Seriously, Ed, you bug-eyed moron, when you're in a hole, the generally accepted advice is to stop digging—especially when you don't seem to understand practical philosophy.
"Everything we know about life is that we should obey the precautionary principle; to take what the sceptics say seriously would be a profound risk."
Thus spake Ed Miliband, and it's bollocks. Look, Eddie-baby, the point of the precautionary principle is that actually doing something about the posited risk has little or no cost.
As I have pointed out innumerable times, that is simply not the case in this instance.
Counting Cats has pretty much filleted most of the rest of the article and, as always, is worth a read. However, there's another little point that I want to make—and it concerns these lines.
If the UK did not invest in renewable, clean energy, it would lose jobs and investment to other countries, have less energy security because of the dependence on oil and gas imports and contribute to damaging temperature rises for future generations.
It's this whole energy security thing, you see: I've seen it elsewhere. Now, where was it...? Oh yes—it was in this reply to a constituent by David Cameron.
Whatever your views are, we cannot afford not to go green. The UK economy is still dependent for more than 90 per cent of its energy needs on fossil fuels, which increasingly come from imports. With the era of cheap oil now well and truly over, our fossil fuel dependency is making us uncompetitive and vulnerable to geopolitical shocks.
We can build a secure, prosperous future, but only if we start the work of transforming our national energy infrastructure now, by increasing energy efficiency and reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.
Being at the cutting edge of new technologies in the energy industry is precisely the action that is needed to prevent the power cuts the Government is predicting by 2017, and it ensures that Britain’s consumers and businesses are protected against the consequences of volatile and rising oil prices into the future.
We need to make the transition to a low carbon economy urgently, and I hope you’ll agree that our plans for a Low Carbon Economy will help create hundreds of thousands of jobs, raise skills and improve Britain’s competitiveness.
This is what the politicians are really aiming for—some kind of energy security. The trouble is that over the last few decades, successive governments have dodged the concerns about energy generation in this country.
We are in a bind: our nuclear stations are reaching the end of their lives (some have already passed their recommended limits) and energy blackouts are being predicted by 2014: any new nuclear station will take about ten years to come online—and we haven't even started building any new ones yet.
Any government that lets the lights go out is dead—and, right now, it looks like the Tories are going to be left with that particular turd.
Fossil fuel stations can be brought on-stream much more quickly, but Britain is severely hampered by the European Union's zealotry as regards climate change. In short, more fossil-fuelled power stations will earn us large fines.
As such, our politics are desperately casting around for some ideas. They must know that wind turbines are useless—they require some 90% conventional power back-up—and vastly expensive, but they are "green".
My guess is that a certain amount of investment in such pointless and expensive white elephants are necessary in order to earn some Carbon Credits—cash that might offset the fact that we are going to have to build more fossil-fuel power stations.
Whatever is the case, it is not good news that both Labour and the Tories are determined to pursue exactly the same doomed policies; it is even more suspicious that they are hanging their prognostications on precisely the same "energy security" hooks.
Meanwhile, the US keeps on funding research into sensible alternatives...