Skip to content

UK Lemmings Charge To The Front!

April 6, 2018

By Paul Homewood




As I noted yesterday, Lord Krebs and Joanna Haigh are wanting the UK to meet a zero emission target by 2050.

As UK emissions are two fifths of naff all, they admit that such a commitment, to be enshrined in law, would only be of symbolic value, to show an example to the rest of the world.

As I also pointed out, While OECD emissions had fallen by 8% since 2008, in the rest of the world they had risen by 22%. Our “example” did not seem to have done much good.


If we look at the breakdown of the OECD numbers however, our approach appears to be even more ineffective:




UK emissions have dropped by 28% since 2008, a bigger fall than any other major OECD nation.

Only Italy, with a cut of 25% has got anywhere near us, while emissions have increased sharply in South Korea. (Australia’s emissions are unchanged, if you are wondering why nothing is showing on the graph).

The likes of Joanna Haigh, who are paid to promote climate hysteria, may be happy that British lemmings are galloping towards the cliff edge, while more sensible ones are hanging back to see what happens.

I suspect if the public were given the full facts, they might not be so keen.

  1. April 6, 2018 6:03 pm

    I would love to know how these emission figures are calculated. Have wind an solar had this a remarkable effect or have we in the U.K. just exported our emissions elsewhere?

    Maybe we have just become less energetic than the rest of the world.

    Anyway who cares about emissions? Plants love it and we love plants. To be practical:

    CO2 + Crap = Oxygen + energy. What could be better?

  2. Colin Brooks permalink
    April 6, 2018 6:13 pm

    Is this the time that our government discloses that it never believed in the CO2 crap anyway and instead was really caring for our scarce resources all the time (ahem Bahrain just discovered more shale oil than Saudi Arabia’s total oil reserves)? The emperor is so devoid of clothes right now that somebody needs to shout about it 🙂

  3. keith permalink
    April 6, 2018 6:39 pm

    Quite honestly the big wide world could not care a toss what the UK achieves, it is just our stupid UK Government who thinks anybody is taking any notice. Has any other Government been so stupid to put in place a Climate Change Act? After 10 years, No. They think we are totally stupid to put in place an Act to cut our throats. The NGO’s love it though, who to our Government are the Climate Gods.

  4. Curious George permalink
    April 6, 2018 6:44 pm

    Did Lord Krebs and Joanna Haigh cut their personal emissions to zero?

    • Athelstan permalink
      April 7, 2018 12:40 am

      Very good question.

      I betcha that, I know the answer.


  5. April 6, 2018 6:55 pm

    “I suspect if the public were given the full facts, they might not be so keen.” It has never mattered what the public thinks – but most of the public do very little thinking anyway.

  6. John Scott permalink
    April 6, 2018 6:56 pm

    Western nations take CO2 emissions seriously. As the planet is not actually warming despite the fact that the politicians have swallowed the notion completely ignoring the corrupt science. I would posit its all about taxing the hell out of their citizens to amass a huge pool of money for other things like re-distribution of wealth being promoted by the corrupt UN, viz:

    ttmar Edenhofer, the UN IPCC official stated up front that carbon taxes were a way to re-distribute wealth and was not an environmental action. In order to make the world “fairer”, countries with carbon assets were to reduce manufacturing or leave assets in the ground in order for those countries without carbon assets to develop. Taxes obtained from those countries using carbon were to go to these non-industrialized countries. Basically, it’s the old medieval concept of a sumptuary tax. It’s actually amazing how much of the climate change bible is stolen from the Roman Catholic Church.

  7. john cooknell permalink
    April 6, 2018 8:32 pm

    Perhaps we should ask parliament to re-introduce the climate change act of 1662.

    House Of Lords 11th jan 1662
    The Fast to be observed in Westm. Abbey, and the Bp. of St. David’s to preach.
    ¶Whereas His Majesty hath been pleased, by Proclamation, upon the Unseasonableness of the Weather, to command a general and public Fast, to be religiously and solemnly kept, within the Cities of London and Westm. and Places adjacent: It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled.
    Samuel Pepys 15 jan 1662
    fast day ordered by the Parliament, to pray for more seasonable weather; it having hitherto been summer weather, that it is, both as to warmth and every other thing, just as if it were the middle of May or June, which do threaten a plague (as all men think) to follow, for so it was almost the last winter; and the whole year after hath been a very sickly time to this day

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      April 7, 2018 10:49 am

      Not CO2. Horse manure, perhaps? It’s the king’s fault. It was never like this under Cromwell!

      Or perhaps it’s this new-fangled “science” they keep talking about. John Evelyn’s pamphlet Fumifugium was one of the earliest descriptions of air pollution. Published 1661! That’s what did it!

  8. April 6, 2018 9:05 pm

    Have you ever looked at the CO2 emissions per capita? What are the per capita figures for say, the USA, China and India.
    Then you will see who is really obliged to cut back; and why it is no surprise that non-OECD countries still have rising.emissions.

    Or should we in the West demand that we must remain rich and China and India remain poor..

    • Athelstan permalink
      April 7, 2018 12:51 am

      No mate, you blatantly miss the point, what is it with you lot?

      What we’re doing thanks to successive executives of both labour the Cons the yellow filth, the government of all the planks are cutting our own throats so that our political elite can showboat to the rest of the world “we cut our emissions to zero and now we are united per capita to the Yak herders of outer Mongolia”

      and the rest of the world will fall about laughing – except in the beeb, NYT and graun.

      The point is.

      Even if we did cut emissions to zero it wouldn’t add up to jack shit. Thus, all done for FA benefit but self inflicted immiseration for Britain.


      • dave permalink
        April 7, 2018 7:20 am


        From Roman Law.

        “Bound by a formal promise in the presence and dread of the Gods.”

        I do not remember doing this.

        Who is my obligee?

    • April 7, 2018 10:17 am

      China’s per capita emissions were already higher than the UK in 2014, according to CDIAC:

      2.05 v 1.78 Mtc

  9. Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen permalink
    April 6, 2018 9:47 pm


  10. John F. Hultquist permalink
    April 7, 2018 12:27 am

    . . . to show an example to the rest of the world.

    I think the word that comes to mind is TOSH.
    Have them cut off their best hand, right or left. That would be a great example of something.
    I don’t care, and don’t intend to follow.
    Lemmings would not associate with them either.

    Lemming Suicide Myth
    Disney Film Faked Bogus Behavior LINK

  11. April 7, 2018 6:47 am

    The UK has only reduced emissions by off shoring our primary and secondary industries.

    This achieves nothing with regard to global emission reduction. Having China manufacture our goods for us simply means we have moved the emissions from our balance sheet to theirs. Allowing for shipping of those goods back to us it is likely that global emissions actually increased from this strategy.

    In the meantime, with the loss of so much of our primary and secondary industry we have left ourselves with long reaching social problem. Those industries were heavily skills based, had good career paths and prospects, job security and good pay. We are now largely dependent on the tertiary sector were the opposite is true, mainly unskilled or semi skilled, limited career paths and low pay.

    We have a growing population who face limited career prospects with a very limited number of skills based jobs where higher wages can still be achieved.

    Successive governments have decimated manufacturing in this country and consigned the younger generations to a life on low pay in unskilled retail work. There is clear evidence in numerous studies that these low skill, low pay tertiary sector jobs have higher incidences of for example mental health issues. I’m guessing that is down to much lower levels of job satisfaction and self worth in low skilled jobs.

    IMHO we need to abandon this nonsense of off shoring our emissions and start building up our skills based primary and secondary sectors. In addition we need to stop this ridiculous notion that everybody has to go to university. We need more people going into vocational training for skilled jobs and we need to create more skilled jobs. I see no point in having a degree to work as a checkout assistant in a supermarket or in a call centre.

    • paul weldon permalink
      April 7, 2018 7:20 am

      I wonder what an emissions table would look like if they were attributed to the point of consumption rather than the point of production?

      • April 7, 2018 8:09 am

        Agreed, would be interested to see such a chart.

        I guess if government were genuinely concerned about the environment they would be looking at reducing consumption rather than taxing supply?

        This would not even need to be draconian. For example, we currently have a car financing structure (PCP) in the UK that incentivises replacing a car every three years. Historically car finance tended to be over longer four or five years HP terms. The result is that we are consuming millions more new cars each year than we would historically at great expense to environment. A minor tweak to de-incentivise such high turnover would surely reduce global emissions more than simply off shoring production? I run a vehicle that is 32 years old, is used daily and is just as reliable as my modern car. Even its economy is only marginally worse than our new vehicle (like for like size/weight) so I fail to see an engineering reason why we need such high turnover. While I’m not suggesting we all keep our vehicles for 30 years, it does highlight the issue with current mentality of new cars every few years – under modern practise we would have gone through ten new cars instead of one.

        The same goes for every other area of consumer goods from mobile phones to TV sets. We are replacing them far more often than we would have historically at huge expense to the environment from raw material demands, manufacturing and transportation.

      • dave permalink
        April 7, 2018 8:17 am

        “I wonder what…”

        Less difference than you might imagine.

        Early globalization mainly involved inter-industry exchanges. For instance, the UK and Australia exchanged ships and wool. Recent globalization involves a growing amount of intra-industry trade*. For example, France and Germany exchange cars.

        The UN estimates that half of international trade in goods is intra-industry.

        Further, the effect of trading “embodied emissions” is much less on a regional analysis than on a national one. Using the case of French and German cars, this trade can be totally discounted when discussing Europe as a whole.

        *Made economically possible by the massive drop, in the 20th Century, in the costs of transport and communication.

      • dave permalink
        April 7, 2018 9:25 am

        “mud4fun” seems to think we are replacing our cars every three years. Wildly wrong. The average age at scrappage in the UK is 13.9 years. Furthermore the average age of vehicles on the road has risen from 6.8 years in 2003 to 7.8 years in 2015. Modern cars are designed to be 95% recoverable also.

        For the record, my car is 12 years old and my wife’s car is 14 years old. We expect to keep them running. It helps to have a mechanic in the family!

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      April 7, 2018 11:55 am

      “Allowing for shipping of those goods back to us it is likely that global emissions actually increased from this strategy.”

      Thank you for including that piece of information, mud. Often “forgotten” especially by those who like to fudge the emissions costs of shipping wood chips 4,000 miles to fuel a power station less than 4,000 yards from the fuel source it was built to use in the first place.

      Aside from particulate emissons, which can be adequately controlled, there is no way that the emissions from using on-site coal can be greater than those generated by fuel processing costs and transport costs.

      We are genuinely wasting the earth’s resources in an apparent attempt to …. do what exactly?

      Those who support this mad behaviour are either stupid, incurably gullible, or downright dishonest. 1 and 3 in the case of eco warriors, 1 and 2 in the case of politicians, 3 in the case of academic activists and the rent-seekers who are making a fortune out of pointless and expensive renewables.

    • Bill permalink
      April 7, 2018 4:01 pm

      Well said. A man after my own heart. I worked in manufacturing all around the world. The one country that would not invest in leading edge manufacturing was, you guessed it, the UK. I worked with not only larger companies but smaller ones too, some of them took the plunge and for the most part thrived. UK management is also complicate, more interested where the next Range Rover, school fees and the cottage in Norfolk are coming from. The ‘fat cat’ mentality is not new, I’m talking about the early 80’s on. The problem I think goes back much further; most likely to the days of Empire, another reason the world is so enthralled to the UK and can’t stop admiring ‘perfidious Albion’.

      Final thought, renewable subsidies are like VAT, very divisive in that they impact the lower paid much more than middle classes and above as a % of income.

  12. Bitter@twisted permalink
    April 7, 2018 7:51 am

    Krebs and Haigh are virtue-signallers of the worst kind.

  13. April 7, 2018 9:56 am

    [quote]“mud4fun” seems to think we are replacing our cars every three years. Wildly wrong. The average age at scrappage in the UK is 13.9 years. Furthermore the average age of vehicles on the road has risen from 6.8 years in 2003 to 7.8 years in 2015. Modern cars are designed to be 95% recoverable also.[/quote]

    That is a little unfair Dave.

    I said that PCP deals incentivise more frequent replacement of cars, not that we are all doing it.

    While I don’t disagree that the average age has increased recently, you omitted to explain that they were falling YoY for the decade prior to the financial crash from which many people have not yet recovered. Wages have remained stagnant, few pay rises being given and financial insecurity has curtailed excessive new car purchasing. The diesel saga has also helped to stagnate new car sales. Once the public feel more financially secure I suspect average age will once again start to fall.

    Tighter MOT regulations introduced this year along with increasingly tight emission limits will almost certainly result in a lowering of the average scrappage age, although that may be a few years before it shows up in the stats.

    Yes, I’m a mechanical engineer so maintaining old vehicles is also not so much a problem for us. One of our vehicles is 58 years old, one is 32 years although our third is just 2 years. Overall we are doing our bit to keep that average age up 🙂

    • Gerry, England permalink
      April 8, 2018 11:20 am

      Good points. The cheap credit bubble that the incompetent Carney has allowed to build up by his failure to raise interest rates has fuelled the boom in car sales, and even extending to the same 3 year deals for motorcycles. Credit checks have been lax and when the economy slows there will be defaults on the car loans.

      There is still pressure coming from government to change your vehicles through councils penalising drivers with low emission charges and parking charges.

  14. April 7, 2018 11:31 am

    Dave, forgot to add on post above, with regard the claim that modern cars are 95% recyclable, that is very misleading. It simply means that 95% of the raw material can be recycled through re-manufacturing processes, not through re-use in their existing form. The recycling of plastic components such as dash can actually consume more energy than the original new product.

    I would argue that my old Land Rovers are far more environmentally friendly in that respect because when I restore them to ‘as new’ condition I’m re-using 60-90% of the original parts in their original form (depending on how bad the chassis is), requiring virtually no energy. For example an axle can be stripped, painted, new bearings, seals, gaskets and brake shoes fitted producing an as new axle ready for another 30 years of life. 95% of the raw material of the original is re-used in its original form.

    Great design and parts commonality across a 50 year production run means a big percentage of the very latest Defender can still be fitted to a 50 year old Land Rover, often only requiring minor modification. For example, axles, gearboxes, engines, body panels, seats, steering components etc can all be swapped between vehicles differing in age by more than 50 years.

    Not for a minute suggesting we all drive Land Rovers but rather that good design, modular components and good parts commonality across generations to allow re-use rather than re-manufacture, is a more environmentally friendly, less energy intensive approach than lazily labelling a car as 95% recyclable knowing full well you have saved very little energy over the production of a new car.

  15. April 7, 2018 12:13 pm

    Earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh reported on the “good guys” winning a big one in California, of all places. Environmentalists filed a massive lawsuit against 5 fossil fuel companies, including Exxon and Texaco. Their claim was that all of these companies know that they are destroying the planet and are hiding the evidence. They know that their business is creating the circumstances that cause climate change.

    As a preliminary to the actual trial, the judge had a little seminar which made the environmentalists feel as though they had already won. However, this judge was educated and informed on the subject of climate change. Environmentalists’ asserted that they had a “smoking gun” memo at Exxon and some of the other companies. This internal memo purports to admit that they are destroying the planet, that they are engaging in activities causing massive amounts of C02, causing greenhouse gases and the planet only has so much time.

    The judge required them to produce this memo and the fossil fuel companies eagerly complied. The “smoking gun” was non other than a slideshow from a U.N. presentation by the IPCC. It was simply what the U.N. had put together. The judge made mincemeat of the environmentalists. He demonstrated they were lying, demonstrated they did not know what they’re talking about and that there is no substance to their allegations at all. This was a preliminary stage. And the trial has not yet begun.

    Further information can be gained by the following from Watt:

  16. dave permalink
    April 7, 2018 12:16 pm

    Oh, I have nothing against “make do and mend.” But it is not always practical. I still mourn the Armstrong Siddley Lancaster I bought for £40 in 1962, and which never ran. Not to mention the Buick Riviera for £60, which also never ran. Of course, it did not help that I kept failing my driving test.

    • dave permalink
      April 7, 2018 12:24 pm

      “Health and Safety” was less of a restriction in the past, which helped to keep rattle-traps on the road. I had a friend who came back triumphantly with a second-hand car. The brake-fade was so bad that he had to stop it eventually by rubbing against the kerb.

      • April 7, 2018 1:47 pm

        LOL, yes true.

        Thankfully our 32 year old Land Rover pickup stops just as well as our 2 year old Nissan pickup truck. Mostly comes down to good maintenance, quality parts and correct setup. 🙂

        Where the modern truck wins is in its safety features. It has traction control, stability control, anti lock brakes, forward collision detection, all round cameras, a full set of air bags, crumple zones etc. A far safer place to be in an accident than the old Land Rover.

        Oddly though, the modern truck uses a state of the art 2.3 litre twin turbo intercooled diesel with computer controlled direct injection, DPF etc and has 190hp yet it only averages 30mpg when driven on local rural roads and farm tracks. It has a claimed combined mpg of 44mpg and is rated as the most economical pickup on sale in Europe. It can indeed achieve 44mpg but only when driven at a steady 56mph on a 200 mile motorway journey, it falls far short of its claimed figures in real world use in local driving.

        In comparison the old Land Rover which is also fitted with a 2.3 diesel, albeit one designed in 1957, normally aspirated and producing just 60hp also manages 30mpg on local roads and tracks. (It is however tuned specifically to run on synthetic diesel).

        Virtually no difference in economy between the two pickups despite 60 years separating their engine technology when used on 30-50mph rural roads. The Land Rover can only achieve 33mpg on the motorway though which is where the modern truck wins by a large margin, mainly due to higher gearing, lower rolling resistance tyres and better aerodynamics rather than gains in engine economy though.

        We have a 1950 Series One Land Rover waiting for restoration in the garden. I’ll probably re-use 50% of its original parts but opt for an electric motor conversion. The Series One only weighs 1000Kg and is not suitable for long journeys so is a good candidate for electric motor. That gives us three Land Rovers, each with a different fuel type so covers us for whatever fuel source is currently in favour with the tax man 🙂

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: