Britain’s Not So Green Utopia – A Lesson for the Gillard Government

This article in the UK’s Daily Mail Online sums up just where the Labor/Greens Government are taking Australia:

How climate change zealots are wrecking every last industry this country possesses

Rather overshadowed by events at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester last week was a line in George Osborne’s speech which could mark the start of a long overdue political transformation in Britain.  The Chancellor acknowledged that a decade of environmental laws had been piling unnecessary costs on households and companies, adding that Britain was not going to save the planet by putting ourselves out of business.

He was referring in particular to the Climate Change Act, famously passed by the House of Commons in October 2008 by 463 votes to three, even as the snow was falling outside. By the Government’s own estimate, it would cost £404?billion to implement – £760 per household every year for four decades.

Converted: Chancellor George Osborne has pulled back from the 'green abyss'
Converted: Chancellor George Osborne has pulled back from the ‘green abyss’

The Act included a voluntary commitment to reduce Britain’s carbon dioxide emissions to 80?per cent of their 1990 level by 2050 – a target generally acknowledged to be achievable only by shutting down most of the economy – in an effort to demonstrate ‘global leadership’.

But while Europe is taking a relaxed view of climate change, Britain seems to have excelled in devising more and more bizarre ways of bankrupting the nation.

It also insisted no more coal-fired power stations should be built unless they could be fitted with ‘carbon capture’, funded by a levy on energy bills which would raise £3?billion from hard-pressed consumers.

The overall effect of the unproven and probably unworkable technology to effectively bury carbon dioxide underground would be to double the price of electricity and make us even more dependent on Russian and other imported energy, which already supplies 70?per cent of our needs.

Nevertheless, a mad and ruinously expensive scheme was launched on the European stage. Industries should pay for using fossil fuels, through a ‘tax’ paid on each ton of carbon dioxide produced. Each company would have to buy certificates, known as ‘European allowances’ or ‘carbon credits’ – each representing a ton of carbon dioxide – with surpluses traded as a commodity.

The theory was that competition for a dwindling supply would force energy users to be more efficient. Instead, commercial users passed on the costs to their customers, with electricity prices rising for the average consumer by as much as £300.

Tens of thousands have been pushed into fuel poverty. Firms that could not pass on their costs moved abroad. Huge tranches of the aluminium industry have disappeared, one major firm having moved to the Emirates in October 2009 – taking 300 workers from Anglesey who had to follow to keep their jobs.

The madness didn’t stop there. In February 2010, Gordon Brown’s cash-strapped Government spent £60??million on ‘carbon credits’ for Whitehall and other Government offices in the UK, as well as British Nato bases in Europe.

Thus while troops were going short of kit in Afghanistan, the defence budget was being raided to buy carbon certificates.

When he became Prime Minister, David Cameron carried on the theme, promptly declaring that he wanted the Coalition to be ‘the greenest Government ever’.

And last week, even as Mr Osborne was standing up to deliver his speech in Manchester, Davin Bates, a management accountant at one of Stoke-on-Trent’s remaining successful potteries, was preparing to tell the world how spiralling energy costs – artificially inflated by ‘green’ levies and taxes – were driving energy-intensive companies like his out of the UK.

Particularly affected is the chemical industry, which contributes £30?million a day to the British economy. Major chemical multinationals are now looking to move production to places such as South Africa, India and China. There, under a global carbon credit scheme, we actually subsidise them by giving them credits – which they then sell back to our industries, making huge profits.

I haven’t even mentioned the madness of the wind machines. Subsidies, paid for by consumers, make wind power three times more costly than the normal tariff electricity. But as the pull of the subsidies draws investment away from new conventional plants, the spectre of power cuts looms large.

Caught in this vice of increasing ‘green’ costs and subsidised competition, the manufacturing industries which Osborne hopes will lead the UK recovery simply cannot survive.

Small wonder, therefore, that he bowed to the inevitable and pulled back from the green abyss.

Many believe that Osborne’s conversion is too little too late, but it is some small comfort at least, that we no longer have a Chancellor – or even a Prime Minister – keen to parade his ‘green’ credentials. Perhaps they are beginning to understand that, when the lights go out, all colours look the same: black.

If Britain is to pull itself out of economic crisis, Mr Osborne is going to have to go much further. At the very least, he has to lift this senseless raft of green taxes from industry and the electricity generators.

  • Richard North is co-author of Scared To Death: From BSE To Global Warming – Why Scares  Are Costing Us The Earth.

 

3 comments to Britain’s Not So Green Utopia – A Lesson for the Gillard Government

  • Robert Holmes M(MinEng), GradDip(Mining),Grad Cert(Physics),AusIMM

    Due to my own interest, and as a scientist and engineer, I have researched this topic thoroughly.

    1/ IPCC data reveals that all anthropogenic (human-released) greenhouse gasses combined total less than 2Wm2 of warming.
    2/ The Earth’s climate is naturally regulated (and has been for billions of years) by a negative feedback mechanism involving anomalies in the OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation). The OLR can, (and has very recently, in 2010/2011) varied by more than 80Wm2 over a 6-month timescale.
    3/ This means that human-produced effects on the Earth’s climate are currently far too small to have any effect at all.
    4/ Even the natural CO2 emissions (which are twenty-five times ours) are insufficient to alter the climate.

    Summary: As far as the Earth’s climate system goes, Human CO2 emissions are irrelevant.

    To get a balanced, sane view of the scientific data go to;
    http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#An overview to get things into perspective
    ..

  • Joe Battley

    Excellent stuff Robert – did you write the stuff at http://www.climate4you.com/ ?

  • john

    I think we need to push going green more and more. I think this is so important for the environment. I hope to see this happen more. It is so important. actos warning

Comment guidelines:

Please no offensive language or personal attacks.
Please make several separate paragraphs for longer comments!

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>