Will Copenhagen achieve more than the previous climate change meetings?
In aftermath of the UEA outrage, where climate change scientists have engaged in falsification of data on which many climate models depend, it not may not be the most propitious time to stamp a huge carbon footprint on Copenhagen as the great and the good jet in from around the world to lecture everyone else on the need to cut back consumption and jet travel to save the planet.
The latest call is to eat fewer sausages, echoing the call of another religion five hundred years ago. Copenhagen may consume more sausages than the call for abstinence has saved.
Each climate change conference succeeds in ever more extreme promises and new targets for cutting carbon emissions that are never met. It is very easy to believe that the purpose of these costly meetings is to make politicians look good and caring when they have no intension of honouring their new promises.
But is that necessarily bad?
Given the UEA scandal, many will say that Global Warming is not happening and if there is any warming its nothing to do with humans – so why self-flagellate for no purpose?
The sad thing about the UEA fraud and the shrill cries from Global Warming fundamentalists is that we are not having a real debate on a series of things which need correction and which can be corrected with less noise, lower taxes and some speed.
We can recycle waste much better than we are. This makes life more pleasant, reduces risk to other animals and humans, avoids wasting raw materials and energy, saves money, relieves suffering by the poor, is achievable. In many instances we can avoid the need for recycling by cutting out unnecessary packing of products
We can avoid wasting water and we should.
We should avoid wasting energy by reducing the distance goods travel unnecessarily.
We should not be afraid to employ politically incorrect energy systems that reduce pollution, rather than spending huge sums on highly polluting politically correct systems.
The list is almost endless, but each area can be improved at relatively low cost and sometimes at a cost saving. Much waste is the result of over legislation by political classes that feel the need to be doing something, anything, but not thinking.
Maybe the answer is fewer photo opportunity meetings and more action to address real problems with efficiency.