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?

Copenhagen is falling apart, oh dear...

Copenhagen is falling/has fallen apart apparently.

Gutted.

I really thought that for a moment the world would be united in its fight against a common enemy and they humanity would reach out and join together to take a sweeping blow against this powerful foe.

Actually that is codswallop. I didn't think that at all.

But let me explain why:

Lets be honest, climate change is an interesting problem. Most interesting of course because in reality we have no idea whether is anything to do with us and arguably whether it is even happening at all.
No I know that this is heresy to most people and as a result I should be burned at the stake, ok not burned that would release more CO2, they think I'd need to be topped using organically grown cyanide. But let me explain how someone who has done little to no research can be pretty sure we have no idea:
how long have we had the ability to record the temperature of the world accurately? 10 years? 15? 20? 30? It is undoubtedly under 50 years because the first man made satellite was in space in 1957, and that wasn't checking temperatures, it was doing nothing but sending out a ping every now and again to say it had made it.

That means we have a tiny amount of time where we are actually aware of what changes are being made. This means that we have no idea what is going on at all. Imagine measuring my height changes between the ages of 15 and 18. That is three years out of a probable 75. This is more of my age than 40 years is of the earths age. But imagine the conclusions you would have if you made assumptions based on those 3 years of my life. It would mean I'd be 70ft tall by the time I'm 75, it would mean that would expect to be shaving the palms of my hands by 25.

Having a tiny amount of information about the worlds temperatures and drawing conclusions from it is tantamount to making a guess.

That is not to say that I think it isn't happening. I would be a fool to explain that we don't know anything and then draw from that that everything is fine. It just means we don't have the slightest clue.

Next is the small detail that people don't like, the worlds temperature has been falling for the last ten years. Is this conclusive? No, of course not, haven't you been listening to what I just said about short periods of time? What does it mean? Once again, we have no idea what is going on.

Then we get on to what we do know. What we do know is that every human being is liable to use what they know to help their own ends. I'm not saying everyone does do this, but this should always be taken as a possibility.

So why would the world politicians jump on to this? Well everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. It is a drug that gets you addicted and them kills you. However when this was discovered, it had already taken off and everyone was already smoking. This gave the government something wonderful. A cash cow. Every year for years more tax has been added to the cost of tobacco, and alcohol. The government doesn't even need to both justifying itself anymore. It say does it. The fact is smoking is evil and therefore should be taxed to 'help people give up'. Except the government doesn't really care if you give up, on the one hand you'll cost them more via the NHS but in the short term (which is all a present government will care about) it gives you lots of revenue.

But we in the UK have 'big government' which is a nice way of saying the government loves spending our money and thinks it does a better job of it than we do. Which is why it gives money to companies to teach 14 year old joy riders how to drive so that when they steal cars they drive them safely (I kid you not) and they offer Iraqi families £150,000 to go home because it is cheaper than them staying here and being entitled to all the benefits. Neither of these examples come from any paper I've read, they have come from people who were involved or close to those involved.

This means a couple of pence on fags (that is cigarettes not the pejorative term for homosexuals for any Americans out there) and booze just isn't going to pay the bills. Then the knight in shining armour arrives! CLIMATE CHANGE!

Hurrrrah! Now everything is evil and so everything can be taxed until we're penniless!
Everyone who does anything ever, anyone who is useful to society in anyway needs a car (unless you live in London where you can survive without one). If you leave your house anywhere outside the M25 London ring road you are going to need four wheels to get about. The government now has a licence to tax this as much as it wants.
Petrol? Tax it
Roads? Tax them
Cars? Tax them too
Cooking oil (which is carbon neutral when used in a diesel engine) Tax that too!

If people moan because you are taking away what they have worked hard to obtain, just tell them that it is for their own good! You have an excuse now. When they say they need their cars to work, tell them that they need to use more public transport. Public transport isn't a viable alternative (you know that, MP's work in London, the one place they could actually use public transport and they of course have several driven cars to take them around to where they need to go) but who cares about the fact it doesn't work, but it sounds like you have an answer and a 'good' reason for taking people's money off them.

But why stop at cars? Tax flights too! Pretty much anything you like really because at some stage everything has to be transported by something with an engine.

Am I just being cynical though? Well lets think about what actually causes global warming. Releasing CO2. Now just lowering the amount of CO2 we make surely won't make much of a difference because the same effect will be achieved just over a longer period of time. Unless all the trees absorb the lower amount of CO2 being produced... which leads me on to my point. If the gov really give a crap about it why aren't they planting trees?

This is cheap (I bet you could even rope some people into doing it for free if they really care about this stuff) and it would have much greater impact over the years because it would suck in all the CO2 which is being made, taking it straight out of the atmosphere. It would be really pretty too! There are many areas of the UK (and I'm sure every other nation) that cannot be farmed because they are inaccessible or the soil isn't of the right quality. Most of these places used to have trees on them until our ancestors cut them down for various reasons. In fact North Africa was wooded until the Romans arrived. Now if the government really cared about these sorts of things they could easily start afforesting the moors and other grounds.

It would probably increase the tourism in the area and for years to come it would act to absorb tons of CO2 every month. When successful this could be implemented over all of Europe and most of the world.

Of course the government isn't going to do this. You see, you can't tax trees. You can't fly to Denmark drink some good wine argue 'for your cause' and then come home and make money taxing businesses by planting trees and actually helping the environment. All you do is... well help the environment; and what government cares about that?