Bishop Hill Red, but not green?
Sep 14, 2015 Climate: Parliament Josh Labour 
The somewhat bizarre decision of the Labour party to elevate Jeremy Corbyn to the position of supreme leader (or is it "beloved" leader?) has prompted me to take a look at his positions on climate and energy. It's fair to say although he's a keen cyclist and doesn't own a car, green issues seem not to be at the forefront of his thinking. Indeed his major policy position in this area - the renationalisation of the power companies - seems unrelated to any concerns about the environment.
You get a similar impression by looking at his website, where there is not exactly a plethora of climate-related material, and there is not even a category for energy.
Still, he's a politician, so his own views on issues may not actually be a good guide to what he decides to put on the Labour party menu for the next election - that of course will be dictated by what he thinks will go down well with target groups of voters.
Bishop Hill
The ECIU has this quote.
"We can overcome the challenge of climate change and build a sustainable future – but not if we leave power in the hands of corporations only interested in short-term profit. We need democratic government acting in the long-term interests of people, not husky-hugging photo opportunities."
I'm not sure this changes my impression very much.
Reader Comments (50)
The somewhat bizarre decision of the Labour party to elevate Jeremy Corbyn to the position of supreme leader
Bizarre? It's hilarious. Cheers me up no end.
Are Red Indians (sorry -I don't know today's politically correct term) still allowed to use smoke signals?
He promised to let the party decide policy democratically. And he might mean it. Wait and see.
As for not owning a car - he lives and works in London. It's quite congested and has public transport. It may not be a faux-husky affectation. It might be purely practical. Wait and see.
There's no way he can pick a fight with the Green Wing of the Party whilst fighting off the SDP Wing. But his brother was filmed sharing in the celebrations when he won. There are few more high profile sceptics in the UK.
Wait and see.
And don't underestimate a man who might win back the ex-Labour supporters in the SNP and UKIP. Winning the Midlands and half of Scotland is all that's required. Surrey won't go Labour anyway.
Wait and see.
Perhaps his brother Piers should have a posh word with him?
He gave praise in his acceptance speech to Red Ed for his courageous fight to save the global climate from the damage being done to it by those evil capitalists, etc, but on the other hand he did not bow down and worship the notion of women-on-top, but what do you expect from someone with a distinctly mediocre school record and no experience of the real world.
Did you look on his campaign site?
For example this: http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/winning_with_a_greener_future
and there is a pdf full of all the usual tosh here: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/jeremyforlabour/pages/119/attachments/original/1438938988/ProtectingOurPlanet_JeremyCorbyn.pdf?1438938988
... has prompted me to take a look at his positions on climate and energy....
I understand from the media (though they are a very poor substitute for the truth) that Corbyn is a Marxist.
Marx's theories, developed around the 1850s, propose that workers create riches through industry, but that the owners of these industries unfairly deprive the workers of the fruits of their labour. Environmentalism was not an issue in the 1850s. The typical Marxist, following the 5-year plans of Russian dictators like Stalin, would welcome heavy industry, asserting that man's dominance over nature is the worker's prerogative.
Conservation and rural living 'at one with nature' were more associated in Marx's time with the aristocracy. I would think that a committed theoretical Marxist would be firmly against the basic tenets of environmentalism.
Rupert Murdoch comes out in support of Jeremy Corbyn
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2015/08/rupert-murdoch-comes-out-in-support-of-jeremy-corbyn
Corbyn is worth a million David Camerons to Murdoch and the Tory party.
'Silly old, white haired boy on a bike' says the Sun.
British politics is heading down the American road to a cartoon reality.
Corbyn is known to favour more solar and wind power, and to be opposed to nuclear energy - this last caused a ministerial resignation during his acceptance speech - and anti-fracking.
Standard Green / Red idiocy.
he won't be missed when he is thrown out.
I'm giving him six months at the moment, but judging by his ludicrous decision making regarding the shadow cabinet and media relations, six days might be closer.
Corbyn as PM meets Trump as President -- I can hardly wait for that true meeting of minds....
Rick Bradford
LOL !
'Corbyn as PM meets Trump as President '
Your commentators tonight are Russell Brand and Rush Limbaugh
I really like the idea of Corbyn. I like the idea of a more Marxist push in British politics, because that voice hasn't been heard since the 70s and I think we (The Peeps) have suffered because of it.
Gotta remember this is a backbencher pushed to the front mostly by everyone else taking 10 steps back. As a backbencher, it's going to take some time for him to become oriented and up to speed with the difference between his Citizen Smith history and his.. whatever it is future. What will matter most is the counselling that he receives from here on.
So, to me, Corbyn matters less than the shift in the balance of British politics away from a heartless right and towards the concept of a more benevolent society. It's that these ideas and concepts will get aired widely for the first time in over 30 years that works for me.
@ Simon Hopkinson:
I really like the idea of a Labour government - one that can actually legislate for a more benevolent society. Corbyn is '10 steps back' (at least!) from achieving that aim.
Under the new Captain, the tired old bucket of a ship, had full left rudder applied. The call for more power, to go Full Green Ahead, produced nothing on that windless night. Alas there were no stocks of coal in the hold, and the coal fired boiler had been decommissioned anyway. So the crew smashed up the life boats to make paddles, and frantically paddled their ship in no particular direction, going backwards rather than forwards. The Captain beamed with pride. He had achieved full employment.
Simon most of this countrys problems come from the absence of a heartless right. What we have is two managerial parties both drowned in sentimentality, of marginally different sorts; sentimentality which prevents either of them from ever taking what could remotely be considered as a 'hard decision'. Thus our problems are never dealt with, they merely mutate.
On politicalcompass.org I scored -4.5,-4.5, ie I am a left-wing libertarian.
A 90° phase shift from the x-axis to the y axis is needed to the popular view of "Climate-Change". It is not a left-right issue, it is a Libertarian-Authoritarian one.
I voted Labour in every general election from 1979 till 2005. Over time new-Labour became more right-wing chasing Tory votes. With the climate change act it showed it was as nutty and authoritarian as the greens, but most Conservatives MPs voted for the act too. At least with Jeremy Corbyn as party leader the Labour Party can connect with the youth and reconnect old-lefties like me, leaving Thatch-Lite new-Labourites to start the SDP all over again.
A quote from Piers Corbyn.
"Obviously therefore there will have to be more discussion as with any evidence on any matters of science, health or economics. Jeremy is for democratic discussion so he should be backed by all who care about getting our future right; whereas the Tory Lites he is standing against are stuck in the self-deluding evidence-free Westminster bubble - largely divorced from the realities of most of the general public."
Whilst the elder, very clever brother went into physics, the dim younger brother went into politics. I thinks that sums up what has been wrong with this country for a long time.
He fancies reopening the coal mines. Can you imagine the grandkids of ex miners (yes, it's been that long) who are given mining jobs?
"What do you mean I gotta go down that dark lift shaft. This ain't nuffin like the mining on TV. It's like whistlin' and tall honez that sing and fall asleep after eatin' an apple. Coz like I knew fruit was bad fer yer."
"Why are you talking like that, you're not black?"
"Yeah, but like I would be if I went down that hole. I'm outta here."
"But your Dad and your Granddad have fought for you to return to the family tradition of mining, so that the community can come back to life."
"Like I want to do what me Dad wanted to do? In his day they didn't have 3G or nuffin'. I bet he got like no bars on his phone'.
"So you don't support Corbyn?"
"Corbyn? He's like Russel Brand's cool grandad. He's gonna dig up Maggie and burn her and then take all the money off the rich and give it to the poor. He's like our hero. He'll make all the rich people dig coal and we'll live in a palace."
Of course, I'm just guessing.
Rick Bradford, ESmiff.
Stop please, I can't breath with laughing .......
"the shift in the balance of British politics away from a heartless right and towards the concept of a more benevolent society" - Simon Hopkinson
You're not helping either, I think I'm having a baby.......
I remember Neil Kinnock was supposed to be a radical Marxist firebrand too. That lasted about 5 minutes. Then he ejected the militant tendency.
Renationalising the power industry may be only way to achieve nuclear power. The trouble with nationalising the railways is that we were all getting quite used to life without incessant rail strikes.
I must add, that's another cracker of a cartoon Josh. You're getting so good, we're taking it for granted that you'll come up with gold.
Corbyn (Jeremy) - via interview with FoE
“take action now to keep fossil fuels in the ground” and “end dirty energy handouts, ban fracking"
https://www.foe.co.uk/blog/labour-leadership-candidates-respond-our-questions
JamesG:
Yes, I've become quite used to life without TRAINS. I can hardly afford to catch them these days, can't sit down on them when I do, and only then if the train turns up within a timescale that doesn't completely crap on my entire day's schedule.
IMHO, renationalising the trains would be at least a minor improvement.
PMT, you are exactly right when you say,
Unfortunately, some people can't imagine that there is more than one axis. It's embarrassing at WUWT.
In fact, even two axes is too simplistic. I wish they would add a third dimension for the root of one's beliefs.
As a Libertarian Lefty Methodist I follow in a long tradition (back to Tolpuddle). But the Political Compass just assumes there's no difference between faith and obedience. That misses something.
The German Army and the SS were not the same in WW2. But the Political Compass wouldn't spot it.
MCourtney (Yvette Cooper voter, Corbyn 2nd choice) - current Political Compass score:
Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
"...corporations only interested in short-term profit.'
Yeah, 'cos the major energy firms aren't planning years ahead.
I would guess that the board of a big energy firm is largely planning 5-25 years ahead. The average politician; the next election at the absolute maximum.
Good grief, just when you think, it can't get any worse............can it?
You find out, that, one of the best and most enlightened PMs in the western world and of course inclusive of Australia - has been ousted in a coup.
Tony Abbot has been got.
And Malcolm Turnbull will be the new PM, that's a disaster democracy, a tragedy for Australia, and a catastrophe for the taxpayers of the western world.
Paris, baring one PM named Stephen Harper [Canada] and he [Harper] should check his under his car and make sure his body guards are close and closer, it's now virtually open water and plain sailing for Obummer and his great designs, facilitating, inaugurating, OWG.
In his acceptance speech, he thanked Ed for the work he did as environment secretary.
Athelstan, don't panic.
China and India and Brazil and Russia and Indonesia (need I go on?) are not going to bat an eyelid at this news. Much less change what happens in Paris.
If individual Western countries wish to introduce punitive economy-crushing measures, then they are free to do so on an individual basis, and we should probably treat the disease that way.
Canada has a General Election next month, and Harper is trailing in the polls.
Dodgy Geezer:
I understand from the media (though they are a very poor substitute for the truth) that Corbyn is a Marxist.
You're right not to trust the media. He's not a Marxist, he's a left-leaning Labour Party stalwart of a type that was far more numerous in the pre-Blairite days. Coming in the main from working class backgrounds, they were supplanted by what I like to call a SPADocracy whose only achievements were to enrich themselves and act as lobby fodder for Blair's disastrous foreign policies.
His climate-sceptic brother Piers was a Marxist in the 1970s but I've no idea what his present views are. To his credit, he led serious campaigns on housing issues at the time though I forget the details for now.
Environmentalism was not an issue in the 1850s.
It most certainly was an issue in the 1850s though the working class typically had more pressing worries. With roots in the romantic movement, it was mainly a conservative tendency of the political right not, as now, a mix of right, far-right and privileged left. See e.g. Haeckel, that supremely gifted founder of the science of ecology. And rabid racist.
Philip Bratby:
Whilst the elder, very clever brother went into physics . . .
Indeed he did but he also went into what was called The International Marxist Group while his brother went into the Labour Party. The two groups did not get on; the Labour Party was, well, the bigger of the two.
It is widely believed (as they say) that former Chancellor Alisdair Darling was also a member at one time though opinions vary as to whether his membership coincided with his spell as "a turbulent member of Lothian regional council, defying Margaret Thatcher’s calls to cap the rates”.
Ironically, the faux radical SNP has capped the Council Tax in Scotland for the last eight years. Funny stuff, politics.
Piers was singing the Red Flag (louder than) next to Jeremy in the pub the other day...
I hope Josh has submitted that to a few nationals - it is a first-class caricature.
“take action now to keep fossil fuels in the ground”
I wonder what the opening of the coal mines is meant to achieve then? Tourist attraction?
Jeremy Corbyn listed some specific policies in an article in the Ecologist in August.
Some exerpts:
(Similar to the answers linked by Barry Woods, above.)
Ruth Dixon, did Corbyn get his expert analysis from RenewablesYUK, the Ecology Party, or were they identical?
Based on their findings, Corbyn believes he is the Single Ray of Sunshine that can power the economy.
I know that many people will suspect the source and will not read further but here is an account of Jezza when he actually did have power once - just another hard-left entryist hypocrite.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11762773/Ive-lived-under-Jeremy-Corbyns-rule-it-turned-me-into-a-Tory.html
Well, those of us with Native American blood still support smoky fires for sending messages.
I assume you intend your message fire to have a central pole or totem... That is allowed, though those fires are usually for dancing around, not sending messages. I'm sure you can find the proper dance steps on youtube. Whooping is properly performed with axe or spear brandishing.
Josh:
That drawing is good enough to hang in the parlor as a portrait! Or in the ministry as a warning.
So sad and so true!
Golf Charlie:
I love the idea of running big equipment with renewables.
Wind turbines on ships, subs, tanks, bulldozers, lorries, double deckers, even taxis should be required for all eco-nut bicycles...
> By setting a bold target of carbon-free electricity by 2030, reversing the Tories' ideological restrictions on renewable energy projects (onshore wind ...
> Protecting our ecosystems, wildlife habitats
Onshore wind and protecting wildlife are mutually exclusive ...
Is Comrade Corbyn a barking mad running dog of the bourgeoise, or does he just go hunting with Delingpole ?
http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2015/08/will-climate-change-lead-to-vegan.html
Russell, you peaked at 'barking mad', no need to embellish.
climatebeagle, onshore wind turbines are proving beneficial to some wildlife. Rats and other vermin are getting quite accustomed to unexpected wind(turbine) falls, shredded raw seagull is a particular favourite in coastal areas, however similarly prepared golden eagle is highly valued for its increasing rarity.
You would have thought wind turbines would generate some kind of response fron the RSPB, especially as they don't generate much else.
In addition to the statement in the Ecologist, it seems Corbyn also had a full environmental manifesto, "Protecting our Planet". Perhaps even better, here's an interview with Corbyn courtesy of our friends at Greenpeace. As well as getting interesting answers out of Corbyn it has perceptive observations like this one—
—an inscription which they're probably already reserving the space for on his political tombstone. The later Greenpeace Energydesk article on Corbyn's election is well worth reading too: among other things, for its summary of his position on coal-mining ("If he was a normal politician, all this would begin to look like flip-flopping.") (Honestly, I'm becoming convinced that Energydesk is essential reading for anyone seriously interested in UK environmental policy.)
Apart from the coal issue, two things stand out to me. First, Corbyn is keen on renewables and an Energiewende, but declares that they're of one piece with his other political and social objectives, not in conflict (Greenpeace Energydesk: "occasionally he seems fixated on showing that you have to be red to be green"). He's clearly not on board with the hardcore greens who believe that a sharp reduction in the standard of living in the UK and other developed countries is likely or certainly the only way to achieve decarbonisation or other environmental goals, and who are willing or eager to accept that price. Corbyn's is a left-wing program with the promise of renewed mass prosperity at its core, a concept so old it's new again. But again, how else he could actually achieve those environmental goals is not clear.
The second thing is that he is not on board with the Kyoto/UNFCCC consensus that the burden of carbon adjustment must fall disproportionately on the developed economies to allow developing economies additional headroom, and the explicit or implicit international trading of carbon that comes with that decision. Why this is is an interesting question, which takes us back to the one thing which showed up on jeremycorbyn.org.uk, the letter to Ed Davey. In that letter Corbyn draws Davey's attention to the claim by Prof. Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre that for the EU to play its part, under the division of labour set up by the UN framework, in hopefully hitting the global 2°C target the EU would have to cut carbon emissions by 80%, not the 40% envisaged by the European Commission. In fact, in his own open letter Anderson had said it would require "80% by 2030, with complete decarbonisation just a few years later". In his letter Anderson clearly sees both the 2°C target and the "equity" resolution to place most of the burden of adjustment on the developed economies as essential, and any backsliding from either as unacceptable. The constituent who brought Anderson's letter to Corbyn's attention seems to be this guy, apparently a pro-nuclear green, so presumably he felt that he was nudging Corbyn and Westminster toward nuclear as the only realistic hope of reaching the 80%-by-2030 target without crushing the economy. Another MP with more of the politician's typical low cunning might have seen the whole question as an excellent opportunity to keep his head down and say nothing specific. The anti-nuclear Corbyn, however, adopts Anderson's commit-to-80%-or-else-accept-that-2°C-is-unattainable challenge, but actually manages to seem pretty phlegmatic about letting go of the 2°C goal. So what's going on? One possibility is that, at least back in February when he wrote the letter, Corbyn was actually contemplating a third option: not abandoning the global 2°C target, but scrapping the "equity" carveup under which developed economies like the EU are required to carry such a large share of the burden. From the August Energydesk interview article:
Unfortunately, it's not clear if that quotation is something Corbyn said to the interviewer—it's not in the eight-minute video interview—or from somewhere else. But the suggestion seems to be that Corbyn is or was contemplating clawing back some carbon from the developing economies at the negotiating table. Aside from the obvious problem of getting anyone abroad to agree to this, it's an objective which doesn't seem to have made it into August's "Protecting our Planet" at all, which would commit the UK to—sure, why not?—100% carbon-free electricity by 2030, without fracking or new nuclear capacity of course. The global 2°C target seems to be reaffirmed too, of course. But there is this:
So scrapping the global "equity" system is still on even if, evidently, this brings no relief from the UK's decarbonisation burden. This could just be utopian folly, a belief that it would be feasible to impose gold-plated emissions standards on the world's developing economies (100% decarbonised electricity by 2030, or sometime shortly after that?) without doing serious damage to their economic growth. But it seems there's a dour calculation of relative advantage in there too: maybe the Tatas won't keep refusing to make steel in Wales if there's nowhere with cheaper energy to make it anymore. Still hopeless to expect global adherence to such a regime of course, and it's not going to help Corbyn burnish his halo in the developing world either.
I'd not been to Russell's bizarre blog (vvattsupwiththat) before - I can only describe it as a bit like The Onion, but without the humour (although it was amusing that it had a comment policy).
I can't help liking Jeremy Corbyn a little, if only for his lack of apparent guile and being the antithesis of Blair. Still, I liked Michael Foot, too...
jamesp, vvussel gives the game avvay in the choice of name for his blog. In the commercial sphere it is usually called "passing off" when someone attempts to steal a competitors customers by using a similar name or logo. ATTP did the same with his "Wotts Up" blog. I think Anthony Watts may have had a quiet word with him or Google. It seems unlikely that he saw the folly of his actions without being prompted by a third party.
Separately, I first became aware of Michael Foot when he won the Labour leadership contest. I saw much media that described him as a great orator. As a late teenager at the time, I was gobsmacked by the description. He came across as a rambling geriatric with Alzheimer's.
@ Michael Hart:
Foot was in fact a great orator, a type that hardly exists any more. Only George Galloway in the UK now comes close. He also told a good joke:
Michael Foot's Magician
Terry C & michael hart, whatever one may think of Michael Foot as an orator, his leadership of the Labour party into the political wilderness, was considered something special, that would never be matched again.
The majority of the Labour party have elected to differ.
@ golf charlie
I agree - a collective madness, born of the grief of losing the last election, has overtaken the Labour Party.
Oblivion beckons, sadly.