Skip to content

Britain Going It Alone In Committing Suicide

January 20, 2016

By Paul Homewood   



About Peter, Biography | Peter Lilley

Peter Lilley, MP


On Sunday, Booker alluded to something that Peter Lilley had said: 


Yet another bizarre consequence of this has followed December’s Paris “deal” on climate change. When the EU signed up collectively to reduce its “carbon emissions”, it took Peter Lilley MP to notice that Germany and France are now insisting that, since Britain is already committed to making such a disproportionately generous contribution to the EU’s collective target, this will reduce the amount others will need to cut.


Lilley has filled some of the detail in his speech on Monday at the House of Commons’ debate on the Energy Bill:   



Clause 80 will not allow the use of the emissions trading scheme to achieve our targets, yet the whole purpose of the ETS is to ensure that those who can abate emissions at the lowest costs, do so. So by excluding the use of that, we are ensuring that higher costs are incurred to achieve a given abatement in emissions. Another amendment prolongs the subsidies for onshore wind for longer than needed, even though that is unnecessary. So I shall, unusually, be supporting the Front Bench in seeking to have both those amendments from the Upper House removed.

Above all, we have created a framework that commits us to load higher costs on UK consumers and businesses via the Climate Change Act 2008 and all its ramifications than any other country in Europe. Despite all that, we will ensure, because of the way the system works, that we do not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by one molecule more than would be the case if we were doing the same as the rest of Europe.

Let me explain why that is so. At Paris all the countries of the world agreed to make commitments on what they were going to do in future to curb the growth of their CO2 emissions. The only exceptions were the countries of Europe, who put in a total figure for the whole of Europe and are now to allocate that figure among the member states. Because we are committed to doing so much more than the average in Europe—indeed, than anybody else in Europe—all that does is to reduce the amount by which the other countries in Europe will have to reduce their emissions. So we have increased the burden of costs on British households and business, reduced the burden of costs incurred by our partners in Europe, and not reduced the emissions of CO2 by a single molecule.



And here’s confirmation. Check out the INDCs on the UNFCCC website, and click on the UK’s, or any other EU state, and you get this:-






Note the words:


to be fulfilled jointly


In other words, not individually. As long as the EU hits its 40% cut, it will have achieved its aim. If some states cut by more, others need to do less.


The UK is already legally obliged to cut emissions from 1990 levels by 50% for the Fourth Carbon Budget period of 2023-27. Now Gummer’s Committee on Climate Change is recommending a cut of 57% for 2028-32.

This is plainly nonsense, and, as Peter Lilley points out, will simply mean that other EU states can get away with less than 40%.


I am no lawyer, and there may be some form of penalties for countries who fall short of a 40% cut. But as we often see with the EU, such matters are usually fudged and traded off, with the result that nothing ends up happening to transgressors.

Gummer and co are clearly determined to lead the country off the cliff, and, as we now learn, without making any difference to overall CO2 emissions.

It is about time that we gave him a shove.

  1. Don Keiller permalink
    January 20, 2016 8:38 pm

    When is this stupid and costly obsession with CO2 going to end?
    When the lights go out, I expect.

  2. January 20, 2016 8:54 pm


  3. January 20, 2016 8:56 pm

    This is the result of not paying attention in elementary school, CO2 is needed by all vegetation in order to grow and provide us with Oxygen, now we have to pay to learn the lesson the hard way. Let’s all remember, CO2 has been overt twenty times higher in previous times and everything flourished, from plants to animals, yes including us humans.

  4. January 20, 2016 9:14 pm

    Lord Cardigan was arrogant, ignorant and of doubtful sanity, yet was left to lead troops to disaster. It seems he has imitators in Parliament.

  5. January 20, 2016 10:01 pm


  6. David Richardson permalink
    January 20, 2016 10:08 pm

    We are truly governed by idiots – still we already knew that – but it is even worse than we thought.

    All three main parties in the UK are infected with the climate change virus – at least in the USA it looks as though the Republicans are getting ever more sceptical, just don’t mention Donald trump please.

  7. John F. Hultquist permalink
    January 21, 2016 1:49 am

    One could say the UK is taking one for the team.
    The others will be most grateful. Or not.

  8. Brian H permalink
    January 21, 2016 3:58 am

    The UK will in fact never achieve anything like those % numbers. It has neither the means nor the methods nor the will, deluded MPs notwithstanding.

  9. Ben Vorlich permalink
    January 21, 2016 8:19 am

    Surely everyone is meant to follow the UK’s lead on this, or at least that’s what Gummer, Huhne, Milliband and not least Cameron have been telling us for years.

    • Derek Buxton permalink
      January 21, 2016 10:06 am

      They lied… usual!

    • CheshireRed permalink
      January 21, 2016 11:20 am

      Exactly. Hubris in action. They actually believe if THEY do something first then the rest of the world will follow our ‘world-leading’ inspiration. Too stupid for words.

  10. Barry Capsey permalink
    January 21, 2016 8:45 am

    Hi Paul. Is there an easy way/link whereby I can put your posts on either or both Twitter and facebook. They’re well worth a wider readership! Cheers, barry Capsey

    Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:32:15 +0000 To:

    • January 21, 2016 11:25 am

      On facebook, you just need to copy the URL address and paste on your facebook when you write a post.

      I guess Twitter is similar



  11. Mark Hodgson permalink
    January 21, 2016 8:46 am

    Bishop Hill has also mentioned Lilley’s speech, and I commented over there as follows:

    Lilley’s analysis is a good attempt to explain how green dogma is driving bad outcomes. I am not scientifically qualified to explore the evidence as to whether humankind is responsible for climate change or global warming, or whatever it’s called this week, although like many here I do have my doubts, based on common sense. However, the point at which I part company irrevocably with the eco-fascists is when considering the conclusions they arrive at when considering how to deal with their perceived problem.

    They blight our beautiful landscape with industrial scale wind turbines, often trashing peat bogs in the process (thereby releasing more CO2). They rely on unreliables, which require inefficient backup from conventional fuels, thereby releasing more CO2. They require us to cut down living trees and burn them, rather than burn dead trees (coal). They produce higher energy costs, pushing millions into fuel poverty and driving industry to foreign countries with lower environmental standards than ours, thereby doing more damage to the environment (real damage, that is) as well as increasing CO2 emissions both in the production process and in the transportation of the stuff produced, half-way round the world from China (try buying anything in the shops these days that isn’t made in China, and much of it is of such low quality that you find yourself looking for another replacement in pretty short order).

    All of this strikes me as blindingly obvious – especially the bit that even by their own lights, their “solutions” make the “problem” worse. But the eco-fascists won’t have it. And if they can’t see the blindingly obvious with regard to the consequences of their actions, why would I trust their “science”?

    • Derek Buxton permalink
      January 21, 2016 10:09 am

      The reason was clearly stated a week or so ago by some foreign jobsworth at the EU, “the aim is to destroy capitalism”. Which means going back to the stoneage.

      • CheshireRed permalink
        January 21, 2016 11:27 am

        Exactly. There’s little doubt in my mind this is simply another step to slowing growth, impeding the economy and imposing their way of living on the masses. They’re not interested in objective reasoning, which is why they don’t debate the science.

  12. NeilC permalink
    January 21, 2016 9:11 am

    Global levels of CO2 = 400ppm (i molecule in 2500):

    Global anthropogenic CO2 contributions are 3.75%*400ppm = 15ppm (1 molecule in 66,667)

    Click to access tbl3.pdf

    UK anthropogentic CO2 contributions are 1.16%*15ppm = 0.174ppm (1 molecule in 5,747,126)

    There can be no denying, our leaders are deluded, ill informed by radical green activists, and putting our country at great risk.

    20 years no warming in the UK, yet levels of CO2 still increase. The theory that CO2 is a major warming problem is false.

    Levels of CO2 are not a problem.

  13. January 21, 2016 1:18 pm

    Reblogged this on Patti Kellar.

  14. January 21, 2016 1:18 pm

    Reblogged this on windfarmaction and commented:
    The madness of the EU and it’s climate madness

  15. R2Dtoo permalink
    January 21, 2016 4:38 pm

    The EU is a “commons”. This is simply another example of the tragedy of the commons. Human nature hasn’t changed much over time.

  16. January 21, 2016 7:21 pm

    Time for comrade Cameron to resign.The should elect a leader who will put our nation first by repealing the Climate Change Act,and telling the world that we have had enough of the big Green Lie.
    CO2,a trace gas by definition,cannot,and does not warm the earth.Only some scientists tampering with,or distorting data can do that.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: