BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

ALL

GEEK

In the UK, Conservative = Environmentalist

MONDAY JANUARY 15 2007 9:00 PM

Submitted by legionnaire. Edited By legionnaire.

TAGS: environment, conservative, emissions

Apparently members of parliament in the UK haven't forgotten that one can't spell "conservative" without the word "conserve," or at least "conserv." While global warming and climate change are typically dismissed by many amongst the American conservative movement as a liberal conspiracy to undermine American supremacy in the Middle East or something equally as ludicrous, conservative legislators in the UK are taking the issue so seriously they're pushing for an 80% reduction in carbon emissions from the entire UK by 2050.

The Conservatives are considering a plan to beef up the Climate Change Bill to be published shortly, which will include the Government's goal of cutting emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. A Tory policy review group favours an 80 per cent reduction and the Tories may table an amendment to the Bill along these lines.

Ministers are worried that such a move would put Labour on the defensive and allow the Tory leader, David Cameron, to make the running on the issue. They fear that many Labour MPs and the Liberal Democrats would vote in favour of an 80 per cent cut, which could result in an embarrassing defeat for the Government.

Peter Ainsworth, the Conservatives' environment spokesman, said no final decision had been taken on the Opposition's strategy but added: "There is likely to be a debate on whether it should be 60 per cent or 80 per cent. In order for there to be a debate, someone would have put down an amendment."

It's like looking at some sort of bizarro-America, where liberals are warmongers, Superman is evil and people put vinegar on their french fries. The Labour government had proposesd a 60% increase and that just wasn't enough for the Conservatives, who are demanding that it go to 80%.

By contrast, let's hear a few choice comments from leading American conservatives on the subject:

Disgraced fomer house speaker Tom DeLay:

"It's the arrogance of man to think that man can change the climate of the world. Only nature can change the climate. A volcano, for instance."

President George W. Bush:

"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK):

The chair of the Senate's environment committee spent the past four years campaigning against environmentalists and the media. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) says they have played the "greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people" by supporting the idea that humans are responsible for global warming.

Not exactly the same degree of motivation that the UK conservatives have in fixing this problem.

9 Comments

bald_eagle

Indianapolis, IN

November 2006

JAN 15, 2007 09:14 PM

I'm perfectly willing to admit that humans may not be responsible for all of the global-warming effect. But doesn't it make sense to control what we can?

Go, Brits.

dholokov

Toronto, ON

April 2003

JAN 15, 2007 09:42 PM

How odd. The Conservative party of Canada, desperately trying to find something to make it popular enough to increase its seats in the next election, recently came up with a plan to cut Canadian greenhouse gases by 50% - by the EXACT SAME year (coincidence?). The 2050 date was considered so ridiculously insufficient that the environment Minister was laughed out of cabinet and replaced.

Wraithkiss

Everett, WA

November 2004

JAN 15, 2007 10:19 PM

omg. I feel fucking small and weak that my government cant even admit there's a freaking problem. My government has done a lot of embarassing things, but this is just extremely embarassing. America is just a big overweight bully retard child that throws trantrums and covers their ears and sings songs to themselves as loud as they can till the person trying to talk to it about the issue just go away. Then we just feel so smart cause we got the person trying to tell us bad things to go away while the rest of the world actually puts out some effort to fix the mess we're making for everyone else. Its just hugely embarassing.

mat8drb

United Kingdom

October 2004

JAN 15, 2007 11:22 PM

Put it still isn't a definitive policy from them, is it? It is something they're considering. I'm all for listening to Cameron and his party when they come out with some actual policies instead of saying "We should really look into [insert topical issue]". Until then, they're proving they're much, much better at spin than Labour were when they swept to power in 1997.

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ

April 2006

JAN 16, 2007 12:33 AM

Protect the Planet... Shoot a Republican

Korlis

United Kingdom

July 2005

JAN 16, 2007 01:26 AM

Don't take the "things we should look into" policies from the UK conservative party too seriously. They are, after all, the opposition party right now, and anything to one-up Blair's Labour is being considered. If and when Cameron and the Tories gain/regain power, I'll be interested to see if the many promises they've made get followed up on.

Gringo

Liberty Lake, WA

May 2006

JAN 16, 2007 01:40 AM

Wraithkiss said:
omg. I feel fucking small and weak that my government cant even admit there's a freaking problem. My government has done a lot of embarassing things, but this is just extremely embarassing. America is just a big overweight bully retard child that throws trantrums and covers their ears and sings songs to themselves as loud as they can till the person trying to talk to it about the issue just go away. Then we just feel so smart cause we got the person trying to tell us bad things to go away while the rest of the world actually puts out some effort to fix the mess we're making for everyone else. Its just hugely embarassing.

Geez, Wraith. How can you expect our country to address such problems? Can't you see we're far too busy in everyone else's business? I mean...come on, dude. Wait until we're done fucking up the rest of the planet before we look at our own problems. Such a plan would require a budget...and the cost of deploying troops doesn't allow for budgets to do nonsensical things such as this so-called "environment" thing.

Man, talk about being out of touch with reality.

On a serious note, I was fucking sickened when I moved to WA and found out you couldn't eat the fish from many rivers here....because they let companies dump a certain "acceptable" level of toxins into the water.

dem_z

United Kingdom

June 2004

JAN 16, 2007 06:04 AM

Bizzarro is right. Thatcher destroyed many great things about this country, and I'd rather jab pins into my nuts than vote Tory, but I'm not sure I can see myself voting for a party that has Blair running it either.

The Tories were lost for a few years, switching leaders and chopping & changing policies to try to find something the voters would go for. They know they lost the economic argument because we've got reasonable employment and inflation rates. I reckon that this is a cynical ploy.

I remember seeing Cameron cycling to work, and then reading that his car had to drive behind him with all his paperwork. Stuff like that doesn't convince me that they're serious. But anything that pushes people to be a bit more eco-aware is a good thing.

legionnaire

United Kingdom

November 2003

JAN 16, 2007 09:20 AM

Korlis said:
Don't take the "things we should look into" policies from the UK conservative party too seriously. They are, after all, the opposition party right now, and anything to one-up Blair's Labour is being considered. If and when Cameron and the Tories gain/regain power, I'll be interested to see if the many promises they've made get followed up on.

It's true that it seems like the Tories are trying to score political points with this. But it's a entirely different way to frame the debate than in the US, where it's not "how much should we do" but rather "should we acknowledge that there's a problem at all?"