Why must we destroy the environment to save the environment?

“There is no way of making these changes without there being some impact on the natural environment. I'm afraid some people will look out of their windows and see a wind turbine"

So says John Hutton, the Business Secretary, who will announce plans to hamstring Britain's energy supply and economy to the tune of £100 billion at the behest of the European Union and in pursuit of an unachievable goal.

“People need to wake up. We either make these changes or we don't. What we don't have is this magic third option of just carrying on as we are.”

Hang on? "We make these changes or we don't" - so the second option is "carrying on as we are". The third option is having a realistic energy policy that is based on utilising readily available and plentiful energy sources (like coal) for the short to medium term and preparing for the longer term by going nuclear.

Not content with destroying vast swathes of our environment by carpeting it with brutish windfarms, Hutton also proposes destroying our ancient forests and woods.

Another big growth area will be bio-energy, where about 6 per cent of electricity will be generated from burning wood, straw and energy crops. Large areas of woodland will be used.

Now that's joined up government for you. Our big danger - according to these deranged moonbats - is CO2. So what are we going to do? We're going to burn the trees which absorb CO2. Good thinking! Not. The other problem, of course, is that turning over all that land to produce crops to set fire to will mean less land for crops to eat.

"Global warming" may be a disaster for humanity after all - but it won't be rising seas, floods and droughts that ruin us. It will be Canutist politicians who believe they have the power to control the climate.