• The Guardian reports that Blair, fresh from his love-in with St Bob Geldof, is heading for a tiff with his previous amour, George Dubya Bush. The row is, of course, over this climate change business. Seems the Americans are a little cagey about admitting that warming is even occurring, let alone that man might be the cause - or a contributor - to that warming. The result of Blair’s falling-out with Dubya is that the other seven members of the G8 - including the UK - will probably issue a global warming ‘communique’ that will not include the Americans.

    Mr Blair’s cabinet colleagues have described him as showing great courage in sticking to his guns, despite being advised that it is “a very dangerous thing to do politically”.

    Right. Seven against one is brave, is it? Knowing you’re not going to have to face the music of a damaged relationship with the US because you’re handing over to Gordon Brown is brave? Sticking two fingers up at America knowing that most of the electorate at home will applaud you for it is brave? Really, Guardian, what planet are you on?

    The text, described as “the base for Friday, Saturday meeting”, shows that the US refuses to accept either the science surrounding climate change or that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to it.

    The US is objecting to these words: “Climate change is a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring and that human activity is contributing to this warming.”

    Uh huh. So we’re ‘contributing’. How much are we contributing compared to the natural warming/cooling cycle the this planet is always under-going? Are we contributing 1% or 10% or 50% or 98%? Because if it’s less than about 10% I think we should worry a little less about our activity in causing it and spend a bit more time and energy preparing for the inevitable.

    All the G8 countries accept the next sentence: “Global energy demands are expected to grow by 60% over the next 25 years. This has the potential to cause a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change.” However, the US disputes the next sentence: “But we know that we need to slow, stop and then reverse the growth in greenhouse gases to reduce our exposure to potentially serious economic, environmental and security risks.”

    The US objection here is, I suspect, largely economic. The problem - if we accept we must eventually reverse the amount of carbon we emit - is that with the US being the technological colossus that it is its non-involvement in the pursuit of lower emissions will be a serious blow to that effort.

  • The Blair-Chirac feud ‘could destroy Europe’. Oh please dear god say it ain’t so!! (Sorry - feeling a bit sarcastic today.) The European Commission’s President, Jose Manuel Barroso, told The Guardian:

    “The nationalist rhetoric is self-defeating. It is impossible, it is irrational to come to Brussels and to go back to respective capitals saying every time ‘we have won’, as if it was a kind of boxing championship. People like that are destroying the very idea of Europe. That is my duty to say that.”

    Interesting that nationalism (ie not racism, not xenophobia - just a simple preference for the independent nation-state) is not compatible with the idea of Europe. Does that mean we can leave now then?

    Well, I’d like to hang around for as long as the President of the EU Commission has a sense of humour. And he has, so, here - courtesy of Mr Barroso - is today’s Joke of the Day:

    Asked whether Turkey will become a member of the EU in his lifetime, he replies: “I cannot say neither one nor the other. I respect democracy.”

    Honestly, the man kills me…

  • Speaking of which, The Guardian we learn that the BMA drops opposition to doctor-assisted suicide.

    Doctors’ representatives voted to abandon their long-held opposition to a change in the law to permit them to help terminally-ill patients commit suicide yesterday.

    The British Medical Association decided to adopt a neutral stance when private member’s legislation returns to parliament to provide a means of escape for people living in pain with no hope of recovery.

    A neutral stance seems a little, well, soft, when we’re talking about life and death situations - and when we’re talking about the acknowledged experts in such life or death situations.

    Speakers distinguished between physician-assisted suicide, in which a doctor might facilitate death, and euthanasia, involving active killing - which the BMA will continue to oppose.

    What does ‘assisted’ mean and how does it differ from ‘active’? If ‘assisted’ means allowing a person to starve to death while ‘active’ means giving a person drugs to hasten - or bring about - their death then it’s only a question of semantics that separates the two. If I can feed you but refuse to I am actively - and extremely painfully - killing you. Let’s not mess about with words.

    The question then is far more profound: do we knowingly kill people we could otherwise keep alive if they request it due to unbearable pain and/or an untreatable and debilitating medical condition?

  • The The Telegraph reports that Prince Charles ‘is the greatest charity entrepreneur in the world’ and raised more than £100 million for charities last year. This is according to his Private Secretary.

    Sir Michael Peat said that the prince also donated £2.5 million of his own money to charity each year, which was a sizeable proportion of his income. “He is not Bill Gates,” Sir Michael added.

    The annual review of the Prince’s household

    …shows that the prince undertook more than 500 engagements, including 103 overseas, and received or entertained 7,400 official guests. He attended 191 formal briefings and meetings, received more than 47,000 letters from the public, and wrote more than 2,300 letters personally, with a further 18,000 written on his behalf.

    Spending included

    On his official and charitable duties, the prince spent more than £6 million, with staff costs accounting for more than half this sum. Spending on housekeeping was £96,000, gardens £30,000, and utilities £72,000. The cost of entertaining was reined in from £655,000 to £507,000 for a similar number of events as the previous year.

    Over the 12 months, the prince entertained 7,400 guests at Clarence House and other residences, hosting 68 receptions, seminars, lunches and dinners.

    And the Prince travelled a lot:

    Overseas trips took up much of the prince’s time last year. He travelled more than 65,700 miles both in the UK and overseas, undertaking 103 official engagements at a cost of £1.06 million.

    He visited 82 towns and 35 counties in the UK, as well as Italy, Turkey, Jordan, Sri Lanka, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Spain, France, the United States, Bosnia, the United Arab Emirates, Germany and the Netherlands.

    Sir Michael said that criticism of the costs and method of the prince’s travel to ostensibly desirable places was often misconceived. ‘’He goes to these places exclusively to represent the national interest and he hardly has five minutes off,'’ he added.

    The Royal Family costs each of us less than the price of a loaf of bread per year. I wish we could get such value for money from all the rest of government spending…