We know that this Government likes to boss us about. But the scheme to personalise carbon emissions - that is to set quotas on how much fuel we can use - is particularly silly. The idea begs at least five questions.
First, is global warming happening on the scale claimed by the pessimists? Satellite thermometers show little evidence of it, raising the possibility that land-based gauges, which tend to be sited at the edges of towns, are simply feeling the effects of urbanisation. Second, even if climate change is happening, can we be sure that it is caused by human activity, rather than by the cyclical warming and cooling of the Sun's rays? Third, is it necessarily a bad thing? It is at least arguable that a moderate rise in temperature would be beneficial, leading to warmer winters, especially in polar regions, wetter deserts and (because of the increased CO2 levels) faster growing plants. It seems perverse that Britain, a country that stands to gain more than most from a rise in temperature, should be one of only two states to have met its Kyoto target. Which leads to the fourth objection: the scheme for personal quotas is part of the Government's plan to go beyond Kyoto and reduce carbon emissions in Britain by 60 per cent - a largely pointless exercise in masochism, since most of the greenhouse gases will come from the economies currently in the grip of industrialisation. The fifth and final objection is the most telling. Even if we make all the above assumptions - that global warming is happening, that it is our fault, that it is a bad thing and that Britain should tackle it unilaterally - the logical thing to do would be to make more use of nuclear power. We know that this Government likes to boss us about. But the scheme to personalise carbon emissions - that is to set quotas on how much fuel we can use - is particularly silly. The idea begs at least five questions. First, is global warming happening on the scale claimed by the pessimists? Satellite thermometers show little evidence of it, raising the possibility that land-based gauges, which tend to be sited at the edges of towns, are simply feeling the effects of urbanisation. Second, even if climate change is happening, can we be sure that it is caused by human activity, rather than by the cyclical warming and cooling of the Sun's rays? Third, is it necessarily a bad thing? It is at least arguable that a moderate rise in temperature would be beneficial, leading to warmer winters, especially in polar regions, wetter deserts and (because of the increased CO2 levels) faster growing plants. It seems perverse that Britain, a country that stands to gain more than most from a rise in temperature, should be one of only two states to have met its Kyoto target. Which leads to the fourth objection: the scheme for personal quotas is part of the Government's plan to go beyond Kyoto and reduce carbon emissions in Britain by 60 per cent - a largely pointless exercise in masochism, since most of the greenhouse gases will come from the economies currently in the grip of industrialisation. The fifth and final objection is the most telling. Even if we make all the above assumptions - that global warming is happening, that it is our fault, that it is a bad thing and that Britain should tackle it unilaterally - the logical thing to do would be to make more use of nuclear power. Here we come to one of the strangest paradoxes of the Green movement. Nuclear fuel ought to be the ecologists' energy of choice. Yet, when the late Bishop of Birmingham, Hugh Montefiore, argued that nuclear power was the best way to bring down CO2 emissions, he found himself thrown off the board of Friends of the Earth. Quite why Green NGOs should be so close-minded about nuclear power is not clear. It may be that many environmentalists have CND backgrounds, making them subconsciously wary of anything containing the word "nuclear". Or it may have something to do with the fact that the Left traditionally opposed nuclear energy because it wanted the coal mines to stay open. (It was the closure of the mines and the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel, two measures vigorously opposed by Labour, that allowed Britain to meet its Kyoto quota.) Whatever the explanation, the failure by ministers to commit to keeping nuclear power following the decommissioning of the current generation of reactors drives us ineluctably to the conclusion that their chief preoccupation is not global warming, but social control; hence the appalling proposal to tie personal carbon quotas to ID cards. This is not about the environment. It is a nannyish way of making us all "do our bit" - the worst possible reason to embark on legislation. Here we come to one of the strangest paradoxes of the Green movement. Nuclear fuel ought to be the ecologists' energy of choice. Yet, when the late Bishop of Birmingham, Hugh Montefiore, argued that nuclear power was the best way to bring down CO2 emissions, he found himself thrown off the board of Friends of the Earth. Quite why Green NGOs should be so close-minded about nuclear power is not clear. It may be that many environmentalists have CND backgrounds, making them subconsciously wary of anything containing the word "nuclear". Or it may have something to do with the fact that the Left traditionally opposed nuclear energy because it wanted the coal mines to stay open. (It was the closure of the mines and the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel, two measures vigorously opposed by Labour, that allowed Britain to meet its Kyoto quota.) Whatever the explanation, the failure by ministers to commit to keeping nuclear power following the decommissioning of the current generation of reactors drives us ineluctably to the conclusion that their chief preoccupation is not global warming, but social control; hence the appalling proposal to tie personal carbon quotas to ID cards. This is not about the environment. It is a nannyish way of making us all "do our bit" - the worst possible reason to embark on legislation. |
