Skip to content

Euan Mearns’ Roundup Of Energy Manifestos

June 8, 2017

By Paul Homewood

 

Euan Mearns  has written an analysis of the main UK parties’ energy manifestos, which obviously have relevance today:

 

image

In recent weeks I have been taking a look at the energy manifestos of the main parties engaged in the UK general election. In this post I summarise these positions under the headings of support or opposition to nuclear power, fracking, renewables targets, CO2 reduction targets, state ownership, price controls, UK climate change Act and the Paris Accord. There is an ocean of clear blue water between the policies of UKIP on the right and the Lib-Dems and Scottish Nationalists on the left. The Tories and Labour are stuck in the middle with not sufficient blue water between them for my liking. The Tories continue to engage with socialist energy policies.

Full post here.

 

What I found particularly interesting though is this chart (together with Euan’s comments), which shows how much money has so far been paid/pledged to the Green Climate Fund:

 

 

The second is a mechanism whereby the wealthy countries give money to the poor countries to help them achieve their goals which is an extension of the Green Climate fund agreed in Copenhagen in 2009. Carbon Brief reports:

When the fund is fully operational, world leaders have committed to contributing $100 billion a year. That should happen by 2020.

And:

Pledges from the conference fell just short of that goal, totalling $9.3 billion. Many of the pledges were made in countries’ national currencies, meaning the overall value alters depending on the exchange rate.

And where is the money supposed to come from?

screen-shot-2014-12-10-at-095209_600x295.jpg

 

We are told that so far the US has actually paid only $1bn, out of its pledged $3bn.

But look at the mugs in third place!

Advertisements
17 Comments
  1. June 8, 2017 8:27 am

    Third place is the commitment of the UK socialist party (it used to be known as the Conservative Party), but now, as Euan says “The Tories continued support for this socialist legislation [the CCA] is the undoing of their energy policy”. The Tories used to be in favour of small Government and free enterprise with minimum Government interference. Now they have adopted socialist planning, accompanied by market intervention and control.

    • roger permalink
      June 8, 2017 2:59 pm

      And today, for the first time in 58years of voting conservative, I had to hold my nose against the reek of ordure emminating from all constituents of the ballot paper.
      May and her cabinet are a total disgrace in reality on every issue, but there is no palatable alternative.
      Willy nilly I am forced to vote for an equivicating, rapacious, dishonest, bunch of self serving charlatans, none of which I would ever invite into my home.

      • Paddy permalink
        June 9, 2017 6:38 am

        It would appear she has received her just desserts.

  2. euanmearns permalink
    June 8, 2017 8:58 am

    Thank you Paul! According to Crabon Brief, the UK donation is not new money but will be drawn from our existing 1% of GDP commitment in foreign aid, which makes things even worse since this can now be construed as a gross miss allocation of resources. And its easy to see why the Europeans are howling with anguish at The Americans who have now decided to not finance their toy treaty.

    And reading the summary of commitments ….

    Readers may be surprised to learn that according to Carbon Brief’s summary of Paris, the Democratic Republic of Congo has the 9th highest GHG emissions in the world, just behind Canada and ahead of Indonesia, and this is a summary of their commitment:

    A 17% reduction compared to a business-as-usual scenario by 2030, conditional upon receiving an adequate level of international support – estimated to be $12.54bn. Also contains a series of adaptation measures, which it says will cost $9.082bn.

    I dare say the Swiss bankers will also be disappointed in Trumps withdrawal.

    • dave permalink
      June 8, 2017 10:58 am

      “Readers may be surprised to learn that…the Democratic Republic of Congo has the 9th highest GHG emissions in the world…”

      From eco-vandalism yes. But not in total emissions:

      http://www.wri.org/resources/data-sets/cait-country-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

      In 2013, the figures for GHG emissions, excluding, land-use change, were

      DRCongo 40 out of 43,634 million world-wide (1/10th of 1 per cent.)

      Which isn’t much use of fuel by nearly ninety million people. (The forecast is for 200 million people by 2050. Will they be rich or will they be poor?)

  3. HotScot permalink
    June 8, 2017 9:01 am

    Personally, I don’t think it will be a problem for too much longer when the US gets on it’s manufacturing bike and pedals off into the distance.

    With little evidence to support it, my belief is, when global temperature rise drops below even the lowest IPCC projections, they will be forced to reduce them, yet again.

    I suspect this may happen within the next 3 or 4 years (happy to be contradicted) which will coincide nicely with Trump’s re election and our own General Election.

    There will be more politicians itching to make a name for themselves by saving our country £14Bn green quid a year than you can shake a stick at.

    That’s why I think this Red team/Blue team initiative of Pruitt is a complete waste of time and money.

    The green blob is about to be organically consumed by its own politicians and that’s far better than beating them off with aforesaid stick.

    • 1saveenergy permalink
      June 8, 2017 9:21 am

      “far better than beating them off with aforesaid stick.”

      Shame, I was hoping the beatings would continue until moral improved. (:-))

  4. June 8, 2017 9:55 am

    This item about Mongolia from the GCF website illustrates the likely bad outcome of some of the money being spent:

    “The Mongolian Government is encouraging citizens to derive their energy from electric power grids. A significant proportion of the population currently burns low-quality coal in their homes for heating and cooking.

    This problem is particularly acute in Mongolia’s capital, Ulan Bator, home to one of the highest air pollution levels on the planet. The Mongolian Government has been stepping up moves to tackle deteriorating air quality and climate change simultaneously during the past three months, Mr. Batsukh said.”

    So, what Ulan Bator really needs is a coal-fired power station, and natural gas, for heating and cooking, but what they will get is a load of small renewable “generators”, which will contribute virtually nothing to reducing local air pollution.

    The other shocking thing about the GCF website is the obsession with right-on concerns, such as diversity. If you want money from the GCF just have a high proportion of women, LGBTs, etc and they will beat a path to your door in order to meet their social engineering targets.

    • Hivemind permalink
      June 8, 2017 11:20 am

      The correct term is Bisexual, Lesbian, Inter-sex, Gay and Transvestites (BLIGT).

      Say it three times quickly and you’ll understand.

  5. June 8, 2017 12:06 pm

    Paying more and more to achieve less and less sounds like stupidity, and it is.

    ‘This diminishing influence of a new CO2 molecule over time is actually a function of known climate physics – the logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide.’
    http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/01/nasa-climate-research-co2-global-warming-impact-cut-by-67-over-last-50-years.html

    • Gerry, England permalink
      June 8, 2017 12:48 pm

      It’s also called ‘socialism’.

  6. June 8, 2017 12:16 pm

    With a population of ~10 million, Sweden gets the ‘biggest mugs’ prize.

  7. June 8, 2017 1:00 pm

    And more lies and propaganda from Cardinal Harrabin.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40198567

  8. June 8, 2017 1:19 pm

    Note to voters…

    Labour’s energy plans ‘unworkable’ warns consultant
    http://utilityweek.co.uk/news/labour’s-energy-plans-‘unworkable’-warns-consultant/1304622

    • June 8, 2017 1:30 pm

      Fear not, Labour would only govern with the help of the Lib Dems, Green(s) and SNP, who will insist on being in charge of Energy.

  9. stephen m lord permalink
    June 8, 2017 2:34 pm

    Time to follow the US. This takes money from poor people in The UK AND GIVE IT TO RICH PEOPLE IN POOR COUNTRIES AND THE UN KLEPTOCRATS.

  10. June 11, 2017 4:23 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: