You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Averting climate change would mean "planned recession" for U.K.
2009-10-05
These clowns are in-freakin-sane
At the moment the UK is committed to cutting greenhouse gases by a third by 2020.

However a new report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research said these targets are inadequate to keep global warming below two degrees C above pre-industrial levels. The report says the only way to avoid going beyond the dangerous tipping point is to double the target to 70 per cent by 2020.

This would mean reducing the size of the economy through a "planned recession".
Why don't you start by reducing the income of all the people pushing this stuff by 50%? Not willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Kevin Anderson, director of the research body, said the building of new airports, petrol cars and dirty coal-fired power stations will have to be halted in the UK until new technology provides an alternative to burning fossil fuels.
"To meet [Government] targets of not exceeding two degrees C, there would have to be a moratorium on airport expansion, stringent measures on the type of vehicle being used and a rapid transition to low carbon technology," he said.

Prof Anderson also said individuals will have to consume less.
Except, of course, for the elites, who will continue to spend to excess and flit around the world in private jets - but the rules never apply to them, don'tcha know.
"For most of the population it would mean fairly modest changes to how they live, maybe they will drive less, share a car to work or take more holidays in Britain."

More than 190 countries are due to meet in Copenhagen in December to decide a new way of picking the working people's pockets international deal on climate change.

Speaking at an Oxford University conference on the threat of climate change, Profjkj Anderson said rich countries will have to make much more ambitious cuts to have any chance of keeping temperature rise below four degrees C. "If we do everything we can do then we might have a chance of getting even more power and control of every aspect of the proles' lives," he said.
Check out the "related story" headlines, including "U.S. ignorant about climate change, expert claims." In a way, the "expert" is right; the so-call "leaders" in the U.S. are ignorant - about a lot more than Gerbil Worming climate change.

Idiots.
Posted by:Barbara Skolaut

#7  Joe, I have no idea what you are talking about, but those are two of your best comments yet.
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2009-10-05 23:39  

#6  D *** NG IT, HOW CAN YOUNG JETHRO CLAMPETT {"Beverly Hillbillies"] EAT HIS BELOVED "SNOW ICE CREAM" WIDOUT SNOW [Ice Age] + WIDOUT HIS FAVORITE FLAVORS [OWG-NWO Solyent Green, Orange, etc. ala FUTURAMA]!?]
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-10-05 18:54  

#5  IIRC TOPIX/WORLD NEWS > SCIENTISTS: WORLD WILL CONTINUE TO HEAT UP,

versus

* SAME > THE PROBLEM WITH THE ENVIRONMENT [Global Warming] IS THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY HUMANS.

IOW, that so-called GLOBAL COOLING = FUTURE NEW ICE AGE may only be TEMPORARY [GLOBAL SLUSHY]???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-10-05 18:50  

#4  The English forget the (Relatively) Tiny Island they live on, they'd need to entirely depopulate their Island to make any tiny almost unmeasurable change, By "Depopulate" I do NOT mesn move, but they'd need to execute all persons animals and other living, breathing lifeforms, leaving only plsnts.

Syupid dumbass morons, no knowledge of science at all.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2009-10-05 13:12  

#3  It's always been about "Economic redistribution" in plain speak, MONEY.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2009-10-05 13:03  

#2  For a recession to even theoretically avert climate change it would have to be a global recession; I'm not sure China and India would be willing participants (though because the current plans would not require them to participate, those plans could not even theoretically avert climate change.)
In other words, it's not about the climate, it's about economic redistribution!
Posted by: Glenmore   2009-10-05 12:33  

#1  "For most of the population it would mean fairly modest changes to how they live"

Note how this is worded - the "scientist" doesn't include himself in the group.
Posted by: gromky   2009-10-05 10:54  

00:00