Environment-conscious Tories hit back against climate-change skeptics

A group of modernising pro-green Tories will today launch a fight-back within the party when they publish a manifesto outlining plans for a £5bn-a-year boost in economic growth, creating 300,000 jobs, by pursuing environmentally friendly policies.

In a sign of their determination to challenge Tory climate-change sceptics after a leading minister said that David Cameron was getting rid of "green crap", the modernisers will say that the most successful economies of the future will embrace both the environment and competitiveness.

The publication of the manifesto by the 2020 group of Tory MPs came after the former Conservative environment secretary Lord Deben launched an offensive on climate-change sceptics.

In a series of tweets Deben – the father of green Tories in his days, and formerly known as John Gummer – said he hoped the sceptics would stop insulting pro-green campaigners and accept that they were denying science.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/03/green-tories-manifesto-challenge-climate-change-deniers

Awesome news, good for them! Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have said the same thing regarding job creation.

I think if the RW could Pull of a green switch they could hammer next election.

I know within the LW there are people like me(young Professionals) that would switch if someone could provide a strong Environmental policy and economic understanding. Too Often the RW is just denying because the LW believe it. The Science is clear, despite what the FOX reporters say.

I know here we have Malcom Turnbull that is the Green/RW best hope of unification. He is Undoubtable an Environmentalist (by his actions and words) and he is a self-made Millionaire so clearly understands business too.

Hopefully Abbot gets hit by a Shark; Malcom would probably take over as Liberal party leader. And I might be Voting RW.

Sadly, it seems we in the U.S. are going in the opposite direction. The 2008 election website of McCain/Palin had a page all about how they were going to use the cap and trade method to fight climate change:



Today you'd only know because of the screenshots taken from the site before that page was pulled down.

When Obama proposed nearly the same idea, Palin wrote:

A 'Cap and Tax' Road to Economic Disaster

By Sarah Palin
Tuesday, July 14, 2009

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302852.html

that’s the thing Abbot is so Anti Climate Change he makes himself look like an idiot, but he only got leadership of the party by 1 vote (internal party voting) Malcolm was a Very close 2nd. It seems that behind the scenes the RW is split, we may have the intelligent/environmentalist RW opening a new Avenue more inclusive than either RW or LW now.

veya_victaous wrote:that’s the thing Abbot is so Anti Climate Change he makes himself look like an idiot, but he only got leadership of the party by 1 vote (internal party voting) Malcolm was a Very close 2nd. It seems that behind the scenes the RW is split, we may have the intelligent/environmentalist RW opening a new Avenue more inclusive than either RW or LW now.

That would be spectacular, and RWers really do need to speak up more about internal divisions -- "united fronts" are just creepy, I always wonder who they're obeying.

Meanwhile, I reiterate (from another thread) I'd love to hear some right-side-of-the-aisle solutions to climate change, rather than the usual denial.

The Main RW solution is Carbon Trading, the idea of letting the market balance the pollution/profit margin by making polluters buy carbon credits off other companies that are beyond neutral (and earn carbon credits for sucking up carbon others are producing). The market would decide the price if there are a lot of polluters but few Carbon credits the price of carbon credits will be high so to re-coup the cost they will increase the price of the goods and services they produce, thus they will cost more comparative to the carbon neutral product or service, giving a market advantage to the company being more environmentally responsible.

There are few problems the first of which is Getting everyone to agree that Carbon Credits are a thing. it is possible look at bit coins. the second which can be illustrated by bit coins is that initially it will fluctuate wildly until the market stabilises. Unlike bit coins this would affect some of the worlds major industries so the impact of the instability would be much more profoundly felt. This would include agriculture so the impact may have a real world death toll. 

That is the Capitalist Solution..... So you can see why they stick their fingers in their ears and shout "NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH....."

But the truth is the LW solution, well how to put it... 'unfundable' without major social upheaval.

The Best Solution Probably lies somewhere in between, I think nationally levelled carbon taxes are a good idea, they punish the polluter in a way that will allow non-polluter to become more competitive and control greater market share and give the gov't funds to pay for direct action solutions(these would vary from country to country but here one was subsidised Solar panels and home insulation). Then a carbon credit system for nations working as the model above but instead of companies you have nations doing the trading, this would have multiple benefits firstly it prevents companies from nation jumping to find the lowest carbon tax, they still can but the nation will have to make up the shortfall somewhere else to cover the carbon credits it has to buy. Secondly it would encourage nations to preserve rainforests and other carbon sinks as they will become a source of carbon credits, which they can use to balance industrial pollution or as a source of income trading them to other nations. This could have a dramatic impact on places like Africa for more than just the environment.