We're having a cold snap. About -2 oC, and very still. Possible snow later.

Punt touts are still out though.

Ducks don't care.

I've never known what this means.

Refs

*Flickr

CH has resigned as a minister (he wasSecretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, often just reported as "energy secretary") after he wascharged with asking his then-wife to take some speeding points for him; or, more formally, for "perverting the course of justice". And I think the reaction, certainly amongst his colleagues, has been "well that was inevitable, but its a shame cos he was good". Richard Black (beeb.env) saysChris Huhne's departure from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) sees the exit of a minister who is generally regarded as having fought tenaciously for "green" policies within the Cabinet.WhereasTimmy says Tee-Hee: "So, is the next bloke at DECC going to reverse all of his idiot policies?". I wondered: from my POV, does CH's departure look like a loss?

Of course, to find that out I'd have to know what his policies are. I started offlooking at his websiteunder the "issues" tab. Neither the "national" nor "local" tab has anything to say about climate change. So although it may have been his "day job" at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), it clearly isn't where his heart is. Or alternatively, that he is too much of a politician to say what he thinks, which again makes him no great loss.

TheBeeb profile of himhas nothing to say about climate or global warming, but going back to the original beeb article:Despite having had only seven months in the job, he was one of 10 ministers chosen by the Mexican host government to pull the Cancun talks around when they appeared to be heading for the rocks.Cancun was awaste of time, so his failure to recognise that loses him more points.

I went to look atDECC. And foundthe Carbon Plan. Jolly good. It's got CH's name on it.

By 2020, we will complete the 'easy wins'... insulating all remaining cavity walls and lofts... condensing boilers... new car emissions will fall ... as internal combustion engines continue to become more efficient. Emissions from power stations, already down a quarter since 1990, will fall a further 40%, with most existing coal-fired power stations closing.

All coal stations to close by 2020? With all the Nooks going too, it is hard to see what will replace them. Lots offracked gas?

By 2030... New low carbon power stations - a mix of carbon capture and storage, renewables and nuclear power - will be built.

Oh, that's odd: the Nooks are back. Where did they come from? Still, they are in the plan, so that is a plus. Not sure I believe the CCS: without a carbon tax / sane carbon pricing they are uneconomic.

we will run a technology race, with the least-cost technologies winning the largest market share

That's nice. Timmy says your current tariff / subsidy system doesn't do this, but then he is an old curmudgeon so we'll ignore him. But least-cost tech winning sounds very much like leaving the market to operate without government interference. I think that is good, but it is a slightly curious way of phrasing it - almost as though they don't want to say it.

I got a bit bored reading it at that point, ending at "This will put the UK on a path towards an 80% reduction by 2050" whichI've already said I don't believe.

OK, so I dunno. But I imagine that people out there have opinions: feel free to point out CH's virtues from a Global Warming POV, or indeed those of the gov't as a whole.

There is a remark somewhere in Popper - but of course I forget where, and since I'm only struggling to remember this as an intro or lead-in I may even have made it up - to the effect that deep inquiry into the meaning of words is largely fruitless. And this is in the context of his attack on Plato, so my forward-reference to Plato spending an entire book trying to define Justice is apt.

The kind of thing I mean isPlato's Concept Of Justice: An Analysiswhich just happened to be the top google hit, and now I've propelled it higher. Plato doesn't really mean Justice, to be fair. He means a whole pile of things including morality, and the correct social order, which rather importantly included people like Plato being on top.

However, I'm ranting again. All I meant to say was that Hobbes rather beautifully turns this all around. First, in a State of Nature the notion of justice is absent:

To this warre of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be Unjust. The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place. [1]

But we're interested in people in a society, so we have the succinctly titled "Justice And Injustice What" section, wherein he says:

And in this law of Nature, consisteth the Fountain and Originall of JUSTICE. For where no Covenant hath preceded, there hath no Right been transferred, and every man has right to every thing; and consequently, no action can be Unjust. But when a Covenant is made, then to break it is Unjust: And the definition of INJUSTICE, is no other than The Not Performance Of Covenant. And whatsoever is not Unjust, is Just. [2]

And the key, in case you missed it, is "And whatsoever is not Unjust, is Just."

(perhaps you also need to know the immeadiately preceedingThe Third Law Of Nature, Justice: From that law of Nature, by which we are obliged to transferre to another, such Rights, as being retained, hinder the peace of Mankind, there followeth a Third; which is this, That Men Performe Their Covenants Made: without which, Covenants are in vain, and but Empty words; and the Right of all men to all things remaining, wee are still in the condition of Warre.

Anyway, at least you know what Hobbes is on about: it certainly beats the wordy windbagging twaddle of Plato (Justice implies superior character and intelligence while injustice means deficiency in both respects. Therefore, just men are superior in character and intelligence and are more effective in action. As injustice implies ignorance, stupidity and badness, It cannot be superior in character and intelligence... Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment.etc. etc.).

And this in turn is sparked off byRalph Cudworth(it seems very odd that he was called Ralph) who in seeking to refute a variety of what he regards as heretical notions, principally the notion that Morality might not be absolute (see-also [[Euthyphro dilemma]]) is moved to use Plato's complaints about the Protagoreans and others, who inexcusably believe that nothing can be absolutely just, but all is a matter of social convention. Which is quite ironic because Cudworth is doing his best to demolish Hobbes, but justice is about the only thing that Hobbes would take as absolute; for example which books of religion you trust is (for Hobbes) clearly a matter of societal choice. But not for Cudders.

[I was going to try to avoid doing a review of 2011 by doing a review of "posts I wrote but didn't post in 2011. But I didn't find many. I did find this though. Written in February.]