Skip to content

Corbyn’s Climate Emergency

April 28, 2019

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Patsy Lacey/ Robin Guenier

 

And we think the Roman Empire was crazy!

 

From the Guardian:

 

image

Labour will this week force a vote in parliament to declare a national environmental and climate change emergency as confidential documents show the government has spent only a fraction of a £100m fund allocated in 2015 to support clean air projects.

Jeremy Corbyn’s party will demand on Wednesday that the country wakes up to the threat and acts with urgency to avoid more than 1.5°C of warming, which will require global emissions to fall by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching “net zero” before 2050

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/27/corbyn-declares-national-climate-emergency

 

Does the old duffer really believe that Britain’s emissions will make the slightest difference to the world’s climate? Or that China will follow suit, and commit economic suicide?

 

Meanwhile Silly Jilly reports in the Telegraph:

 

image

The Government faces spiralling climate change costs unless it accelerates plans to fund a new breed of carbon capture projects by the mid-2020s, according to MPs.

A select committee report warned that without carbon capture the cost of meeting the country’s legally-binding climate targets will double to 2pc of GDP by 2050.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/04/25/uk-must-kick-start-carbon-capture-risk-spiralling-climate-change/

 

Just read that last sentence again!

2% of GDP is about £40bn a year. Some of us have been warning about how the costs of the Climate Act would rocket in years to come, from the already obscene levels.

Yet I have never heard Claire Perry admit the true cost to the public.

Even if carbon capture can be made to work, costs will still be half of that 2%. (And given that the MPs don’t know how it can be made to work, they cannot possibly know its eventual cost).

48 Comments
  1. HotScot permalink
    April 28, 2019 12:50 pm

    I equate the current climate hysteria to ‘light bulb syndrome’.

    Burns brightest just before it dies.

  2. The Man at the Back permalink
    April 28, 2019 1:00 pm

    I hope you are right HotScot – but I ain’t holding my breath.

    The question I am still not getting an answer to is –

    The Corbyn Dichotomy. Do Jeremy and Piers never speak????

  3. April 28, 2019 1:00 pm

    Two things:

    Piers should tell Jeremy to forget politics and look at the science – but it’s not going to happen since Jeremy is a politician of very little brainpower and his aim in life is to turn the UK into another Venezuela.

    Forget carbon capture which is no more than a fantasy. Anybody with any sense would be advocating a massive increase in nuclear power and putting money into fusion research.

    • mikewaite permalink
      April 28, 2019 2:13 pm

      Whatever Corbyn turns the UK into, it will not, as you imply, be nice, but it will not be Venezuela. In that unhappy land the majority of the people post Chavez were jobless, poor , hungry and lacking assets that could be used to obtain weapons. That is why Maduro is untouchable.Just a fraction of his billions from oil is enough to guarantee a loyal army.
      Britain is different. The majority of the people are in jobs, have money to support a black market in food (and weapons) and whilst the police forces are very politicised, the armed services still have loyalty to the Crown, and by implication, the UK as it exists at present.
      Yes, what Corbyn is planning is going to be bad, but think Syria rather than Venezuela – far more death and destruction.

  4. April 28, 2019 1:18 pm

    There is indeed a Climate Emergency, a green zombie apocalypse in which the zombies are the depicted as the goodies, and are the ones armed with baseball bats.

  5. Broadlands permalink
    April 28, 2019 1:23 pm

    One more time for these naive alarmists. Carbon capture technology is at best capable of capturing and storing CO2 in the MILLIONS of tonnes. The problem is the amounts needed to make a difference are in the BILLIONS of tonnes. Just one part per million of oxidized carbon weighs almost 8 billion tonnes…7800 million tonnes.

    In their extensive 2018 report, the GlobalCCS Institute estimates : “….there are not nearly enough facilities coming onstream. To reach the Paris 2 ̊C target, more than 2,500 facilities need to be operating by 2040 (based on a facility with capture capacity of 1.5 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of carbon dioxide (CO2).”

    2500 times 1.5 million? 3.75 billion (Btpa). Less than half a part per million…and in 20 years??

    Yes, someone out there needs to wake up…including those in the industrial business of negative emission technology and those who subsidize it.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      April 28, 2019 4:21 pm

      So 2,500 facilities at what, £100m per plant? That’s £250 billion I think.

      These people have entirely missed the point – we should only spend £1 less than than the cost of any possible damage, not whatever it takes to prevent any costs from possible damage. This is like spending £1 million insuring a £10,000 risk of loss. far too many politicians and others have been sucked into an economic argument that is not using economics as its basis.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        April 28, 2019 9:04 pm

        Not only the cost of the plant but the cost of the lost electricity needed to run the plant. I have heard of a 30% drop in output – which would put a big hole in the available grid output.

  6. George Lawson permalink
    April 28, 2019 1:41 pm

    His brother Piers Corbyn talks far more sense than Jeremy when it comes to global warming. so why cannot he knock a bit of common sense on the subject into Jeremy’s head?

    • Bill Baker permalink
      April 28, 2019 5:50 pm

      Absolutely George. It’s hard to believe they are brothers. One is a con artist and it’s not Piers

    • Gerry, England permalink
      April 29, 2019 1:45 pm

      Corbyn J is just playing party politics as he believes that prostituting himself at the feet of an ignorant 16yr old Swedish schoolgirl being manipulated by a slick PR team will be a hit with the ‘yoof’ vote – if they can be bothered to turn out given there is no app for voting. His last attempt at getting their vote by promising to scrap student debt fell apart when they had to admit that they didn’t really mean it. Hard to say if he is worse than the rest of the Westminster scum but he is guilty of blocking Brexit whereas May is genuinely trying to deliver it allbeit through a fog of her own ignorance. Strangely it might be that Corbyn is going to let us get on with it as he is now scared that the great clown Farage will do well in the Euro elections and so pose a problem in the leave voting Labour heartlands at the next GE. Party before country of course.

  7. David Parker permalink
    April 28, 2019 2:28 pm

    Complicated Chinese study on the oceans using NASA and NOAA data but summary appears to conclude cooling not warming will take place. also makes the comment below which is a brilliant soundbite

    When some part of an “Ocean Stabilization Machine”(OSM) loses control for unknown reasons, other parts of the OSM stabilize the atmospheric circulation. As a result, El Niño or La Niña events occur.

    Yet another example of a factual paper showing the science is NOT settled.

    But still few are listening

    https://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=89776

    • Robin Guenier permalink
      April 28, 2019 3:12 pm

      I suggest these extracts are particularly relevant to Labour’s initiative:

      From the Abstract:

      In this paper, we argue that recent global warming is primarily a result of natural causes.

      And from the Introduction:

      Global climate changes are controlled by major periodic factors that represent basic principles in climatology, such as solar radiation, atmospheric circulation and oceans.

      • dave permalink
        April 29, 2019 10:44 am

        I may be missing something…but it seems to be an example of over-fitting to data, followed by extrapolation. Where is the holding out of some of the data to test the reality of the fit? Where is the penalty for ad hoc inclusions of extra predictors?

        Relying on a Chinese version of stock market “Chartism” also seems bold.

        I do sometimes suspect that El Ninos and La Ninas somehow cause step changes in conditions, and that there are no decadal trends, apart from apparent trends arising from the accumulation of these “shocks.” I do not know if this work validly supports this.

        Because the English is bad, it is hard to read. Pity.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        April 29, 2019 10:57 am

        Dave – you say:

        I may be missing something..

        If that was a reply to me, you are. I cite those comments simply to show that there many climate scientists in China (there are other examples) who don’t agree with the Western orthodox position re mankind’s responsibility for global warming. Whether or not they’re right about that, I’ve no idea: I’m not a scientist.

      • dave permalink
        April 29, 2019 2:29 pm

        “I may be missing something…”

        I meant in the paper itself.

  8. Don B permalink
    April 28, 2019 2:43 pm

    To show how little Britain’s efforts matter – even if carbon dioxide were the climate control knob, which it is not – all one has to do is show how little the rest of the world cares.

    New York Times, July 1, 2017:
    ” 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries..”

    • Robin Guenier permalink
      April 28, 2019 3:22 pm

      Here’s a more recent report (last Thursday), this time from the Guardian:

      Belt and Road summit puts spotlight on Chinese coal funding

      An extract:

      Coal is likely to be at the centre of the debate. China’s banks have earmarked $36bn for 102 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity in 23 countries, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. Last year two-fifths of the country’s overseas investment was reportedly spent on this dirty energy.

    • Robin Guenier permalink
      April 28, 2019 4:45 pm

      Corbyn believes that, if parliament backed the move and became the first national legislature to declare a climate emergency it would “trigger a wave of action from governments around the world”.

      Surely he’s right. I can just see the entire Chinese politburo experiencing a collective face-palm moment: “Oh no, we’ve been getting the climate issue hopelessly wrong all this time. Thank you Jeremy – thank you.”

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        April 28, 2019 9:18 pm

        Nice one, Robin. And this:

        “China’s banks have earmarked $36bn for 102 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity in 23 countries”

        In 23 [other] countries: this is the Chinese colonising on a grand scale. I’m sure Corbyn has something to say about how [British] colonialism was such a bad thing for Africa and Asia; I’m sure he’ll have a lot to say about that to the Chinese government (not).

  9. MrGrimNasty permalink
    April 28, 2019 2:50 pm

    Interesting, as Scottish parliament recently rejected it.

    https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/scottish-parliament-rejects-call-treat-climate-change-emergency

  10. Geoffb permalink
    April 28, 2019 3:27 pm

    Thank you Greta ..you are more regarded by Corbyn than the president of the USA. Nobel prize coming up.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      April 28, 2019 4:34 pm

      I couldn’t quite decide which ‘side’ was being mocked here, but I found it amusing nonetheless – especially the picture with the girl giving an evil look back at the camera.

      “My name is Matilda Olofsson and I am Greta Thunberg’s arch-nemesis.”

      https://spectator.us/matilda-olofsson-greta-thunberg/

  11. Peter Plail permalink
    April 28, 2019 4:48 pm

    Remind me, how does carbon capture work on transport?

    • Peter Plail permalink
      April 28, 2019 4:54 pm

      Oh, I forgot. All transport will be electric but it won’t be used anyway, because renewables can’t generate the power required. And all the vehicles will in any case be supplying the grid from their batteries (when the wind doesn’t blow at night) as the Corbyn government will ban people from driving at these times.

      • April 28, 2019 9:40 pm

        Unless or until the overworked lithium batteries in their EVs catch fire.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        April 29, 2019 1:49 pm

        Electric bicycle burns down house in Australia – see Jo Nova’s site. I could find one of them useful to zip to the station and back but I wouldn’t keep it anywhere near the house.

    • Malcolm Skipper permalink
      April 28, 2019 9:35 pm

      A vision from Georgia Institute of Technology 2008

      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211134444.htm

      🙂

      • Peter Plail permalink
        April 29, 2019 9:25 am

        That was in 2008. I guess it didn’t catch on.

  12. Honestjoe permalink
    April 28, 2019 6:14 pm

    I really fear that we are in a very serious grip of an epidemic. Ms Sturgeon has one of the worst cases of this condition I have ever seen. And now Corbyn is also jumpimg on an assumed bandwagon. I refer of course to the now widespread condition of The Emperors New Clothes Syndrome.
    As for carbon capture – our garden is full of different prototypes.

  13. John F. Hultquist permalink
    April 28, 2019 6:48 pm

    1: Me thinks if I could look into the man’s left ear (see photo at top) I would see the blonde with glasses.

    2: She seems to be taking a photo of the sidewalk – or her camera phone doesn’t work the way mine does.

    3: CO2 is not a pollutant, but rather a necessary ingredient for green plant growth. Why would anyone want to capture and lock it up?

    4: The easy way of meeting the country’s legally-binding climate targets is to change the targets. The legal/technical term for this is called “moving the goal posts.” Gaia won’t notice or care. Cost to tax payers will be very close to Zero.

  14. Shoki Kaneda permalink
    April 28, 2019 9:15 pm

    Yes, there is an impending climate emergency, it’s getting colder. UK should frack, frack, frack and frack some more. Natural gas does not create as much of the precious, life-giving, beneficial trace gas CO2 as coal, but it’s cheap, abundant and keeps us toasty warm in cold weather.

  15. Mack permalink
    April 28, 2019 9:29 pm

    Maths aren’t my strong point but here we go. So, give or take, the atmosphere contains approximately 400 parts per million of CO2. Even the doomongers at the IPCC accept that man’s contribution to the world’s CO2 budget is no more than 5%. So you can bin 95% of that figure, i.e. the 380 parts per million of carbon dioxide that is derived from the oceans, flora, fauna, animals etc. Of the remaining 20 parts per million of, allegedly, anthropogenic origin, the UK’s current contribution is approx 1% or 0.2 parts per million of the world’s total CO2 budget. And on that basis, the Corbynistas want to drive our economy back to the Stone Age with no measurable effect on either the atmospheric CO2 content or, indeed, the bloody weather. Bonkers!

  16. April 28, 2019 9:41 pm

    It’s not the CO2 that needs capturing and locking up…

  17. I_am_not_a_robot permalink
    April 28, 2019 10:35 pm

    The Guardian article “Corbyn launches bid to declare a national climate emergency” by Toby Helm mentions climate change™ once, but neatly coupled with “air pollution”, and doesn’t mention CO2 at all.
    The rest of the article is about “clean air projects” “combat air pollution” “diseases related to air pollution” “clean air zones” “campaigns for clean air” “clean up toxic fumes” etc.
    Is Corbyn confused, or Toby Helm, or the editors — do none of them realise that air pollution has nothing to do with particulate and chemical air pollution — or are they deliberately and cynically intending to confuse the public?

    • I_am_not_a_robot permalink
      April 28, 2019 10:42 pm

      Opps they have me confused, that should read — do none of them realise that so-called “climate change” has nothing to do with particulate and chemical air pollution – or are they deliberately and cynically intending to confuse the public?

      • Peter Plail permalink
        April 29, 2019 9:31 am

        They are so short sighted. Air-borne particulates could be the answer to global warming by cutting the amount of solar energy impacting on the Earth’s surface. I an sure that is why China is planning so many coal fired power stations – to pump good, old-fashioned, life-saving pollution into the atmosphere.

  18. Neil Hampshire permalink
    April 29, 2019 7:26 am

    There is an elephant hiding in Jeremy’s Climate Emergency Room.

    China emits 13,000 Mte of CO2 per year.
    (That is 35.6 Mte of CO2 per DAY)
    The UK emits 360 Mte of CO2 per year.

    Let us suppose the UK were carbon neutral tomorrow.
    China would put all that CO2 back into the atmosphere in just over 10 DAYS

  19. gareth permalink
    April 29, 2019 9:29 am

    I see that the Telegraph is using “That Photo” – the stock one beloved of the Beeb and, well, pretty much all doomsayers. Photoshopped to make the white water vapour look scary and black, debunked many times; they know it’s a lie but they just don’t care and still trot it out in support of the narrative.

    • April 29, 2019 12:00 pm

      You just made my argument. There is no way that picture is accurate. I could not remember if it is the exact one we have seen before or not, but it has been altered. Well, while they are in the midst of falsifying the situation, they might as well have their props false also.

  20. MrGrimNasty permalink
    April 29, 2019 11:29 am

    I haven’t seen it, but it appears Undiscovered Worlds with Steve Backshall is just another climate change propaganda vehicle. Christopher Stevens does the Mail’s TV reviews and he’s always lapping up the casual propaganda. In Greenland:-

    “The rock was brittle, it has been compacted under thick ice for millennia. Climate change has melted the snows.”

    Holy cow, where to start!

  21. Christopher Lynch Lynch permalink
    April 29, 2019 12:20 pm

    The peak hysteria at present is clearly an attempt to frog march us into dismantling capitalism, destroying democracy and replacing it with neo Marxist big government. I have little doubt that the charlatans in the climate change “science” industry have evidence that the climate is about to enter a cooling period and are frantic to rush this through so that their power will be secure before we all realise we’ve been duped.

  22. Gerry, England permalink
    April 29, 2019 1:52 pm

    Re Silly Jilly – so government imposed costs are going to damage the economy. The MPs – many of whom voted for the introduction of these costs are worried. Sometimes every day seems to 1st April.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: