Snow blankets London for Global Warming debate.
VOTE REPUBLICAN ! IN THE US POLITICS.
FOR CAMBODIA OCCUPIED BY VIETNAM ?
Oct. 21, 1986 The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution A/RES/41/6, by vote
of 116-21 with 13 abstentions, calling for a withdrawal of Vietnamese forces
from Cambodia.
NEVER GIVING UP HOPE, COMPATRIOTS. THE LAW IS IN OUR SIDE. VIETNAM OCCUPATION
OF CAMBODIA AGAINST THE UN CHARTER CONSTITUTES A CRIME. IT SHOWS THAT ALL THE
VITNAMESE LEADERS ARE CRIMINALS VIS A VIS THE UN CHARTER .
How Parliament passed the Climate Bill
By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author
Posted in Government, 29th October 2008 12:35 GMT
Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday - the first
October fall in the metropolis since 1922. The Mother of Parliaments was
discussing the Mother of All Bills for the last time, in a marathon six hour
session.
In order to combat a projected two degree centigrade rise in global
temperature, the Climate Change Bill pledges the UK to reduce its carbon
dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. The bill was receiving a third
reading, which means both the last chance for both democratic scrutiny and
consent.
The bill creates an enormous bureaucratic apparatus for monitoring and
reporting, which was expanded at the last minute. Amendments by the Government
threw emissions from shipping and aviation into the monitoring program, and
also included a revision of the Companies Act (c. 46) "requiring the directors’
report of a company to contain such information as may be specified in the
regulations about emissions of greenhouse gases from activities for which the
company is responsible" by 2012.
Recently the American media has begun to notice the odd incongruity of
saturation media coverage here which insists that global warming is both
man-made and urgent, and a British public which increasingly doubts either to
be true. 60 per cent of the British population now doubt the influence of
humans on climate change, and more people than not think Global Warming won't
be as bad "as people say".
Both figures are higher than a year ago - and the poll was taken before the
non-summer of 2008, and the (latest) credit crisis.
Yet anyone looking for elected representatives to articulate these concerns
will have been disappointed. Instead, representatives had a higher purpose -
demonstrating their virtue. And for the first 90 minutes of the marathon
debate, the new nobility outdid each other with calls for tougher pledges, or
stricter monitoring. Gestures are easy, so no wonder MPs like making them so
much.
It was all deeply sanctimonious, but no one pointed out that Europe's appetite
for setting targets that hurt the economy has evaporated in recent weeks - so
it's a gesture few countries will feel compelled to imitate.
The US Senate has Senator James Inhofe, but in the Commons, there wasn't an
out-and-out sceptic to be found. It was 90 minutes before anyone broke the
liturgy of virtue. When Peter Lilley, in amazement, asked why there hadn't been
a cost/benefit analysis made of such a major change in policy, he was told to
shut up by the Deputy Speaker.
(And even Lilley - one of only five out of 653 MPs to vote against the Climate
Bill in its second reading - felt it necessary to pledge his allegiance to the
Precautionary Principle.)
It fell to a paid-up member of Greenpeace, the Labour MP Rob Marris, to point
out the Bill was a piece of political showboating that would fail. While
professing himself a believer in the theory that human activity is primarily
the cause of global warming, he left plenty of room for doubt - far more than
most members. The legislation was doomed, Marris said.
MP Rob Marris
Marris had previously supported the 60 per cent target but thought that 80 per
cent, once it included shipping and aviation, wouldn't work. We could have a
higher target, or include shipping and aviation, but not both.
He compared it to asking someone to run 100m in 14 seconds - which they might
consider something to train for. Asking someone to run it in ten seconds just
meant people would dismiss the target.
"The public will ask 'why should we bother doing anything at all?'"
Out of bounds
The closest thing to a British Inhofe is Ulsterman Sammy Wilson, Democratic
Unionist Party, who'd wanted a "reasoned debate" on global warming, rather than
bullying, and recently called environmentalism a "hysterical psuedo-religion".
Wilson described the Climate Bill as a disaster, but even colleagues who
disagree with his views of environmentalism are wary of the latest amendments.
The Irish Republic is likely to reap big economic gains if it doesn't penalise
its own transport sector as fiercely as the UK pledges to penalise its own in
the bill. Most Ulster MPs were keenly aware of the costs, and how quickly the
ports and airports could close, when a cheaper alternative lies a few miles
away over the border.
Tory barrister Christopher Chope professed himself baffled by the logic of
including aviation and shipping. If transportation was made more expensive, how
could there be more trade?
"As we destroy industry we'll be more dependent on shipping and aviation for
our imports!" he said.
"When the history books come to be written people will ask why were the only
five MPs... who voted against this ludicrous bill," he said. It would tie
Britain up in knots for years, all for a futile gesture, Chope thought.
However, Tim Yeo, the perma-suntanned Tory backbencher who wants us to carry
carbon rationing cards, said it would "improve Britain's competitiveness". He
didn't say how.
Lilley impertinently pointed out that no cost/benefit case had been made for
handicapping shipping and aviation. It was the first mention in the chamber of
the cost of the commitments being discussed. Estimates put the total cost of
the Climate Change Bill at £210bn, or £10,000 per household - potentially twice
the benefits.
Quoting Nordhaus, Lilley noted that Stern ("Lord Stern - he got his reward")
had only got his front-loaded benefits by using improbable discount rates - and
then only half the benefits of making drastic carbon reductions will kick in by
the year 2800. The government has said it wasn't using Stern's discount rates
to calculate the cost of shipping and aviation restrictions, but a more
sensible and traditional rate of 3.5 per cent instead - yet it refused to
reveal the costs. Lilley asked:
"I ask the house - is it sensible to buy into an insurance policy where the
premiums are twice the value of the house?"
Stop right there, heretic.
Liilley was "building a broad case on a narrow foundation", the Deputy Speaker
told him. "I really must direct him to the specific matter that's included in
these clauses and amendments."
Earlier, the Tories had said they would be tougher on carbon than Labour, and
the Lib Dems the toughest of the lot. Much more representative of the tone of
the debate was Nia Griffith, the NuLab MP for Lanelli.
Her comments are worth repeating (Hansard link to follow today) because
language tells us a lot - not only about the bureaucratic ambitions of the
exercise, but how the modern politician thinks about governing.
Griffith told the House that the Bill was "a process not an end in itself", and
had great value as a "monitoring tool".
MP Nia Griffith
"It's the targets that make us think," she said. She also used the phrase
"raise consciousness" - as in, "it must raise consciousness amongst nations
that follow suit."
In other words, if you take a gesture, then pile on targets and penalties, you
will change people's behaviour. Maybe she hasn't heard of Goodhart's law.
Yesterday, however, it seemed that the only MPs exhibiting enough
"consciousness" to actually think - and ask reasonable questions about cost and
effectiveness of the gesture - got a good telling off.
The Bill finally passed its third reading by 463 votes to three. ®
_________________________________________________________________
Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group.
This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language.
Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc
Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
