Claim: Brexit Could Cause EU Opposition to Climate Change to Collapse

energy-plugged-in-coal

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

British Conservative Politician Ian Duncan MEP is worried that when Britain Leaves the EU, the entire European Union green programme could collapse, because Britain won’t be around to pay for it.

Brexit could ‘derail’ EU attempts to fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, say MEPs

Exclusive: European Carbon Trading Scheme (ETS) could lose £1.7bn worth of funding once Britain exits the trade bloc

Shehab Khan @shehabkhan Wednesday 8 February 2017 16:45 GMT

Brexit could “derail” the European Union’s attempts to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to British MEPs.

Britain’s decision to leave the trading bloc could have a detrimental impact on the European Carbon Trading Scheme (ETS), which is the flagship policy aimed at cutting carbon emissions across the continent.

The United Kingdom is committed to providing almost €2bn (£1.7bn) worth of funding for the scheme, without which it is not yet clear how the system will survive.

Ian Duncan MEP, who is the Conservatives’ European spokesman on energy and climate change and also the lead lawmaker on reforming the ETS, said there was a “serious risk” Brexit could stop the functioning of the scheme, leading to “disastrous” consequences.

“In order for ETS to work a number of funds were created to help Eastern European nations to address the challenges of modernising their Soviet-era energy generators and manufacturing companies.

The UK is one of the major contributors to this fund and after it leaves the finance for this fund will not be there,” Mr Duncan told The Independent.

“Without it, there is a serious risk not only that the ETS stops functioning post-Brexit, but that the EU loses support for its climate change targets altogether. With Donald Trump in the White House, the consequences of this could be disastrous for global efforts to tackle climate change.”

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/brexit-latest-news-derail-eu-attempts-climate-change-greenhouse-gas-emissions-meps-ets-a7569896.html

I think these fears are well founded.

Some of those former Soviet bloc countries are strangely reluctant to abandon coal. For example energy hungry Poland, whose heavy industry based economy has surged on the back of cheap coal power which allows it to undercut other members of the European Union, for some reason doesn’t want to go back to being poor.

Without a deluge of British cash to ease the transition back to penury, it will be much more difficult to convince Polish politicians to look the other way as the European Union attempts to dismantle the crown jewel of Poland’s economy.

Advertisements

156 thoughts on “Claim: Brexit Could Cause EU Opposition to Climate Change to Collapse

  1. It doesn’t need Britain’s help. It will collapse from its own weight and the social benefits of carbon.

    • Well I am sure that the non elected European Commission will already be calculating the estimated loss of revenue and adding it to the farcical 60 billion euros that they are already claiming Britain agrees to pay BEFORE they start negotiating.

      • It took the EU over 7 years to negotiate a simple trade agreement with Canada. In order to agree with Britain – everyone of the EU members has got to agree with every detail. So for example Spain will have to agree to lose all its fishing in British waters.

        So there are two possible courses:
        1. there is the “we leave in name only – pay the EU billions, give up fishing, agree to be bound by all EU decisions, agree to allow international companies to overturn UK law etc. etc.
        2. There is the “we leave with no agreement” … except the absolute bare minimum – which might be a quid pro quo for a transitional arrangements such as (some) EU members allowed to stay in UK for UK people resident in EU allowed to stay in e.g. Spain.

        For obvious reasons, we are not going to accept the first, so it is almost certain we will leave with virtually no long-term substantial agreements in place. And that will be purely down to the EU – and it is both why we are leaving and also what we have to accept when we leave.

      • As Ian Duncan Smith said, the question of EU residents could be sorted out with a five minute conversation before article 50 is implemented. But the EU is refusing to address a simple issue before Art. 50 that would likely alleviate a lot of fear amongst foreign residents.

        As for leaving with just the bare minimum of an agreement, what must be remembered is that the UK isn’t sitting around twiddling its thumbs waiting for a decision from the mighty EU, we are doubtless talking to other countries outwith the EU.

        If the EU drags its heels, as it usually does, on negotiations with the UK, we will be heading off into the distance whilst they are in limbo, infighting and backbiting. Their ivory tower, the bureaucratic structure they value so much, will be hung by its own petard.

        Arguably, Brexit could be the best thing ever to happen to the EU as reform will be forced upon them in order to react quickly to changing political and financial conditions.

      • The figures being thrown about are to excite the legacy media who manage to totally miss RAL. There is always an overspend for each budget period (RAL) that is then spread out across the members. They will reasonably asking us to cover our share of the costs of the overspend accrued during our membership. There are pension liabilities too. And leaving will have costs for us to replace EU functions which was why we never wanted to use saving money as a reason for leaving since it would backfire. The same amount of money will be spent but we will direct how.

        There is not enough time for the hugely complex deal to replicate how we trade with the EU and how our systems work in just 18 months. So we will be leaving without a deal by our choice since the sensible leave option of joining Efta and remaining in the EEA has been rejected by May & Co. Whether anything can be salvaged will depend on how amicable the EU wish to be once the plain horror of our exit crisis becomes clear to even the thickest of MPs.

    • EU Opposition to Climate Change to Collapse
      =========
      the headline seems to read backwards. Isn’t this what is being suggested?

      EU Position on Climate Change to Collapse

  2. Any nation unwilling to become poor for climate’s sake is unworthy. Come on, follow Ontario’s example.

    • I hope you just forgot the sarc tag, by god, Ontario??? What a mess, the once proud leader in manufacturing in Canada , now a wasteland.

      • Haven’t you heard? Our “hydro” prices are going to go down by 25 percent. The people of Ontario are grovelling in gratitude to our fearless leaders.

        They are basically borrowing money to fund this act of generosity and social responsibility. Our grandchildren will be happy to subsidize our green follies.

        Fortunately, our grandchildren aren’t around yet so we can’t ask their opinions.

        This in a province who’s electricity used to be 83 percent “carbon-free” and is now, after all the idiocy, 86 percent “carbon-free” (you have to look at delivered MWh and not installed MW because that’s where the “carbon” is actually produced).

      • Smart Rock: But… but they’re being saved from Global Warming, aren’t they? So they should be grateful anyway.
        Ironic that one of the big lines from the CAGW crowd is ‘do it for our grandchildren.’

        Of course, ‘for the children’ is already a big buzz line for pretty much any group asking for money and/or forcing expensive, intrusive regulation.

  3. How dare those Brits? Refusing to be trimmed for the benefit of Gang Green.
    The UN/EU must be slipping.

  4. Isn’t the term “Carbon Trading Scheme a bit blatant?
    Maybe just use “scham” instead?

    • And if it is a “trading” scheme, why does it need external money input to make it work?

      • I’ve sometimes been tempted to buy one ton of ‘carbon’.
        It’s not very expensive and the thought of chasing them up for deliver of my ‘goods’ would be worth it.

    • “Isn’t the term “Carbon Trading Scheme a bit blatant?”

      I wondered about that myself. Apparently, they have no fear. Or maybe scheme means something different in Britain. The dictionary does give two interpretations of it. Scheme means to cheat people where I come from.

      • In vocabulary classes way back when, I learned it as a synonym for plan, but with a negative connotation. A plan where the end goal is to cheat or defraud.

        But also look at “schematic”, which afaik is connotatively neutral and at least partially synonymous with “blueprint”.

  5. It’s the kind of occurrence one can imagine Basil Fawlty describing tongue in cheek with the comment, “Oh what a terrible shame!”.

    • lol — yes. And then, he might try to cheer them up with a joke or two….

      “Don’t — mention — the WAR!”

      (youtube — “Fawlty Towers”)

      :)

      • Hi, Ms. M., that was always my favorite one, i especially liked the high steppin’. If memory serves me, there were only half a dozen episodes of “fawlty towers”, but EVERYBODY seems to remember the show. My other fav was the one where basil thinks all the guests are having affairs with one another. (and the guests end up thinking basil is having a gay affair with manuel)…

      • Fonz, it never continued because John Cleese (Basil) fell out with his wife (Polly), sadly. I think he did a world tour called ‘the alimony tour’ after that to blatantly pay for his alimony. Gotta love that guy!

        I have the set, but im not sure I recall the episode you describe. I’ll have to watch it again, I suppose :)

      • “Jer0me March 6, 2017 at 12:19 am”

        No. Both came to the conclusion that any more than the initial 12 episodes would ruin the comedy. You look at how many “seasons” of various series there are and they get worse with every season.

      • Desperately politically incorrect.

        I love it.

        Of course, no one is allowed to forget the holocaust (and yes, I do believe it happened) but it’s now at the point that even the allies are forced to feel guilty about it.

      • Dear Janice,

        A good clip indeed. I just couldn’t resist this piece of “writing” (again).

        START OF LETTER
        The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.” Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross.” The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.” The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

        The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s get the Bastards.” They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

        The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was
        precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France ‘s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.

        Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.” Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”

        The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.” They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbour” and “Lose.”

        Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..

        The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

        Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be right, Mate.” Two more escalation levels remain: “Crikey! I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!” and “The barbie is cancelled.” So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

        Regards,
        John Cleese ,
        British writer, actor and tall person

        And as a final thought – Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.
        END OF LETTER

        Regards,
        WL

  6. The other event that could do away with the EU carbon scheme is a South Australia type blackout. Given weather conditions and conventional plant downtime, most of western Europe could crash. If it happens close enough to the elections. . .

  7. The Green movement is already in trouble in Germany. They are cutting down old growth forests to build wind farms…that isn’t a sick joke.

    Climate “Science” on Trial; Clear-Cutting Forests to Save the Trees
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/25/climate-science-on-trial-clear-cutting-forests-to-save-the-trees/

    Climate “Science” on Trial; How Does Ice Melt In Sub-Zero Temperatures?
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/05/climate-science-on-trial-how-does-ice-melt-in-sub-zero-temperatures/

    • That nothing to the bird-murdering going in California due to ‘green’ projects slicing up endangered golden eagles as they travel on their routes that the gauntlet of giant bird choppers now blocks. At least the ‘streamers’ (yes, that is what they are called) that ignite as they pass over solar concentration plants provide entertainment from the mass murder of birds – all to satisfy the ‘Green’ investors who want to economically rape the taxpayer for subsidy funds. They are not the good guys, they are evil.

      • About as well said as it can be. “Streamers,” that is an interesting way to describe a bird burned to death. I guess using euphemisms like that keep PETA off the backs of the green industries.

      • Perhaps we should set up webcams to watch them burn and stream it on the internet.
        Bad press for the Greens, and not something they can deny happening if it is going out in real time.

      • co2islife – PETA is not about animals. It’s another leftist organization that preys on idiots who love animals and who don’t look into what PETA is actually doing.

    • @ co2islife:

      I posted the links to UAH LT and MT on the other thread. Did you get them OK?
      You asked for the value of the SD for the data set.
      UAH LT (Global) , start to finish:
      mean = 0.02425
      std. dev. = 0.2266

    • co2islife
      March 5, 2017 at 6:45 pm

      “The Green movement is already in trouble in Germany. They are cutting down old growth forests to build wind farms…that isn’t a sick joke.”

      This has nothing to do with green. If there is a possibility to make business, humans will use it.

      And, to be fair, they do not cut down old growth forests. There are single patches in commercional managed wooldlands.

      Still I say it makes no sense.

  8. But Solar and Wind renewables are so cheap, and virtually cost nothing to maintain and run, so why the squealing…as always…like collective stuck pigs whenever the notion of removing any slush funds to these ‘cheap and ever so reliable’ energy creators is raised.
    The other point being that if this subsidy energy system falls over if the British take away the money tree then how come all the other players are so lacking in commitment to not put in the extra Euro and pounds.
    Unless of course it is not all about the renewables but also about the money, and the authority and political clout, of dispensing it to all then right thinking types to further establish their power base.
    Subs for the Buds.
    And the goose wailing about this possible collapse of the scam is a …Conservative Poltician!!!

  9. Elections coming soon to an EU neighbor near you. Going to be interesting. Is the tide about to turn for the EU? We can only hope that turns out to be the case.

  10. There is a lot of argument about whether we pay into the EU £8 billion or £14 billion per year, rebates etc la la la. Then every couple of days recently there are all these other costs that keep cropping up like this £1.7 billion. The other day there was a £2.4 billion that we paid into something or other. These payments are over and above the 8 or 14 billions membership fee. Then the fish they are stealing from our waters where they are fishing 60% of our catch and 90% of the fish we consume are imported from outside Europe.
    When the EU says that we have to pay in £60 billion for the next two years for things committed to it is starting to sound like it is about right. We are paying into the EU about £30 billion a year. Not just membership fees less rebate but all these other added extras.
    It is an effing joke. We are being milked dry.

    • Some of that money comes back, but I’m not sure hiw much. It’s not zero, however, as your argument implies.

      • None of it should have left in the first place.
        Every country should be looking to its own interests first.
        One you have no homeless, no people dying needlessly for lack of affordable health care, and no poverty, then you look to help others.
        To do anything else as an elected member of government is to fail at your appointed task.

      • We pay roughly 50bn to the EUSSR annually. They give us back some of our own money (around 20bn), with the proviso that they decide what it gets spent on. Oh yeah, and it must have a sign saying that it “was built/made/repaired/etc by the EU.

  11. Didn’t someone say that “climate change” actually caused Brexit? Just like it “caused” ISIS?

  12. Inexpensive, reliable, and plentiful energy empowers the poor of the world most of all.
    Let’s focus on those criteria.

  13. The people in Poland didn’t survive this long by being stupid . The payor countries
    in their hearts know its a giant con job and so does the UN but so far none want to be the first to be sentenced to eternal politically incorrect damnation . Once it starts it will be a Hindenburg . Trump can save the USA hundreds of $Billions and right now they need a minimum of $54 billion just to start getting the military back to pre Obama starvation .
    One executive order and the con- game unravels . Just do it .

    • you’re quite right. The EU grows by wrecking the economies on its borders so that they face long term economic decline or joining the EU empire. This is because if all your main trading partners are in the EU you are at a severe disadvantage as a small nation outside.

      However… if a big nation like the UK leaves … this gives anyone outside the EU a potential competitive advantage trading with the UK. And yes, if the UK flourishes, as it looks likely to do, then it will encourage other countries to exit and start trading with the UK.

      That is why EU leaders have repeatedly said: “Britain mustn’t be better off outside the EU than inside” … it’s in effect a political dogma of the EU … destroy those outside and force them to join. Fortunately the UK is big enough and stubborn enough to go it on our own.

    • “Trump can save the USA hundreds of $Billions and right now they need a minimum of $54 billion just to start getting the military back to pre Obama starvation .”

      I heard a retired general, General Keane, that I respect very much say over the weekend that to get the U.S. military back up to where we need it will require an expenditure of about $100 billion per year for the next four years.

      I expect the final figure will be closer to $100 billion than $54 billion. McCain is already saying it needs to be higher. But, on the other hand, Trump has proven to be able to talk the price down on some government items in the past, so maybe he can make $54 billion do the same amount of work that $100 billion can do. It will be interesting to see what they do.

      • He could make reasonable requests to other countries to help fund the US Navy. After all, they’ve benefited from American warships policing the seas for decades. Piracy and privateering didn’t end with the age of sail.

  14. Oh, boy, Eric Worrall — LOVE hearing about Brexit! :)

    So much so that I am going to post:

    this

    The Gathering Storm — Marlborough scene

    (youtube)

    We shall defend our island….

    and this

    Go, United Kingdom, gooooo! #(:))

    Rule, Britannia!

    (youtube)

    Britons never, never, never shall be slaves!!!

      • Go get ’em, you ruddy Britons! We didn’t fight ol’ ‘itlr an’ ‘is gang to ‘and over the kingdom to Merkel and her lot!

      • For which he deserves eternal damnation. He only had a mandate from his own government to negotiate, but signed us up anyway.

      • Exactly CORRECT.

        This little video explains how the bastards started the evil (EU) project …

    • Janice, where the problems started, the chartering of the Bank of England.
      Book: Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr.
      Slated as anti-semitic, it’s actually anti-Khazar.
      John Doran.

      • “jdseanjd March 6, 2017 at 12:54 am

        Janice, where the problems started, the chartering of the Bank of England.”

        Good point. The very start of the modern banking system of interest bearing debt, no wealth creation other than for those in the system.

      • Granted, MarkW. But the BOE 1694 Charter authorised Fractional Reserve Lending. If a bank has £100 in its vaults it can lend out £1,000 & charge interest on the lot. @5%, that’s £50 the first year, half its original stake. They’re lending out money which doesn’t exist, & that’s fraud. Think of a young couple getting a mortgage: a lifetime of slavery to debt created out of thin air. It’s so immoral, it’s untrue.
        Read also: The Creature from Jekyll Island, by G. Edward Griffin. His newsletter: needtoknow.news
        3.5 hr youtube video: Bill Still Money Masters
        Best, JD.

  15. I remember someone observing that it took a lot of rich people to keep Mahatma Ghandi living in poverty. With the “deluge of British cash [required] to ease the [European] transition back to penury,” it seems the EU has embraced the same cash-flow transcendentalism.

    • Sarojini Naidu: “The world will never know how much it costs us to keep Gandhi poor”.
      =========

      • H/t Robert Trumbull. Robert Stimpson, the only journalist eyewitness to Gandhi’s assassination, had gone to Birla House that day looking for a lost belt, which hadn’t been lost at all.
        =================

  16. Would this be the cheap open cast Polish coal that enabled Thatcher to defeat the communist Scargill and close what was left of the UK mining ?

    • zemlik:

      No. That is a Tory propaganda myth.

      I was the Vice President of the British Association of Colliery Management, and I know that British coal burned in British power stations produced the cheapest British electricity when the coal mines were shut for purely political reasons.

      Richard

    • Thatcher was too clever for the idiot scargill. The miners had already pulled their stupid trick once and brought down a tory government, she was not going to let it happen again.
      She stocked all power stations with enough coal to last more than a year and sat back and waited for scargill to fall into the trap.

  17. “Ian Duncan MEP said there was a serious risk that he, and all the other UK MEPs, might actually have to find a real job and do some work”

    Is a /sarc tag really necessary?

    • Exactly right. Has no place in Westminster and never will have unless he joins the SNP as an MSP perhaps. Too many of these useless and expensive placements in UK.

  18. I just read Ian Duncan Smiths statement and thought..

    OH DEAR, HOW SAD, TOO BAD, NEVER MIND.

    James Bull

    • James Bull
      March 6, 2017 at 12:10 am

      I just read Ian Duncan Smiths statement and thought..

      OH DEAR, HOW SAD, TOO BAD, NEVER MIND.

      James Bull

      Just Ian Duncan – Ian Duncan Smith is someone entirely different. Follow the link in the original article above if need be.

      SteveT

  19. These are uk Members of the European Parliament: MEPs.
    They are about to lose their jobs.

  20. Just to demonstrate how deeply embedded climate thinking is in the EU, linked:
    https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/budget/docs/report_mainstreaming_of_climate_action_en.pdf
    is a document detailing how climate is to be ‘mainstreamed’ into every area of life within the EU and via its grants, to the developing world.

    Table 4-6 on page 56 show a list of spending on climate matters by the EU28.

    It totals 53,431,000,000 Euro for the current 7 year plan. (third col of table 4.6)

    It shows that Poland is the greatest spender on climate matters. As PL is a net beneficiary of EU funds and the UK, Germany and France are major contributors of EU funds, shows two things:

    The Poles are pretty smart to get that money off us, and the net contributors are pretty stupid to pay for it!

    Bring on Brexit.

    Word or phrase of the day: mainstreamed & thematic objectives.

    • This is one of my favourite scenes.
      Evil always seems to breed the very thing that will eventually destroy it.

  21. We could feign a bit of empathy for the guy, he is losing his seat on the gravy train after all.
    Then, in the near future when a new MEP is elected, all those extra cushy directorships, consultancies and legal advisories are no longer on the horizon – jobs advising cronies how best to milk the system.

    Should we feel sorry for him? He’s obviously been on an epic voyage of Magical Thinking and returned believing that the UK really can influence The Climate.
    Atypical of users of depressant drugs. What’s to be done?

    He further thinks UK has a pot-load of money, while the police service falls apart as fast as the roads.
    The health service is effectively bankrupt while legions of pen-pushers within it bring home 6-figure salaries and drug company executives are actually embarrassed to admit how much profit they make. (there’s only one real buyer for drugs in the UK)

    Manufacturing has all been exported, again under the magical thought that Info tech will provide everything.
    Maybe, but Info Tech needs bright, clear-headed, confident and innovative people. When half the UK population have nothing to eat (we only grow 50% of what we need), the other half are told to eat sugar every 2 hours and that its OK to spend evenings slobbing out in front of trash TV sipping wine & gin.
    The last thing those people become is ‘innovative’
    Only growth industries are snooping, surveillance and the production of new taxes

    Trouble really is, there are 1000’s more ready and eager to take his place

  22. It isn’t just Poland that is becoming disenchanted with the bullying and thuggery of Brussels and the EU elite: the Czech, Hungarian, Slovak nations have got together and formed the so called Vizigrad group (a beautiful castle park in Prague where their group was formed at a meeting I believe). As well as the rank stupidity of the EUs green agenda, the group has other economic issues with EU policies and also at attempts to force quota of immigrants from the Middle East and elsewhere on these countries. “Central Europe is not gong to be told what it has to accept” was one comment by a Visigard minister. This opposition to Middle East immigration is not racism. These countries don’t like what they see as the consequences in the west of the EU of uncontrolled immigration.
    But the historically illiterate bureaucrats in the western EU clearly don’t understand that the countries of Eastern Europe spent hundreds of years resisting and fighting endless attempts by muslin Turkish led armies trying to invade and occupy their lands. This culminated in the siege of Vienna, 1683 if I remember rightly, when a huge Turkish army threatened to capture Vienna and if successful would have made in time Europe a Muslim dominion. The Polish king Jan Sobieski – who the Turks had thought too old – got on his horse and led 40,000 heavy cavalry over the Tatra mountains and with a now combined force shattered the Turkish army freeing any further threat of Muslim invasion from Central Europe.
    This history and episode is deeply ingrained in East European and Polish memory and is very definitely a factor in the so-called “difficult attitude ” show towards anyone who tries to tell them what they must do -rather like the British in reality.

    • The EU is a vile creature and it expands by wrecking the trade of those just outside its borders denying them historic favourable trade arrangements with those who have already joined. So, you either suffer economically outside the EU – or you bow and submit your freedom to the EU empire.

  23. In that famous film Bridge Over The River Kwai, at the end when the bridge thunderously collapses, train and all, the only sane person around, the medico, shouts “Madness Madness Madness”. I’m reminded of that.

  24. The EU was a scam: British politicians would meet with likeminded gullible idiots from other countries and decide to push through legislation in Europe which they knew they had no hope in hell of getting through their own parliaments. That way they could claim “the EU is forcing us to massively increase energy bills”. Of course the same was true on immigration and a host of other policies the Westminster/Brussels bubble loves – but they know are loathed outside.

    The whole point about Brexit is that we are forcing our British politicians to take responsibility for the policies they implement. And as a result – and having no one else to blame – they will stop all these anti-democratic “swampish” policies which we in Britain so hate.

    And that is what people like Ian Duncan MEP fear most: that once we get back to a very simple form of government where they can no longer muddy the waters as to who is responsible for these daft schemes – the British public just won’t accept all these progressive policies that have come in undemocratically through the back door of the EU.

  25. Friends:

    Tory (i.e. Conservative Party) UK MEP Ian Duncan is reported to have said,

    Brexit could ‘derail’ EU attempts to fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, say MEPs

    He is very, very probably right because Britain has always been the main promoter of global climate change policies.

    In the early 1980s Tory politician Margaret Thatcher became UK Prime Minister (PM) She then created the global warming scare for purely personal political reasons: she had become PM when she had little experience of government so she used creation of the global warming scare to obtain political credibility.

    The UK Government lost interest in global warming when Mr John Major replaced Mrs Thatcher as PM. The flow of Government money began to stop for conduct of global warming research. UK scientists then began to speak out in denial of the global warming hypothesis. It seemed that the issue was dying a natural death. Then the ‘coal crisis’ arose in October 1992 when the public protested at the scale of pit closures. This gave the UK Government a new need to find an excuse for its policy of closing coal mines. Global warming fitted this need and so the Government committed £16,000,000 to an advertising campaign which scaremongered about global warming, and re-established the funding priorities for climate research.

    Later, at the start of May 1997, the Tory Party lost office to the socialist Labour Party and Mr Tony Blair became UK Prime Minister. The UK had initiated the global warming issue and a change of UK policy may have had a significant effect on the scare, but by then the global warming issue had become important in its own right.

    It is pertinent that when Mr Blair became PM he had even less experience of government than Mrs Thatcher had when she became PM. By adopting support for the global warming scare Mr Blair took on the credibility which the UK had in the global warming issue as a result of the earlier actions of Mrs Thatcher.

    Thus, decades ago both the Tory and socialist UK parliamentary parties nailed themselves to promoting the global warming scare. Other EU countries provide nominal support for the scare but none of them provides the support (especially the financial support) provided by Britain. And it is hard to see how EU promotion of the scare can continue if Brexit removes the British support for it.

    Meanwhile, the recent USA Presidential election result seems likely to remove USA support (especially financial support) for the global warming scare.

    The death blow to the global warming scare was administered at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen. Since then the scare has continued to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard: it continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead.

    In summation, effects of Brexit and the recent USA Presidential election result seem likely to stop the zombie global warming scare from further activity.

    Richard

    • Global warming was just a stick to beat the coal industry – then dying on its feet – into final euthanasia.

      • Leo Smith:

        No. I was the Vice President of the British Association of Colliery Management. British coal burned in British power stations provided the cheapest British electricity when the coal mines were closed for purely political reasons.

        As I say in my post you have replied, the global warming scare was a late excuse for the closures which were then almost completed.

        Richard

      • Patrick MJD:

        Top marks for attempting – although failing – to distort history.

        You write this idiocy

        Richard forgets more mines were closed under Labour under Wilson.

        The ‘Plan For Coal’ that was officially adopted by both Labour and Conservative Parties was adopted by the Wilson government.

        This concentrated production in a relatively few productive and economic large mechanised mines. The small mines that used miners wielding pick-axes were shut and the miners were retrained to operate the mechanised mines.

        The Tories closed the mechanised mines by adoption of the Ridley Plan that members of the British Association of Colliery Management (BACM) were tasked to apply. I was the Vice President of BACM, a position to which the BACM Members elected me in five successive elections.

        These matters are burned into my heart and my memory. If you want to know anything about them then ask me: don’t tell others I have forgotten them.

        Richard

    • Generally agree, but I would add that there were important changes in the “Green” movement when most of the pollution issues were resolved as a result of 1970s clean air/water legislation and the end of CND issues with the fall of the USSR. This left the greens with few substantive issues warranting all that money they needed.

      That, together with an anti-capitalist (or more accurate anti-industry) movement and the intervention of foreign powers (Russian proven China suspected) can largely explain the massive growth in the popular campaign.

      However, there was a very insidious final phase which I saw emerge in ~2000. That was what I described as “developer with £ signs in their eyes”. In other words, a whole sector of greedy business people who saw wind and other unreliables as the next DOT COM boom.

      And to put it into context, in Scotland the lobbyists for this group literally ran the parliamentary committee – and I was at a meeting where a civil servant asked us (potential beneficiaries from the legislature) to say how large the obligation ought to be.

      Even at the time the whole thing seemed completely undemocratic with no one at all being present to give the alternative view or to speech up on behalf of the public who would bare the costs.

      Finally – we must not forget that in order to fund this scam, politicians hit on a means of funding that lies outside normal parliamentary scrutiny. Because although it is a de facto tax on consumers … the legislation is written in such a way that this tax is taken as a charge by electricity companies. As such there is no mechanism in parliament to scrutinise this vast expenditure as there would be for other taxes.

      • Scottish Sceptic:

        Thanks for that. I entirely agree all you say, and I think it useful detail that adds to my account.

        Richard

      • Richard – the other two bits that spring to mind are these.

        NASA – after the moon landings and effectively winning the space race, NASA was left largely devoid of a mission and therefore a lever to extract money from politicians. As such if you read NASA’s own history “NASA and the Environment: Science in a Political context” you’ll see it actively aligned itself with those pushing the environment. And in particularly it encouraged academics in subjects that would use space research to create a “customer base” to support further funding for NASA. See: http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2017/03/03/nasa-and-the-environment-science-in-a-political-context/

        To another article today on reproduceability, I mentioned the Thatcherite changes to academia which put emphasis on performance – and in academia that was number of papers, leading to quantity not quality, poor peer review etc.

        I should also mention that climate was a relatively new subject (so no one had worked out the rules of what was acceptable practice) and that it’s a slow subject (you can write a PhD, and become a professor before anyone knows whether your PhD was credible).

        But another contributing factor was the internet. Before the internet, academics were very much isolated from each other globally. As such this encouraged geographically close communities which meant inter-department communications within the same University. As such subject where constantly being reviewed by other departments in the same University – and the same department within different Universities might develop very different ideas about the same issues.

        But after the internet – yes it made inter-University communications very easy – but the result was that we had in effect one global “climate department” or climate community. This new community was no longer subject to scrutiny from other departments in the way that would naturally happen before the internet (their peers became people in their own subject rather than “dons” at the same University). Also this new single homogeneous full of wet-behind-the-ears eco-activist academics, because of the internet, would brook no decent, was ready and willing to ruthlessly destroy any alternative ideas, and as there was now only one community, academics had a fairly stark choice of go along with the “consensus” or get cold shouldered out of the subject.

    • “richardscourtney March 6, 2017 at 1:43 am

      In the early 1980s Tory politician Margaret Thatcher became UK Prime Minister (PM) She then created the global warming scare for purely personal political reasons…”

      Nope! She was the last to endorse any action on climate change, creating funding for the UEA CRU. All other UN members, at that point, had made commitments. She was advised by Monckton to be “cautious” until he left in ~1986, but her speech to the UN was written by someone else, name eludes me, who held a more alarmist view.

      So Thatcher was not to blame for the scare, it was already there, she just delivered a message from her science adviser. The rest is history.

      • Patrick MJD:

        NO! You are attempting to re-write history.

        The global warming scare did NOT exist prior to Thatcher: indeed, prior to Thatcher’s activities the global climate fear was global cooling, not warming.

        I predicted the global warming scare would occur before it did but my prediction was rejected as being “extreme” and “implausible”. If you want to read the facts of these matters then read here.

        Richard

      • Patrick MJD:

        I have replied to refute your post but my reply has gone into moderation (probably because it contains a problematic word in the address of a link it contains).

        Please be patient. The Mods are hard worked but very good so I would be very surprised if my reply to you does not appear before tomorrow.

        Richard

      • Patrick MJD:

        Your daft assertions are wrong and are proved to be wrong by the link in my post that is awaiting moderation.

        Richard

      • Phil. :

        You add another attempt to pretend I have “forgotten” something. Not so.

        When my link comes out of moderation you will be able to see that I wrote this which includes everything you mention.
        .

        Mrs Thatcher is now often considered to have been a great UK politician: she gave her political party (the Conservative Party) victory in three General Elections, resided over the UK’s conduct of the Falklands War, replaced much of the UK’s Welfare State with monetarist economics, and privatised most of the UK’s nationalised industries. But she had yet to gain that reputation when she came to power in 1979. Then, she was the first female leader of a major western state, and she desired to be taken seriously by political leaders of other major countries. This desire seemed difficult to achieve because her only experience in government had been as Education Secretary (i.e. a Junior Minister) in the Heath administration that collapsed in 1974. She had achieved nothing notable as Education Secretary but was remembered by the UK public for having removed the distribution of milk to schoolchildren (she was popularly known as ‘Milk Snatcher Thatcher’.)

        The idea that having been a Junior Minister in a failed government gave Mrs Thatcher significant government experience is silly.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney March 6, 2017 at 6:10 am
        Phil. :

        You add another attempt to pretend I have “forgotten” something. Not so.

        The idea that having been a Junior Minister in a failed government gave Mrs Thatcher significant government experience is silly.

        On the contrary the idea that the Secretary of State for Education & Science is a junior minister is what is silly, she was a Cabinet Minister! You must be confusing her time as parliamentary under secretary for pensions and national insurance in the Macmillan government (that is a junior position). She was of course Shadow Secretary of State for Education & Science in Heath’s first Shadow Cabinet and Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment in his second and then Leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition in her own Shadow Cabinet! Fifteen years on the front benches, not much experience indeed!

      • “richardscourtney March 6, 2017 at 3:16 am”

        I will go with Monckton’s account of history over yours any day.

      • Patrick MJD:

        I refuted your daft assertion that Thatcher “was the last to endorse any action on climate change” by pointing out that “prior to Thatcher’s activities the global climate fear was global cooling, not warming”.

        You have ignored that total demolition of your daft assertion, and you have added to your lunacy by replying to me saying

        I will go with Monckton’s account of history over yours any day.

        Christopher Monkton does not dispute my account. Indeed, my account is true and Christopher promotes truth.

        Richard

      • Phil.:

        As usual, you are being silly.

        As I said

        The idea that having been a Junior Minister in a failed government gave Mrs Thatcher significant government experience is silly.

        Please read the link I provided. If you do then you may learn something (possibly for the first time in your life).

        Richard

      • richardscourtney March 7, 2017 at 1:06 am

        As I said

        The idea that having been a Junior Minister in a failed government gave Mrs Thatcher significant government experience is silly.

        Please read the link I provided. If you do then you may learn something (possibly for the first time in your life).
        That link provides no basis for your ridiculous assertion that a Cabinet Member is only a Junior Minister (both terms which have quite specific meanings in the British Parliament.

    • richardscourtney March 6, 2017 at 1:43 am
      In the early 1980s Tory politician Margaret Thatcher became UK Prime Minister (PM) She then created the global warming scare for purely personal political reasons: she had become PM when she had little experience of government so she used creation of the global warming scare to obtain political credibility.

      You seem to have forgotten that she was Secretary of State for Education & Science from 1970, that hardly constitutes ‘little experience of government’, don’t you remember ‘Maggie Thatcher, milk snatcher’?

  26. I really hope you are are right Richard, what worries me is that this is now a monster out of all control that is a deeply held religious belief among millions of people who never hear the counter arguements and which may prove impossible to halt.

    • I’ve seen movements of religious faith come and go, and go quite rapidly once the funding that keeps them alive withers.

      When was the last time you saw an Orange Person, or a Hare Krishna gopi?

    • Moderately Cross of East Anglia:

      Thanks for that.

      Soon after the Copenhagen Conference in December 2009 I posted the following about anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) on WUWT and have repeated it in several places since.

      Please note my warning that I think is still a serious matter.

      Richard

      The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPCC Conference in Copenhagen. I said then that the scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.

      Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.

      Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.

      As the AGW-scare fades away those in ‘prime positions’ will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity.

  27. Best ever heard from Britain :

    “British Conservative Politician Ian Duncan MEP is worried that when Britain Leaves the EU, the entire European Union green programme could collapse, because Britain won’t be around to pay for it. Brexit could ‘derail’ EU attempts to fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, say MEPs Exclusive: ”

    Go on, Theresa!

  28. Every illiterate man and a farmer knows that the environment and the environment can contaminate the human factor, but it’s all temporary and local character.
    Global warming planet and the climate change it cycles that have not yet been deciphered, neither by time nor by causes of change and development.
     WHY IS IT SO ?
    Because the science in this field behaves like old Jews when they fled from slavery in Egypt. When they entered the impasse, then poured himself a golden calf, their Idol to whom they pray to help them to get rid of the unknown condition.
    So today,s science “estuary” their idols as models, which are asked to help them find out what they do not know anything.
    At the planets climate is changing under the influence of the mutual relations of the planets and the sun, and the main “culprit” of all these changes is magnetism,
    It amazes me that so many scientists “blurred” certain “doctrines” and are not able to understand the laws of nature by which they “designed”, they just about do not want to think.

  29. “….when Britain Leaves the EU, the entire European Union green programme could collapse, because Britain won’t be around to pay for it.”
    Yet another benefit of Brexit.

  30. Polish politicians are obviously a darned sight smarter than Australian politicians.
    But even a comparison is an insult to Polish politicians.

  31. The powers running Germany are still big believers in us all roasting to death. I say, Germany seems to have this 50 year or so cycle of self-destructing. It is in the middle of the latest episodic stupidity that will cull the population severely.

  32. Yeah! I’m sure the Poles will be *very* receptive to doing what the Germans tell them to do!
    /snark

  33. Er, good?! The sooner we’re out the better! Carbon trading – complete waste of money, designed to line the pockets of the likes of Al Gore.

  34. I think people should have a look at the story on the GWPForum news about the appalling judgement delivered by a German court that it is OK for federal government departments to abuse journalists and anyone who questions AGW as Science deniers in the pay of oil companies. So now in Germany there is only official govt dept news and you can tell any lie or insult at will anyone who dares go against official policy. Any of this seem familiar – back to the thirties in Germany for all us sceptics? How long before the Green official uniforms appear on the streets of Munich etc?

      • So Griff, whose pay is Al Gore under. He certainly knew in his famous speech that ” looking back in time” that co2 didn’t lead temperature, co2 lagged temperature by 800 years. That’s from the very ice cores he was using as a case for global warming. He had no reservations about buying beach property that he said would/should have been underwater by now.
        Which part of my critics of AGW is wrong ?
        I was looking into work by a geologist that said from aphellion to perihelion that the solar flux varies by 6%, I’ve never seen the TSI record vary by 80 w/m^2. His argument was that during the cratateous period, co2 levels were 1700 ppm. Since the rise of the Tibetan plain, and orbital cycles co2 levels fell to 260 ppm, anthropogenic co2 has rose to 280 ppm over the last 5000 years, and then we really cranked it up via China suddenly wanting to live a better life and has basically stopped us from going into another ice age. Then how do you reconcile co2 lagging temperature by 800 years with that ? And TSI isn’t suppose to vary more than 0.012%. That’s not an average, and it’s a long way from 6%. And the co2 we could get into whether it’s linear or log and the feedbacks, or the models that have to have constant adjustments to actual temperature to come close.
        Be careful what you wish for. Passing a law like that can cut both ways. It becomes political. It depends on whose in power. I’m thinking Trump, unless it was ratified by the Senate, Obama signing a climate pact didn’t mean anything. Can you imagine if they had a law like that in the US? From my view, most of the warmist would be in jail. And then you create about orthodoxy, burn that guy at the stake for saying the earth revolves around the sun. Suppose you change your mind in 10 years, can you say anything ?

  35. Happily Brexit will also be the end of Ian Duncan’s job as an MEP.,,,and not a moment too soon!

  36. Ian Duncan Smith once said, to the Tory Party conference, “… never underestimate the quiet man of politics” He wasn’t leader for very long after that.

  37. I am confused by the headline versus the article. Seems to have opposite meaning. Or is it lost in translation.
    Anyway i give not a damn for that collapse. In climate speak it could take thousand years.
    When an ice sheet collapses it is not the same as when a house collapses.
    Climateers must have their own dictionary, very different from what we normally concider a dictionary.

  38. “richardscourtney March 6, 2017 at 3:44 am”

    To you Sir, glad to see you back to this blog, you have been away for a while (Or maybe I have been busy). I trust all is well.

    • I have an exemption Griff, why would I care. And besides it pretty easy to get carbon credits, as they just come off the press. Carbon credit inflation. Who’s going to know ?

    • What is nonsense? This isn’t some story made up by climate deniers but a statement from an MEP that the the very scheme you refer to – EU carbon trading scheme will lose £1,7b in funding post brexit. Hence his worry the scheme might collapse.

  39. Baffled by which side you’re referring to when the headline says ‘opposition to climate change’. Is that us or them?

Comments are closed.