“(Emissions) did fall very steeply in 2009... but actually it was almost entirely due to the impact of recession,” he said.To him of course te recession is a good thing - though maybe not to the millions out of work, but being a featherbedded uber quangocrat he couldn't really understand that,
“There is underlying progress but we are going to have to increase the pace of reduction."But what he really wants is the recession to become permanent, he is calling for a 'step change' in policies to embed recession as he demanded 'an increase in the speed of reductions'.
He just doesn't get it. The only visible quantifiable result of his policies are suffering on an industrial scale, his proscription? More suffering.
1 comment:
He (and all the others like him) don't appear to understand that these are two sides of the same coin. To put it in a way that even he might grasp: -
Shrinking Economy = Reduction in Emissions
Forced Reduction in Emissions = Shrinking Economy
Post a Comment