Global warming hoaxer now writes for The Guardian (updated)
In a nutshell, the point is that to commit at the top level to sustainable development, you need to put on what the Low Carbon Kid (ie me) calls sustainable development spectacles, so everything you see and do is filtered through this way of seeing, which is, of necessity, holistic and all encompassing.His home blog is here.
Every single act of government must filter through this lens to avoid inadvertently countering the overall aim.
Ministers cannot do this without special training. Civil servants, who have been in post for years, or who have Oxbridge legal backgrounds, cannot be expected to do it either.
The sustainable development commission, the watchdog, was set up to keep an eye on all this, but the government just ignores it when it wants to - as it does the committee of MPs set up to do the same thing on the environment, the environmental audit committee (EAC).
That is why we should support the conclusion of the EAC's report: "A powerful new body must be established to drive climate change policy after a decade of failure by the government."
And it calls for "a cross-departmental climate change minister who could attend cabinet meetings". Perhaps this person could whip the so-called green ministers.
It agrees that "the frameworks in government for dealing with climate change are confused and do not promote effective action on reducing emissions".
Quite so. We are driving backwards. Perhaps we should send all cabinet ministers on a sustainable development training camp over the holidays.
They would learn all about carbon footprinting, new economics, renewable energy, organic growing, sustainable communities, education for change, and much more. And they would have a whole lot of fun singing This Land is Our Land round the campfire while eating organic, locally sourced food they themselves have cooked. I can just picture it.
I know a lot of people who would love to teach them a thing or 500.
Update: More from Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard, who really owns the story of the fraud. Gaius insists (quite properly in my view) that "fraud" better describes the incident than "hoax" or "spoof" (which seems to be Thorpe's favorite guilt-evading term).
Thorpe’s goal appears to be, according to his own writings, to be to put mankind back into the Neolithic age by depriving mankind of the benefits of access to energy. Thorpe brags on his blog that he is now a paid free-lancer for the Guardian newspaper in Britain.
I think the Guardian might want to examine their standards for hiring “journalists”. Is the standard there one that Ned Ludd would be proud of? Is the standard of the Guardian to hire self-professed liars who think promoting fraud is a valid technique to discuss issues?
Is it fiction to prove a point or lies to promote Luddism? I think the Guardian might want to answer that. For their own good.