In an excellent interview with UnHerd’s Freddie Sayers, political philosopher John Gray questions the effectiveness of current climate policies, suggesting they were implemented prematurely and lacked the necessary technology and materials. Here’s an excerpt:
I’m not a climate sceptic. I’m a disciple in that regard of a great friend who died recently, James Lovelock. He used to say that climate science is inexact, but if it has a bias, it’s probably towards underestimating the speed of climate change. He thought that climate change would consist of sudden jumps and it could transform things quite quickly, in a couple of decades. We might be in the middle of it. That’s my view – I’m not a climate sceptic.
What I am very sceptical about is Net Zero, and the kind of conventional green policies that are being launched. Firstly, they were launched before the infrastructure was there – before the technology was developed that could make them work. No consideration was given to the fact that many of the raw materials that were needed for the inputs, the batteries and so on, were now substantially or even largely controlled by China in Africa and elsewhere. It’s in Africa that the Great Game of the 19th century is being refought.
Now, they might be found in other countries; in Sweden and America, various deposits have been found. But they are not easily developed. And in the meantime, these programmes can’t go ahead. Nor were the economic costs of these green programmes properly assessed. There was a constant insistence that they would be job-creative. Even in America, they haven’t been that job-creative. And remember, America is very big, and can throw very large amounts of money at these things – the Green New Deal is largely a protectionist scheme. We can’t do that because we’re too small; we’re too exposed to flows of international capital. The idea that in Britain or in Europe these programmes could ever possibly work – it’s a bit like suffering from cancer and using candle therapy.
Some people might say: “But we’ve got to, we’ve got to show that we’re on the right side, we’ve got to accomplish it, even if other people don’t do it.” I think that’s the politics of narcissism: “I want to feel good.” But in the meantime, you’re wasting resources and you’re wasting time. There is a serious possibility that we’re now in the early stages of runaway climate change. We should be focusing everything we’ve got – not on having an infinitesimal impact on global carbon levels, which would be the case even if the whole Net Zero programme was implemented, but on policies of adaptation. And adaptation is not going to be easy. Remember, most climate scientists agree that once human-induced climate change is in the works, it goes on for decades or even centuries. You can’t just stop it. There’s a general idea among environmentalists that we started this so we can stop it. They are wrong. We started it, probably, but we can’t stop it.
I’ve said previously we’re living in an age of tragedy. I’m not too sure about that anymore. I think we’ve advanced further than tragedy. We’re entering an age of absurdity. Consider German climate policy. Germany, as we keep hearing, is incomparably more adult, more advanced, more modern and in every way superior to bungling Britain. But in Germany, the result of their closing down of nuclear and going for renewables has been an increased reliance on the dirtiest kind of coal. Well, this is tragic, but it’s even more than tragic. It is completely absurd.
And it’s difficult to put these arguments forward because people start shouting at you or they start crying or they say they can’t get up in the morning. I rather brutally suggest: “Well don’t. Stay in bed until you get a better reason for getting up. And if you don’t, well, there we are. Progress always has casualties.”
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: According to Polar Bear Science, Arctic sea ice has once more defied expectations by not experiencing a significant decline this year, disappointing those who had long anticipated a ‘death-spiral decrease.
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.
I would strongly advise John Gray to stick to his day job – philosophising, because it is clear from the above that he has done absolutely zero research on net zero.
“Remember, most climate scientists agree that once human-induced climate change is in the works, it goes on for decades or even centuries.”
Can you provide any proof of “human induced climate change?”
No. Well STFU!
Why is DS printing utter garbage such as this?
Not only DS, why is Uherd giving him a voice?
“ He thought that climate change would consist of sudden jumps and it could transform things quite quickly, in a couple of decades. We might be in the middle of it. That’s my view – I’m not a climate sceptic.”
’Sudden jumps’: according to the geological data ‘sudden’ is tens of thousands or millions of years.
There is a serious possibility that we’re now in the early stages of runaway climate change.
Really..? The only thing that is ‘running away’ is the hysterical reaction of people who have followed the hyperbole, but have forgotten to ask critical questions or think for themselves.
And your comments earlier today under New Round-up, and those of JeremyP99 with the graphs are equally valid here.
Mr Gray is a Bernard Looney…..
The great game was, in fact, simple paranoia; Russia then, as now, a paper tiger.
China seems likely, particularly economically, to follow the well trodden path of so many socialist fascist states, something to which Britain itself should pay heed….tin eared though its political apparatchiks currently appear…..
As long as people like John Gray, “political philosopher,” stipulate that emissions are causing a runaway climate crisis it doesn’t really matter what else he has to say. He’s giving the “CO2 will kill us all” loonies all the ammunition they need to destroy the west and kill billions world-wide with their insane Net Zero bollox.
Sad to say that at this time Exhibit A of the CO2 Will Kill Us All Loonies includes most Western governments.
Perhaps he can explain how CO2 at levels of 150ppm drove the climate out of Ice Ages, then at levels of 4 000pppm, 6 000ppm and above, managed to drive the climate out of tropical ages back into Ice Ages.
Until any of these idiots can explain that, I’m not interested in their ramblings.
“Worth reading in full.”
I don’t think so.
“There is a serious possibility that we’re now in the early stages of runaway climate change.”
Evidence please? There is nothing to indicate a ‘runaway climate change’, nothing. What does a runaway climate change look like and Michael Bay type films are not evidence? There is plenty of evidence that the inter-glacial that we are currently in will end sometime in the next 500 years, and end it will. If we have somehow, and inadvertently, manged to stop the next glacial expansion then we will have dodged a massive bullet, except the forces that dictate the glacial cycles have not stopped, so I don’t see how..
The Earth having two ice caps is rare in its history. Having even one is unusual. We are therefore in an unusually cold period of Earth’s history.
I have to be honest, if this is ‘progress’ then it’s not very progressive. This is hilarious. Can you imagine what Khant would do if this were black cabs in London?
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1705651803168366638
Texan Gold there Mogs.
😀😀😀
😂😂😂😂
Well if there is a climate emergency, it is not shown in the heat waves in the USA. Debunked by Steve Koonin and John Christy. Chapter 5 of Unsettled S Koonin -explains the trick to explain the scary looking graph in the Climate Science Special report from 2017.
The fact that Gray mentions James Lovelock in a positive way instantly tells you anything he says is going to be garbage. Lovelock was bonkers and only appeals to the Charles “I talk to plants” type of environmentalist. He one of the first people to claim that by some point this century the Arctic would be the only part of the Earth that would still be habitable. Why any media site is giving Gray any kind of a platform is beyond me.
Yes but Lovelock as he got older realised he was wrong and admitted so. He should at least be credited for that, because the current lot of eco socialist government funded data adjusters simply double down on their propaganda masquerading as science with no intention of ever admitting they are way off the mark.
I gave up reading Lovelock’s books/statements a long time ago. Did he say that there isn’t going to be runaway climate change, or did he just say he was wrong about how quickly it would happen?
“Charles “I talk to plants””. Always a good thing to talk to plants as you’re giving them CO2 (plant food) from your breath. Mind you in Charlie boy’s case there’s an awful amount of hot air.
JugEars has always been several sandwiches short of a picnic …. we’d be far better served with his sister at the helm.
As long as you don’t think the plants are talking back, or understand what you say.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66906201
Armed forces, suitably armed, to replace police who have handed in arms permits following the arrest of the officer after Chris Kaba killed.
It is difficult to know where to start with this jumble of mainly nonsense. The first thing I see is references to James Lovelock, but infact Lovelock actually said that he was WRONG about climate change. He said he thought he knew what was going to occur 30 years ago and even wrote books about it, but “it just hasn’t happened”. Gray then redeems himself a bit by criticising Net Zero and the lack of the technology required for it. But he quickly dives into more nonsense again by saying “There is a serious possibility that we are now in the early stages of runaway climate change”——–This is an evidence free statement. Then he doubles down on the nonsense with the following “Remember, most climate scientists agree that once human induced climate change is in the works it goes on for decades or even centuries. You can’t stop it” ———I have always liked the Daily Sceptic for the fact that we can all have a point of view. So my point of view on this article is that the author has jumped into a subject he knows little about. He has written a jumble of fictions with a few facts sprinkled on top.
I missed the facts.
Incidentally the nonsense was from John Gray – Richard was simply reporting what he said.
He did say Net Zero was nonsense. He did say we entered it before the technology for it was available and he did say that many of the raw materials for batteries etc were produced by China. So a few facts in amongst the evidence free nonsense.
How can you possibly describe this as excellent? It is utter rubbish. Gray accepts that humans are causing climate change and they might not be able to stop it. It talks about uncertainty about the climate initially but effectively he is saying the science if fixed and we are causing climate change. It is utter nonsense as many physicists point out and they are being slowly silenced because of it. Unherd is becoming a promoter of nonsense.
“John Gray questions the effectiveness of current climate policies, suggesting they were implemented prematurely and lacked the necessary technology and materials.”
The policies were designed by idiots to solve a non-existent problem, by replacing working existing technology with unworkable and non-existing technology based on the conceit that Mankind, not physics, controls the Universe and that a global coalition of vested interests can control the Earth’s hugely energetic heat budget by legislation, taxation, initiatives, fraud, grift, lies, wishing and Pagan Mother Earth worship.
“Remember, most climate scientists agree ….”. Oh pleeeease, not that old 97% of scientists agree rubbish? Yes, 97% of a small number of so-called scientists who are already sold on man-made warming.
100% of “climate scientists” agree that they like the funding.
Grey still seems to accept that they are required.