Guest essay by Eric Worrall
British academics are worried that the British People might choose to de-prioritise climate policy, if they are allowed to make their own choices instead of being shackled to the EU bureaucracy.
What will Brexit mean for the climate? (Clue: it doesn’t look good)
Research Fellow, SPRU (Science Policy Research Unit), University of Sussex
Project Manager: TRANSrisk, University of Sussex
December 1, 2017 8.05pm AEDT
With Brexit negotiations stuck on divorce bills and borders, complex issues such as climate change barely receive a mention. Yet the UK has agreements with the EU around emissions targets and technology transfer, and Brexit represents a significant threat to the UK’s progress on cutting carbon emissions.
The UK’s recent clean growth strategy document devotes scant attention to Brexit, providing only a single page on “leaving the European Union”. Yet, other public institutions, as well as the mainstream media, have raised questions concerning climate change, Brexit and the UK government’s attitude.
After Brexit, the UK will need to establish up its own position within the UNFCCC as an independent member. It will have to ratify the Paris Agreement on its own, and produce its individual NDC. Whilst this is achievable, time, space and resources will be required. The delay could possibly leave the UK behind compared to other international actors.
Exiting the EU-ETS is another serious issue. It is the world’s oldest and largest emissions trading scheme and is the primary joint tool adopted by the EU to reduce carbon. The scheme allocates free and/or auctioned allowances to operators, and creates a market for those who wish to purchase or sell allowances. A shrinking cap for allowances reduces emissions over time, directing efforts to where emission cuts are most cost effective. The EU-ETS has also triggered growth in climate-related financial services.
The UK may establish its own national ETS, but there is huge uncertainty over timing, size, shape and effectiveness. This is highly detrimental for UK companies subject to the EU-ETS that will lose access to the system from January 2018, hence facing significant cost increases for their emissions reductions. In addition, London may lose its leading position in climate related-financial services.
…
Read more: http://theconversation.com/what-will-brexit-mean-for-the-climate-clue-it-doesnt-look-good-87476
I blame the EU for this situation.
Despite substantial grumbling, the UK still overwhelmingly supports politicians who embrace renewables, who advocate aggressive emissions reduction policies.
When Britain first voted Brexit, the British government hoped for an amicable separation. But the EU is making Brexit very difficult for Britain. According to German academic Professor Thorsten Polleit, this intransigence is deliberate – Professor Polleit thinks the EU is deliberately punishing Britain for voting Brexit. Professor Polleit is not alone in making that accusation.
The EU are currently demanding a Brexit “divorce bill” of £50 billion (USD $67 billion) to agree to discuss favourable post Brexit trade terms – an obscene demand which has caused public outrage in Britain.
Britain are not prioritising climate change because they are trying to avoid 100s of thousands of job losses. In my opinion the EU leaders are acting like spoiled children, they don’t seem to care about the environment. They seem to be having way too much fun taunting people worried about their future with outrageous demands for cash. Until this school yard bullying subsides, neither side is going to prioritise problems which might happen decades from now over very real problems which are happening right now.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sussex University has been a hot bed of left wing propaganda and activism since it was set up in the 60s. It is no doubt full of remoaners and greens.
This description applies to all universities in the UK. They are however relatively right-wing compared to the murderously fanatical caliphate leftism of the US higher education political culture.
Hold your horses, some Anglo-US rivalry here, I’m backing UK academics to be more extreme. C’mon guys/gals/others, we in the UK can win this competition, think of it as a kind of academic Ryder Cup.
Easy victory: I bid University [sic] of East Anglia
” the murderously fanatical caliphate leftism of the US higher education political culture”? Calm down.
Wow
I kinda like that description because it “fits them to a T” …… as the ole saying goes.
Which should not be “SURPRISING” to anyone given the literal fact that during the past 30 years or so, most every US institution of higher education has morphed into a money-making business of “selling Degrees and Diplomas”.
And most of the Public Schools have followed suite ……. simply because the graduates of the afore stated institutions are now in charge of and “calling-the-shots” for the Public School’s curriculum.
Not so fast Capell. We’ve got “any university where Michael Mann is”.
One solution is to start a new University based solely on private individuals who want to do research in areas easily accessible to public research like climate.
I’ve looked into it and there is very little stopping anyone proceeding except the will, the people wanting to do the research and those willing to supervise – with the hardest problem likely to be finding enough supervisors.
MIT News, May 20, 2016
‘MIT joins Carbon Pricing Coalition’
“Led by World Bank and IMF, coalition seeks to price emissions to tackle climate change”
Yale is also a member of the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC).
http://news.mit.edu/2016/mit-joins-carbon-pricing-leadership-coalition-world-bank-imf-0520
Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC)
CPLC is an international organization. Launched at COP21 November 29/30, 2015. Promotes carbon pricing.
http://www.carbonpricingleadership.org
Yale News, March 15, 2016
‘Yale becomes first university to join Global Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition’
More information at:
https://news.yale.edu/2016/03/15/yale-becomes-first-university-join-global-carbon-pricing-leadership-coalition
MIT CEEPR, May 10, 2016
MIT conference
Re: GHG emissions and carbon pricing/trading.
‘Emissions Trading in North America and Beyond’
Conference information includes international attendees.
http://ceepr.mit.edu/news/67
The World Bank, May 4, 2017
‘CPLC Nurtures Leadership on Carbon Pricing’
Re: World Bank, IMF and CPLC
Feature article:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/05/04/cplc-nurtures-leadership-on-carbon-pricing
UNFCCC
Re: CPLC, World Bank and other organizations.
http://newsroom.unfccc.int/lpaa/business/united-nations-global-compact-business-leadership-criteria-on-carbon-pricing
UN Environment / Climate Initiatives Platform
‘Climate Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC)
Starting year: 2015
More information on the UN Environment CPLC platform at:
http://climateinitiativesplatform.org/index.php/Carbon_Pricing_Leadership_Coalition
I wonder how the EU would feel about a Tariff free trade agreement between the USA and GB. The U.S. market could certainly offset the EU threatened slack in British imports. This could be a win win for both countries and the EU could go Pound Salt regarding their £50 billion (USD $67 billion) Divorce Bill. Could be another Feather in Trumps Hat.
British Exports as well
World Bank Blogs
World Bank Blogs include: Jerry Brown, Governor of California.
https://blogs.worldbank.org/team/jerry-brown
Yale / Center for Business and Environment
‘Internal Carbon Pricing: Practical Experiences from the Private Sector’
Note: People and Partners at Yale Center for Business and Environment.
http://cbey.yale.edu/programs-research/internal-carbon-pricing-practical-experiences-from-the-private-sector
Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC)
‘High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices’
Accepted to chair new high-level commission on carbon prices:
Joseph Stiglitz and Lord Nicholas Stern
CPLC article at:
http://carbonpricingleadership.org/highlevel-economic-commission-1
Potsdam Institute for Climate Research, Germany, May 29, 2017
‘Carbon Pricing Report launched by leading economists’
Webpage also has a link to the full Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (CPLC) report along with other information.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/in-short/carbon-pricing-report-launched-by-leading-economists
UN Global Compact
‘Put a price on carbon’
Re: Carbon pricing and shifting investments.
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/take-action/action/carbon
I was recently at a lunch & at our table was a ‘green’ political activist who informed us that –
“The Arctic was now totally free of ice in summer.
“CO2 is now more than 60% of the atmosphere.
“CO2 is mainly in band above 35,000ft & is so thick planes cant fly through it
“Polar bears & penguins ARE going extinct & all other info about them is fake news.
“Global temperatures are rising 1°C every 10yrs.
“Sea levels are rising 1 foot / yr.
“He’d been to the Great Barrier Reef & it was 90% dead.
“That last year there were 2million climate refuges (& its only going to get worse) that’s why we need Brexet to keep them out.
My wife & I let him keep digging himself in & asked ‘helpful questions (:-))’, to get him to quantify his claims.
We asked him about fuels & plastics & he said “they should all be kept in the ground as renewables are now capable of providing all the power we need”.
I pointed out that he was being hypocritical as he used as much plastic & fuel as the rest of us in – his iphone, his plastic bottle of spring water, his clothes (including knicker elastic) & shoes, flights to Australia…
Then I listed the actual climate data; his reply “you’re a (the D word)” & he left (I was cut to the quick) … leaving his desert & coffee.
That instantly converted 5 MSM BS accepters into questioners.
hope you ate his dessert.
“That instantly converted 5 MSM BS accepters into questioners.”
It appears you had a very productive lunch. 🙂
“I’m backing UK academics to be more extreme.”
You lose; American nutcakes are unsurpassed.
Here an American professor who predicts the extinction of mankind within ten years. This prediction was made a year ago so it follows that we humans have but nine years left.
Party on.
“hope you ate his dessert.”
Oooooow. Cooties.
So did you grab his desert ??
g
Ha ha … CO2 at 60% of the atmosphere vs the real figure of 0.0004 % = close enough for government work 😉
Ah, the hissy fit. The ultimate argument of all true enviros.
“they (oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons) should all be kept in the ground as renewables are now capable of providing all the power we need”.
That statement is every bit as ridiculous as his other fallacious statements, but that fallacy is accepted generally by so many.
“That instantly converted 5 MSM BS accepters into questioners.”
Until they got back to the office and were told by their editors to toe the line of “consensus”.
Was this serious? I mean, as that an actual word for word accounting of what he said? And as for the 5 new questioners, what were their remarks about the exchange?
“hope you ate his dessert.”
No….but the wife did, I had his coffee !!!!
@ur momisugly McLovin’
Yes, that’s what he told us + this gem “water has little or no effect on the climate” & of course all backed up by 97%.
We were all surprised when he upped & left & the other people at the table said I’d been a bit hard on him, but after a short discussion they all took details of my website http://www.use-due-diligence-on-climate.org/ & WUWT, so we may get a few more readers.
Over the years, I’ve had numerous letters published in newspapers challenging the ‘warmists’, and a short correspondence with my then Member of the European Parliament. I’ve also had numerous conversations about the supposed dangerous man-made global warming.
Not one ‘warmist’ or predictor of doom has ever produced any figures whatsoever to back up their views. My point are typically avoided, usually with the words “what about”, which are used to try and change what is an uncomfortable subject for them.
Typically they also have great faith in what they call ‘the science’, but none seem to have ever bothered to question the story and look into it more deeply. They don’t have a clue, yet spout their cause fiercely and aggressively.
A challenge to Guy McPherson.
If humans aren’t extinct in 10 years You must extend an apology and admit you were and are wrong. You must immediately decist from further predicting the demise of human existance and preaching about the evils of CO2.
If you are correct and humans do go extinct in 10 years, I will join your crusade against CO2 on Dec 4 2027 (in 10 years)
Up around Spokane in Washington State, there’s a mysterious big hole in the ground that is bottomless. It is called Mel’s Hole, because the chap Mel who bought the property, tried to find the bottom of the hole with reels and reels of nylon fishing line.
He never ever reached the bottom.
So people drop old refrigerators and all sorts of stuff, even dead cows, so they disappear forever.
Mel’s hole is where ALL of my WUWT posts can be found if you want to climb down that far.
Dunno what I did for that but, I guess I should just save my breath and stop wasting my time here.
G and g too !
Mel’s Hole is at least a 3 hour drive on I-90 west of Spokane. Fact.
Mel’s Hole
I guess Mel’s hole is quite deep, and he tried to drop a nylon line down to the bottom using at least one pound spools of line, which he claims to have run out of more thn several spools.
What Mel missed is that there was enough line weight just in the line from top to bottom, that you could drop line forever and never get to a zero line tension situation.
But he evidently did get a passage to Australia out of the deal.
Art Bell had quite a radio show for a while.
It is not generally known that Art Bell had a hand in writing the movie script for the scary movie : “The Day after Tomorrow. ”
Best part of his show was the bumper music for the Sunday segment.
G
@ur momisugly george e. smith – December 3, 2017 at 10:51 am
Actually, it is not a waste of your time …… because you not only provide enjoyable commentary for reading, …… but also common sense reasoning and intelligently educated verbiage that explains, defines, justifies and/or proves many aspects of subjects being discussed hereon.
Cheers, Sam C
The bullying won’t subside. It’s working.
From what I can tell, bullying doesn’t just “subside”. It goes away when you punch the bully, though…
UK will have to think about other things than climate change after Brexit, first of all how to deal with being outside the EEA.
http://www.eureferendum.com/default.aspx
Henning Nielsen
The Irish border isn’t the UK’s problem, it’s the EU’s. Let them spend the money to establish and run border controls between the two countries. Let them carry the can for any troubles, of which I believe the Irish are sick of anyway, and there’s no US money to fund the IRA any longer anyway.
If the UK simply ignored the problem, it would be the EU under threat from N. Ireland becoming the port of choice for every country wanting to get goods into the EU by driving it over the border, why should we worry about it?
HotScot; good luck with that!
Henning Nielsen
And the alternative is? The UK spending shedloads of money securing the 300 odd roads that pass between N and S Ireland?
Why should we? What benefit does it serve us?
“What benefit does it serve us?”
Wasn’t Brexit supposed to be about immigration control?
Stokes
Was that your narrow minded perspective of it?
Nick Stokes. No Brexit was about freeing the UK from the undemocratic, corrupt and inefficient EU (commonly referred to as the EUSSR) which is run by a cabal of unelected commissioners (known as commissars) and other unelected and overpaid bureaucrats who consist mainly of failed politicians.
“The Irish border isn’t the UK’s problem, it’s the EU’s.”
If the UK sets up border controls as strict as those Canada has set up, then the UK border with the Irish Republic will not be the same for citizens of the UK and Ireland.
Under UK law citizens of the Irish Republic can cross the borders both ways unrestricted. However, citizens of the UK will be subject to EU border control when entering the Irish Republic/
Frederick Colbourne
That’s no different to what we will have with France, Germany, Italy etc. when we leave.
I don’t see the problem. If S. Ireland want to remain in the EU and shoulder the cost of creating and maintaining borders, then fine. It’s their restrictive trading conditions their protecting, why should we pay for their benefit?
And if the IRA have a beef, it’ll be with the EU, not the UK. Brussels can endure the bombings the UK did in the 70’s and 80’s. They can sort out the street riots and have their troops murdered.
Perhaps Mrs. May should take a leaf from Trumps book and tell the EU that if they want a wall, they can build, and pay for it. It’ll make a huge dent in the £50Bn we’re offering them.
Philip Bratby,
right on !! one Southern German CONmissonAIRE spent 9 hours clocked into the EU in 5 years, now on a Euro 10,000 plus pension a month
Good day HotScot – my very best to you and yours. A few thoughts:
On Britain:
Jeremy Corbin should listen to his older and more intelligent brother Piers Corbin, an astrophysicist who has a good predictive track record, and is NOT a warmist imbecile like Jeremy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn
On Green Energy:
“Green energy” is not green and provides little useful energy. It IS that simple, due to intermittency. The wind does not blow all the time, nor does the Sun shine all the time. This obvious reality is too complicated for idiot politicians worldwide.
The “Heat or Eat” crisis that is especially harming the elderly and the poor of Britain AND Europe is also completely obvious to any thinking person, although the millennials, who still live with their moms and don’t pay the power bills, are oblivious to this very serious crisis.
On Europe:
Britain and the Magna Carta countries (the British Empire/ Commonwealth and the USA) sacrificed the best of our youth to rescue Europe during two World Wars. I have a great-uncle buried in France, killed in the last days of WW1, and an uncle who was the only surviving officer of his unit at the Dieppe raid during WW2, where he rescued the only ten surviving enlisted men – of the 110 who landed on the beach.
We owe Europe nothing, and I would never support another rescue mission, which appears increasingly likely. Europe is failing due to imbecilic leftist politics, and does not deserve to be rescued again.
I just returned from Thailand, where I met a French citizen. We spoke all evening at a party where everyone else spoke Thai and/or English. He said he was completely finished with Europe, and will move overseas as soon as he can. He spoke of the creeping takeover of France by radical Muslims and their violence against civilians and the authorities. I ventured that Europe was failing, and in mere decades would become little more than a museum due to its foolish leftist politics – and he enthusiastically agreed.
On Brexit:
Britain will be vastly better-off out of the EU. The economic future of Britain should reside in a new Free Trade Agreement with the USA and the Commonwealth – as we leave Europe to fail under its imbecilic leftist / green energy policies.
Best, Allan
Allan
as usual, a pleasure to catch up, and with the Christmas season fast approaching, the very best to you family.
I agree with everything you say, including about Piers Corbyn, one of the good guys. 🙂
Interesting comments from your French acquaintance. It a feeling common amongst many and when I retire in a few years, I’m very tempted to get out of the UK altogether.
time for the 6 counties to ignore a border that should not exist.
lol, Brexit will change nothing of consequence for me to travel from Dublin to Belfast.
This is not even worth mentioning, there will be realtively no difference, maybe if flying you have to go through non EU border control instead of within EU border control.
The border itself, will not have to be fortified!! LMAO!
Nothing will change bar bureaucratic processes
Mark – Helsinki
I’m inclined to agree with you however, if the EU wants to maintain it’s border there, they will have to provide a customs presence over 300 roads into and out of the south.
If the EU doesn’t want to do it, fine, problem gone.
Ireland’s problem won’t be keeping Briton’s out, it will be keeping it’s own people in.
Brexit is about National Sovereignty.
If that includes preserving Britain’s long history of a struggle for individual freedom, from a johny come lately primitive culture of institutionalized barbarism, in the form of alien laws; then so be it.
Here in the USA, we also need to be defending OUR Constitutional Law against ALL enemies; domestic and foreign.
G
Nick
No it wasn’t. It was about the Democratic deficit, a swipe at the elites and third on the list it was about immigration.
The EU are wanting to punish us for daring to want to leave their gang and also to send a message to others that they should not follow us or they will be punished as well
tonyb
Allen, There are quite a few French living in London, in excess of 120,000 and between 300,000 and 400,000 in the UK. They aren’t going home soon, they don’t want to.
Sparky
I don’t doubt your numbers, but I have lived and worked in London for 30 years. I can’t recall having met one resident French person. The very few (fingers of one hand) I have met are just passing through.
Re Nick Stokes
December 3, 2017 at 2:13 am
“What benefit does it serve us?”
‘Wasn’t Brexit supposed to be about immigration control?’.
In effect, partly yes. A large minority of the English electorate, perhaps 30% to 40% of those who actually take part in elections, were always going to vote for Brexit because they dislike, or at least mistrust, everything that is not English-speaking and Anglo-Saxon. Mostly they are well-off and tend to live in rural areas or small towns. They don’t like the EU, they don’t like courts which can overrule British courts, although they like NATO and the white bits of the British commonwealth This group has always voted Conservative (‘Tory’ in English parlance). That doesn’t mean that they are racist or anti-minority or even anti-immigrant. They are by-and-large decent people. But on its own this group was unlikely ever to win in a winner-takes-all contest like a referendum on leaving the EU. But then came along the anti-EU UK Independence Party (UKIP). Its much-reviled leader Nigel Farage saw an opening, if the ant-EU movement could extend its support to the working classes. From the financial crisis of 2007-8 onwards the less-well off parts of the English workforce, especially away from the main conurbations, have been subjected to austerity measures which have kept incomes down and cut public services. It has been easy to deflect their resentment away from the successive governments which have actually been responsible for the austerity and to place the blame on the large numbers of foreigners who are seen be taking jobs away from English-born workers. In parts of England & Wales most of the food shops on small town high streets (apart from the big supermarket chains) are Polish-owned, and stock goods which are unfamiliar to local-born locals. In the 2015 general election about 12% of the vote went to UKIP and much of that 12% came from disaffected working-class types, who would previously have voted Labour. Added to the 30 to 40%.of permanent Tory voters who would always have voted anti-EU no matter what, that was almost enough to win a referendum for Brexit. It only took some creative campaigning by the ‘Leave’ leadership and complacency on the part of the ‘Remain’ leadership to push the Brexit vote over 50%, which is what happened. So yes, it was immigration, particularly from eastern Europe, that was decisive on the day.
That didn’t take long, the standard leftwing response. The those who disagree with us are ignorant racists, line.
Come on, give Nick his due. He is close to the truth for a change for surely immigration control was a big part of it.
Ron Long
No, that was the rhetoric of remain, not Brexiters. UKIP made a big thing of it and the remainers tarred everyone with that brush.
Immigration was a small part of numerous complex issues the British public have with the EU. Not the least being that in the 70’s we were promised that the Common Market would never turn into a political union.
So who was lied to. I voted to stay in the Common Market in the 70’s, all I did by voting Brexit was reversing a very bad mistake.
The ‘knowledgeable’ youth of the UK are almost unanimously against leaving, and for some reason are being listened to whilst the knowledge and wisdom of their elders is being racist.
The only reason our youth don’t want toe leave Europe is their fear of change, it’s all they have ever known, so what do they know? They’re all voting for Corbyn, who wants to renationalise everything, which is precisely why we were the sick man of Europe in the 60’s and 70’s, nationalisation was strangling the country. But our youth see this as somehow a socialist nirvana, like I said, what do they know?
Hotscot
With you all the way in this. I voted to stay in ’75 and regretted it ever since. But now, the glorious dichotomy that Britain’s pro-EU and pro-Corbyn youth face is that if they had their way and managed to keep us in the EU – and they got a Corbyn government (spit) – Corbyn would not be able to get his Marxist plans to renationalise everything through because that is against EU law – and nation states of the EU have to be subservient to it.
We just want May to walk away – and get us our country back (Which may be no big thing for Stokes but is very important to some of us).
No Nick is wrong as usual. HotScot is correct as usual.
I suggest our US ‘cousins’ consider what their position would be if Nafta became a political organisation , ruled from Mexico City.
Yeah, I concur with the exiters. Us oldies know what it was like before joining, and what it was like after joining. Youngies only know the latter, and leaving puts them outside of their comfort zone.
The vast majority of oldies wanna leave. It’s not rocket science.
“like I said, what do they know?”
Everything they’ve been fed for decades in globalist-run state schools. Freedom is Slavery, etc, etc.
Why did Brits vote to leave the EU?
On July 4th 1776, a declaration was made which began with the words:
‘When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them … ‘
These words resonated with 17,410,742 British voters on June 23rd 2016
I’m not going to get involved in an off topic debate on brexit here, but I will say, yes, delusion runs deep in the UK presently.
Many people don’t understand it is EEA (single market )and customs union which currently provide tariff free trade without customs checks and paperwork and expect the EU to give UK a ‘free trade deal’ which of course only sign up to SM and CU can provide. (UK govt expressly rejected these)
I predict a riot.
If the choice is trading with the EEA or trading with the rest of the world, the EEA loses.
AS I recall, joining the EU in the first place required of the British that they abrogate long existing trade pacts they had with the Commonwealth Countries, in favor of buying from the likes of the French instead.
This was (at the time) quite injurious to the trade interests of particularly Australia and New Zealand.
So the EU is eminently replaceable as a trading partner.
G
I understand you are not from these (UK) parts, Griff. That being the case, may I suggest, that when it comes to Brexit, you select trunk, and retract.
@george e. smith December 3,2017 at 8:09 am
That is correct and it was indeed most injurious to both Australia and NZ – especially NZ – BUT we sucked it up and are thriving out of the greater UK trading arrangement with trade deals all around the world. So the UK aught to simply grow a pair and get on with it.
Let us see what happens when financial services move to Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris. These services constitute a sizeable chunk of UK revenues. The British are welcome to revel in their newfound freedom, but they must also pay the price for it. To imagine that there is no price to be paid, is hopelessly naive.
“Let us see what happens when financial services move to Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris.”
Maybe Britain will develop some real companies again, rather than sending many of its smartest young people to the City to waste their lives figuring out how to take a slightly larger cut of the money they shift from one account to another.
“Henning Nielsen December 3, 2017 at 1:50 pm
Let us see what happens when financial services move to Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris. These services constitute a sizeable chunk of UK revenues. The British are welcome to revel in their newfound freedom, but they must also pay the price for it. To imagine that there is no price to be paid, is hopelessly naive.”
Given modern banking as we know it originated in England 300+ years ago, I don’t see that changing any time soon. Thatcher focused on the financial sector in favour of industry and she paid for it in the 80’s.
Heathrow is the busiest airport in the world hence building a new runway, it also connects Europe and the US to the financial hub that is London. Gatwick at capacity. Stanstead at capacity. Even Biggin Hill serves London. Unless you move the airport, the “Square Mile” will always be in London, NOT FRankfurt, Amsterdam or Paris. Mind you, there has been talk of expanding Frankfurt as there is no room in the South East England to expand airports after the new runway at Heathrow. IMO, it’s not going to happen in a long long time.
“MarkG December 3, 2017 at 5:19 pm
Maybe Britain will develop some real companies again, rather than sending many of its smartest young people to the City to waste their lives figuring out how to take a slightly larger cut of the money they shift from one account to another.”
That pretty much sums it up. Moving money around in computers and taking a “cut” for doing, effectively, nothing. This was called “invisible earnings” in the Thatcher years.
As ever Griff you are wrong. The EEA is not the single market or customs union. The EEA is the European Economic Area. Norway for example is not in the EU, but is in the EEA. Many countries outside the EUSSR have trade deals with the EUSSR but they don’t need to sign up to the Single Market or Customs Union. The EUSSR is a protection racket that locks out people like African Farmers by either imposing enormous tariffs or paying them peanuts. Moreover their percentage of world trade is dropping and has been for the last 10 years. Youth unemployment in southern Europe is over 40% and in some place over 50%
For US/Canadian readers – To put this EU lark into context for you. It would mean the US and Canada being a member of say the Pan-American union where the capital is Lima, your parliament or Congress is in Cuba,
You have 5 presidents (Commission, Council, Finance, Parliament and council of ministers). None of them are elected by the people. They would be in your case, Brazilian, Cuban, Panamanian, Mexican and Peruvian. Your laws are made by an unelected commission over which you have no control, and any attempt to change this ends in defeat either by straightforward being outvoted or by what is known as qualified majority voting. People from all over the American continent have unrestricted access to the US/Canada and access to your welfare system which they have not paid into. They can also send their welfare cheques back to their home country. You have no control over your border. Also, all your agriculture and fisheries are controlled by Common Policies – usually to your detriment and their is nothing you can do about it. Lastly the US and Canada will be the largest contributors to a central fund over which you have no control, which is open to widespread fraud and which hasn’t had a successful audit in 20 years.
On a sunny June day in 2016, you are asked if you want to continue with this travesty.
Now you know why 17,410,742 of us voted the get the f**k outta there!
Why would banking services leave? London is where all the experts are.
If you believe that banking services is merely moving money around, then no wonder you have to rely on others for your income.
“Many people don’t understand…”
Utter rubbish as usual, Grifter, you’re just another sad, whiny Remoaner loser is all.
All 17.4 million of us who voted to leave understood very well indeed what we voted for, we were bombarded with ‘Project Fear’ propaganda from all sides, including the £9.3 million pamphlet that Cameron caused to be delivered to every home in the country and 24/7 Remainer BS from the BBC and the EU-supporting MSM in genreal, not to mention Bath House Barry Obama’s patronising threats about the UK going to the back of the queue if we applied to the US for a trade deal.
So knock it off with your “Brexit voters were too thick to understand the issues” schtick, you patronising, condescending little twerp.
Now go and apologise to Dr. Crockford for maliciously lying about her professional qualifications in a malicious attempt to damage her scientific credibility.
“Let us see what happens when financial services move to Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris.”
Not going to happen, rather the opposite in fact.
Deutsche Bank signs lease for new London headquarters
German bank confirms commitment to city despite plans to move some staff after Brexit
Deutsche Bank has signed a lease for a new London headquarters, confirming its commitment to the capital despite plans to move some staff to Frankfurt following the UK’s vote to leave the EU.
Landsec, the property company, said on Tuesday it had signed an agreement for Deutsche Bank to take at least 469,000 square feet at 21 Moorfields, a site under construction in the City of London financial district.
https://www.ft.com/content/4319409e-768d-11e7-a3e8-60495fe6ca71
Plus, one of the bankers remarked that Frankfurt was “like a wet Wednesday in Huddersfield”
“first of all how to deal with being outside the EEA.”
Like the rest of the world?
Yeah, the rest of the world…except 27 EU members, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland 🙂 (The three last don’t count much, but the 27 first do) How fun it will be to see British merchant missionsaries desperately trying to export Christmas puddings to China.
Henning, you seem to suffer from the delusion that Europe matters.
Here is why we need to leave the EU and make our own trade deals with the RoW – which we cannot do while we remain in the single market.
Eric
whilst not specifically addressing climate, this article by Matt Ridley is illuminating for anyone wanting a concise incite into the EU’s attitude to the UK.
Personally, I suspect a lot of UK climate policy is on the back burner, subsidies are being cut until 2025 in certain areas, and I suspect they won’t ever reappear after Brexit.
I also suspect the whole climate con will be flushed at the slightest hint of the ‘pause’ re emerging as the money wasted on the scam is enormous, and with the predictions of Brexit financial Armageddon popular amongst the Brexit alarmists (remoaners) we can’t afford the luxury of chasing the climate phantom.
“BRITAIN SHOULD GIVE THE EU £20 BILLION EXTRA AS AN ACT OF CHARITY”
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/britain-should-give-the-eu-20-billion-extra-as-an-act-of-charity/
I think the interpretation is optimistic: all three parties arefully signed up to the tax and control that AGW is used to justify. The political elite do not have the electorate’s interests at heart and a dearth of bravery should any politician make a sceptical stand.
All the fuss in the British media about this winter being the coldest winter ever is because the British media follow the global warming paradigm and they would be able to claim that the reduced sea ice extent was leading to colder winters rather than the other way round which is more likely to be true. It would allow the global warmers to put forward the idea that colder winters have nothing to do with climate unlike warm summers(minimum temperatures mostly). I think we will see a slower decline in winter temperatures over the next decade and it is a change in climate.
That story runs every year -especially in the Daily Express.
It is virtually the only story they run other than ‘Duke of Edinburgh killed Diana’
Most papers in UK now bought by OAPs and the papers seem to like to terrify them
“Griff December 3, 2017 at 5:14 am
Most papers in UK now bought by OAPs…”
To burn to keep warm. Not much news and nutrition in UK papers, maybe the ink.
And you’re not even allowed to wrap fish and chips in them any more. Wasn’t that another EU regulation?
“MarkG December 3, 2017 at 5:24 pm
Wasn’t that another EU regulation?”
Sure was.
“Most papers in UK now bought by OAPs and the papers seem to like to terrify them”
More contemptuous ageism, Grifter?
What a profoundly unpleasant, hateful little creature you are.
It is total nonsense to say that the EU is “punishing” Britain. This view must be a result of hopeless illusions on the British side. The issue is very simple; the union has no interest in giving special treatment to a country who leaves it. The British government has shown shockingly bad judgment in this extremely important matter, and it will be interesting to follow the development inside Britain after March 19th 2019.
Its not just British throwing accusations that the EU is trying to punish Britain. Professor Polleit whom I quoted is a substantial figure in Germany – according to Wikipedia he is chief economist of Degussa Goldhandel, partner of Polleit & Riechert Investment Management LLP, president of the German department of the libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute (Ludwig von Mises Institute Germany) and honorary professor at the University of Bayreuth.
Worrall; well, well, “refer to authority”? A well-known tactic. Now, I wish the British all the best of luck. I love them. But they have not -in my humble opinion- prepared themselves at all for Brexit. But it all makes for an interesting development, with the British government as hostages of the hard-liners in DUP, maybe the result will be a united island of Ireland after all.
Citing expert commentary on a political situation is hardly an unusual thing to do. But I agree the British did not prepare for Brexit – the establishment thought the Brexit vote would fail, they completely underestimated the anger of Britains being governed by unelected officials.
Eric
Not only did the Uk fail to prepare for Brexit, the Europeans also failed to prepare for it.
The whole deal is as new to them as it is to the UK, the difference being, There is one UK Government Vs 27 European governments who struggle to make decisions between themselves at the best of times.
Indeed, the fact is, the UK government is battling a small number of narrow minded bureaucrats who, when Brexit rolls out, will have to explain themselves to the other 27 governments.
This is a big deal. They are going to upset some of those governments over the handling of Brexit which will harden the resolve of some to leave. Italy and Spain have been teetering for a while now (and the Catalan situation isn’t helping particularly as Scotland helped stoke that) and the former Eastern Bloc countries have formed an alliance to protect their rights.
There could be much merde hitting the fan in Europe over the coming years which will make Brexit look like a cakewalk.
Henning Nielsen
by holding trade talks to a ransom demand of £50Bn (at least), I think that’s not only vindictive but short sighted. The EU would engender a great degree of trust from British voters if it moved forward on trade talks whilst discussing the divorce bill as a separate issue.
The biggest fear the EU have is that the UK does well in the years following Brexit. If it does, there will be a queue of countries clutching section 50’s, at the door of Brussels. The EU will do anything to ensure the UK’s failure because if they don’t, and the UK flourishes, the EU is a dead duck.
This may indeed be the the most important point of brexit. The previous attempt at a common currency in Europe in the 19th century failed spectacularly, because Franch and Germany wouldn’t pay for all the rest. History repeats.
As someone said (I forgot who), those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it.
HotScot; yes, let us see how “glorious isolation ” suits Britain in the 21st century.
Henning Nielsen
“yes, let us see how “glorious isolation ” suits Britain in the 21st century.”
It’s a familiar concept to countries throughout history, around the world, including the UK.
Why should we fear it? Personally, I embrace it as a challenge.
The UK has a new direction and change brings with it opportunity.
Were man not a courageous creature, we would all still be living in a swamp.
Embrace change, embrace progress, embrace the differences between us.
We are where we are now as a human race because of one simple underlying characteristic, optimism.
Try it sometime.
Leaving Europe and joining with the rest of the world is “isolation”?
Really weird take on reality you got there mate.
Henning sweetie,
We are not seeking special treatment; WTO will suit most leavers. We will consider a trade deal to ease problems for the EUSSR but otherwise WTO will suit us
john, i will second that. considering youth unemployment in the southern eu states the fact the eu cares not a jot for its own citizens suggests anyone expecting preferential treatment for a country that has seen the light and decided to leave may be disappointed.
I agree, we can easily pay the substantial tariffs on any exported goods. people will give their right arms just for the honour of trading with the UK. There may be a problem with services which attract far higher tariffs, but we need to just refuse to pay them. No WTO country will dare contradict us if we refuse to pay, and if they do, well, we will leave the WTO. The rest of the world needs us far more than we need them.
“The rest of the world needs us far more than we need them.”
The EU certainly does. It only exists because it takes money from rich countries and uses it to bribe poor countries to remain. With the UK gone, that whole scam falls apart, unless Germans are willing to pay tens of billions more every year to keep the Greeks and Poles in the EU.
Which is why they’re acting like a bunch of petulant children. Everything they’ve fought and dreamed for for the last hundred years is about to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Dear John; it seems to me you are living in a dream-world. But time will tell. I recommend this comment:
“The EU correctly explains that, by choosing to leave not just the single market but also the wider European Economic Area (EEA) to become a “third country”, it is automatic under the rules that we will face the “hard border” that applies to every other third country, with all the physical infrastructure, inspections and delays that this implies.”
http://www.eureferendum.com/default.aspx
Henning Nielsen
“Dear John; it seems to me you are living in a dream-world. But time will tell. I recommend this comment:”
So we are to join the USA, China, India, Brazil, Australia, Canada etc. as a “third country”.
What incredible arrogance. A major contributor to the EU decides to leave and join the rest of the world in free trade, and EU officials describe us in derogatory terms as a ‘third country’.
In which case, it’s long overdue the UK left this appalling organisation.
Henning Nielsen
With respect we have ample evidence that Britain is being punished for daring to leave what was supposed to be a Free trade organisation but, without our permission, has turned into something else completely
Read quotes in full for context :
“There must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price, otherwise we will be in negotiations that will not end well and, inevitably, will have economic and human consequences,” the French president said.oct 2016
Lack of consequences risks other countries wanting to leave EU ‘to enjoy supposed benefits without downsides’
——–
Mr Henkel, (German mEP) who also serves as the vice chairman of the EU’s Industry, Research and Energy Committee, ……’But he said Mr Barnier and Mr Verhofstadt simply want to “make a mess” of the negotiations in order to discourage other nations from leaving the EU. july 2017
Also
“As they consider this matter, I would urge them not to listen to Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s Brexit co-ordinator, or even Michel Barnier, Europe’s chief negotiator, who I am afraid want to make a mess out of this whole unhappy situation.”
Mr Henkel said Mr Verhofstadt is an “ambitious politician who wants to achieve a United States of Europe” and “punish the British, full stop”.
“My impression is that Mr Barnier wants to do the same,” he said.
“The reason is simple. They would seek to make sure that Brexit is such a catastrophe that no country dares to take the step of leaving the EU again.”
We have also had disparaging quotes from Tusk and Barnier.
Tonyb
Tony; with respect; the EU (European Union) has since day 1 aspired to be more than a trade organisation. If the UK has not discovered this in its decades long period of membership, the blinders must have been very tight indeed. Now, let us see which other nations will long for “freedom”. As a Norwegian, who is outside of the EU, but inside the EEA, I can assure you that there is no such thing as being “liberated ” from EU rules and regulations if you wish to have a viable trade exchange with Europe.
Henning
The EU is a trading organisation. It aspires to being something much more but that remains its brief. The attempts to institutionalise ‘ever closer union’ meaning a federal entity dreamt of by the founders , were shot down by the French at the treaty of Trieste in 1955 as the ESCC was getting under way.
Undoubtedly some people want the EU to become a much closer federated Body but that is not what we signed up for in 1975 when I and some 65 percent of my countrymen and women voted to join the EEC.
There has been substantial mission creep since then but as the Dutch prime minister said just yesterday, there is no appetite in holland for much closer integration.
If junckers wants that as an aim he needs to put it to the voters.
Tonyb
Henning Nielsen
“Tony; with respect; the EU (European Union) has since day 1 aspired to be more than a trade organisation.”
Then thankfully we are leaving. The British electorate were promised the Common Market we joined in the 70’s would not become a political union.
As Norwegians, you are a country comfortable with paying hand over fist because of your historic, prudent oil investments which have brought great benefit to your country. And I applaud you for that. My fellow Scot’s were not as fortunate, but then we are part of the UK and our oil money was spent in a different way, to provide for a far greater population.
However, I don’t see Norway, France, Poland, or Holland etc. rallying round and thanking the UK, far less paying the UK for their liberation from Germany during WW2. Meanwhile, the UK willingly paid America for all the massive resources that went into liberating Europe, only to be sneered at by the likes of you.
You make a very poor case for your fellow Norwegians.
“climatereason December 3, 2017 at 2:43 pm
Undoubtedly some people want the EU to become a much closer federated Body but that is not what we signed up for in 1975 when I and some 65 percent of my countrymen and women voted to join the EEC.”
No we didn’t vote to join the common market (Not EEC then) in 1975. The decision was made by Heath in 1973, effective Jan 1st 1974 *WITHOUT* a mandate or vote. I always maintain the British public were royally rubber ducked.
In 1975 the vote was to remain or leave. The vote to remain was unanimous. And we did, for better or worse. Seems the Brits have had enough. I migrated to New Zealand in 1995, so none of this affects me any more.
Glorious isolation? Are you for real Henning?
Britain has the world’s fifth largest economy, We are members of NATO, G7, G8 and G20, We are permanent members of the UN security council. We have one of the most respected Armed Forces in the world and we are a nuclear power. We are leaders of the British Commonwealth which comprises some 53 or so countries – usually ex colonies – but who willingly joined and lastly we are owners of one of the worlds most widely spoken language.
. . . and you’re telling me we’re heading for glorious isolation. Really!
“It is total nonsense to say that the EU is “punishing” Britain.”
No, it is nothing of the sort.
Aside from being threatened with – and I quote – a “punishment beating” by one or other of the Brussels apparatchiks, try these:
“Brussels chiefs want to punish Britain, says top German MEP Hans-Olaf Henkel”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brussels-chiefs-like-michel-barnier-andguy-verhofstadt-want-to-punish-britain-says-top-german-mep-hans-olaf-henkel-ww8c6ctfn
‘EU doesn’t want Brexit to succeed’ Professor rages at Brussels club in explosive tirade
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/837507/Brexit-news-Brussels-UK-European-Union-latest-exit-Theresa-May-Jean-Claude-Juncker
Revealed: How Jean-Claude Juncker’s ‘monster’ is plotting to punish Britain for Brexit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/02/revealed-jean-claude-junckers-monster-plotting-punish-britain/
Lots of other countries are lining up to complete trade deals directly with the UK. The sooner the UK gets out of the suffocating embrace of the EU the better off it will be. The USA, most of Asia, and most of the old Commonwealth (British Empire) will welcome reciprocal trade arrangements. But the Brits need to be aware that the deal will need to be less one-sided than it was in pre-EU days.
Most of those other countries now have little to no trade protection allowed anymore they dismantled them under free trade agreements. It’s actually the UK that will struggle because it is still having trade protection under the control of the EU.
There is also some funny thing you will have to work out like if the UK is going to stay with the CE certification system for electrical goods or make it’s own. There isn’t much point in keeping the CE standard as it wont be recognized inside the EU. You will go thru the same situation all other countries sending electronic goods to the EU have to do which is to get the importer that has an EU office bearer to be the compliance holder.
LdB
“There isn’t much point in keeping the CE standard as it wont be recognized inside the EU.”
What’s the point of CE certification then?. One either complies, or one doesn’t.
If compliance is demanded, and met, then rejection is merely a political ruse.
Baseless, meaningless argument designed to frighten the masses via media.
My electrical training, qualification and experience matters not in Australia even though it’s the same stuff that comes out of the wall socket, ~240V/AC 50Hz, albeit 3amps less than the UK for domestic supply.
You simply aren’t understanding what you are talking about HotScot, the EU won’t recognize the UK compliance houses. Australia has C-Tick, USA has FCC etc each country has there own standard. I am stating the facts !!!!!
https://www.conformance.co.uk/adirectives/doku.php?id=brexit
They spell it out you have to keep compliance while you have a single market once you brexit this comes into effect
As I told you you can’t create EU compliance from outside the EU you have to make a TF and supply it to someone to a citizen/company of the EU. These are facts and how we in Australia sell to the EU … it’s not scare mongering but how it will work.
LdB
“You simply aren’t understanding what you are talking about HotScot”
I understand far better than you do. Technical issues are subject to political will. Just because a document states something, it doesn’t mean it will be enforced.
How do you think German and French car manufacturers will react when the UK compiles it’s own Technical File and, sadly, German and French cars don’t qualify. As one of the biggest markets they have, don’t you imagine Mercedes, BMW, VW, Renault and Citroen will be tearing down the doors of Brussels to agree a deal over technical compliance? Never mind industries such as Bosch and Siemens. The Japanese, Koreans and Chinese would be rubbing their hands with glee if a deal wasn’t formulated.
EU didn’t budge with the USA and recognition of FCC rules and you want to believe in the toothfairy and the EU is going to change the rules just for the UK an exiting partner is actually really funny.
You will not accept common sense and even what your own government is saying so lets have this discussion in 2 years, post brexit and see who was right 🙂
“There isn’t much point in keeping the CE standard as it wont be recognized inside the EU.”
You really are totally clueless, aren’t you?
The CE standard IS the standard for products sold within the EU single market notwithstanding the country of origin, even goods from China and Japan have it on them.
The letters ‘CE’ appear on many products traded on the extended Single Market in the European Economic Area (EEA). They signify that products sold in the EEA have been assessed to meet high safety, health, and environmental protection requirements. When you buy a new phone, a teddy bear, or a TV within the EEA, you can find the CE mark on them. CE marking also supports fair competition by holding all companies accountable to the same rules.
https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/ce-marking_en
If Britain’s Brexit delegitimised ‘Climate Change’ and Liberated British from the deathly grasp of Warmista Climate hysteria, then that alone would justify all the pain inflicted by the EU on the Brexit Process. All the rest of the political liberation and removal of EU bureaucratic strangulation would be a bonus.
Three weeks after the Brexit referendum, the House of Commons voted almost unanimously for the Fifth Carbon Budget. Last month’s Green Growth Strategy was similarly received with acclamation. The only party in favour of less stringent climate policy is UKIP, who have zero MPs and are down in the polls.
The UK will not abandon climate policy.
Nor will the EU. The climate package for the period 2021-2030 is now fixed, thanks in no small part to the UK.
Oh, and Stua misquotes me: The UK gov’t would lose the right to grant ETS permits, but UK companies would still be in the EU ETS. That issue has now been resolved.
But at least the UK will avoid fines when it fails to meet EU targets, unlike the Irish:
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/state-faces-inevitable-eu-climate-change-fines-from-2020-1.3014868
There are no fines for missing EU targets. That is a myth that only exists in the Irish media.
You sound happy about it. Why?
Even if Europe hits all its CO2 goals China and India will continue pumping out massive amounts of “carbon”. Making your efforts totally empty gestures. But at least you’ll feel good about yourself, right?
Leftist imbeciles approve of policies that “feel good” – but rarely “do good”.
The latest UK Budget put a stop on all new renewable subsidies until at least 2025. Its the first small step in unwinding the mess that the green blob and incompetent politicians have made of UK energy policy. Mr Tol, your ‘religion’ is under dire threat.
Richard, in reality, Trump has ended the climate deal. Oh, there is all manner of soldiering-on nonsense and big US companies with foreign markets still virtue signaling, but, without the US, the international deal is dead. Period.
Europe will have its head in the sand for a while, like they have with the demographic/ cultural time bomb that can’t be named or you would face jail time over there. Indeed, let me forecast that the Europe of 2050 will have completely different priorities that also can’t be named and climate won’t be ever mentioned.
The US is too big and too needed by the world to punish. They are self sufficient in the world’s cheapest energy and have a big enough domestic market to weather anything. Any country that saddles it self with the cost of neomarxbrothers policies won’t be able to compete. ETS permits and other such stuff will be like the Monopoly™ board game, fun but irrelevant to reality. There is some money to be made by the foxy.
Gary: Trump did not end the Paris Agreement; it remains in force. Trump walked away from a treaty that posed no material obligation on the USA. Trump’s plan to leave the Paris Agreement a month after the next presidential election only reveals how unprepared and uncurious his administration is.
Richard,
“Gary: Trump did not end the Paris Agreement; it remains in force.”
What force? If it’s “a treaty that posed no material obligation on the USA”, then what are you talking about being “in force”?
Do you not understand what the word force means? Or are you just messing with us?;
But we’ve repeatedly been told the ‘Paris Agreement’ is NOT a treaty, because, if it was a treaty, it would have to be voted on in the Senate. Therefore it’s merely an agreement with President Osama, and irrelevant now Trump is in the White House.
John: Gary seemed to claim that the Paris Agreement collapsed because President Trump announced that the USA will walk away. The Paris Agreement has not collapsed. It remains in force, even though its force is very weak.
Mark: I’m not a lawyer. I guess President Obama reckoned that, since Paris puts no new obligations on the USA, it need not be ratified by the Senate. That said, any president is bound by decisions his predecessors make. The USA is therefore a party to the Paris Agreement until 4 Nov 2020, assuming that notification is given on the first possible opportunity, which is 4 Nov 2019.
Richard,
I took Gary’s descriptive statement as a personal assessment/judgment call, partly based on the weak force nature of the “accord”, akin to a prediction (or projection, in some vernaculars ; ) I’m not sure where you got the idea that Presidents are bound by just any ol’ thing a previous President signed, but I assure you they are not. Sure, there is a need to appear considerate of what another has endorsed . . but a simple utterance about “national security” wipes the board the clean, so to speak. (There’s no weak force nature to that elected position ; )
John: In this case, President Trump feels indeed bound by President Obama’s signature. Trump will not walk away from the Paris Agreement, but rather leave the Paris Agreement according to the rules laid down in that agreement (if Trump will still be president on 4 Nov 2019).
Richard,
“President Trump feels indeed bound by President Obama’s signature.”
He’s not bound, that’s my point. (You can believe he “feels” bound by President Obama’s signature, but I’m hesitant to believe you are a heart-knower ; )
Politics is complex, and sometimes it makes political sense to not “walk away” from such an agreement for reasons other than one “feels bound” by it. Not just walking away does not necessarily indicate one feels one can’t just walk away . . ya know?
John: Whatevs. As I write this, the USA is a party to the Paris Agreement; and the President has announced that the USA will stay a party until 4 Nov 2020 or later.
“There are no fines for missing EU targets. That is a myth that only exists in the Irish media.”
But of course the media is telling the truth about climate change.
Make up your mind.
My mind is made up: People speak the truth sometimes, tell inadvertant untruths at other times, and occassionally lie.
Richard
But only when it suits a particular narrative, like climate change. Then anything negative writ on the subject becomes gospel as far as alarmist’s are concerned, truthful or otherwise.
The fundamental issue is that no-one believes in global warming outside of a tiny number of activists in the US, UK Germany and Australia. And even they, when you push it, do not seem to show any real evidence of committed belief.
The Chinese don’t – just look at their ongoing contruction of coal plants all around the world, and at their recent increases in emissions. This is relevant to assessing the activists’ real views because they cannot seriously believe in a coming emission fuelled catastrophe if they are unwilling to demand that the world’s largest emitter make real tonnage reductions. Instead they change the subject to justifying the moral righteousness of the Chinese in emitting at these levels, and ignore the fact that if the activists are right, they are single handedly destroying human civilization.
In their own countries, the activists consistently refuse to advocate measures which would lower their own emissions. You do not, for instance, find any of them proposing to lower the number of cars on the roads, closing down the car industry. They will not propose closing down the car industry worldwide either of course.
Instead they advocate doing things which have little or no effect on their own emissions, like building wind farms, or, if they are as far north as humans live, installing vast solar arrays. None of which, when you account for the backup required and the carbon cost of erecting the things, produces declines in emissions.
This, and not the verbal commitments to the Paris or other agreements is the fundamental issue. As for Paris, this too was evidence of total lack of belief – just look at who has made hard commitments and how large a percentage of global emissions this subjects to real commitments to reduce. Probably 15%? And those commitments are not even being lived up to.
Its a hugely expensive farce in which people give vast sums to Siemens and others in the alternative energy lobby not to generate any electricity. Meanwhile, even if wind and solar did reduce emissions by a bit, they are not the real target, electricity only accounts for about one third of global emissions. So even if you do knock 30% off it, which would be going, you are only knocking 10% off the supposed problem, at huge expense.
Meanwhile in Britain this winter, as in all winters, you will have a rise in the death rate, particularly among the old who depend on electricity for heating. There really are people in Britain who, to fund this madness, are thinking hard before boiling water for a cup of tea, and having to choose between their cup of tea and a hot water bottle.
Self righteous wickedness of the Guardianistas.
It is a cluster, a nexus, of multiple inter-connected issues.
~500 years of contention in Ireland involving violations of property rights, movements of people of very similar and greatly different cultures
Socialist illfare states depending on a particular range of demographic profiles to have enough producers of value to support the others
Pseudo-free trade, technology transfer (Russia, France, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, USA, Red China, Palestine=Gaza, Israel…), transferring materials, equipment, parts, designs, intellectual property, and the “doing nothing” UN, UNESCO, WTO, etc. forcing consolidation, forcing tolerance of rape and other initiations of force and fraud
It is not only borders, not only refuge or asylum, not only trade in cakes and toys, not only power-mad watermelon climate wannabe dictators. The many connected sub-issues are difficult to list, let alone debate properly (especially, as now, when house-pets are climbing into my face and bumping my arms).
September 2018, the end of the Greek bailouts.
With the Greek problem now fixed! shouldn’t be a problem, Should it?
You might like to ask the Greeks whether the end of bailouts has solved the problem from their perspective. I suspect that it will be a final solution from the German perspective. Not so much from theirs.
I think perhaps the words “final solution” is tasteless and offensive in this context.
rapscallion
Seconded.
“Despite substantial grumbling, the UK still overwhelmingly supports politicians who embrace renewables, who advocate aggressive emissions reduction policies”.
The overwhelming majority of Politicians do not understand the first thing about the so called AGW meme and have tamely acquiesced to whatever their Party activists demand. What is happening in the South Australia renewable energy paradise should be a salutary lesson for our supine and inept Politicians, that is if any of them are interested in reality instead of the fantasy of “green” energy. However, there are a few, one of whom I regularly correspond with, that make the effort to understand and have come to the realisation how destructive the meme of AGW is for the UK.
Likewise the majority of the population have absolutely no interest in AGW and want to get on with their lives and just follow the lead of our inept Politicians for an easy life.
Until our Politicians wake up to reality and repeal the ill conceived Climate Change Act the false impression of the opening quote will prevail.
Not just Australia
http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/01/germanys-national-power-grid-mess-country-seeing-whopping-172000-power-outages-annually/#sthash.o27HDl52.dpbs
Thank you mwhite.
An excellent article posted by Pierre Gosselin.
Germany’s National Power Grid Mess…Country Seeing Whopping 172,000 Power Outages Annually!
http://notrickszone.com/2017/12/01/germanys-national-power-grid-mess-country-seeing-whopping-172000-power-outages-annually/#sthash.o27HDl52.dpbs
I recall Griff repeatedly saying the Germany’s grid was highly reliable. Not so. Where is he anyway – did he suddenly get a dose of reality, or did someone stop paying him to post warmist nonsense?
Well that looks like utter nonsense to me.
I will investigate.
Germany didn’t even have problems in winter of 2011/12 when they had switched off nearly 505 of the nukes in the May without any advance plan for compensating for that over the winter
The whole German Government is in a mess, they still don’t have an actual government and now we are back to Merkel hoping to get the SPD to join her in coalition.
Griff, please fly into the new BER airport and report back after you investigate.
Griff
very good, we look forward to your informed analysis.
Thanks for the reference to Pierre Gosselin’s article. That’s what can happen when politicians, working with environmentalists, think they know better than the engineers. I’m actually amazed since German engineering has always had such a great reputation. Those two projects must be a total, complete and worldwide embarrassment. They could actually be the death knell for the overseas market for German engineering, which if I remember correctly use to be huge.
“Despite substantial grumbling, the UK still overwhelmingly supports politicians who embrace renewables, who advocate aggressive emissions reduction policies.”
“Britain are not prioritising climate change because they are trying to avoid 100s of thousands of job losses.”
Which is it?
Both. The politicians are that dumb. They haven’t a clue about the science, the renwables, cost or effectiveness. They’re all a bunch of day dreamers.
+10, Tiny.
Tiny,
“They’re all a bunch of day dreamers.”
I doubt that very much . . To me, it seems far more . . down to earth (and simple); The corporate mass media attacks/smears anyone who does not support the CAGW, and you get nothing but CAGW supporters elected.
The biggest issue will be can the UK still trade with the EU post divorce and that won’t be answered for some time yet. There is some Billion UK has to pay first and then work out the status of citizens who have immigrated between the two parties need to be sorted before trade negotiations.
LdB December 3, 2017 at 5:41 am,
The biggest issue will be can the UK still trade with the EU post divorce and that won’t be answered for some time yet.
No, that is not an issue. The UK doesn’t need a trade deal to trade with the EU under WTO rules. A trade deal might be preferable, but that is another matter. In fact many Brexiters favoured leaving the EU without a trade deal, anticipating the kind of difficulties we are now having in reaching an agreement.
LdB
There is no reason on earth anyone on the planet can’t trade with the EU assuming they conform to the standards and tariffs set by the EU. Which is, of course, protectionism. The very thing the EU is accusing Trump of.
For many, it’s just not worth the effort, so they don’t, there’s no mystery here.
One of the problems between the UK and the EU is that there is massive trade between the two, so it’s a two way street, and if the UK imposes it’s own standards and tariffs on imported EU goods and services, there will be an awful lot of hacked off Europeans.
Bear in mind that those hacked off Europeans will be seeking new markets for their goods and they just aren’t set up to sell outwith Europe. Many of them are small to medium businesses whose are, if not totally reliant on the UK, certainly a large part reliant.
But whilst the UK has probably the biggest Embassy presence around the world, right now, negotiating deals, who in the EU is out in the real world fighting for their SME’s?
I venture to suggest, very few, if any at all simply because with their protectionist philosophy, they have cut their nose off to spite their face, and will continue to do so. Why would any country outside the EU take up the slack lost when the UK leaves, when they must jump through hoops to sell their goods into the EU?
I sort of expect a two fold reaction with brexit, there will be companies in the EU positioned to take EU market share from UK companies. There will also be the reverse UK companies seeking to take UK market share from EU companies.
You forget as Australians we have seen all this before when the UK joined the EU we know what happens and what it looks like. Here is our trade history with the UK in a nutshell
https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/fifty-years-of-Australias-trade.pdf
Trade to UK in 1963 23.5% of our GDP
Trade to UK in 2013 1.4% of our GDP
There will be winners and losers but in general trading with EU countries is very difficult, not impossible but much harder.
“The biggest issue will be can the UK still trade with the EU post divorce “
Do you think the Germans are going to be happy to lose 12% – 20% of their car exports?
How about the French farmers and the Mediterranean tourist trade?
We’re the EU’s biggest export market, you muppet.
You really haven’t the first clue what you’re wittering about have you?
“LdB December 3, 2017 at 5:41 am
The biggest issue will be can the UK still trade with the EU post divorce…”
EU, population ~350mil? Rest of world, ~7bil? UK, not so worried! We ruled the world once.
Reading comprehension is your friend Nick.
The British politicians are still supporting anti-CO2 policies. It’s how to deal with the climate policies as affected by Brexit that are not being prioritized.
UK has the choice to leave EU without negotiation but it seems some of those negotiating hope other things….
Read following article (English translation available in print mode by click on the top left corner flags)
http://souverainete-france.org/fr/print.php?item=9999982&id=europe
The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the ocewans over which mankind has no control. There may be many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. It is all a matter of science.
The UK is in some ways more warmist than the EU. Britain followed France in mandating only electric cars after 2040. But no other EU country has followed. The EU, under strong influence of auto-makers, has issued a much milder demand, of 30% efficiency improvement by 2030. This would have happened anyway with engine improvements in the pipeline, so it means nothing. For that reason, it is actually very sensible.
So the danger to the UK is the opposite, of out-of-control self destructive AGW virtue signalling, cut of from the moderating common-sense influence of the EU.
once we have left the eu we can then hold the feet of our own bureaucrats to the fire once the “because eu” excuse has gone. interesting times ahead. anyone that fails to grasp brexit is just the start is in for a surprise 🙂
Might need to do some double checking, but sat/stood/wandering about ontop The Nottinghamshire Coalfield, I see lots of power stations chuffing merrily away. Ones that previously weren’t.
I also see, via Interwebz Magik, that 2GW (full grunt) is being stuffed into the French Interconnector almost constantly.
Must surely give somebody somewhere some leverage…….
😀
UK grid – http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
French grid – http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/
The winter has just started & everything to the north & east of us is below zero°C
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=5.48,68.86,274/loc=2.014,45.991
The engineers are doing wonders. Let’s hope nothing breaks. The coal, gas and nukes were flat out on Friday evening.
JF
We simply have no option. All the major political parties & two of the minor ones who get votes (Greens & Lib Dems) are wedded to the scam to some degree.
‘But the EU is making Brexit very difficult for Britain.’
Only Britain can make it difficult for Britain.
“Dear EU,
We’re out.
Love,
Theresa May”
Make Great Britain great again.
When was it “Great” ? what stage of our development would you like to emulate and return to ?
Gareth
We were ‘Great’ at every stage in our development.
But then that perspective rather depends, on one’s own outlook, optimist, or pessimist.
I would have supported the decision to stay in the EU as enthusiastically as I support Brexit.
But what I like most is change, because it brings great opportunity. A pessimist might think it a threat.
Which are you Gareth? And ‘realist’ is not an acceptable answer, it’s a cop out because I’m a realist as well.
“When was it “Great” ?”
Mmm, let’s see? When it ran a quarter of the world, controlled the oceans, ended slavery, and was the planet’s technological power-house?
So that would be pretty much the entire period from the Middle Ages until the country was sold down the river by its politicians after WWII, then.
MarkG
Here Hear!
Great Britain is, of course, the name of the island – the ‘mainland’ of England Scotland and Wales, excluding the Isle of Wight, Anglesey [Ynys Mon, I think] plus the Hebrides, Shetlands etc.
I guess a fall in sea level will make it – err – Greater.
And if levels fall enough, we would have a land border with Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium perhaps.
Customs controls in Doggerland?
Auto
What Auto said…
I suggest that we have a referendum on the climate change act because no one voted for it , it is being imposed on us by interest groups influencing government policies so called experts.
EXACTLY Donald.
Such is the economic cost of dealing with it that the whole AGW story is arguably at least as important an economic issue for Britain’s future as Brexit. The abysmal Climate Change Act, as the main instrument of torture, could thus be in the same league as Article 50 in terms of the magnitude of its long-term implications.
I would love to be able to vote on it, and indeed campaign for its repeal.
We’ve known that global warming alarmism was false nonsense since 1985, and published against this multi-trillion dollar sc@m since 2002. Here is a post from 2009. Look up Douiglas Hoyt.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/new-paper-global-dimming-and-brightening-a-review/#comment-151040
Allan MacRae (03:23:07) 28/06/2009 [excerpt]
FABRICATION OF AEROSOL DATA USED FOR CLIMATE MODELS:
Douglas Hoyt:
The pyrheliometric ratioing technique is very insensitive to any changes in calibration of the instruments and very sensitive to aerosol changes.
Here are three papers using the technique:
Hoyt, D. V. and C. Frohlich, 1983. Atmospheric transmission at Davos, Switzerland, 1909-1979. Climatic Change, 5, 61-72.
Hoyt, D. V., C. P. Turner, and R. D. Evans, 1980. Trends in atmospheric transmission at three locations in the United States from 1940 to 1977. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1430-1439.
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. Pyrheliometric and circumsolar sky radiation measurements by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1923 to 1954. Tellus, 31, 217-229.
In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly. There are other studies from Belgium, Ireland, and Hawaii that reach the same conclusions. It is significant that Davos shows no trend whereas the IPCC models show it in the area where the greatest changes in aerosols were occurring.
There are earlier aerosol studies by Hand and Marvin in Monthly Weather Review going back to the 1880s and these studies also show no trends.
___________________________
Allan:
Repeating: “In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly.”
___________________________
Here is an email just received from Douglas Hoyt [my comments in square brackets]:
It [aerosol numbers used in climate models] comes from the modelling work of Charlson where total aerosol optical depth is modeled as being proportional to industrial activity.
[For example, the 1992 paper in Science by Charlson, Hansen et al]
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/255/5043/423
or [the 2000 letter report to James Baker from Hansen and Ramaswamy]
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:DjVCJ3s0PeYJ:www-nacip.ucsd.edu/Ltr-Baker.pdf+%22aerosol+optical+depth%22+time+dependence&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
where it says [para 2 of covering letter] “aerosols are not measured with an accuracy that allows determination of even the sign of annual or decadal trends of aerosol climate forcing.”
Let’s turn the question on its head and ask to see the raw measurements of atmospheric transmission that support Charlson.
Hint: There aren’t any, as the statement from the workshop above confirms.
__________________________
IN SUMMARY
There are actual measurements by Hoyt and others that show NO trends in atmospheric aerosols, but volcanic events are clearly evident.
So Charlson, Hansen et al ignored these inconvenient aerosol measurements and “cooked up” (fabricated) aerosol data that forced their climate models to better conform to the global cooling that was observed pre~1975.
Voila! Their models could hindcast (model the past) better using this fabricated aerosol data, and therefore must predict the future with accuracy. (NOT)
That is the evidence of fabrication of the aerosol data used in climate models that (falsely) predict catastrophic humanmade global warming.
And we are going to spend trillions and cripple our Western economies based on this fabrication of false data, this model cooking, this nonsense?
*************************************************
I don’t think their is any chance of all cars in the UK being electric by 2040 nor is it being mandated by the Government . This was a statement by an out of control Michael Gove; it was not a manifesto commitment by the Conservative party. It was noticeable that in his recent budget the Chancellor did not attempt any punitive tax raid on cars.
In fact lets make the referendum global and see how many people in the world agree with the things climate activists ,scientist, are forcing us to do in order to save the planet.
A worldwide referendum? To paraphrase someone (whose name escapes me) “never underestimate the stupidity of the average man”.
Most people don’t take the time to actually learn about the issues, and just accept what their “betters” tell them. If we had the educated populous a referendum requires we wouldn’t need it in the first place.
So Tony Blair’s 50% university education play is not working out then?
There’s a surprise!
roger
One of my biggest gripes.
Media studies, amongst many other barmy degrees. No wonder the BBC and the Guardian are swamped with barely literate, left wing, former students………………
It is working out. It keeps the youth unemployment figures down by encouraging kids to borrow lots of money to take worthless degrees, instead of living on the dole.
Modern day indentured servitude.
Britain has no EU commitments to emissions.
Only to ‘renewable energy’
And that is enshrined in UK law right now.
We can but hope it gets repealed.