Skip to content

Rest of World Ignoring The UK’s “World Leading” Climate Change Act

October 18, 2014
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood


When global CO2 emissions are discussed, attention is naturally focussed on the large emitters of China and India. In doing so, however, we risk losing track of what many medium sized countries are doing.


In their response to Owen Paterson, the Committee on Climate Change had this to say:





Talk is cheap of course, but actions speak louder. So, what have some of the largest emitters, outside of the EU, USA, China and India, been doing in terms of cutting back CO2 emissions?

Not a lot according to figures from CDIAC.





Interestingly, Charles Moore’s article in the Telegraph today states that the only two non-European countries in the second phase of Kyoto are Kazakhstan and Australia. The latter is reviewing its commitment, and it would appear Kazakhstan are ignoring theirs.


Even over the most recent three years, the same countries have continued to increase emissions rapidly.




Note that the CCC specifically use Mexico as one of their paragons, even though it has continued to increase emissions.


As Honorary President of GLOBE, described by the Telegraph as “a shadowy lobby group which pushes the case that global warming is a real threat”, the CCC Chairman, John Gummer, can enjoy plenty of jet setting.

But the idea that other countries are following our lead in cutting CO2 is frankly naive and ludicrous.

  1. saveenergy permalink
    October 18, 2014 8:42 pm

    So what’s the UK & EU records on CO2 emissions???
    & shouldn’t we also factor in the emissions for all the manufacturing we’ve moved offshore !!

  2. October 18, 2014 9:05 pm

    I hope that you can explain what our “legally binding commitment” means: will we have to pay someone if we fail, will a minister go to jail?
    The BBC and general media approach to the Patterson speech seems to be to try to ignore it and only bluster that it is against the “settled science”. How can we get the message across that this nonsense is wrecking the long term future competitiveness of the UK? The BBC more or lees refuse to mention Owen Patterson!

    • Joe Public permalink
      October 19, 2014 12:08 am

      “….if we fail, will a minister go to jail?”

      I’ll just turn the boiler up, and leave a few lights on ……………..

    • October 19, 2014 10:43 am

      Having left UKIP because of their behaviour toward Scotland – I’m afraid the only answer I can give is – vote UKIP. Not so much because I want UKIP in power, but as you suggest, this carbon nonsense is destroying the UK faster than anything UKIP could do.

      • Sparks permalink
        October 19, 2014 12:55 pm

        I’m not very good with politics and I rarely discuss it, tho I am aware of UkIP’s intended interference in the peace process in Northern Ireland, and they are known for having more extreme views, I would not like for their obsessiveness with Thatcher to manifest where they repeat her mistakes in Ireland.

        So when you vote for UKIP because they appear to be sympathetic to an issue you are close to, please remember that they are politicians, self centered self absorbed predatory Social Monsters.
        There are more important issues than this man made global warming nonsense, and as a fact, when have you ever voted for any particular political party and got any common sense policies?

        One thing I have noticed is that the bureaucracy and civil service/public sector never changes, no matter who you vote for.

        And there are so many useless wide sweeping rules and regulations now we may as well be a two terr communist country, demonize the unemployed for drawing unemployment benefit while bailing out the wealthy for being overly greedy resulting in widespread unemployment.

        The whole system is corrupt and backward, regardless of who’s in “power” so the climate change act is really no surprise, and voters at the moment are going from one extreme to the next, when all they actually want is a sensible, responsible and accountable government.

  3. tom0mason permalink
    October 19, 2014 1:07 am

    Sounds to me like another case of the big ego saying more than reality will allow.
    A similar effect was seen when some inflated public figure did the rounds years ago, saying that Britain was “punching above it’s weight” or some-such nonsense.

    Britain, as happens so often in these matters, is just the little yapping dog that all the true heavyweights have learned to ignore most of the time. What the big boys like Britain for its arcane and duplicitous methods of sealing in to secrecy what should be public – see the current ICO/FOIA cases and University of Cambridge’s inability to say when or whether Peter Wadham is employed by them when doing tasks for the IPCC. (see for a nice write-up). The time consuming, expensive, legal knot such things are wrapped in is almost beautiful in its well crafted intricacy.

    I suppose shouting “we’re leading the world!” in some matter may be good publicity domestically – in the short term but not much else.

  4. guenier permalink
    October 19, 2014 7:10 am

    Paul: accessing your CDIAC link I cannot locate any figures later than 2012 (‘Preliminary 2011 and 2012 Global & National Estimates’). Where are the 2013 figures?

    • October 19, 2014 9:56 am

      There’s a section called “Global Carbon Project”

      Click on this and then “2014 Global Budget” (Data)

      (It’s very slow to open up!!)

      • guenier permalink
        October 19, 2014 11:51 am

        Thanks, Paul, that’s very helpful. Incidentally I thought this site (there’s a link on the CDIAC site) very interesting: It shows for example that adjusting emissions for consumption rather than production doesn’t (contrary to a common warmists’ claim) make a really significant difference. For example, China’s figures go from 28% (of global emissions) to 23%, the USA’s from 14% to 16% and the EU’s from 10% to 13%.

  5. guenier permalink
    October 19, 2014 7:20 am

    PS to the above: as I said at Bishop Hill yesterday ‘The fact that the CCC thinks it important to highlight Mexico – who’s 30% reduction pledge is subject to their getting ‘adequate financial and technical support from developed countries’ – confirms their desperation.’ Moreover their list of 66 countries that have ‘climate laws’ (and therefore, according to the CCC, are ‘committed to cutting carbon’) ludicrously includes China and India.

    • October 19, 2014 1:33 pm

      Any links for Mexico?

      • guenier permalink
        October 19, 2014 2:44 pm

        Yes. The CCC cited a GLOBE International (Honorary President – John Gummer) in support of their 66 countries ‘committed to cutting carbon’ claim. It can be accessed here: As you see, it’s a handy interactive site. So you select ‘Americas’, then ‘Mexico’ and hit ‘Download Extract’. And there you find, under ‘2020 pledge’: ‘30% GHG emissions reduction with respect to business as usual scenario by 2020 (given adequate financial and technical support from developed countries)’

        Um … rather different from our own dear CC Act.

        But things even that may not be what it seems. Note, from that GLOBE extract, that the ‘Latest reporting year’ for Mexico was 2006. But here’s a Reuters story from 2012: It The reporter said then that ‘Mexico’s new president is unlikely to implement much of the sweeping climate change law signed in June by outgoing President Felipe Calderon amid inevitable resistance from industry and his party’s focus on accelerating economic growth and ramping-up oil and gas production …’

      • guenier permalink
        October 19, 2014 2:47 pm

        The first line of my final paragraph above should have read: ‘But even that may not be what it seems.’

      • guenier permalink
        October 19, 2014 2:56 pm

        Further to that 2012 Reuters story (apologies: I’m becoming a bore on this!) see this 2014 article: It seems Reuters reporter may have been right.

    • Brian H permalink
      October 20, 2014 11:36 pm

      whose 30%

      What’s the correlation between growth and negative CO2 reductions (= increases)? Pretty strong, I bet.

  6. October 19, 2014 11:41 am

    Lord Deben/Gummer has serious conflicts of interest which as far as I can see has every declared investment/chairmanship benefiting from fleecing the taxpayer and squeezing subsidies from those who can ill afford it. He also has a strong history of being evasive and economical with the truth to further his interests. Would officialdom take advice, or the media report on, patio building strategy from Fred West?

    Deben/Gummer clearly does not care who suffers from his greed or dies as long as his pockets continue to be lined. Sadly he is in a position to do serious harm to the UK economy and its people and not be laughed off.

    Matt Ridley on one of Gummer’s previous department hit pieces;
    I came across the report by accident one day, when checking something else on the Committee’s website. I immediately wrote to Lord Deben (letter here) asking him a set of specific questions and giving a detailed response to his report. I pointed out that his report had several errors. The most striking was that in quoting the IPCC AR5 report they had cut some words and numbers out of a sentence. Those words and numbers were the very ones that proved me right, by showing no warming during the past 15 years. The only reason for excising these words and numbers was plainly to alter the sense of the sentence to mean something other than what it plainly said

    “….the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012;0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Nino, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951.

    The words in bold were omitted. In more than 30 years of science reporting I have never come across such a deceitful trick, let alone in an official government document. It is the sort of thing I might have expected to find coming from some of the more rabid and intolerant activist green groups, yet I do not think even they would stoop this low.

    When reading the following just swap ‘sustainable’ etc for ‘oil/coal’. Slight problem of vested interest?

    Register of Interests

    1: Directorships

    Chairman, Sancroft International Ltd (consultants in corporate responsibility and environmental, social, ethical and planning issues; payments made for certain work done by the Member in category 2 are made to Sancroft International Ltd)

    Non-executive Director, Veolia Voda (continental water company)

    Non-executive Chairman, Valpak Holdings Limited and Valpak Limited (organisation for compliance with producer responsibility directives)

    Non-executive Director, Catholic Herald (newspaper)

    Non-executive Director, Castle Trust Capital Ltd (housing investment and mortgage company)

    4: Shareholdings (a)

    Sancroft International Ltd (consultancy; as above)

    4: Shareholdings (b)

    Zero C Ltd (sustainable home builder) Valpak Limited (environmental compliance)

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: