I am asking myself a question.

Do I believe any more, the things that our politicians are telling us? Either yes or no! For starters, while they were assuring us of how well they were managing the economy, they, nor their highly paid advisers, saw what was happening in the world stock exchanges. Surely it is unfair for David Cameron to be criticising, when the whole purpose of the Opposition is to check the weaknesses in government, and the Tories missed the big one. The USA is allegedly the world leader, do I trust its leader or his inexperienced successor? The answer in my case is no to all, so I question the statement made by a Cabinet member on television, that, in spite of the credit crunch, we are going to increase our spending to save the world. I thought about it. We have been wrecking the world since the dawn of time. Just take the number of trees the Spaniards felled to build the Armada, the trees we felled for duckboards in World War I, and the incredible clouds of exhaust by the Industrial Revolution. The Yanks never do anything by halves, they got rid of the indigenous population, then got rid of the bison, and subsequently built dustbowls and wide plains which must have had some effect on the weather also.

I am unconvinced of what the scientists tell me about global warming. As they do the testing over the poles, and cold air falls and is replaced by warm air, carrying any other gases with it, I suggest the testing over the poles could give a higher concentration of carbon etc., not the mean. I am unconvinced that these recent Globwarm changes are solely due to carbon emission etc. I believe there is a wider explanation related to the world as a whole. We have been emitting carbon as long as I remember, with the fogs in London every November, and Manchester was famed for them. The changes have been too quick and too extensive, to be placed at the door of global warming, which by its very nature is a slow process

Let it be clear, I am not a scientist, nor a mathematician, just a bloke seeing if the politicians are getting it wrong yet again. I made a table setting out 20 countries who allegedly have a carbon emission greater than 1,000,000 tonnes. I took their emission as a percentage of the whole, and divided it by the country’s population as a percentage of the world population. This gave me a series of figures for the CO2 percentage per head of population, varying from about 5% in the USA to 0.3% for India. Unsurprisingly China was about 1%, but surprisingly Canada and Australia were in the 4% range. We supply 2.4%, or a 40th, per head of population.

The question that I’m asking myself is, if we are giving off 2.4% currently, and are ordered to halve this by some date in the future, I just have no idea of what this will cost in the course of a generation, but believe that our gang want to lead the world yet again at our expense, when they personally haven’t a clue of what they’re really talking about. I believe it is just political claptrap, a sop to the green lobby. I would want a lot more hard proof of exactly what is causing climate change, of how much other countries were going to subscribe, as a common problem, which should be tackled universally. The range in the figures is a clear indication that some countries are bound to increase their percentages as their innovation and wealth increases, others may not change but will not bother reducing them, and there will be few if any that do reduce them to the extent our government is proposing.

All those who think I’m wrong, raise their hands!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *