And they were soon in the midst of one of those immense and formless conversations in which a complex subject is discussed without order interminably, and without apparent result, until there comes a moment when the speakers perceive that all the ground has been many times covered and that it is no longer possible to say anything that has not already been said; and pauses occur, and the unavoidable conclusion emerges and shapes itself and imperiously demands acceptance.
Arnold Bennett - Whom God Hath Joined (1906)
There are many cases where an unavoidable conclusion emerges and shapes itself and imperiously demands acceptance. Not necessarily the right conclusion and possibly a stupid conclusion, but an unavoidable conclusion at the time. Of course it may not seem so unavoidable in the future. There are many cases of that too.
For example, within the UK government the first unavoidable Net Zero conclusion was that it should be pursued vigorously as government policy. It may be that a second unavoidable conclusion is emerging – a conclusion that the policy cannot possibly work or affect the climate. Sceptics saw it from the beginning and in a sense this is what sceptics do, they see the second unavoidable conclusion first.
Why didn’t the government see from the beginning that Net Zero is a stupid policy and why is the stupidity yet to be acknowledged? Governments are stuffed with supposedly intelligent people who attended university, know how to say the right thing in the right circles but push forward with stupid policies.
Perhaps governments did not see the stupidity of Net Zero from the beginning because there are not enough sceptics in government. Anyone from any social class, any level of education and any walk of life can do scepticism. For governments and the elites, something anyone can do just won’t do.
Are MPs likely to row back on Net Zero, admit it has all been premature and return to whatever works best within the constraints of markets, engineering and the laws of physics? Are they likely to do it now, when the stupidity is so obvious and a general election looms? Again the unavoidable conclusion emerges and shapes itself and imperiously demands acceptance - no.
9 comments:
The climb-down will be just like the end of a family or workplace argument. One person loses, in that they realise they have made an absolute tit of themselves. But, unless it's one of those touchy-feely settings where people pride themselves on their emotional literacy and honesty, they don't immediately admit it and apologise. They chunter on for a bit, and then quietly drop the subject. The subject then ceases to excite the opposition, because nobody is making a fuss any more.
So government targets will be missed, and those who are prone to make a massive fuss about climate like the JSO loons, will be quietly sidelined. Instead of the police standing by and allowing them to trash Whitehall, they will be quietly arrested or re-routed. The mood music will change, and climate will be allowed to slip down the agenda.
I doubt if Ed Miliband or HMCIII, to pick two examples from a target rich environment, accept even now that there is anything wrong with Net Zero. Apart, possibly, from its not having been achieved by now.
Given our long and bitter experience of them and that the typical MP couldn't find his/her/its own arse with both hands and a map, "no" is a foregone conclusion.
Sam - yes that's how the climb-down will go. Slower than after a family or workplace argument, but possibly quicker than we might expect. As you say, the mood music will change and the loons will be arrested. King Charles will be slow to adapt perhaps, but he'll find he doesn't make so many speeches and they don't make the headlines.
decnine - there seem to be rumblings but yes, people like Ed and Charles are personally invested in it. Another major problem is the huge amount of racketeering it supports, not easy to see how that will pan out.
Jannie - reality will crush it at some point, but the damage could be even greater than it is already before MPs notice.
When any serious business decision has to be made you list the alternatives including the 'do nothing' option before you make the decision.
In my opinion few politicians are willing to embrace the 'do nothing option'. There is no political benefit to be gained from doing nothing. Which is why some damn fool ideas progress because politicians are too phobic of not starting 'doing something' in the first place.
DJ - I agree, I sometimes wonder if the permanent administration ever offers the 'do nothing option' to ministers and MPs. Yet without it, political oversight is incomplete at best.
Same as it ever was. Covid - every thing about it. H2S the rail line - Who expected millions of passengers to pay lots to get from somewhere near London to Birmingham 20 minutes faster, while getting to the special stations takes longer and longer each year, Zoom conferences came along, and loads just working from home.
Electric Battery cars, Heat Pumps in a cold country. Open up the borders.
And on and on.
They say that Calvin Collidge was an excellent president because his policy was to do nothing.
Doonhamer - I read somewhere that in terms of incident sunlight this country is one of the darkest in the world. Explains why the government encourages solar farms.
Tammly - as little as possible would be a good start for our lot.
Post a Comment