Lord Lawson has said the Government should suspend the "absurd" Climate Change Act. He believes this will allow the third runway at Heathrow to go ahead.
Conservative party peer, Nigel Lawson, has said the Government should suspend the “absurd” Climate Change Act in order to allow the third runway at Heathrow to go ahead. The remarks will embarrass fellow Conservative David Cameron who supported the Act and opposes the third runway.
According to the Press Association, earlier today in the House of Lords, Lord Lawson said:
“The third runway at Heathrow has been kiboshed by the courts as the direct and predictable result of the Government’s absurd Climate Change Act, which was passed with enthusiasm and complete thoughtlessness and acclaimed by all parties in this House and the Commons.”
He asked Transport Secretary Lord Adonis:
“Is not the only possible solution – if you think that a third runway is important and I agree with you – to put the Act in suspense not least because even the Government has admitted that it makes no sense without international agreement, which Copenhagen shows is not obtainable?”
Left Foot Forward reported last week that the High Court said the government’s position on airport expansion was “untenable in law and common sense”.
14 Responses to “Lawson: scrap “absurd” Climate Change Act”
Rory
I don’t think it’s Lord Lawson who’s being intolerant.
Gregory Norminton
There can be no tolerating lies that kill.
Mr. Sensible
Tory environment and transport policy all over the place, again.
Will, I said last week how the Tories cannot be shown as some sort of environmental champions, and I’ve been proved right.
I don’t support the policy, but the Tories’ comments in opposition are just trying to buy votes in Hillingdon.
Rory
Sorry Mr Norminton, but I’m afraid your dogmatic stance does not help your case. Surely the best way to arrive at the truth is through robust but reasoned debate? I think even The Straw Man would agree with me on this.
Gregory Norminton
Oh, I’ve experienced the denialist version of ‘reasoned debate’ – even attempted, most futilely, to engage in it. I’ve been called, by Monckton and others, a fascist, a communist and an apologist, somehow or other, for mass murder.
There can be no reasoned debate with people who are pushing a lie, and have no interest in getting at the truth. What we’ve seen, in recent months, has been a tide of intimidation of scientists (http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/11/glenn-beck-sarah-palin-climate-science/ or again http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/sen._inhofe_inquisition_seeking_to_criminalize_climate_scientists/), relentless misinformation online and in the press (ever read the Telegraph blogs?) and a wilful attempt by anti-science spokespersons to establish a false equation between scientific evidence on the one hand and mere propaganda on the other (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ACyqhI8FTfI/S0n-A2EVSMI/AAAAAAAAANY/cNFd6NHsYOo/s1600-h/phpThumb_generated_thumbnail.jpeg)
Given the stakes (and I mean what I wrote about lies that kill: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6387208.ece) it is time we stopped giving propagandists the credit of calling them honest debaters. They aren’t. By all means, let’s discuss how we save ourselves from the mess we’ve created; but we can’t be wasting time with ideologues who deny that the mess exists.