No, the Iran War Doesn’t Prove Ed Miliband Right
Alongside the claim that you should love mosquitos and wasps, the Guardian’s Environment Correspondents opinion section carries three attempts to turn the Iran crisis into an opportunity for the UK’s green agenda. Environmentalism is, I have long claimed, an opportunistic infection: its adherents are unable to make a case for a perfect world on its own terms, and so their argument for a radical and urgent reorganisation of society, requiring the suspension of normal politics, must capitalise on a sense of crisis to advance their agenda. And so it is that the Grauniad’s eco-hacks rush to Ed Miliband’s rescue with some tall tales.
I do not, and never will love mosquitos and wasps. I’ve never been troubled by a vulture, except figuratively: those who prey on others’ emotions by provoking alarm and fear. I’m no fonder of figurative mosquitos, either: those who suck the lifeblood of others, to enrich themselves. And wasps, too: the aggressive harassment sucking the joy out of alfresco eating and drinking. To the extent that these figurative and non-figurative things are ‘nature’, they make my point that there’s nothing in nature to offer us a model for the organisation of society. The wretched feeding off corpses and living bodies and the swarming violence – and the rigid social hierarchies of ant colonies, for that matter – suggest to me that ‘love’ for ‘nature’ of this kind is an absurdity. ‘Nature’ cannot reciprocate your ‘love’, but it will infect your infants with a deadly plasmodium.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Households still need more help” (Mathew Lawrence, third Guardian quote from the left).
Translated, this means raise taxes (they never mean allocating money already being spent onto something else).
Alternatively, it means increased borrowing. They might be happy about this as it edges us closer to the collapse of the current financial system.
Ah yes indeed, borrowing – a tax on this and future generations.
What they means is “rob undeserving Peter, to pay deserving Paul.”
They decide who doesn’t and who does “deserve.”
Always all just an excuse for wealth transfer to build up a base of needy people who will vote for you and give you power, kudos and ££££s
Net Zero Won’t Solve One Problem
Quite right but it don’t half create some.
“There are worms in the belly as well as primroses in the wood.” C S Lewis
Whenever the Iran situation started I could see that it would immediately become camouflage for the eco socialist agenda. The same thing happened with Ukraine.
But ever since the Climate Change Act (Miliband 2008) prices of electricity have risen year on year so we now have the highest prices in the whole world, and it is the same for every country that uses a lot of renewables. Germany eg with about 40,000 turbines is also destroying its industry and forcing millions into energy poverty just as we are.
When you remove affordable reliable energy (fossil fuels) and replace them with all this FREE wind and sun then the result is economic disaster, and that was happening before Iran and will continue after Iran, because it is POLICY. —NET ZERO is enshrined in law, and we have forced ourselves to put reducing CO2 emissions FIRST and the people LAST.
“Green power is in effect an insurance policy against geopolitical risk”——This is an afterthought EXCUSE for a failed agenda that is destroying our industries and forcing millions into energy poverty. Because we would be indulging in this economic suicide whether there was a crisis in Iran or not. Because the original excuse—CLIMATE CHANGE was the main reason for the eco socilaist NET ZERO that was waved through Parliament in 2019 with no cost/benefit discussion and NO VOTE.
“It will mainly boost oil company profits”—–is another bogus excuse. What is wrong with “profit”? Does Renewable Energy not seek to make profit? Ofcourse it does. But the difference is that they make their profit from the government destroying the competition with carbon taxes and offsets, and by giving them 100% subsidy for their product as they interfere in the energy market for political purposes. —-Those politics are the UN’s Sustainable Development which states we in the wealthy west consume too much and must make do with less of everything and that all starts with ENERGY.
I for one welcome the lessons from the Iran war. We will be able to see how reduced volumes of oil and gas affect us. Yes, we might have to drive more slowly, and the Government are urging people not to ‘over order’ medications for fear of exacerbating shortages. Food will become more expensive as the cost of fertilisers and farming increase. More people may be obliged to work from home whether they want to or not. The Government will lose revenue from fuel sales, not that that bothers them.
The world of sufficient renewables (backed by nuclear power) is decades away. and we will still need some fossil fuels for chemical feedstocks. Hair shirts and ashes right now are not required.
Presumably you were not alive – or bad memory? – during all the other energy crises, the two Arab/Israeli wars of the late 60s/early 70s, UK miners’ strikes of the 70s, Iraq-Iran war, the First Gulf War, Second Gulf war, various other tensions in the Middle East?
I was alive and remember them well, but there are plenty of bright young things that need a fresh example.
This constant “wind is cheaper! Wind is cheaper” howl is disproved simply by looking at the Comtracts for Difference strike prices. Does Moonbat and his ilk not know this, or do they just dishonesty ignore it?
My money is on dishonest. The games up. They know it, but can’t admit it as it shows them up for the ignorant fools they are.
I think they are just too stupid to understand them. Never discount the retarded moron factor when dealing with the Far Left.
Grid frequency (UK & Europe) MUST be 50Hz and must not vary by more then less than +/- 1Hz – even for a few seconds, or the grid shuts down and takes time – days – to restart. This frequency is set by spinning generators (steam/gas turbines) operating at 3 000rpm, ie 50rps. Changes in demand, faults at power stations or grid equipment, station drop out, current surges due to electric storms, HT wires touching due to high winds, cause frequency variation. Spinning generators resist this through mechanical inertia, and maintain frequency as the generators have governors to keep them spinning at 3 000rpm. Wind/solar/batteries cannot set or maintain grid frequency. Without fossil fuel – gas is best – spinning generators on the grid providing 60% at least input to maintain frequency and provide power when wind/solar drop out, there can be no grid. Wind/solar cannot provide base load, coal is best for this. It doesn’t matter how many windmills, sunbeam catchers, batteries are installed, 60% of grid power at all times will have to come from spinning generation, therefore fossil fuels. Additionally there must be an equivalent capacity of spinning generators to installed wind/solar, for those times when they… Read more »
It’s true that traditionally it was easier to manage grid frequency with things like 500 MW alternators, and varying the voltage in a few steps etc, but the latest technique appears to be “Grid Forming”. Here is a NESO site on the topic: https://www.neso.energy/energy-101/electricity-explained/how-do-we-balance-grid/what-grid-forming
Except that there is no indication from NESO that this unicorn technology is actually in use and anything that says we are the first to do something should ring deafening alarm bells given our recent history of f*cking everything up.
Nobody actually knows how long it would take to restart out grid should it go black. Days might be very optimistic.
The Guardian – written by morons, for morons.
This needs publishing in the telegraph and the speccy as a minimum.