Climate change, is it your fault?

Well it is if you drive a 4 x 4 judging by the opprobrium heaped on these vehicles by the global warming industry. I don’t care for big 4x4s myself, but I can't see how banning them (as some people seem to think we should) will do much for the environment. They represent only a small percentage of the number of vehicles on the road. It would make more sense to ban, say, Vauxhall Corsas if you want to reduce carbon emissions. But common sense isn't high on the agenda for most climate change enthusiasts.

At a recent social event with some colleagues of my partner, the subject of climate change came up. She works in education where people read the Guardian and use words like 'inclusion' and 'empowerment', so when I ventured an opinion that sounded more Jeremy Clarkson than Al Gore, the reaction would lead one to think I had suggested that Hitler had some interesting ideas on population control. Looks were exchanged, followed by indulgent smiles in my direction. Sensing a social faux pas, I quickly changed the subject to the 7 speed twin clutch gearbox on the new BMW M3, but that didn't go down much better and my partner took me aside and listed all the subjects on which my views would not be required, thus excluding me from any further meaningful social interaction.

"Can I show them the jokes on my mobile then?" I enquired hopefully.

"Don't be common." She snapped, and turned away to speak to someone more intelligent and interesting.

Anyway, my point is that any criticism of the theory that global warming is a recent, man made event is simply not tolerated. I don't pretend to understand this incredibly complex subject but the problem is that plenty of influential people pretend that they do. Any scientists who dare to question the status quo are immediately labelled as absolute rotters and can expect to see their reputations trashed, or else they are accused of being mouthpieces for Ford or Boeing.

Ironically of course the real long term solutions to the energy crisis/burning fossil fuel/co2 emissions etc., (the current favourites being nuclear fusion for electricity generation and hydrogen cells for transport), will probably come from scientists in the motor and nuclear industries.

It ain't going to come from carbon trading schemes that's for sure.

But those solutions may be 30 years away say the prophets of doom, and we can't afford to wait that long.

It looks as if we will have to though, because the developing world just doesn't want to play. And if the eco-warriors are right, then we are wasting our time building wind farms when the Chinese are using 1950's technology to build coal fired power stations at the rate of two a week.

So if the future of the world is at stake and time is of the essence, why let the developing world muck it up for the rest of us?

An acquaintance of mine put forward an interesting view on third world development at another social event (with no Guardian readers present).

"The problem with Africa," he announced after the fourth bottle of Stella, "is not aids or poverty or post-colonial malaise, it's the Africans. Or more specifically, their leaders. If you want to help Africa forget Liveaid and Oxfam, just sponsor a hit squad to assassinate Mugabe."

Hmmm, contentious stuff, but you can see what he means.

Following on from this argument you might wonder why the developing countries are still developing. After all, we all started from the same place so how come we've got Audis and they've got camels? It's their own fault of course, and it's largely down to their poor choice of leaders. And now they expect a sort of bonus for incompetence.

Anyway, we've all got to wait until every Chinaman has a Lexus and every Ethiopian a microwave before we can start to reduce carbon emissions on a worldwide basis. (And it has to be worldwide of course, otherwise it's like having a no smoking seat in a car.)

So, why the determination to persist with what are just pointless gestures? Can't anyone see the big picture? If the Friends of the Earth are right, we are going to Hell on a handcart. And if they are wrong? Either way it's just a huge waste of money that could be better spent. So why mess about taxing parking spaces for 4x4s in London (how much co2 does a Jeep Cherokee emit when it is parked with the engine switched off? Answers on a postcard..........) when it will make no difference to anything?

We can't just do nothing, you may say.

Why not? Plenty of other problems to address

We have to start somewhere, you may say

Well start with something effective then.

It's a moral decision, you may say

Ah, that's more like it. Environmentalism is turning into a religion!

It really fits the bill. It's unproven and unprovable, people don't really understand it, it's based on shaky evidence, it's promoted by extremists and zealots and it makes you feel like a good person.

You can go out and do bad stuff all day but turning down the offer of a carrier bag with a cheery "Lets save a tree!" makes you feel all warm and fluffy, (even if Sharon at the checkout thinks you're a d**k!)