Does the government believe in 'climate change'?

Recently a court case in the UK decided that London Heathrow Airport could not have another runway built because it clashed with the governments papers/commitments on climate change.

Now I'm going to ignore what mot lawyers would be interested in (how can a court make such decisions on government policy) and focus on the concepts behind climate change in the first place.

Instead I'm going to focus on why the government that is so committed to leading the way in carbon emission reduction seems so happy to build new runways, even when they are in some of the most stupid places you could image.

You see climate change seems to be to a topic that divides people down the middle, purely because those who do believe in it are so fervently passionate about it that it often affects their whole lives, it is, in a manner of speaking, their religion.

It effects everything from where they go on holiday, to the brand of tea they drink. A Muslim won't buy pork, a Christian may prefer fair trade, a climate an environmentalist may buy food that has been transported the shortest distance (no Australian wine or New Zealand kiwi fruit for you!)

Then you have the issue of whether it is actually happening. The average global temperature hasn't changed for the last ten years. Considering China has become a major economic player (and pollutant producer) in that time such a result is very odd indeed. Even at this moment everyone reading this is likely to be surprised, check it out since you inevitably won't believe me.

However, my problem is not with whether or not climate change is happening or not, but rather the two faced hypocrisy of those running the government. The government wants YOU to believe in climate change because then you cannot complain each time it hikes up petrol duty, each time it refuses to build a car park (thus making you drive around for 15 minutes trying to find a space) and it gets money for ticketing your car. Each time it raises road tax. Climate change is in effect a source of free money to the government. A licence to tax at will and to do so with the moral high ground, all the while being driven around the Westminster area in a nice Jaguar paid for by the public.

But what about the behaviour of the government itself? The government wants to expand Heathrow so that it has 3 runways. It wants to do this because it will make the airport more effect, it will increase the number of flights that are possible, it will create jobs and revenue. Revenue of course being the magic word.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that is bad. Our economy needs money. Without competition the jobs just go else where. All the other European Capitols have many more runways, usually 5 or more. But the point is how can you on the one hand tax anything that produces a mg of Carbon Dioxide and then on the other accept that Carbon Dioxide is just a part of life and economy. Either you accept that it is required if we're not to live in the dark ages (literally dark in this case) or you don't.

So I went looking for more evidence that the government really believes that climate change is real. I thought about the Thames barrier. "Wait a minute! They wouldn't have built that if there was no real threat of climate change!" I thought to myself. But alas no, having looked into it the barrier is actually there to protect London against seasonal changes in tides. It was conceived in a time when the worry of climate change was largely nothing more than a glint in the environmentalists eye. So that isn't it either.

So I'm throwing it out there, can anyone think of real evidence that the government cares about carbon emissions?

Sure they like you buying low emission technology, but that is probably because such techology is made in developed Western nations where we're concerned about that sort of thing.

I was talking to a plumber about boilers once (fascinating conversation, I wish you were there) he said that the more advanced boilers use less gas, but because they are more complicated there is more to go wrong and so you end up just spending the money you saved on replacement parts, and lets not forget where those replacement parts are made; a factory.

Not just any factory either, quite possibly one on the other side of the earth. So that fuel efficient boiler you own has parts made from steel in India, shipped to Japan where it is processed (again using energy) then shipped around the world again to you. How much carbon did you say you were saving?

Don't get me wrong I don't want to get all 'Clarkson' on you, I'm not trying to convince not to believe in climate change, all I'm asking is, genuinely; does the government?

Let the BBC live?

There is a general discussion going on these days about whether or not the BBC should be funded by what is essentially a tax. Anyone who has a device capable of receiving television in the UK is automatically required to pay a 'TV licence' that goes straight to the BBC.

Now I am a free marketeer, so my instinct is that this is wrong. TV should be chosen by the people and they can pay for what they want... or even better they don't have to pay at all because there are breaks for adverts to be shown and this allows the TV companies to pay for themselves. This works in most countries including the US from where we import many fine programs (the ubiquitous 'friends', 'Scrubs' the amusing comedy 'Big bang theory'etc). So instinctively I'm inclined to look at the insane amount of money that Jonathan Ross gets from doing what I essentially do everyday (be social, out going and ask people what they have been up to/working on) and I think what a load of rubbish, make them work for a living live everyone else, but I can't quite do it!

So why does my ever present free marketing spirit become more reticent when I consider the BBC? Quite simple: TV is garbage! I mean really now, I haven't watched a program on ITV for as long as I remember, the only programs I watch on Channel four have been imported from the USA. There is literally nothing on commerical TV produced in the UK that I have, or want, to watch.

The problem with commercial TV is that it is dependent on ratings so what we get is 'lowest common denominator' programs, that is programs that are so simple that everyone can watch them without requiring the slightest use of the neglected organ in your skull. This means that UK TV is just filled with mindless 'reality TV' shows that have the same draw on me as a request to massage the feet of someone with a fungal infection. It is just nasty.

I was talking to an 'intellectual' from Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago and he was saying how everyone listens to the BBC in Saudi, people have a huge respect for it internationally and this is in places that aren't exactly 'West friendly'. Looking at my own experience, I can see why. BBC iPlayer is on my favourites list on my internet browser... I don't think I've even checked if ITV have an online content provider. That says it all.

This is before we get onto issues like iPlayer, Radio 4 and Radio 1 which while Radio 1 plays music largely available on other stations I just can't imagine a commercial radio station producing the sort of thing found on Radio 4.

Lets put it another way when I'm driving home at 1 in the morning and the only thing available of the other stations is 'nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish nn-tish' I am really, really glad that the BBC radio 4 exists and it isn't paid for by the hard core dance lobby.

With the money that BBC has in excess (through a moderate tax on everyone) excellent programs are produced and technological progress can be made (iPlayer) in which it would otherwise be too expensive to invest. My favourite programs ever made in the UK are Blackadder and Yes, Minister, both produced by the BBC (albeit years ago). All the while British culture is exported through BBC worldwide which is good for the nation too.

Finally the issue of it being a tax, yes it is a tax, lets be honest, calling it a licence doesn't really make it less of tax. But it is a tax for which the money paid goes directly to the product. It is not like other taxes where the money is taken off you then funneled into a big sack where the government then gives it to whoever they fancy, you know exactly where the money is going to go. This is good, because the BBC knows that if it ever stops producing quality and starts producing rubbish it is going to get kicked out into the cold faster than you can say 'Rupert Murdoch'. As a result (unlike with most government) they have the hot breath of redundancy just close enough so that they have to work hard and yield results otherwise they'll get their P45.

The more I think about it the greater it would be if all tax was like that. How much quicker the DVLA might answer the phone if they knew that if they didn't they may end up in the dole queue? How many retarded government schemes would be dropped if there was a direct specific tax to fund them, I would love to hear the conversation to even explain it:

"well sir, we're going to take money out of your earnings so that we can pay for youths caught joy riding to have driving lessons, so that they can joy ride safely" (this actually happened)

Many useless taxes wouldn't even be started because they are so pointless no one would go for it and those that didn't work after a few years would quickly get binned.

So there you have it, want to solve the tax problems? Get yourself a 'tax licence'.

Sarkozy, you've summed it all up!

I type this in the hope that in doing so my blood pressure will lower itself and my heart rate will return to normal. I've just spent I don't know how long rumaging though the various EU/EC/EEC treaties looking up various phrases here and there... yes, I know, very exciting.

I am trying to calm myself down because just thinking about how moronic the Treaty of Lisbon is makes me what to eat my keyboard.

The French President, Nicholas Sarkozy, proposed to remove from the Treaty of Lisbon the aim of "an internal market where competition is free and undistorted" . In previous treaties the wording was that the Community would seek "a system ensuring that competition and the internal market is not distorted". But the point was the same. Nick', however wanted this removed, and this alone perfectly explains why uniting Europe is like a communist and an avid economic liberal to agree on how to run a country, because in essence that is exactly what it is.

Apparently Nick wanted to alay the fears of his country men that the EU was becoming too "Anglo-Saxon". What, pray tell, does this mean? Too Anglo-Saxon, does that mean the EU is working more efficiently?

There is a world of difference between how the UK works and how the EU works.

In the UK competition is good, it means honest fair and hard working people do better than those who are lazy and/or incompetent. While the concept isn't perfect, it is generally the model we follow. In France competition is bad, which is why they are so quick to be protectionist. Despite this protectionism their real GDP growth is consistently lower than the UK. Even in the EU what they are concerned with is protectionism, think of Champagne, it is a noun really, it means a sparkling wine. But in the EU thats to Protected Designation of Origin Champagne means a wine from the Champagne region, everything else is 'sparkling white'.

And though I hate to come across as xenophobic (I'm sorry but if people are going to be pro-Europe then I have to put them straight) I can go on:

Spain had an unemployment level of 10% even before the credit crunch started;

Iceland is now completely bankrupt (unfortunately);

Greece, Portugal, Spain (and now apparently) Italy are also going down the pan and want a bail out from the EU

The only countries that actually contribute to the EU are Germany and the UK, the UK is obviously Anglo-Saxon... and where did the Angles and the Saxons come from? Oh yes, Germany... no wonder the EU is 'becoming more Anglo-Saxon' that is the style that actually works.

Out of all of Europe the UK has the longest working hours, coming behind the US on the global stage of course (another 'Anglo-Saxon' style country?).

Now, which way is the better way of life? That is another question. If I lived in Italy, if I had a villa, a pool, a small vineyard and panoramic views down the sweeping mountain side, I probably wouldn't care so much for economics myself, I probably wouldn't be too fussed about the stock exchange either and that is fine. I understand that completely. What I don't understand is why people think that people who work in completely different ways are going to be able to work together in a Union based on a common economic policy.