Caroline Lucas’ narrow victory over Labour in Brighton Pavilion will no doubt be lauded by the BBC far beyond it’s significance. With a majority of 1252 (2.4%) on an 8.4% swing from Labour this is fragile enough, but having sat up watching results come in last night, the impression that I got is that elsewhere their candidates rarely if ever managed to save their deposits (see comment #1 below). According to various reports, the Brighton result owes much to the Greens putting the same amount of effort into taking this single seat as might have gone into a national campaign. With 200 activists phoning possible supporters as many as three times yesterday to offer them a lift to their polling station – by rickshaw or on someones back presumably – they certainly weren’t taking any chances.
It will be interesting to see how the Greens’ share of the popular vote stacks up against the BNP and UKIP when these figures are available. Caroline Lucas is a very experienced and competent politician who had the good sense to fight her campaign on local issues rather than traditional green ones. Perhaps the best analogy to draw is with George Galloway’s far left Respect Party’s successes in Bethnal Green and Bow in recent elections, although at the time of writing it seems likely that they will now lose this seat.
I watched BBC coverage of the election until after five o’clock this morning, without much relish, then took a glass of whiskey outside to look at the dawn, listen to the birds, and enjoy the heavy scent of bluebells wafting from the wood. I enjoy election nights. Usually there is real life drama and you can feel the political pulse or the nation beating in a way that is impossible at any other time. Some candidates are jubilant and clamouring to get at the future, while others know that, for them, it is all over, and try to smile through their tears. It is about the only time that politicians seem human.
But last night, for hour after hour there seemed to be only confusion and disappointment wherever one looked. Not one party was prepared to show any sign of real jubilation, right down to Plaid Cymru, who were ‘disappointed’, and Alex Salmon of the SNP saying, with a broad grin, that they had done very well really, except that they hadn’t got anywhere near their target number of seats. But Alex is like that.
How can you have an election where everyone is a loser? Well the analysts will probably be explaining that for months to come.
All this was played out against a background of occasional references to a dramatic escalation in the sovereign debt crisis on world financial markets, which I have not been able to catch up with yet. Surely this is no time for there to be doubt about who is running Britain.
Supposing that, over the next few days, the Conservatives manage to form a government, it is worth looking at what they have to say about Climate Change and Energy on their website. Even a cursory glance at this reveals that compliance with the requirements of EU carbon reduction policy is the main driving force. There are several things that this brings to mind.
Firstly, the Conservatives are divided on Europe. Secondly, even David Shukman was prepared to admit in a BBC report the other evening that a lot of conservative MPs are sceptical about climate change. Thirdly, any incoming government that is doing the job properly will have to take a very careful, cool and objective look at energy policy, because at the moment we don’t really have one that is credible. Bits of paper bearing fantasy figures for the contribution that immensely expensive wind power can make to keeping the lights on until 2020 just will no longer do at a time when the economy is in ruins and the coffers are empty. Lastly, if David Cameron manages to form a government, its hold on power is likely to be very tenuous indeed until there is another election.
Welcome to the brave new post-Blair’n’Brown world!
geoff
Is the general public better or worse informed on the AGW debate than it was one or two years ago?
You are certainly right when you say that peripheral events (cold waves, hot spells, non-AGW related disasters) play a role, but I do believe that the general public has become more aware of the real issues surrounding the ongoing AGW debate, as well. Overall, the interest in AGW may still be fairly low, but as specific proposals (like carbon taxes) are being discussed, people are becoming more interested.
The (very small) CO2 tax in Switzerland was passed without a call for a referendum a bit more than a year ago (whether it would pass today is questionable).
I think it is highly unlikely that the public (in Australia, USA, the UK or Switzerland) are less informed today than they were a year or two ago, and most probable that they are better informed, in view of all the recent media coverage this has gotten.
As far as the next French elections are concerned, I am too far removed to have an opinion, but Sarkozy appears to be a shrewd politician who (just like Mitterrand in his time) manages to survive despite waves of apparent unpopularity.
I was not aware that there is a significant “green” movement in France (like in Germany or Switzerland). Is this a growing force today? If so, does it support backing out of nuclear power or reduction of CO2 emissions? Or both?
Just curious.
Max
TonyN
On the Guardian’s Mystery Question 10, I took it to be a sly dig at the rivalry between three greenish left-wing members of their respective parties. It’s a measure of the decline in journalistic values at the Guardian that they’re more interested in swapping in-jokes with their green buddies in power than in commenting critically on politics.
Of Simon Hughes’ candidature in the 2006 LibDem leadership election, Wikipaedia has this to say:
“Of the three candidates in the contest, he was generally considered the most leftwing. For example, he said in his manifesto that “Britain has become less, not more fair, in recent years. Few people would have expected the Tories to deliver a fair society. But more might have hoped that a Labour government would deliver fairness. The reality has been bitterly disappointing. Inequalities in health have increased under Labour, not decreased.”
It’s a measure of the peculiar mutation of politics that being in favour of fairness puts you on out on the left-wing of your party.
Quoting Wikipaedia again, Greg Clarke (Minister of State in the Department for Communities and Local Government, with responsibility for overseeing decentralisation) apparently feels closer to Polly Toynbee than to Winston Churchill (depends whether you’re centre of interest is child benefits, or invading the Dardanelles, I suppose).
As for question 9: “How are you going to keep DECC relevant?” That’s easily explained by the paragraph which follows:
“Even the government’s staunchest critics would accept that the formation of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was a success. Under the leadership of Ed Miliband it enjoyed a high profile and the ear of Number 10”.
which I interpret as meaning: “We at Guardian Environment are willing to continue our task of faithfully echoing the government’s green propaganda, but don’t forget that Ed Miliband remains our first love”.
Do you ever feel that we have missed our callling as biblical exegetes?
Geoffchambers,
You’ve chosen to ignore my two questions to you:
1) If Claude Allegre is a terrible example of a left-wing climate sceptic” who would be a good one?
2) How is it possible for anyone who claims to be rational, and progressive , or left wing even, to side with organisations such as the Competitive Enterprises Institute and the Australian so called “Institute of Public Affairs”, who even now are still speaking up for the tobacco industry in Australia, and whose financial and political motivations you won’t need me to explain to you, over just about every other recognised world scientific organisation?
I just thought I’d remind you about them, but, if you’ve no answer, that’s fair enough.
tempterrain #128
I haven’t read Allegre’s books on global warming, but his arrogant treatment of critics, (a bit like Plimer) does no service to the cause he defends. He’s only “left-wing” in the sense that his mate socialist prime minister Jospin named him education minister, despite the fact that he hadn’t been elected to anything other than his local town council.
The political opinions of individuals are irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of their opinions on global warming. There is, however, a clear correlation between scepticism and right wing libertarianism, and this is a perfectly legitimate area of interest to anyone exploring the question of global warming belief and/or scepticism as a social phenomenon.
Alex has already answered your question, mentioning Philip Stott, whom the ultra-right journalist Delingpole quotes with approval. Steve McIntyre rigorously eliminates political comment from his blog, but has hinted strongly that he votes left of centre. The Labour MP who grilled Jones so effectively did so in defence of good science, not of socialist principles.
No doubt there are many others, but since I’m not in the habit of judging the quality of people’s arguments by their voting habits, I just haven’t bothered to notice. Similarly, I’m not “siding” with the Competitive Enterprises Institute, any more than a vegetarian is “siding” with Hitler.
max #126
Yes, the general public is certainly better informed, in the sense that more information is available to those who seek it. No, in the sense that information is skewed by the fact that all-party support for unscientific anti-carbon policies is mirrored by unanimous support from the “serious” press in Britain. (Delingpole and Booker in the Telegraph excepted).
Polls suggest Sarkozy will not survive. The socialists look set to replace him in 2012 provided they can hold together their alliance with the Greens, which means handing the Greens several dozen uncontested winnable seats in parliament . The Greens are at about 10-12% in opinion polls. Their leader, Dany Cohn Bendit, was a far left student leader in May 1968, and is now head of the Greens in the European Parliament. France is largely protected from the worst effects of global warming hysteria by the fact that its electricity is 70% nuclear. My impression is that the Greens’ support is based partly on French cultural traditions (defence of the peasant farmer, traditional food etc) and partly on the left libertarian movement of May 68.
geoffchambers,
Godwin’s Law seems to apply to you too. Every vegetarian will have their own good reasons for their choice of diet. There is no need to bring Hitler into the argument.
Unless you yourself have a sufficient level of climate science expertise you have to make a choice of who to believe on the AGW issue. You clearly don’t believe mainstream science and deny that you are influenced by groups such as the CEI, who you’ll know as well as I do won’t care about the scientific truth one way or the other.
So, what are your good reasons for saying that mainstream science is wrong? Incidentally Philip Stott, who hasn’t published anything scientifically on climate science, doesn’t strike me as any better example than Allegre so I’d hope that you’d feel sufficient discomfort at finding yourself in the same camp as the likes of the Heartlands Institute to have your own independent arguments.
Looks like the European Union is folding up like a lawn chair. The Socialist Utopia isn’t working out too well Pete……disharmony amongst the members, insolvency, infighting and resentment……Oh my!
The solution must be to fund “green” projects with taxpayers money that cost 5 times more than conventional energy projects!
Strangling business is the only solution!
“More worthless windmills now!” should be the rallying cry………………“Fewer Jobs, Higher Taxation”! would be an effective campaign slogan for any campaign…..don’t you think?
More Tax Subsidized Entitlement Programs Now!
‘Mummy’ Merkel battered as Germans lose faith in EU
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7127621.ece
Geoff,
Seems as if Peter Martin has condemned you as a Leftist heretic.
You’ve obviously broken a religious taboo that will cause your excommunication from the church of environmentalism.
No room for dissention in the party you know!
tempterrain #130
It’s not difficult to understand why right wing libertarians like the Heartland Institute (and our own Brute, I imagine) are sceptical about AGW. Nobody likes high taxes and intrusive government, but right wing libertarians think about it more, and are first off the mark when they see it coming.
It’s harder for people like me, but like all late converts (I’ve just finished drawing a strip cartoon life of St Paul) I’ve become a bit of a zealot, since the failings of people I once admired, like Gore and Monbiot, have become clear.
No problem with Godwin’s Law. I’m not comparing anyone with Hitler, just pointing out the absurdity of doing so.
As for believing mainstream science, or having a sufficient level of climate science expertise, I refer you to a discussion I’m having at the moment at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/14/rajendra-pachauri-defends-ipcc-report.
The problem is one of epistemology,of what we can know, rather than of any particularly abstruse set of “facts”. Though if you’re after facts, one article by TonyB, or by Willis Eschenbach at Wattsupwiththat, is more full of facts, more “scientific”, than shelves of New Scientists, though neither have “published” anything.
Brute, the European Union is anything but socialist. More like the Last Days of the Holy Roman Empire. The current Greek socialist government is mopping up the mess left by the previous conservative government. Half the members of the EU have only been democracies for a few decades. Imagine if in the USA, Florida and Texas had recently been ruled by … no, don’t.
Now I shall have to get back on topic, by pointing out that today’s Independent-on-line leads on the new government’s imminent failure to tackle climate change. Talk about flogging a dead parrot.
geoff
Your exchange with Brute (and others here) points out the fallacy of PeterM’s argument that those who are rationally skeptical of the dangerous AGW premise are, by definition, “right-wingers”, whose primary reason for AGW skepticism is political and not scientific.
True, there is the secondary rationale that the political aspects of AGW (higher taxes administered by an international bureaucratic body, supposedly for the “common good” of all, as determined by the “government”) go against the grain of those who place a high value on personal freedom and liberty with a minimum amount of (non-representative) “big government control”.
But, as I have pointed out to Peter several times (and you have confirmed with your posts), the science (or lack thereof) comes first.
You hit the nail on the head:
I also agree that a single article by TonyB or Willis Eschenbach carries a lot more down-to-earth scientific reasoning than a 1,000-page IPCC sales pitch for AGW with model-derived climate “projections” that go a hundred years into the future.
Max
Geoff,
The “we’ve got to clean up the mess left by others” and “the conservatives caused this mess” excuses are wearing thin, even among Liberals.
The European Union as well as the United States have become increasingly, incrementally, Socialist since the turn of the (last century). Woodrow Wilson here in the United States was probably the first Socialist President………(some would argue Theodore Roosevelt)………but Socialist policies really began to blossom under the “Progressive” policies of Wilson. Under Franklin Roosevelt Socialist policies began to take widespread hold and America has been on a downward slide ever since. The period beginning around 1941 provided a brief respite due to a fleeting manufacturing boon, but a downward slide nonetheless.
The results of the worldwide Socialist policies are being felt just now and the worldwide economic crisis that exists today will only get much, much worse as the bills come due from over 100 years of Socialist ideology.
As with any economic model, you simply cannot continue to spend more than you earn………it really is that simple.
The fantasy of a Socialist Utopian Paradise does not, and will never, ever, come to fruition. Human nature dictates that someone will always want something more than the next guy. Socialist societies will either fail with economic catastrophe and relatively bloodless “reform” (The former Soviet Union), or in the case of Germany’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party /Italy’s National Fascist Party, end in bloody colossal conflagration.
Yes, the European Union is Socialist with the United States being less so……but the abject lesson here is the Collectivist model does not work on any scale.
Renaming Socialist doctrine as “Green” doctrine will not make it work either. The terminolgy and results are interchangeable and will fail as surely as the Sun rises in the East.
The “less Socialist” society will fail as surely as the “more Socialist” society……it’s only a matter of time.
You’d think that a “civilized” world would have figured this out by now……but as the Soviet Union exemplified and the Socialist societies that have tried (and failed) over and over throughout history………we never seem to learn from our mistakes.
Sorry, but your dream of a “workers’ paradise” is crashing…………hard.
It’s not going to be pretty………………the only question remaining is how many innocents will die this time.
Brute
Too far off-topic for a detailed reply, but you’d be surprised how much of what you say I can agree with. I’m not dreaming of a workers’ paradise, just fairer sharing – much like our new Conservative government, in theory at least.
In fact, our discussion is not as off-topic as it may seem. While you’re right that many Greens see themselves as the rightful heirs to the socialist dream, they’d be horrified at being described as “collectivist”, since they are as fervently anti-state control as you are – in theory.
It could well be that societies “moving left” (like the USA mid-century) tend to stagnate, while societies “moving right”, like China currently, tend to flourish. But that really is off-topic.
Geoff,
There’s hope for you yet! (sarcasm)…….
Peter on the other hand, is sadly a lost cause….
I’d argue that it is on topic as “Green” ideology is Socialism masquerading as “Green”………Socialism being a lesser degree of Communism……a broader term of all of these “isms” being Collectivism……(A distinction without a difference) and the topic being “Green” politics.
After the complete failure of the Socialist experiment that was the USSR, worldwide adherents to the “Collectivist” view picked up the “Green” banner………much like “Progressives” (under Wilson) changed the name of their ideology to “Liberal” which, after that failed have now come full circle back to “Progressive”. When “Progressivism” falls out of vogue, they’ll switch the labels yet again, selling the same tired philosophy.
It’s all the same thing, they’ve just changed the terminology, marketing their (unchanged) ideology after it was demonstrated as a failure and successive generations of voters became wise to the ruse. It’s a clever marketing ploy…………changing the name (New and Improved!) essentially selling the same thing with different packaging.
The ironic thing here is that practicing Socialists (Chairman Obama) is expanding the role of government whereas Marx predicted/advocated less government as a result of his doctrines………(”government would necessarily wither away”)……………
Marx (along with Peter Martin and Obama) are dreamers………they have an unrealistic, unattainable view of what society will or should be…………clinging to fantasies of “world peace” and “economic justice” (whatever that means)……
Another irony is that Capitalism more closely mirrors the natural order of things…………the natural world………the evolutionary concept that Mr. Martin constantly espouses…………survival of the fittest………… dog eat dog and all that……
Brute #137
I find it easier to agree with some of your political beliefs (capitalism works, it’s indivisible from personal freedom, we’re naturally competitive – stuff like that), than to agree with your philosophy of politics, which I frankly find bizarre.
OK, this thread is all about the nature of the Green movement, but don’t you think it might be a bit more complicated than something nasty continually morphing in order to disguise its nastiness? Even at the local level, I can spot big differences between the Green movement in France and Britain, and I’m no expert.
There’s an American thread, from Thoreau via Woody Guthrie and Dylan, and a Marxist thread, from disappointed ex-Trotskyists, and a third world thread, which in America is about Amerindian culture and in Britain about post-colonial guilt. There’s an anti-science thread, revelling in aromatherapy and homeopathy, a strong libertarian anti-government thread, (which should appeal to you), and then this amazing “trust Stern (Jones/Mann etc) he’s a scientist” thread.
Like it or not, it’s been a living part of our Western culture for at least 50 years. How this resulted in a Green victory in Brighton is still a bit of a mystery. Lucas is fairly daft, and any political opponent should have been able to demolish her with quotes from her beliefs (eg that global warming kills 300,000 a year, which she took from the loony Kofi Annan report). They didn’t, possibly because of a certain moral aura which protects Green beliefs from criticism, and which, I assure you, has never been available to Marxist beliefs, or even to left socialist beliefs, in Britain.
PeterM
Recently (128) you wrote to geoff:
Talk about a “loaded question”. This must rank as one of the worst (and most polemic).
“Rational” is good.
“Progressive” is a questionable descriptive. “Left wing” is subjective. Linking these two descriptives with “rational” is a stretch.
The “CEE” and Australian “IPA” are two cherry-picked organizations. CEE describes itself as a “non-profit libertarian think tank”, while the IPA states that it stands for the “free market of ideas, the free flow of capital, a limited and efficient government, the rule of law and representative democracy” (both from Wiki).
All sounds pretty good to me. Do you have a problem with these principles, Peter? Is there some reason why you would believe that a “rational” person would object to these principles?
The “tobacco industry” connection is a red herring (an extension to Godwins’s Law?).
The “financial and political motivations” of these organizations is another red herring and an unsubstantiated slur: the political motives are stated above, and the earnings of these organizations and their officers (Wiki) are dwarfed by those of Gore, environmental activist groups, such as WWF, Greenpeace, etc.
“Just about every other recognized world scientific organization” is an unsubstantiated claim (and an “appeal to authority”).
Face it, Peter. With loaded questions like that you shoot yourself in the foot.
Forget the polemic and get back to the facts instead.
Max
Geoff,
What is the ultimate goal of the “green” movement and what are the steps they propose to achieve it?
Geoffchambers,
You were correct in saying: ” There is, however, a clear correlation between scepticism and right wing libertarianism, and this is a perfectly legitimate area of interest to anyone exploring the question of global warming belief and/or scepticism as a social phenomenon.”
I’ve often asked sceptics the question of how they know the mainstream scientific opinion on AGW is correct. Often the name of Al Gore is mentioned in their reply, which is indicative that their judgement is political rather than scientific, as you yourself did with your comment
“since the failings of people I once admired, like Gore and Monbiot”.
So, you are dismissing scientific advice on the grounds of some level of disillusionment with what may be termed left of centre, politicians.
Brute may not be aware of how politics works outside the USA but the politicians on the centre left are reviled just as much by the revolutionary hard left as the hard right. I’m sure that if I delve into all the Maoist and Trotskyite groupings, I’ll be able to find some group somewhere, who also claim that AGW is a capitalist scam. Is that where you are coming from?
Sorry should be ” ….mainstream scientific opinion on AGW is incorrect.”
Geoffchambers,
I’ve just had a look to see if I could find some leftists who agree with the Libertarian Right on the nature of climate change and turned up these guys:
http://strangetimes.lastsuperpower.net/?p=608
They start of quite well in saying that “Global Warming – the real debate is about politics, not science” but a quick flick through their website shows they do have a lot of problems with the concept politically.
And of course its just as illogical to reject a scientific argument from a left perspective as a right perspective. This group are based in Australia but they aren’t what you might term a household name. I’d never heard of them before – so although it can’t be denied that just about anything is possible from the nuttier of the ultra-leftist groups, this way of thinking hasn’t permeated mainstream thinking in the same way as has happened on the other side of the political spectrum.
Hey Pete,
How about these guys?
Al Gore, Michael Moore, Oprah Winfried, John Travolta, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Ralph Nader, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Sting, Cheryl Crow, Barbara Streisand, Gordon Brown, Prince Charles…………I could go on for pages…….
All of these people conduct their lives in a blatantly wasteful, materialistic, overindulgent, carbon rich style……not one lives in a home that would be even close to being considered a moderately sized home.
They all travel by private jet on unceasing junkets to palatial resorts consuming much more of the resources of this planet than the average person…………all are Leftists and obviously (by their lifestyle choices) do not believe that CO2 emissions are harmful to the planet………… lest they wouldn’t do these things……………
tempterrain #141
Why tell me what I think, or why I think what I think? It’s pointless, since my simple denial counts as a refutation.
No, my scepticism is not based on attitudes to personalities, but on my limited understanding of the science (and rather better understanding of logic and basic statistics). I admire Monbiot because I share many of his views, on freedom of information and human rights for instance. He is an intelligent journalist with a science degree and a good forensic mind, or “bullshit detector”, as Hemingway called it. He spotted straight away that Phil Jones’ behaviour was “not science” and that he should resign, and said so in a comment to his own article. He’s been backtracking ever since, and has even said that he will no longer be commenting on Climategate. For an investigative journalist to announce in advance that he will no longer be covering a story which touches his closest interests is a disgrace. It’s as if the Telegraph had leaked the fraudulent claims of Labour MPs and refused to do the same for Conservative MPs.
The most visible leftist sceptics in Britain are the lads at
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/
sort of Chav-tendency neo-Trotskyists. There’s also an Italian sceptical anarchist at
http://www.movimentolibertario.it/home.php
He’s so far out he thinks Che Guevara is a right-wing deviationist.
There’s an important philosophical point to be made about the relation between global warming belief and the media. The sense of freedom we have in English-speaking countries derives not from rights inscribed in a written constitution, but from a centuries-long tradition of poking fun at everyone. Europeans envy us this, and the French even have a term for their tendency towards self-censorship – “pensée unique” or “one-way thinking”.
So when I see a rigid refusal to criticise anyone or anything to do with global warming – even such an obvious figure of fun as Pachauri – and I see this in Private Eye (Britain’s “official” libertarian scandal rag) the Marxist humourist Mark Steel, the Times’ Giles Coren, the novelist Ian McEwan etc – I am dismayed at the level of mental self-censorship which has invaded our naturally anarchic and irreverent culture. These names may not mean much outside Britain, but people like Hislop of “Private Eye”, Steel of the Independent, and Coren of the Times would rather be seen dead than show respect to authority. Yet here they are, not only intoning “it must be true because scientists say it is”, but reacting with real anger at any challenge to their belief. This is something new in my experience, and may even have something to do with the election of Ms Lucas.
Brute,
“All are leftists?” Including Prince Charles? Come off it – when I was at uni the consensus of opinion was that after the revolution the whole of the Royal family would have to be put up against the wall……
But, the essence of your argument is that these celebrity figures may not live the kind of lifestyles which would meet widescale approval. That may, or may not, be true. It doesn’t affect the way in which IR radiation from the Earth interacts with GH gases in the atmosphere in the slightest – unfortunately.
PeterM
These were words of wisdom, which you wrote (143):
It looks like we are in agreement on this point.
The “scientific argument” in support of the dangerous AGW premise can best be questioned from a rationally skeptical scientific perspective (as several bloggers have been doing here). Leaving aside all the recent revelations of manipulated and sloppy scientific procedures, it basically boils down to the lack of empirical data, which support the premise.
The “politics” behind the AGW craze are a secondary issue. But evading the basic issue by throwing in political arguments from either the left or the right is a sidetrack intended to divert attention from the scientific argument.
Max
I personally don’t approve or disapprove of their “lifestyle” I was merely pointing out that the “carbon excessive” lives do not indicate that they are concerned that CO2 is causing temperatures to rise………I would surmise that they are not stupid people, they understand the theoretical relationship between carbon dioxide and rising temperatures….yet they continue to spew copious amounts of the stuff.
Their carbon emissions do not “interact with the atmosphere” you say? We’ll, that being the case, why should you think that anyone else’s does?
Geoff (145)
As a regular reader (so I can threaten to cancel my subscription!) I’ve been waiting for Private Eye to pick up the AGW ball for some time. I had thought they were keeping their powder dry until the right moment (like the Greens winning a seat) but I suspect it’s off their radar for some reason. I shall send a link to your comment to Lord Gnome, with a request for an explanation!
Pete,
How about every member of the IPCC? Does their carbon footprint impact the atmosphere?
Traveling half way around the world via private jet to hold a meeting and dine on sharks fin soup and imported wines?
They may as well attend an orgy to discuss the evils of promiscuity……………Are they all right wing libertarians?
It would seem to me that they don’t consider excessive, wasteful, consumption of fossil fuel to be a problem either.
Have you taken a vacation this year Pete? Was that vacation “necessary”? Did you fly or travel by bicycle or row boat?