Global Warming Policy Foundation Calls On Government To Suspend Unilateral Climate Targets

Global Warming Policy Foundation

Image via Wikipedia

London, 4 October – The Global Warming Policy Foundation has welcomed the promise by Chancellor George Osborne that the government will no longer be bound by unilateral targets that cut CO2 emissions in Britain faster and deeper than other countries in Europe.

Of course it is not just the rest of Europe that matters, but the rest of the world, and notably China, the US and India. Mr Osborne is right to highlight the growing risk that Britain’s unilateral green policies “are not going to save the planet [but are] putting our country out of business.”

Many journalists and green campaigners mistakenly believe that the UK’s post-2020 carbon targets are legally binding under the UK’s Climate Change Act. In reality, however, the fourth carbon budget has made these targets (35% carbon cuts by 2022 and a 50% reduction by 2025) conditional on international agreements and developments. Moreover, not even the 2050 carbon target is set in stone.

“According to the Climate Change Act, the government may amend the Act’s emissions target if it appears that there have been significant developments in European law or policy that make it appropriate to do so. Given the EU’s manifest reluctance to follow Britain’s lead, the time has come to suspend all unilateral climate targets and amend them along EU lines,” Dr Benny Peiser, the GWPF director said.

Contact:

Dr Benny Peiser – benny.peiser@thegwpf.org - tel: 020 79306856  - mob: 07553 361717

About these ads

29 thoughts on “Global Warming Policy Foundation Calls On Government To Suspend Unilateral Climate Targets

  1. That’s going to leave a mark … without those carbon goals the justification for the offshore wind investments doesn’t look good.

  2. In contrast, here in the USA, we’re being run by a green cabal that claims we will be more competitive by jumping feet first into green tech and green energy. I don’t understand the economics, but apparently there is a great advantage to paying more and getting less for it.

  3. I wonder if Samantha Cameron and Daddy, Sir Reginald Sheffield will approve a reduction in target.

  4. “Goofy and green” has been the motto of Britain’s politicians in regards to energy policies.

    This may be the first piece of common sense we have seen in more than a decade, but it is probably too late to stop all the inevitable brown outs and blacks outs in a few years from now.

    .

  5. A very small step in the right direction. There needs to be many more of them and bigger ones…

  6. “Mr Osborne is right to highlight the growing risk that Britain’s unilateral green policies “are not going to save the planet [but are] putting our country out of business.”

    The goal of your socialist ruling class is to redistribute the wealth to developing nation where they, the socialist ruling class, will profit handsomely. This is nothing more than a money laundry. New Socialist business model – Private the profit Socialise the lost. What a scam.

  7. “The Global Warming Policy Foundation has welcomed the promise by Chancellor George Osborne that the government will no longer be bound by unilateral targets that cut CO2 emissions in Britain faster and deeper than other countries in Europe”
    FWIW, I also join in with the welcome but as a long time admirer of the Antipodean character I have to ask this question.
    RU Ozzie and Kiwi Guys and Gals still going to get yourselves getting sucked and suckered into sacrificial martyrdom to satisfy the self-gratification machinations of your “Vote for me and not only will I rule over you but I’ll scr*w you as a bonus” elected representatives!
    Just asking.

  8. RoyFOMR says:
    October 4, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    RU Ozzie and Kiwi Guys and Gals still going to get yourselves getting sucked and suckered into sacrificial martyrdom to satisfy the self-gratification machinations of your “Vote for me and not only will I rule over you but I’ll scr*w you as a bonus” elected representatives!
    Just asking.

    Yes. We are still going to get getting suckered. Thank you for asking. While you’re at it, why not give me a papercut and pour lemon juice on it?

  9. ‘More Soylent Green! says:
    October 4, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    In contrast, here in the USA, we’re being run by a green cabal that claims we will be more competitive by jumping feet first into green tech and green energy.’

    Not in contrast at all. We are already up to the neck, never mind the feet, in this green cabal’s pile of steamy agw ordure. Whatever Osborne claims, we are already committed in the Uk to some 140bn quids’ worth of useless bloody windmills as well as endless EU rules and directives on ‘carbon’. We are run by lunatics and our country is being destroyed, enironmentally (emphasis on the mental) and economically..

  10. “The Global Warming Policy Foundation has welcomed the promise by Chancellor George Osborne that the government will no longer be bound by unilateral targets…”

    However, in a report in the The Times, Osborne is quoted as also saying in the same speech”..Yes, climate change is a man-made disaster. Yes, we need international agreement to stop it…”

    It seems that Osborne is not yet fully converted to the notion that the UK should renounce all CO2-based legislation. He is committing to reducing the target for CO2 reduction, not accepting that it is unnecessary at all.

  11. Welcome to the lefts steps in recreating a subsistance nomadic hunter gatherer society. If you cannot afford to gain knowledge, they can devide and conquer. before long it will be back to ww1 again, as they need to reduce the population to make their plans work, too many people = loss of control.

  12. The link is obvious, the UK discovers 200 bn cu ft of shale gas, of course climate targets are now irrelevamt, we’re rich again!

  13. In a jobs poor economy, its particularly important to keep energy cheap. So, whatever is cheapest is what should be pursued — be it fossil fuels or nuclear (depending on where in the world one lives).

    More expensive energy buys you nothing extra. But, it cuts cash available for spending on value added things.

    Probably, if the math is done right, the cost of green energy outweighs the cost of letting AGW happen and then fixing the problems it causes, if any. Green energy seems a lose, lose proposition.

  14. Tony says:
    October 4, 2011 at 7:31 pm
    “The link is obvious, the UK discovers 200 bn cu ft of shale gas

    Think you’ll find the figure is actually 200 trillion cubic feet of shale gas, which is in a convenient location and easy to exploit – first commercial production could start in 2013. Looks like this initial find could be just the tip of the iceberg as there are other large-scale shale deposits in other parts of the country and under the North Sea. Also gas power stations are quick to build and the technology is cheap!

  15. But now that governments around the world – not least the UK – have discovered they can tax the very air that you breath in the name of saving the planet, you don’t think they’re going to give up on the CO2 meme? Next you’ll be telling me that IPCC AR5 will conclude “Actually, it’s not as bad as we thought.”
    Osborne’s apparent Damascene conversion is simply recognising that the total tax take might go down if the CO2 levy proves terminal to the rest of the economy.

  16. The first step would be to get rid of our Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne MP who knows zero about either but seems good at, allegedly, getting his ex-wife to take the blame for his speeding offence.

  17. Another nail in the coffin of the AGW hoaxers. Whilst not exactly a convert, let us hope that the Chancellor puts the money saved into developing shale gas extraction, and whilst they’re at it give the boot to the ludicrous Chris Huhne.

  18. Thanks to Mr Osborne’s comments, it looks like I don’t need to feel ‘accountable’ anymore about descaling our kettle or making that loaf of fresh crusty bread earlier this morning . . . . what with all that extra CO2 that I deviously manufactured in the process. And, strangely, the gas still hasn’t warmed our kitchen up one tiny jot and the sink still has the same level of water in it. Perhaps I need to unscrew a few bottles of lemonade. That should do it.

  19. gas from shale…don’t forget gas fired power plants produce around 40% less CO2 than oil or coal…so if we develop these fields and use the gas to genrate power we will , as a consequence, reduce our carbon emissions…….

  20. And meanwhile, back at the ranch……..

    China’s emissions of CO2 continue to rise, swamping the efforts by the Euro’s to damp them down. Even though the spin is that they have “exceeded their goal” of reducing their carbon intensity, they admit the CO2 is increasing.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/04/us-climate-china-idUSTRE7937JI20111004

    Add this to the new emissions from the Germans from coal to replace their nuclear power and there is not a prayer that man-made CO2 production will actually go down. This dog won’t hunt.

  21. Young people cater to their elders. This is an ageold tradition. Some might not believe it, but it is generally true. Especially when the elders are doing the hiring and firing and signing the paychecks. So, what’s the problem? Well, most of the checksigning, lawmaking, top-scientist and educator elders of today are the bone-headed hippie pot-heads of the 1960′s. Why is the world going to hell you ask? Little wonder I say.

    PS: Yes, I’m an elder. Retired.

  22. Tenuc says
    Oct 4 2011at 850 pm….
    In the UK our clown ‘energy and climate change minister told a meeting we must not use the enormous new shale gas discovery because it would jepardise our ‘carbon reduction agreements..yes he is quite MAD

  23. Mike Jowsey says:
    October 4, 2011 at 4:26 pm


    While you’re at it, why not give me a papercut and pour lemon juice on it?

    No lemon juice handy; will carbonic acid do? ;p

    mizimi says:
    October 5, 2011 at 8:25 am

    gas from shale…don’t forget gas fired power plants produce around 40% less CO2 than oil or coal…so if we develop these fields and use the gas to genrate power we will , as a consequence, reduce our carbon emissions…….

    Yabbut — the difference is made up by that even more potent GHG, dihydrogen monoxide!

    Here’s the horrible truth, as projected a while ago, about the consequences of using shale gas: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/1108/opinions-steve-forbes-fact-comment-energy-crisis-over.html
    Read it and weep! (Alarmists)

Comments are closed.