Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Miliband Needs You

His Grace had an article this morning on Labour’s Energy Policy, as partly revealed by Carbon Brief. Alas, I was the first (and second) commenter. “Alas”, because I managed to sidetrack the discussion from politics to linguistic correctness. (How I hate it when people start faffing about the word “denier”, or whatever. Don’t they realise that that’s exactly why they use it - to distract us?)

Luckily, Alex Cull was on hand to link us to the Labour policy document, which can be found at
They invite submissions and/or comments. “Submissions are contributions into Labour's policy making process and will be sent to the appropriate Policy Commissions for consideration.”
There’s one - perfectly insane - comment gone up in the twelve hours since the article appeared. Few Labour Party members, I imagine, can get their heads round the concepts of energy and climate change.

The relevant questions to which the document invites answers seem to me to be

Question 18: Do you believe that a target to decarbonise the power sector by 2030 will encourage investment?
Question 19: Are there additional measures you believe should be taken to provide greater certainty and encourage investment in our energy infrastructure?
But there may be others.

I know that the B-aitch Boys are about as easy to organise as lemmings on an outing to Beachy Head, but I urge the energetically literate among you to contribute to Labour’s decision-making process. This is our chance to make the probable future Prime Minister aware of the fact that sanity exists outside the skull of the fragrant Baroness. Tell him all the things you’ve been telling each other on threads here for years. Tell him about the existence of Graham Stringer M.P. Tell him about Labour’s loss of Redcar. (Tell him about dead pensioners if you must).

Labour’s Green Paper will get 50 submissions from the usual 50 EU-subsidised NGOs. If they also get 50 intelligent submissions from 50 intelligent voters, they mught just take notice. Just Do It.

Dec 2, 2013 at 8:31 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

I posted my points:

"what I find a little weird is that these new policies are, in some cases, directly opposed to the ones Labour adopted when in power - eg it was Labour who abolished the pool and who allowed, if they did not actively encourage, vertical integration in the industry. And then there are the mutually exclusive things they want to do such as encourage investment, on the one hand, while freezing retail prices and increasing wholesale prices. Have fun with that Ms Flint. The greatest one is to get rid of OFGEM and create a bigger, stronger, faster regulator....staffed by whom, exactly?"
The trouble is that the antis tend to fixate on irrelevant or un-proveable stats such as "winter deaths" (is the causation really so clear or are you reliant on meta-analyses?) or bird deaths, when the brutal reality is that heating is more expensive than it could be and that renewables are inefficient by definition, otherwise we would not have switched to coal and oil as a society 200 years ago.

Dec 2, 2013 at 11:13 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes


“The trouble is that the antis tend to fixate on irrelevant or un-proveable stats such as ‘winter deaths’."
That’s our trouble, which I’d prefer to leave aside, as I mentioned ad nauseam on His Grace’s original thread.

The points you quote from your post seem excellent. I intend to post a submission proposing the nationalisation of energy utilities under the aegis of a government body that we might call the Central Electricity Generating Board.
I know that socialist policies such as government control of utilities have been declared illegal by the European Union, but I’m sure that libertarians everywhere will support me in declaring that we have the right to support whatever political system we please, in Languedoc as in Lanarkshire, in London as in Kiev.

Dec 3, 2013 at 12:11 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Is this a comfortable place for a socialist? Denial of climate science is logical for the libertarian, free-market right, as addressing climate science requires concerted government action; because those on the right see government action as illegitimate, they must also see the science by definition as being wrong. All the arguments around the science are just a smoke screen for this basic truth. The fact that climate science denial comes predominantly from the right (ignoring the part that comes from vested interests) must confirm this to any neutral observer. But for a socialist this justification doesn't exit. Government action is at the heart of socialism. Odd then that you are able to ally yourself with those whose political views you must reject strongly.

Dec 4, 2013 at 2:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterChandra

Odd that you seem to be suggesting that one should take sides about a scientific proposition according to one’s politics.
Yes, as a socialist, I believe in government intervention, to eradicate poverty, for example, but not to eradicate CO2 emissions in order to reduce the global temperature by some unmeasurably small amount.
The fact that many here are right wing libertarians is easly explained as a canary in the coal mine effect. They’re the first to notice when governments spend insane amounts of money on pointless projets. That’s no reason why others shouldn’t eventually notice as well.

Dec 4, 2013 at 6:56 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Well said, Geoff. It still needs pointing out occasionally that more than one or two regular posters on this site don't associate themselves as historically voting for the same party as the assumed majority (usually implied as the Conservatives).

I approach from the other direction. I think I recognise truly awful politics based on as-yet unsubstantiated scientific conjecture. Whether my politics derive from the "making-the-cake-bigger", or the "dividing-the-cake-more-equitably" end of politics, I regard it as close to economic and political insanity to wilfully make the cake smaller on the basis of half-baked computer models.

Greenpeace-think states otherwise of course, but they are not, and never have been, much interested in objectivity. Their attitude to science and technology in general is best characterised as one of fear and loathing.

Dec 4, 2013 at 12:00 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

You misunderstand. I am not suggesting that one should take sides according to one’s politics. I am instead saying that this is what many on the right actually do. Big difference! Your "canary in the coal mine effect" is nothing of the sort. If your libertarian friends were saying "yes, AGW is true and serious and needs addressing, but the methods being taken are wrong/pointless/impractical etc", then you might have a point. But they deny the science itself. So my point stands: they dislike the necessary consequences of accepting AGW and therefore deny that it is true.

Dec 4, 2013 at 5:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterChandra

Where to start with Chandra's bizarre reasoning? I suppose it would be futile to ask Chandra to supply any evidence for his assertion that libertarians - whoever they are - "deny" climate science because they do not like the policy implications. This is drivel of a high order - possibly even more stupid than the stuff that Lewandowsky comes up with. Chandra cannot even grasp that the policies being adopted are not inevitable and that there are alternatives that would not involve closing down European industry.

Dec 4, 2013 at 9:00 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Chandra thinks that pointing out the fallacies and the confusion of unverified models with reality in climatology is 'denying science'.

Dec 4, 2013 at 11:53 PM | Unregistered Commentersplitpin

My discussion point was the suggestion that we should seize this opportunity to write to Mr Miliband and Ms Flint and tell them what we think about Labour’s energy policy green paper. Chandra doesn’t want us to do that. I think we should ignore him.

Dec 5, 2013 at 2:13 AM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Why should I care if you tell them what you think. I imagine they can spot climate change cranks a mile of, so go ahead. I've made my submission, with an emphasis on efficiency improvements.

But I'm interested in your affiliation with this lot, Geoff. It can't have skipped your notice that climate science "scepticism" is a right wing preoccupation and I'm sure you've given it some thought before diving into such an unfriendly (for a socialist) pool. I can't believe that your canary in the coal mine is the sum total of your justification of this phonmenon; it is so obviously silly, as I pointed out earlier. I wouldn't expect some posters to understand this, but I'm sure you do.

Dec 5, 2013 at 8:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterChandra

If it happened to be that CO2 reduction was a good thing, why would we use a CO2 increasing measure such as windfarms to enable this? it is all so illogical. To build a windfarm requires....rare earths (mined in China at great environmental cost, but ignorable for Greenpeace purposes), concrete plinths (not exactly free from CO2 emissions). And then the maintenance costs......

How anyone other than a dunce like Chandra could imagine this would save the planet is beyond understanding. Of course, out at sea, the sea spray will degrade the plant within 3 years...and then someone has to climb a 200 foor tower at sea to carry out repairs....include me out of that!

Dec 5, 2013 at 11:00 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

I learned a long time ago that the best way to identify how leftie extremists think and act is to look at what they attribute to others. The shibboleth expressed here that "that's what the right / libertarians etc do" is a classic example.

It's so subconscious that I have seen some of them reduced to incoherence and disbelief when faced with someone taking positions which don't correspond to an identifiable political ideology but rather based on facts.

Dec 6, 2013 at 9:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterNW

"Why should I care if you tell them what you think. I imagine they can spot climate change cranks a mile of, so go ahead. I've made my submission, with an emphasis on efficiency improvements.....
Dec 5, 2013 at 8:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterChandra">>>>>

Bingo - it used the 'crank' word loved so much by ZDB.

This pathetic little troll is obviously ZedDeadsBed using the same thread disruption techniques, the same ad hom attacks and turns of phrase.

Hopefully when the Bish finally figures this thread wrecking troll for what it really is he'll give it the same treatment as the ZDB sicko.

That's my own little ad hom for the day - now to return to the subject of Geoff's thread.....

Dec 8, 2013 at 3:04 PM | Registered CommenterRKS