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?

We'd like a carbon neutral flying train please.

While I'm on the environmentalist war path I will just briefly continue with another point.

Lord Adonis recently hyped up a new train track that would take high speed trains from London to the North of England.

Now you're probably expecting me to slate it and say that the government is incompetent and they should have done bla bla bla. But no, I'm not.

Frankly I think it is an excellent idea. Lord Adonis, far from being a stuck up pretentious prat who has never done a day of hard work in his life is actually the son of a Greek Cypriot immigrant and through his own talent, skill, hard work and blessing (a LEA grant) manged to get himself to Keable College Oxford. As such he has my respect. But that isn't a reason for endorsing his idea. No, that just comes from good sense.

What wasn't impressive was the title the Times went with when reporting the storey. It ran with how it was going to cut up the countryside and as a result the world would be a worse place (I paraphrase).

Now let me just check, what are we meant to do? If we drive out nice luxury saloon from London to the North the Greens will consider us the spawn or all that is evil. If we try to build a train that can get us there quickly and efficiently (rather than using the 18th century relic we have at the moment) then we're cutting up the countryside. And if we fly over the country side so that there is no need for either new roads or new tracks then we are supporting those evil air transport companies who so cruelly provide fast, cheap (essentially public) transport and skilled jobs for pilots and air craft control.

So the strong clear message here is stay in your homes and don't leave... especially if you live on a hill, if you do walking back your heart rate will increase and that will cause you to increase the CO2 you're producing.

It is time to face facts; people need to travel, get over it! The sooner people do get over it and accept that modern life necessitates travel then the sooner we can start focusing on which type is best so we can plough a fat wod of cash into it and make it work properly. If it is trains then great, planes great, small light cars, whatever I don't care. Just quit whining about it and get one with it. All this complaining is just pointless, besides getting stressed increases your heart rate and that increases the amount of carbon you're wasting. So shut up and calm down. Thanks.

We invented the train and yet at the moment with all the complaining the Chinese are making much better trains than we are! A few years ago they were on horse and cart and now they are travelling at 200mph in a train. We, mean while, are moaning because the new train track will have to be built within 500 miles of our house. Oh and in case you're wondering I live about 500m from a railway line and I have never once cared in my life, excluding the times I would specifically watch the trains go by when I was young.