Skip to content

Booker And The Fifth Carbon Budget

May 14, 2016

By Paul Homewood 


h/t Philip Bratby




Booker reports on the Fifth Carbon Budget:


By the end of next month the most insane Act ever passed by Parliament is set to land us in a quite extraordinary situation vis-à-vis the rest of the European Union. This has nothing to do with the referendum. It has everything to do with our MPs’ obligation, under the Climate Change Act, to approve something called the “Fifth Carbon Budget”, laying down Britain’s energy policy for 12 years ahead.

Not only will this be disastrous in itself. It will put us at an appalling competitive disadvantage with our EU partners. And it will make a complete mockery of pledges made by both the Chancellor, George Osborne, and our Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Amber Rudd.

The Fifth Carbon Budget was published last year by that very odd body, the Climate Change Committee, set up by the Climate Change Act to advise the Government on how to meet the Act’s target that, by 2050, Britain must slash its “carbon emissions” by 80 per cent on their 1990 level. Although few members of this supposedly “independent” committee, headed by Lord Deben (aka John Gummer), are experts in either climate science or energy, all are dedicated climate alarmists.

What their latest “carbon budget” proposes is that, to meet the Act’s 80 per cent target, between 2028 and 2033 Britain must raise its emissions cuts to a staggering 57 per cent. Yet this is at a time when other EU countries are at odds over whether they can agree on a much lower target of just 40 per cent by 2030, let alone whether this would be legally binding.

What the “Fifth Carbon Carbon Budget” proposes is terrifying. It talks of how 60 per cent of our cars should by then be electric (currently these are barely half a per cent of new cars sold). We must look forward to abandoning use of gas for heating and cooking (currently supplying 90 per cent of us). As, within five years, we are due to stop using the coal that until recently supplied more than a third of our electricity (easily the cheapest way to make it), we must nevertheless double our electricity consumption, for cooking, heating and transport. And most of this will come from a huge expansion in “renewables” and new nuclear plants: only one of which is yet in the pipeline, already billed to be the most expensive power station in the world and which we were told last week will not be on stream until 2026.

Even the committee is aware that, due to the intermittency of wind and solar, to keep Britain’s economy running we would need a great many new gas-fired power stations to provide backup when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. But as this is a fossil fuel, they propose it should carry an increased “carbon tax” (four times higher than its present level, already four times higher than anywhere else in the world), which will make its power so costly that this might somehow make wind farms seem “competitive”. It must also, they repeatedly insist, be fitted with “carbon capture” to bury all their CO2: using a technology not yet developed and which probably never will be.

So this amazing ragbag of proposals, based entirely on wishful thinking, will next month become the law of the land, to put us “ahead of the world”: at a time when the rest of the EU will still not have agreed its target of 40 per cent. Yet this flies in the face of both Osborne’s pledge to the 2011 Tory conference that “we’re going to cut our carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe”, and that of Ms Rudd in a speech last July, in claiming that “we have to travel in step with what is happening in the rest of the world”.

This is why 15 MPs, including three former Cabinet ministers, have now written to Ms Rudd asking her to delay “setting the Fifth Carbon Budget” until the EU has concluded an agreement on its own target. Otherwise, they warn, this will not only put us at a severe competitive disadvantage, but other countries could even use our grossly disproportionate contribution to the EU’s general total as an excuse for contributing much less themselves. If Rudd does not ask MPs to delay, they will merely be bringing us even nearer to a catastrophe the dimensions of which few in Britain have yet woken up to.—the-most-insane-act-passed-by-parliame/


The government is not legally compelled to take the CCC’s advice, or to set the Fifth Carbon Budget in stone at this time. Whether any of them will have the gumption to use a bit of commonsense is however unlikely.

  1. markl permalink
    May 14, 2016 7:05 pm

    The rest of the world will watch as England commits energy suicide to support an ideology designed decimate its’ industry and people. Quite sad to watch it unfold.

  2. It doesn't add up... permalink
    May 14, 2016 8:29 pm

    Do you suppose they’re hoping that this will stem the tide of immigration?

  3. May 14, 2016 9:06 pm

    This is a very feeble effort by these 15 MPs, being competitive with the rest of the EU will not be of much use when the EU won’t be competitive with the rest of the world.

  4. May 14, 2016 9:35 pm

    Utterly daft. This won’t end well.

  5. Billy Liar permalink
    May 14, 2016 11:02 pm

    The French Government in the shape of Ségolène Royal said yesterday “I am wondering if we should go ahead with the project. The sums involved are colossal.”

    According to other reports, Greenpeace are backing her – they see an opportunity for more ruinables.

  6. Graeme No.3 permalink
    May 14, 2016 11:10 pm

    A large number of politicians should be remanded pending a psychiatric report.

  7. May 15, 2016 3:27 am

    Tip: “Tesla is this big car company,” Zell said.

    “You and I are subsidizing millionaires to buy these cars … I don’t understand it.”
    Quotes Business Insider
    Neither billionaire oil man T. Boone Pickens nor real estate billionaire Sam Zell care for Tesla.
    They explained why on stage during their talk at the SkyBridge Alternatives conference in Las Vegas on Wednesday.

  8. May 15, 2016 6:34 am

    To describe itself as an “independent, statutory body”, the Committee on Climate Change is completely fraudulent in its use of the English language. You only have to look at the committee members to see that most of them have deep vested finacial interests in climate change alarmism.

  9. mwhite permalink
    May 15, 2016 8:14 am

    So much for saving the Steel Industry.

  10. Grimwig permalink
    May 15, 2016 8:21 am

    With every utterance and every action of our senior politicians, one comes to realise that, while an Eton education may confer many things on its recipient, wisdom is not one of them

  11. May 15, 2016 12:13 pm

    Boiling frog syndrome springs to mind.

    ‘The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to or be aware of threats that occur gradually.’

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: