Skip to content

MPs Table Climate Emergency Bill

September 6, 2020

By Paul Homewood


The Loonies have taken over!



That this House expresses profound alarm at the climate and ecological emergency, with wildfires raging in California, and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica melting in line with worst case scenario predictions for sea level rise according to a study by the University of Leeds and the Danish Meteorological Institute; acknowledges that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” are needed in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C; is concerned that the target of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 in the 2008 Climate Change Act has been overtaken by the accelerating crisis; welcomes the presentation of the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill, formally known as the Climate and Ecology Bill; notes that it would ensure that the UK plays its fair and proper role in limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C, by taking account of the UK’s entire carbon footprint, including consumption emissions released overseas as a result of goods manufactured abroad for use in the UK; further notes that it would actively improve the natural world by protecting and restoring the UK’s ecosystems, and ending the damage to nature caused by supply chains; highlights that the Bill establishes a Citizens’ Assembly to recommend measures for inclusion in a new Climate and Ecological Emergency Strategy; and calls on the Government to support the Bill to increase the ambition of the UK’s climate legislation and demonstrate real climate leadership ahead of co-hosting the 26th UN Climate Change Conference in 2021.


The Early Day Motion has been signed by 22 MPs.

We can safely leave aside the froth about wildfires and ice sheets. And we already know why they want a climate assembly, which will be used to brainwash and bully a set of naive people, so as to bypass proper democratic processes.

But what did strike me was this comment:

including consumption emissions released overseas as a result of goods manufactured abroad for use in the UK

It has long been a demand of the eco extremists, such as the Tyndall Centre, but what would be the impact?

A study last year from the ONS gives us a clue:




But let’s start from the start.


The ONS show how GDP and carbon dioxide emissions started to decouple around 1985:


The switch from coal to gas certainly impacted on emissions in the early years, with renewables chipping in during the last decade or so.

However, the key factor in the decoupling has been the decline of manufacturing industry and its replacement by a low energy intensive, service based economy.


However, we still want to buy all of those manufactured goods, which we no longer produce.

And, surprise surprise (!), when we look at consumption based emissions, these are still as high now as they were in the 1990s:



There appears to be a sharp peak in 2007, followed by a decline, said to be related to the financial crisis.  I don’t buy this argument and don’t trust the figures at that point as I can’t see any logic for the sharp upward spike.

However, the chart proves conclusively that emissions and GDP have not been decoupled, as claimed.

The chart is interactive, so you can click on individual years to read off values. But in the final year of 2015, consumption based emissions were 656 Mt CO2 against 402 Mt for territorial based. So, even if we got rid of all the latter, we would still be 254 Mt of net imported emissions, some two thirds of what is currently accounted for as territorial based.

Which brings us to the $64000 question – what are we supposed to do when we can no longer import any of the goods we currently do? Sure, some of the imports in future from the EU may be “carbon free” in theory, but in reality they will be facing the same self inflicted economic damage as us, making their industry ever more uncompetitive.

Are we going to be able to manufacture all of this stuff ourselves? This seems hardly likely. What about all of the solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and rare earths we will need to power our new renewable future? Or the food we need? Or the oil we will still need for production of chemicals and plastics?

In reality, a total ban on imports from “undesirable” countries could only lead to wartime like shortages.

And then there is the issue of cost. Whatever you think about the offshoring of our manufacturing sector, it has undoubtedly led to a drastic fall in prices. Do we really want to swap all of the benefits of global trade for a costly and inefficient siege economy?

There is also the question of how all of this is going to be implemented in the interim. Will there need to be quotas on imports from China, for instance, as zero emissions are phased in? Will companies need special permits to import from such countries. Or will punitive import duties need to be raised (all of which I suspect would be a breach of WTO rules).

Any such action, in any event, would inevitably bring retaliation from China, which would be highly damaging to our export trade.


At the end of the day, one thing seems certain. China, India and the rest of developing world in Asia, Africa and S America won’t be going zero carbon any time soon. And there is a very good reason for this. Far from the myths propagated by the green lobby, globally there is still a strong coupling between emissions and GDP:



There is simply no way the developing world is going to deny their citizens the benefits of fossil fuels.

If we carry on down this route, both the UK and EU will end up becoming minor players on the world stage. And there is a very real risk that China will become the dominant player.

  1. Nordisch geo-climber permalink
    September 6, 2020 12:49 pm

    Paul this is fantastic analysis.
    Not only do you deserve a knighthood for your forensic, clinical objectivity, but you should be lecturing at LSE and Imperial College instead of Martin Siegert.

  2. September 6, 2020 1:06 pm

    About polar ice sheet melt and sea level rise tracking IPCC worst case scenario.

    • September 7, 2020 1:10 am

      No area of scientific endeavour takes statistical output and only focuses on worst case scenarios. This is simply a bastardisation of the statistical method. Rather the most likely outcome is presented with reference to the range of the spread either side. Worse, these jokers are quoting the worst case scenario ONLY based not on empirical data but model output.

      Try presenting that in the real world and you would be lucky to out of the room alive and definitely with your contract terminated! This is an abuse of the scientific method. They deliberately and incorrectly select modelled output and promote it magically becomes real and in some way gives authority to their otherwise blatant climate propagandizing.

      • September 7, 2020 1:32 am

        So well stated sir. Will quote with your permission.

  3. mwhite permalink
    September 6, 2020 1:25 pm

    Looks like we’re going to have a bad winter

  4. George MacDonald Ross permalink
    September 6, 2020 1:33 pm

    Nor can they spell: ‘formally’ should be ‘formerly’.

  5. Douglas Brodie permalink
    September 6, 2020 1:33 pm

    It has been public knowledge for some time that the climate propagandists in the BEIS have been surreptitiously ignoring the foreign fossil fuel consumption used to supply our imports, including interconnector-supplied electricity, see

    “Hidden import emissions amounted to 46% of the UK’s overall carbon footprint in 2019, up from 14% in 1990”.

    Dissembling Tory politicians never admit this in their stock boast that: “since 1990 we have cut emissions by 42% while our economy has grown by two thirds”.

    I’ve been trying to explain the futility of the Net Zero policy to our politicians for some time via this paper:

    If the government lets this bill pass, we (and they) are in big trouble.

    • Broadlands permalink
      September 6, 2020 2:07 pm

      Mr. Brodie.. Your long paper draws the right conclusions about the futility of NET-zero. Few understand what NET means. Negative Emission Technologies. Carbon capture and storage. This is where that solution becomes futile. To capture and safely store the amounts of CO2 required to affect the Earth’s climate would entail storing about 120 billion tons CO2 just to get the atmosphere back to 400 ppm. To go back to the magical ‘safe’ 350 ppm would mean 65 ppm… storing 500 Gt CO2. Clearly both are beyond the industry’s ability which is now only 40 MILLION tons per year. Try telling that to green politicians or those they follow. Deaf ears! But it is a fact. CDIAC: One ppm is 7.8 Gt CO2. 7,800 million tons. Do the math.

      • Mack permalink
        September 6, 2020 10:32 pm

        Broadlands, as per usual, I’m with you all the way on the carbon capture fallacy. It simply can’t be done in any practical sense on a global scale without generating even more emissions than those emissions intended to be sequestered. However, even if it could be done, it wouldn’t make a jot of difference to the climate. The more important question in relation to the sequestration argument is: Tu bene? If it ain’t the climate then you know you’re being had!

    • dave permalink
      September 6, 2020 2:21 pm

      “If the government lets this bill pass…”

      It is not a Bill, it is an Early Day Motion.

      • dave permalink
        September 6, 2020 2:33 pm

        There IS a Bill kicking around, from August 12, but it is merely a Private Member’s Bill. The Government would have to make time for it – and that is not the way of the World.

        Of course, one should probably not say ‘impossible,’ when a Bohemian Socialist like BoJo is involved!

      • September 6, 2020 7:03 pm

        I can’t see an early day motion getting much further what with the enormous amount of brexit and pandemic legislation needed over the next few months

        Also XR have shot themselves in the foot with their childish antics and this bill will be heavily related to them as they are outside parliament every day demanding a yes vote.

        My guess is that parliament will give them the two finger salute

      • yonason permalink
        September 6, 2020 7:34 pm

        So, what you’re saying, Dave, is that they don’t even know how the government they were elected to run actually works?

        And then they pretend to understand the vicissitudes of a vastly more complex system, and are going to “fix” what charlatans told them is wrong with it, by imposing draconian measures, which will only bring suffering to the citizens they promised to govern wisely?

        I’ve got a bad feeling about this.

  6. Broadlands permalink
    September 6, 2020 1:39 pm

    “Far from the myths propagated by the green lobby, globally there is still a strong coupling between emissions and GDP” That coupling is the same as the coupling between Mauna Loa CO2 and global population. Both are almost perfect, statistically.

    • September 6, 2020 3:36 pm

      Correlation does not however mean causation. To have causation there must be correlation but the reverse is not automatically so.

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        September 6, 2020 5:11 pm

        Technically it is possible to have a combination of opposing effects that result in no change. That does not imply no causation.

      • Broadlands permalink
        September 7, 2020 2:59 pm

        The correlation is between the sum total of human activities (population) and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Obviously it is not people, per se. Nor it is the reverse… CO2 increasing the number of people.

  7. September 6, 2020 1:39 pm

    There appears to be a sharp peak in 2007

    Yes and no. A steady rise to the 2007 peak started around 2003, and the sharp part was the drop-off in/after 2008. Leaving the question: what was going on between 2003 and 2007?

  8. Geoff B permalink
    September 6, 2020 1:42 pm

    No conservatives have signed the early day motion….A winter of extreme cold with a few power cuts should see it off. XR’s latest blockade of the printing works seems to have upset the telegraph and daily mail, maybe we can look forward to some truthful reporting on the climate change non emergency. The new guy at the BBC has rattled a few cages and even Boris’s girl friend does not agree with blocking the distribution of newspapers. I sense the wind of change blowing in the faces of the green loonies.

    • September 6, 2020 2:13 pm

      Yes exactly. IF there really is a climate emergency, funny that the only people supporting it are the looney tunes on the edge with their political associations and petty grievance based politics! Good to see it is tabled by a green loon who actually bounces around an awful lot with her English!

    • September 6, 2020 7:06 pm

      I thought it hilarious that this loony group should believe the newspapers are not setting out their position which is why they closed them down.

      You can’t open a newspaper without being confronted by some green propaganda loosely disguised as news

  9. September 6, 2020 2:04 pm

    Sad day when we need to worry what the PMs girlfriend thinks about national strategy.

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      September 6, 2020 3:54 pm

      Give him a break, a second rate journalist being pulled two ways by his puppet-masters and dealing with a non-health crisis, he’s doing his best which isn’t that much.

  10. Harry Davidson permalink
    September 6, 2020 2:57 pm

    Well at least no Tories have signed it, and no one from Wales who isn’t already structurally bonkers.

  11. September 6, 2020 2:58 pm

    let us read through this bit of woolly religious prose which should “should have asked someone to read because it is in serious need of rewriting as if if is written by an emotional teenager with a head full of a random collection of bits and pieces of other people’s “beliefs”.

    “That this House expresses profound alarm at the climate and ecological emergency, with wildfires raging in California, and ice sheets in Greenland

    Yes, there is an ice sheet covering Greenland. So what? What exactly about the ice sheets in Greenland? Calm down woman and be less emotional and why did you not ask one of your flunkies to proof read your rantings!

    “and Antarctica melting in line with worst case scenario predictions for sea level rise according to a study by the University of Leeds and the Danish Meteorological Institute”.

    She goes directly to the latest junk science which is based on a very narrow interpretation of MODELS contained in a document which should never have past muster because of the deliberate obtuse nature of the way the text has been written.

    ” acknowledges that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society”

    One politician quoting other group of politicians woolly arm waving weasel words.

    “are needed in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C”;

    Oh that “number” based on NOTHING just pulled out of a hat by the grant and rent seekers that this unquestioning religious believer does not realized has already been exceeded since the end of the Little Ice age and also is shown to have no significance except for positive things happening. Its lack of precedence is seen in the evidence that the Medieval and Roman Warm periods both exceeded this dreaded number with only positive impacts upon humanity.

    “is concerned that the target of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 in the 2008 Climate Change Act has been overtaken by the accelerating crisis; ”

    WHAT accelerating crisis exactly? Record food production…A crisis? The fact that winters appear to be getting milder, A crisis? The none accelerating welcome warming of our climate? The non accelerating sea level increase? The non accelerating rainfall? The only acceleration I can see is in hyperventilation and the production of emotional twaddle like this.

    ” welcomes the presentation of the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill, formally known as the Climate and Ecology Bill; notes that it would ensure that the UK plays its fair and proper role in limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C, by taking account of the UK’s entire carbon footprint, including consumption emissions released overseas as a result of goods manufactured abroad for use in the UK;”

    Exactly HOW BIG a role would that be given that the UK produces a claimed massive 1% of the global CO2 released back into the Carbon Cycle ( something the Carbon Cycle desperately needs).Ok, IF we completely shut down the UK and remove that 1% from the world budget completely, ECACTLY WHAT will be the effect on that 1.5C which has already been passed I wonder? She should offer hard numbers as she quotes hard numbers! Also, and here is the rub. Lots of marxism rearing its head to radically impose radical changes your life style taking us back to some nightmare world of rationing as almost everything is manufactured abroad.

    “further notes that it would actively improve the natural world by protecting and restoring the UK’s ecosystems, and ending the damage to nature caused by supply chains

    Eh? Restoring what to what exactly? Meaningless blablabla How do you “restore ecosystems with people living in them and to what state? Middle of the Little Ice Age State? Which? People are affecting ecosystems and given she and her like want to bring more and more and MORE people to our getting greener and pleasenter land…how exactly does she square that circle? Also, while we are on the subject of ecosystems surely the pointless wind farm and solar panel blight on the landscape ALSO affects ecosystems or is that something we just conveniently ignore?

    “highlights that the Bill establishes a Citizens’ Assembly to recommend measures for inclusion in a new Climate and Ecological Emergency Strategy; and calls on the Government to support the Bill to increase the ambition of the UK’s climate legislation and demonstrate real climate leadership ahead of co-hosting the 26th UN Climate Change Conference in 2021”

    So just more pointless virtue signalling at the tax payers expense and to allow even more worthless tax payer funded flunkies to attend yet one more pointless echo chamber junket where all they do is stand around and agree with each other only managing to agree when and where the next pointless load of meaningless Canutian asininity masquerading as a climate conference will be held!

    • September 6, 2020 7:10 pm

      The difference according to mature magazine would be two hundredths of a degree for which the budget set aside by Theresa May was two trillion.

      But that is only a saving on the man made percentage of CO2 of four percent of the total. The difference it would make to the 100 percent including natural CO2 is far too small to calculate.

      • September 7, 2020 12:44 am

        Not that there is any empirical data of any kind to support the assertion that man’s contribution of 3% to the annual CO2 flux is anything other than beneficial and indeed that magical 3% has more effect than the other 97% and of course its perturbation around that number. If physics and geological history are considered which do offer empirical data based observations then the case against CO2 has no legs whatsoever but then that is exactly why there is so much effort put into shutting down any credible discussion challenging the “settled” (non) science. Incidentally, say non-science quickly and you get…..nonsense!

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      September 7, 2020 8:58 am

      Its gibberish written by people who literally di not understand the things they are writing about. But in the modern world, that doesn’t matter. If you are virtuous (self-defined) then your opinions are right no matter how ignorant or stupid you are. If you don’t agree with them, it’s not because you know more or understand more but because you are a racist or a Denier of some kind.

  12. Tim. permalink
    September 6, 2020 3:07 pm

    One word springs to mind; California.

  13. September 6, 2020 3:21 pm

    This article by Natascha Engel was published in full in the Times in June 2019. She reveals the true cut in our CO2 emissions was a paltry 3.7%. So there is no way we can reach net zero by 2050 – at least not in an honest way! If only the government would be honest. No government which wanted to be re-elected would attempt it.

  14. September 6, 2020 3:49 pm

    “globally there is still a strong coupling between emissions and GDP”:

    Of course people create emissions and by emissions the main one is CO2 liberated back into the Carbon Cycle. As GDP increases then people have more money to buy stuff which creates demand for manufacturing of stuff, all of which release CO2 all along the supply chain, This should not be a surprise because our whole 21st century life style is based on hydrocarbons of some kind or another.

    I will remind you all that all the claims about magical properties of CO2 are still only claims or assertions because no statistically significant empirical data of any kind exists to support those claims.

    To achieve the utopian nonsense the green zealots want there has to be a serious reduction in WORLD population and regression to a semi medieval lifestyle which comes with all kind of fun non optional extras like disease, and hardship as well as accelerated infant mortality and a life expectancy in the mid 30s.

    This would be blown out of the water as a nonstarter IF normal critical thinking, debate and empirical data based decision making were taking place but it is not and that is deliberate. Like all the rest of the maxist originating bullcrap it’s progress and implementation is totally dependent on shutting down debate and adherence to the scientific method.

    • tom0mason permalink
      September 6, 2020 5:00 pm

      Thank-you pardonmeforbreathing for some well articulated observations and views — if only the rest of the ‘COVID locked-out’ public sought to be more informed and thoughtful during this rather average summer.

      • September 6, 2020 7:12 pm

        The chants from the XR protestors would be entertaining

        What do we want?
        Another little ice age
        When do we want It?
        By 2030

      • September 7, 2020 12:47 am

        You are lucky! Where I am it is already autumn with a vengeance…. oh for some climate change of the kind these noddys fantasize about!

  15. September 6, 2020 3:52 pm

    I was quite pleased by XR’s latest stunt and the reaction in defence of free speech as am hoping somehow the media will wake up to the BBC’s block on free speech in connection with climate change, which started many years ago. Also hoping Tim Davie will be an improvement on his predecessor and maybe notice what has been happening. BBC policy was decided by this committee kept secret until a persistent investigator found it. Only yesterday a presenter referred to climate change deniers; what they mean is emergency deniers.

    As a lifelong Anglican I am embarrassed by churches being obsessed for years with eco-congregations and support for renewables (so-called) energy suppliers. One might hope bishops had a modicum of intelligence but apparently not, e.g. Salisbury. I wrote this in a paper for our local Scottish Synod four years ago following a request from our bishop: “The BBC has become a campaigner on climate change, despite its constitution. Do you remember Professor David Bellamy and Johnny Ball? Both became ‘deniers’ so never worked for the BBC again. Peter Lilley suggested on air that climate change might not be as serious as claimed and the BBC issued an apology. Quentin Letts did something similar in What’s the Point of the Met Office, and the episode was deleted from iplayer.” The paper was ignored of course.

    There is no doubt the UK has gone mad when saving the planet is even used as a reason to buy in so many TV commercials, e.g. Quorn. How, and where, are all those wonderful EVs going to be made? Not here. Children are brainwashed in school with no attempt at scientific truth.

    • September 6, 2020 4:02 pm

      We have exited the Enlightenment and are in danger of entering a new religion based dark age. Sadly the C of E lost the plot a long time ago and today with Welby’s comedy act they are today is only hastening their demise pandering to minorities rather than caring for the majority.

      In paleontology there is a saying to describe what occurs before extinction of a genus or species which applies equally to the human condition and in this case the C of E.:

      “Decadence and eccentricity are indicative of incipient decline and decay”-

  16. September 6, 2020 3:53 pm

    We have a REAL and present problem with a catastrophic impact on the UK’s economy due to Covid responses and these lunatics want to make that even worse based on feelings and the predictions of their fantasy model based religion?

  17. Ian permalink
    September 6, 2020 4:37 pm

    “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
    -Edmund Burke

  18. tom0mason permalink
    September 6, 2020 5:07 pm

    Thank-you Paul for another excellent analysis.

  19. Cyan permalink
    September 6, 2020 5:09 pm

    This EDM is so popular it has it’s own website: The draft text of the bill may be found there.

    A crowdfunding campaign has been setup at with the intention of raising £50,000 to “allow us to pay for 2 part time Media and Campaign Support staff for a year”.Sadly this campaign has already attracted £9,065 from 145 donors, at the time of writing.

    More money than sense or XR laundering?

    • September 6, 2020 7:15 pm

      Hmmm, suppose two of us were to be the part time media people. How long do you think it would take before they noticed?

  20. September 6, 2020 5:27 pm

    The climate scam is nothing more than the “go to” excuse for higher taxes; always was, always will be. Despite 50 years of failed predictions, dud science and out-right lies, the scam continues; “think of the cuddly polar bears etc”

  21. Harry Passfield permalink
    September 6, 2020 5:39 pm

    ‘….to brainwash and bully naive people…’ – my grandson, for one. He will be fodder for their cause so that he will vote as directed when the time comes. The fact that he won’t be able to afford heating and lighting by the time voting becomes fashionable again is neither here nor there for these idiots.
    (I must get a list of the 22….)

  22. September 6, 2020 5:49 pm

    Denying responsibility for shifting emissions to another country is just trying to look good while doing bad – like saying “we’re not killing the planet any more, now we’ve hired others to do that for us”.

    • bobn permalink
      September 7, 2020 2:45 pm

      Since CO2 emissions are good for plants and the greening of the planet, the more CO2 we release the better. I’m releasing as much as i possibly can in order to help the earth!

  23. A Man of No Rank permalink
    September 6, 2020 5:49 pm

    Great summary and worthy rant pardonme. I hope you do not mind but I have copied a lot of it and put it into a letter to my local (Tory) MP. It reads well.

  24. MrGrimNasty permalink
    September 6, 2020 6:53 pm

    This puts the UK’s ‘global price dictating’ below optimum Wheat harvest into perspective.

    And yet global wheat harvest is forecast to be very similar to recent ‘bumper’ years and total grains is forecast to be a record.

    Somewhere always has a disaster, somewhere always has a glut. Now if the climate were cooling significantly, harvests and prices would be threatened globally – that would be a real climate emergency.

  25. yonason permalink
    September 6, 2020 7:09 pm

    And now your roving reporter gets an average person on the street to give us his spontaneous candid reaction.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      September 6, 2020 8:01 pm

      Not a fair report (must be BBC): One of those commentators was an MP!

      • yonason permalink
        September 7, 2020 12:44 am

        Ah, yes. The short one. Should have been obvious.

  26. john cooknell permalink
    September 6, 2020 9:16 pm

    This appears to be taking a long time to go through Parliament.

    The bill was first presented to Parliament on 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, That the Lord Bishop of St. David’s is hereby desired to take the Pains upon him, to preach before the Lords of Parliament, on Wednesday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant January in the Forenoon, in the Abbey Church of Westm. being the accustomed Place where their Lordships have used to meet upon the like Occasion.

    Samuel Pepys penned his view on the effectiveness and reasons behind the first Climate Change act.

    Wednesday 15 January 1661/62
    This morning Mr. Berkenshaw came again, and after he had examined me and taught me something in my work, he and I went to breakfast in my chamber upon a collar of brawn, and after we had eaten, asked me whether we had not committed a fault in eating to-day; telling me that it is a 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. I did not stir out of my house all day, but conned my musique, and at night after supper to bed.

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      September 6, 2020 10:38 pm

      As it is unlikely the motion will be passed by Parliament this year, it will be 359 years since the first Bill. Perhaps it would be better to delay it until 2022 and the nice round 360 year anniversary, and even better to leave the stupidity until 2262 when the 500TH anniversary could be celebrated in style, especially as that is likely the time it would take to be achieved.

      • Graeme No.3 permalink
        September 7, 2020 12:14 am

        The paralells with modern times are close.
        A little unusual weather and some hysterical claims about bad things that might happen, followed by a grand sounding (if useless) proclamation in Parliament and a bit of preaching. Then everybody went about their daily lives.
        plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

      • john cooknell permalink
        September 7, 2020 11:25 am

        1. Samuel Pepys 21st jan 1661
        It is strange what weather we have had all this winter; no cold at all; but the ways are dusty, and the flyes fly up and down, and the rose-bushes are full of leaves, such a time of the year as was never known in this world before here.

        In Pepys lifetime he witnessed warm winters like this, and winters with frost fairs on the Thames. Of course this was all due to humankind interfering with God’s creation, nowadays the exact same reasoning is taking place with some “science” lipstick on it.

        History repeats itself exactly.

        The interesting bit is that when I have shown this to MP’s (who are AGW fanatics), it blows their minds, they do not believe it, they think it must have been made up by a denier.

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        September 7, 2020 1:54 pm

        It’s an Early Day Motion — usually no more than opportunity to blether and let your constituents know you’re still awake. Nothing should come of it bit with this idiot government always on the lookout for brownie points from wherever/whoever they can get them, who knows?!

    • Rowland P permalink
      September 7, 2020 1:34 pm

      Ironically, this was at a time when the world was entering the Little Ice Age.

  27. It doesn't add up... permalink
    September 6, 2020 9:48 pm

    I remind you of the tweet I posted yesterday from Zac Goldsmith

    Also – only last week the UK became 1st country to begin steps to stop importing commodities that cause deforestation – if others follow, it will have a massive impact.
    … and much much more besides.

    DEFRA ministers are positively dangerous. Though as I pointed out I doubt this will apply to woodchips for Drax, or palm oil for biodiesel, or wood for construction.

  28. Chris Matchette-Downes permalink
    September 6, 2020 11:06 pm

    22/650 – Mercifully not all MPS are dumb / believe in the hype / that they can control the sun.

    • ianprsy permalink
      September 7, 2020 9:56 am

      Want to bet?

  29. September 6, 2020 11:49 pm

    “Early Day Motion”

    Another pile of $h it !!

    • yonason permalink
      September 7, 2020 12:35 am

      Must be all that green fiber?

  30. September 7, 2020 12:57 am

    Sorry for the number of posts but this really annoys.

    Is this a classic example of how worthless at best B class politicians react, people who are demonstrably incapable individually or collectively of coming up with any constructive idea about how to manage Covid better or the developing economic crisis we are growing with National Debt now topping 2 Trillion Pounds.They can only flap, waffle and arm wave about that BUT…THEY CAN STOP CLIMATE CHANGE!

    Am I alone in seeing the shear arrogant effrontery of these self serving parasites….ignore real and present problems…oh no, those are way to difficult for them….they need to shift attention and focus throwing more public money at an imaginary one!

  31. M E permalink
    September 7, 2020 5:43 am

    What is a supply chain ? How does it damage the environment.? Roads railways canals are supply routes but they surely don,t want to dig up roads?

    If the environment is returned to it,s natural state Britain will need to be covered with forests and only uplands will be open country… I seem to remember this from geography and geomorphology lectures. But my brain faded as I read the proposed bill. Lack of clarity in language is being used to befuddle the electorate . a political technique for imposing the will of an elite group on the general public

  32. Phoenix44 permalink
    September 7, 2020 8:51 am

    I’m sorry to say that much of this is simply wrong. GDP of manufacturing has not declined, it’s simply that the GDP of services has increased much more. Manufacturing GDP has in fact risen since over that time period considerably as the UK has focused on high value goods. Thus a graph of the type you show is highly misleading. What has been sent overseas is low value manufacturing which by definition has little impact on either the share of GDP or total GDP. There is also a great deal of doubt that we are measuring anything like actual GDP anymore because of the impact of technology on both wealth and inflation. There are lots of estimates that the uncounted value of free IT based services is worth £1-3,000/head/year for example.

    In terms of outsourced manufacturing there is every reason to believe that that has and will continue to become more productive and thus reduce all inputs per unit, including energy. Energy production itself will become more effecient and less emitting in those countries too. It’s simply wrong to say that moving manufacturing from a modern Western economy powered by gas to say China in 1990 was like-for-like.

    If we properly account for wealth then emissions/unit of wealth are substantially reduced and technology will probably continue to drive that down.

    What we are facing are the usual EU/UK suspects who want to “protect” industries combining with the lunatic Greens. What the Protectionists don’t understand (as well as trade obviously) is that the Greens will destroy those industries as well once their initial aims are met.

  33. I_am_not_a_robot permalink
    September 7, 2020 9:00 am

    “… in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C …”.
    No-one knows what effect globally ‘achieving net zero emissions by 2050’ would have on the global average temperature if any, even if that aim were likely or even possible — which it isn’t.

  34. CheshireRed permalink
    September 7, 2020 11:48 am

    I dare say you’re already onto it, but a step by step analysis of those claims is definitely needed. I rather suspect they’re erm, suspect!

  35. Derek Reynolds permalink
    September 7, 2020 2:01 pm

    The concern about CO2 has never failed to amaze me, especially that of governments, as their only reason for imposing such restrictions and costs associated with it and mankinds emission of it – is due to income generated from it. Period. Let alone the fact that CO2 above around 120ppmv does not contribute to atmospheric heat increse.

    Globally there is in the atmosphere 3.62% of which mankind emits 3.4% globally, the rest comes from nature. Therefore mankind is responsible for emitting 0.01467% globally.
    The UK emits 1.5% of that figure. Therefore we are emitting 0.0001597% of globally emitted CO2.

    What effect will be achieved in terms of global temperatures if that 0.0001579% were reduced to zero? – None at all. But we would virtually cease to exist as a society – no work, no transport, no heat, no power, no goods, little food. The governments reaction to covid-19 has decimated our economy as it has globally, and now we have these barking mad idiots wanting to bury us completely.

  36. September 7, 2020 3:08 pm

    The bill is sponsored by Caroline Lucas (of course), Clive Lewis, Alan Brown (SNP), Wera Hobhouse, Liz Saville Roberts, & Claire Hanna (SDLP).

    Others who have signed in support:

    Stephen Farry, Zarah Sultana, Tommy Sheppard, Ben Lake, Wendy Chamberlain, Jim Shannon (DUP! – did he read it?), Hywel Williams, Daisy Cooper, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Rebecca Long Bailey (zzz), Mick Whitley, Brendan O’Hara, Mohammad Yasin, Layla Moran, Paula Barker, Claudia Webbe, Munira Wilson, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Allan Dorans, Beth Winter, Jonathan Edwards, Debbie Abrahams, Mike Hill, Carol Monaghan, Christine Jardine, Sarah Olney, Sir Edward “I have no policies, I’m just listening” Davey, Dr Philippa Whitford, and Alyn Smith.

    Seven SNP MPs in a party notorious for enforced discipline. Party line?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: