Climate change argument “ill informed”

I confess that I had to do a double-take to check that this ill informed piece was actually written by a member of parliament. Where to start?

John Healey claims that costly green energy policies are essential as “…action is needed now to head off catastrophic climate change.” I take it that he means what used to be known as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). Mr Healey, there has been no global warming since 1998, and from 1850 to 1998 the temperature rise was 0.8 centigrade, hardly catastrophic and well within natural variation. I am staggered that an MP is not up to date on such an important issue, or are you reluctant to admit that you backed the wrong horse when you voted for Ed Miliband’s 2008 Climate Change Act, which will cost the British taxpayer at least £734 billion over 40 years?

Mr Healey then states “only UKIP want to ban climate change lessons in our schools”. What does he mean by “climate change”? If it is a study of how our planet’s climate has changed over its life span than I am all for it. A rudimentary study of geology would suffice, however I fear that he means being taught about CAGW. If so I find it alarming that a British MP should openly back the indoctrination (or brainwashing if you prefer) of our children in one side of what is now a highly politicised debate.

Mr Healey then goes on to laud the move to a low carbon economy. He claims it “can be a major source of jobs and growth in our region”. I know of only two studies into “green jobs”, both make painful reading. Madrid University found that in Spain for every “green” job created 2.2 were lost in the rest of the economy(due to increased energy costs) and the Verso Economics study found that in the UK for every “green” job 3.7 others were lost. It is worrying that an MP advocates a policy that destroys jobs.

Come on Mr Healey you’ve heard of globalisation — part of this is that decisions are increasingly made at international level above the EU, and so our membership hinders us. Take trade; in any negotiation we are represented by an EU commissioner who also represents the other 27 countries. We are therefore a diluted 1/28th of a representative at any trade talks, yet an independent sovereign state can represent itself. This is why Australia and Morocco, for example, have free trade agreements with the USA while we (through the EU) are struggling to get such a deal in place. Mr Healey, please explain to us how that makes Britain “better off “?

I expect better from a Cambridge educated parliamentarian, especially one who is my MP. It gives the impression that you and your party are worried about UKIP, is this the case?

Rob Sanderson, Low Golden Smithies, Swinton