Mature debate?

It really is a bit of a nerve for a newspaper which devotes its front page lead to a story proclaiming that "pregnant women to be offered flu jabs to protect babies" then to complain in its leader about the silence of the political classes on the financial crisis.

Under the title, "Britain must speak up at the trial of capitalism," it suggests baldly: "But isn't it time it [the government] at least launched a mature debate on this epoch-defining crisis?", having first cast an admiring look at the US where congress is locked in debate over the Paulson rescue package. This is "in glaring contrast to this country," it notes, "where there has been no recall of Parliament and the political classes appear tongue-tied".

Nevertheless, this is the same newspaper which consigns comment on the impending "energy crunch" and the sale of British Energy to EDF to the business section, with a remarkably illiterate piece by Damian Reece, which does not suggest that the newspaper begins to understand what is going on (we'll write more on this later).

That is not to pick on this newspaper in particular – they are all the same in their own ways – although it is interesting to note that The Daily Mail does offer as its lead story (online edition) Bush's warning that the world’s economy is in danger of meltdown, as does The Times, leaving The Independent to lead on the "black hole" in the royal accounts and the government's refusal to increase the Civil List. (However, things are not quite as bad as our picture suggests - yet.)

Funnily enough, the phrase "mature debate" appears elsewhere in the Telegraph, this time in a story about EU fines for missing "landfill targets".

There, in the context of meeting an EU requirement to cease using landfill, we see Michael O'Higgins, chairman of the Audit Commission, declaring that there needed to be a "mature debate" about waste, and that instead of Nimbyism people should accept the reality that incineration plants were needed.

There has, of course, never been a "mature debate" on waste – the issue was decided long ago at EU level and now our task is to roll over and build a vast network of extremely expensive incinerators to meet EU requirements. That is what O'Higgins means by the phrase.

Something we will not get, of course, is a "mature debate" on our previous story as that too has been decided for us, which means that any such debate will simply be - pace incinerators – how we go about complying with our masters' demands.

Therein lies our problem and confusion. Yes, we do indeed need a "mature debate" on all sorts of issues, not only in parliament but in the media – and also on the so-called political blogs. But does anyone know what the term means anymore? And when the power has been drained from our politicians to the extent that even if they discuss matters they cannot do anything about them, what is the point anyway?

COMMENT THREAD

A done deal

Daytime Running Lights are back on the agenda. No one particularly wants them. The British government was opposed to them, the cyclist and motorcycle groups are emphatically against them. Furthermore, the safety benefits are equivocal. Until LED lights are perfected, they will increase fuel consumption and they will add cost and complexity to vehicle construction.

But never mind all that, in a bland statement yesterday, we were told that, "the European Commission has decided to introduce dedicated Daytime Running Light (DRL) on all new types of motor vehicles from the year 2011 onwards."

So that's it, then. The European Commission has decided, so we're going to have them.

Actually, although the announcement was yesterday, it was a done deal in November 2007. Then, as we are now informed, the Commission delivered a positive vote in the World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) regarding DRL.

This is reflected in the draft directive and the Commission has declared that, "In order to avoid divergent vehicle requirements, which would be detrimental to the needs of European citizens and the European industry, today's decision is technically a proposal to align Directive 76/756/EEC with UN/ECE Regulation No 48."

We dealt with this, and the involvement of that shadowy body, UNECE, in a previous post and again a few weeks later.

Essentially, technical regulations are being made out of sight with no audit trail and no democratic accountability whatsoever. And when they emerge into the daylight, they come – as in this case – "as a proposal to align Directive 76/756/EEC with UN/ECE Regulation No 48". We cannot refuse to accept this as the deal was made those many months ago and we cannot possibly have "divergent vehicle requirements".

What is particularly disturbing, however, is that UNECE is technically an intergovernmental body, at which its member states (including the UK) are represented, each of whom have a vote. But here, it seems, the "Community" cast a – or even the – vote. Since when has the EU been represented on UN bodies and been able to cast votes?

As of now, The Daily Mail is hyperventilating about the proposal. "Drivers face paying up to £160 a year more for fuel," it screams, and all, "because of an EU directive forcing them to keep their headlamps on all day.".

As always, it misses the point completely. The proposal concerns specially fitted lights, not headlamps and, by the time the law comes into force, they will mostly be LED fittings. Energy consumption is only about ten percent of a normal light.

Conservative MP Greg Knight is saying that: "This idea was being pushed by Scandinavian countries and it's absolutely ludicrous that it should be imposed in a blanket fashion across Europe." Stephen Ladyman - a transport minister during earlier discussions and now a backbencher - said: "This directive will kill a lot of motorcyclists. They use daytime lights to make them easier to see but if cars are using them as well, motorbikes will blur into the background."

In the EU parliament, Conservative transport spokesman, Timothy Kirkhope, is objecting to the lights, also on safety grounds, and is calling independent assessment of the benefits "before any EU legislation on vehicle running lights was approved."

But all these worthy "lawmakers" are too late. They do not seem to understand that, because the agreement has been made at UNECE level, the EU is obliged to "normalise" its own laws by implementing the regulation. Their job is to rubber-stamp the agreement, move on and collect their salaries and expenses.

We expect no less of them.

COMMENT THREAD

A market solution?

When The Guardian resident eco-freak (REF) takes time out – albeit not a lot – to have a swipe at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), then something must be going on that is worth looking at.

And indeed there is. Today, the Institute published a pamphlet under the title, "Climate Change Policy: Challenging the Activists", which concludes that "climate policy has become subject to a quasi-religious mindset, driven by the desire to maintain consensus and defend its dogma, rather than seeking the best policy for the future."

You can see, therefore, why the REF takes such umbrage, complaining that most of the authors – six in all – "must be over 70". Remarkable, even by IEA standards, for its dullness and scientific illiteracy, storms the REF, it wonders if the authors should “rethink their outrage at society being asked to fork out about $25bn a year to tackle climate change, when it's costing governments several trillion dollars to tackle the dodgy bankers.”

It is interesting that the man should cite the figures in dollars and doubly interesting that he – like so many of the warmists, from Stern onwards, seek publicly to downplay the costs of dealing with their obsession.

Yet, the whole essence of green taxes, carbon trading and the rest, is to price fossil fuels out of the market by making them so expensive that "green" substitutes become more attractive. A "mere" $25bn a year, therefore – or whatever the obsession is actually costing us – is only a down payment. Costs will increase because they are designed so to do.

Anyhow, the thesis expressed by the "IEA six", admirably expressed in the press release - which will save idle journalists having to read the pamplet – is that the policy focus "should shift to market-based adaptation, not hairshirts and witch hunts."

Government intervention, say the authors, is likely to harm our economy and unlikely to save the planet. Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol has already caused economic damage and a government-led approach "would impoverish us economically, damage individual freedom" and, paradoxically hamper our ability to deal with climate change.

Thus, in classic IEA style, the response should be left to the markets, which can be left to exploit future technological advances and respond to the situation as it develops. As a long-stop, however, the authors concede that there is a role for "modified" carbon taxes which would be used for an insurance-based "climate catastrophe fund" to pay for remedial geo-engineering projects if the need arose.

One must admire the constancy of the IEA and its faith in markets. However, recent experience would suggest that the markets' main concern is to get into bed with government and devise ever more ingenious mechanisms for ripping-off the consumer/taxpayers and enrich themselves on the proceeds.

On this, unfortunately, the IEA has little to say, which is a pity. When so much money is up for grabs from rigging the markets, few are going to be interested in the IEA's idea of a truly free market response.

COMMENT THREAD

The invisible takeover

On matters of trade, and especially WTO affairs, Ronald Stewart-Brown is one of the commentators worth reading. In this month’s edition of The European Journal (no link), he writes about the failed Doha round. What stands out from his piece is this section:

… it needs to be emphasised, the UK no longer has any meaningful existence in the world of international trade negotiations as it has ceded Brussels controls of most aspects of its trade relations with third countries apart from currency and trade promotion. While she retains nominal WTO membership, it is now in reality little more than a region of the EU in trade policy terms, with the periodic right to nominate one of its nationals as EU trade commissioner.

In the early days of UK membership, when EEC decision-making on trade policy was primarily inter-governmental, the Department of Trade and Industry was a leading and respected player in EEC trade policy matters. But as EU trade policy decision-making became more supranational so DTI trade policy expertise gravitated to the commission in Brussels. The dropping of the word trade from the department’s title when it was renamed last year as BERR (the department of business, enterprise and regulatory reform) says it all.

Stewart-Brown thus highlights something very few people understand or appreciate. Not only has much of our government moved to Brussels, so has much of the expertise in policy-making and development. The best and brightest no longer work for Whitehall. In trade as in other areas, the British government does not "do" policy – it merely reacts to and then implements policy developed in Brussels.

The same goes for academia. Traditionally, the intellectual reservoir of the nation, contributing much to the development of policy in many areas, the money no longer comes from Whitehall but from Brussels. If a department is to attract research funding – the lifeblood of most universities – it is absolutely pointless offering national policy solutions. Unless the work has a "European dimension" – often tied in with other European "partners" – it will remain unrewarded.

Thus has an important facet of public administration been hollowed out. But, because it was never highly visible, its loss is hardly noticed – except in its insidious consequences. EU policy dominates because we have lost much of the capability of making our own.

So continues the invisible takeover, one which is all the more dangerous for being unseen.

COMMENT THREAD

Heads in the sand?

Something I missed yesterday was an article in The Guardian retailing the latest warmist orthodoxy from the UK's Met Office. According to the Met Office, climate sceptics such as Nigel Lawson who argue that global warming has stopped have their "heads in the sand".

The "evidence" for this highly scientific observation is a graph showing temperature trends from 1975, referenced Brohan et al. Tracking this back, one finds this is the Climate Research Unit dataset, developed in association with the Hadley centre, relying entirely on surface measurements.

The unreliability of such measurements has been well rehearsed, with significant evidence that attests that this dataset is the odd man out - compared with satellite readings.

A huge amount of work has been undertaken by Anthony Watts, recorded on his website, demonstrating the fragility of surface measurements and his latest post highlights the amount of manipulation to which even "pristine data" is subject.

Bearing in mind that the total shift recorded by Brohan et al is in the order of half a degree Celsius, it is seriously arguable that the inherent errors in the system are considerably greater than the changes being measured, notwithstanding that the entire methodology for calculating a single global temperature is highly suspect.

To build such a huge industry on the back of such fragile data is, to say the very least, tendentious. Then to accuse those who have the temerity to question the wisdom of so doing as having their "heads in the sand" smacks of desperation – or worse. Still, I suppose it is better than having your heads up your backsides.

COMMENT THREAD

The devil's techniques

"The patron saint of charlatans is again spreading dangerous misinformation," writes George Monbiot in The Guardian in a characteristically vitriolic attack – this one directed at Christopher Booker.

The article is worth analysing because it is a superb illustration of the techniques used by polemicists to demonstrate their version of the truth – not by evaluating the evidence, but by attacking those who have. For students of the media – and the truth – this should be the object of intensive study and treasured as a valuable example of the craft.

The piece deals with two issue, the dangers of white asbestos (chrysotile) and the global warming debate, clearly seeking to prove that the former is a killer and the latter exists and is a major problem. But the evidence for either postulate is not addressed. Instead, the technique is to attack Christopher Booker in order to demonstrate that he is wrong on both counts. And, because Booker is wrong, Monbiot is right – QED.

To achieve this task, the piece opens with the strap line, repeated in the body text that, "The Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker has published 38 articles about asbestos - and every one is wrong".

Addressing this highly contentious issue of whether white asbestos – compared with brown and blue – is dangerous, Monbiot leaps in to the attack, citing as an example of Booker's "errors" that he contends that "not a single case" of mesothelioma - the cancer caused by exposure to asbestos - "has ever been scientifically linked with asbestos cement" (made with white asbestos).

Monbiot then refers to "a paper commissioned by the UK's Health and Safety Executive," which, Booker says, "concluded that the risk from white asbestos is 'virtually zero'". Booker, writes Monbiot, tells me he has read this paper: "Oh yes?" counters Monbiot: "The term he quotes – 'virtually zero' - does not appear in it."

The paper to which Monbiot refers is by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton, published in 2000 – and he is right. Those exact words do not appear.

What the authors do write, in respect of the use of asbestos cement, is that the risk is so low as to be "probably insignificant". The paper then assesses the risk of acquiring lung cancer from "cumulative exposure", suggesting that "the case for a threshold - i.e., zero, or at least very low risk – is arguable."

Booker, therefore, has paraphrased the quotes, conveying their general import, his mistake being to put own words in quotes. But is he wrong? Not at all. The sense of what Hodgson and Darton are writing is accurately conveyed.

Monbiot nevertheless seeks to reinforce the impression of error – as in wrongness – by his own selective quoting of a series of figures purporting to demonstrate a risk, failing entirely to identify the context of the paper. Hodgson and Darton were not original researchers but statisticians, analysing historic work on the subject, much of it flawed.

Crucially, many studies on which the authors relied did not distinguish between cases where their sole exposure had been to white asbestos and those who had been exposed to all types, either separately or as mixtures. For direct evidence, we need to refer to different papers. One such, by Ilgren and Chatfield, published in 1998, notes that:

There has probably never been an attributable, clinically and pathologically proven case of mesothelioma in any manufacturing industry, e.g. cement, friction products, or textiles, amongst the many tens of thousands of workers where chrysotile alone has been used.

Another, by Yarborough, in 2007, notes:

Excess risk of pleural mesothelioma from past exposures to asbestos, as evidenced by a trend of high incidence rates during the last half century, appears to be the result of nonchrysotile asbestiform fibers. Although scientific efforts and legal arguments continue, the risk of pleural mesothelioma in human populations is probably negligible for exposures to airborne chrysotile asbestos that is not known to be contaminated by amphibole.

These are readily accessible papers, available to Monbiot as easily as they are to us. But, when Monbiot interviewed Booker on Monday, he was completely unwilling to discuss the science. And nor would he accept from Booker that his definitive statement on asbestos was in our book, Scared to Death where Hodgson and Darton are quoted accurately and in context. Monbiot needs Booker to be wrong, so he relies on one quote, taken from one column, published in January 2002. And, on that basis, all 38 of his columns are wrong – every word, every sentence and every argument.

Neither is Monbiot averse to playing his own games. To give his piece the aura of authenticity, he republishes it on his own blog with references. But in one egregious case his reference contains errors in the names, citing a paper which he writes, includes the authors Albin, Jacobson, Attawell, Johannson, and Wellinder. The correct names are: Albin, Jakobsson, Attewell, Johansson and Welinder.

The original errors are in the Hodgson and Darton paper, from which Monbiot has obviously cribbed the reference, making you wonder whether he has actually read the paper which he cites.

However, this and the selective quoting technique are only the first in the Monbiot armoury. The next technique is "guilt by association", where Booker is linked with an interesting and colourful character by the name of John Bridle. This man, having set up an organisation called Asbestos Watchdog, to expose the scams by asbestos removal contractors and lawyers milking the concern over asbestos, has seriously got up the nose of the asbestos lobby and has attracted enemies like day-old cat food attracts flies.

"Colourful" is a good description of Bridle, a technical salesman rather than scientist by background, he sometimes cuts corners and can be rather lyrical about his exploits and associations, giving his many enemies opportunities to attack him – which they seize and exploit to the full.

But that does not mean that Bridle is wrong about asbestos. After all, Hitler in his time was a strong opponent of smoking and of reckless speeding in cars. He placed a speed limit on SS officials driving on business. Was Hitler wrong about both these issues?

With Bridle, though, Monbiot does not attempt to find out what the man says – whether he is right or wrong. He simply exploits the fruits of the many attacks against him and then, having delivered a prolonged character assassination, relies on the link between Bridle and Booker to reinforce the postulation that Booker is wrong.

Thus does Monbiot deliver the "interim" punchline, telling his readers: "We are not talking about trivia here. This is a matter of life and death. How many people might have been exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos dust as a result of reading and believing Mr Booker's columns?"

Now, having set Booker up, he moves on to the real agenda – global warming. Booker attacks Michael Mann, he of "hockey stick" fame. However, Mann, according to Monbiot, is absolutely right. So, how did Booker trip up so badly? "By using the claims of unqualified bloggers to refute peer-reviewed studies," writes Monbiot in triumph.

What Monbiot fails to mention in his dismissive reference to "unqualified bloggers" is that Mann was debunked by two computer experts, Steve McIntrye and Ross McKitrick. Now McIntyre runs an expert blog - where Mann's latest paper has been comprehensively demolished - this gives Monbiot his entré.

Monbiot also fails to say – another of those starling omissions – is that when the "hockey stick" became a matter of massive controversy, a US Congressional Committee asked Edward Wegman, arguably the most respected statistician in America, to conduct an investigation into McIntyre's analysis. Wegman and his expert team wholly vindicated McIntyre's findings.

More follows from Monbiot though, a polemic on ice cover in the Arctic which misses the point (this is dealt with in comments to Monbiot's piece), and thus the great work lurches to a conclusion, with the grand declaration:

But for the Wikipedia Professor of Gibberish, this patron saint of charlatans, even the seasons are negotiable. Booker remains right, whatever the evidence says. It is hard to think of any journalist - Melanie Phillips included - who has spread more misinformation. The world becomes even harder to navigate. You cannot trust the people who tell you whom to trust.

The very first comment on his online piece shreds this pretension. The writer suggests that the last sentence is "a bit of a hostage to fortune". "You cannot trust the people who tell you whom to trust," he quotes, then noting: "You are telling me not to trust Booker. Surely you are falling into your own trap?"

The irony of this would have escaped the great Moonbat. This is precisely the game he is playing. Booker is wrong, you cannot trust him. Trust me instead. Never mind the facts, never mind the evidence. This is a belief system here, one in which the opposition must be denigrated as heretics, or even equated with Holocaust deniers – another Monbiot gem.

This is not rational argument. It may be clever and Monbiot may have his devoted band of acolytes. But he uses the devil's techniques.

COMMENT THREAD

News from the big bad world

So, they ask, where is she? Well, no, I don't suppose they do ask but, anyway, I am around, just busy with other matters, such as attending a conference on "soft Jihad" and how to fight it. There will be a long report or two on that and news of a new publication by Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell, launched tomorrow, entitled "The Plan". Here are some of their proposals:

Scrapping all MPs' expenses except those relating to running an office and travel from the constituency

Selecting candidates through open primaries

Local and national referendums

"People's Bills", to be placed before Parliament if they attract a certain number of signatures

Placing the police under locally elected Sheriffs, who would also set local sentencing guidelines

Appointing heads of quangos, senior judges and ambassadors through open parliamentary hearings rather than prime ministerial patronage

Devolving to English counties and cities all the powers which were devolved to Edinburgh under the 1998 Scotland Act

Placing Social security, too, under local authorities

Making councils self-financing by scrapping VAT and replacing it with a Local Sales Tax

Allowing people to pay their contributions into personal healthcare accounts, with a mandatory insurance component

Letting parents opt out of their Local Education Authority, carrying to any school the financial entitlement that would have been spent on their child

Replacing EU membership with a Swiss-style bilateral free trade accord

Requiring all foreign treaties to be re-ratified annually by Parliament

Scrapping the Human Rights Act and guaranteeing parliamentary legislation against judicial activism

A "Great Repeal Bill" to annul unnecessary and burdensome laws

Can't say I agree with all of it but the ideas are worth discussing and, after all, is that not what we are all complaining about: lack of policy. There is one great advantage to this plan - it cannot be achieved without an exit from the European Union. So if the Conservative Party adopts it ... well, I might vote for them in 2010.

In the meantime I intend to attend the launch tomorrow and shall blog about that. Tim Montgomerie will probably beat me to the finishing line. He always does.

Let me link to another story, one we have been following on this blog. It is most definitely from the big bad world - nothing to do with the EU or our own little party squabbles but much to do with the media, truth and freedom (in whatever order you would like to place those).

Richard Landes reports that France 2 has agreed to an independent enquiry on the Al-Dura affair. He links to a number of articles and comments. Why, one wonders, is France 2 doing this? It can't be bad conscience, as journalists rarely know the meaning of that. Financial problems? Well, we shall see how it develops and whether those missing film minutes will ever be recovered.

Freedom of speech – EU style

The EU parliament is on Thursday to vote on the Estonian Socialist MEP Marianne Mikko’s ideas for controlling blogs, a fact recorded by Bruno Waterfield in the online edition of The Daily Telegraph - but not important enough to make it to the print version.

In the meantime, one of our own, Gawain Towler (pictured) who writes from the EU parliament on his blog, England Expects, has fallen foul of that self-same freedom-loving parliament, which has now shut him down.

Towler heard the news yesterday when he was summoned by his secretary general and informed that a formal complaint had been made about one of his postings, following which his blogging activities were found to be in contravention of the staff regulations.

Running to 163 pages, these apply to all staff, whether the civil servants employed in the commission and the council, those employed in the administrative sections of the parliament or, as in this case, to those employed by the political groups.

Thus, as a paid official of the EU parliament, albeit employed to act as press officer for the eurosceptic Ind-Dem group, Gawain was in breach of Article 12 which requires him to "refrain from any action or behaviour which might reflect adversely upon his position". More specifically, he was most definitely in breach of Article 11 which requires officials to carry out their duties and conduct themselves, "solely with the interests of the Communities in mind."

Considering that his job essentially required him to breach Article 11, it is hard to see how Gawain could actually do anything assigned to him but, perhaps conscious of the absurdity of this rule, the parliamentary authorities have chosen only to prevent him making any more posts on his blog.

The particular crime, it seems, was that not only was the blog eurosceptique but also ironique, leaving Gwain to wonder which was the worse transgression, the scepticism or the fact that he laughed at the EU.

Anyhow, the upshot is that he has been given a formal warning and if he continues to blog then "sanctions" may be applied. Given that the sanctions amount to upwards of a four month docking of wages, he really cannot afford to continue.

That, ladies and gentlemen is freedom of speech EU-style. Where they can, they shut down debate and, if they could, they would close it down on the blogosphere and everywhere else.

That is, after all, what Marianne Mikko's resolution would do if it could and only the limited power of the Eurocrats prevents them from attempting it. We are not dealing with democrats here.

Be warned.

COMMENT THREAD

Of politics and policies

Gordon Brown is going for what he thinks is the populist high ground, pledging at the Labour Party conference internet access for all children. This £300 million scheme, we are told is being trumpeted "as evidence that the Government has not run out of steam and still has a radical agenda for the next 10 years".

Interestingly, a virtually identical policy was announced by Tony Blair nearly ten years ago. This was in September 1999, in a speech on e-commerce in Oxford, when he said:

…I have pledged that by 2002, all schools will be connected. And what's more, we will subsidise over 100,000 of our poorest families to get computers, so they can access the Internet at home too. Let's be clear - this is a massive step change, which will mean all our children will have access to the Internet. Not just those with rich or enthusiastic parents, but all our kids.

From my recollection, some time afterwards, there was a brisk trade in the local pubs in government-financed computers, as the local scrotes cashed in on the scheme as a handy way of topping up their beer money.

If this is appears something of a digression for EU Referendum, bear with me. In Brussels yesterday, our real government was announcing the results of a study by the consultancy McKinsey into carbon capture and storage (CCS).

This claims that such plants could be economically viable by 2030 at the latest. But it would require substantial public subsidies to get 10-12 plants running by the EU target date of 2015. They cost twice or three times as much as conventional coal plants: about €2bn for the 300 megawatt plants planned by the industry, which is refusing to go ahead without public subsidies.

Thus, a project styled as "one of Gordon Brown's pet energy projects - to build up to a dozen pilot plants to capture and store carbon dioxide as power stations burn coal to generate electricity" would require EU subsidies of as much as €10bn (£7.9bn) over the next few years.

CCS, as The Guardian rightly says, is highly controversial, which puts it directly in the frame as an issue which should be subject to the widest possible discussion and political debate.

However, despite this being a vibrant political issue, the outcome of which could well and most certainly will cost us all huge amounts of money through our electricity bills, the issue will not percolate into the British political circuit for one very good reason – the "debate" as such will be conducted at an EU level, where the ultimate decisions will be made.

It is there, interestingly, where the discourse is almost devoid of personality politics. It will be led by Andris Piebalgs, EU energy commissioner, who is almost totally unknown to UK audiences and the political claque which forms our chatterati. Thus, while Gordon Brown plays to his domestic audience with recycled schemes of very little import – and a proven track record of failure – the real stuff of politics goes on elsewhere.

Rehearsing a theme we have addressed many times, this seems to add to the core of evidence which explains why politics in the UK is now so empty. The real decisions have been handed over to Brussels, where policies are developed and pursued in the absence of the political soap opera that dominates the UK scene. All that is left for the likes of our prime minister and the political classes is to prattle about side issues of very little consequence.

The charge has been levied that our continued membership of the EU reduces the UK government to the status of a local authority. Then we see our prime minister reduced to prattling about a recycled policy on "computers for kids" – wasting up to £300 million into the bargain (more cheap computers in Bradford pubs) – while our masters are discussing a policy with a near £8 billion price tag, which will have enormous long-term consequences for all of us.

Welcome to the Urban District Council of Great Britain.

COMMENT THREAD

The instrument of destruction

This blog has been pretty consistent over term in rejecting the political hyperventilation over Gordon Brown's leadership challenge, predicting that nothing substantive would happen over the conference.

Further, we hold and have held that Brown will lead the Labour Party into the electorally mandated reshuffle general election in May 2010. What happens then is anyone's guess but, even at this stage, we would not be prepared to bet the farm on the outcome.

One prediction we are prepared to make, however, is that one of the most vital issues to the health and prosperity of this country – the fate of our agricultural industry – will not be discussed at the Labour Party conference nor at next week's Tory bash.

We would hazard a guess, though, that if a fraction of the energy spent on idle speculation over Brown’s future had been devoted to this issue, it probably would not have made a blind bit of difference.

Agri-policy is an exclusive EU competence, which renders political discourse in the UK somewhat otiose – one of the many subjects "off limits" to the British political classes, simply because they cannot bring themselves to recognise how much power has been given away and how little they actually control.

This, of course, is one of the reasons why this chatterati indulge in their facile political soap opera. It gives them the feeling somehow of being engaged in the political process, when dealing with real issues would bring home to them that it really has become an empty charade in so many areas.

But, just because the chatterati isn't talking about it does not mean that it is not important, or that the people with real power are not – they are.

In fact, they were gathered over the weekend in the provincial town of Annecy in South East France, a meeting recorded by Reuters and very few others, where a "shopping list" of key priorities for the next round of the interminable CAP reform process was discussed.

The word "reform" is in fact what the EU commission now chooses to use publicly but the real agenda is destruction, the "colleagues" having long tired of dishing out variously forty percent of their budget to something less than three percent of the working population.

On the agenda is that buzz word "modulation", barely understood even on the margins of the agricultural community and not at all by the chatterati who would not wish to soil their brains with such irrelevancies.

Having been on the agenda for some time, discussed earlier on this blog, it seems that this is shaping up to be the final instrument of destruction of the subsidy system.

As we set out in that earlier piece, this is a mechanism for top-slicing payments to farmers and diverting them to more fruitful (to the EU) projects, where they have greater control and leverage.

We no learn that a deal is being drafted for October, with a final agreement being stitched up for mid-November – at which British farmers will almost certainly be shafted, without the MSM either noticing or caring.

Head stitcher will be agriculture commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, who will have to do a Faustian deal with Sarkozy – which will mean French farmers getting more money – in order that she can pursue her agenda, winding down the "old-style" farm support schemes such as the intervention scheme, and production subsidies.

That will leave the commission even more money to spend on pursuing its own ambitions for political integration and, effectively, leave EU member states without a coherent agricultural policy.

The eventual demise of the CAP will be little-lamented, having attracted few friends or allies, but the answer to a bad policy is not no policy at all. In 50 years of European integration, however, that is all that has been achieved – the transition from bad to virtually nothing, leaving a massive vacuum that bodes no good for us all.

And, although we will still see combines in our fields (this one in Yorkshire over the weekend, finishing off the harvest), they are about to become an even rarer sight than they are now.

COMMENT THREAD

Between a rock and a hard place

The recent economic downturn could push the EU to adopt more modest ambitions in its fight against climate change, reports EU Business - an issue we reported on last week.

Even at the relatively modest cost €30 per ton of carbon dioxide produced under the EU's emissions trading scheme (it could easily be double that), the annual cost to industry is estimated at some €44 billion between 2013 and 2020. Thus, a number of European politicians are now speaking openly about diluting or even abandoning the project.

"This plan is garbage. It's politically correct, but it won't happen," former Italian prime minister Guilano Amato said at the end of August while Renato Brunetta, Italy's minister for innovation, has been equally blunt. "If it happens, it would kill the economic upturn. No one needs to kill themselves," he says.

One negotiator involved in the talks between the EU commission and member states, said: "We're hearing these arguments more and more, notably from countries such as Italy and Germany, where industry is increasingly worried."

In fact, with the full support of Angela Merkel, the German government is backing a call from its industry to exempt it almost completely from the ETS. Merkel has said that although she supported the need to tackle climate change, she "could not support the destruction of German jobs through an ill-advised climate policy".

Germany has accepted that from 2013, power companies, including those that construct new power plants, should take part in the auction process but it is insisting that energy-intensive industries like aluminium producers should be compensated with free carbon permits.

The government is also to push for an exemption for large emitters like the steel industry, subject to these companies using the best available emission control technology, and is arguing for the remaining companies to have 80 percent of their carbon allocations issued free of charge.

The German government defends its stance by claiming there is a risk of carbon-emitting industries relocating to countries. "As long as European companies are governed by stricter climate protection regulations than their competitors in countries like China, we have to seek to establish special rules," says Sigmar Gabriel, environment minister.

How things have changed since the hubristic meeting of the 2007 European Council in Brussels when the "colleagues" agreed a binding target to reduce Europe's "greenhouse gas emissions" by 20 percent by the year 2020, compared with 1990 levels.

Now, the reality is creeping in and the "colleagues" are confronting a sober choice: they can pander to their climate change obsession or they can have an economy. They can't have both and are thus opting for the latter.

COMMENT THREAD

Throwing down the gauntlet

For those of us who believe that politics is about policies, rather than the soap opera of "politicians' lives", by far the most important speech to be delivered at the Labour Party conference came today – not from the prime minister but from business (aka energy) secretary John Hutton.

The importance cannot be overstated for, while the recent emphasis has been on the economic crisis, without cheap(ish) and available energy – with electricity supplies very much in the frame – we do not have an economy. The consequences of a shutdown of the nation's electricity supply are too dire even to think about, yet someone must, otherwise the nightmare will become the reality.

As the man said, "one of the most important threats to our long term competitiveness… Indeed, our sovereignty as a nation … is the new international battle for energy security." He then went on to say, "Affordable, reliable energy is the bedrock of our economic competitiveness. A pre-condition for fairness and social justice in our society."

Thus, in a speech that The Guardian thinks was very much designed to wrong-foot the green-tinged Conservatives, Hutton made case for coal and nuclear power, telling the conference that the two "controversial" sources of energy were crucial for Britain's future.

Britain needed to undergo a "renaissance in nuclear power", and coal would continue to be a "critically important fuel" for the country, he said, adding, "And because energy security is a first thought, not an afterthought, I will not turn my back on another critical source of energy security for the UK: coal."

Noting that people "feel passionate about coal," The Guardian has it that Hutton "took a swipe at David Cameron", who sees "an opportunity for pandering". Coal is critically important for the UK, Hutton said, "Flexible. Available. Reducing our reliance on imported gas."

"Tories say no to new coal and send mixed messages on nuclear; Lib Dems say to no to new coal and nuclear," Hutton averred. "No coal plus no nuclear equals no lights. We need to make sure that the choice for the country in the months ahead is equally simple: leadership for the long-term challenges facing Britain with Labour, or posturing and economic risk under the Conservatives."

That, of course, is the issue. By 2020, some 80 percent of the UK's gas will have to be imported, "much of it from the most unstable regions on the planet", which cannot be safe.

Thus, we are told, Hutton's remarks show that Labour believes that Cameron could be vulnerable on energy as high oil prices and the wider global economic downturn make people wary of restrictions on fuel even if they are designed to help the environment.

And therein lies the challenge. Hutton has already said that energy security must take precedence over "climate change". Today, he translated that into policy and threw down the gauntlet.

It remains to be seen whether a Conservative Party, advised by Zac Goldsmith – who believes that eco-terrorism against coal-fired generator plants is acceptable – can rise to the challenge.

COMMENT THREAD

Tax is for the little people

In a pointed protest against Gordon Brown's increasingly rapacious tax regime, Ian Cheshire, the chief executive of Kingfisher – the company which owns the B&Q do-it-yourself retail chain – is considering moving his headquarters offshore.

This, we are told, is the latest potential blow to the Government's under-fire tax policies, with Kingfisher the latest in a string of blue-chip names, which includes WPP and RSA Insurance.

One's sympathies for Mr Cheshire, however, are very slightly tempered by the recollection of a letter he signed recently, with others, urging the prime minister to ramp up green taxes and other costs to enable him and his other corporate colleagues "to grasp the business opportunities created by moving to a low climate risk economy."

One really does get a tad weary of wealthy men like Mr Cheshire, whose salary and stock options touch £1.3 million this year, reaching down and seeking to load massive costs on ordinary people, for his personal enrichment and that of his company and then, when it comes to his own dues, running a mile and squealing about excessive taxation.

The likes of Cheshire, of course, are quite entitled to complain about tax imposts but I do wish he and the rest of his claque would take a leaf out of their own books, and appreciate that we, no more than they, are not particularly enthusiastic about excessive taxation.

But then, we are not like them. Theirs is the gilded life – tax is only for the little people.

COMMENT THREAD

Ukraine, Russia and the EU

A few thoughts on the subject over on BrugesGroupBlog. The EU is ready to resume negotiations with Russia about that partnership in October if troops move out of Georgia proper (something that still has not happened). Judging by Prime Minister Fillon's comments, the French Presidency will want to resume negotiations even if those troops stay as they have done so far.

Publish and be damned!

The EU is, next month, to unveil plans to let drug firms use the media to publish promotion information about prescription-only medicines directly to patients.

This at least, is the claim of The Observer which is also retailing claims that the NHS's £11bn annual bill for drugs could soar if this is allowed.

Opponents argue the controversial proposals would come close to contravening the longstanding ban on companies advertising branded drugs and the idea that patients should have easy access to information about the medicines fed to them by their doctors is one that fills their trade union the British Medical Association with horror.

It is joined by the Consumers Association and Royal College of Physicians, the three being among nine "leading organisations" that have written a joint letter to the EU commission urging it to abandon its plan.

They fear that if this is allowed, patients will start demanding specific drugs they have seen promoted and reduce doctors' ability to prescribe cheaper alternatives. That happened in America, or so we are told, after it relaxed its rules in 1997 to permit such material.

"If we increase the demand for branded medicines the NHS drugs bill could go sky-high, putting its finite resources under threat," said Pete Moorey, the public affairs manager at Which?, the Consumers Association magazine.

For once, however, we must side with the EU on this. This sort of information is already on the internet, for those that wish to look at it, and there is no good reason why the medical Mafia doctors should have a monopoly of information.

The pharmaceutical industry makes a good case for liberalisation, with which it is hard to disagree. The only pity really is that the EU is proposing it as well.

COMMENT THREAD

And the good news is?

You can read it any which way, but The Sunday Times is telling us that EDF is poised this week to finalise the long-awaited £12 billion takeover of British Energy (BE), thus acquiring its nuclear generation assets.

This deal has caused considerable concern. EDF is 85 percent owned by the French government and the prospect of the entire UK nuclear generation capacity coming under the control of the French has considerable ramifications.

However, in what appears to be a new development, EDF is suggesting its willingness to hand back two key nuclear sites to the government for auction later this year. Power companies will be invited to tender for these, with Germany's RWE and Eon, Spain's Iberdrola and Sweden’s Vattenfall expected to make bids.

The two sites named are Dungeness, on the Kent coast, and Bradwell, in Essex, to which will be added other sites on which there are non-operational nuclear plants. This, it is hoped, will create one or more competitors to EDF, and speed up the construction of new reactors, with multiple sites under development at the same time.

If the BE takeover is successful, EDF is expected to press ahead with the construction of reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset (pictured) and Sizewell in Suffolk, with a possibility that two reactors will be built at each site.

The timing of this development has considerable political significance. With the Labour Party conference in progress, Westinghouse, the Japanese-owned nuclear reactor group, is planning tomorrow to attend with to launch a report claiming that the construction of its plants could bring a £30 billion boost to the British economy.

John Hutton, the energy secretary, who is to attend the launch, has been quick to capitalise on this, saying: "This report illustrates why I am so determined to press all the buttons to get nuclear facilities built in this country at the earliest opportunity."

This positions the Labour Party – under attack from all sides – as offering serious options for resolving the anticipated energy crisis. This is in stark contrast to the Conservative opposition which has yet to show its hand on energy and – according to its interim findings from its energy review - regards nuclear energy as a "last resort".

There is already some muttering in the ranks about the lack of any coherent direction from the Conservatives on energy. On Gordon Brown's handing of the economic crisis, The Independent newspaper is reporting that Labour has enjoyed a "bounce" at the expense of the Conservatives. According to its poll (which needs to be treated with the gravest of suspicion), it has nearly halved the Tory lead, from 21 points to 12.

If Labour can capture the high ground on energy – which it has already begun to do - the Conservatives could look extremely flat-footed. Then, this blog's predictions about Labour giving the Conservative a harder time than they expected might edge closer to reality.

COMMENT THREAD

A totally avoidable disaster

Right on cue, following the report that the EU is planning to "reform" the CFP, The Scotsman reveals that half of Scots cod catches are being thrown back into the sea

Described by fishermen's leaders as "a monumental moral disaster", this is a direct and inescapable consequence of the EU’s idea of fisheries management which in this case has led to a "staggering total" of 12,000 metric tons of marketable cod, with a potential value of £25 million, being discarded.

These data come from marine scientists at the government's Fisheries Research Service in Aberdeen. They show that, from a survey, carried out between January and June, 40 percent of landings of cod by weight are having to be discarded to prevent the fleet breaching the EU's quota restrictions.

At least 90 per cent of the catches are above the minimum marketable landing size, yet the above quota fish are being thrown back dead.

Unfortunately, it does not seem as if the fishermen have any better idea of how to deal with this issue than the EU. At a meeting involving industry representatives, scientists, environmentalists and policy-makers in Edinburgh next Thursday, the Scottish White Fish Producers' Association (SWFPA) will making its own pitch.

It will suggest that the Scottish fleet is given an increase in next year's cod quota in return for cuts in the number of days they spend at sea and fishing ground closures.

What it cannot suggest, however, is that the quota system is abandoned altogether – that being the bedrock of the CFP management system and thus beyond change – together with a total ban on "discards".

As we have been pointing out, most recently here, these measures together with the adoption of selective fishing techniques and a regime of "days at sea" controls on fishing effort, allocated by class of boat, would go a long way towards removing the obscenity of this waste.

However, as always, the EU is unable to respond, necessarily maintaining the core of a flawed system as the only such system which can be administered by a remote, supra-national authority controlling a multinational fleet.

At its heart, therefore, the CFP is irredeemably flawed because the EU is irredeemably flawed, which is why we will continue to see headlines of the type offered by The Scotsman and nothing at all will be done about then, other than continue cutting the sizes of the fleets as fish stocks contract as a result of the poor management.

The tragedy is that this mad-made and totally avoidable disaster exists only because UK politicians have neither the guts nor resolve to do anything about it. It is one of the prices we pay for continued membership of the EU – although paid by the fishermen and us, the fish buyers, rather than the loathesome politicians who so carelessly allow a valuable national resource to be destroyed.

COMMENT THREAD

It isn't working very well

The Ryder Cup tournament, the 37th event now in its final day in Louisville, Kentucky, is supposed to be the ultimate expression of the "European" ideal, having been hijacked by the European Union which is taking every opportunity to display its hated emblem.

We explained the background to this some time ago, but the post is as relevant today as it was then.

Unfortunately for the poor dears in the EU – and the huge publicity budget devoted to promoting their "European identity" – the idea hasn't really taken off. Certainly, the English fans pictured above do not seem to have got the message.

Hey ho! There's always the 2012 Olympics.

COMMENT THREAD

It's the ordinary folk who carry the can

"Taxpayers in Britain face up to 5p in the pound in extra taxes because of the credit crunch created by the banks, leading economists have warned," says The Sunday Times, bemoaning in its leader that, "It's the ordinary folk who carry the can."

Indeed they do and it was ever thus but, while the paper is rightly getting excited about this latest raid on our wallets, another one is around the corner which will cost us, potentially, even more.

We are, of course, referring to our favourite hobby-horse, the EU's emission trading scheme (ETS) which, with other levies and taxes, is set to add anything up to £15 billion a year to our bills (no one knows precisely how much – so this is a conservative estimate) – also, by some strange coincidence, equivalent to 5p in the pound in extra taxes, and that is likely to be only a start.

Worst still, this "tax" is regressive, which means those on lower incomes are hit proportionately harder than the wealthy.

That the vultures are gathering to feed off this new income stream is already evident from this piece, where the boss of the consultancy LECG, Chris Osborne, is exulting in the prospect of a new "dot-com boom".

That snouts are already in the trough is clear from our other piece and, in a shameless appeal to the greed dominating the financial markets, the Carbon Trust is advertising in the business press a "business opportunity worth £1.2 billion in the UK". Aimed at encouraging investment in "low carbon markets" and "creating new products" it directs readers to its website, where no end of money-making scams await those who join the "green-con boom".

Amazingly, the political classes seem to be totally unaware of what awaits us. This is perhaps indicated by a post in Conservative Home today which "reveals" the exclusive news that a senior frontbencher has told the site that, "as part of an ongoing review of economic policy, higher green taxation is very unlikely to feature in the next Conservative manifesto."

My comment on the site puts this in perspective, noting that unless the Conservatives are prepared to address the costs already in the pipeline - and in so doing confront existing and planned EU initiatives - a commitment to avoid further green taxes is of very little value. The damage is already done.

This leads one to the inevitable question, "can politicians be that ignorant?" Can they be so ignorant that they are apparently so heedless of what it to come that they can make statements as utterly facile and meaningless as appears on the Conservative Home site. This we have already answered - yes they can! – which makes Booker's column today a timely corrective.

In his piece, he picks up on some of our work and the connection between Lehman Brothers and the climate change industry, and between the company and those two great climate change evangelists, al Gore and James Hanson (pictured above).

What we have not yet fully explored, however (but, no doubt will) are the emerging plans to combine the UN's "clean development mechanism" with the EU's ETS, thus creating a truly global market in snake oil carbon credits, worth perhaps trillions of dollars once the US comes on board.

What drives this development is the growing realisation by European governments – and the EU commission – that the emissions reductions targets they have set themselves for 2020 and beyond are unachievable without massive damage to the economies of developed nations and, in particular, the need to force electricity generators to shut down their plants, leaving their customers cold and in the dark.

The net effect of such a development will be to extract the teeth from the ETS and related schemes, depriving it of its capability to drive down emissions, which was the supposed rationale of the scheme. All that will be left is a bloated financial market, trading in the ultimate snake oil product, carbon credits, for the enrichment of the few and the impoverishment of the many.

That Lehman Brothers – and before them Enron – were so keen on this scheme tells you all you need to know. It comes from the same stable as the securitisation packages of sub-prime mortgages, a financial empire built on foundations of sand.

Many people warned of the dangers of the "credit crunch", but some of those who are popping up now are exposed to accusations of being wise after the event. Yet, in the "green-con boom", the wiz-kids are preparing the ground for another financial bubble – a "climate change crunch" if you like - the consequences of which will be just as damaging as the present crisis.

And, as The Sunday Times so rightly observes, "It's the ordinary folk who carry the can." Booker, as he is so often, is being wise before the event. Can we please have some grown-up politicians to join him?

COMMENT THREAD

The thot plickens

The Irish Times is not the best of sources but it is the best we have to keep us up to date with the increasingly murky tale of Declan Ganley's plan to take over the world start a political party.

As we left it, our Declan had made his pitch in Brussels. Then there was that strange behaviour of supreme UKIP leader, Mr Farage, at his UKIP love fest conference, and then there was that speculative article in the EU Reporter.

Now, like a virgin tantalisingly shedding her veils with six still to go, Declan has given us a brief glimpse of his next move, recruiting – according to the Irish Times - "two of Europe's most prominent Eurosceptics to help him if he decides to run in next year's European elections."

You have to forgive this newspaper for not knowing the difference but one of these "eurosceptics" is former veteran Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde who is not and never has been of the disposition, preferring instead to milk work within the system, arguing about the points of detail but never actually wanting to bring the EU down.

Not so the other recruit, Czech president Václav Klaus, although this man already has a day job and it is difficult to see what help he can be to Declan other than to lend his name to his enterprise.

But, with these two on board (although Jens Peter has never been far from Declan's side), the master plan comes a little clearer in that a launch of Libertas as a pan-EU political party seems to be in the offing – running on the platform of opposition to the constitutional Lisbon treaty.

However, our Declan has repeated his assertion that he is a "pro-European" (we think he means pro-EU) and that his opposition is simply confined to the new treaty. He notes that this is "the first time Brussels is being challenged by enthusiastic Europeans".

In pursuit of his broader aim, whatever that might be, Declan is planning to speak to the Movement for France (MPF) in Paris today, his overt intention being to strengthening his "European links". This party also passes itself off as "eurosceptic" but, like Declan, does not want to secede from the European Union.

Sooner or later Declan will come clean on his precise intentions, which are of some interest to us in lil 'ol England, as to whether he is going to ally himself with UKIP or the Tories. Alternatively, he could bid for seats under the Libertas brand – with or without Farage - thus confusing the electorate and potentially splitting the eurosceptic vote (even more).

Here, the apparent tryst with Václav Klaus is interesting. His Civic Democratic Party has been assiduously courted by the Tories in the hope that they will join a new EU parliament grouping when or if the Tories can finally muster the courage to honour Cameron's promise and quit the EPP.

If Declan is also courting the MPF – which currently has three MEPs in the EU parliament and was also a prospective member of Dave's new EU parliament group – this could cause problems. If Declan's intention is to create an all-new pan-European party and manages to Hoover up the CDP and the MPF, the Tories could end up out on their own if they leave the EPP.

We have, therefore, what seems to be a wild card in the pack, potentially changing the dynamics of next euro-elections in an entirely unpredictable way. The thot, as they say, definitely plickens.

COMMENT THREAD

The green-con boom

If there was any more evidence needed that the climate change scam has become precisely that – a vast money-making scam – turn to The Times today (business section) for an interview with Chris Osborne, "boss of the LECG consultancy".

The egregious Chris is touting the idea that there should be an International Court of the Environment in London, which should become "the supreme legal authority for settling issues regarding harm to the environment". Apart from another boost to tranzie ambitions, this would, of course, provide another generous income stream for high-priced city lawyers - as well as jobs for the LECG "experts".

But the main contribution of Mr Osborne is his conviction that:

… we are heading for an investment gold rush in new green technologies comparable to the dot-com boom a decade ago. America, where the providers of capital already have close links with the academics researching the technologies, is ahead of Europe. "The same VCs who were sticking money into the dot-coms world as an emerging, pattern-breaking transformation are back again. They have the money. They have the clout. They are looking for stuff that will provide the breakthrough," he says.

And just like the dot-com bubble, this green-con boom will burst in due course. In the meantime the money men and the corporates are rushing in to milk it for all it's worth.

Osborne sees the development of renewables such as wind, solar power and biofuels as "seed corn", businesses that are still insignificant today in profit terms. But, noting the "professed devotion" of Shell and BP to renewables, he dismisses the accusation of "greenwash". "Greenwash is a pejorative term," he says. "I'm not sure that's warranted. These are companies like any other companies and they exist to make money."

Quite.

COMMENT THREAD

Plundering the private purse

It was the great economist and philosopher Adam Smith who wrote:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

Now, they do not even bother to hide their intentions – they just cite "climate change" and lobby the government so that they can "compete for the lucrative business" made possible by its measures.

Such is clearly the motivation of the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change which, under the aegis of the Prince of Wales's "Business and the Environment Programme", have written a letter to the prime minister and the leaders of the opposition parties calling for "the cross-party effort that is essential to deliver a low climate risk economy."

What, in effect, they are asking for is a suspension of the political (i.e., democratic) process, their stated aim being to encourage "a new cross-party political consensus" on the scale and speed of change required, and a constructive political debate on how their "lucrative business" can be delivered.

The companies signing the letter are Anglian Water Group, B&Q, BAA, Centrica, E.on, F&C Management, Faber Maunsell, John Lewis, Johnson Matthey, Lloyds TSB, Reckitt Benckiser Group, Shell, Standard Chartered Bank, Sun Micro-systems, Tesco, Thames Water, Unilever and Vodafone.

Most of these, in one way or another, stand to gain financially from implementation of climate change measures, some more directly than others. The energy companies Shell, Centrica and E.on in particular stand to make money from the ETS and the allied emission mitigation measures.

Companies like Faber Maunsell, a "multi-disciplinary, award-winning consultancy specialising in the planning, design and engineering of buildings, transport systems and environmental services", also stand to make a packet out of climate change mitigation contracts. And Johnson Matthey, which just happens to produce components for fuel cells, is nicely placed to grab some of the "lucrative business".

The multi-billion international investment company, F&C Management is also a very interesting example of self-interest in action. It has actively lobbied the US congress for "cap and trade" and is keen to follow in the footsteps of al Gore and make a tidy fortune out of carbon trading.

The same "lucrative business" opportunity awaits Lloyds TSB and the Standard Chartered Bank, the latter gleefully talking up the prospects for the carbon trading market.

The Anglian Water Group is heavily involved in renewable energy, as indeed is Thames Water, which is already the largest generator of renewable energy within the M25 and is very keen on developing electricity generation from sewage sludge.

B&Q stands to gain considerably from increased retail sales of insulating materials and energy saving devices, as do – to a certain extent – Tesco and John Lewis.

For these two latter companies, their involvement also – in their own eyes – confers a PR bonus. Being seen to be "environmentally conscious" is good for business. That probably explains the presence of BAA - anxious to demonstrate its corporate responsibility - the involvement of Vodafone (although the latter sees product development opportunities as well) and of the Reckitt Benckiser Group.

PR is certainly one of the motivations of Sun Micro-systems. However, Vinod Khosla, co-founder of the company is pumping millions into developing biofuels using "synthetic biology". Unilever is also heavily into biofuels and is actively promoting second generation biofuel.

Thus, although this initiative is presented as business expressing "concern" about climate change, the letter to the prime minister is nothing more or less than a naked expression of pork-barrel politics.

Ironically, Greenpeace is accusing some of those involved of "hypocrisy of a previously unknown magnitude". In so doing, however, it misses the point. As we pointed out earlier, the greenie agenda has been hijacked by big business, who see in the raft of climate change controls huge money-making potential.

The letter to prime minister is just another example of that dynamic, where the players have recognised the scam for what it is, an opportunity to plunder the private purse.

Adam Smith must be turning in his grave.

COMMENT THREAD

Do I wish!

As before, unfortunately, the story is not what it seems.

COMMENT THREAD

Ambiguity – or the truth revealed?

"EU struggles with tools to tackle Lehman-style crisis" is the offering from Euractiv, headlining its report on the financial crisis.

We could hardly disagree, but we did not think that this site shared our opinion of the "colleagues".

However, the infelicitous headline actually distracts from a worrying story. As always when there is a problem, the "colleagues" have been gathering like vultures at the prospect of a feast, this time plotting to turn the financial crisis into a beneficial crisis.

The plot is led by French finance minister Christine Lagarde, who has circulated a paper proposing "integrated supervision" of the financial services industry "based on collegial work by national authorities."

In conjunction with the EU commission, he proposes that every financial group with a cross-border dimension would be monitored by an ad hoc college of supervisors, made up by authorities from the countries it operates in. Within the college, the supervisor of the home country would have more power due to its better knowledge of the multinational company's overall financial activities and exposure

Lagarde was apparently jubilant at the reception of his idea. "We found the basis for unified supervision. We moved towards a more integrated Europe today," she was heard to say after a meeting over the weekend.

Nevertheless, a number of member states are wary of integrated supervision but the idea has been lodged once again and it is back on the political agenda. You have to give it to the "colleagues". They never miss an opportunity to promote the EU's one and only real policy – political integration.

COMMENT THREAD

One reason why we are in trouble

Four minutes twenty-nine seconds of your life well spent.

COMMENT THREAD

The perpetual motion machine

The banana painters are out in full force today, with the ban on short-selling, the trading practice (wrongly) blamed for the immediate troubles in the financial markets.

This is a classic example of regulatory knee-jerk which betrays the mindset of our masters. Having set up faulty and entirely ineffective regulatory structures, they stand idly by while the system goes into melt-down and then, after the event, launch into regulatory overdrive, banning everything in sight.

In that context, I don't know who Seth Freedman is, but much of what he writes today in Comment is Free seems to make sense. Under the strap, "Instead of arbitrarily lashing out in response to short-selling, governments should hone coherent policy to apply to all players," he writes:

As it was put to me earlier: "If you take away their cocaine [in this case short-selling], they'll feed their addiction with speed." In the vacuum left by the ban on going short, 10 other trading mutations will spring up to fill the void.

That neatly identifies the inevitable effect of knee-jerk controls. Blind interference in any complex system invariably creates anomalies and loopholes which then require or legitimise further intervention by the regulators which, in turn, create more anomalies and loopholes which in turn require or legitimise further intervention which in turn …

By this means, the process of regulation becomes a perpetual motion machine, locking us into a dynamic whereby no sooner has one piece of law been finalised and implemented, then its creators are already working on amendments to replace it. The result is enterprise drowning in a blizzard of paperwork and red-tape which, in the final analysis, never actually achieves the purpose for which it was ostensibly designed.

But, each and every time there is a crisis, the siren voices are heard calling for more controls and regulations, and each time the legislators rush in to oblige, thereby guaranteeing themselves continued employment and privilege.

What no one ever does is sit back and think whether those regulations and controls are part of the problem, a cure worse than the disease. For instance, as tighter regulation makes it virtually impossible for small and medium-sized financial institutions to prosper, the market becomes dominated by fewer and bigger players.

Then, instead of the normal cycle of the growth and demise, we have fewer collapses but when they come they are bigger, more explosive and do infinitely more harm.

This dynamic is well understood and endlessly written about yet, each and every time we have a crisis, courage and conviction go out of the window. Wise men (and some very stupid ones) defer to the baying of the crowd and the cycle of regulation and re-regulation jerks into action all over again.

It seems almost as if we have a society with no collective memory and a complete inability to put learning and understanding into effect. However, social laws are as immutable as the laws of physics and in neither context can there be such a thing as a perpetual motion machine. What there most certainly is, though, is a stiff price to pay for collective insanity.

Perhaps that is what we are paying now.

COMMENT THREAD