« How David Cameron sparked Labour's faith schools muddle | Main | Caroline Spelman leads protests at use of Big Brother computers to drive new council tax rises »


I thought Cameron was saying that climate change was the most serious and imminent threat to us, thus the big environmnetal campaign? Why did the tune change?

Bang on the money, once again Editor.

Listening this morning to the pre-leak discussion about climate change I kept remembering the informed expert debate from the late 1980s about why the Exchange Rate Mechanism was the solution to all our problems. I wonder why.

Is this another example of something where all the clever people turn out to be wrong and all the damned fools were right all along?

Bit surreal for this time on a Monday morning isn't it?!!!

Iran firing a battlefield nuclear weapon against Israel is about as likely as a 40 foot rise in sea levels.

Yes it's amazing how nuclear proliferation gets no coverage at all isn't? I mean if it wasn't for ConservativeHome we'd never have heard about North Korea's nuclear test or Iran's atomic energy programme. Quite clearly, the only way forward is to ignore every other problem in the world and only address this issue. I look forward to CH's immediate implementation of this approach. This will mean re-naming the different parts of the site according to the following scheme.

+ Homepage becomes Bombpage

+ YourPlatform becomes LaunchPlatform

+ Books becomes Nukes

+ Community becomes NuclearClub

I can't think of any others, but then I am mad.

Well said Winifred.

Of course the issue of nuclear proliferation is an important one, but it doesn't warrant such blatant scaremongering and scarcely-concealed sneering at those of us who consider climate change, and the environment in general, to be a pressing international concern.

This article is spot on. We could be nuked in a few years but the world is doing next to nothing. Global warming may be real but it is not so pressing and without the unlikely agreement of China and India any unilateral green action by Britain is poiintless.

Yes the article is spot on. And I entirely agree with William Norton about shades of ERM. I was working for a mega bank at the time and distinctly recall all the metroplitan luvvies were in favour of it (but then they are always are in favour of what will damage this country's interests provided they are alright. They did not lose their jobs and houses. The hypocrisy makes me sick.

But all you have proposed as a "solution" for this issue of pressing international concern, Daniel, is a large increase in regressive taxes which can at best only have a minimal impact on climate change because the UK's % contribution is so small and getting smaller. It is the ultimate futile gesture. Nulclear proliferation with the bomb in the hands of lunatics such as the President of Iran strikes me as a much greater danger to all of us.

Spot on Ed

The BBC's puffing of Stern's unseen report over the weekend was extraodinary even for them.

When the guy himself was given an open mike on R4 Today this am to scare the crp out of us, he backpeddalled furiously. It seems he isn't quite so confident of his economic armagedden prediction as the BBC and the rest of the lib media.

Fifty year economic forecasts? Forget it.

Well if we are going to have to tighten our belts in order to pay more taxes, how about a start to economising by slashing the size of the BBC or better still abolishing it.

Does it not worry any of your that Cameron seems to be competing with the Lib-Dems to come up with great ways of wrecking the economy? All these enviroment taxes will slow down the economy, make people poorer and hurt the country's growth rate.

Viz the BBC: they managed to have three people "debate" the report all of whom are fully signed up to the "end is nigh" theory of climate change.

Editor, top article. The gimmick is that whatever any politician or expert happens to be talking about is always the most pressing and urgent issue of all time.

Does anybody remember the "pensions crisis" of half a year ago? Or when the bin men went on strike, you'd stop caring about global warming pretty quick if the streets were full of stinking rubbish.

That said, does anybody know how to prevent Iran and NK from having nuclear weapons?

The only thought that comforts me is that in the long run only rich, Western economies will have nukes because WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN AFFORD THEM! And they are pretty damn expensive even for us.

B-liar cannot bang on about Iran or North Korea and nuclear proliferation as no-one will believe the story, not after the con job he did with Iraqi WMD.
NuLab would prefer that politics stick to the anodyne, on subject matters where they do not become a cropper with their previous.
The nuclear questions all realise the sad and inevitable response, just what is the UN for, and how is it that the EU cannot put together a united front, so what on earth is it of use.
Cameron needs to show global concerns in all subject matters, as believe me, Iran and North Korea are more likely to do an immediate damage to the world than the long term effects of global warming, if the phenonmenon exists at all.
Iinterestly the most contentious story of the day,and therefore no reported, is the discovery of computer discs and papers relating to our nuclear weaponry at some drug dealers trailer in the US. Oops.

Mark,not sure I agree with your comment re Nukes. Pakistan has them and North Korea will too. Neither are by any stretch of the imagination 'rich'.
Also as someone who works in financial services publishing I can assure you the 'pensions crisis' is very real.

"B-liar cannot bang on about Iran or North Korea and nuclear proliferation as no-one will believe the story, not after the con job he did with Iraqi WMD."

There is, of course, the slight difference that North Korea are actively boasting that they are developing nuclear weapons and the Iranians are openly defying UN restrictions on what sort of nuclear activity they can undertake.

We can't bury our head in the sand and pretend its all a figment of Blair's imagination again.

Russia is still the number one problem.
I can remember a report back in 1996 by the late Lt Gen Alexander Lebed saying that Russia had created 132 suitcase bombs and that he could only locate 48 of them being head of the Security Council. That by my knowledge was the last report on it and know under Putin I don't think anyone should be happy with what they are doing.

Firstly, any increase in green taxes will have to be offset by tax cuts elsewhere to make it saleable to the electorate. The money saved by those tax cuts will probably just go towards paying the higher prices brought about by green taxes.

Secondly, didn't the so-called experts predict we were all going to get wiped out by SARS and bird flu?

So who is responsible for the sudden re-birth and upsurge of the climate change hysteria (apart from the BBC, of course - Blair had backed off from Kyoto). The paragraphs below appearing in the Times will give you a clue. The instigator is now complaining that his political opponents in the Westminister village have left him sidelined. Who opened the climate change can of worms in order to chase Green/Lib Dim votes. So who is responsible - here he is.....

The Tory leader also sought to personalise the debate by accusing Gordon Brown of developing an interest in the environment only after he himself had made it a personal priority. “Raising the profile of these issues, talking about them, demonstrating through your own party how much you actually care about them, can make a difference,” Mr Cameron said.

“I mean, ask yourself, would Gordon Brown be spending as much time on the environment as he is now if I hadn’t raised the issue so strongly over the last year? I think the answer to that is pretty clear.”

No! Gordon Brown would not been worrying about climate change, but you, Mr Cameron have saved his bacon and given him the perfect excuse to raise taxes and spend it buying more votes. And for what? A possible reduction of 2% in world carbon emmissions at great cost to Britain and its industries whilst chasing an unproven theory publicised by the political failure, Al Gore. Thank you very much, say our competitors.

Melanie Phillips sums it all up.

Peter - OTOH as I understand it the fissionable matter in those bombs rapidly decays to an unusable state, so hopefully we're ok now...

Back in the early 70's I interviewed a recent graduate for a job - during interview she mentioned she had been studying the affect of CFCs on the ozone layer and the danger these caused. The subject had been raised in Nature but was viewed by many as not a matter for concern - where's the evidence? what damage could aerosols do? there's no real alternative in fridges etc. Since I was a sceptic then I am a lot less sceptical today about the consensus on climate change.

Nuclear proliferation is an immediate danger but that doesn't mean that it is more or less important than addressing the high risk of human induced climate change. The message today is we needed to have started being serious about polluting our planet earlier - putting it off another decade or so makes the eventual cure more expensive and more disruptive.

The cure though is something we can discuss - green taxes or investment in carbon neutral power generation? where do the tax takings go? - I'd prefer to see both a rebalancing so that those hardest hit get tax relief elsewhere and that there is investment in carbon neutral technologies or in carbon reduction. People (like me) who drive high CO2 emitting cars would subsise local power generation, investment in developing technological solutions. Perhaps support bio-diesel production in third world countries. Air travellers taxes could go towards re-forestation in Africa or Asia - providing employment and reducing carbon.

Lets look at what we can really achieve if the UK decided to spend £12 billion or so per annum on investments in Green technologies or carbon sinks.

And yes, lets also work out a real strategy to address nuclear proliferation.

Spot on Ed.

Worrying about whether Tehran can heat us up to 30,000 degrees in a nano second, would seem to be a slightly more serious problem to ponder....but there ain't no tax in that.

If the arguement about Climate Change was being conducted by adults, rather than greedy Pols who only want to get more tax and mad progess hating Greens, then the conclusion would be to go Nuclear.

Not only does that produce Zero green house gases, but it make us energy independent of the ME and Russia.......but OH no we can't have Nuclear power,'cus the Greens would go ape......and the Pols wouldn't have any more money to waste/buy votes.

Yes, yes, yes. Well done editor. Global warming should be re-named "political warming" - it makes politicians warm and cosy by letting them raise taxes, sound caring, and never have to be called to account, as by the time we discover it is all a scam, they will be well into their well-paid dotage and not seeking election any more.

Climates change all the time: get used to it, they always have and they always will. High temperatures in the Middle Ages (ignored by carbon cranks, as it does not fit their theory); mini-ice-age 500 years ago; predictions we are headed for another full ice age 10 years ago (we are well into the cycle when one is due). As for the melted ice caps in the Cretaceous (55 million years ago), personally I blame the aeroplanes and factories the dinosaurs had, which must surely have caused the problem if the warming weirdos' theory is correct...

You politicians and climate nutters: get a life, enjoy the sunshine, buy thermal underwear (for the cold snaps) and start tackling the real problems; like the nuclear threat from radicals, the genuine environmental threats from toxic waste and hormone-laden water supplies etc etc.

I would have thought it would take more than a decade for a bomb to become unuseable Simon. Also as again we don't know who had them so we wouldn't know if they had the technology to keep them from decaying. Again Russia is still the number one problem, yes North Korea, Iran and Isreal have to be on the radar but Russia has a very bad record of keeping things safe, as well as the report done recently on Ukraine were the raw materials(not luckly the nuclear bit) from 200 decommissoned weapons had gone missing?

Off-topic I know, but here's one idea for helping us property-owning, but low-income, people who will be the targets of G Brown or D Cameron's "green" taxes: abolish the al-Beeb tax (TV licence). We will all be £120 a month better off at a stroke, and we won't be forced to watch or listen to 24-hour Cultural Marxist, feminist or enviro-Stalinist propaganda. Just think, no more sneering Paxman or Warke, smug, superior Humphreys, fawningly Nulab Naughtie, or Wimmin's Hour. O frabjous day!

We'll just have to shell out a subscription for Radio 3.

As for Global Warming, all of the UK could go back to the pre-industrial era (anyone care to decide which 4 out of every 5 people should be "sacrificed" to protect the planet?) and it wouldn't even begin to make a dent in the carbon emissions from the USA, China and India.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker