From Dr. Beny Peiser at The GWPF
Industry Warns EU Climate Laws Are Squashing Economic Recovery
Fears are growing in Brussels that climate policy could become a political football in any referendum on EU membership, following British Prime Minister David Cameron’s declaration of intent to hold an in/out poll. Climate change policy could be “one of the victims” of the disruption accompanying a UK withdrawal from Europe. —EurActiv, 24 January 2013
Taken as a whole, Europe’s share of world output is projected to fall by almost a third in the next two decades. This is the competitiveness challenge – and much of our weakness in meeting it is self-inflicted… The biggest danger to the European Union comes not from those who advocate change, but from those who denounce new thinking as heresy. In its long history Europe has experience of heretics who turned out to have a point. –David Cameron, London 23 January 2013
Europe’s heavy industries claim to be unfairly hit by rising energy prices caused by the EU’s climate policies. A particular concern of energy-intensive industries like steel and chemicals is that EU policies on climate and energy have seen electricity suppliers passing on price increases to them. Energy prices rose 28% between 2003 and 2011. The European Steel Association, Eurofer, estimates the total cost to the steel industry of the ETS at between €11 billion to €15 billion. –Jeremy Fleming, EurActiv, 22 January 2013
Japan is likely to abandon an ambitious pledge to slash greenhouse gas emissions by a quarter, the top government spokesman said on Thursday. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s business-friendly Liberal Democratic Party ousted the Democratic Party in December elections after pledging to review the emissions cut target in light of the post-Fukushima switch to fossil fuels. —AFP, 24 January 2013
Statistically there has been no change in the average annual temperature of the globe since 1997 meaning that the standstill is now 16 years. The latest five-year average of Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4 data shows a decline for the first time. Can anyone now have any doubt that the recent warming standstill is a real event of crucial climatic importance? –David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 24 January 2013
Scientists analysing ancient ice samples say that the Greenland ice sheet withstood temperatures much higher than today’s for many thousands of years during a period of global warming more than 120,000 years ago, losing just a quarter of its mass. The Greenland ice was exposed to much greater heat for many thousands of years and lost only a quarter of its mass, so the models are evidently wrong and another IPCC doom warning has been consigned to the dustbin of history. –Lewis Page, The Register, 24 January 2013
In an unfolding plot that is part “The Sopranos,” part “An Inconvenient Truth,” authorities swept across Sicily last month in the latest wave of sting operations revealing years of deep infiltration into the renewable-energy sector by Italy’s rapidly modernizing crime families. The still-emerging links of the mafia to the once-booming wind and solar sector here are raising fresh questions about the use of government subsidies to fuel a shift toward cleaner energies, with critics claiming that huge state incentives created excessive profits for companies and a market bubble ripe for fraud. –Anthony Faiola, The Washington Post, 23 January 2012
Reports of the extinction of millions of species on Earth have been greatly exaggerated, a team of scientists has said. In the past scientists have warned that up to five per cent of species are at risk of dying-out as a result of climate change, deforestation and development. But a new analysis by the University of New Zealand found that this figure was five times greater than reality because the number of animals living in the wild in the first place had been over estimated. This meant that conservationists assumed that rates of decline were much faster, as they were starting from a higher point. –Louise Gray, The Daily Telegraph, 25 January 2013
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I, like many others, want the referendum NOW, so that we can vote out and get on with building trade links with countries like Brazil, China and India – as well as our Commonwealth partners. The UK is constrained in so many ways by the EU, and it is costing us millions every day. We need to get out as soon as possible, not wait until 2017! Even then that’s just the referendum date. No doubt there will be a long period where we have to extricate ourselves from the clawing fingers of the rest of the EU countries. I bet we’re still not out by 2020!
If the EU can stop European nations fighting each other as they have done so often in the past it should be preserved and reformed, because war is the ultimate international disaster for most of the population. The energy scam is gradually getting attention and so is the social legislation. We need cooperation, trade and common sense.
Kelvin “Are you sure they are not being driven by the UN?”
They might be influenced by the UN, but due to various treaties signed by various traitorous prime ministers, we are governed by laws created by unelected,,unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels.
The only way that a “one size fits all” economy can work in Europe,or anywhere for that matter, is to reduce each country to a state, with the sames currency, budgets, taxes etc. These states can make their own laws which are inconsequential to the overall economy. This works well in the US, but it cannot possibly work in Europe, for the simple reason that each European country hasi it’s own culture, history, and economic needs. It works in the US, because although it’s population is made up of people from different cultures and countries these people originally fought for independence from England in a new land and had to create a new system of government. This common purpose lead to individual cultures becoming secondary to the need for a democratic , functional government.
I am sure that if several thousand people from all over the world were to colonise a faraway planet, then the model for government would be that of the US,.
In Europe we had a system that has worked well for several hundred years, we don”t need or want to change. Supporters of the EU say thatt an EU superstate will prevent another European war. I would like to think that we have grown out of our need to attempt to conquer our neighbours. The age of fascism is fortunately over, I believe though it will return though, purely because members of the EU do not want their national identities to become secondary to the EU superstate.
The concept of the EU is a solution looking for a problem!
Davet916 says:
January 25, 2013 at 5:49 pm
Here in the US we call it ‘kicking the can down the road’. Is it called punting in the UK?
No, kicking the can works here too. Punting is what you do with a long pole and an implausibly odd shaped boat, mainly in Cambridge.
(We English NFL fans also know that it’s what Shane Lechler does, sadly all too frequently.)
“Scientists analysing ancient ice samples say that the Greenland ice sheet withstood temperatures much higher than today’s for many thousands of years during a period of global warming more than 120,000 years ago, losing just a quarter of its mass. The Greenland ice was exposed to much greater heat for many thousands of years and lost only a quarter of its mass, so the models are evidently wrong and another IPCC doom warning has been consigned to the dustbin of history.”
Yes, exactly. this was one of the first indicators of the scam. The AGW alarmists kept screaming about the Greenland ice sheet so I started doing my own research and found out that the AGW mob had withheld the fact that at their measured rate of decline it would take at least 800 years to completely melt, assuming no intervening period of re-freezing. The AGW mob “forgot” to mention that, and nobody in the MSM ever bothered checking the alarmists’ so-called “scientific” facts.
After that, I knew there was something rotten about the published version of climate science.
Can I just say….
LOVE the cartoon….!
Phil’s Dad says:
January 25, 2013 at 8:36 am
“Don’t hold your breath folks. In Out isn’t even on the cards unless the Conservatives win in 2015.”
They had better hurry up and create some conservatives then.
The reason for “Government” has been refined over the ages, but it is always the same. Build a military to defend yourself and/or build a military to attack other “Governments”. Without war, we would not need “Government”. Throughout the ages, “Governments support war” this furthers the growth of “Government”.
Since the Atomic Age started, War has become too big a risk for “Government” {Mutually assured destruction}. So “Government” found it was too dangerous to use war to expand {Atomic weapons landing on London, Wash. D.C., etc.} this might tend to reduce “Government” size.
So “Government” has become socialist, otherwise, why would we need it? Power to tax, make yourself indispensable by taking from one and giving to another.
At the UN level, isn’t this what “Climate Change” is all about? Take from the rich and give to the poor nations. But, be sure that the “Governments” grow!!!
The “Governments” thought they had a perfect reason for more growth, “Climate Change”. Too bad that the planet decided not to cooperate!
It is extremely unfortunate that “Climate Change” has failed, because now we are all back to war. First the economic world war, then second the military world war.
I suppose it’s only to be expected that the European Steel Association (representing Indian interests, mainly, I assume, these days) had
a) to exist;
b) to have a French name;
c) to have a French name which mentioned “iron”, but not “steel”
The French for “steel” is “acier”. “Fer” is “iron” – not quite the same thing.
I’m fairly happy that “Eurofer” is finally getting bolshie with Brussels, but the United Kingdom (where I live) would be a vastly happier place if neither the eu nor Eurofer actually existed.
Gareth Phillips says:
January 25, 2013 at 10:49 am
If the UK votes out, it’s highly likely that the Welsh, Scottish and Irish governments will opt out and decide to stay in. As rapidly evolving separate nations they don’t always vote in the same way as England, despite the continued fantasy that the UK equates to England. None of the devolved countries has ever come anywhere near voting for a Conservative administration.
===========
Bit off thread. Politics, but whatever.
Hmmmm.
Wales and [Northern] Ireland have Assemblies.
(Eire/Ireland/Southern Ireland – the 26 counties, if you like – is a completely separate nation)
Scotland has a Parliament, and a Government.
“The Scottish Government (Scottish Gaelic: Riaghaltas na h-Alba, Scots: Scots Govrenment) is the executive branch of the devolved government of Scotland. It is accountable to the Scottish Parliament.” This is extracted tonight from the absolutely peerless source Wikipedia on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_government
Would Scotland vote to leave the UK, and join/remainin/apply to join (the legalities are complex) the Eurofantasy?
If they thought they could get subsidy – probably. Very probably.
It’s not clear which Scvotland-based companies would relocate – and certainly it’s not clear where they might relocate to . . . .
North Sea Oil – Scottish; again, the Shetland may take issue, and become another English county.
And you claim: –
” None of the devolved countries has ever come anywhere near voting for a Conservative administration”
Hmmm, again.
In 1955 – again, thanks to the peerless Wikipedia: –
” With Church of Scotland membership reaching record levels, the 1955 election brought unparalleled success as the party gained 50.1% of the vote and 36 of the 71 seats at Westminster. Often cited as the only party to achieve a majority of the Scottish vote, it should be pointed out that 6 of the Conservative and Unionist MPs were returned that year under the label of ‘Liberal Unionist’ or ‘National Liberal’. And this apparent success was the prelude to a number of events that weakened the appeal of both the Scottish Unionist Party and the Scottish Conservative branch that followed.”
Talking of the Conservative’s sister party – the Unionist Party (Scotland), and from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionist_Party_(Scotland)#Electoral_record_and_the_1955_election
===
Oh and Patrick, the UK entered the EEC on 1st January 1973, [not ’74] as per Edward Heath’s agreement; Eire and Denmark entered on that day, too, but Norway – following a referendum – opted not to enter the EEC. [Not everyone calls him Traitor Heath – but some do.]
See Wikipedia about the Norway referendum, after “an overwhelming parliamentary majority in favour of joining the EEC in early 1972”: – go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway%E2%80%93European_Union_relations
– perhaps 20 or 25 percent down the page.
Auto [I just about remember the ’59 election – Supermac’s triumph]
Mr Green Genes,
Being from Oxford, I’d have said punting was mostly done there eckshully. Just saying.
The pledge to hold a referendum is based on two things. First, for the Conservative Party to win outright at the next election. Second, for them to keep to the promise – instead of watering down the question or doing a U-turn.
The reason for the pledge is purely political. The fourth largest party is UKIP, whose main platform is to exit the EU. Although in opinion polls they generally score under 10%, they mostly compete with Conservative voters. Grabbing this vote could make all the difference in a general election. On climate, UKIP are the only ones to oppose the climate change legislation. An exit from the EU does not mean the necessary repeal of EU legislation.
I think that your ‘headline’ is perhaps slightly OTT, without being absolutely wrong.
Britain has just opened the door at the highest levels of national politics for a multi-year debate on the pros and cons of EU membership, on the possibilities for reforming the EU now or in the medium-term future and the options open to it in the event that such reforms are either impossible or only cosmetic in nature.
There is a sizable body of people in the UK whose interests are served by EU membership, just as there are many others whose interests are compromised by such a membership. The owners of newspapers are unrepresentative of the nation in that regard, just as the political views of the majority of key players in the BBC is similarly unrepresentative, at least based on what they say on the TV.
There has been a cosy concensus amongst the three major political parties for 40 odd years as to EU membership, which include remunerative sinecures, past and present for major political players in all three major parties (Leon Brittan, Chris Patten, Peter Mandelson, Nick Clegg to name but four). One wonders what will happen to the pensions of those individuals if the EU were either to break up or see Britain leave?
There is a considerable amount of FDI invested in the UK manufacture/assembly base whose major initial purpose was to supply products to the EU single market. Those foreign investors are understandably surveying their options for managing such investments were the political status quo to come under threat. The decisions they eventually reach may vary, with some choosing to relocate to Eastern Europe, others expanding production to serve markets outside the EU and yet others merely choosing not to reinvest when the current investment reaches its natural endpoint. None of this is discussed in any detail in the UK MSM.
There is a very considerable disparity in views on the EU through the various regions of the UK. Those regions who received major EU funding for regeneration purposes (notably Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Merseyside, South Yorkshire and Cornwall) are understandably more in favour than regions who are in effect net contributors rather than beneficiaries (many parts of London, the SE and the East of England would come into that bracket). Nobody has, to my knowledge, actually done any detailed analysis to show how this breakdown exists in reality.
Clearly, the Climate Change Act was passed in the UK in response to EU directives and its abolition would be anathema to many wind farm investors and manna from heaven to heavy industry.
Many farmers receive benefits from the EU and are understandably anxious to know what economic conditions would exist for agriculture where the UK to withdraw. It is hardly likely that any UK government would wish to wipe out UK agriculture as that is tantamount to offering the world a free rein to blackmail us forevermore. It is, however, another issue which is brushed under the table.
The UK fishing waters, prior to joining the EU, afforded hundreds of thousands a sustainable economic industry which has been decimated by flagrant abuse of fishing rights by other European fleets. There is no question that the UK fishing industry would welcome a reintroduction of a 200 mile exclusion zone around UK coastlines, with fishing rights vested solely in those based in the UK or those who pay a license free from abroad to be our guests. It is not, however, an industry whose taxation receipts will solve HMG’s current deficit problems……..
Oh but there were a political WUWT in the UK to discuss all those political matters which are never to be discussed in the MSM…………
EU bashing seems to be “a la mode”. I don’t want to downsize the negative part of building something that has never existed before, a union of sovereign states , but… UK’s policy towards EU membership has to be clarified. We are at a crossroad, More political integration or back to a Common Market. UK is clearly in favour of option two, Germany France and seventeen other members in favour of option one. Until now UK has succeded at delaying all attempt to more integration. How long can this situation last ? This is no criticism to UK. Brits have a perfect right to stay out if they so wish, but no right at all to stop us from integrating.
As a joke for our US friends.You would probably be a little less patient with the Brits if UK was anchored a few miles away from Nantucket, and I’m sure a surprisingly high number or “Continentals” would gladly contribute to the towing away of the British Isles across the Atlantic. .
Dave promising to renegotiate the UK’s relationship in the EU? – Can’t happen. There is no legal basis in the treaty that allows for renegotiation – once you’re in, that’s it. The only way to change the relationship with the rest of the EU is to invoke Article 50 (the “We’re leaving” clause) and exit the EU. THEN it is possible to negotiate separate treaties on trade etc. not before .
Do not, under any circumstances that the UK will ever leave the European Soviet Union. As has been pointed out above, firstly, the Conservatives have to win the next election, 2015 (anniversary of Waterloo, anyone?) Secondly, the pledge has to be enforced. Consider, prior to the last election, Cameron gave a cast iron guarantee on a referendum re the E(S)U.
Next, consider if he does grant such a referendum. The last time there was a similar referendum was in 1975, after we had been taken into the then Common Market. At the time the BRITS were anti CM. The (labour) governemnt of the day gave equal amounts to both camps, the YES to remain in, the NO to leave. The YES camp was heavily backed by CM – they wanted our seas and oil, if nothing else. The NOs had to obtain their own extra funding. The YESs outspent by, I think, 10-1.
The BBC, that voice of truth and democracy, got reid of Jack de Manoi from the early morning news programme – TODAY. JdeM was anti CM….. They then had pro CM articles on that programme every day. Still do, really. The Times also had more pro CM letters printed, on the say-so of the editor.
On the last week of campaigning, the Labour government sent a letter to every household advising that it was in the country’s best interest to remain in!
Finally, MORI pollsters state that voters wish to appear positive. Therefore a question, like the one given, will give an extra 1% to the YES camp. Sorry folks, the UK is stuck with the corrupt European Soviet Union
Curious frenchman says: January 27, 2013 at 2:16 am
Germany France and seventeen other members in favour of option one.
============================
I would like to see a state by state poll of the citizens of these nineteen states- an honest poll, if there is such.
OldJim was on the money.
EU regulation is a sideshow compared to the legislation successive UK governments have imposed (e.g. Little Ed’s Climate Change Act) and are in the process of railroading through under a cloak of ‘greenery’ (Even Littler Ed’s current Energy Bill).
Setting targets to cut carbon harder and faster than our neighbours – the Carbon Price Floor, anyone? – and contracting to pay stupid money to ‘renewable’ energy providers (whether they provide it or not!, and don’t get me started on the nuclear price lock-in) look set to cripple UK industry and with it most of our chances of economic recovery in the foreseeable future.
Carbon taxes will take out most of our heavy engineering, steel, chemicals, etc., and domestic energy prices will go even further through the roof than they have already.
And all for what? “Eppur no si scalde”,…
(… or something like that – pardon my Italian!!)
The honorable gentleman writing under the name of Josef Adam-Smith gives a key to the UK/EU crisis. By repeatedly associating the adjective “soviet” with European Union, he demonstrates that the crisis is not a matter of reason but of guts. Therefore reasonably arguing with him is pointless. By the way, I thought that the commenting “etiquette” was clearly against name calling. But, as in many other domains, there must be an “exception” for the british gentlemen I am not aware of.
t
Sean says:
January 25, 2013 at 5:39 pm “Cameron is just another EUcrat and his father-in-law is a rent seeking windmill crook. The only reason he is talking this way now is because conservative voters are starting to get comfortable with voting UKIP in the next election and the rumblings in the back benches are calling for his head. His days are numbered along with his party.”
Nigel Farage has pointed out that not only will the in/out referendum be delayed for five years, it will also be “renegotiated” to appear as a market agreement (“Perhaps you can catch herrings”), and that is the same hook that was used to get membership in the EU in the first place! This is a slick offer, but thanks to the UKIP, there is now a national discussion. “The genie is out of the bottle, and it’s not going to be put back.”
mojo says: January 25, 2013 at 8:27 am
I thought the Pres. of Poland saying the Brits ought to be sent to the naughty country corner for even considering a referendum was fairly outrageous, considering the Brits are a net contributor to the EU costs where Poland is a net taker.”
True, typical of takers – they pitch a morality of sacrifice, and try to paint those who have as mean-spirited etc. for not sacrificing.
Not surprising in former USSR colonies,which had Marxism forced onto them. Marxism teaches fixed-pie economics, thus anyone who has more took it from someone else.
Cameron’s speech has good lines about freedom and that the EU should be a means to and end not an end in itself, but may have an erroneous assumption. (“A race for the wealth and jobs of the future.” may reflect a fixed pie view, or it may simply be saying that an efficient free EU will prosper.)
A fundamental point is “there is a growing frustration that the EU is seen as something that is done to people rather than acting on their behalf.”
And
“That means creating a leaner, less bureaucratic Union,… In a global race, can we really justify the huge number of expensive peripheral European institutions? Can we justify a Commission that gets ever larger?”
He’s really talking against a single central government full of rules and bureaucracy, he repeatedly mentions flexibility and open-ness. He is very strong on free trade within EU and without. He wants to rewrite some of the rules of the EU, apparently tying the IN-OUT referendum to a set of changes to be negotiated.
“People feel that the EU is heading in a direction that they never signed up to. They resent the interference in our national life by what they see as unnecessary rules and regulation. And they wonder what the point of it all is.”
“With courage and conviction I believe we can achieve a new settlement in which Britain can be comfortable and all our countries can thrive.
And when the referendum comes let me say now that if we can negotiate such an arrangement, I will campaign for it with all my heart and soul.
Because I believe something very deeply. That Britain’s national interest is best served in a flexible, adaptable and open European Union and that such a European Union is best with Britain in it.”
So for the most part this is a debate about central control versus independent countries agreeing to co-operate closely.
Three cheers for Mr.Keith Sketchely. Three cheers for setting the debate at the high level of what is at stakes. The point of vew he clearly and sensibly develops, is im my opinion the backbone of british thinking about Europe. If this gentleman allows me to rephrase him on a nutshell : EU should come back to what it was when UK voted in : a lean body of referees, facilitating free-trade among fully sovereign countries.
I hope I can as shortly express the other thesis. A difficult task since such a thing has never existed. The idea of European Union as I (a contiental ) see it hinges on a trade off. European nations will entrust “some” of their sovereign rights to a bigger body called EU, and in the process that body will gain wheigt against the big players USA China, India. There is definitely an idea of european identity behind that thesis. Refering to the cartoon introducing the topic, I would say I am not amused. Greece may by some aspects still be a developping country, suffer from appaling government, and be debt ridden, as a European I feel it needs help, not rotten apples thrown at its face. This means money transfer, net contributors and net receivers;
On the other hand, EU will never turn out to be a new USE. Luxembourg is not Delaware, altough both are tax heavens.
How much sovereigns rights ? We don’t know and nobody nows. Thre equlibrium will be arrived at through trial and errors (as usual).
I fully realise how alien this concept must be to Britsh people.
There is quite a sense of risk in trying to tighten EU. Will we succeed ? Shall we be crippeld by an ever growing administrative body ? Maimed by everlasting feuds between members ? I hope not.
As the french saying, says we are now in the middle of the ford. EU has to move out of it quickly, I feel very uncomfortable with the idea of having to wade until it pleases her Majesty’s government to gets its reckoning and set its course..