Russell Taylor: Grand Theft Eco

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest report last week and the news wasn’t good. Despite there having been no global warming for the past fifteen years, it turns out that we’re still doomed unless we give up our irrational lust for freedom and prosperity, and surrender to the tutelage of concerned experts and their political paymasters. Oh dear.

In the run up to the report’s release, there was a surprising number of news stories highlighting the unreliability of past predictions made by the IPCC – surprising in that journalists are part of the political and cultural circus and rarely speak against ideas that serve the interests of their fellow performers. Someone unfamiliar with how technocrats operate might have concluded from this that the IPCC was about to slink before the media, cap in hand, and admit that maybe they had got a little over-excited and things aren’t quite as bad as they’d thought. Fat chance. They were more likely to deny the existence of gravity than fess up to global warming being a storm in a teacup. And so it was, with the certainty that man is to blame for rising temperature (that are going to happen real soon, honest guv) upgraded from highly likely to bang-to-rights.

As grave as this news sounds, it would have been enthusiastically received in some quarters. The IPCC report is to the political class what the next big title is to videogamers. It’s Grand Theft Eco: an all-action heist adventure, featuring a daring raid on our pockets. It’s a renewal document on the right of the ruling elite to push us around. Warming still happening? Still our fault? Then praise the Lord and pass the legislation. There was never any doubt that the IPCC would keep the hysteria at Defcon 5. The only question was how it would negotiate the inconvenient truth that warming has stopped to arrive at the conclusion that we’re still screwed. The answer, it turned out, was to fall back on the usual distorted data and to throw in some cock-and-bull about the oceans capturing carbon. Heads I win, tails you lose.

There’s no point getting hung up on the evidence, because, when all is said and done, it’s irrelevant. There’s too much at stake to let a little thing like the truth to get in the way. Contracts have been signed, money spent, wind turbines built and reputations made, all on the assumption that global warming is real. Nowadays, a person’s concern about green issues marks them out as a compassionate and serious-minded individual, distinct from the selfish thugs who are responsible for putting the future of our planet in jeopardy. If the rug were to be pulled from beneath the climate change boondoggle, a lot of pious, preachy people, for whom power and self-image are everything, would end up looking very stupid. And that’s not something they’re going to let happen in a hurry.

Left-wing obsessions like global warming are a means of sneaking statism in the back door, and this goes to explain people’s belief in them. If you’ve spent your life sucking hungrily on the government teat, you’re bound to give a double thumbs-up to theories that call for increased state intervention. Likewise, if you’re a metropolitan dandy, whose idea of a social life is playing moral top trumps with your fellow poseurs, you’re going to favour anything that excuses you getting on your high horse – and that means big, dumb government programmes that whiff of good intentions. Those of us who live outside of the liberal echo chamber understand this and wonder how these people can keep a straight face when they claim to be disinterested truth-seekers. But perhaps their self-delusion goes so deep that they’re unaware of their own deceit. A lie you tell yourself long enough eventually becomes the truth.

In liberal circles, the capacity of an idea to convey virtue upon its believers is what makes it legitimate, since being ‘good’ is held to be the noblest human endeavour. A responsible expert is one who produces evidence to support the validity of that idea and thus acts as a force for good in the world. Someone who confounds this evidence is wicked, because he seeks to deny others the means by which they can demonstrate their goodness.

What ‘goodness’ looks like is a moot point, with opinions varying depending on a person’s political perspective. Conservatives think it’s about best practice, which needn’t involve any acts of conspicuous compassion. Leftists, on the other hand, think that ‘goodness’ equates to state-enforced equality. This is an article of faith that is never questioned, since it represents the route to power for its believers. For them, freedom is a source of frustration and humiliation, to which state control, in the name of greater equality, is the solution. They have simply redefined goodness as the pursuit of equality and expect the rest of mankind to get on board.

To ask whether equality is really the apotheosis of virtue would be to call into question the selflessness of that belief. Since its advocates style themselves as virtuous, they take their own good intentions as proof enough that equality is indeed the highest good. After all, a decent person wouldn’t believe in something for selfish reasons. Thus, self-regard acts as a force field against reality – that reality being the Left’s sham pretence that they are not in it for themselves.

Leftists cannot comprehend how smug and arrogant this makes them seem to people on the Right. Their presumptions of moral and intellectual superiority make us gag. Their treatment of freedom as an pesky irritant infuriates us. Their contempt for any institution that frustrates their magisterial ambitions fills us with rage. It’s bad enough in Britain, where we have more than our fair share of Big Government fanboys, but things are no better across the Atlantic, where Barack Obama and his courtiers strut about like Olympian gods, paying lip service to the democratic process, the Constitution or economic reality. Their vision of an America governed by an elite of over-educated bullies should horrify anyone who cares about the future of Western civilisation. Ronald Reagan must be turning in his grave.

Given that the Left’s agenda is so transparently self-serving, I would like nothing more than for one of its overlords to grow a pair and tell us what we already know: “Sure, the needs of society could be largely met by the private sector, and that’s all very well if you’re into buying and selling stuff, but that’s not really our bag. You see, our talents lay elsewhere. We’re thinkers, planners and organisers. We’re the experts who tell everyone else what to do. We’re far too wise and wonderful to whore ourselves to the public whim, or abide by the same rules and values as the benighted masses. We want problems to solve, people to lead, a planet to save. We want to be praised for how clever and caring we are. What we don’t want is to concern ourselves with the things we’re no good at: making money, responding to the needs of others, or demonstrating social skills. Given a choice between an impoverished world under our heel and a prosperous one full of free individuals, we’ll take the former every time, because the latter holds no place for us. If a mandate for us getting our way doesn’t present itself, we’ll invent one. We’ll concoct crises and cook up conflicts. We’ll bribe, coerce and guilt the public into acquiescence, and use their money to buy ourselves a world fit for people like us. Good luck, suckers.”

We’ll never hear anything quite so explicit, of course, because the power-hungry are rarely stupid enough to be honest about their ambitions. But when the IPCC issued its latest report to a deafening absence of laughter from people in high places, the message was loud and clear. Be afraid.

43 comments on “Russell Taylor: Grand Theft Eco

  1. Rocco
    October 2, 2013 at 10:32 am #

    Now that, Russell, is an awesome pun!

    • Rocco
      October 2, 2013 at 10:46 am #

      And a great article too, of course.
      😀

      (Although the “largely” in the penultimate paragraph is superfluous.)

      • Russell Taylor
        October 2, 2013 at 11:00 am #

        Trust you to pick up on that. I look forward to your plans for a private military then!

      • Rocco
        October 2, 2013 at 11:07 am #

        I don’t want to take the comments off topic. But, I will say, that for almost all of human history militaries were private institutions.

      • Baron
        October 2, 2013 at 5:58 pm #

        Agreed, Rocco, brilliant again.

        And this:

        You may not like it much, but Baron has smuggled Russell’s piece (Fantasy versus Reality) into Douglas Murray’s latest Spectator blog.

      • Rocco
        October 2, 2013 at 7:08 pm #

        It’ll not do any good, man. Like I said, the Speccie is done!
        😛

        I’ve up-voted your comment, Baron – that’s the first comment I’ve ever up-voted, by the way – and I encourage all of our kind readers to do likewise.

  2. Simon Roberts
    October 2, 2013 at 12:31 pm #

    Very insightful and, as always, beautifully written.

    What irritates me is not so much the fact that self-serving leftists pretend to have the good of others at heart. It’s that people keep voting for the blighters.

  3. Iain Mckie (@Iainmckie_UKIP)
    October 2, 2013 at 1:39 pm #

    UK Government will auction 180 million tonnes of CO2 permits (EUAs) to the power sector this year at about 5 euros per tonne each (the remaining 50 odd million will be given free of charge to the industrial sector – steel, oil refineries, cement and so on). Firstly, these instruments are new. They are not asset backed, so new money (ie inflation) has been seeped into the system. The power companies will match these emission rights against however much coal or gas they have used during the year, and then surrender them to meet ETS compliance to DECC. Guess what? The UK, even though it sold the rights at 5 odd Euros (market price), it then applies the Carbon Floor Price of 18 odd Euros to the very same damn credits it issued. The power companies, obviously pass this cost onto the customer.

    • Baron
      October 3, 2013 at 7:18 pm #

      Ian, spot on, this is a vanilla quality madness.

      The banks were castigated for toxic assets, but were one to dismantle any of the paper they created, there at the bottom of the pile was an asset, it may have been a crappy piece of land, a half fallen building but asset it was. The only asset the CO2 permits are backed up with is the paper they are written on.

      Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius.

  4. silverminer
    October 2, 2013 at 2:20 pm #

    It has crossed my mind that the global warming scam is also a useful distraction for the “activist” type who might be usefully campaigning against the encroaching Police State were he not preoccupied with draft excluders and pipe lagging…

  5. Baron
    October 2, 2013 at 6:18 pm #

    Around 1800, before the CO2 density began to rise, 99.98% of air contained everything but CO2. Today, the air contains 99.96% of everything but the gas.

    And this infinitesimal change in the composition of the atmosphere in favour of the useful compound is supposed to kill us?

  6. Baron
    October 2, 2013 at 6:46 pm #

    Your juxtaposition of equality and freedom reminds Baron of a neat quip by Charles Krauthammer:

    “There’s a reason that in the NY harbour there stands a Statute of Liberty and not the Statute of Equality”.

  7. andyL
    October 3, 2013 at 11:43 am #


    …..whilst a Harelquin ladybird crawls about on my windowsill and a Little Egret fishes on the river below my office; neither of which were here 30 odd years ago in any great numbers. To be fair, global warming won’t affect us or our kids and perhaps not their kids kids etc. It all depends if you care one jot if species become extinct. If not, then happy days. Keep building in Country Parks and National Parks to eek up GDP by 0.00001% whilst enjoying the freedom to roam,relax and shoot on your mates estates in Scotland and Lancashire.

    • Simon Roberts
      October 3, 2013 at 12:31 pm #

      Are you saying that those of us who think that global warming is just a scam are also the type of people who want to concrete over the countryside?

      I view it a different way. It’s all about state control. The imposition of “climate control” measures to combat a fictitious problem and over-riding the wishes of people by destroying nature to build unnecessary housing are part of the same mindset.

      You can be a conservationist without believing government witch doctors forecasting the end of the world in order to increase their power.

      • andyL
        October 3, 2013 at 12:54 pm #

        In asnwer to your first point, then yes, probably. I’m sure, for some, the two mindsets go hand in hand.

        State controlled scam? I don’t get that. In my view all resources are finite so it makes sense to preserve, conserve and recycle as much as possible. Lefty nonsense or common sense? Well, you’ll have your own views but as a parent, it is a concern. But what I don’t doubt is that we are having a pernicious effect on the climate. I have nothing to gain from this view and I see evidence that it is happening (see above) as I see new species move northward to our shores each year (whilst others with a southerly bias decline).

        Unneccessary housing. Agree. 2.31 houses per person is the highest it’s ever been. Perhaps red Ed is right and we should tax those who have planning permission, in total, for 4,000,000 houses but don’t build?

        I’m not sure how to answer your final point as to me it doesn’t make sense or rather it assumes too much. Surely there are better ways to achieve power? Note: I hate wind turbines. What a waste of money.

      • Russell Taylor
        October 3, 2013 at 1:16 pm #

        I’m with you, Simon. I’m a conservationist (within reason) but I reject the global warming scam. Environmentalists, on the other hand, have no problem with destroying our countryside and our wildlife, which tells me that their so-called concern is a fig leaf for a hidden agenda.

  8. andyL
    October 3, 2013 at 1:09 pm #

    Apologies; 1 house per 2.31 people (highest it has been).

  9. andyL
    October 3, 2013 at 1:46 pm #

    Russell,

    I like your writing style but, blud, surely you should avoid the nutty overtones that you’ll also find on the lefty websites? I was however impressed with the way Simon managed to succinctly squeeze in so many topics of debate into one short paragragh and so eloquently as well 🙂

    What is an acceptable level of conservationalism in your view?

    OK, taking two examples, how does the RSPB and the National Trust destroy the Countryside? Or are they not Environmentalists?

    Who benefits from the Global Warming scam?

    Regards, Andy.

    • andyL
      October 3, 2013 at 2:06 pm #

      http://www.saveoakenwood.co.uk/

      Russell – as a reference point, feel free to refer to this link.

      • Rocco
        October 3, 2013 at 2:11 pm #

        Dude! So this was all just a long winded way to appeal for charitable donations?

        Man, that’s properly low.

    • Russell Taylor
      October 3, 2013 at 2:20 pm #

      Well, the RSPB and the National Trust are supporting wind turbines, which are bird-unfriendly blights on our landscape. Read more here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/james-delingpole/9018031/the-rspb-is-fighting-for-wind-turbines-the-birds-can-fend-for-themselves/
      and here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100204110/ive-just-resigned-my-national-trust-membership-heres-why/

      What I’d say about my nutty overtones is that a great number of progressive reforms are pushed through because we are asked to focus on the issue in hand rather than considering how they fit into a pattern of reforms, seemingly we no end. Try to argue against an individual reform and you look petty; point out the bigger picture and you sound like a conspiracy theorist. My ‘nuttiness’ is really a determination to shout and holler as the leftists try to slip their agenda in the back door.

      It honestly doesn’t matter whether the Left is comprised of sinister Marxists hellbent on world domination or guileless idiots who think they have people’s best interests at heart. The point is that they are committed to bringing about human equality (of outcome, not opportunity) and they consider that goal so noble that anything they do is completely justified.

      The effects of socialism in the real world are so dire and so well-known that it is inconceivable that the people who continue to support it don’t know where their beliefs lead. As such, it is surely safe to assume that they consider the terrible sacrifices a worthwhile price to pay.

      Towards the end of his life, the esteemed Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm stated that all the horrors of communism would have been worth it if they had resulted in the egalitarian utopia promised by Karl Marx. When a scholar feted by the Left can say such a thing and not provoke widespread revulsion, you have to wonder what kind of people you are dealing with.

  10. andyL
    October 3, 2013 at 2:21 pm #

    Lol! Got me banged to rights Rocco. Cheques paybale to ‘I want to benefit from the global warming scam’.

    • Rocco
      October 3, 2013 at 2:27 pm #

      I think that’s spelt saveoakenwood, mate.
      xD

  11. andyL
    October 3, 2013 at 3:12 pm #

    Tories are nasty, Labour are guileless idiots (I agree). Both are sweeping generalisations, but both are true, in my view, to a large degree.

    When you have people like Benyon, Patterson etc in the mix, you will always end up in a situation whereby people know they should vote Tory (cos “it’s the economy, stupid”), but just can’t bring themselves to side with Bond villains. But how can anyone vote Labour when they wasted so much? They wasted billions on Housing Related Support, Personalised Budgets, Respite Care, Working Tax Credit and a whole host of other altruistic schemes designed to help a few but manipulated and abused by non-deservers with much of this still carrying on today. Once national tax income dropped due to the banking created recession, we were left with a debt bill that we still can’t pay.

    What we need is a party that, unlike Labour, doesn’t allow a culture of “I’d rather be on benefits than work in McDonald’s”. A party that will jail fraudsters such as benefit cheats, tax evaders and Libor-riggers. I can’t honestly believe that people want a party that feels it’s OK to build everywhere and anywhere, including ancient woodland and Country parks, just to make a quick buck either whilst still increasing benefits by inflation (up till now) while the majority of us haven’t seen a pay rise in years.

    What’s wrong with having meritocracy coupled with capitalism with a conscience? I’d vote for that. Or is that niave?

    I don’t get why you are banging on about Socialism. It’s dead. Let go. Oh, and evidence of global warming is outside your window if you open your eyes and take a look.

    (RSPB and National Trust also oppose many wind turbine schemes. Note that rich landowners benefit from that particular global warming ‘scam’)

    • Russell Taylor
      October 3, 2013 at 3:27 pm #

      I’ll reply to you properly later

    • Rocco
      October 3, 2013 at 3:31 pm #

      Andy, personally I couldn’t care less about global warming, but as far as I can tell, the “scam” accusations come from the concern over the methods used to address it, not whether it’s happening or not. That is, assuming it’s a real threat, is the money spent being spent wisely, on things that will actually have a positive effect? The criticism of wind farms, for instance, is that they’re no good st producing electricity, hence they are wasteful and those large land owners are being given money for nothing. Hence, wind farms would be properly called a scam.

    • Simon Roberts
      October 3, 2013 at 4:58 pm #

      Love the image of Tories as Bond Villains 🙂

      You do know that there is an alternative to Labour and Tory now?

      For people like me, who would save places like Oaken Wood and would not cover the country with Wind Turbines, it’s nice to have an alternative.

  12. andyL
    October 3, 2013 at 3:38 pm #

    Rocco – Shame about your sentiment, but I agree with many of your points.

    • silverminer
      October 3, 2013 at 10:20 pm #

      Andy, you have, a couple of times, cited the fact that the climate around where you live is getting warmer as evidence that man is causing a dangerous level of climate change. The last decade has been warmer than any since the Medieval Warm Period, but this is no evidence that CO2 emissions have been primarily responsible for this. You’re confusing a correlation with causation.

      Skeptics, of which I am now one (although I was on the other side until about 3 years ago and even studied in the field…), accept that CO2 causes climate warming and that some of the warming we have seen over the last century is due to man made CO2. We do not accept that man has been primarily responsible as no evidence has been presented to support this claim. The climate models are consistently over estimating warming, of which there has now been none for 17 years, i.e. the models clearly over estimate the climate sensitivity to CO2.

      The quantum of climate warming we are causing is almost certainly not something we need to worry about and it is in any case cheaper to adapt than make futile, unilateral attempts to reduce CO2 which will destroy our economy and further erode our liberties.

      Unfortunately, a great many people with inflated egos have nailed their colours to the AGW mast and they are not going to back down willingly. Imagine, for example, the Germans, who have committed to spending hundreds of billions of Euro, backing down and admitting it was all a bit of a mistake…

      • andyL
        October 3, 2013 at 10:58 pm #

        Silverminer – how would you explain why a whole host of Southern European fauna have suddenly moved northwards with many colonising Britain whilst other species that were once common in Southern Britain have now declined? All in a very short space of time?

      • silverminer
        October 4, 2013 at 7:11 am #

        Re your comment below, Andy. That proves it has got warmer in the later half of the 20th century in Europe. It does not prove why. Climate has varied constantly over time. Species migration is nothing new.

  13. Rocco
    October 3, 2013 at 6:54 pm #

    Bogpaper readers! Our friend, and publicist, Baron is currently romping to victory on the Spectator article he plugged us on.

    If you voted him up, thereby drawing attention to both Russell and Bogpaper, thank you, dearly.
    And thank you, especially, Baron, for your sterling work.

  14. andyL
    October 3, 2013 at 11:41 pm #

    http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/where-theres-smoke-the-climate-change-denial-lobby/

    Sure there’s nothing in the above that you haven’t seen before. I accept your point regarding correlation and causation. I can’t ‘prove it’.

    “Skeptics, of which I am now one accept that CO2 causes climate warming and that some of the warming we have seen over the last century is due to man made CO2.”

    How do you know, for sure, that it hasn’t been caused primarily by us ( Anthropomorphism)? How are you able to be so certain?

    Can you demonstarte that warmig has not occurred during the last 17 years?

    • Russell Taylor
      October 4, 2013 at 5:26 am #

      This argument is a red herring. What matters isn’t whether man has caused global warming, but how we respond to it. The Left sees this issue as a vehicle for driving its preferred policies through democratic roadblocks. The Right has spotted what they’re up to and called them on it, hence the reason we have a conflict on the issue.

      We can turn Britain into a pincushion of wind turbines, shut down all the factories, banish all the cars, turn everyone into carbon-counting zombies, and allow the government to hamstring the private sector to ensure it doesn’t go back to its selfish old ways, and it still won’t make a jot of difference to the climate. It will, however, have achieved many of the Left’s goals: a society of people beholden to the state, an enfeebled private sector and a landscape strewn with physical reminders of who’s in charge.

    • silverminer
      October 4, 2013 at 7:08 am #

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

      1998 warmest year, no advance so far.

      You don’t take a whole lot of ineffective and expensive action based on a theory. There has to be a credible theory backed up with real world observations. I trusted that the climate scientists knew what they were on about but when all their models started overshooting on the high side with no satisfactory explanation logic dictates you have to be a skeptic. It’s become a religion.

  15. andyL
    October 3, 2013 at 11:51 pm #

    Skip to 3.45 in this link Silverminer. Do his words sound familiar?

  16. Iain Mckie (@Iainmckie_UKIP)
    October 4, 2013 at 9:50 am #

    Anyone who believes that wind energy is ‘green’ should look at a picture of a Neodymium mine first. Neodymium is a rare earth element that is used to make the magnets in the turbines. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/business/energy-environment/22rare.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  17. andyL
    October 4, 2013 at 11:32 am #

    Migration is a two way process, year after year. Whilst a few of the colonists do migrate, this is not migration, it is immigration on a large scale and at a rate which is unprecedented. Can you name another time when this has happened during a period of less than 100 years and involved so many species?

    Of course, from a human perspective, it may not matter at all. Global Warming and Climate Change may never affect us directly. So it may come down to whether you care about the environment or not. If you don’t, and you are an MP, then you risk alienating an awful lot of right of centre voters who are members of the RSPB, National Trust etc and who have the luxury of rating it high in their own personal Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (as I do) . I don’t want to see the Country shut down. I want regulated Capitalism.

    Every other Friday I go drinking with up to four Tory Councillors. Not sure why they still let me as I goad them constantly. But anyway, a short while ago I suggested to them that if Red Ed broadly aligned himself with Tory economic policy, then the Tories would be in trouble. Hey presto, he did (at a Macroeconomic level at least give or take a Corporation Tax % or two). So then the electorate will then have to decide their vote based on each Parties other policies which are probably less important than the economy. For example, with recycling rates dropping and waste rates increasing for the first time in years, middle class voters with a conscience will look at Pickles ‘wasted’ £250 million spent on bringing back weekly waste collections to Local Authorities as the cause. Tories; the Party of waste?

    Come on chaps, taking the warmest year on record and saying “it’s never been hotter than that one” just made me giggle. Next you’ll be telling me that the Arctic Sea ice will not recede next summer by as much in past years based upon this year. Of course one of the most perverse elements of the climate change debate is that you will have environmentalists willing temperatures up and vice versa for the climate change deniers whilst a swing in temperature either way in any one year will be seen as ‘proof’ by the simple.

    Anyway, before you seize on those latter musings, can you answer me this: What are Libertarians views on profiligacy?

    And again; Are there any contributors on here who are saying that GW/CC has definitely not been caused primarily by us? How are you able to be so certain?

  18. silverminer
    October 4, 2013 at 8:08 pm #

    Spend an hour watching this, Andy (Varenholt lecture):-

    http://www.thegwpf.org/gwpftv/?tubepress_video=cR434ddtrMI&tubepress_page=1

  19. andyL
    October 4, 2013 at 8:34 pm #

    Link isn’t currently working but I have seen it before.

    Quote:■”We regard observational evidence and understanding the present as more important and more reliable than computer modelling or predicting the distant future” Well, see above!

    Hard to trust a man (Nigel Lawson) who manufactured a recession all on his own by reducing income tax too quickly as an election sweetener. Will never forgive him for that.

  20. silverminer
    October 6, 2013 at 7:39 pm #

    Lawson didn’t give the lecture, though, did he? Here’s the graph he was probably thinking about when he made that statement:-

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/09/more-climate-models-fail-a-chink-in-the-armor-at-science/#more-87897

    Billions spent and they can’t predict shit. Doubling CO2 will give us about 1.2degC of warming and, as there isn’t enough fossil fuel in the Earth’s crust, we won’t even manage a second doubling if we burn the lot. Only way you get a higher number is inventing feedback loops and plugging them into models (i.e. models which aren’t predicting outcomes).

    So, nothing to worry about, particularly as we won’t be using much in the way of fossil fuels anyway once the Chinese have their Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor up and running, about 10 years hence, and it gets rolled out worldwide. Enough clean, cheap, carbon free energy to power humanity for 1000 years.

  21. Iain Mckie (@Iainmckie_UKIP)
    October 7, 2013 at 9:57 am #

    Simple solution to UK Grid and lower CO2 emissions is to retrofit coal burners being decommissioned as a result of the LCPD with Ultra-Critical boilers. Performance goes from mid 30s % to high 40s. Similarly use ICGT in new fleet of gas burners.

  22. kevinsmith2013
    October 7, 2013 at 6:07 pm #

    Here’s a thought.

    If our government is really so concerned about energy consumption (mainly from fossil fuel sources), why do they continue to light thousands of miles of our motorways unnecessarilly. Every car I have ever owned (its a few) has been fitted with adequate lights, also its not the case that every mile of motorway is lit, so its clearly not absolutely necessary. How many Watts of power do we consume every year lighting our motorways?

    Another motorway related issue, is that they are ripping up miles of armailte barriers from central reservations, and replacing it with high concrete walls, do they have any idea how much CO2 is created in the cement manufacturing process? Same goes for the concrete used to anchor the wind turbines, and even worse the aluminium manufacturing process for the turbines.

    At the very least it all lacks joined up thinking!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: