Every week there seems to be a new report about climate change in the Arctic. The arctic ice sheet is diminishing rapidly within the next decade or so the ice sheet over the North Pole is likely to disappear completely. If this happens there will almost certainly be a profound effect on our weather and climate. We are already experiencing a disturbance of the jet stream over the North Atlantic. Western Europe is being affected by an increasing frequency of winter storms and rainfall and flooding. 2016 looks like being the warmest year on record.
Many species in the Arctic are coming under threat including the polar bear which relies upon sea ice for its survival. The arctic fox is coming under threat from the larger and more powerful red fox which is able to push further north because of the warmer climate.
Some parts of the arctic north of 80 degrees are recording record high temperatures. The sea ice is melting in some places even in mid-winter.
It is hard to believe that human activity could disturb the global climate but this is what is happening. The evidence is now before our eyes; we no longer need instrumental readings to show us what is going on with the climate.
The polar bear and arctic fox are in danger of extinction by the beginning of the next century. We must be careful that the same thing does not happen to us.
Thursday, 22 December 2016
Thursday, 15 December 2016
House of Lords Committee on Brexit
All this week the House of Lords, in the UK, are having committee meetings about the implications of the vote to leave the EU.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/81/8108.htm
They are coming out with some disturbing findings about the legal, constitutional, economic and financial, social and administration implications.
It is a pity that this analysis was not made before the vote.
It is also a pity that there was not a Royal Commission instigated before the referendum. An authoritative Royal Commission would have established the facts and made a cost benefit analysis. Many of the project fear claims and exaggerations made by both sides of the argument would then have been debunked. The population would then have been given a clear basis of facts upon which to base their opinion.
The findings of the House of Lords indicate that we are heading for trouble. I wonder how many in the government, and in the opposition, are secretly hoping that the supreme court will find that it is legally unconstitutional for Northern Ireland or Scotland or both countries to be taken out of the EU without the consent of their respective parliaments. If the supreme court does make this ruling then there may the sound of champagne corks popping in some government circles. It would be the perfect excuse to forget about the whole matter and blame someone else for the debacle.
Full consideration should have been made for the event of Northern Ireland voting to remain. The Northern Irish were largely ignored by the UK government, the press and the leave and remain campaigns. The people of Northern Ireland deserved better consideration.
In Australia a referendum cannot be passed unless a majority of states give voter consent. That means that a referendum to change the constitution requires at least the consent of 4 of the 6 states. Most referendums to change the constitution therefore fail. Australia has ways of preventing the "tyranny of the majority", as John Major describes it. Referendums in Australia are therefore not divisive in character.
Voting is compulsory in Australia so a referendum result can be confirmed by a simple majority. Perhaps we should do something similar in Britain.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/81/8108.htm
They are coming out with some disturbing findings about the legal, constitutional, economic and financial, social and administration implications.
It is a pity that this analysis was not made before the vote.
It is also a pity that there was not a Royal Commission instigated before the referendum. An authoritative Royal Commission would have established the facts and made a cost benefit analysis. Many of the project fear claims and exaggerations made by both sides of the argument would then have been debunked. The population would then have been given a clear basis of facts upon which to base their opinion.
The findings of the House of Lords indicate that we are heading for trouble. I wonder how many in the government, and in the opposition, are secretly hoping that the supreme court will find that it is legally unconstitutional for Northern Ireland or Scotland or both countries to be taken out of the EU without the consent of their respective parliaments. If the supreme court does make this ruling then there may the sound of champagne corks popping in some government circles. It would be the perfect excuse to forget about the whole matter and blame someone else for the debacle.
Full consideration should have been made for the event of Northern Ireland voting to remain. The Northern Irish were largely ignored by the UK government, the press and the leave and remain campaigns. The people of Northern Ireland deserved better consideration.
In Australia a referendum cannot be passed unless a majority of states give voter consent. That means that a referendum to change the constitution requires at least the consent of 4 of the 6 states. Most referendums to change the constitution therefore fail. Australia has ways of preventing the "tyranny of the majority", as John Major describes it. Referendums in Australia are therefore not divisive in character.
Voting is compulsory in Australia so a referendum result can be confirmed by a simple majority. Perhaps we should do something similar in Britain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
