Skip to content

Scrap The Act

June 5, 2017

By Paul Homewood

  

temp.png” alt=

 

President Trump’s decision to exit the Paris Agreement has brought to a head the arguments surrounding Britain’s Climate Change Act.

The UK is the only country in the world to commit itself by law to large cuts in emissions of GHGs. The Climate Change Act calls for a cut in emissions of 80% from 1990 levels by 2050.

According to government statistics, between 1990 and 2015 UK GHG emissions fell by 38%, from 797 to 497 MtCO2e. Therefore, to meet the 2050 target, emissions would have to fall to 159 MtCO2e, a cut of 68% from current levels.

One of the explicit aims of the Act was to demonstrate strong UK leadership internationally, in order to encourage other countries to follow our lead.

Patently, this has failed.

The Act should therefore be abolished for the following reasons.

 

COST

 

image

http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/efo/economic-fiscal-outlook-march-2017/

Official projections from the OBR show that by 2021/22 the cost of environmental levies and RHI will amount to £14.7bn a year. This equates to about £540 per household.

Unfortunately, part of this cost is already committed for Renewable Obligations and CfDs on existing projects. Efforts need to be made now to mitigate these costs.

In the meantime, an immediate stop needs to be put to all subsidies for new projects.

It is extremely likely that these cost of subsidies will continue to mount after 2020. Some estimates put the total cost at £319bn between now and 2030.

This is quite simply unaffordable.

 

Post 2030

 

Most official calculations and plans only take us to 2030. Thereafter, decarbonisation will become progressively more difficult and expensive, as the low hanging fruit will already have been picked.

For instance, a large part of the emissions savings so far made since 1990 have been due to:

  • Loss of manufacturing base in the 1990s and 2000s, particularly following the financial crash
  • The substitution of natural gas for coal in power generation.

    Decarbonisation after 2030 will involve much more radical changes.

    We have no way of knowing what technologies will be around in twenty years time, and it would be dangerous to commit the UK to further decarbonisation until we do know.

    We are already committed to high cost low carbon technologies such as offshore wind and Hinkley Point. It would have been much more prudent to wait until either these technologies, or alternative ones provided much lower costs of generation.

     

    Industrial Competitiveness

     

    Electricity_prices_for_industrial_consumers,_second_half_2015_(¹)_(EUR_per_kWh)_YB16

    http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Electricity_prices_for_industrial_consumers,_second_half_2015_(%C2%B9)_(EUR_per_kWh)_YB16.png

    By the end of 2015, the UK had the second highest price of electricity for industrial consumers in the EU. Only Italy had higher costs.

    Worse still, the UK had the highest price of all, excluding tax.

    As we know, the price of electricity will continue to rapidly rise as a direct result of government climate policy.

    Bear in mind as well that EU electricity prices are already high by world standards.

    Unless the Climate Change Act is repealed, UK industry will be permanently damaged.

    EU Commitments

     

    The EU Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement specifically refers to:

    a binding target of at least 40% domestic reduction in GHGs by 2030 compared to 1990 to be fulfilled jointly

    http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx

    Yet, under the auspices of the Climate Change Act, the Fifth Carbon Budget now commits the UK to a cut of 57% for the period 2028-32.

    There is no justification for the UK having to make much larger reductions than other EU countries.

    Regardless of Brexit or our pledges to the Paris Agreement, both the Fourth and Fifth Carbon Budgets should be withdrawn immediately.

    The Paris Agreement

     

    As already stated, one of the objects of the Act was to demonstrate global leadership. In other words, by setting an example, the rest of the world would follow suit.

    Despite much hype, the simple reality is that the Paris Agreement did nothing to reduce global emissions. According to their own data, as a result of all of the NDCs submitted, GHGs will rise to 55 GtCO2e in 2030, from 49 GtCO2e in 2010.

    Whilst developed countries have promised reductions, most of the rest of the world has pointedly refused to. Instead they have only made vague promises such as reducing carbon intensity or installing more renewable energy capacity.

    In particular, China and India, the biggest and third biggest emitters of GHGs, have submitted NDCs which are likely to see large increases in emissions by 2030.

    Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, developing countries are under no obligation to reduce emissions:

    image

    http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php

    Both China and South Korea are classified as “developing”, something which dates back to the formation of the UNFCCC in 1992.

    Given both countries’ economic development since, this is clearly not justifiable today. It is also true that CO2 emissions per capita are now actually higher in China than in the UK.

    Not only has Paris failed to reduce emissions, it has produced a lopsided and unfair balance of responsibilities.

    Yet under the Climate Change Act, the UK is committing to go much further and faster than most other countries.

    Trump

     

    The decision to take the US out of the Paris Agreement should be the final nail in the coffin of the UK Climate Change Act.

    It was introduced in the hope that other countries would quickly follow our lead, something that plainly has not happened.

    Our policy should now be to decarbonise only at the rate that our competitors do, including China, the USA, and the EU.

    If the Climate Change Act is not soon repealed, the effect on the UK economy will be extremely damaging.

    Advertisements
    36 Comments
    1. Athelstan permalink
      June 5, 2017 8:04 am

      I really cannot fathom the green tosserati, unless their defined goal is, to shaft us all.

      A few other things may be of interest, the wankers of green would wish upon us electrification in the domestic setting, ie no gas for heating………………….by 2030 or whatever – this is insane but it’s what they [green bloberati] – demand.

      As if electric cars wasn’t stupid enough……………

      What is totally off the radar and something which they never own up to, all of these green efforts are not voluntary – diesel and petrol cars will be legislated out of existence through ever more stringent emissions/MOTS – yes TPTB don’t do stuff through ‘customer preference’ – this is a totalitarian world and you will be made to fekkin obey.

      You see, the CCA isn’t just all about decarbonization at its nub, it’s always been about control and dominion.

      Got it?

      • June 5, 2017 11:09 am

        Yes, Athelstan, their “defined goal” is to shaft us all.

        This is not news. I have been saying precisely this for several years. My favourite phrase — oft-repeated — is “unpicking the Industrial Revolution”. What is so startling is that at every opportunity they admit this almost in so many words and still people wonder what they are doing and why.

        The eco-activist wants us to stop using fossil fuels. Not because of global warming and not because of rising CO2 but because coal, oil and gas have been the vitally essential drivers of human development for the last 200 years bringing us a list of benefits which would take me the rest of the day to enumerate and I would probably still not have finished.

        He hates those benefits: for every 10 years added to life expectancy he sees leaded petrol and diesel particulates; for cheap mass transport he sees the spread of infectious diseases; for new materials he sees the rape of the planet; for the ability to manufacture to tighter tolerances he sees the AK47.

        What he does not see are the benefits from petrol or the dubious claims about the lead content; or the extent to which technological advance has rendered many of those same diseases harmless or at worst curable. He conveniently ignores that we have to date “raped” about 1% of the planet’s crust.

        At bottom he is not interested in facts or in human development. He is one walking lump of misery; he is the biggest contradiction on the planet — an anthropophobic anthrope!

        The only thing he is really good at it is propaganda and lies! Which is why we are in the mess we are in.

        • Gerry, England permalink
          June 5, 2017 12:54 pm

          And being of a left wing persuasion, Mr Eco-nut doesn’t lead by example. He still has a smart phone, ipad, wears manmade fibre clothing, flies around the World preaching about not flying.

    2. dave permalink
      June 5, 2017 8:14 am

      The “scientists” know no economics, and the “businessmen” know no science, and the “politicians” only know waffle.
      .
      Between them, the pie is baked – and we all get an agonising dose of amoebic dysentery.

    3. rms permalink
      June 5, 2017 8:22 am

      Enhancing your fine statement:

      The “scientists” know no economics, and the “businessmen” know no science, and the “politicians” only know waffle. Everyone, brags about their respective ignorance yet feel virtuous for their judgement anyway.

      Case in point Niall Ferguson in Sunday Times 4 June 2017 and, frankly, millions of others.

    4. Derek Buxton permalink
      June 5, 2017 8:43 am

      The Climate change Act was always as described, an industrial suicide note but so called conservatives backed it with the honourable exception of about 4 Members. The conservatives on regaining power should have scrapped the Act as a priority. It is now a given that the UN are working to with the “greens” to deliberately bring down capitalism, that which has made us rich, to impoverish the 1st world Countries at massive cost to us, the People. But naturally, our politicians will not be the ones to suffer!

    5. Bloke down the pub permalink
      June 5, 2017 9:01 am

      From memory, there’s a cop out clause in the climate change act that allows the chancellor to cut emission reduction targets if they are not being met by the rest of the world. All it needs is a chancellor with sufficient testicular fortitude to use the power available .

      • June 5, 2017 9:12 am

        It’s not the chancellor who can change the targets, its the SoS. He can do it if it appears to him that the science has changed. I can’t see the next SoS (Greg Clark again?) having the guts, sense or integrity to do it.

        • June 5, 2017 1:08 pm

          Good point, Phillip. Why is it that sensible people (in which category I include May and Rudd and Hammond, and even Boris on occasion — though I know there are those who disagree!) apparently lose all objectivity when faced with the green blob chanting its tedious global warming mantras?

          Even Timothy, who had some fairly forthright things to say about the CCA, reverses course when it comes to writing the manifesto. When did it become an imperative for British politicians to become world leaders in virtue signalling and “setting an example” or “giving a lead” instead if prioritising the needs of the British people?

          It isn’t as if the facts weren’t plain enough. And I don’t mean the facts about climate. I mean the well-established and not disputed fact that nothing the UK does will make a damn of a difference to global temperatures and will only serve to impoverish Britain. Not an “example” than anyone else in the world is about to follow.

          It must be possible to find someone who hasn’t gorged themselves on the Kool-Aid to run the relevant department, surely.

        • Old Englander permalink
          June 5, 2017 5:38 pm

          Short term tactical measure. Clearly the Act has to go. However seeing as how Trump’s Paris actions seem likely to catalyse “debate” on “the science” a British SoS with enough gumption might have a similar effect. Trouble is, politicians with any spine at all are hard to find here. (Don’t we have a General Election coming, and is it worth the time out to walk to the polling station ?)

        • June 5, 2017 10:09 pm

          Isn’t the SoS supposed to act on the advice of the Climate Change Committee?

    6. Robert Fairless permalink
      June 5, 2017 9:02 am

      The Climate Change Act, 2008 is a folly beyond measure. It is the most expensive, pernicious Act ever conceived and passed by an ignorant and semi-comatose House of Commons. Only five MPs voted against the ACT, the rest committed a serious neglect of duty.
      The Act was conceived and presented to Parliament by the then Secretary of State for Energy, one Ed Miliband under the authority is his Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Their names will be recorded in infamy for generations as will the subsequent Energy Ministers who implemented the Act to effectively destroy our once efficient Energy Industry.
      The Act passed into law unachievable targets and placed the country, its households and industries under financial burdens for many years ahead.
      To describe in detail the harmful effects of the Act, implemented with treasonous and fanatically religious fervour is a huge task beyond this media. Suffice it to say, the deliberately criminal destruction of coal fired power stations with years of economic life ahead epitomes in part, the folly. Equally, the destruction of many thousands of acres of forest in America, the construction of three large factories in the USA to process timber into wood pellets to burn for electricity is a huge act of vandalism, based on fraudulent science.
      In the meantime, the British government perpetuates the folly, each day supervising false and fraudulent science to demonstrate to the world our ignorance and incompetency.

      • Dung permalink
        June 5, 2017 12:29 pm

        It was not conceived by Milipede; it was conceived by an English Language graduate whose only experience of life at the time was a job with Friends of the Earth.

        • June 5, 2017 1:11 pm

          Thankyou, Dung. I was just about to make precisely that point till I saw you had got there first! She also got a peerage out of it; just one more example of how corrupt British politics has become in the last 25 years.

          But in a very British way, of course! Nothing as disgusting as money changing hands!

    7. June 5, 2017 9:07 am

      No amount of logic will alter things. There are very few politicians with the sense or integrity to scrap the CCA, particularly given the propaganda and fake news spewing out of the BBC, Channel 4 etc on a daily basis. Only UKIP have the sense to scrap the CCA, and following the Brexit vote and the departure of Nigel, that opportunity has been lost. I think that we are screwed for at least another 5 years.

      • June 5, 2017 9:28 am

        Unhappily, I think you’re right – especially when one recalls that only five MPs opposed this ludicrous measure, thereby confirming that collectively they have about as much independence of thought and insight as a troop of baboons.

    8. June 5, 2017 9:23 am

      “One of the explicit aims of the Act was to demonstrate strong UK leadership internationally, in order to encourage other countries to follow our lead.”

      There are few things more risible and more contemptible than the spectacle of British politicians adopting a holier than thou moral tone. ‘Follow our lead’ – heavens, there aren’t many that one would follow to the nearest bus stop.

      • June 5, 2017 9:27 am

        I doubt many of them could find their way to the bus stop, let alone know what to do if they stumbled upon it.

    9. A C Osborn permalink
      June 5, 2017 9:52 am

      I signed the “Scrap the Act” petition a couple of years ago, it made no difference at all.

      • June 5, 2017 9:58 am

        There is another petition ongoing on Change.com. I have signed it ; but currently it only has about 1500 signatures. Have a go folks, particularly as there are potentially 5 million of us now reading this.

        • Ian Johnson permalink
          June 5, 2017 10:24 am

          I think that should be Change.org. Change.com is a lingerie site.

        • Stuart Brown permalink
          June 5, 2017 1:04 pm

          Cognog2 – I couldn’t find the one you’re referring to for all the people petitioning Trump to change his mind and save the planet 😦

          Shouldn’t we be petitioning here? https://petition.parliament.uk/

          At least if enough of us sign up parliament has to debate it…

          I can’t find any petition mentioning climate at all!

    10. tom0mason permalink
      June 5, 2017 10:30 am

      Of all the manmade CO2 in the world Europe (including the UK) accounts for just 9%. Germany, Poland, the Czech republic and the countries of the Balkans generate the most, but even if they all stop tomorrow NO difference would be seen as it would be lost in the noise of naturally generated CO2. The ‘global’ temperature would not change (as CO2 does NOT control temperature), however if we’re lucky the world might get a tiny bit greener.

      CO2 is not the driver of the climate it is a effect of the climate. Stupid beliefs are what keeps the Climate Change Act 2008 in place, and NOW is the time it was repealed as a wholly unwarranted and misinformed misstep of law and crass parliamentary over-reach.

    11. June 5, 2017 11:05 am

      On of the leading architects of the Paris Accord is Christina Figueres, a Costa Rican member of the National Liberation Party and Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

      She has boldly stated that it is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the bask of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” And further, “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

      It has been tried and failed. I wonder how many more have to be assigned to gulags or outright killed or killed by starvation/poverty, before the likes of Ms. Figueres, the UN dictators, Barack Obama and their ilk are consigned to the dust heap of history?

      Thank you, Lord, for Donald Trump…the fly in their ointment. BTW, Pope Francis also comes out of that Latin American “Liberation Theology” which seeks to put a veneer of Catholicism on Marxism. That explains why that continent has been an economic disaster.

    12. John permalink
      June 5, 2017 11:20 am

      It has decimated our heavy, energy intensive, industries
      I had to work on the mitigation of this act after 2008 and the consequences of its implementation in the future was apparent
      This was pointed out to the Labour Government & they were not interested
      In saying that the Tories have not stood it down
      Hence the impact on the aluminium, chemicals, cement, ceramics & steel industry

      Also the folly of closing down perfectly good baseload providing, coal power stations, before there is anything to replace it

      • John Palmer permalink
        June 5, 2017 6:52 pm

        Yes… I’ve often wondered about that…. I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s yet more virtue-signalling, i.e. that they may actually ‘believe’ the PR B/S pumped out by the ruinables industry.
        It seems to me that it’s the energy (non) policy equivalent of cutting off the branch of the tree on which you’re sitting.
        But they know perfectly well that there’ll be no culpability when they’re found out, just a few nice, lucrative Board jobs in the ruinable sector. Potato-Ed Davey being a fine- but sadly only one of very many examples. And the b******d is standing for Parliament again….and is wheeled-out on the Beeb as an independent ‘expert’ on Energy & Climate issues.
        You couldn’t make it up!
        Killing-off this green B/S is going to be like eradicating the triffids.

    13. Jack Broughton permalink
      June 5, 2017 11:59 am

      Another excellent paper explaining in simple terms the economic disaster that we are being committed to. However, how do we get this into the meja: do we need a “reverse fear campaign”???

      While all the politicians are wailing about their commitments to health funding and police funding they are squandering billions of current and future money on foolhardy energy policies.

    14. CheshireRed permalink
      June 5, 2017 12:05 pm

      The entire climate racket has become a sick joke. Hysteria heaped upon block-headedness on a biblically stupid scale with no common sense or rational thought in sight. Insane.

    15. Coeur de Lion permalink
      June 5, 2017 4:41 pm

      Matt Ridley showed recently in the Spectator that to the nearest whole number wind produced zero per cent of world energy demand. It’s known that solar is a non- starter at our latitude and cloudiness. Repeal the stupid Act

    16. June 5, 2017 5:52 pm

      Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
      Long overdue.

    17. June 5, 2017 7:16 pm

      Reblogged this on WeatherAction News.

    18. Roger Dewhurst permalink
      June 5, 2017 9:04 pm

      Now the big ram has left the flock all the wethers are bleating

    19. June 5, 2017 10:04 pm

      ‘wait until either these technologies, or alternative ones provided much lower costs of generation.’

      Highly likely to be a very long wait.

    20. Europeanonion permalink
      June 6, 2017 8:07 am

      A significant case of reverse engineering. Given that the proposition is that by doing all these odd things, employing great dollops of ancient means, somehow we save the planet? If that is the aim then everything is up for grabs and those that preach this sort of rhetoric will win the argument. A desire to save the earth from some unmentionable fate is irrefutable and the fear of this planet’s decline is an issue beyond being mollified by statistics, reason and a side order of financial understanding.

      So what is to be done? Currently the great unwashed cannot see any other way than sifting billions of money to the preachers and shaman of climate projection, they hold all the cards. To suggest the catastrophic outcome is a thesis beyond statistics and enquiry simply because, as it is reverse engineering, there is no salve, it has not been invented yet. The evolution of science has not yet found that ‘philosopher’s stone’. The corollary of that notion is that so much money is being channelled into regressed technology that the actual answer is being kicked down the road, starved the resources to meet the expectations of the hopeful and scared.

      Once someone shouted ‘fire’ there was a rush for the doors and the whole scenario since then has been that even more people are shouting. People who find these doors are being sanctified. One could say that the movement to save the earth is the chief factor in delaying that avowed aim. While those odd people with screwball ideas and tangential thinking are starved of the sort of cash that is freely handed-over to the Lairds lands and the sighting of wind farms et al then the answer is nudged ever further away. In fact the ignorance or smugness of the green movement increases with each new windmill erected as it actively demonstrates a consensus and the thought that more people are beginning to see the light (all be it that it is intermittent and depends entirely on the vagaries of the weather).

      There is only one answer but it is so figmentary under the current storm as to be in the realms of Azimov rather than Rolls-Royce or GEC. The longer the answer is in abeyance the less chance is there of the vital discovery and a return to sanity as the shift in capital spending increases. There is all that stuff in Julius Caesar about ‘signs and portents’ and although it flies in the face of the advance of civilisation and the great technological revolution the repatriation of sense and understanding is currently more comforted, captured, by things that work independent of man seemingly and suggest an act of God. How do you counter that in the minds of people who want to believe?

      • A C Osborn permalink
        June 6, 2017 11:35 am

        Sorry, you are wrong, the UN’s own Worldwide Poll of Human Concerns puts “Climate Change” in about 28th place.
        It is the politicians, Billionaires, Banks, Financiers etc who see this as a money making SCAM, the UN and the likes of the Club of Rome see it as a way to introduce a one world government to control and reduce the masses.
        It is being pushed by them, as they control the media, to scare the world in to compliance, but for the majority of people they have far bigger things to worry about, like clean water, food, power, medicine, education, jobs, transport etc. and in the western world where the next i phone will come from and who wins Big brother etc.

    Comments are closed.

    %d bloggers like this: