From The GWPF, newsbytes on the subject of UK Businesses Threaten To Flee Abroad To Escape Green Energy Levies
British industry’s ability to compete with companies overseas is under threat from punitive green energy costs, the new president of the CBI has told The Sunday Telegraph. Sir Roger Carr warns in an interview that the Coalition must give “some sort of support” over rising energy costs to UK manufacturers or else risk seeing businesses relocate abroad with the consequential loss of jobs. His comments – ahead of a CBI energy conference on Tuesday – come amid growing concern over the cost of renewable energy subsidies and so-called ‘green stealth taxes’. —The Sunday Telegraph, 12 June 2011
The CBI and Britain’s leading chemical firms have warned that the proposed UK “carbon floor” tax (unique in the world) will make our industry so uncompetitive that, unless the policy is changed, it will lead inevitably to mass plant closures and job losses. Similarly, the European Metals Association warned last week that the EU’s various “anti-carbon” policies are becoming so costly that they are already forcing steel, aluminium and other producers in their energy-intensive industry to relocate outside Europe, losing hundreds of thousands more jobs. Sooner or later, politicians must emerge with the sense and the courage to question this madness – as many other people are now beginning to do. But there is little sign of their emergence yet. —Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 June 2011
The Coalition’s obsession with climate change is damaging Britain’s recovery from recession, former Tory chancellor Nigel Lawson warns today. Writing in the Daily Mail, Lord Lawson delivers a scathing assessment of David Cameron’s so-called ‘green agenda’ and says it is ‘time this Government grew up’. Lord Lawson, one of the most respected Tory figures of recent decades, accuses the Prime Minister of risking Britain’s economy to make a ‘symbolic’ point. In a devastating verdict he writes: ‘The Government’s highly damaging decarbonisation policy, enshrined in the absurd Climate Change Act, does not have a leg to stand on. It is intended, at massive cost, to be symbolic: To make good David Cameron’s ambition to make his administration “the greenest government ever”. —Nigel Lawson, Daily Mail, 11 June 2011
It is time for Britain to walk away from its ridiculously stringent renewable energy plan.
This whole story is an instructive and depressing example of what happens when consensus rules. “The science is settled” was the line, and our politicians, few of them any more scientific than you or I, fell in with it. It was once famously said that, for evil to prosper, it is necessary only for good people to do nothing. But the peculiar hypocrisy of modern culture is such that it is when our leaders rush around trying most self-consciously to do good that the real damage is done. —Charles Moore, The Daily Telegraph, 11 June 2011
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
We make fun of dems for blaming Bush for Obama’s screw-ups. And Bush was President 3 years ago. You all are dragging out Thatcher? That’s close to 30 years ago. What, labor couldn’t fix things in 30 years?
Let’s get the terminology straight. Companies don’t ship jobs overseas. They ship CAPITAL overseas. “Shipping jobs overseas” is an emotionally charged phrase used by leftists. They don’t want to use the correct term, capital, because using that would start raising questions about taxes and regulations.
@TimC says: June 13, 2011 at 8:19 am
“The same applied to the mining industry: at Wiki Ref2 it appears that most (nationalised) pits were unprofitable. It was in fact cheaper to buy coal on the world market to fire our (again nationalised) power stations than buy it at its true cost from British pits – but of course the result would be another miners’ strike and the government of the day falling.”
Yes, some (not most) of the pits at the start of the strike (1984) were certainly unprofitable. Many reasons for that, not least the fact that the Government deliberately kept them going, with in some areas (like Nottinghamshire) big bonus schemes to keep the miners sweet whilst the coal stockpiles were built up in preparation for the strike. There is no question that the strike was political. There is no question that it was political on both sides and Scargill walked straight into the trap that had been set for him. The losers in the end? Certainly the Miners (despite Scargill pretending that it was a famous victory), and certainly the UK.
Yes coal was cheaper on the world market – but that was particularly the case in the period after 1989 when Poland, Ukraine and Russia were dumping coal on the market at any price they could get, to obtain hard currency. Don’t forget that in 1984/1985 there was very limited available capacity to import coal. The big import terminal at Immingham was still only a pipe dream.
But it was inept (privatised) management that entered into long term coal supply contracts with the Generators when the world market price was at an all time low.
You should check out the world price now and compare it with the indigenous price! And when the remnants of the UK industry go down the tube, what do you think the price of coal will be then?
Wil says:
June 13, 2011 at 8:25 am
It matters little what tallbloke or any of us say here or who we blame years ago – the FACT is a shot has been fired across the bow in Britain. The competitiveness of any company whether it is in Britain/North America/China lies in its ability to compete on a global scale in today’s world. At the heart of today’s businesses energy is the driving factor along with labor costs – when combining the two China and India are head and shoulders above the pack.
==================================================================================
Your comments on NAFTA are spot on. Cheap reliable energy is the only solution to global competition. And, as you point out, the trade arrangements are harmful. While there are parallels to the U.K.’s and U.S.’s economic predicaments, the situations are not entirely the same. I’ve long been an advocate of not competing in the global markets, or more accurately selectively competing. I’m not sure that the U.K. has the raw resources to be able to make that decision. The U.S. does.
We don’t need to compete with China and India or any other cheap labor country. We choose to. The U.S. can turn our economy around on a whim. It simply takes the populace to have the fortitude to say “enough”. We’ve got everything here we need, (though we may still have to import fuel) if we decided to, we could increase production so as to decrease the price of oil significantly world wide. If we chose to start opening energy plants using coal and nuclear as fuels, the cost would go down and reliability would go up. More, if we were to mandate the materials used in increasing our fuel and energy output were to be only from U.S. providers, we would be essentially done in turning our economic woes around. Yes, we would have to rescind NAFTA and other like treaties and withdraw from the WTO, but I see these as positive steps. To steal from a great singer/song writer born of the U.K. Imagine the resurgence of the steel mills of the rust belt! Imagine the jobs and prosperity it would create! Imagine the deficit reduction! Imagine!
Here in Canada Prime Minister Steven Harper is slowly dropping this AGW BS. Through his leadership Canada may have the most stable economy in the world today, and he has a majority government for the next 4 years.
Now in the province of BC we have a wingnut government that has given us carbon tax and has the ear of David Suzuki and Andrew Weaver who are both residents. Think of BC as Canada’s version of Caflifornia.
As a person who worked on the shop floor of British industry during the period Tallbloke refers to, I have different perceptions from his and I’d be happy to debate the politics of that period with him, but WUWT is not the appropriate place to do so. Let’s stick to science and related issues.
“The union members knew this and were trying to head her off at the pass when she put army personnel into police uniforms to beat the crap out of them. I know. I was there.” TB
I’ve never seen unions endeavor to do anything that wasn’t in their immediate self serving interest. Sorry that I cannot share in your praise for the Beneficence of labor unions. They cause more harm than good in this era. Some union thugs ought to have their violent tactics turned on them in kind.
Justa Joe says:
June 13, 2011 at 10:00 am
Some union thugs ought to have their violent tactics turned on them in kind.
You are of course entitled to your opinion. In my experience, most union members are neither thugs nor violent.
Oxonpool says:
June 13, 2011 at 9:54 am
As a person who worked on the shop floor of British industry during the period Tallbloke refers to, I have different perceptions from his and I’d be happy to debate the politics of that period with him, but WUWT is not the appropriate place to do so.
Fair enough. Thanks for allowing me a little steamoff.
AGW #!!//???? ##$**7 $**7 \8C*
Britain is travelling, no! – Britain is tumbling – down the s&&7e chute to oblivion and our Politicians are blithely…..or is it callously unseeing – “there’s a world to save don-cha know dear thing!?”.
But Camoron’s wife’s dad is making money, so too his bestist Cleggover [ mate?] coalition pal…. who’s wife works in a related industry [windmills and boondoggles]- conflict of interest? You Bet!
Do they care? Not much, money is all and the taxpayer can go and ‘cast his seed’ off.
@jonjermey says: June 13, 2011 at 1:23 am
How on earth could the opinion of “Steven Weinberg” about religion possibly have any meaning past the inane? Why would we take the opinion of rock stars and scientists seriously outside there area of expertise?
What we have to look forward to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week
@James Baldwin Sexton
I read the otiose, patronising garbage you posted but I’ve no idea what point you are trying to make re your reply to my post.
Prolixity is no substitute for being incisive.
Apparently tallbloke is a moderator here, at least so it has informed me. I thought that any individual given that responsibility would see the benefit to this blog of refraining from posting its political prejudice. Is going off topic not against the rules because that is what it did?
I will be succinct, James. My point was valid yours is incoherent. After all, I did upset tallbloke.
On a somewhat related note a new study from the UK suggests electric cars provide little to no improvement in CO2 emissions when all factors, including manufacturing and recycling the batteries, are included in the calculation
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/electric-cars-may-not-be-so-green-after-all-says-british-study/story-e6frg8y6-1226073103576
Of course the Obama administration has funneled close to a $trillion to two electric car companies who, if they are successful, will produce most of their cars elsewhere and will price them so that any subsidies given to their customers will only go to those who already wealthy.
Epigenes says:
June 13, 2011 at 11:56 am
Apparently tallbloke is a moderator here, at least so it has informed me. I thought that any individual given that responsibility would see the benefit to this blog of refraining from posting its political prejudice. Is going off topic not against the rules because that is what it did?
I will be succinct, James. My point was valid yours is incoherent. After all, I did upset tallbloke.
I get more upsetting things free with my cereal Epigenes. And unlike other blogs, people are free to express their opinions here, moderator or not. My personal politics doesn’t interfere with my objectivity when deciding whether to approve the posts of others, so what is your beef? That I was “off topic”?
Considering the way the CBI cuddled up to the Tories in the past, I hardly think pointing out the Tory party obsession with AGW Greenness is off topic. Nor is the fact that Mater Thatcher started the whole scam.
Epigenes says:
June 13, 2011 at 11:56 am
“Apparently tallbloke is a moderator here,..”
I too find it most disappointing that this thread rapidly degenerated into UK tribal politics, mainly left wing in nature, excoriating a leader deposed in 1990, for the past decade of legislation for the abatement of CO2.
It is also regretable that a moderator should indulge in vitriolic participation rather than moderation from a position of benign neutrality.
The interpretations of history voiced here are both facile and blinkered by class. The realities under which policy was formed are not revealed until many years after the event, when the constraints at the time upon the “Party de jour” are released.
Since all three UK parties have been avid adherents to the AGW nonsense, vying with each other for a seat on the right hand of Gaia for decades, it seems somewhat invidious to differentiate between them, and in so doing diminish WUWT
The vast majority of companies that moved to Mexico following NAFTA had already made the decision to leave the US. The only difference NAFTA made was that the moved to Mexico instead of India or S. Korea.
As to the claim that NAFTA destroyed us manufacturing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that US manufacturing today is larger than it was in the pre-NAFTA days. The difference is productivity. US ingenuity has made it possible for plants to make more stuff using less labor.
In most circles, increased productivity is considered a good thing, since it enables companies to make products for less, while paying their workers the same amount, and sometimes more.
Another point that many people forget, is that when consumers buy cheaper stuff from overseas, the money those consumers save doesn’t evaporate. They either save it (which enlarges the pool of money available for investing in new companies) or they spend it (which increases demand for other products, leading to increased employment in those other areas)
Trade doesn’t destroy jobs, it moves them around. This is painfull for those people who’s jobs are being replaced, but the policies needed to protect those jobs are even more painfull in the long run.
How quickly they forget.
“Britain, before Thatcher, was a country settling into its role as ”the sick man of Europe.” Its journalists and scholars had produced a shelf of books suggesting that the decline was terminal. Her election was a signal that the sick man wanted to survive.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/31/magazine/thatcher-s-capitalist-revolution.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
In Thatcher’s defense, pretty much everybody believed in AGW back then. The work debunking the myth didn’t start until years later.
I’ve been studying the labor movement for years, from what I’ve found the only people who were enriched by labor unions were the people running them. The long term affect has always been the same, they destroy the industries that host them. The only place where unions have been successfull in the longer term has been in state owned industries, where the power of the state can force people to pay for the union products, whether they want them or not, and the power of the state can prevent non-union companies from competing.
roger says:
June 13, 2011 at 1:32 pm
I too find it most disappointing that this thread rapidly degenerated into UK tribal politics, mainly left wing in nature, excoriating a leader deposed in 1990, for the past decade of legislation for the abatement of CO2.
It is also regretable that a moderator should indulge in vitriolic participation rather than moderation from a position of benign neutrality.
I was a participant here long before I was a moderator, and I moderate from a position of benign neutrality, and participate with the full vigour of my opinion. I have now ceased moderating on this thread since Epigenes and yourself have made an issue out of it.
The interpretations of history voiced here are both facile and blinkered by class. The realities under which policy was formed are not revealed until many years after the event, when the constraints at the time upon the “Party de jour” are released.
Yes, we’ll see how many more FOIA requests get turned down on spurious grounds. They work for me, and they will be answerable to the public as a whole for the corrupt conniving they have entered into with wind power producers among others.
Since all three UK parties have been avid adherents to the AGW nonsense, vying with each other for a seat on the right hand of Gaia for decades, it seems somewhat invidious to differentiate between them, and in so doing diminish WUWT
That’s a laugh. You don’t see strongly biased political opinion expressed here every day? You must be averting your gaze.
Sorry for putting up another comment, I was reminded of this point on another blog.
The problem lies in how our (US) govt defines what is and what isn’t a manufacturing job. It is defined based on the primary activity of the company that pays your checks.
Take for example an accountant who works for an auto company. Because auto companies engage in primarily manufacturing, everyone who works for that company, even the accountant, is counted as part of the manufacturing bucket.
Now let the auto company spin off it’s accounting dept into a subsidiary. That subsidiary does mostly accounting work. Accounting work is considered service industry.
Even though the accountant in question works at the same desk, for the same boss, doing the same work, according to the govt he is no longer counted as a manufacturing industry worker, but is now a service industry worker.
Remember that when people talk about the decline of manufacturing workers in the US.
(This kind of divestiture was a big deal during most of the 80’s and 90’s, as large corporations spun off divisions that they had bought earlier in order to get back to their core competancies.)
Mark Wilson says:
June 13, 2011 at 1:51 pm
In Thatcher’s defense, pretty much everybody believed in AGW back then. The work debunking the myth didn’t start until years later.
According to ‘the great global warming swindle’ documentary linked above, She went to the Royal Society and said,” There’s money on the table if you can prove this stuff”. Which of course, they did. After all, the head of the Royal Soc dined at the same club as the top Tories. Even after (according to Lawson) the secret report said “All clear, nothing to worry about”, Thatcher still carried on the charade at the UNFCC gigs, revelling in her domination afforded by her chemistry degree. IMO she was a megalomaniac loon, desperate to stay important, so glossed over the correct scientific advice.
The revisionism going on to exonerate her and the excuses being provided why we shouldn’t be told until many years later as roger advocates are laughable.
Wriggle wriggle.
This is an interesting series of comments on the history of business, government, and labor relations in the UK. Now can we get back to the important business of how the arrange the deck chairs?
The Titanic was a British ship, was it not?
Tallbloke, thx for your response.
I dispute that you are being objective and I also consider that you are factually wrong. Mrs Thatcher ordered an investigation into AGW, as she was obliged to do, but ultimately rejected it. She lost power shortly after this and the scam was taken up by her successors. Her rejection was based on her scientific intuition as a research chemist.
There really is a rogues gallery of politicians out there more worthy of criticism than Mrs Thatcher in this matter and you know their names as well as I do. Not one of them has a scintilla of scientific intuition, or undertaken any training in science, but they are knowingly peddling lies and propaganda.
My last post on this.
nc says: June 13, 2011 at 9:49 am
[Here in Canada Prime Minister Steven Harper is slowly dropping this AGW BS.]
nc, these quote go back more than a decade. He is not dropping it, he Never had it!
“Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.”
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.”
“Carbon dioxide which is a naturally occurring gas vital to the life cycles of this planet”
“This may be a lot of fun for a few scientific and environmental elites in Ottawa, but ordinary Canadians from coast to coast will not put up with what this will do to their economy and lifestyle”
“We can debate whether or not… CO₂ does or does not contribute to global warming. I think the jury is out.”
“My party’s position on the Kyoto Protocol is clear and has been for a long time. We will oppose ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and its targets. We will work with the provinces and others to discourage the implementation of those targets. And we will rescind the targets when we have the opportunity to do so”
With sane government, inexpensive energy, low taxes, stable banks, educated workforce, declining unemployment, increasing manufacturing and practically unlimited natural resources, Canada is in good shape.
Growth requires cheep energy and a working banking system, the people will do the rest on their own.