Yes, this is The Michel Barnier that Brexiteers all love already, writing for Project Syndicate.....
That should go down a storm with the climate change denying Brexiteers.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Where’s the evidence of a correlation between brexiteers and climate change?
See the comment already made
Try right wing politics as the evidence
‘Going down a storm’?
Pun intended per chance?
So now we’re ‘climate change denying’?
I guess it’s a change from the usual ‘thick’, ‘old’, ‘racist’ and ‘northern’.
I am not saying all Brexiteers are climate change denying
I strongly suspect all climate change deniers are Brexiteers
Jeff Thompson says:
“So now we’re ‘climate change denying’?
I guess it’s a change from the usual ‘thick’, ‘old’, ‘racist’ and ‘northern’.”
Nah, Jeff. Not a change, just an addition to the list 🙂
Thick, old, racist, northern, climate change denying Brexiteers, and others of their ilk who don’t tick all the boxes or tick other ones, are kicking the wrong cat in their blind fury.
I understand why they are a bit ‘cross’. I’m permanently bloody furious; but I don’t see the point of looking for scapegoats to blame for our own governments’ stunning ineptitude.
I’ve never heard the “Northern” criticism before? Not entirely accurate anyway, seeing as Liverpool and Manchester both voted to remain, with Leeds split 50/50. John K
@ Jeff Thompson
As Danny Dorling points out in his many talks on Brexit, more people in the South voted for Brexit than in the North. He makes the point that Winchester (Hampshire) is more likely to Brexit central then somewhere up North
Re ‘Northern’. I agree; to generalise is a calumny.
There was a great deal of the Brexit map which was bright blue and a lot of it was emphatically not in the North even of England. (Which by some peoples compass is all in the South anyway) Even before I moved to Scotland I regarded Lincolnshire as being in ‘the South’.
I’ve heard “the North” used but its not accurate. “Mapping the Brexit Vote” ( here: http://www.ox.ac.uk/news-and-events/oxford-and-brexit/brexit-analysis/mapping-brexit-vote ) shows the highest Brexit concentration in Norfolk / Lincolnshire: around the Wash, then the Thames: the hexagonal map is the most visually informative.
From a historical perspective, a glance at the Brexit support map shows a general correspondence to those areas of the UK most densely settled by those bloody foreign Europeans: the Angles and Saxons from the fifth c.
It’s true: I live in the heart of Brexitland
The resentment is all about Eastern Europeans working on the fields
The argument is that wages will shoot up with Brexit
That’s because, apparently, food prices will also shoot up
There is no evidence of any such long term effects, at all
A good start, but spoilt by –
“Our ecological debts are no less a cause for concern than our fiscal debts!”
Perhaps he should ask Draghi to unleash that “money printer”.
George S Gordon says:
“Perhaps he should ask Draghi to unleash that “money printer”.”
It’s not the point you are making, George, but in making the suggestion you hit a nail on the head. What is seriously wrong with the EU (and the US and UK) is that Central bankers get to be asked…..
They need TELLING not asking, and they need telling where in the economy money needs to be directed.
Politicians are going to have to come to terms with where power really resides in a democracy: with the government.
We seem to have rather forgotten that they used to be told. Until 1998 the Chancellor told the Bank of England what the interest rate should be. This idea of central bank ‘independence’ is a rather new fangled neo-liberal / Chicago School creation. How can the BoE possibly be independent when it has been a wholly owned subsidiary of the Treasury since it was nationalised in 1947?
And when s19 of the Bank of England Act of 1998 allows the Chancellor to over-rule the Bank if s/he thinks it appropriate
I remember in May 1997, living in the US, I believe it was the first day after Blair was elected, hearing that Gordon Brown, in his first act as Chancellor, was going to give the BoE independent operation of monetary policy (aka putting the bankers in control). Despite my joy at the Tories finally being out of office, I remember saying at the the time that this one act tells you all you need to know about what kind of government had just been elected. Neoliberal wasn’t a word at the time (or not one I knew), but that’s what this decision meant.
Precisely
I don’t know why anybody should argue the climate is not changing. It has changed many times in the past and will no doubt change many times in the future. The contentious issues include are is the planet warming or are we in danger of entering into a new ice age? How much if any of this change is due to man made activity and how much due to the activity of sun spots etc. I tend to agree with Piers Corbyn, namely that the case for blaming CO2 as the culprit is thin. Every life form on earth depends on the existence of carbon and there is a case to be made that we have too little not too much. Piers has built successful weather prediction models based on his understanding of the science. Even the Met Office now incorporates the movements of the jet stream into their weather forecasts – something I believe Piers has long since done and maybe even have pioneered. I am not an expert, by any means, but I do question why the time span of this apparent crisis starts with the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels. If we are serious then surely the climate should be examined over millions of years explaining the ups and downs of all the variables and their effect on the climate. What little I read about the climate lobby is a great deal of attention paid to the positive feed-backs (those that drive change in the wrong direction) and very little examination of the negative feed-backs (those that counteract those positive ones). Piers has attracted a lot of criticism lately, but anyone who has used his knowledge of science to make successful long term weather predictions is not IMO a crackpot. Yes his ideas may to some seem controversial, but if it is not controversial it is not good science.
if 99 cancer specialists say you have cancer and one says you haven`t, who do you gamble on?
I`m a great fan of Piers but even so the precautionary principle should apply.
John Adams says:
“I don’t know why anybody should argue the climate is not changing. It has changed many times in the past and will no doubt change many times in the future.” Indeed so. Sometimes over eons as a result of tectonic plate movement and continental drift. Sometimes as a result of super volcano activity or asteroid strikes etc.
“…. namely that the case for blaming CO2 as the culprit is thin.”
Thin it maybe, but it is one factor we have some control over….we can stop releasing so much from burning ancient fossil carbon locked up by flora and fauna, and we can stop (and indeed reverse) the deforestation which has been going on for a very long time, but which is progressing now at industrial scale, and is reducing one of our natural carbon sinks. And it’s not just atmospheric carbon that is the problem. The current warming trend is releasing methane from the perma frost belt at an alarming rate and the suggestion is that methane is a more hazardous greenhouse gas than CO2. Potential there for a positive feedback loop is immense. It is very difficult to model how ocean currents will behave when the north polar icecap is no longer in place. Opening up the circum-polar shipping routes will inevitably speed up the process.
We really need to be doing what we can, and the short to medium term economic advantages of doing so make it a no-brainer to be getting on with it.
Or we can just let it happen and do nothing about it on the basis that the planet will look after itself. Which I believe it will. By ridding itself of the infection which is humanity. We have demonstrable capacity for self-harming behaviours on a grand scale. I’m sure the crocodiles will shed tears for our brief supremacy.
Andy I am not saying we should do nothing. Just what we do should be based on ( as far as we are able) sound science. I don’t have as much confidence as some in the group think of scientific opinion. Thirty years ago the panic was all about peak oil. That seems to have died a death. I don’t blame the scientific community they have to earn a living, look after their families and pay the mortgage. If they kick against the prevailing wisdom they can easily find their prospects servely damaged. Their is much good science about but there is equally much junk science, just as there is much junk economics and junk maths.
@John Adams
But while we prevaricate over the precision of scientific understanding of how the violin works to produce a musical note Nero fiddles and Rome burns.
Taking the peak oil example. We won’t know when we have reached peak oil until we are well past it. By then it may be too late to remedy the oil situation. That’s assuming we didn’t already know that we need to reduce oil consumption. By the time you are involved in a car crash it is too late to apply the brakes and fit a seat belt. Oil is a valuable natural resource; we shouldn’t be squandering it by burning it. We know that, irrespective of how much there is left, irrespective of what it is, or is not, doing to the biosphere.
Scientific knowledge is always imperfect. There is nothing under the Sun that ‘science’ fully understands. Anybody wanting the authority of omniscience might aswell fall back on a belief in God.
Blind faith in scientific knowledge is just a faith position and it is dangerous. But faith in the process of learning through the scientific method will take us a long way further than we have already come. We are our own Guinea Pigs in a living laboratory. We cannot afford to ignore wisdom because we can’t prove it to be based on sound and provable science. We don’t have the luxury to stop the clock while we figure things out to the nth degree of precision.
There were good reasons for collecting scrap metal ‘to build Spitfires’ in the early days of WW2. None of it was ever used to build Spitfires (it is alleged), but it focused public attention on the war effort and helped to combat complacency on the one hand and fatalism on the other. It was part of the package of understanding that ‘walls have ears’ and that it was prudent to ‘dig for victory’.
@John Adams
” I am not an expert, by any means, but I do question why the time span of this apparent crisis starts with the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels. If we are serious then surely the climate should be examined over millions of years ”
Yes, we can see you’re not an expert yet here you are offering up long since debunked AGW denying talking points as arguments.
First of all climate scientists *have* studied climate over millions of years. That’s where the hockey stick graph comes from.
Secondly, we *can* tell for sure the crisis starts with the industrial revolution because we know the ratio of radioactive C14 isotope has fallen as carbon dioxide has risen. C14 decays away in 50,000 years, so the extra co2 in the atmosphere is definitely coming from carbon sources much older than that. That is to say, from fossil sources.
Game, set, match.
Carbon ‘neutrality’ by 2050 wont be enough – and the EU’s answer will be more of the carbon trading type that Barnier claims here is effective.
The Davos/corporate capture of the EU will almost certainly move the ‘solution’ towards the full financialisation of the environment and diversity – with ‘natural capital’ becoming a key commodity to be traded. All of this will be based on ‘sound science’ of course, but it’ll just result in another market from which to extract rents and wealth.
The only real solution is to fundamentally reform the tweak-the-market solutions that are the only ones ever on offer from the EU – and that means Leaving.
I like the idea of natural capital
But not that it can be traded
Ned D. says:
“The only real solution is to fundamentally reform the tweak-the-market solutions that are the only ones ever on offer from the EU — and that means Leaving.”
Yeah right. Like Westminster is the leopard that will suddenly turn stripey and get with the green agenda.
You know unicorns fly, don’t you ?
The EU is greener by some way than the UK
And by far if the right get control of the UK
“The EU is greener by some way than the UK
And by far if the right get control of the UK.
“If” ?
The right got control of the UK in 1979 and haven’t released their hold since. 🙁
I fear that like many good ideas those with the original ideas (particularly from UK) have the ideas adopted/stolen by other countrys who did not have to go through the formative challenging stages.
Green Deal being a case in point yet clearly for some I must be a black swan as a supporter of both Brexit and Green Deal.
Yet I also see the narrow creek that the EU has placed itself in by optimism, arrogance and narrow power interests e.g. Luxembourgs veto. The future Brexit/EU depends on if the EU elections become a tipping point for change in the EU regardless of local election political parties and if the MEPs get any sort of control over the EU- which rests in the local government appointees proposing commissioners to rule their EU minions so No.
So it looks like again that there is no chance of changing the EU for the better, so sad, if you follow my logic.
I note the Spanish national elections voting in favour of EU supporting local MPs/parties, whilst the same anti EU voters will vote for anti EU MEPs to turn up in Brussels but have no power over the commissioners who swear allegiance to the EU.
Outcome: a European version of the UK Brexit split again between the elected levels of the political classes. eg UKIP MEPs, Remainer local MPs/government leaving the voters frustrated with their local politicians whilst the EU fat cats continuing with their pet project.
This makes no sense
MEPs can stop the CFommission now
And the EU is vastly more enlightened than the UK has been on these issues
So what are you saying that is informed by facts?
Having studied the process https://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/how-do-i/eu-law-getting-an-eu-proposal-blocked-in-the-european-parliament.html
There is a flaw in this assumption of opposing legislation.
Unlike trade standards or tariffs whereupon after approval all sides win other laws are different.
For instance. A law on the CAP distribution to Frances small farmers with a lot of the other countries at a cost to the larger UK farmers. The EU can rely on the vested interests of the small and others favoured by the law.
Of for instance the pickpocketing of one particular industry or geographic location eg Banking concentrated in London or fishing stocks in UK territorial waters. The masses overule the minority that loses.
Or perhaps you might consider the practical outcome of voting against company directors when they join a PLC board. 2,000 new Directors per year and yet never has one been rejected by the vote.
Or shareholders gathering together to vote against an innocuous remuneration proposal – despite the ABI, IA, etc all agreeing to vote against only 8? times in 10? has any resolution been voted against the boards recommendation because it took hundreds of calls, hundreds of committees to agree and hundreds of actions to be taken all for . . . . very little benefit.
Inertia and bureaucracy mostly wins out over justice or fairness. Remember the 1 million against the Iraq war, the 300K to 1mil against Brexit or the 400 remain MPs against a popular vote, and party manifesto commitments, or referendums against EU policy . . . . . those who control the purse and the process predict the outcome 99% of the time. Or perhaps the UK and Scotlands desire for oil . . .
Democracy creates losers – all systems do
So what system do you want?
All these risks exist in the Uk as well, and are often worse
So what do you want?
Gavin says:
“Unlike trade standards or tariffs whereupon after approval all sides win ……..other laws are different.”
Well that’s the ‘law’ of market theory. But you know that win-win deals assume both parties have an equal voice and equal clout. That’s an equilibrium that rarely exists outside of the pages of economics textbooks.
gavin says:
“Green Deal being a case in point yet clearly for some I must be a black swan as a supporter of both Brexit and Green Deal.”
That’s an interesting assessment of your philosophical position.
You allude above to good ideas being stolen by other countries and here explain why it happens. It happens because we have good ideas and really, really bad ideas and seem incapable of telling t’other from which.
Green New Deal is something which appears idealistic, yet is practicable, can be implemented with modest resources which we have at our disposal and which would produce great benefits in both social and economic terms.
Brexit on the other hand is an egotistical fantasy which leads nowhere useful.
Richard what evidence is there to support the proposition that the EU is any more green enlightened than UK?
Both subscribe to economic growth through globalisation and over exploitation of our environment. Any differences are tinkering round the edges.
Gavin you are not a black swan. That would be an unknown unknown. The existence of Brexit supporting green new deal supporters is eminently predictable. Given Richard’s views on Brexit you are more like an ugly duckling. Me too!
Just look at the concern of all informed green campaigners who dread Brexit because the EU protections will be lost
Brilliant by Phil Espin. What evidence is there indeed? We are being invited to support an organisation whose number one budget item is food security ( as if we don’t have enough of it ) when we could be supporting environmental security ( as endorsed by MG ).
So, it needs to change
Don’t we all?
Fairness and justice.
Just like the figure of justice – blinded and holding the sword of punishment and the weighing scales of justice.
Is that too much to ask?
I have no idea what you mean