Britain Going It Alone In Committing Suicide

By Paul Homewood

Peter Lilley, MP

On Sunday, Booker alluded to something that Peter Lilley had said:

Yet another bizarre consequence of this has followed December’s Paris “deal” on climate change. When the EU signed up collectively to reduce its “carbon emissions”, it took Peter Lilley MP to notice that Germany and France are now insisting that, since Britain is already committed to making such a disproportionately generous contribution to the EU’s collective target, this will reduce the amount others will need to cut.

Lilley has filled some of the detail in his speech on Monday at the House of Commons’ debate on the Energy Bill:

Clause 80 will not allow the use of the emissions trading scheme to achieve our targets, yet the whole purpose of the ETS is to ensure that those who can abate emissions at the lowest costs, do so. So by excluding the use of that, we are ensuring that higher costs are incurred to achieve a given abatement in emissions. Another amendment prolongs the subsidies for onshore wind for longer than needed, even though that is unnecessary. So I shall, unusually, be supporting the Front Bench in seeking to have both those amendments from the Upper House removed.

Above all, we have created a framework that commits us to load higher costs on UK consumers and businesses via the Climate Change Act 2008 and all its ramifications than any other country in Europe. Despite all that, we will ensure, because of the way the system works, that we do not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by one molecule more than would be the case if we were doing the same as the rest of Europe.

Let me explain why that is so. At Paris all the countries of the world agreed to make commitments on what they were going to do in future to curb the growth of their CO2 emissions. The only exceptions were the countries of Europe, who put in a total figure for the whole of Europe and are now to allocate that figure among the member states. Because we are committed to doing so much more than the average in Europe—indeed, than anybody else in Europe—all that does is to reduce the amount by which the other countries in Europe will have to reduce their emissions. So we have increased the burden of costs on British households and business, reduced the burden of costs incurred by our partners in Europe, and not reduced the emissions of CO2 by a single molecule.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm160118/debtext/160118-0002.htm#1601188000163

And here’s confirmation. Check out the INDCs on the UNFCCC website, and click on the UK’s, or any other EU state, and you get this:-

http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx

Note the words:

to be fulfilled jointly

In other words, not individually. As long as the EU hits its 40% cut, it will have achieved its aim. If some states cut by more, others need to do less.

The UK is already legally obliged to cut emissions from 1990 levels by 50% for the Fourth Carbon Budget period of 2023-27. Now Gummer’s Committee on Climate Change is recommending a cut of 57% for 2028-32.

This is plainly nonsense, and, as Peter Lilley points out, will simply mean that other EU states can get away with less than 40%.

I am no lawyer, and there may be some form of penalties for countries who fall short of a 40% cut. But as we often see with the EU, such matters are usually fudged and traded off, with the result that nothing ends up happening to transgressors.

Gummer and co are clearly determined to lead the country off the cliff, and, as we now learn, without making any difference to overall CO2 emissions.

It is about time that we gave him a shove.