Skip to content

Committee On Climate Change Costs £3.7m A Year

February 24, 2017
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

Committee on Climate Change

 

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) is a (supposedly) independent, statutory body established under the Climate Change Act 2008. Its purpose is to advise the UK Government and Devolved Administrations on emissions targets and report to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for climate change.

The idea that it is in any way, shape or form “independent” is laughable. Its committee members are appointed by government, which also provides the CCC’s funding.

Just how much does this funding amount to? According to its Annual Accounts, the not inconsiderable sum of £3.7m a year.

 

image

 

Gummer gets £1000/day, and other committee members £800/day. The Chief Executive, Matthew Bell is paid an eye watering £190K.

 

image

image

 

 

I realise that £3 million is a drop in the ocean for the government, but surely the money could be put to better use?

And if the government still wants advice, I would offer my services for a couple of grand. But then , they might not like the advice I gave them!

Advertisements
23 Comments
  1. AlecM permalink
    February 24, 2017 12:40 pm

    Bloody Hell, must give them a Stern rebuke!

    Useless members of Globe, failed Climate Alchemists and fawning delegates of Carbon Traders cost less than Lawyers. Things are looking up folks!

  2. Robert Fairless permalink
    February 24, 2017 1:11 pm

    These politicians and their cronies don’t half look after themselves. The total cost might be regarded as trivial but we are talking about sums that are beyond the wildest dreams of ordinary people.
    What is the total cost associated with the Climate Change Act, 2008? It is monstrous, amounting to many millions of pounds; it is the most expensive Act of Parliament ever passed by an ignorant and semi-comatose House of Commons. It employs thousands of people on loss-making jobs, all with lucrative pensions and expenses.
    The person who introduced it to Parliament, Ed Miliband and its first ministers, Huhne and Davey cannot possibly be fully sane. Together they have destroyed a once efficient energy industry and jepodised the country’s energy security. Our cheapest and most abundant energy resource, coal, and to which we own our present level of prosperity, and our former greatness, is banned, taxed out of existence. All while the rest of the world, uses coal to advance their prosperity while ours trails behind. The folly created by these fools is so great that comparisons with Alice in Wonderland fall short.
    All of us ordinary citizens, those not homeless that is, are forced to pay huge electricity bills to help pay for some of this. It matters not how much money we have, rich or poor, ill or not, employed or not, young or old, we are all forced to pay for this monstrous folly.

    • AlecM permalink
      February 24, 2017 1:25 pm

      Au contraire: for politicians to introduce against the recommendation of their scientific experts, new ways to seek rents, aka Corporations taxing the poor with no need political agreement, is a very good way to guarantee future jobs with those Corporations.

      This is a new religion: Huhne, Hendry, Barker, Davey are new Bishops/Imams.

  3. February 24, 2017 1:22 pm

    For shape or from read shape or form.

  4. J Burns permalink
    February 24, 2017 1:38 pm

    These sums are far from trivial in light of the fact that they are extremely significant for the people involved. They offer a huge motivation to ignore any analysis of the assumptions they have been fed and need to believe in order to justify their continuing incompetence and greed (Chris Hulne is not alone). 3.7m is also the tip of the iceberg in terms of the wider network of troughers these civil servants and politicians support through their symbiotic corruption. When the s**t finally hits the fan, their simpering and braying acolytes in the mainstream media will abandon them like rats on a sinking ship (apart from the BBC who are in it too deep), and they will face a tsunami of public rage.

  5. February 24, 2017 1:40 pm

    The Climateers guide to obtaining taxpayers hard-earned money with no questions asked: Simply preface your org, study or cause with “man-made” and/or “climate change”.

  6. February 24, 2017 2:15 pm

    The chances of the CCC’s work making any difference to ‘the climate’ are pretty much nil.

  7. Gerry, England permalink
    February 24, 2017 2:44 pm

    Paying ‘yes men’ obviously does not come cheap but then it is us who pay for it.

  8. A C Osborn permalink
    February 24, 2017 2:44 pm

    Paul, maybe the House of Lords is good for something afterall.

    http://www.thegwpf.com/house-of-lords-committee-calls-for-radical-reform-of-uk-energy-policy/
    Some common sense, although still playing lip service to de-carbonisation.

  9. NeilC permalink
    February 24, 2017 2:59 pm

    I vote all these troughers are first to be decarbonised.

  10. Jack Broughton permalink
    February 24, 2017 3:03 pm

    Are they liable for the costs that they incur through their lack of objectivity: surely they have a duty of care?

    Wish that I could afford to sue them, don’t think that the small-claims court would handle their liability tho’. However, I can still hope to see some of these shysters getting hung out to dry sometime.

  11. Harry Passfield permalink
    February 24, 2017 3:45 pm

    I do hope the likes of Rose and Booker pick up these costs (they probably know already) as they need to be splashed in the MSM.

  12. February 24, 2017 3:57 pm

    I give the Government my advice for free. My advice is far better advice than that of the Committee on Climate Change and what is more, I am totally independent..

  13. February 24, 2017 4:08 pm

    Short answer: no.
    Votes. You buy support even with irrelevant but good value-signalling expenditures.

  14. BLACK PEARL permalink
    February 24, 2017 6:15 pm

    Nice propaganda system Govts have created
    Whats the bottom line ?
    An additional massive new Tax revenue from the plebs some of which is siphoned off to the ruling landowner elites and business via subsidies & grants, to keep them content.
    Its our fault so you have to pay .. marvellous eh the Govt paid scientists say so !
    They all say its so….. so it MUST BE TRUE
    £15 billion a year from UK pockets and over 300 billion euros yr from EU countries (last I read)
    … and guess what they’re still bust .. its not enough !!!
    Plausibility has always been the basis of all the best con tricks in history
    This one is a Whopper

  15. February 24, 2017 6:36 pm

    What a depressing list of yes-men, yes-women and outright troughers.
    No wonder the country is going to the dogs.

  16. mikewaite permalink
    February 24, 2017 10:24 pm

    How often does the CCC meet? Almost every day judging from the salaries. Is that correct?
    Is the agenda for the meetings published to inform those of us paying these salaries
    Are minutes taken?
    Are the minutes published?

  17. Derek Colman permalink
    February 25, 2017 12:38 am

    The figures they produce for CO2 emissions are fake anyway, so it’s all a waste of our money. Apparently they assume that biomass burning is carbon neutral, which it most definitely is not. Biomass used in generating electricity actually produces more CO2 than coal per MWh. As biomass is now a substantial source of generation in the UK, they are leaving a substantial quantity of CO2 out of the total, rendering their figures useless.

  18. Coeur de Lion permalink
    February 25, 2017 7:51 am

    Cannot somebody (Daily Mail, Booker, Rose) call for the minutes in the MSM?Oh why did the resigners resign?

  19. February 25, 2017 11:50 am

    As ever, WE the saps at the tax-paying ‘cutting-edge’ tab these blessed parasites. IF the whole nonsensical committee never met again, it would make NO difference at all, except to their respective pocket-books. Shut it DOWN!

  20. jimmmmy permalink
    February 25, 2017 2:24 pm

    Stealing money from the people…sad and truly deplorable (as Bill) would say

  21. Robert Fairless permalink
    February 25, 2017 10:34 pm

    When the Climate Change Act 2008 first became law Miliband and his fellow charlatans said practically nothing about its consequences. When my electricity bill arrived from British Gas, my supplier, I noted there was a significant extra charge and I complained about it. British Gas wrote to me and said they were obliged to collect the extra tax on behalf of the government as they had been so ordered. That was how they made every householder pay for their subsidies. British Gas was not happy and I was very unhappy but we had no appeal. And that was how I became aware of the enormity of the scam perpetrated on the innocent and unsuspecting public. Since then many millions have been collected and squandered on their mad schemes supposedly connected to bio diversity, carbon free or whatever the lunatics call it. Suffice to say there are a few people who have become very rich but the rest of us impoverished and mad as hell.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: