Skip to content

UN criticises UK and Germany for betraying Paris climate deal

July 19, 2016

By Paul Homewood 




The Guardian peddles that latest UN propaganda:


Ban Ki-moon’s climate change envoy has accused the UK and Germany of backtracking on the spirit of the Paris climate deal by financing the fossil fuel industry through subsidies.

Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland and UN special envoy on climate change and El Niño, said she had to speak out after Germany promised compensation for coal power and the UK provided tax breaks for oil and gas.

Governments in Paris last year not only pledged to phase out fossil fuels in the long term but to make flows of finance consistent with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

“They’ve [the British government] introduced new tax breaks for oil and gas in 2015 that will cost the UK taxpayer billions between 2015 and 2020, and at the same time they’ve cut support for renewables and for energy efficiency,” she told the Guardian.

“It’s regrettable. That’s not in the spirit [of Paris]. In many ways, the UK was a real leader [on climate change] and hopefully the UK will become again a real leader. But it’s not at the moment.”

The criticism comes as Theresa May’s government has come under fire at home and abroad for its leadership on climate change after it abolished the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Senior figures such as the outgoing UN climate change chief have urged the UK not to abandon its climate commitments as it leaves the EU. “Let us remember that the Brexit vote was not about climate change,” said Christiana Figueres.

Natalie Bennett, the leader of the Green party, said: “This damning indictment of the UK’s energy policy comes just days after our new prime minister scrapped the Department of Energy and Climate Change and appointed an environment secretary who has consistently voted against measures to tackle climate change.

“I urge Theresa May to listen carefully to Robinson’s remarks and start reversing the damaging policies put in place by her predecessor – like giving tax breaks to fossil fuel companies while cutting subsidies for renewables.”


So we get a special envoy for El Nino (yes, I know, you could not make it up, could you?), and the ludicrous Natalie Bennett. Nothing like a bit of serious reporting, never mind balance, eh?

Well, I hate to spoil the greenie love in, but here are a few inconvenient facts:



1) In the last decade, oil and gas producers in the UK have paid £67 billion in taxes. Yes, paid, not been subsidised.





Revenue has fallen sharply in the last two years, due to falling oil prices.


2) Oil and gas producers pay 40% tax on profits


For fields developed after 1993, operators pay 30% corporation tax, plus an additional supplementary charge of 10% on all profits.

The current tax rate for all other companies is 20%, so it is the oil companies that are subsidising everybody else, not the other way round.

In addition, there is a ring fence mechanism for oil companies, which prevents them from diluting profits with losses from other activities.


3) Subsidies to renewable energy producers are estimated by the OBR to cost the UK £47 billion in the next five years.





4) Fuel duties raise £28 billion a year.


In the next five years, drivers will pay £142 billion in fuel duties.




If the UN is so concerned about flows of finance consistent with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, maybe it should ask the Chinese govt why it is both financing and constructing a huge coal power station in Kenya, as just announced this week.                                  


Apparently the Greeks used to have different gods and goddesses for just about every weather phenomenon, so I look forward to the UN appointing special envoys for La Nina, April showers, light breezes and fog. It certainly would not be any dafter than whatever it is Mary Robinson is supposed to be doing!   

  1. A C Osborn permalink
    July 19, 2016 11:26 am

    Let’s see how long the authorities can keep adjusting the data to mask the cooling once the La Nina really kicks in.
    The amount of Snow all over the world in July and really severe cold in the southern hemisphere clearly shows that they are lying. Notice you never see any of it in our MSM.
    How much longer before the general public realises for themselves, the commentors certainly jumped all over the latest “hottest ever” statement about our current mini heatwave.

  2. July 19, 2016 11:28 am

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Good read.

  3. AlecM permalink
    July 19, 2016 11:56 am

    Remember folks, this whole shebang started in 1976 when R D Cess claimed that Earth’s ~0.6 emissivity to Space was the ratio of OLR to surface exitance. This led to the claim that Earth’s atmosphere is heated by the difference between surface exitance and OLR.

    However, emissivity calculations require the same geometry and temperature, neither of which is the case for Cess’ claim. Also in 1976, Wang et al of GISS claimed the same CO2 climate sensitivity as derived by Cess by 1-D modelling However, to prove it they invoked negative convection, which does not exist. 24 years later, Hansen, part of that modelling team, admitted to an AIP interviewer that this ‘was a fudge’.

    In 1981 Hansen and his team claimed that present GHE = 33 K by subtracting OLR mean emission temperature from mean surface temperature. However, that 33 K is ludicrously low. This is because if [CO2] were reduced to zero thereby making [H2O] near zero, the snowball planet, its albedo would be ~0.9, making present GHE up to 132 K! 33 K is the GHE effect, 99 K is the change of albedo effect!

    Also in that paper, they claimed CO2 blocks the 7 – 14 micron range, mostly the ‘Atmospheric Window; not true. In 2013, Lacis et al justified the 3 -D modelling with the CO2 -> 0 experiment, claiming 33 K present GHE.

    As for the feedback, the models use 1/3rd higher low level cloud albedo than reality. This makes modelled sunlit ocean air temperature rise for a given [CO2] increase ~twice as high as the fall under clouds whilst getting correct average temperature in hind-casting. Exponential evaporation kinetics cause the extra [H2O] which experiment shows doe not exist. Instead [H2O] is falling as the water cycle corrects automatically for higher [CO2].

    So, the planet self-controls to give near zero CO2-AGW, but to do so requires polar ice caps -more later. As for GISS/IPCC modelling, it’s scientific bovine ordure sanitised and deodorised by complexity to baffle the amateurs in Science, the 97%!

  4. July 19, 2016 12:22 pm

    Yes “Subsidising” is the word used right at the top in the sub-headline..and I thought straight away I bet she didn’t actually say ‘subsidy’ and that word has been shamelessly inserted by the Guardian to SPIN the story and up the ante to brainwash their readers.

    Go down to places like your local university sociology dept and you will find them : The Gombie Mob (Guardian dogma zombies) all marching along arm stretched in front as they jab their fingers at you as they murmur “subsidies, subsidies ..oil companies get subsidies”.

  5. Robin Guenier permalink
    July 19, 2016 12:33 pm

    But Paul, regarding Chinese and African activities, I think you’re missing the point. As I point out in a comment here ( these are developing countries and they’re exempt from any GHG reduction obligation. No – it’s the evil West that must cut emissions.

  6. Kevin permalink
    July 19, 2016 12:47 pm

    I wonder what plans the government have to make up for all that lost fuel duty, when we are all driving electric cars?

    • Derek Buxton permalink
      July 19, 2016 2:40 pm

      But where is the electricity going to come from? All our power stations will have been scrapped by then. And then there is HS2, is that going to be run by windmills….one per carriage maybe making for perpetual motion, a physical impossibility….even for MPs. I wonder just who and when someone is going to point out the mistake of promising two contradictory statements in the same breath. “The King has no clothes on, not a one”, said the little boy……and he was correct.

  7. July 19, 2016 12:48 pm

    OK, UK and Germany are suspected of betrayal of the “spirit” of Paris COP.

    What is in store for the Philippines, whose President has outright repudiated the agreement:

    PRESIDENT Duterte on Monday said his administration would not honor the historic Paris Agreement on climate change that the Philippines adopted along with about 200 countries in December 2015, saying the covenant was “stupid” and “absurd.”

    Read more:

  8. tom0mason permalink
    July 19, 2016 12:54 pm

    Dear Mrs May (UK PM),

    Could you possibly send Boris over to Mary Robinson, (former president of Ireland and UN special envoy on climate change boondoggle) and ask him to give her a good stiff talking to.

    Concerned citizen.

  9. July 19, 2016 1:12 pm

    Is that Guardian piece news or PR ?
    Is the headline justified by the “news” in the story ?
    Cos when I go to check at what event Mary Robinson said those things (so I can check other reports) I cannot see one at all. Rather the story seems to be constructed PR by the Guardian; as the writer has taken a whole set of quotes from different sources, to make up a narrative piece.
    The Guardian mentions “Robinson’s intervention comes as a group of international statesmen..known as the Elders, released a statement ” yep but that doesn’t mention UK or Germany juast general mentions of states and subsidies :

    Two major concerns:
    1. None of the top 10 emitters of greenhouse gases have ratified the Paris Agreement; (…(ratifiers) account for only 0.18 % of total emissions

    2. …
    G20 governments are still providing US$444 billion a year in support for the production of fossil fuels, including through subsidies, public finance and state-owned enterprise investment.

    See what I mean? that is not about Germany & UK giving subsidies.

    I guess that the reporter has had a direct interview with Robinson, but the report doesn’t make that clear.

  10. July 19, 2016 1:33 pm

    Special Envoy on Climate Change and El Nino, you can’t be making it up? Climate Change and Tides next?
    Celebrate that UK no longer has a Secretary for Climate Change! Lets repeal the Climate Change Act.

  11. July 19, 2016 1:48 pm

    More PR from another big leader :The Bishop of Lincoln fresh back from a 40 Bishops Climate Conference in Fiji said

    In May there was a big conference in Paris, and the United Nations and the European Community agreed to set a limit of 1.5 per cent [sic] Centigrade in global warming over the next century. And that would actually help save bits of Lincolnshire from flooding and bits of islands in Fiji*. So it may be that what the Prime Minister is doing is putting this work, not in some special unit with a handful of experts, but actually integrating it into the mainstream of business and energy

    *I can’t see how even a Bishop can promise that, given that some UK villages from hundreds of years ago are now beneath the waves, cos geography always changes..

    We discussed the theology of climate…
    …and maybe see if we could have our own climate change conference in Lincolnshire

    Sun July 17th BBC Radio Lincolnshire (Alex Cull transcribed

  12. martinbrumby permalink
    July 19, 2016 1:55 pm

    Ki-moon? Robinson? The Grauniad?
    So, the usual suspects for incompetence, lies and thievery.
    Perhaps it is time the people of Britain had their say on the autocratic, anti-democratic and incompetent UN.
    So far as subsidies, perhaps the Grauniad and the BBC should be the first to be knocked off the teat of tax-payers’ money.
    Closely followed by action against RuinablesUK and all their members for conspiracy to defraud.

    • Derek Buxton permalink
      July 19, 2016 2:44 pm

      Hear. hear. well said. The b8stards are all thieves and parasites on the long suffering Peoples.

    • Tim Hammond permalink
      July 19, 2016 5:34 pm

      In this day and age, I don;t udnerstand why the taxpayer keeps on funding the Guardian through its job page.

      Why are all these public sector jobs not on the government’s website and only there?

      • July 20, 2016 5:40 am

        abso-effin lootely …..

        iare LONG overdue…..

      • July 20, 2016 9:11 am

        Cos they want to attract the right sort of people!

      • July 20, 2016 6:14 pm

        the right sort of people … hmm… There was a time when I were a lad when The Civil Service Commission seemed a catch-all for professional public servants and that would’ve translated well to the Internet … now it seems every tin pot made up NDPB and “Agency” has an entire “HR machine”, Gorporate Governance Dept. + HSE department. Not progress imho – not that “they” give a diddley about that – but I know I’m not alone in my thinking.

  13. July 19, 2016 2:47 pm

    The holier than thou feeling comes easily to those pulling in 7-figure salaries and benefits in cushy no-accountability jobs and yet the danger is that someone somewhere may point the finger right back at them

  14. July 19, 2016 4:06 pm

    We’ve got out (hopefully) from the EUSSR, now let’s get out of that other corrupt organisation- the U.N.

    • tom0mason permalink
      July 20, 2016 7:14 am

      You may think Britain left the EU but can the EU truly leave Britain alone?


      We don’t need no EU-f*cation
      We dont need no thought control
      No dark reclaiming in the backrooms
      EU leave them Britains alone
      Hey! Bureaucrats! Leave the UK alone!
      In the EU it’s just another brick in the wall.
      All in all you’d be just another brick in the wall.

      “Wrong, Do it again!”
      “If you don’t have renewables, how can you have any energy. How can you
      have any energy if you don’t renewables?”
      “You! Yes, you behind industry, stand still laddy!”

  15. Tim Hammond permalink
    July 19, 2016 5:33 pm

    Tax breaks lead to more of the thing being given a tax break (that’s the point), and the profit generated is then usually taxed. It actually generates more tax (and jobs and investment) over the long run. Oil production in the North Sea is actually a very good example of that.

    So if the “subsidy” produces more tax than if you didn’t have the subsidy, even under the lunatic definition of subsidy, it’s not a subsidy.

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      July 19, 2016 7:29 pm

      I guess that’s why Solyndra, A123, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Ener1, Fisker Auto, and other such bankrupt firms are such shining stars for the tax collections of the USA. (Sorry, I don’t have a complete list.)

  16. CheshireRed permalink
    July 19, 2016 5:56 pm

    Why has Mat ditched the CC part of things? To test the reaction, surely, and to begin the process of watering-down previous CC obligations. We May be seeing some energy sense at last!

  17. tom0mason permalink
    July 19, 2016 8:12 pm


    The president of the Philippines succinctly and without reservation, consigns the Paris agreement to the dustbin.

  18. Gamecock permalink
    July 19, 2016 8:18 pm

    Ban Ki-moon to Mary Robinson: “We’ll always have Paris.”

  19. July 19, 2016 8:33 pm

    Meanwhile in South Australia they are saying wind farms use more energy than they produce and the cost of electricity is driving industry from the state. Furthermore the policy of no carbon is being shattered by the importantion of brown coal fuelled power from neighbouring Victoria whilst the SA left wing government implores the only other private fossil fuelled operator in the state to produce more. All in The Australian newspaper.

  20. July 19, 2016 8:35 pm

    Finally some clown says in the same Newspaper that we will all have to give up work because the temperatures will reach 30c. This is after a claim that we have just had the hottest year on record.

  21. July 21, 2016 5:15 am

    Predicted this: the greens turning on their own.

    After COP21, the “world” was onside with antiCO2. Except China, India, Africa and Malaysia. Which can’t be criticized because that would be RACIST. So when the bloom comes off, who’s to shout at? Only the white First Worlders.

    The lack of green “progess” is now officially the fault of the most Green of yesterday failing to maintain the example. That this reasoning is paternalistic and racist shall be ignored – the Others must have our enlightened displays to motivated them, apparently.

    Next: the USA. From within – McKibben will say next June that Hillary has betrayed Obama’s righteous legacy.

    I’ll put money on it.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: