Saturday, September 17, 2005

Blair's brutal honesty on Kyoto

Most readers probably won't hear about this event which is why it may deserve a short text.

Tony Blair, the prime minister of the most reliable ally of the U.S. and one of two smartest European leaders of the current era, said that he was going to speak with "brutal honesty" about Kyoto and global warming - the most divisive single topic between the U.S. and the U.K. Using harvardspeak, he was going to be provocative at the recent Clinton summit. The full text of their proceedings, including Blair's reasonable comments on Kyoto, may be found here.

He said:
  • "...My thinking has changed in the past three or four years. No country is going to cut its growth. [China and India] are not going to start negotiating another treaty like Kyoto. What countries will do is work together to develop science and technology. … There is no way that we are going to tackle this problem unless we develop the science and technology to do it. ... How do we move forward, post-Kyoto? It can only be done by the major players coming together and pooling their resources, to find their way to come together."

Unless the environmental lunatics are going to find a way to force Blair to apologize for his provocative comments, create 17 new committees and throw away $50 million to show how much he is sorry of his comments, we should be saying: Kyoto, rest in peace.

1 comment:

  1. Environmentalism, like communism and fascism, is a passing phase like a fashion. It cannot succeed in the long run, because nature is not something pure or removed from human life. If the climate does change, that might not be a bad thing.

    One issue is that if you have a mass of sea at a temperature above 26 C, you get tornadoes and such like. I think the formula is that the incidence of tornadoes is proportional to (T - 26)^2.3, where T is temperature in C. So global warming will produce a non-linear increase in destructive weather.

    But it is possible to build homes which are protected from strong winds. The answer is not paper agreements, but technology.

    The same argument applies to banning nuclear weapons. Some people think that the only solution is paper agreements, which ignores all the lessions of the 1930s and the League of Nations. They get prizes and applause, like Chamberlain got when he arrived back in Britain after Munich with a bit of paper bearing Hitler's signature. The paper was worthless.

    Politics is a good thing for politicians, who comprise about 0.000001% of the world's population, but the rest of us need technology, not soothing lies to deal with real problems.

    ReplyDelete