I am a big fan of Prince Charles. He has spoken such a lot of sense over the years that I can allow him a piece of ill-advised nonsense occasionally, and such is, it would appear, his latest speech to the European Parliament on climate change.
Cranmer berates him (and HRH such a supporter of the prayer book!) for his statement ‘Surely this is just the moment in history for which the European Union was created?’ saying ‘When a rump Parliament, corrupt Church and a compromised Crown are all united in favour of ‘ever closer union’, only divine intervention, revolution, or a latter-day Cromwell can save the British people from the 'unavoidable' tyranny’
Well, well. No one is more eurosceptical than me, and I do think the Prince was ‘ill-advised’ to make such a political statement (I can only assume the PM’s office read his speech in advance and concluded it would take some of the pressure off them – which is one reason why it was ill advised).
But actually I don’t mind environmental issues being sorted at EU level – it is a cross border thing. It’s all the other interference into our lives I can’t stand. It’s easy enough: discuss, make a proposal, then publish the names of those countries that disagreed (no vetoes, thanks).
There’s a couple of things I can’t grasp, however. Firstly I keep reading that there is in fact no global warming at the moment. That statistically (whatever that means) global temperatures have been stable for 10 years. Do the environmentalists accept this? In what way is it wrong?
Secondly, HRH talks about warming of 1.5 degrees but the Kyoto protocol would (if it had worked, and it didn’t) have reduced temperatures by only 0.5deg. Doesn’t this mean we are wasting our time trying to cut carbon emissions to reduce temperatures and would spend the money better looking after the people who will be affected?
Perhaps one of my readers knows the answer to all this. I don’t.
No comments:
Post a Comment