Claim: An increase of 3.5°C will result in crippling the EU

From the European Commission Joint Research Centre

New study quantifies the effects of climate change in Europe

If no further action is taken and global temperature increases by 3.5°C, climate damages in the EU could amount to at least €190 billion, a net welfare loss of 1.8% of its current GDP. Several weather-related extremes could roughly double their average frequency. As a consequence, heat-related deaths could reach about 200 000, the cost of river flood damages could exceed €10 billion and 8000 km2 of forest could burn in southern Europe. The number of people affected by droughts could increase by a factor of seven and coastal damage, due to sea-level rise, could more than triple. These economic assessments are based on scenarios where the climate expected by the end of the century (2080s) occurs in the current population and economic landscape.

These are just some of the findings of a new report by the European Commission’s in-house science service, the Joint Research Centre, which has analysed the impacts of climate change in 9 different sectors: agriculture, river floods, coasts, tourism, energy, droughts, forest fires, transport infrastructure and human health. The report also includes a pilot study on habitat suitability of forest tree species.

Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Action said: “No action is clearly the most expensive solution of all. Why pay for the damages when we can invest in reducing our climate impacts and becoming a competitive low-carbon economy? Taking action and taking a decision on the 2030 climate and energy framework in October, will bring us just there and make Europe ready for the fight against climate change.

Expected biophysical impacts (such as agriculture yields, river floods, transport infrastructure losses) have been integrated into an economic model in order to assess the implications in terms of household welfare. Premature mortality accounts for more than half of the overall welfare losses (€120 billion), followed by impacts on coasts (€42 billion) and agriculture (€18 billion).

The results also confirm the geographically unbalanced distribution of climate change related damages. For the purpose of this study, the European Union is divided into 5 regions. What the study identifies as southern Europe and central Europe south (see background for details) would bear most of the burden (- 70%), whereas the northern Europe region would experience the lowest welfare losses (- 1%), followed by the UK and Ireland region (- 5%) and central Europe North (- 24%).

However, the report also shows that welfare impacts in one region would have transboundary effects elsewhere. For example, the welfare loss due to sea level rise in the central Europe North region or to the agricultural losses in southern Europe would have a spill over effect on the whole Europe due to economic interlinkages.

These results relate to no action taken to mitigate global warming. The project also looks at the scenario where strong greenhouse gas reduction policies are implemented and temperature rise is kept below 2 degrees Celsius (the current international target). In this case, impacts of climate change would reduce by €60 billion, a 30% decrease. In addition, some significant biophysical impacts would be substantially reduced: the increased burned area would halve and 23 000 annual heat-related deaths would be spared.

This considered, further effects should be taken into account when assessing the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, not modelled in PESETA II. Firstly, there would be a reduced risk of fundamental impacts due to extremes and abrupt climate change. Secondly, there would be benefits associated with lower EU energy imports, as a 2°C scenario would lead to a substantial reduction in net energy imports in the EU. Thirdly, the additional benefits due to lower air pollution of the 2°C scenario can be also very large. Last but not least, the difference in impacts between the Reference simulation and the 2°C scenario would get bigger as time passes beyond 2100.

If future population and economic growth projections would be taken into account, the negative effects would multiply. The study simulated this for the impacts of river floods and results show that they could multiply tenfold.

 

###

 

Background

The PESETA I (2009) and PESETA II (Projection of Economic impacts of climate change in Sectors of the EU based on bottom-up Analysis) studies investigate the sectoral and regional patterns of climate change impacts across Europe.

The research integrates what is known on climate impacts in the various natural science disciplines into the economic analysis. It takes into consideration current projections on estimated CO2 emissions, the potential range of climate variations (temperature, rain, wind, solar radiation, air humidity) and the biophysical impacts (agriculture yields, river floods, and transport infrastructure losses) to assess the economic burden of potential climate scenarios.

The project covers the climate impacts over the period 2071-2100, compared to 1961-1990 and considers climate impacts in five large EU regions: northern Europe (Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Denmark), UK & Ireland (UK and Ireland), central Europe North (Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, and Poland), central Europe South (France, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, and Romania), and southern Europe (Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, and Bulgaria).

Although the coverage of impacts is broad, it should be stressed that the study underestimates climate damages in Europe for a number of reasons. For instance, the coverage of climate extremes effects is limited; some impacts such as damages to biodiversity or ecosystem losses cannot be monetised and have therefore not be considered when calculating the welfare loss. Last but not least, abrupt climate change or the consequences of passing climate tipping points (such as the Arctic sea-ice melting) are not integrated in the analysis.

Links:

News release: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/jrc_20140625_newsrelease_climate-change_en.pdf

Climate Impacts in Europe. The JRC PESETA II project: http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=7181

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Vieras

This is what happens when you give too much power to environmentalists. The odds of that report being right in its predictions are nil but still all the politicians and bureocrats are going to dance to it. Europe is in such a sorry state that it makes me weep 🙁

Chip

Why do in get the impression that they took the most extreme, least data-supported predictions and tallied them up without offsetting any benefits.
For example, heat deaths will increase, but any reference to deaths from cold, which today kills far more people than heat?
And there will be costs from both more flooding AND more drought. Leaving aside how both these occur, did they offset the benefit of increased water against the cost of less water, or vice versa?
Or is it just scary costs from beginning to end?

AleaJactaEst

In the first paragraph alone there are six “coulds” Not one statement based on fact and one major statement “These results relate to no action taken to mitigate global warming” that has been proven to be false over a 17 year period of reality. They just can’t help themselves can they? I’m coining a new Climate Craziness diagnosis”Saurez Psychosis” or an abstract urge to bite off more Climate Hysterics than you can chew 🙂

Soarer

So we lose 1.8% of GDP when temps are up 3.5C – in what, 200 years?
Seems a lot better, even if true, than crippling our economies now, doesn’t it?

Telboy

Yet another extrusion from the Ministry of Truth along the lines of “The sky is falling, give us all your money and we will save you.”

Dr. Paul Mackey

Pure propaganda. It is the Weapons of Mass Destruction Dossier all over again. Fabricate the “evidence” to support your own kind of facism. We have see this kind of thing in Europe before….unfortunately with dire consequences

Steve C

Compared with the damage the EU’s “climate” (and other) policies are already causing, you wouldn’t be able to see the “damaging” effects of a 3.5° temperature rise, even were it at all likely to happen.

bertief

As Steve C says, 1.8% GDP loss is, I suspect, rather less than the loss to GDP already of following insane environmentalist polices up until now. As for all the coulds, well we could all be wiped out by an asteroid strike.

Dr Burns

How does EU cope with summer now?

Geoff

Hmmm. I live in Brisbane, it’s at least 3.5 degrees warmer than Europe practically all the time. Have to say I haven’t noticed the disaster.

richard verney

When are they going to appreciate that there is no such thing as global warming. Even if one were to believe all the hype about CO2 and its warming effect, the fact is that warming is regional, not global.
The data (to the extent that one can rely upon it) clearly confirms that warming is regional with some areas of the globe warming, some not and some with slightly falling temperatures. In particular, the tropical region of the gobe has hardly warmed and the vast majority of the warming appears to have taken place in high latitudes.
It is regional variations that will determine what effect if any there is to a warming world. Of course, model;s appear incapable of predicting regional trends and this is one reason why warmists do not wish to discuss regional warming. Another being that we are all in it together. That is patently untrue. There will be winners and losers in warming world, and the crowd would be split by self interest if the warmist were to concede that climate is a regional not gobal affair.
The fact is that if the world were to warm by 3.5degC, a highly unlikely event if CO2 is the only significant driver, southern europe will not sustain a warming of 3.5 degC. Further the seas in Southern Europe are ‘closed’ so sea level rise will be muted. Further still, much of Southern Europe does not have a low lying coast so again sea level rise will not be that much of a problem where coast line rises cliff like out of the sea.
High latitude Northern Europe would no doubt benefit from a temperature rise. To put in perspective Spain is about 10 degC hotter than England. If the islands and Highlands of Scotland were to see a 4 degC warming, this would greatly benfit their farming and tourism. One of the main holiday destinations and retirement destinations for the British is Spain and the southern Med countries. It would be a godsend for high latitude Northern germany, Denmark the Scandinavian countries and the UK to see their temperatures increase by 4 to 5 deg C. France may lose some wine growing, but this would be offset by wine growing in the UK, Germany and ho knows even Denmark.
One of the main failings with these types of claims is that unless ocean temperatures significantly increase, and it takes a lot more energy and time to increase ocean temperatures, the temperature of the oceans will keep down nearby land temperatures. The other main failing is the failure to appreciate that the warming is predominantly an increase in nighttime lows, and milder winter temperatures. The temperature data (I know that it is not particulalrly reliable) suggests that day time highs are not increasing at the same rate.
The devil is in the detail and until one can model on a regional basis temperature response, no one can identify what problems and what benefits will follow. But don’t trust anything that the EU says, it is run by incompetents with a left wing champagne socialist agenda who are completely divorced from the real world and the beliefs and needs of the citizens that make up the various european countries.

Stephen Richards

I wonder how many people at this ‘centre’ are greenpiss, wwf, foe members.
Bertram Felden says:
June 26, 2014 at 12:46 am
As Steve C says, 1.8% GDP loss is, I suspect, rather less than the loss to GDP
It is approaching the 1.8% and will reach it over the next 5 yrs. France, if she carries out the Royal proposition will be following the greeks while the other peripheries will decide whether or not they want to follow this band of loonies. Either way a serious problem will arise in europe over the next decade. Germany will be alright because they will just do what is necessary but having said that their major industries appear to be moving to the US in large quantities. VW’s biggest factory is now in the US. That surely would not have happened if the loonies were not in charge.
My neighbours (france) all say the Royal proposition will fail to be passed but I’m not so sure. There are fewer politicians more stupid than the french and those that are not are not far off.
We live in interesting times.

cnxtim

I am intrigued that such a large grouping (0 ~ 97%) of scientists can only come up with one outcome for the advent for the theory of AGW.
It defies all reason that there can only be one outcome for an increase in global temperature.
Therefore I propose 2 new categories are added; “Neutral” and Benign”.
Given that the IPCC and the rest of the warmist mob are sure “the science is in”.and since NB should only increase the number of papers published by around 3% so it’s not such a burden for the readers and taxpayers to absorb.

David

If that’s all it would take to destroy the EU, GREAT!!!!! Now we know why China is building all those coal fired power stations.

yendor

Your biggest recent disaster in Brisbane was all about climate change!
Your pollies were so sure of running out of water because of climate change that they left no headroom in Wivenhoe Dam to take up the flood water (that was never going to come again!)
Oh, yeah, that wasn’t about climate change that was about stupidity!

bushbunny

Let’s face the only people who believe the IPCC, are those that could benefit from the Climate Change Fund. Anyway, it is freezing here only 10C in the house. I don’t heat it either but for my electric blanket and I am now off to watch TV with my dogs. Yer gotta acclimatize and adapt folks, to save money on heating.

Goldie

Yup, I’m in Perth WA, its now officially winter and we reached a maximum of 20.6 degC. Todays summer forecast for London is 23 degrees. I seriously have to wonder if these people ever take a walk outdoors and I do not believe for one moment that their forecast is correct.
“If Ifs and buts were candy and nuts we’d all have a Merry Christmas” – Sheldon Cooper: a fictional physicist who still manages to makes more sense than this.

Billy Liar

The biggest climate related disaster possible in Europe has already happened – Connie Hedegaard in the European Commission wasting European tax payers money on pointless speculation.

Ivor Ward

I can’t see the word “COLLAPSE” anywhere in the report. Did they not get the memo?

Paul Nottingham

Unfortunately Connie Hedegaard is a zealot who thinks that even if the science is wrong it’s a good idea to wreck the economies of the EU.
She does have an impressive science education, a Masters degree in Literature and History from University of Copenhagen where she doubtless made an extensive study of fairy tales.
Since that time she has had an impressive CV:
Current duties
• European Commissioner for Climate Action as from 2010
Political career
• Minister for The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen 2009.
• 2007 – 2009: Minister of Climate and Energy
• 2008 – 2009: Member of The Danish Governments Coordination Committee
• 2004 – 2007: Minister for Environment, 2005 – 2007 also Minister for Nordic
Cooperation
• 1984 – 1990 and 2005-2009: Member of Parliament, the Conservative Peoples Party.
Professional career
• 1998 – 2004: Anchor at current affairs magazine “Deadline” on DR2, Danish
Broadcasting Corporation
• 1998 – 2004: Columnist at Danish national newspaper “Politiken”.
• 1994 – 1998: Head of News Bulletin Service, Radioavisen, at the Danish Broadcasting
Corporation
• 1990 – 1994: Journalist at Danish national newspaper ”Berlingske Tidende”.
I think that those of us who live in Europe can rest assured we’re in safe hands.

Even in the terms of the report, what an absolute nonsense. The northern half of Europe is the economic powerhouse – Britain, France, Germany, the Baltic States. So if they are hardly touched, its difficult to see how the EU could count climate change as a significant challenge.

richardscourtney

Eric Worrall:
At June 26, 2014 at 2:17 am

Even in the terms of the report, what an absolute nonsense. The northern half of Europe is the economic powerhouse – Britain, France, Germany, the Baltic States. So if they are hardly touched, its difficult to see how the EU could count climate change as a significant challenge.

True. But the main assertion of the report is even more extreme “nonsense”.
The EU is a region, and you mention a region of that region. But the report discusses a global effect. Its main point is

If no further action is taken and global temperature increases by 3.5°C, climate damages in the EU could amount to at least €190 billion, a net welfare loss of 1.8% of its current GDP.

Somebody should tell them that global temperature increases by 3.8°C (and falls by the same amount) during each year, but nobody notices.
Richard

M Seward

Yeah, yeah, but they’re just taking the PESETA out of the EU.

Dave Wendt

I continue to be amazed that these alarmist clucks can be so oblivious to the fundamental economic principle of opportunity cost. Opportunity costs arise because, although wealth is not really limited, at least potentially, at any given point in time it is fixed and when we select to invest in one thing we are incurring the cost of all the things we might have invested in which may have been more productive.
Although I have used the example of Warren Buffett’s purchase of Berkshire Hathaway to illustrate this principle several times in the past, I haven’t found a better one so I’ll use it again. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire_Hathaway
“…In 1962, Warren Buffett began buying stock in Berkshire Hathaway after noticing a pattern in the price direction of its stock whenever the company closed a mill. Eventually, Buffett acknowledged that the textile business was waning and the company’s financial situation was not going to improve. In 1964, Stanton made an oral tender offer of $111⁄2 per share for the company to buy back Buffett’s shares. Buffett agreed to the deal. A few weeks later, Warren Buffett received the tender offer in writing, but the tender offer was for only $113⁄8. Buffett later admitted that this lower, undercutting offer made him angry.[7] Instead of selling at the slightly lower price, Buffett decided to buy more of the stock to take control of the company and fire Stanton (which he did). However, this put Buffett in a situation where he was now majority owner of a textile business that was failing. …”
“In 2010, Buffett claimed that purchasing Berkshire Hathaway was the biggest investment mistake he had ever made, and claimed that it had denied him compounded investment returns of about $200 billion over the subsequent 45 years.[7] Buffett claimed that had he invested that money directly in insurance businesses instead of buying out Berkshire Hathaway (due to what he perceived as a slight by an individual), those investments would have paid off several hundredfold.”
In other words a capital misallocation of less than $25 million had over 45 years compounded to a $200 BILLION loss of earnings. It is difficult to find on hard numbers on the amount of capital and R&D that has been ratholed on this climate farce over the last couple of decades, but I would suggest a $Trillion would likely be a conservative estimate. If you apply the ratios from the Buffett example and allow for the nearly double timescale to the turn of the next millenium we are talking of foregone wealth for the world on the order of tens of Quadrillions and maybe Quintillions
Now, since even the most ardent promoters of all these detrimental and deleterious “solutions” to CAGW generally admit that none of them will have any effect which will even be measurable, it appears Monckton is entirely correct in saying that the premium for the insurance far exceeds any possible payout and the couple hundred billion euros mentioned wouldn’t even be rounding error.

Chris Wright

This is presumably the same Connie Hedegaard who not long ago said that the science didn’t matter, they’d do the same irrespective of the science.
These morons are below contempt.
The EU is obviously a lost cause. The sooner Britain can get out of the wretched thing, the better.
Chris

DirkH

” to at least €190 billion, a net welfare loss of 1.8% of its current GDP. ”
So Kommissar Heedegard is tasked with creating 190 bn EUR supplementary debt a year to keep the debt currency Ponzi running (and making sure those 190 bn land in the right pockets).
Sounds like chump change to me. Chairsatan Bernanke printet 1 tn USD a year (and Chairsatan(*) Yellen will untaper pretty soon now). 1 tn EUR a year would sound about right given we have a higher population; 190bn is small.
(*) = As Satan, how do you put it, has the properties of both sexes, Chairsatan is the appropriate name for the chair of the Fed no matter the sex or gender.

michael hart

When a TV channel runs an advertisement for itself, does anybody pay much attention?

DirkH

Dr Burns says:
June 26, 2014 at 12:46 am
“How does EU cope with summer now?”
I think we abolished it. Looking out the window, lots of clouds.

njsnowfan

What IF it is the other way around. -3.5C instead of +3.5C.
Models are a joke and always predict warmer temps. Major Feed Back Issues.

Fox From Melbourne

I just had a look just to check. The last time that the worlds temperature was 3 degrees warm and so Europe’s was back in the Jurassic when the Co2 level was 1950ppm 7 times the per-industrial level. After that Co2 goes down to 6 times and the temperature goes up to 4 degrees. Wow the world and Europe must of ended millions of years goes if that’s right ha. Go figure ha. More alarmist bull dust.

Alan the Brit

Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Bullshit. Need I say more?

son of mulder

If the temperature rises by 3.5 deg C we Brits won’t need to fly to Southern Europe for our holidays. Instead we can stay at home and go the new Costa del Bridlington. Think of all the jet fuel savings.

pat

a reluctant Germany?
24 June: Reuters: Markus Wacket: Germany ups new green energy surcharge on industry to meet EU rules
Germany on Tuesday offered to change a planned reform of its renewable energy policy, trying to end a standoff with the European Commission over green power subsidies and to meet a deadline needed to secure rebates for German industry.
In an amended draft law seen by Reuters, the government proposed that German industrial companies producing their own electricity in new renewable energy or combined heat-power plants would pay a higher surcharge than previously planned.
Germany presented the changes after the Commission raised new sticking points on Monday, undoing what had appeared to be an agreed deal.
But Berlin indicated it would resist EU demands to exempt imported electricity from an energy surcharge…
German industry cannot apply for billions of euros of exemptions from the green energy surcharge if Berlin misses the deadline.
So far energy-intensive industries have been exempt from the surcharge, or have enjoyed large discounts, something they say they need to remain competitive…
“It would be a massive own goal in terms of industrial policy if politicians were to put a surcharge on own power production used by many sectors for decades,” German industry lobby BDI chief Markus Kerber said in a statement.
“That’s the opposite of protecting confidence. German industry needs absolute clarity and long-term security to plan.”…
Subsidized renewable energy, led by wind and solar power, have sparked a political debate in Germany over high prices for consumers, who pay mandatory charges for green energy.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/24/us-germany-energy-eu-idUKKBN0EZ1K520140624
want some light reading!
June 2014: World Bank: Climate-smart development : adding up the benefits of actions that help build prosperity, end poverty and combat climate change (Vol. 1 of 2) : Main report (English)
Abstract
This report describes efforts by the ClimateWorks Foundation and the World Bank to quantify the multiple economic, social, and environmental benefits associated with policies and projects to reduce emissions in select sectors and regions. This report describes efforts by the ClimateWorks Foundation and the World Bank to quantify the multiple economic, social, and environmental benefits associated with policies and projects to reduce emissions in select sectors and regions…
This report uses several case studies to demonstrate how to apply the analytical framework. Three simulated case studies analyzed the effects of key sector policies to determine the benefits realized in the United States, China, the European Union, India, Mexico, and Brazil. The sector policies include regulations, taxes, and incentives to stimulate a shift to clean transport, improved industrial energy efficiency, and more energy efficient buildings and appliances…
LINK TO 88 PAGE REPORT
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/06/19703432/

tango

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=sydney+desalination+plant&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ZvqrU7mwM4LEkwWak4GQDA&ved=0CD0QsAQ&biw=1301&bih=583 it was not going to rain in sydney again so they built a desalination plant an it has rained ever since two major floods , now the plant is a white elephant

ImranCan

Even their opening statement is illogical at best and possibly even grammatically flawed. “…… could be at least …. “. Either it could be … or it will be at least ….. What the hell does “it could be at least Euro 190 billion” mean ?

Ok, simple solution. Shut down all fossil fuel use. Just cut it off today.
Then see how much an impact on the economy will be.

Patrick

“philjourdan says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:03 am”
But but but…74% of the power Germany uses comes from renewables (Aparently, according to AGW supporters here in Aus – But I’ve never seen a wind powered 90Mw Bessemer converter driven by wind. Maybe they get all their steel from South Korea now?).

@Patrick – there does seem to be some disagreement over the percent of power due to renewables in Germany. Of course the left is touting the 74%, but the engineering sites are touting “36%” by 2020. So who to believe?
Regardless, the challenge still stands. If it is 74%, then I am sure the Germans will suffer no ill effects of terminating all fossil fuel generated power.
I would think the alarmist would jump at the challenge. When no one dies in Germany in the next 100 years, they have proven their point.

knr

In more news Chicken little was revealed that the sky is still falling . While the ‘oh my god we are all going to die ‘research organisation have issued a report that if a 100 mile wide meteor hits the earth we are all ‘f**K’
Has for Connie Hedegaard , as a typical EU official they never let their total inability to be honest or right get in the way of making endless statements about what others should do. With a side order of hypocrisy highlighted by their clocking up the type of air miles other people would have to spend several lifetimes trying to get in anormal job. EU commissioners are ‘political appointments’ where ability has little impact, they have ‘no democratic mandate ‘ and are virtual ‘unshakable’ no matter how bad their personal corruption.

John

I imaging a decrease of 9.5C will do the same.

Berényi Péter

If no further action is taken and global temperature increases by 3.5°C, climate damages in the EU could amount to at least €190 billion, a net welfare loss of 1.8% of its current GDP.

Well, well, well. Average temperature in India is already at least 10°C higher than in Europe, still, people can not only manage, but rate of economic growth is 46 times higher there. Surely there must be other factors at work.

Dave

“If no further action is taken and global temperature increases by 3.5°C, climate damages in the EU could amount to at least €190 billion, a net welfare loss of 1.8% of its current GDP.”
Doesn’t this beg the question, if no further action is taken and the global temperature stays about the same, how much have we saved?
Isn’t the temperature increase in the original question just empty speculation based on nothing?

Patrick

Here in Aus where I live we can get changes from ~8c to ~48c, winter min summer max, every year. I am still here…Australia is still here and so too is the planet! Real bad news for the Greens.

Latitude

could amount to at least €190 billion…
That’s pocket change……..
I have a better one….electing morons to office could amount to at least $15 trillion

Bill Illis

US GDP fell by -2.9% in the first quarter of 2014.
The main explanation for this was the cold winter.
So here we have situation where cold causes economic decline and temperatures didn’t even go down by that much according to the NCDC.
I’ll take a warm -1.8% rather than a cold/non-cold -2.9% any time.

pat

many thanks to anthony, jo nova, bish, big mac et al. without your tireless efforts on behalf of the scientific method, we in australia – not just Liberals (Conservatives) – would not be celebrating tonite. take a bow:
26 June: SMH: Mark Kenny/Judith Ireland: Liberals celebrate as carbon tax repeal passes lower house
Just before the House adjourned on Thursday, there were jubilant scenes on the floor of the House of Representatives as the Coalition passed the carbon tax repeal bills for the second time.
The final vote went through on the voices after which Environment Minister Greg Hunt was embraced and high-fived by colleagues…
Prime Minister Tony Abbott was not present to see the repeal go through as he was attending a function out of Canberra…
The government’s carbon tax repeal bill will be voted on by the newly configured Senate as early as July 7, but more likely a week later on the 15th – due to Senate procedural rules – after Tony Abbott secured the final crossbench support from Clive Palmer’s Palmer United Party.
It will pass with the support of the Coalition, and most of the cross-bench independents and the PUP bloc which includes the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party’s senator-elect, Ricky Muir…
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/liberals-celebrate-as-carbon-tax-repeal-passes-lower-house-20140626-3awd4.html
the fight is not completely over, but this is fantastic news nonetheless.

xyzzy11

tango says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:55 am
“it was not going to rain in sydney again so they built a desalination plant an it has rained ever since two major floods , now the plant is a white elephant”
Ditto for Melbourne – and are paying for the leftist (Labor) government’s stupidity, and will continue to do so for many years to come. I wish people would just read the green’s manifesto – no sensible person would ever vote for them, no matte how bad the alternatives.

MarkW

Notice the slight of hand being pulled here. They have taken the most extreme scenario, the one with by far the most absurd base assumptions, and now they are assuming it will come true.
Why not assume that the other extreme will be the one that happens, the one that results in about 0.2C of warming?

arfurhaddon

“If…, …could…, …could…, …could…, …could…, …could…, …could…, …expected…” and that’s just the first paragraph.
How much did this piece of garbage cost the EU taxpayer.

The EU doesn’t need climate change to cripple ithe EU, it is doing a good enough job on its own!
Last summer it was reported that Marbella had enough water, even if there was no rain at all to last until summer 2015 without any restrictions. The desalination plant that was built down the road from us, to my lknowledge, has never been used.
The whole scenario is alarmist, fictitious, b******t!

Stacey

If no further action is taken………..
If my auntie had testicles she’d be my uncle?
The only serious flooding we will suffer in europe is from the overflowing of the green gravy trains.