. Promoting the hydrogen economy will be one of the main areas examined by the Gummer-Goldsmith commission.

"These are where emissions will tumble. Biotechnology also could soon produce ethanol from waste agricultural products. Many countries such as Brasil already produce fuel from crops."

If we can't get emissions to fall with the simple energy efficiency technologies we have now, then it will be all the more difficult to implement the much more complicated technologies required for a hydrogen economy. As for what you say about ethanol etc, we can already use ordinary homegrown biomass to replace fossil fuels as heat source. The technology is simple and cheap, but farmers won't grow the necessary crops without a guaranteed market and you won't get a market until heat users can be sure of having a reliable supply of fuel. Some government intervention is required to kick start this market, but so far New Labour has been pathetically inactive. Beware of the Brazilian angle though -- transporting biofuels and biomass around the world can produce more carbon than it saves. A proper lifecycle analysis is required.

R UK: "This is the future not Kyoto."

Kyoto is all about creating the market incentives that will bring about the future you describe. It is a case of targets AND technology.

[Gillibrand]

Do you wonder when he quotes Ghandi? Another quote from the same:
"What kind of victory is it when someone is left defeated?"
Bet he doesn't say that on the campaign trail.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"Kyoto is all about creating the market incentives that will bring about the future you describe. It is a case of targets AND technology"

The targets are unrealistic - as GWB has grasped and they are not being observered - that is why Blair has backed out, but who knows, maybe later he will back in. Technology will be the ultimate answer