Well, that view is only valid if you accept that you’re happy to see environmental degradation; happy to see air quality reduced; happy to return to the days when, I think, it was the River Irwell in Salford that was literally flammable when a lit match was thrown into it; happy to return to the days when the River Ogmore in my home town would run different colours according to what had been thrown into the river. Because the natural journey from moving away from seeing climate change as important is to see the environment as unimportant as well. We know that those people who do not accept that climate change is happening—many of them do not accept that there’s a need for an environmental regulation either, certainly to the extent that we see now. This is not something we can dismiss. We can’t simply say, ‘Well, it’s something that we can just put to one side’, nor do I accept that this is something that imposes cost. The reality is that I’ve heard him argue for more coal-fired power stations. The irony is rich in what he says. The coal would have to be imported. So, there are issues of energy security as well. Should we not invest in wind power offshore? Shall we not invest in tidal energy, rather than over-relying on energy sources that have to be imported into Britain? So, energy security and mitigating climate change, to me, run hand in hand.