These green targets waved through by MPs will make the cost of no deal look like small change
By Paul Homewood
There may be no Booker now, but at least the Telegraph have found someone else to counter the government’s climate nonsense:
Never let it be said that Parliament cannot get things done when it wants to. In the three years since the referendum, MPs have not only rejected Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement but have failed to produce a majority for every other conceivable plan to exit the European Union.
Those who never wanted Brexit in the first place say that it will cost the country billions. Britain is too small and insignificant to stand alone, they say. Nobody voted to be poorer, they say.
Contrast this parliamentary rigor mortis with the passage of the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order which was nodded through on Monday evening, just twelve days after being first laid before the House of Commons.
Unanimously approved after a self-congratulatory, back-slapping debate that lasted 90 minutes, it is now on its way to the House of Lords for a second round of rubber-stamping.
The target of cutting greenhouse emissions to net zero by 2050, as recommended by the Committee on Climate Change a mere seven weeks ago, seems certain to become the law of the land.
Theresa May will have finally secured her legacy. The challenge of meeting this target makes the Irish border question look like a game of dominos, and the cost will make the £39 billion golden goodbye to the EU look like chump change.
The government’s own estimates suggest that total decarbonisation will require spending 1-2 per cent of GDP until 2050.
This amounts to £20-40 billion per year at today’s prices and is likely to exceed a trillion pounds overall, in addition to what has already been spent.
Politicians love to describe spending as investment. Occasionally it is. There are certainly benefits to be had from weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. Air quality will be improved and we will become less reliant on some of the unpleasant regimes that specialise in oil and gas production.
But since Britain is responsible for just one per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, any benefits to the climate depend almost entirely on the big economies – China, India, the USA – following our lead. As yet, they have shown little sign of doing so. Even France has quietly shelved its net-zero plans after six months of gilets jaunes protests.
The commitment to full decarbonisation can most charitably be described as a leap of faith. It can be done, albeit at great expense, if there are huge advancements in battery technology and carbon capture.
Electric cars are beginning to take off thanks to tax breaks and subsidies, but it will require vast spending on charging infrastructure before they appeal to most drivers, especially if they do not own a garage.
Electric tractors and lorries barely exist at all and it is doubtful whether electric jet planes will ever exist, to say nothing of electric steel factories and carbon-free cattle.
Decarbonising transport is the relatively easy bit. If it happens, it will lead to a huge increase in demand for electricity which cannot be reliably met by either wind power or by Britain’s ageing nuclear plants, and certainly not by solar.
The government is proud of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 42 per cent since 1990 but even Caroline Lucas admits that this has been achieved ‘primarily by outsourcing a huge amount of our manufacturing emissions to other countries’.
The net zero target might become possible over the next three decades as a result of technology that we cannot yet imagine. Then again, it might not. It is fatuous at best and irresponsible at worst to make a legally binding commitment to something that is not possible now and may not be possible in the future.
On Monday evening in Parliament, Chris Skidmore, the interim Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, noted that the Committee on Climate Change thinks that 2050 is the "earliest possible date for reaching net zero". Why are we legislating for the best-case scenario of an optimistic quango?
There are some who will say that net-zero is an aspiration rather than a serious piece of legislation. If, in 31 years time, we have destroyed the bulk of industry and agriculture but remain dependent on Russian gas, it is difficult to imagine the police raiding Parliament to arrest MPs for breaching the Climate Change Act, appealing though that idea is.
But if the intention is largely rhetorical, why bring the law into it? Similar government promises, such as halving the rate of childhood obesity by 2030, are not backed up by legislation, nor should they be.
Whatever your view about the desirability and feasibility of net-zero, there is something unseemly about it being waved into law with no vote and the minimum of parliamentary scrutiny to boost the battered ego of one of Britain’s worst Prime Minsters. Perhaps it should be put to a confirmatory referendum?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
‘and the cost will make the £39 billion golden goodbye to the EU look like chump change’
You are chumps if you pay the EU anything.
Contractual obligation.
We’ll, there is no contractual obligation to the EU. I defy you to find anyone or anything that has shown specific amounts and specific legal obligation: if there was they would have published it. The £39 billion was arrived at by ‘back of the cigarette packet’ calculation. May agreed to it because she naively thought that the sweetener would buy us reasonable treatment and a trade deal: the EU doesn’t work that way, so it didn’t, but now the EU are regarding it as a commitment. The accounts of the EU have never been audited.
The amount is an estimate for a commonly known reason – other than in Leeds. Rester a liquide is the amount the EU budget is exceeded in a budget cycle and the UK is required to pay its share of the overspend, once the cycle ends in 2020 when the amount is know. The UK is bound by treaty to pay. An amount has also been negotiated to cover the cost of EU pensions for those from the UK that have worked there. The EU accounts are audited every year with the results published on the EU website.
Nonsense all around. Article 50 simply does not deal with financial obligations. There is no provision in any treaty for a member that leaves to continue to pay for programmes – would a net beneficiary continue to get its money from the other members after it has left? The EU never contemplated anybody leaving. Article 50 was added at short notice as there had previously been no explicit mechanism for leaving anywhere. Why should a member who leaves a club continue to pay dues when they will not be allowed to access what they are paying for? Just because you approved a budget when you were a member does not create a legal obligation if you leave.
It is not a contractual obligation because of the public statement by the UK Government that “Nothing is agreed until everything has been agreed.”
It is most analogous to an estimate of liquidated damages for breach of contract, or perhaps “quantum meruit.”
In any case, armed force, or its threat, is the only real argument in all Courts.
The people of Iceland used to raid each other with fire and sword when they quarelled. As an advance, arrangments were agreed, whereby a deliberation and general agreement in a sort of Parliament called a Thing would settle such issues. The problem was that to get a judgement you had to actually appear before the elder statesmen. The result was that there would pitched battles just outside the Thing, to kill you before you got in! “Where is the complainant, Dave?” “Dead in front of the door!” “Oh dear, I guess he loses!”
Wrong. Contractual obligations are about £10 billion.
“Wrong.”
“Right,” according to the March 2017 Report by the EU Financial Affairs House of Lords sub-committee, which concluded:
“if agreement [between the UK and the EU on withdrawal] is not reached, all EU law – including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication – will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all.”
The really interesting point is the failure of the “machinery of adjudication,” since, “The effect of law consists in execution” and “No one is bound to an impossibility.” It is also good Law that “An obligation is extinguished if it fall into that state from which it cannot arise.
The small figure of 10 billion is really for things which are ‘already happening,’ such as pension funding, and can be conceded.
The basic point, that people are arguing as if 39 billion (which in any case will just be a computer’s flicker in some bank somewhere) really mattered (except as a matter of principle), when far worse things are being put in place for us, must be obvious!
“Contractual obligations…”
The qualifier “contractual” is misleading, since States do not make ‘Contracts’ (which are part of Private Law) between themselves; they make ‘Treaties,’ which are part of the much weaker body of conventions and mutual, moral, understandings, called International Law.
Here’s an initiative of mine to try and stop this madness in the form of a pair of emails (in reverse chronology) to the two finalists in the race to be our next prime minister. It includes a contribution from Paul and Lord Lawson among others: https://windfarmaction.wordpress.com/2019/06/25/beware-the-elephant-trap/.
I note that Lord Lawson has also contributed via GWPF: https://www.thegwpf.com/lord-lawson-urges-mps-not-to-approve-net-zero/.
Too much money behind this to stop it by conventional means. $Trillions in funds waiting to find a risk free investment; negative interest rates; QE to infinity: global savings glut. Why the western world infected by this ‘religion’, for the very good reason that is where rule of law ( generally exists) and compliant populace governed by ‘democratic’ rulers. The money follows where laws and rules exist to protect it, and tax and utility bills tend to be paid.
Successive governments, culminating in Theresa May’s, have somehow introduced a collective insanity into the nation.
I am genuinely concerned that this will end very badly. Voters will tolerate only so much.
“I am genuinely concerned that this will end very badly. Voters will tolerate only so much.”
I agree hence the vote for Brexit but how long has it taken for the voters to ‘understand’ the EU, 40 years? Most people only see/hear what the MSM feed them, most of the time they just get on with their lives and do not read websites like this.
Re ‘ending badly’…
How to survive the Climate Cult
To put it simply, the age of rationalism is over and we are now in the age of the brainwashed crazy climate cult. As a direct result, the UK is now heading toward a self-inflicted >30 year recession, the like of which will make every other recession look like a picnic.
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2019/06/17/how-to-survive-the-climate-cult/
When the NH cools, as it will by 2050 due to a quite Sun, and there is not enough electricity to heat houses, never mind fuel cars, it will be one more failure to add to the legacy of the worse Prime Minister in British history
The cooling has already started. Those with working brains know that the Modern Warm Period ended in 2005 which was during the period when temperature flatlined until a super El Nino broke the run. By 2050 we should be well into the Little Ice Age.
We import £7billion in gas per annum, we do not account for our emissions on imports. As the article quite rightly states we are mainly reducing our CO2 emissions due to the fact we have become a country that imports ever more consumer goods, energy and food.
Caroline Lucas & Friends in the environmental movement should be out there banging the drum to produce local, buy local and save the planet by doing so. Their obsession with forcing their ideology upon us in a rush to beat climate change will do nothing of the sort. We only produce 1% of the worlds emissions. All they do is shut down our country for business, make poor people poorer and dump our emissions on some other country whilst we rot economically.
What their quick fix green dream will do is throw us back to a subsistence existence where we are expected to plough the land with our bare hands whilst the champagne socialists in the environmental movement take drugs hallucinate in Costa Rica. This refers to Dr Gail Bradbrook who founded Extinction Rebellion. It’s not libellous to state that, she admitted that was where she was and what she was doing when she formed the idea for ER.
Can people wake up to how our parliamentarians are selling us completely down the line just to appear to us all that they have green credentials. The poor are not protected and neither is the planet by pontificating politicians and protesters.
“We only produce 1% of the worlds emissions.”
WUT ??? You produce 0.04%.
1% is pretty close to the UK’s emissions at a tad over 100 MtC/yr out of nearly 10 GtC/yr globally.
No, she means the UK produce 1% of the world’s
>96% of GHG emissions are natural. UK produces about 1% of human emissions. 1% of less than 4% is 0.04%.
Destroy your economy, send your factories to South Carolina. FOR NOTHING!
UK has become a Third World country.
“Only two sorts of people approve of subsistence agriculture; those who have never tried it and those who have never tried anything else.”
I can’t remember the source.
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.
“The commitment to full decarbonisation can most charitably be described as a leap of faith. It can be done, albeit at great expense, if there are huge advancements in battery technology and carbon capture.”
“The net zero target might become possible over the next three decades as a result of technology that we cannot yet imagine.”
A net-zero (sustainable) target is now emissions at ~40 billion tons a year. As technology begins to lower it to zero more emissions will be added in a declining fashion. This will inevitably add CO2 to the current atmospheric value of ~415 ppm, and estimates are near 500 ppm at net-zero. It will take more than 30 years. Carbon capture is required to lower the atmosphere, not just help with emissions at the source. Full decarbonization is obviously more than a matter of faith, it’s absurd. Even the total cost per-ton buried is absurd. The fact that these political policy-makers cannot see this is also absurd.
The impact of the net zero target on voters lives will not be benign in the way that, at least economically, membership of the EU is (was?). And the effect will start to become noticeable by about 2025 (when new build houses don’t get gas).
As the cost of electricity increases, the subsidies ratchet up and the voters are compelled to change away from gas central heating, gas cooking, to buy expensive electric cars (caravan or horse trailer towing anyone?), wind and solar farms proliferate, meat becomes prohibitively expensive, veganism is constantly promoted etc the voting public will very quickly see that what has been foisted on them by parliament is anything but benign. The one thing the British public really do not like is being told what to do, or what they can and cannot do. The British Public have a very strong sense of fair play and do not follow the rules if they see them as unfair. Obama advising us to stay in EU? Add another % point to Vote Leave. As the Totalitarianism of Green Environmental policies becomes apparent, the push back will be very strong and possibly violent.
If the grid starts to become even marginally less than 100% reliable voters will know who to blame, and rest assured they will. The backlash against the environmental lobby and the idiot MP’s who promoted the “climate emergency” will quickly become very ugly.
And if there is minimal warming for another 10 years or so the “Climate Emergency” mob’s argument will become like the emperors’ new clothes. Everyone will see through it. Its going to be fun seeing Dr Caroline Lucas (climate change expert with her Eng Lit degree) and her febrile and gullible cronies in Greenpeace experience the political equivalent of being tarred and feathered.
Farage has an even bigger opportunity with climate change to alter the political landscape. If Brexit is delivered, that will be the next big political elephant in the room. Based on 12-14 billion spend per year currently and adding another 20+ billion a year in new costs, the next five years will have largely wasted the best part of £175 billion on climate change. Criminal if you ask me.
Well said, TS. You echo my own thoughts on this confected ’emergency’. I would go so far as to predict a serious (international) war (1984-style) and disorder at home.
“If the grid starts to become even marginally less than 100% reliable voters will know who to blame, and rest assured they will. The backlash against the environmental lobby and the idiot MP’s who promoted the “climate emergency” will quickly become very ugly”
I think this is our only hope of ‘salvation’, the sooner it happens the better.
I still want to know where the money is going to come from, !/2% of GDP is a hell of a lot of money. Regardless of what our MPs think there is no magic money tree. Either our taxes have to go up or drastic savings have to be made to schools, NHS, etc. Our MPs have really shown themselves to be totally stupid in this virtue signalling exercise.
What is so extraordinary is that the Global Warming Policy Forum press release of 2 May tears the whole thing up for arzzzpaper and does it with actual NUMBERS holly. Do take a look chaps and email it to your local papet
We will welcome your factories here in South Carolina.
How come such nincompups got elected?
This pointless, huge, total waste cannot simply be mere carelessness with other people’s money.
It smells of corruption overlying stupidity.
Well the answer to that is quite simple. Climate change – or more properly, the actions we “need” to take to thwart it, has never been the main topic of interest at any election. As it stands you cannot put a fag paper between the positions of the major parties.
Perhaps if a party had the chutzpah to stand against the net zero policy – even if they offered the old deal, which was to go as fast as everyone else and not a bit faster – then suddenly people would begin to see what the action is costing them, who benefits from it, and mebbe where the money could be better spent…
Until then the sceptics have no voice.
Methinks we need a resistance movement to disrupt the virtue signallers.
Interesting that nobody yet has commented on the Politics Live eco-tyrant today who claimed that the climate emergency is imminent that we must accept that the elderly will die from cold because they can’t afford heat. And the BBC gives platforms nearly every day to these lunatics.
No, but they managed to get in the “statistic” that thousands of elderly French will die this week because of the “unprecedented” heat!
I did on another thread. He was Rupert somethingorother. Bet the BBC were v happy to find him, but it breaks the ‘Lord Lawson’ rule of needing to be qualified to speak.
“The Politics Live eco-tyrant”
@ Vernon E & Harry Passfield – I think that was “Dr” Rupert Read:
Unbelievable Tweets, Dave. These people actually walk among us. I wonder if they should cancel Glastonbury…
Our UK Parliament staggers from austerity creation to austerity creation with regular monotony.
The Climate Change Act 2008 is but one example and it has now doubled down on this again, with Russian type majorities to boot.
How any intelligent MP can justify voting for this nonsense without access to a proper assessment of the the consequences available for rigorous public debate including the sceptical arguments beats me. Are they not aware that there has been a deliberate manipulation of the democratic process leading to a form of mass hysteria.?
Seems to me that these MPs are mere stooges for the Green Lobby peddling its pseudo science. Heaven help us!
90 minutes of vacuous debate is all it took.
Very well said. What every happened to scrutiny, science & sense? Instead our leaders act on hysteria, hype and hallucinating green activists.
Yes and I recall Michael Gove kowtowing to that poor abused Greta Lomburg chosen no doubt for her extreme vulnerability and surprisingly
articulate way of expressing her brainwashed beliefs which she sincerely believed.
Lomborg (Bjorn) talks rather more sense than Thunberg (Greta Tintin). I wonder if she knows who Snowy is? She could do with an education from Professor Calculus.
Meanwhile….
“EU climate goals ditched as Warsaw and Budapest dig in”
“Poland and Hungary said they will put their own economies first after rejecting an EU bid for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions”
Obviously WordPress doesn’t like my attempts at embedding a URL – try this link:
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-climate-goals-ditched-as-warsaw-and-budapest-dig-in/a-49357554
“Recent NHS statistics show 18 per cent of the population in Brighton and Hove smoke – higher than the national average. More shockingly, 14.9 per cent of the city’s 15-year-olds smoke.”
Strange, for such a hotbed of Greens, a major XR group, and kid strikes.
But they remain convinced fossil fuels are ruining the Brighton sea air and climate!
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
Whatever your view about the desirability and feasibility of net-zero, there is something unseemly about it being waved into law with no vote and the minimum of parliamentary scrutiny to boost the battered ego of one of Britain’s worst Prime Minsters. Perhaps it should be put to a confirmatory referendum?
Nailed it.
I apologise for not being in the right subject area, but I signed the petition about bias in the BBC and have just received a request to respond on facebook before midday on the 27th. I do not have a facebook account, so can’t respond myself, but I’m sure someone on here can do so!
I want to add the BBC’s removal of any content which does not support the argument for AGW, including the editorial policy memo forbidding any mention of alternative interpretations, as evidence of gross bias.
You are missing nothing. I visited it (having also signed the petition) and found it to be weighed down with trolling content. I came to the conclusion that it was a propaganda exercise and that it would be difficult to extract serious comment from the rubbish. It is almost as if the BBC were paying people to put pro-BBC comments up there to enable them to ignore the legitimate concerns of bias. But the BBC wouldn’t do anything like that, would it?
Yet again, the focus of comments here and generally is on the degree to which decarbonisation can or can’t be achieved, What about the basic question – is carbon dioxide really the main or only cause of climate change? It seems to me that the left/green propaganda’s working.
No one in the history of humanity has demonstrated by empirical means that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.
The usual alarmist counter to that is that we don’t have a second planet as a control mechanism, however, many scientist have attempted the empirical study so deem a control planet unnecessary.
Hotscot, I’m seeing more and more comments – most recently in the DT – that compare the Earth’s future to Venus, which is consumed with CO2 and is therefore warmer as a result. The fact that these commenters don’t even understand the climate on Venus, let alone Earth says it all.
Do we actually have climate change?
HA! We don’t even know what ‘climate change’ is!
No one has ever bothered to define it. But nations will destroy themselves to fight it.
The green blob acknowledge that our 1% of world CO2 emissions has a negligible affect on the climate. So the purpose of our becoming carbon neutral is so that the rest of the world will ‘follow our lead’. Its not enough to eliminate our CO2 emissions – we’ve got to make it look attractive. If we suffer any ill effects from the cure it will deter other countries from de-carbonising and make the ‘climate apocalypse’ more likely not less. Great plan.
It strikes me as ironic that as a consequence of the extinction rebellion protests, that most of the government and the chattering classes really believe the 12 years (now down to less that 11.5) to prevent extinction of the human race. That being the case, it seems inordinately stupid to put in place legislation to reduce emissions that will not have the desired effect for another 30 years or more.
Lets be clear and not enter the fantasy world of the greens. The concept is that we have 12 years to act before climate Armageddon is irreversible, not that the planet will end in 12 years.
Quite when climate Armageddon will consume us is not clear, but we have 12 years to halt it’s inevitable march.
Mind you, I think Gore said back in the 80’s that we had ten years.
“The government’s own estimates suggest that total decarbonisation will require spending 1-2 per cent of GDP until 2050”.
All these estimates are based on an increasing overall GDP but as the Trading Economics website shows UK GDP has been static for ten years, falling for the past four years and the annual GDP growth rate has been quietly falling for over twenty years.
As a Telegraph reader I welcome this article by Christopher Snowdon but it does not appear to be reaching all Telegraph readers. It is a Premium article to which I have access and I had to use the search facility to find it after reading about it here. It was not in yesterday’s paper version and does not appear to be in today’s digital version – maybe I just can’t spot it as I attempt to keep up with changing formats but maybe not – can anyone explain this please?
It is quite clear that the online of the Telegraph is completely different to the traditional paper version which gets thinner and thinner. Trouble is that we like the latter for its letter pages and puzzles!
As I said above, the basic assumption needs to be challenged. When told to “jump” – instead of asking “how high?”, we should be asking “why?”. All the rest then falls apart.
As I was saying:
As a Telegraph reader I welcome this article by Edward Snowdon. It is a Premium article and I have access to these but it did not turn up in the usual way and I had to search for it, having had my attention drawn to it by Paul Homewood. It did not appear in yesterday’s printed version neither does it appear to be in today’s digital version. Can anyone advise please? Is it me just not finding my way properly around the ways in which our newspapers are communicating with us or perhaps it will turn up in the Sunday Telegraph where the much missed Christopher Booker used to present us with a balanced view.
Its a long time since the Telegraph started to display its editorial ambiguities. It stands for nothing. Nevertheless, Edward Snowden is welcome as a potential replacement for Silly Jilly who has taken up her rightful place at the Grauniad.
Yesterday, I was sorry to hear Andrea Leadsom backing the 0-C 2050 initiative by saying that the cost of doing so would not be so great as eventually a virtuous circle of new green wealth generation will fund it. She is seriously of the opinion that the revenues from green jobs and green installations will produce enough treasury income to make the whole thing nearly cost-neutral! My real fear is that she is not alone in such thinking.
Amen! Jobs are a COST, not a benefit.
“Jobs are a COST, not a benefit.”
Unless the economy is stuck in a slump, in which situation – Keynes said – it would be a good idea to employ one set of people to dig holes, with teaspoons no less, and another group to fill them in. He did not feel it necessary to state that this would be a daft proceeding once the economy had started to recover. Hitler did the same sort of kick-starting thing, with militarization. Continuing with THAT, as an end in itself, did not turn out well.
It’s global:
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/marxism-in-green-clothes-kept-alive-at-melbourne-uni/news-story/e558bffa0afaeee68dfa819d23fbd158
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/07/green-new-deal-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-plan
https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3074748/christiana-figueres-not-even-a-stretch-for-uk-to-achieve-net-zero-emissions-by-2050
No politician left behind…
Two stories at Guido may be of interest:
“Peers today voted for a motion of regret that said the Government has “given little detail of how the emissions target will be met” and “made a substantial change in policy without the full and proper scrutiny that such a change deserves.”
Tory MPs have been told by CCHQ to share this graphic boasting about their new commitment to make the UK carbon-neutral by 2050
A motion of regret doesn’t equal drafting legislation to overturn.
It says, “What we did yesterday was stupid, but we’re not going to do anything about it.”
Suggest its a misunderstanding of SCALE by our inumerate MPs. A 16 year old Physics A level student used to be asked to work out if they had ever breathed in any of Caesar’s breath. No interest in Romans, of course, but it slowly introduced scale, quantity and units. Many continued into Science and Engineering and developed a deeper understanding.
So, for the sake of MPs, what does this value of 30 billion a year represent? Well, there is currently a serious shortage of Nurses – they can never recover their enormous University debts. Tuition used to be free, so could our country offer free tuition to solve the shortage?
About £30,000 in tuition fees and £30,000,000,000 for zero Carbon – that comes to 1,000,000 new nurses every year. Big number isn’t it. Same logic with coppers, teachers, and many others.
Not sure anyone expect Parliament to gamble away hard earned money at this level.
When will people realise that any CO2 reduction policy should also be seen in a longer-term context:
· The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.
· According to reliable Ice Core records the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest of our current Holocene interglacial and the world had already been cooling quite rapidly since before Roman times, in fact since ~1000 BC.
· At 11,000 years old, our Holocene interglacial, responsible for all man-kind’s advances, from living in caves to microprocessors, is coming to its end.
· The weather gets worse in colder times.
· The world will very soon, (on a geological time scale), revert to a true glaciation, again resulting in mile high ice sheets over New York.
The prospect of even moving in a cooling direction is something to be truly scared about, both for the biosphere and for man-kind.
Spending any effort, let alone GDP scale costs, trying to stop the UK’s 1% of something that has not been happening for 3 millennia seems monumentally stupid.
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/global-man-made-co2-emissions-1965-2018-bp-data/
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/holocene-context-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Somebody has to pay for their stockpiles and shelters when hell freezes over
And to pay for the hundred beautiful girls to service each of the Dr Strangeloves…Although, if I remember rightly, HE was blown to atoms before he could make it to the shelter, in the film “How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb!”