Con-Lib climate change and energy policy is a looming disaster

The Cameron-Clegg axis has demonstrated its lack of critical faculties in united fashion when David Cameron and Chris Huhne visited the Department for Energy and Climate Change.  The Cleggerons’ slavish devotion to the creed of climate change has been put before the need to properly tackle environmental problems such as pollution and deforestation. 

The focus on reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (despite no evidence that proves it causes global warming) as outlined by Cameron cannot bring about the necessary energy security for this country that he also mentioned.  Wind turbines simply cannot and will not deliver the reliable generation of baseload power this country needs.  At immense cost it will produce only a fraction of its potential capacity but the huge costs will still be passed on to consumers.  We need an energy mix comprising nuclear, gas, coal and efficient renewables.  But the kneejerk political class continues to undermine its development. 

The Lib Dems will oppose nuclear generated electricity because they feel it isn’t safe or green enough; we don’t have sufficient gas storage and have to increasingly import gas from abroad as our North Sea reserves fall, driving up the cost; coal is plentiful and accessible, but EU interference and the carbon bogeyman see to it that we will reduce coal generation capacity rather than increase it to meet our needs; and we have yet to uncover a widely distributable efficient form of renewable energy as investment solar does not pay for itself, wind fails to produce when it’s needed and tidal power remains on the back burner with only the damaging Severn Barrage under consideration.

People should remember Nick Clegg’s views denying the looming energy gap that will result in rota disconnection to reduce the supply of electricity to a level that can be generated.  Cameron is buying into the same idiocy.  You can put in all the vastly expensive theoretical generating capacity you like, but if it doesn’t translate into Gigawatts of electricity fed into homes, businesses and the transport network, it is a huge white elephant.  The blinkered approach is only made worse by the pursuit of lunatic feed in tarrifs.

We may have a supposedly ‘new politics’ but we are blindly going forward to bygone days of the lights going out and huddling around candles and wondering when the power will be turned back on in our homes and when our offices and factories will be able to resume production essential to our economic well-being.  We have dark days ahead that will make the economic crisis look like small beer yet the Cleggerons insanely tinker around the fringes with their thumbs up their bums and their brains in neutral attempting to appear caring and virtuous.  On their heads be it.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

12 Responses to “Con-Lib climate change and energy policy is a looming disaster”

  1. 1 JohnRS 14/05/2010 at 4:23 pm

    Wind, water and waffle are not enough to keep the lights on. We need to build nukes, now, lots of them.

    We probably also need to stick two fingers up at the EU about gas/coal station closures as NuLiebour haven’t left us enough time to get them built and on line before we run out of generating capacity.

    Chis Who? needs to be told to make this happen, he can dream his dreams of the UK being ruled by the Green God some other time.

  2. 2 Fred 14/05/2010 at 8:32 pm

    Ahhh such good little progressive eco-grifters, got their heads stuck up where fresh air never gets

  3. 3 Jack Mildam 14/05/2010 at 9:01 pm

    > The focus on reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (despite no evidence that proves it causes global warming)

    That’s going to come as a surprise to the planet’s climate scientists. You should call them up and tell them they are teh stoopid. lol

  4. 4 Autonomous Mind 14/05/2010 at 9:17 pm

    Scientists such as? Rajendra Pachauri perhaps?

    The scientists themselves say it is a theory and base their comments on probability, not fact. Try reading something other than the Guardian.

  5. 5 Andrew 14/05/2010 at 10:20 pm

    Huhne is a total c*nt. He mouthed off on some ridiculous greenie bollox a while back so I took him to task and e-mailed the observation that it was a disgrace that the ONLY political party that told the truth about “no warming” was the BNP. Got a lot of obseqiuous nonsense back via a stooge intern. The man clearly suffers a mental illness.

    Dave is cynical enough to saddle us with this bollox with ever understanding it himself.You are looking at “Plastic Sam” Tony Blair reborne as David Cameron. I voted Conservative, not for this sh*t

  6. 6 JohnRS 14/05/2010 at 10:25 pm

    @Jack Mildam

    Don’t believe me (I’m an eeevil sceptic) go for something from neither side in the argument.

    Try reading the “citizen audit” of all the references in the IPPC’s Fourth Assessment Report (aka AR4) and tell me you still think the work of “the planet’s climate scientists” holds any water at all.

  7. 7 Mike Riordan 14/05/2010 at 10:35 pm

    I agree – we are led by fools. Anyone who believes we can use computer models to calculate the future values of climate parameters such as temperature is a fool.

    Climate can only be affected by some physical interference with the input of solar radiation – not the output of terrestrial energy radiated back into space. Because of the law of conservation of energy, the earth cannot change its output of radiated energy. It must radiate back all the energy it receives from the sun. Carbon dioxide cannot interfere with this process, except temporarily, but water vapour can, because it forms clouds which screen the earth from some incoming solar radiation. Volcanic dust, aerosols and albedo can achieve the same effect.

    Ocean currents complicate the process and introduce cyclical temperature changes by acting as massive heat sinks. Orbital changes and changes in solar activity linked to sunspots also seem to be important. They all affect incoming radiation, not outgoing radiation as the CO2 ‘theory’ requires. To date, carbon dioxide has no known causal role, other than some possible minor and very temporary effects. Check out Miskolczi.

  8. 8 Derek Reynolds 16/05/2010 at 9:38 am

    “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” – and why? Largely because unless the competition is vetted by an authority higher than all, and unless the mainstream policies are conformed to, no party or candidate for PM or any other major Western leader, will be considered for such a position.

    The vast majority of people on the street will say they are fed up with the interference of EU politics over our own, and will display feelings of disatisfaction to hostile resentment. Yet where are the seats in parliament with UKIP members holding them? Nowhere.

    We vote, but do we vote for the party of our choice, or do we cast a strategic vote to displace a previous representative and their policies by voting for the next closest in the contest – just to displace them? Almost certainly the latter, for everybody will have the same sense that any real change – such as a party other than the big three – will not stand a chance against the big three players. This is not democratic voting – it is second only to Hobson’s Choice, for that is what is intended for us to think, and a ploy to cause us to vote for one of the three main contenders.

    We are overgoverned, over-regulated, and we know this – yet by long term indoctrination of our present system of rule, we submit. Are there fools in government? Most certainly. Are the voters fools to vote at all? Most probably – but what else is there? Something we are not allowed to entertain – not according to any official view that is – an efficient government that seeks to protect its people and speak the truth.

    The spouting of ‘change’, and the immediate press releases of those such as depicted in the presentation video, are commonplace to all who are ‘new’. There is nothing new, except in the deals done in corridors and canteens, and behind closed doors whilst the puppets are admired and presented from behind the curtains. Only the characters change, the hands that control are the same hands as before. The ultimate destiny is to destroy the Western world through unification and collapse of the economy. Why? Because the people are getting restless, and are clamouring for a change from the repeated claims of environmental impact, terrorism, and global ‘security’. The ones most fearful and in need of ‘security’, are the very movers themselves – they fear the people.

    Meanwhile, the spouting continues, and the lid is closed tighter.

  9. 9 jameshigham 16/05/2010 at 11:49 am

    The focus on reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (despite no evidence that proves it causes global warming) as outlined by Cameron cannot bring about the necessary energy security for this country that he also mentioned.

    Of course it can’t – the whole thing is a political scam for command and control. There appears to be overall warming and very patchy results worldwide but there’s no consistency to the data.

  10. 10 Gareth 16/05/2010 at 12:30 pm

    Does old-fashioned hydro-electric get much of a look in these days? We hear again and again of tidal, wave and wind but the bog standard dam across a valley seems to have been overlooked.

    We can’t be at max capacity for it can we? The nimby factor is high but surely not as high as turbines. Is the environmental impact really all that great? Instead of ruining an environment with a big noisy bird chopper* you’re just creating a new aquatic one.

    Is pumped storage much cop? I’ve been having a few thoughts on seaside pumped storage. Dam up a cove, fill it with seawater over night and let it out during the day. The problem of that would be a large increase in nightime energy demand would push up prices.

    We have graciously been granted a little breathing room – EU drops energy regulations that could have shut Drax

    * I find them quite impressive up close despite knowing well enough they aren’t a cost-effective solution to meeting our energy needs.

  1. 1 | Eye on Britain (2) Trackback on 17/05/2010 at 1:28 pm
  2. 2 Huhne signals extension of Con-Lib energy policy folly « Autonomous Mind Trackback on 25/07/2010 at 2:22 pm
Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: