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.





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.


News release:

Climate Impacts in Europe. The JRC PESETA II project:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 26, 2014 12:12 am

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 🙁

June 26, 2014 12:13 am

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?

June 26, 2014 12:16 am

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 🙂

June 26, 2014 12:18 am

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?

June 26, 2014 12:20 am

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
June 26, 2014 12:37 am

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
June 26, 2014 12:40 am

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.

Bertram Felden
June 26, 2014 12:46 am

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
June 26, 2014 12:46 am

How does EU cope with summer now?

June 26, 2014 1:01 am

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
June 26, 2014 1:08 am

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
June 26, 2014 1:09 am

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.

June 26, 2014 1:14 am

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.

June 26, 2014 1:20 am

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.

June 26, 2014 1:23 am

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!

June 26, 2014 1:35 am

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.

June 26, 2014 1:43 am

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
June 26, 2014 1:45 am

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
June 26, 2014 2:08 am

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

Paul Nottingham
June 26, 2014 2:14 am

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
• 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
• 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.

June 26, 2014 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.

June 26, 2014 2:27 am

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.

M Seward
June 26, 2014 2:49 am

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

June 26, 2014 2:54 am

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
“…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
June 26, 2014 3:01 am

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.

June 26, 2014 3:11 am

” 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
June 26, 2014 3:14 am

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

June 26, 2014 3:22 am

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.

June 26, 2014 3:26 am

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.

Alan the Brit
June 26, 2014 3:26 am

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

Fox From Melbourne
June 26, 2014 3:26 am

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.

son of mulder
June 26, 2014 3:41 am

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.

June 26, 2014 3:47 am

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.
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)
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…

June 26, 2014 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

June 26, 2014 3:55 am

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 ?

June 26, 2014 4:03 am

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.

June 26, 2014 4:17 am

“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?).

Reply to  Patrick
June 27, 2014 6:38 am

@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.

June 26, 2014 4:21 am

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.

June 26, 2014 4:29 am

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

Berényi Péter
June 26, 2014 4:43 am

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.

June 26, 2014 4:56 am

“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?

June 26, 2014 4:58 am

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.

June 26, 2014 4:58 am

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
June 26, 2014 5:07 am

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.

June 26, 2014 5:11 am

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…
the fight is not completely over, but this is fantastic news nonetheless.

June 26, 2014 5:12 am

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.

June 26, 2014 5:15 am

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?

June 26, 2014 5:16 am

“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.

June 26, 2014 5:24 am

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!

June 26, 2014 5:25 am

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.

June 26, 2014 5:33 am

Bill Illis says:
June 26, 2014 at 5:07 am
Overhere in the Netherlands they claim that the shrinking of our economy was due to the mild winter.

Kevin Kilty
June 26, 2014 5:49 am

Some other weather related extremes will halve their frequency.

June 26, 2014 6:00 am

Propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less.

June 26, 2014 6:03 am

PS. Look how Connie Whatsername is ‘European Commissioner for Climate Action’. Not change, ‘Action’. Every step is designed to drive the agenda.

Jim Clarke
June 26, 2014 6:12 am

In light of this report, I strongly urge everyone in Europe to immediately begin doing at least a half hour of calisthenics and stretching, 4 times a week. Like the draconian plans for carbon mitigation, this will have absolutely no measurable impact on European climate. Unlike the draconian plans for carbon mitigation, it will not cripple the economy, but make everyone in Europe feel better about themselves and about life in general.

Coach Springer
June 26, 2014 6:41 am

From the misleading numbers settlement of science: Chicken Little quantifies the effects of the falling sky.

June 26, 2014 6:53 am

A shame the 3.5°C increase in temperature isn’t going to happen…

June 26, 2014 6:53 am

This sounds like the Copenhagen Diagnosis (remember that one?) on steroids.

June 26, 2014 7:09 am

It took zero degree change to get to the current status of crippled EU.

June 26, 2014 7:20 am

Too many “could”s and no facts. That’s the EU for you.

Jim Clarke
June 26, 2014 7:24 am

Let’s assume for a moment that pigs suddenly obtain the ability to fly. Now lets imagine the economic impact flying pigs will have on Europe. Such pigs will be difficult to contain. They could go anywhere and breed with wild abandon. Their impact on open agriculture would be profoundly negative. They would disrupt traffic on land and in the air. Dare we even consider the health and nuisance impacts of a plethora of unpredictable pig droppings? One shudders to even think about it.
It is not difficult to imagine nightmare scenarios developing from the assumption of flying pigs, but no one really cares about such scenarios because everyone knows that pigs cannot fly.
Now assume that Earth’s atmosphere always maintains a constant relative humidity. No matter what the climate or the temperature, the average relative humidity always, magically remains the same. Much like flying pigs, there is no evidence that this assumption is true, and ample evidence that it is false. Yet, the concept of constant relative humidity is a bit more difficult to understand than ‘…whether pigs have wings’! The average Joe, and even the average Joe-scientist, may be tempted to contemplate the possibility of constant relative humidity, simply because their ignorance of such things makes it seem more feasible.
Once the assumption of constant relative humidity is accepted, then it is easy to imagine the calamities that await society from a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The increase of 1 degree from the CO2 would be largely beneficial, but we can triple the temperature increase if we assume our magically constant relative humidity! Now we can come up with all kinds of terrible things for which there is no basis in reality. Since politicians, bureaucrats and environmentalists want scary stories, we can even make a good living writing such stories, giving ourselves impressive acronyms like PESETA.
To date, however, there is no more evidence for constant relative humidity than there is for flying pigs! The existence of either is equally unfounded. It is only the difference in our level of ignorance between flying pigs (virtually none) and constant relative humidity (almost universal) that allows us to be taken seriously when we write our doomsday fantasies about global warming.
You can all be thankful that you do not have to put up with the droppings of soaring swine, yet you will be unable to escape the crap that comes from the other fantasy.

June 26, 2014 7:36 am

If this report were to be issued in the private industry it would not get past the most basic review . The fundamental error is that it does not speak to all the critical climate risks that Europe may face . It is biased toward global warming only. There is an equal risk that global warming as described in the report will not happen in the short term (next 2-3 decades) nor in the long term ( 2070- 2100 and beyond ). There is observable evidence that instead of warming as predicted , the climate is now in a pause for 17 year . Peer reviewed papers by Wallace S. Brooker of Columbia University dated 1998 and called The End of the Present Inter glacial: How and When , stated that “ periods of extreme warmth appear to be roughly one half of a precession cycle (ie.aprox. 11,000 years . He also states that the current or latest warmth period is already 11,500 years . We could be living on borrowed time. This could dwarf the potential impact or risk from any warmth increase due to future co2 level increases. Instead of warning the people about global warming induced climate change, they should also be looking with equal detail on how Europe could survive a major cold cycle during the early phase of a glaciation period . Historical records show that the glaciation period once started drops temperatures quite quickly. The 2013/2014 winter in North America was just a forerunner of what may lie ahead . We may have 20-30 years of cold weather in the immediate future and by 2060-2100, we could equally have an entirely different ball game in the world to worry about and it may not be global warming . It reminds of the modified story of the boy crying wolf all the time and everyone focused on him only. No one noticed the bear that was lurking much closer in the bushes until it was too late .

June 26, 2014 7:48 am

During the Eemian interglacial, 125,000 years ago, Europe had quite the tropical climate. We can tell that it must have been disastrous for the people at the time since they must have all perished, having left no records at all. However, the Hippopotami thrived quite well in the European rivers.
(/extreme sarc)

Berényi Péter
June 26, 2014 7:50 am

@Jim Clarke June 26, 2014 at 6:12 am
Good idea. However, we need a High Commissioner for Calisthenics and Stretching to do that, don’t we? Along with a gazillion bureaucrats to do planning &. reporting, then distribute subsidies to kins.

June 26, 2014 7:53 am

It was also noted that a large meteor strike would do then any good either. Good grief. Given that there will not be any 3.5 degree C increase in the forseeable future, but that it is likely that there will be a decrease tell me why I should care.

June 26, 2014 8:01 am

Cow farts and human exhaling will kill the planet. These people should be locked in a padded room.

June 26, 2014 8:15 am

This climate report and others like this one speak to the heart of false climate science alarmism that is rampant to day .These alarmist climate science reports are meant to exaggerate and scare people. They do not highlight in the opening paragraph that some of these projections are worst case projections that may never happen. These qualifications never make the headlines or press releases .The rational world does not plan for the future based on worst case scenarios. We might as well all quit living if this was the case. We simply cannot afford to plan for worst case situations . The problem is that politicians take these worst case situations and make public policies and actions as if they were true.

June 26, 2014 8:48 am

I suggest taking their publicly available model (it is, isn’t it? [sarc off]) and loading it with the same economic input data drawn from 1934 as the base year and running it to see what the situation should be given the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming that has happened in the intervening 80 years and then comparing the results.

June 26, 2014 8:50 am

So they can’t open a window or turn up the air conditioning or take a dip if the temp goes up 3.5degrees? I’d far rather have to deal with that slight inconvenience than have to endure worsening negative temperatures in the winter…

Steve P
June 26, 2014 9:22 am

I think the EU should hold a referendum to favor or oppose said 3.5C increase.

June 26, 2014 10:16 am

That of course assumes there is something like the EU in 2100, that is hasn’t imploded under the load of population changes, unbearable debt, financial transfers from successful economies to unsuccessful ones and the path of the global economy. All of these are much more likely scenarios than a 3.5 degree warming.

June 26, 2014 10:29 am

Wow, that is dire. Good thing the warming has stopped and we are going back to the ice age ……

June 26, 2014 10:30 am

Stating the obvious again

Michael m.
June 26, 2014 11:31 am

in germany NOW we are paying round about 40 billion EUR / year because of the energiewende and to save the climate!
*EEG (renewable energy act): >20 billion EUR/ year
* other financial direct/indirect help and/or support for green research, buisiness…: 10 – 20 billion EUR / year
PS: sorry for bad english 😀

Alan Robertson
June 26, 2014 12:03 pm

Connie Hedegaard and the other EU Commissioners know that there is nothing factual about their report, but they offer it to provide cover for EU edicts which are sure to follow, edicts which will provide enormous additional wealth and power/control to a handful of individuals, while placing enormous burdens on everyone else. The top tier of elites do not care if they cause the destruction of Western economies, because faint challenge can be raised against them if everyone else is locked into survival mode. They will succeed for a time and then the guillotines will once again be widely employed.

June 26, 2014 12:18 pm

Europe has gone through such climate change before: the
Medieval Warming Period. It peaked with temperatures around
two degrees C or so warmer than now. The times were well
To see what will really happen should temperatures increase
as charged, all they have to do is consult the historic record.
Sure, the records are a thousand years old, but they are there!
If Dr Brian Fagan can find them and use them in his book “The
Great Warming,” then these so-called researchers should be
able to.
And until they do so consult, or read Fagan’s book, then anything
else is just so much irrelevant gum-bashing drivel.

June 26, 2014 12:54 pm

Europe could avoid an even bigger economic disaster simply by firing every bureaucrat in every EU office.

June 26, 2014 1:22 pm

Speculative drivel. This is climate comedy.

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……

Here is the disaster. It’s funny how tropical plants loved all that extra heat. Animals too apparently.

Carlos Jaramillo et. al – Science – 12 November 2010
Effects of Rapid Global Warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundary on Neotropical Vegetation
Temperatures in tropical regions are estimated to have increased by 3° to 5°C, compared with Late Paleocene values, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 56.3 million years ago) event. We investigated the tropical forest response to this rapid warming by evaluating the palynological record of three stratigraphic sections in eastern Colombia and western Venezuela. We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa, mostly angiosperms, added to the existing stock of low-diversity Paleocene flora. There is no evidence for enhanced aridity in the northern Neotropics. The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast to speculations that tropical ecosystems were severely compromised by heat stress.
doi: 10.1126/science.1193833
Carlos Jaramillo & Andrés Cárdenas – Annual Reviews – May 2013
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
Global Warming and Neotropical Rainforests: A Historical Perspective
There is concern over the future of the tropical rainforest (TRF) in the face of global warming. Will TRFs collapse? The fossil record can inform us about that. Our compilation of 5,998 empirical estimates of temperature over the past 120 Ma indicates that tropics have warmed as much as 7°C during both the mid-Cretaceous and the Paleogene. We analyzed the paleobotanical record of South America during the Paleogene and found that the TRF did not expand toward temperate latitudes during global warm events, even though temperatures were appropriate for doing so, suggesting that solar insolation can be a constraint on the distribution of the tropical biome. Rather, a novel biome, adapted to temperate latitudes with warm winters, developed south of the tropical zone. The TRF did not collapse during past warmings; on the contrary, its diversity increased. The increase in temperature seems to be a major driver in promoting diversity.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105403
PNAS – David R. Vieites – 2007
Rapid diversification and dispersal during periods of global warming by plethodontid salamanders
…Salamanders underwent rapid episodes of diversification and dispersal that coincided with major global warming events during the late Cretaceous and again during the Paleocene–Eocene thermal optimum. The major clades of plethodontids were established during these episodes, contemporaneously with similar phenomena in angiosperms, arthropods, birds, and mammals. Periods of global warming may have promoted diversification and both inter- and transcontinental dispersal in northern hemisphere salamanders…
ZHAO Yu-long et al – Advances in Earth Science – 2007
The impacts of the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM)event on earth surface cycles and its trigger mechanism
The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event is an abrupt climate change event that occurred at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary. The event led to a sudden reversal in ocean overturning along with an abrupt rise in sea surface salinity (SSSs) and atmospheric humidity. An unusual proliferation of biodiversity and productivity during the PETM is indicative of massive fertility increasing in both oceanic and terrestrial ecosystems. Global warming enabled the dispersal of low-latitude populations into mid-and high-latitude. Biological evolution also exhibited a dramatic pulse of change, including the first appearance of many important groups of ” modern” mammals (such as primates, artiodactyls, and perissodactyls) and the mass extinction of benlhic foraminifera…..
22(4) 341-349 DOI: ISSN: 1001-8166 CN: 62-1091/P
Systematics and Biodiversity – Volume 8, Issue 1, 2010
Kathy J. Willis et al
4 °C and beyond: what did this mean for biodiversity in the past?
How do the predicted climatic changes (IPCC, 2007) for the next century compare in magnitude and rate to those that Earth has previously encountered? Are there comparable intervals of rapid rates of temperature change, sea-level rise and levels of atmospheric CO2 that can be used as analogues to assess possible biotic responses to future change? Or are we stepping into the great unknown? This perspective article focuses on intervals in time in the fossil record when atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased up to 1200 ppmv, temperatures in mid- to high-latitudes increased by greater than 4 °C within 60 years, and sea levels rose by up to 3 m higher than present. For these intervals in time, case studies of past biotic responses are presented to demonstrate the scale and impact of the magnitude and rate of such climate changes on biodiversity. We argue that although the underlying mechanisms responsible for these past changes in climate were very different (i.e. natural processes rather than anthropogenic), the rates and magnitude of climate change are similar to those predicted for the future and therefore potentially relevant to understanding future biotic response. What emerges from these past records is evidence for rapid community turnover, migrations, development of novel ecosystems and thresholds from one stable ecosystem state to another, but there is very little evidence for broad-scale extinctions due to a warming world. Based on this evidence from the fossil record, we make four recommendations for future climate-change integrated conservation strategies.
DOI: 10.1080/14772000903495833

June 26, 2014 1:31 pm

What are the economic effects of fewer frost days, longer growing seasons, crops growing at higher latitudes and hot weather crops taking their place. What are the social an economic effects of few deaths due to hypothermia, lower heating bills.

Several weather-related extremes could roughly double their average frequency.

I see extreme weather. Why is an economic report telling us about future climate states? I am confused because I thought global warming meant less extreme weather due to the reduced temperature differentials. Here is what I mean.
Great storms of the Little Ice Age

June 26, 2014 2:11 pm

They said that global warming would be felt most at higher latitudes, in winter and at night. Yet 3.5C will devastate Europe by milder winters, fewer lost crops due to frosts etc.

June 26, 2014 2:43 pm

The big question is where are they going to find that 16 W/m^2 forcing and feedback to support a 3.5 deg C rise in T ? That is assuming the net negative feedback doesn’t increase the necessary power to even greater heights. After all, the co2 is only going to provide around 4 W/m^2 and the absolute humidity increase is going to be limited to somewhat less than that. Oh wait a moment, despite the warmists beloved venus with 100% cloud cover, Earth cannot have a cloud cover greater than the current 62% – and warming must reduce the cloud cover, just like cooling reduces the cloud cover. I guess otherwise their research grants get reduced to absolute zero. So more water vapor entering the air and rising to heights where clouds are formed means that we will have less clouds by a substantial amount. How about that – saved their bacon (or pork)

stas peterson
June 26, 2014 3:56 pm

None of these scientifically illiterate watermelon greens even can conceive of the certainty that by 2080 the World will get its electrical and other energy from clean, inexhaustible Fusion energy that powers the stars.
They all sound like the catastrophists that were predicting in 1900, that the horse manure would be 3 feet deep everywhere in New York City, and never seeing the coming of the auto which was then just around the corner.

June 26, 2014 4:06 pm

So-called Green movement groups are now pretty much parasites dealing only in politics and doing nothing of any significance for the environment.
Being paid money to write poorly thought out SF doomsday story plots is not science, not in the public interest, and is not even good SF.

June 26, 2014 9:26 pm

I thought the EU was doing a good job destroying themselves with wanky carbon trading etc.

June 26, 2014 9:50 pm

Let’s see… Man has burned through roughly 50% of the world’s fossil fuel reserves and only managed to increase CO2 levels from 280ppm to 400ppm.
Based on the empirical evidence and the physics, the added 3 watts/M^2 of logarithmic CO2 forcing has perhaps added 0.2C of the 0.75C total global warming experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850…
To get an additional 3.3C of warming by 2100, (3.5C – 0.2C), would require a warming trend of 0.38C/decade, every decade, for the next 8.6 decades….starting from….. tomorrow…
That seems a bit of stretch given the warming trend for the past decade has been -0.038C/decade…. and flat for the past 18 years (RSS data).
On top of that, the PDO entered its 30-yr cool cycle in 2005, and historically (at least for 6 out of 6 PDO cycles since 1850), the PDO has tracked the overall global warming/cooling trends perfectly, including the one we’re in now:
Soooo, assuming the current decadal trend of -0.038C/decade continues for another 2 decades, that would bring the global temp anomaly down another 0.076C by 2034, which would work out to be: 3.5C – 0.124 (0.2C -0.076C)/66 years (2100 – 2034) =+0.55C/decade trend required for the remaining 6.6 straight decades from 2034 to 2100 to reach this bogus 3.5C BS CO2 Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) projection…
Neither the +0.38C/decade (from now) nor the +0.55C/decade (from around 2034) seems even remotely given the obviously low CO2 sensitivity.
Lindzen Choi et al’s paper suggesting an ECS of roughly 0.5C looks to be by far the best estimate of CO2’s actual forcing effect, which not only isn’t a problem, the 40% increase in crop yields and forest growth from CO2 doubling to 560ppm is a multi-$trillion net benefit for humanity and the Earth’s environment in general.
About the ONLY ploy the CAGW advocates have left is to suddenly adopt the European Space Agency’s claim that atmospheric global temps are *lousy” indicators of CAGW and that “the oceans ate my Gloooooobal Waaaarming” (TM)… Oh, my…
I give this CAGW scam another 5 years of economic destruction before it’s laughed onto to trash heap of failed ideas.

June 26, 2014 9:59 pm

I laughed at that report let me show the cost estimates of tackling climate change where first discussed in 2009 and were put at €100 billion per year of which the Euro was expected to pay around a third. Reference (
Lets say you started next year and could actually stop paying in 2020 although that isn’t clear that you can turn off the payment. That is 5 years at €33 billion which gives you a total spend for Europe of €165 billion to save €190 billion in 2030.
May I be the first to suggest a much easier solution that any accountant would propose set aside €1 billion a year for each of the next 15 years and the cost of both situations is identical at 2030.
I know which I would select but hey in the world of stupidity and politics, common sense never comes into it. Hell you could go all out and set aside €2 billion per year and you are miles in front of either choice and probably gives you some money in the trough for all the corrupt politicians to stick there snouts in.

June 27, 2014 12:20 am

The EU is crippled already…

June 27, 2014 5:45 am

June 26, 2014 at 9:50 pm
Lindzen Choi et al’s paper suggesting an ECS of roughly 0.5C looks to be by far the best estimate of CO2′s actual forcing effect, which not only isn’t a problem, the 40% increase in crop yields and forest growth from CO2 doubling to 560ppm is a multi-$trillion net benefit for humanity and the Earth’s environment in general.

Of course it’s a problem! It’s devastating to the Malthusian left who think they need to exterminate 90% of humanity to protect themselves and their pals from disaster.

Gary Pearse
June 27, 2014 10:49 am

“Claim: An increase of 3.5°C will result in crippling the EU”
I’m going to guess that I’m not the first commenter to say its too late, the EU is already crippled. Germany will survive and the UK could if they aren’t totally bent on self destruction as they appear to be. Imagine telling Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland that “you COULD be crippled in the future”. I think it would be interpreted as ‘dead’ from their standpoint! With or without the rise of 3.5C the forecast is valid. With a decline in temperature… let’s not go there.
A note on the crises in Ukraine. Most see the issue as a freedom and self-determination one and of course everyone is jumping all over Russia. In practical terms to be free to become part of a bankrupting EU, surrendering your sovereingty to a Cominterm in Brussels and be under the rules governing marketing and appearance of asparagus (and thousands of other foodstuffs – see the bent banana regulation), decorating your landscape with windmills, opening your doors to massive immigration quotas…… is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. I would advise you to maintain your sovereingty against both sides if you can, but definitely look before you leap to socialist Europe – you only recently escaped that kind of horror.

June 27, 2014 11:08 am

The main thing crippling the EU is their slavish devotion to the rule book on all things. They are already losing entire industries because of their inflexibility with regard to REACH – the Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals.

June 27, 2014 11:43 am

Brussels this requires further investigation, please send funds urgently.

Tom O
June 27, 2014 1:18 pm

Another model, another projected scenario, another “boy cries wolf” moment. They might be able to convince me of the need to do something if they backed off this anal cry of doomsday. CO2 has been higher in the past and the world did not have a runaway thermal meltdown. And you will not convince me that the only carbon dioxide molecule that causes problems are ones that are created by burning petroleum products, either. I think the part that truly irritates me the most – even more than knowing this is all about the rich getting richer and the poor being killed off by starvation and hypothermia – is that they think we are so infantile that they have to drag out the boogie man to scare us. It didn’t work when I was a kid, and it hasn’t worked since. Lay out the pure logic and pathways, and I might get on board, but trying to frighten me with hysterical whining isn’t going to work.

June 27, 2014 9:51 pm

I noted that the recent floods in UK were blamed on a faulty pump station, and those who believe flooding is connected to climate change, should not blame mother nature, but on the bureaucrats that are supposed to be protecting us from extreme weather events, that can be blamed on human error. Like releasing water from the Brisbane dam, without warning people. Same with the Cork dam, that’s not climate change, it is gross negligence. What about volcanic eruptions, I wouldn’t like to live near a volcano, but those in Naples and near Mt.Vesuvius, know that he can erupt again like in AD79. They can’t insure their properties from a volcanic eruption either.

June 28, 2014 3:54 am

Shows why the EU is well on the way to imploding.

Solomon Green
June 28, 2014 11:54 am

Is it not about time that such studies also examine what climate damages to the EU might be if global temperature decreases by 3.5 degrees centigrade?
philjourdan and Patrick. Perhaps this site might help your debate.

Reply to  Solomon Green
June 30, 2014 11:43 am

@Solomon Green – The disagreement seemed to be between sources, not Patrick and I. Our disagreement was over what would happen if all fossil fuel generation was shut off.
And of course your source gives even a 3rd number (an eyeball guess says about 50/50). Thanks for the link. I guess that is a compromise and I can live with it. 😉

June 28, 2014 11:06 pm

The eu is imploding because greedy bastards are in charge.

June 28, 2014 11:55 pm

Ketch,I agree, who in their right mind who deliberately put their citizens in for an implosion of economies, etc., they can’t be that dumb, but they are or corrupt. Blaming their own lack of management and loss of income on climate change and AGW. An easy excuse isn’t it, when their own incompetence or corruption is the real reason.Maybe the sentiments from WWII are still there, you have the EU with socialist and conservative governments that are now interdependent on one another economically. No wonder the UK would not change to Euros.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights