By Paul Homewood

h/t Robin Guenier

This is the two-page Statutory Instrument, which is set to cost the UK £37bn a year , according to the Committee on Climate Change. (Note this amount is on top of the cost of meeting the original 80% targets. The full cost is now estimated at £50bn a year).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2019/9780111187654

As stated, no impact assessment has been produced, and it is expected to go through Parliament on the nod, and with very little debate.

It is relevant therefore to look back at the Impact Assessment for the original 2008 Climate Change Act:

 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukia/2009/70/pdfs/ukia_20090070_en.pdf

Note the statement in an economically sound way. Clearly spending £50bn a year cannot be regarded as “economically sound”.

It then goes on:

Demonstrating the UK’s leadership in tackling climate change – to increase the chances of a binding international emissions reduction agreement that would stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases at a level that would avoid dangerous climate change

Since the Act was passed, no such binding reduction agreement has been achieved, or appears likely to be in the foreseeable future. The Paris Agreement notably was not binding and even the non-binding pledges made would lead to global emissions continuing to increase for the period of the agreement up to 2030, as the Agreement itself makes clear.

The Impact Assessment then goes on to summarise the costs and benefits of the Act, and notes:

The economic case for the UK continuing to act alone where global action  cannot be achieved would be weak

In short, whatever the UK does will make no difference at all the world’s climate, and therefore there is no economic case for acting alone.

Are our MPs aware of any of this?

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

http://bit.ly/2IIFEZV

June 25, 2019 at 05:15AM