It’s the end of an era, an epochal moment. My local newsagent is shutting up shop in a couple of week’s time and as a consequence I will no longer be a Guardian reader. This staple of my life is coming to an end, since the alternative ways of obtaining it do not seem practical. My direct debit is cancelled, and a little note to the publishers has signalled this departure. On reflection, I wonder if the timing was somehow right—as readers of this blog will know, I have not always been enamoured with the liberal organ’s take on things, least of all it’s oh so superior denigration of Jeremy Corbyn. Some of their columnists did their best to assist the Tories, perhaps unintentionally (or perhaps not) during Corbyn’s tenure as Labour Party leader. As a result I stopped reading anything by Gaby Hinsliff, Hadley Freeman and prima amongst equals, Jonathan Freedland. But it’s still weird preparing to let go of something that’s been part of one’s life for decades, and it has to be said having one’s letters occasionally published in it was a sop to the ego. On the other hand, the thought of saving £540 a year should not be ignored. Possibly, for a lot less I could subscribe to the Morning Star.
 
Interestingly, at the same time as this epochal moment two articles in a recent London Review of Books (LRB) inspired a letter in the latest edition about the nature of liberal choices when it comes to challenging the current corrupt capitalist system. What methods should be chosen? Non-violent direct action? Armed struggle? Sabotage? Or maybe getting a letter published in the Guardian or better still agreeing with an article by George Monbiot over your morning coffee? The letter in the LRB made a point about Nelson Mandela, who eventually came to the conclusion that the ANC would be right to adopt what Thatcher would call terrorist tactics. I don’t recall whether back in the sixties the Guardian would have approved of that (a bit before my time). But today, when supporters of BDS, who oppose Israel’s apartheid system rarely get a fair hearing, it’s not hard to imagine that having given so many column inches to Corbyn’s slayers (e.g. Enver Hodga) in which direction the strain (stain) of liberal thought takes us.
 
Am I now at the stage where I only want to read what reinforces my opinions? It’s hard to say. The Guardian has often been infuriating but there’s no detracting from the fact that it has challenged the establishment—albeit from within the establishment. And that’s its problem.
 
Perhaps the closure of my newsagent will open up new vistas.
 
N.B. My discontent with the Guardian has nothing whatever to do with the fact that when I was an MP they never listed my birthday in their birthday column, as they did manage to do for every other MP who was equally as obscure as moi. As if that would make any difference!

+I watched a newsclip yesterday promoted on a rightwing newspaper’s website (it matters not which, they all morph into one) which allegedly showed President Biden being unsteady on his feet as he walked to the podium on the White House south lawn, with VP Harris by his side. The clip showed nothing of the sort, but for those right wing pundits who are expert in these matters, POTUS was clearly displaying signs of dementia. Such a narrative can be contrasted with Boris Johnson’s performance at the CBI conference yesterday. If Jeremy Corbyn had performed as chaotically as Johnson did, we’d never hear the end of it. But today, looking at the ’top’ stories on the Microsoft news feed, no-one from the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail or the Daily Express had a word to say about it. Surely, they haven’t discovered that Johnson has early onset dementia have they, and are just keeping it to themselves (as the media obligingly did for Johnson’s hero Churchill after he had a stroke)? We should be told.
 
+According to the Guardian this morning, the best selling author Sally Rooney is not permitting her latest book to be translated into Hebrew, since she supports the BDS movement and considers Israel an apartheid state. She has received the support of scores of other authors. In retaliation, two Israeli book store chains have removed all works by Rooney from their shelves—a kid of reverse BDS. The irony is evident. If Rooney was a member of the Labour Party she would now be expelled, and any fellow members recommending her books would be under investigation too.  

+Here’s a story from Reuters a few days ago:
 
The Canadian government-owned pipeline ships 300,000 barrels a day of crude and refined products from Alberta to the Pacific Coast. Work on a major expansion project on the pipeline has also been halted, Trans Mountain Corp said. "As a precaution, Trans Mountain has shut down the Trans Mountain Pipeline due to widespread flooding and debris flows in the area around Hope, BC," a company spokeswoman said in an email. She did not give any information on when the pipeline is expected to restart.
 
The Canadian government paid C$4.5 billion for the pipeline and its expansion, helping one of the world’s dirtiest fossil fuels reach export markets.
 
Here’s a report from the Glasgow COP26 conference (from Yahoo news):
 
Justin Trudeau used part of his climate change speech at  COP26 to highlight a town that burned down in  Canada following unprecedented wildfires. Earlier this year, wildfires stoked by record-breaking temperatures, tore across the North-west of the North American continent decimating everything their path - including  the small town of Lytton in British Columbia. The Canadian prime minister invoked the town as he urged world leaders at the gathering of world leaders in Glasgow to tackle the mammoth task of halting the destructive impact of global warming.
 
It all makes perfect sense. I wonder if there are any climate change sceptics left in British Columbia. And whatever happened to the phrase ‘joined-up thinking’?
 
+Also on a climate change theme I was re-watching that darkly funny film VICE (about Dick Cheney) last night and two clips stood out—the first showed solar panels being installed on the roof of the White House under Jimmy Carter’s presidency, with a voice over of Carter making a speech about the value of renewable energy—this must have been in the 1970s, well before climate change was a political issue. The second clip showed the panels being removed and junked after Reagan was elected. Given that Carter later came to be seen as something of a dippy, ineffectual liberal and only lasted one term, I can imagine Joe Biden thinking I won’t repeat that mistake. A pity. The White House is south facing and would be a good site for solar energy.

An article in the latest New York Review of Books caught my eye. It is by Raja Shehadeh, and is titled “What does Israel Fear from This ‘Terrorist?’” It reports how Al-Haq, the 40-odd year old human rights organisation, ‘among the first in the Arab world’ has been branded a terrorist organisation by the Israeli government. Raja writes “Why now? One might ask. The most probable answer is that Al-Haq has recently given strong support to the International Criminal Court (ICC) by supplying evidence for its investigation of war crimes by Israel during the 2014 Gaza War . .  Among the individuals who could be named in such an indictment would be Gantz [Benny Gantz, Israeli minister of defence] himself, who was commander in chief of the Israeli military in 2014.” And who issued the order to label Al-Haq a terrorist organisation? Why, none other than Benny Gantz. Al-Haq has a high reputation in the international world of human rights, which naturally makes it an enemy of countries which routinely ignore human rights. It has to be said too, as Raja records, that Al-Haq has also reported human rights offences committed by Hamas. Prior to this latest attack on Al-Haq, Rajah recalls a long history of harassment, intimidation and smearing by the Israeli state. (Thank heavens nothing like that ever happens in the UK, where our democracy is unsullied by such tactics.) I wonder what Israeli ministers call people who support the ICC’s efforts? No prizes for guessing.

Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised to hear that I found COP26 a disappointment. The vast conference reminded me of an ant hill, which from a distance seems static and lifeless but on closer inspection reveals a hubbub of seemingly chaotic activity. Except the ants’ activity is fully fruitful and purposeful. COP26 is chaos with sudden random bursts of energy, brief flashes of insight but with little chance of making the sum of its parts add up to a greater whole. Of course there were indications of progress, each lauded as setting us on the right path, albeit a path with no satisfactory end in sight. It seems the biggest legacy of COP26 will be that it ‘keeps hope alive’ that we will manage to keep the rise in global average temperature to 1.5 degrees centigrade. This hope is like somebody saying ‘now let us all pray’ - and lo and behold, something, like an invisible hand reaches out and saves us as is so often the case in disaster movies. But the only invisible hand in the modern economic era that I’m aware of is that of market forces, and so far it has failed to act. As Nick Stern said, climate change is the biggest market failure of all time. Now it’s going to correct itself? Pah! I repeat: PAH! The problem we face is so rapidly running out of control, the carbon emission cuts we seek will not stop the climate change juggernaut. There are three legs to this climate change stool, only one of which we think we have control over, namely carbon emissions. The other two are feedbacks and carbon sink efficiency. Both of those are increasingly oblivious to our puny efforts. They do not, indeed seem to feature very much in the great discussions around the COP table. How could they? They are the great imponderables in this battle, and to be fair they are not as quantifiable as we would like them to be. Except to say, they seem to be playing a more damaging role than most models predicted, or at least have added to the view that climate change models were too conservative in their assessment of the problem. The science bowed down to the politics (a feature of the whole UNFCCC process from the start) and generously allowed us to behave as if we had all the time in the world to solve this problem. Now, as the captain of the Titanic may have said as the iceberg came into view, ‘Steady as she goes (we’re unsinkable)!’

+Went yesterday with local Labour comrades to deliver a letter to our Tory MP, Robert Goodwill. The time has come for MPs to account for their activities tackling climate change—but Tory MPs in particular, since they’re the ones keeping this incompetent government in power. Here’s some questions to start with:
 
1. Will you make climate change a priority in your own political work? If so, how will this manifest itself (we note that in your recent ‘In Touch’ leaflet no mention was made of climate change).
2. Have you asked for assessments of how climate change will affect Scarborough and Whitby, both directly and indirectly?
3. Are you satisfied that achieving ‘net’ zero CO2 emissions by 2050 is likely to contain climate heating at sustainable (i.e. 1.5⁰C) levels? Shouldn’t this target be sooner?
4. The Climate Change Committee’s most recent report states that the government is not meeting its climate change targets. How do you explain that?
5. Various government schemes to support the decarbonisation of British homes have failed. What representations have you made to urgently address the question of insulating properties in Scarborough and Whitby?
6. According to the Register of Members’ Interests, you have previously held shares in Russian oil and gas companies. Do you still invest in fossil fuel industries?
7. Recent reports (including from the UN) suggest that the UK is still investing more in fossil fuels than clean forms of energy. Do you consider this to be acceptable?
8. The government’s recently published climate change strategy, coupled with its emphasis on ‘levelling up’ suggests that Scarborough and Whitby should see quick and positive environmental results. Will this mean, e.g. improvements to rail services to Scarborough, including the electrification of the line? Will you campaign for that, as well as a resumption of through services beyond York? Will any of the £6.9 billion for transport schemes announced by the Chancellor be spent in Scarborough and Whitby and if so, what on?
9. How many homes in this constituency do you estimate will benefit from grants towards the installation of heat pumps?
10. Have you made representations about the roll-out of electric vehicle public charging stations in this constituency, which appears to be very poorly served?
11. Will you campaign for an extension to the eligibility of bus passes for older people?
12. You voted for the government’s cut in foreign aid. Could you explain how this cut will help advance our international commitments on reducing the threats posed to developing countries by climate change?
13. The government’s ‘levelling up’ strategy for funding bids suggests a central role for local MPs: (Levelling_Up_prospectus.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk):
The Government recognises the important role of Members of Parliament in championing the interests of their constituents. We expect bidding authorities to consult local Members of Parliament as part of their bid; though such support from local MPs is not a necessary condition for a successful bid. MPs can have a positive role in prioritising bids and helping broker local consensus.
Please explain your choice of scheme to support and how that relates to climate change.

We acknowledge this is a long list of questions, but we hope you will address each of them individually and directly. We also acknowledge that the government’s recently published climate change strategy marks some ramping up of effort, but as Winston Churchill said “It is not always enough that we do our best; sometimes we must do what is required.” We don’t believe that as yet your government is doing what is required, that is what is required to achieve its stated goals.

+​In the wake of the Owen Paterson scandal, there has been an avalanche of comment on how corrupt Johnson’s government is. And with it goes a huge wondering about why Tory poll ratings are still (generally) ahead of Labour’s. One explanation is that ‘people have priced in’ Johnson’s behaviour, so no matter how bad it is, it’s nothing more than you would expect from a man like him. So all this stuff is discounted. That explanation says a lot about the electorate, but commentators don’t want to suggest that many new Tory voters are thick, or something worse. Another explanation is that Starmer is hopeless, and there is a growing pile of evidence to support such a view—he’s just not cutting through, even though the government’s ‘vaccine bounce’ is waning rapidly. Starmer’s inconsistency probably plays a part—can he be trusted any more than Johnson? It was a bit ironic hearing Starmer condemning Johnson for seeking to make justice retrospective (that is to get Paterson off the hook), when at home here in the Labour Party members can be suspended for allegedly supporting organisations that are now proscribed but weren’t when the alleged support took place. There’s plenty of retrospective ’justice’ in Starmer’s backyard. I guess he hopes no-one will notice.

I’m rather fond of my 1956 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (EB), even though as years roll by it’s rarely consulted. Who needs all these volumes when Wikipedia is at your fingertips? One reason why I wouldn’t let go of the 26 shelf filling volumes (apart from the fact that they just look good) is that back in 1956, when I was only three, they were testament to my parents’ faith in the possibility that I and my brothers might actually learn something. We weren’t well off at the time, so buying these weighty volumes would have put pressure on the family budget. But an old EB has other attractions. It is a capture of the world as it was then, a looking glass into a bygone history, frozen in time. I once owned a 1933 edition (bought in a library sale for £10, missing the volume for everything beginning with N) which related, in a single paragraph that a certain Adolf Hitler was merely a provincial Austrian politician. Encyclopedias aren’t about hindsight or foresight, they’re just a snapshot of knowledge at the time. I imagine that ‘periods of time’ were sufficiently long lasting for articles to remain reasonably accurate for several years. So 10 years after our edition was published I could still dip into it to burnish my homework with suitably apposite references.

Now of course Wikipedia, which grows exponentially both temporally and expansively is updated by the minute, and is not necessarily edited by respected academics but by the subjects of its articles themselves. Only today Guardian readers learnt that a team working for billionaire Richard Desmond routinely edit his Wiki page to exchange the word ‘pornographer’ for ‘philanthropist.’ (I confess I forgot this unpleasant man’s first name so googled ‘Desmond porn’ and sure enough his name came up.)
 
Some things go on for ever of course, and the 1956 EB edition is dedicated ‘with thanks’ not only to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II but to Dwight Eisenhower, President of the United States. The first volume’s first two hundred pages or so simply list all the contributors. But what’s in the meat of it?  Volume One covers “A to Annoy.” That sounds very contemporary to me. ‘Annoy’ —what’s EB got to say about this most descriptive word, which captures so well our experience of modern society? It says this:
 
“ANNOY, to vex, in the sense of “nuisance” (q.v.) “annoyance” is found in the English “Jury of Annoyance” appointed by an act of 1754 to report on obstructions to the highways.”
 
Jury of Annoyance! Bring ‘em back! Every town should have a Jury of Annoyance, even if the workload would be rather overwhelming. The little ‘q.v.’ in that article reminded me of a game one could play in the EB—that is, to follow up every q.v. through every other article referenced to see if that one day one would have to read every single article in the EB.  Of course, such a task would take rather a long time to accomplish, just like my thought that if one read every word that defined every word in the Oxford English Dictionary, one would find that in the grand scheme of things every word would simply define every other word. Perhaps there’s a look in here for Wittgenstein (not a name to be found between Wittenberg and Witu of EB 1956, volume 23).
 
So—even an old EB can teach you something. I want to get my local Jury of Annoyance set up straightaway.

 
+Went today with local Labour comrades to deliver a letter to our MP, Robert Goodwill. The time has come fr MPs to account for their activities tackling climate change—but Tory MPs in particular, since they’re the ones keeping this incompetent government in power. Here’s some questions to start with:
 
1.Will you make climate change a priority in your own political work? If so, how will this manifest itself (we note that in your recent ‘In Touch’ leaflet no mention was made of climate change).
2. Have you asked for assessments of how climate change will affect Scarborough and Whitby, both directly and indirectly?
3.Are you satisfied that achieving ‘net’ zero CO2 emissions by 2050 is likely to contain climate heating at sustainable (i.e. 1.5⁰C) levels? Shouldn’t this target be sooner?
4. The Climate Change Committee’s most recent report states that the government is not meeting its climate change targets. How do you explain that?
5. Various government schemes to support the decarbonisation of British homes have failed. What representations have you made to urgently address the question of insulating properties in Scarborough and Whitby?
6. According to the Register of Members’ Interests, you have previously held shares in Russian oil and gas companies. Do you still invest in fossil fuel industries?
Recent reports (including from the UN) suggest that the UK is still investing more in fossil fuels than clean forms of energy. Do you consider this to be acceptable?
7. The government’s recently published climate change strategy, coupled with its emphasis on ‘levelling up’ suggests that Scarborough and Whitby should see quick and positive environmental results. Will this mean, e.g. improvements to rail services to Scarborough, including the electrification of the line? Will you campaign for that, as well as a resumption of through services beyond York? Will any of the £6.9 billion for transport schemes announced by the Chancellor be spent in Scarborough and Whitby and if so, what on?
8.How many homes in this constituency do you estimate will benefit from grants towards the installation of heat pumps?
9. Have you made representations about the roll-out of electric vehicle public charging stations in this constituency, which appears to be very poorly served?
10. Will you campaign for an extension to the eligibility of bus passes for older people?
11. You voted for the government’s cut in foreign aid. Could you explain how this cut will help advance our international commitments on reducing the threats posed to developing countries by climate change?
12. The government’s ‘levelling up’ strategy for funding bids suggests a central role for local MPs: (Levelling_Up_prospectus.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk):
The Government recognises the important role of Members of Parliament in championing the interests of their constituents. We expect bidding authorities to consult local Members of Parliament as part of their bid; though such support from local MPs is not a necessary condition for a successful bid. MPs can have a positive role in prioritising bids and helping broker local consensus.
Please explain your choice of scheme to support and how that relates to climate change.
13.On the 1st May 2019 the House of Commons supported without a division Labour’s motion to declare a climate emergency. Speaking for the government, Michael Gove said ““it is . .  incumbent on us all to recognise that, if we really believe that we face an emergency and a crisis, we should do as our forefathers did when this country faced emergencies and crises in 1914 and in 1940. We put aside partisanship, we recognised the sincerity on the other side and we acknowledged that both sides had made mistakes, but we had a shared ambition to prove that Britain could lead.” Have you any suggestions as to how locally this aspiration may come to fruition?
14. Given that Parliament without dissent supported the declaration of a climate emergency, how do you explain your voting record since (as recorded on the TheyWorkForYou website - see at bottom of page)?
​
We acknowledge this is a long list of questions, but we hope you will address each of them individually and directly. We also acknowledge that the government’s recently published climate change strategy marks some ramping up of effort, but as Winston Churchill said “It is not always enough that we do our best; sometimes we must do what is required.” We don’t believe that as yet your government is doing what is required, that is what is required to achieve its stated goals.

​+In the wake of the Owen Paterson scandal, there has been an avalanche of comment on how corrupt Johnson’s government is. And with it goes a huge wondering about why Tory poll ratings are still (generally) ahead of Labour’s. One explanation is that ‘people have priced in’ Johnson’s behaviour, so no matter how bad it is, it’s nothing more than you would expect from a man like him. So all this stuff is discounted. That explanation says a lot about the electorate, but commentators don’t want to suggest that many new Tory voters are thick, or something worse. Another explanation is that Starmer is hopeless, and there is a growing pile of evidence to support such a view—he’s just not cutting through, even though the government’s ‘vaccine bounce’ is waning rapidly. Starmer’s inconsistency probably plays a part—can he be trusted any more than Johnson? It was a bit ironic hearing Starmer condemning Johnson for seeking to make justice retrospective (that is to get Paterson off the hook), when at home here in the Labour Party members can be suspended for allegedly supporting organisations that are now proscribed but weren’t when the alleged support took place. There’s plenty of retrospective ’justice’ in Starmer’s backyard. I guess he hopes no-one will notice.

I listened to former prime minister Sir John Major talking about Johnson's 'corrupt' government and thought 'about time too.' Major was suggesting that Johnson's contempt for Parliament could threaten our very democracy. Well, it is one threat, but a bit behind the curve. The greatest threat to parliamentary democracy at the present time is the wholesale purchase of the Conservative Party and its representatives by a secretive donor class whose interests rotate solely around their own financial aggrandisement. I hope Sir John will address that, too, in the near future.

Scene: The last flight of World Airlines flight WA COP26 from Glasgow (GLA) to New York (JFK)
 
Captain Biden: Hello everybody and welcome aboard! That was a smooth take-off wasn’t it? My name is Captain Biden and I will be with you for most of this journey. To put your minds at rest, I should say first of all that the issue with our starboard engine is neither here nor there. It’s quite normal for huge flames to come out of it now and then and for pieces of shrapnel to hit the windows. For those of you with window seats on the starboard side (which is on your right), if this problem bothers you, just pull down your blinds and it will go away.
Co-pilot Johnson: Wiffle-waffle!
Captain  Biden: Now I do have to point out that the weather when we land will be rather wet .
Passengers: Why!?
Captain Biden: Well, our fuel load will only get us to 347 miles south of Newfoundland, which is not far off the North American coast and well on the way to where we want to be. (emphasis added)
Passengers: It doesn’t say that on our tickets!
Captain Biden: Well, look again at your tickets, and see how cheap they are. How do you think we get our prices down? Filling up?
Co-pilot Johnson: Wiffle-waffle
Passengers: We’re all going to die!
Captain Biden: Well, thank you for travelling with World Airlines. I’ll now hand you over to our Chief Steward, Ms Plenary Session.
Chief Steward Session: May I add my welcome to you all and thank you for flying on this World Airlines flight COP26. We have a variety of offers on board. In First Class, your meals will be served at table shortly, with copious servings of food and wine chosen by our connoisseurs from around the world. In middle class we have a wide range of little nic-nacs to make you feel at home, especially if you feel you ought to be in first class but can’t afford it. In economy class you will find under the seat in front of you a lovely handcrafted plastic bowl you can take to the front of the cabin and see if there’s anything left over for you. Enjoy! Have a nice day!
Back in the cockpit: Captain Biden to Co-pilot Johnson: Mmmm—what’s that noise on the RF receiver?
Co-pilot Johnson: Wiffle-waffle
Captain Biden: Yes it sounds like that. Where’s it coming from? Hang on, there’s something else coming over.
Noise: Ping . . .  Ping . . .  Ping . . .
Co-pilot Johnson: Wiffle-waffle
Captain Biden: No, I’ve got the bearings on it now! Sounds like a Xi Jin  ping! Yes definitely! What’s it mean? Is it on our flight path?
Noise: Ping . . .  Ping . . .  Ping . . .
Back with Chief Steward Session: Don’t worry everybody, I’ve not seen anybody yet actually watch the cabin crew explain the safety routine without falling asleep, in fact we’re rather bored with it ourselves, and frankly it’s just a PR exercise to make you think we care about your life chances if we crash . . .
Passengers: Turn on the movies!! Who said crash!?
Co-pilot Johnson: Wiffle-waffle
Captain Biden: This ping noise seems to be coming from a Chinese aircraft carrier in mid-Atlantic. That’s handy! Maybe we could land on it when the fuel runs out . .
Passengers: We’re too big! How could we land on that! They might even want to charge us extra!
Captain Biden: (P.A. system turned off) I think I have a life raft in here somewhere . .
Co-pilot Johnson: Wiffle-waffle WIFFLE-WAFFLE!!!
Captain Biden: Don’t worry, you won’t be sharing it with me
First class passenger on phone: Elon, get me to Mars!
Economy class passenger: Somebody tell the steward the toilet’s flooded . .
Middle class passenger: Can I get an upgrade please?
Captain Biden: Byeeee! (windrushing sounds)
Co-pilot Johnson: Wiffle-waffle
P.A. system: BRACE! BRACE! BRACE!

How disappointing. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby has apologised for remarks he made at COP26 yesterday, in which he said politicians of today would be cursed for their failure to act against climate change. Challenged on this he went on to say “It was consciously a strong word.  . .  People will speak of them in far stronger terms than we speak today of the politicians of the 30s, of the politicians who ignored what was happening in Nazi Germany,” this time round “It would allow a genocide on an infinitely great scale. I’m not sure there’s grades of genocide, but there’s width of genocide, and this will be genocide indirectly, by negligence, recklessness, that will in the end come back to us or to our children and grandchildren.”
 
What is there to dispute about this blindingly obvious statement? But then came the apology, in a Tweet: “I unequivocally apologise for the words I used when trying to emphasize the gravity of the situation facing us at COP26. It’s never right to make comparisons with the atrocities brought by the Nazis, and I’m sorry for the offence caused to Jews by these words.”
 
If it can be interpreted that Welby was somehow downplaying the Holocaust, that would indeed be offensive. In his choice of examples of politicians turning a blind eye to genocide, he could have chosen Stalin instead (ref. the Holodomor, the Ukranian genocide which claimed more lives than the Holocaust, or the European genocide against North American natives which on some estimates claimed more lives than most other genocides put together). If one is merely counting deaths, there is certainly a ‘width’ issue, so one can’t really fault Welby on that. But he was spot on comparing our current crop of leaders to the appeasers of the 1930s. They thought the Hitler problem could be bought off with one compromise after another, just as our leaders today talk a fighting talk but then cave in to the least bit of pressure, e.g. from the fossil fuel lobby. 

+Just in case they don't print it, here's a self-explanatory letter to the Guardian:

I am pleased Polly Toynbee has promoted Personal Carbon Allowances (Radical climate policies don’t have to punish poor people, 2nd Nov). This method of fairly distributing the burden of carbon emissions responsibilities was first known as “Domestic Tradable Quotas” and devised by the late Dr David Fleming. It was the subject of a private members bill I launched in 2004. When a year or two later, David Miliband described the idea as a ‘thought experiment’ I knew it wasn’t going anywhere. If Mr Miliband has changed his mind that would be very welcome. The beauty of PCAs is that the scheme ties in perfectly with the Contraction and Convergence global framework, an idea which the Labour government shied away from in public but nevertheless used to underpin the calculations behind the Climate Change Act 2008. This little piece of history tells me that politicians have to be much more upfront about the behavioural changes we need to make. Following the usual pattern, COP26 will merely be followed by even faster rates of carbon emissions despite all the wonderful blah blah blah and bouquet of inadequate initiatives.