Bishop Hill Our neutral civil service
Sep 16, 2014 Bureaucrats I awake this morning to find my timeline awash with spam from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, furiously retweeting the launch of a report by the New Climate Economy group, a group of green-minded economists headed by Lord Stern and including such eco-figureheads as Ottmar Edenhofer.
In fact there were so many retweets about the report that I could only repost a few here.
The NCE report, which is here, looks to be very much "more of the same" - renewables blah, investment blah, taxes blah rhubarb blah. I'm more interested in the role of the FCO. Under William Hague's leadership they look to have adopted a full-on role as eco-campaigners. Which is odd because I thought abusing taxpayers' funds in this way was DECC's responsibility.
Somebody really should ask a question in Parliament about the overlapping roles of these two great organisations of state. "Could the Foreign Secretary explain why we need two separate ministries using public money to fund political campaigns. Isn't one enough?"
In related news the US Environmental Protection Agency has been exposed as working hand in hand with environmentalist activists.
Reader Comments (32)
If the Chuckle Brothers published climate reports...........................
Nothing to see here...
Just another schoolboy exercise done up in government text, this guff is embarrassing drivel, it smacks of a sweat stained hollowed grey cheek desperation.
Furthermore, like the last gasps of a dead duck president state side - laughably drumming up support for his climate change emissions limitations treaty push [mmm are the Ruritanian delegates here yet?] - it's all a forlorn wish and ultimately a waste of breath because there will be no one arriving from; China, India, Australia, Japan, and ..........Russia? - I really rather think not.
In Britain, "we are broke" so goes the political line but when climate change is the propaganda - money, funding appears to be no object - Foreign aid, the DECC, the FCO - wtf?
Seems like everyone is breaking out with new climate groups, just in time for the already FAILing Conference coming up.
Speaking of which- a whole whack of 'green' organizations have suddenly cropped up on twitter, and added me to their watch. I'm betting they are watching a lot of other skeptics. Would not be surprised if they began twitterpating us any time we post something they disagree with. Anyone else here seeing this?
The imagined catastrophic consequences of climate change are music to politicians' ears. Trumpeting climate change as the biggest threat faced by mankind allows them to pretend to do something about it (collecting more tax seems to be the favoured response) whilst at the same time ignoring the real threats. Climate change delusions are decades long scenarios, the real threats are here and now. Knowing that you could choose to face something whose outcome won't be known during your lifetime, or tackling something like IS, as a politician of the modern kind which would you choose?
The vast majority of modern politicians are moral cowards.
Happily the Foreign Office doesn't have anything else to think about at the moment.
I've been thinking around that sardonic point for a few days. Why is this, of all apparently pointless things, so key to the 'foreign policy establishment'? Is it simply displacement activity? Back to Thatcher and peace for me. Establishment types like John Kerry end up with quite a novel idea of peace compared to, say, David Haines and family, mourning not so far from our host. Managed conflict is how the insiders thrive, the little people not so much. But how does climate politicking fit with all that?
The Foreign Office disseminating yet more neo-colonial environmentalism?
You are having problems with your maths.
There are two other departments responsible for wasting your tax money.
DECC - which is the front man that everybody sees
DfID - which everybody forgets about. It is DfID that funds the green groups both home and abroad (they give WWF-UK, for example, £3 million every year). Here is a couple of projects that literally took seconds to find on their web site:
Sir Crispin Tickell tickled the fancy of diplomats everywhere with his slick climateering leading to bucketloads of time and attention being given to him, not least by Margaret Thatcher. John Ashton carried this shameful 'torch' at the FCO during 2006 to 2012. But who is doing it now? Is it merely a rump of loyal placemen, or has some new silver-tongued prophet appeared?
The paws of Edenhofer, possibly the only Marxist economist left, are all over this document. When he previously admitted that the economic models are far worse than the climate models I didn't think he was dumb enough to just jettison the proven relationship between fossil fuel use and economic growth in favour of - well, no model at all beyond an assumption of an eco-miracle that makes renewables as cheap as fossil fuels. All we need is lots and lots of investment apparently. But this investment is somehow not a cost to consumers in IPCC fairyland. By contrast with his dislike of standard economic models he cites the worst possible warming scenario (4 degrees by 2100) from climate models as if it is inevitable. A realistic extrapolation based on the story so far (and the obvious failure of uber-pessimistic climate models) would be a miserly 0.5K rise by 2100, requiring thereby no action whatsoever.
John: Crispin Tickell was really important but for me the fall of Soviet communism is even more so as context for Big Climate. It's always been a foreign policy game. Tickell, UN man, proved a useful tool. But the continuity one sees with Ashton, Stern and so many others - and much more importantly with Kerry and co the other side of the pond - speaks to me of something bigger, more deeply embedded.
James: Edenhofer's another key person I agree. I need to know more about him.
John: Is that the same John Ashton who recently (this weekend) stepped down as head of the Faculty of Public Health? What a guy...
Hang on a minute! What does the U.K. Foreign Office have to do with this?! After all, the group that decided to produce this report (as I had discovered a few months ago), had declared:
Their "Approach" derives from:
But, brace yourselves, folks: The "featured speaker" at the "global launch" of this "independent" paper on this matter that is "rarely a primary concern" will evidently be none other than ... (drum roll please) ... UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon. [Source]
YMMV, but the view from here, so to speak, is that this does seem like an awful lot of brouhaha for a matter that is "rarely a primary concern", does it not?!
Particularly when there is so much else going on in the world right now that actually is a primary concern - and of far greater and immediate consequence to the people who inhabit our planet.
Meanwhile, as a reality check, wind contributed 0.7% to our energy supply this morning.
SteveW (10:39). No. Your one does seem to be a piece of work though. My one is described here along with some of his public writings: http://www.theguardian.com/profile/john-ashton
Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
Getting geared up for a re-invasion of Iraq and a re-booted Cold War stand off with Russia .
Think Climate Change might have to go on the back burner for now.
(and forever with a bit of luck)
In a few days more, who knows. Perhaps the Foreign Office will have another country on the list of things to think about. Perhaps that will be spun as a need for increased personnel rather than a need for a decreased budget.
Ben Pile has written another humdinger of a post and it spans many 'diplomatic' issues and initiatives, as well as enlarging upon his interests in genuine democracy and his concerns about authoritarianism. His post was triggered by some recent outburst from the febrile mind of Monbiot, one of the 'anointed' . Here is an extract from the post:
Thanks for that John. Ben Pile becomes indispensable.
And thanks muchly Hilary for that link back to July. We are seeing a global power grab, are we not? Joining up the dots with other trends in foreign policy is hard but has to be done.
After paying respects to the Bishop, I generally stop in and check on Ben Pile's latest work. I hope he compiles his amazing essays into book form.
As to bureaucrats asserting that climate influenced energy and economic policies are somehow working, well these bureaucrats seem quite blissful, earnest and banal.
Sir Crispin Tickell has not gone away, he is still there. He has been a puppet master for decades, and has worked consistently with people like Maurice Strong, Pachauri, Stern and a cast of thousands.
Check the names here: "Global Leadership for Climate Action", http://www.globalactionnow.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=53
This is a project of the United Nations Foundation, (Tim Wirth) and The Club of Madrid, (Spanish branch of Club of Rome).
Tickell is on the Advisory Council of the Oxford Martin School with Stern, Socialist International economist Joe Stiglitz, (advisor to Obama and Alex Salmond) and other prominent "green names".
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/advisory-council/
He was a patron of Action for a Global Climate Community with Sir John Houghton, and Professor John Schellnhuber.
He is on the board of directors at the "Global Institute for Sustainability" at Arizona University: https://sustainability.asu.edu/people/our-board-of-directors.php?pid=4809
Find out more here, how the climate agenda is being used by globalists to bring more global governance via the UN:
"United Socialist Nations" http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/un_progress_governance_via_climate_change.html
To see the links between CRU, Hadley and the EPA, the EPA and the UN, check out "The United (Nations) States Environmental Protection Agency", http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/the_un_states_epa.html
and also "Lisa P Jackson, EPA Administrator, Fulfilling the UN Mission", http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/lisa_p_jackson_epa_administrator_fulfilling_the_un_mission.html
Jackson carried on the policies started by Carol Browner under Clinton and has passed on the mantle to Gina McCarthy. The very first EPA Administrator, Bill Ruckelshaus, is, like Tickell, a Grand Old Man of Global Warming, still there and still influencing policy.
The name Lord Stern alone reduces my anticipation for this release as sinking below utter dross.
Given the entourage of green flunkies with him, this report will probably not even meet my very low expectation.
Meanwhile back in the real world the economies that are booming are those that are building fossil and nuclear fuelled power plants at an unprecedented rate while the economies that adopted 'green' technologies are in a slump.,
What is it that worries you about limiting our use of fossil fuels - it is a win-win situation: if the global warming (which is real) does lead to more violent weather and sea level rise then we need to act now, not in 10 years time. But if the scientists are wrong, and things don't work out so bad we still win: by reducing our use of fossil fuel for energy we save it for future generations for use as a chemical feed-stock (only 10% of oil is currently used for petrochemicals) - we also develop cleaner air with transport becoming electric, fuelled by nuclear or solar power. Is it that you all want faster cars? I don't understand why you are so passionate about denying climate change and the need to reduce our use of fossil fuels for energy?
Andrew Deane, let me assume you are genuine, and give some off-the-cuff reactions to your comment. It would not be difficult to find links and references to back up what I am about to write.
What worries me about limiting our use of fossil fuels is the harm it is bringing to the world through the horrors of increased starvation thanks to the diversion of agriculture into bio-fuel production, the harm it brings to the poor who must choose between heating or eating in cold climates during cold spells - you will have noticed that renewables have added to the costs of electricity in the home, the harm it brings to our industry in making it less competitive thanks to increased costs, the harm it brings to the developing world by discouraging or in some cases preventing the development of such as coal-fired power stations, and of course, the harm it brings to politics by the taking of actions which all and sundry admit are of marginal impact at best in a world in which fossil-fuel will be increasingly important, not least in India and China, for decades to come.
As for global warming leading to more violent weather, that is neither demonstrable nor even plausible. If you are concerned about violent weather, then global cooling should be your concern, not warming.
Sea level rise does not look threatening in any scary/crisis sense, nor does it look extraordinary compared to historical estimates.
Fossil-fuel's known reserves are as large as they usually have been (i.e. decades worth, as they have been for many decades into the past), and the estimated potential for these resources is enormous. Estimates of clathrates for example dwarf coal, oil, and gas estimates combined and they span hundreds of years of projected usage by themselves.
I agree that it will be good to preserve fossil-fuels for chemical feedstocks, and it seems to me that is very much what is likely to happen as industrial progress proceeds. But to get to that in the longer-term, we have to get through the shorter-term, and do so in ways which increase prosperity and the scope for technological development.
Are you aware of how fast electric cars can be? I find ordinary cars plenty fast enough for me, by the way.
As for denying climate change, can you point to instances of this here? Most of us who comment here, and our good host himself, are very interested in climate change. Do you think we are like nature lovers who don't believe in nature, or what?
And talking of nature, I don't care much at all for the wind and solar farms that damage our wildlife and our landscapes. All serving to make energy more expensive than it need be, and thereby ultimately weakening our ability to cope with whatever climate variation lies ahead.
Andrew Deane and John Shade:
Lawrence Solomon adds a larger dimension to the damage being caused by current policies:
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/09/04/lawrence-solomon-how-global-warming-policies-have-led-to-global-insecurity/
"Meanwhile back in the real world the economies that are booming are those that are building fossil and nuclear fuelled power plants at an unprecedented rate while the economies that adopted 'green' technologies are in a slump." --Keith Willshaw
Haven't you heard of "hide the slump?" It's related to "hide the decline."
Is this the report that was trailed on R4 Today program ? They interviewed ex Mexican President Calderon, who tried to paint a picture that renewables were the answer to everything and they should not need subsidies as technology improved. Of the billions recieved in subsidies he said that it should be given to the worlds poor.
All very communist and unrealistic. He glossed over many issues raised and was quite proud that he artificailly inflated the price of petrol for the Mexican public to "above market rates".
It should be on BBC iPlayer for todays date.
Well done dennisa (Sep 16, 2014 at 12:04 PM)
The efforts of such as Tickell in the diplomatic/government briefing sectors are surely a major part of the political success of the CO2 Scaremongering. The more we can capture and clarify about that now, the easier it will be for future generations to make sense of this astonishing event. And the easier it will be for them to reduce the chances of anything like it happening again.
I hope you and many others are going to keep digging into it.
Good points at that link, DaleC (Sep 16, 2014 at 3:23 PM ). Thank you for it.
There is also a general poisoning of relations between developed and developing countries. As well as being discouraged from rapid development, the LDCs are being told by some that their weather and sea-level troubles are to be blamed on 'the West'. The wicked West. No good will come of that nonsense.
And, while on the subject of poisoning, great efforts have been made around the world, not least by the British Council, to harm the minds and morale of children by telling them that they are doomed if they do not 'act', and that their parents carry part of the blame, as does industrial development. Thereby separating them from a trusty source of support and distancing them from one of the greatest achievements of mankind. Classical features of brainwashing.
I add my thanks to DaleC. Exactly what I feel. The resultant instability is either accidental or (at least in part, for some key actors) deliberate. An honest history of the 20th century would make one pessimistic about which of those it is.
TerryS, 9:31 AM, you beat me to it by quite a few hours. I, too, thought the Bishop was letting DFiD off the hook a bit easily.
As for collaboration between the EPA and environmental activists, to which His Grace referred, that is far from new. The Keystone pipeline is Exhibit A, but WUWT had an article quite a few years ago, concerning the way in which the EPA advised greenies on how to sue the federal authorities, also known as the EPA, over coyotes and such things. The EPA wouldn't contest the cases and the taxpayer would pick up the legal tab (that would be the same taxpayer who had often, unknowingly, subsidised the environmentalists in the first place). The EPA would then use the court ruling as a supposed justification for yet more regulation. I don't imagine that that practice has diminished, over the years.
Of course, we have plenty of "charities" here which are pretty much paid by the taxpayer to influence government policy (i.e.: to persuade Ed Davey to adopt the policy he already intended) and there are even more of them in Brussels, but the EPA pretty well gets to make up its own laws, with no reference to Congress.
It has begun in earnest. This is the start of the COP21 communications campaign. And, not by chance, the new player that will provide much of the deep green marketing in the run-up to the hoped-for, Parisian son-of-kyoto has hit the scene in a masturbatory twitter-fest... And here's my prediction:
This lot are going carp for ever and a day until Paris; The MSM will recycle their press releases with renewed enthusiasm and the ranks of redundant eco-correspondents will once again swell to accommodate the new doomsday availability cascade...
Indeed, these guys really are a wunch of bankers.
Obviously a concerted PR effort, seeing it and hearing it in Canada on both the BBC and the CBC. Desperation seems to be setting in.