UK Climate Change Commission Urges the Government Spend More Money

Essay by Eric Worrall

The UK Climate Change Commission, a government body meant to oversee climate policy, has slammed the government for insufficient effort on climate adaption.

Climate change is accelerating – and the UK government is ‘strikingly unprepared’

Published: March 30, 2023 2.20am AEDT

Sam Fankhauser
Professor of Climate Economics and Policy, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford

The CCC criticised the government’s national adaptation programme for its lack of vision, ambition and reach. Sector by sector, the report lists failings in the government’s planning for climate change, or where plans exist, in their execution. 

Thirteen sectors, from infrastructure and the built environment to health, nature and managed lands are forensically analysed, highlighting that “fully credible” planning is only in place for five of 45 key risk areas, while evidence that the country is becoming less vulnerable to climate change is “lacking across the board.”

Read more:

The official British national debt is 100% of GDP (£2,445 billion) according to the ONS. But I’ve seen multiple claims this figure is calculated using non standard accounting processes, such as excluding off balance sheet liabilities such as unfunded public sector pensions from their calculation.

In 2021 the Taxpayer’s Alliance used standard corporate accounting practices, as opposed to the government’s accounting fiddles, and determined the true British national debt is around £9-10 trillion.

So the big question, if the British government were to step up its climate preparation, where would the money come from? Cutting benefits for poor people or the elderly? Slimming down the NHS? Adding even further to Britain’s already unmanageable national debt? Opening the doors to even more mass immigration, to support the narrative there will be enough tax revenue available in the future to service the ever growing mountain of government debt?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

5 9 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 1, 2023 10:09 pm

I think we all know the answer to that question.

The typical wealthy Londoner has no concern whatsoever for the poorer citizens currently being crushed by ULEZ (London’s Ultra-Low Emission Zone).

A relative of mine recently took an Uber ride in London, and the Uber driver told him that their ULEZ fines averaged 780 pounds (about $A1000) per month, because the signs were so poor that it was impossible not to make mistakes. Another friend said they were called by a daughter in another part of London for help, and were fined 540 pounds (about $A700) for the trip there and back.

Can you imagine what it must be like for lower-paid workers in London trying to make a living but not being able to afford an electric vehicle (EV’s travel for free throughout ULEZ). When my London relative asked a wealthy EV-owning neighbour that question, the reply was “they should pay more”.

So there is the typical wealthy Londoner answer to your question. The poor should pay more.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Mike Jonas
April 1, 2023 10:43 pm

Neither of those stories are likely to be true. The cost per day for driving in the ULEZ is £12.50 while the penalty if you forget to pay the charge is £180 or £90 if you pay in 14 days.
Not only that but Uber automatically adds on a surcharge to any ride that passes through the ULEZ so that the Uber drives should not be losing any money by going through the zone. While your other friend should only have had to pay £12.50 for helping their daughter and even that assumes that they hadn’t driven in the ULEZ earlier in the same day. Plus any sensible Uber driver would have set up autopay so that they never get fined as would most people living in London.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
April 2, 2023 4:30 am

How does Ulez differ from the congestion charge – and do you need to pay both?
“if both the Ulez and Congestion Charge apply to your journey, then you have to pay both.
What happens if I don’t pay?
You’ll get a fine.
These are currently £180 (or £90 if paid within 14 days) for both unpaid Ulez and Congestion Charge.”

The zones are so (intentionally?) poorly marked that it is very easy not to realise that you have to pay. Then you get a fine, and the time taken to issue and deliver the fine notice is not taken into account. The ‘stories’ are from a very reliable source.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
April 2, 2023 12:16 am

The standard fine is

£65. This rises to £130 if not paid within 14 days

I got one recently when the council changed a road nearby without telling anyone

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  strativarius
April 2, 2023 7:56 am

“without telling anyone”
hmmm… sounds like a good plan to raise money! like police speed traps

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 2, 2023 1:36 pm

It’s called “revenue enhancement”.

Reply to  strativarius
April 2, 2023 6:41 pm

The Crown can do whatever it wants.

The Colonies separated from the Crown to end that.

The supporters of the Crown, now known as the Democrat party, just want to get back to that level of federal government power. That is why they want to start getting “control” of guns, first by finding ways to require tracking (registration) of any gun or gun part purchase.

The UK did away with private gun ownership and has been getting more and more dictatorial ever since. The Crown has no fear of the serfs.

Phillip Bratby
April 1, 2023 11:01 pm

It’s not a commission. It is the Climate Change Committee (CCC), an “independent”, statutory body established under the Climate Change Act 2008. It’s purpose is to advise the UK and devolved governments on emissions targets and to report to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for and adapting to the impacts of climate change. The only things it is independent of are the science and reality.

Iain Reid
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
April 2, 2023 12:15 am


I have been asking my M.P. for nearly ayear now, just how the government selects it’s advisors, my point is if you need advise how can you judge the expertise of potential advisors?
Still waiting for an answer.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Iain Reid
April 2, 2023 7:59 am

friends, relatives and cronies
that’s the way its done here in Woke-achusetts

It doesnot add up
Reply to  Iain Reid
April 3, 2023 4:33 am

The advisors are selected by senior civil servants. You can see where that leads. Politicians may be given a choice of a couple of pre-selected people or consultancy firms in some cases. The Yes Minister episode on the selection of a new Bishop gives a lot of insight.

Reply to  Iain Reid
April 3, 2023 5:55 am

Only frothing-in-the-mouth ecoloons need apply.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
April 2, 2023 12:17 am

It isn’t elected

Steve Case
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
April 2, 2023 1:01 am

“The only things it is independent of are the science and reality”

Good one (-:

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
April 2, 2023 7:58 am

sounds like they need a “reality check”- like have them live in a remote part of Africa, in a hut, with no electricity, bad water, and nearby predators

then after that reality check- they’ll be given science homework

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 2, 2023 6:43 pm

You mean in a $h!thole country?

Curious George
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
April 2, 2023 8:05 am

Honorable Committee members should provide necessary funds from their own pockets.

April 2, 2023 12:44 am

So the big question, if the British government were to step up its climate preparation, where would the money come from?

Well, the obvious answer is they could abolish their energy net-zero program. Paul Homewood has estimated that the subsidies to wind and solar in the UK are in excess of £400 per household per year. Around a third of that is direct taxation on electricity bills, which is then used to subsidize wind and solar generation. The rest is more indirect. That would pay for an awful lot of preparation.

It would also pay for a lot of insulation and home improvements, if the political establlshment really wants to cut down on fuel consumption.

No chance, of course.

Meanwhile, on related subjects, there appear to be two further policy insanities under consideration in the UK, the rifst apparently already implemented.

The first is to set in law, with fines to enforce, the proportion of EVs that manufacturers must sell. It is now 22% according to the Telegraph:

Car manufacturers will be forced to ration the number of petrol and diesel cars it sells from next year until 2030 when these sales will face an outright ban.

The Government’s Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate (ZEV) will put yearly restrictions on car manufacturers on the proportion of petrol cars they can sell, in a bid to drive up electric vehicle use and hit net zero targets.

With the need for an increased proportion of electric car sales, this will inevitably lead to the production of fewer petrol and diesel cars as manufacturers switch focus.

The much-anticipated ZEV mandate, which is now being consulted on, will require manufacturers to ensure 22 per cent of all new cars sold are electric by the start of next year, with this growing to 80 per cent in 2030.

Carmakers who do not hit their targets, will face fines of £15,000 per car under the target.

The second insanity is that there is apparently a proposal to implement the same policy with gas boilers. A manufacturer of gas boilers will have a similar quota on the percent of heat pumps shipped, and if you make and ship too many gas boilers and not enough heat pumps, you will be fined in a similar way.

I wonder whether there has been any risk analysis on either of these two proposals? Almost certainly not. I would have thought that both risk running into a brick wall on consumer acceptance. People may simply refuse to trade in their ICE cars, thus leading to a fall in new car sales.

And people may really revolt when it comes to boilers, because that is an absolute necessity of life in the UK, and the government messes with that at its peril. The general view in the UK at the moment seems to be (from anecdotal accounts only) that they cost a bomb both to install and to run, and don’t work in UK housing.

Reply to  michel
April 2, 2023 12:52 am

Sorry, I see on re-reading the Telegraph piece that the car proposal is under consultation, not yet implemented. It seems almost certain to happen though.

There is a third policy proposal. This is to take the 150 or so that is currently levied directly on electricity bills to subsidize wind and solar, and to instead transfer it to tax gas. Then use the money raised to subsidize the wind and solar.

The idea is to make heat pumps more attractive compared to gas by raising gas prices by a tax.

This, one has to say, is truly wicked. Home heating is a necessity. The UK already has high rates of fuel poverty (heat or eat but not both). The effect of this proposal would be to increase it. And it might not seem as if 150 or so a year is much. But there is a big proportion of the UK for whom it is a lot.

You can be sure that all these measures will command the unanimous assent of all political parties in the UK, with the further left ones getting very excited only because they do not go far enough.

Because climate!

Reply to  michel
April 2, 2023 12:59 am

Consultations are ignored.

Reply to  michel
April 2, 2023 4:07 am

So glad I left England 60 years ago for more clement climes! The stupidity in the U.K. seems to be increasing annually!

Dave Andrews
Reply to  michel
April 2, 2023 6:25 am

Over 22m of the 28m households in the UK are on the gas network.

A recent report lodged in the House of Commons Library estimated the number of households in fuel poverty,was 13% in England, 25% in Scotland, 12% in Wales and 18% in Northern Island. That could easily amount to almost 10m people.

Reply to  michel
April 2, 2023 7:59 am

Here in States we are banning gas (natural gas) stoves or the installation of gas pipelines for new house.

I wonder what this does to companies liken Generac that supply standby generation, but rely on gas to run the generators.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  mkelly
April 2, 2023 1:15 pm

“Here in States we are banning gas (natural gas) stoves or the installation of gas pipelines for new house.”

Here in Oklahoma, people who put in new gas appliances get a subsidy from the gas company.

The Generac generators can also run on truck-delivered propane, so a gas line is not essential.

I’m planning on getting one in the near future, what with all the uncertainty about the electrical grid, and people taking pot shots at electrical transformers, it seems like a good idea.

If they ban propane, I’ll run the generator on woodgas. I have a lot of trees around here.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  michel
April 2, 2023 6:13 am

The UK Government needs to be realistic.

According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders the car industry in the UK employs about 1m people in total and produces £77 bn in trade each year. 8 out of10 cars it produced are exported to over 140 different markets.
The former boss of Nissan has already warned the government’s proposals would mean car manufacturers would leave the UK

Reply to  Dave Andrews
April 2, 2023 11:17 am

The UK Government needs to be realistic.

That’s a novel concept – can’t see that catching on.

Reply to  michel
April 2, 2023 8:51 am

An issue few in the UK are aware of is that new and replacement oil and off grid gas boilers are to be banned from 2026, nine years before on grid boilers. Two of my regional Welsh Senedd members were unaware of this until I wrote to them. This proposal will see large numbers of rural communities impacted by this arbitrary early ban.

Reply to  Jackdaw
April 2, 2023 10:21 am

Yes, indeeed. If you know anyone living off grid and using an oil fired heating system, they should either replace it with a new one in 2024-5, or at the very least make sure they have a spare heat exchanger.

I think the second is the better solution if you have a boiler that is not condensing. Condensing boilers were introduced and made obligatory ‘because climate’, but they have a far shorter lifespan. If you have a good quality non-condensing system, lay in spares now.

The burners won’t be a problem, they are standard parts. But the heat exchangers are model specific.

Peta of Newark
April 2, 2023 1:05 am

In a way it’s rather sweet, if it was coming from children.
From supposed grown-ups – maybe not so sweet

Did anyone visit TheConversation coz if they did they’d see this image
comment image

Those three chimneys, to my ‘exploring eye’ at least, look rather familiar
What I’m seeing there is the brickworks at a place name-of Whittlesea, just a little bit south and east of Peterborough

Am in Whittlesea right now and coming in, took a photo of my own – as attached.
(Chimneys marked with yellow dots, sorry about the windmills)

OK, mine is not from a drone/helicopter and mine is looking west just after sunrise on a clear morning instead of looking east on a foggy morning.
(One of TheGreatThings about Cambridge Fen is the fog it creates – it is to all intents what sea-farers would be familiar with)

You will notice that Cambridge Fen is not some hideous Desertified Dunescape ravaged and wasted because of: Climate Change.
It is an incredibly green, incredibly fertile (and rather damp) place – despite having the lowest rainfall for all of UK
(Climate Scientists, PLEASE, Look & Learn)
For those in UK Gov answering to the name ‘Coffey’ – it is where considerable numbers of turnips are grown ##

Yeeeesssss, that is coal-derived soot, smoke and CO2 coming out of there (2 of them are working constantly)….
But: UK Government has decreed that 370,000 new houses are to be built every year.
Where do they imagine the bricks required to that are coming from, what are they made of and how are they made?

## Ancient joke:

What’s a mile long and eats cabbage?
Original answer was: The queue at an East European butcher’s shop. Now: At your local Tesco.

Whittlesea Bricks.PNG
Reply to  Peta of Newark
April 2, 2023 4:40 am

Close Whittlesea, import bricks from coal-powered China -> zero CO2 emissions.
(That is how CO2 emissions are counted).

Reply to  Mike Jonas
April 2, 2023 6:06 pm

But CO2 “is a well mixed gas” so back to square one 🙂

April 2, 2023 1:09 am

Propaganda for kids from the BBC

Julian Flood
April 2, 2023 1:30 am

I have an automatic comment when the UK government starts banging on about money: Frack, you fools.

Then encourage the use of methane for cars, lorries, trains, boats, industrial and domestic space heating. This will cut CO2 emissions because a methane economy is halfway to hydrogen without the pain.


michael hart
April 2, 2023 1:52 am

“UK Climate Change Commission Urges the Government Spend More Money”

I do have a sort code available for when the UK government wants to start pumping me full of cash.

April 2, 2023 4:01 am

I hope someone somewhere will be keeping a note of these stupid comments by idiots like Professor Sam, so that when the absolute idiocy of the climate emergency scam is finally accepted by all, they can be brought to account! Isn’t it these university types who are supposed to point out the stupidity of uneducated non-university-educated ordinary folk? If not, why would their valued services not be dispensed with immediately. Permanently!

Reply to  mikelowe2013
April 2, 2023 6:07 pm

Ignorant academics are responsible for a lot of modern problems … (in Australia) the urban planning caused debacle in affordable housing being another one of them

April 2, 2023 5:29 am

Why anyone would still believe in the competence of a UK government to do anything correctly is beyond me.

Why anyone would believe without question an obviously biased commission on climate change is also beyond comprehension.

From their report:The record-breaking temperatures seen in summer 2022 brought unprecedented numbers of heat-related deaths”

Funny they don’t seem to care about COLD related deaths, which is by far the greater threat.

If winters are actually warming, that would logically be a good thing.

Figure 2_ Total and top five causes contributing to a change in the number of deaths from causes affected by temperature.png
Pat from Kerbob
April 2, 2023 6:48 am

This is just a money making initiative. Some years ago I was in Pisa looking for a place to park in order to go look at the tower before it falls over.
Signs everywhere in Italian even though it’s a massive tourist zone.

I missed a turn and had to circle around, turned out I was driving through an area for which there was a fine, if you are a tourist.

A few weeks later I received a letter back in canada showing I had two $160 euro fines owing from that day
Which I duly burned, releasing the co2 to be free.

Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
April 2, 2023 8:06 am

Many years ago was allowed to climb the Leaning Tower. Very odd feeling when taking the spiral stairs that are well worn.

April 2, 2023 7:14 am

For the left, there is no problem so big or complex that it can’t be fixed by more government power.

Joseph Zorzin
April 2, 2023 7:53 am

“I think we all know the answer to that question.”

Urgently, drastically reform the unfunded public sector pensions. And if they don’t like it, fire all of them, the way President Reagon fired the air traffic controllers.

Tom Abbott
April 2, 2023 1:05 pm

From the article: “Climate change is accelerating – and the UK government is ‘strikingly unprepared’”

The only thing accelerating is climate change scaremongering. The weather is about the same as it has always been.

April 2, 2023 4:11 pm

The CCC needs to prove it’s case scientifically that we are in a climate crisis or be disbanded immediately.

It doesnot add up
April 3, 2023 4:41 am

What the CCC refuses to acknowledge is that adaptation as we go along would be far cheaper than their net zero fetish.

Reply to  It doesnot add up
April 3, 2023 6:06 am

To do so would require some ability to engage in rational thought and no thoughts of creaming off some of the money being spent.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights