Home What's New Speeches & Articles Newsletter - Apr 2008 Biography Diary Contact Information Photo Album Parliamentary Highlights Publications Links MEPs' Transparency   Conservative Party Latest News from Conservatives.com Conservative Party Website
		Targets good, action better Lincolnshire Echo - September 17 2002 There's something about Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace that gives us all a cosy glow. Perhaps it's because of all those heart-warming stunts they put on, usually including death-defying journeys in inflatable boats, or banners hung from improbably high buildings. At least we trust them more than those sinister global corporations who try to fill our world with dangerous chemicals and Frankenstein foods. Of course environmental NGOs (that's a piece of jargon -- "Non-Governmental Organisations") usually mean well, and sometimes do some good, but have they got their facts right? There are many scientists who are starting to challenge the doom-and-gloom predictions of the eco-warriors. In the sixties, the greens told us that the oil was running out, and that our environment was becoming poisonous -- "Don't drink the water, don't breathe the air". But today in the twenty-first century, the oil has not run out, and our air, our water, our beaches are cleaner than they have been for years. I can remember (just!) the London smogs of the fifties. We see nothing like them today. The greens have a passionate hatred for the motor-car -- that great symbol of personal freedom. They take no account of the huge amount of work the industry has done to make cars cleaner. Indeed if you have an old car, the best thing you can do for the environment is to buy a new, cleaner one. And the car industry continues to work on hybrids, electric vehicles and clean hydrogen technology. At the Johannesburg summit, Tony Blair made a thinly veiled attack on America for not endorsing Kyoto. It seems to be sacrilege these days to criticise any environ-mental initiative, but Kyoto is deeply flawed. For a start, there is no conclusive proof that the consequences of global warning will match the doom-dayers' predictions. Secondly, achieving the Kyoto targets will be fabulously expensive -- trillions of dollars -- yet scientists tell us that even if we reach those targets (which we won't) the effects on average global temperatures will be marginal. And thirdly -- this is the killer -- if we decided to spend that much money on the environment, are the Kyoto targets the best way to spend it? No. There are a whole series of things we could do which would deliver far more bang for our buck. We are hearing a lot about the "Asian Brown Cloud". In India and China, huge numbers of peasants cook on open fires, burning wood or dried dung. If we would just give them simple stoves to replace open fires, we could make a huge reduction in emissions and in bio-mass consumption. Simple, sustainable technology. If we could up-grade them to electric stoves powered from modern coal-fired power stations, emissions would reduce further. But if we wait for renewable energy to get to those countries, it will take decades to make an impression. The media are presenting Europe as the angels and the US as the villains at the Johannesburg summit. But the real difference is that the EU, like Tony Blair, wants headline-grabbing targets, whereas the US wants practical action. No wonder the EU prefers ten-year targets rather than action. Targets make headlines, action costs money. No one knows what will happen in ten years, but one thing seems certain. Tony Blair will no longer be in office, and he won't be accountable for delivery on his grandiose targets. Who can now remember ten-year promises that were made in 1992? Maybe the US has a point. Let's see fewer dramatic, long-term targets and more immediate, practical policies.