Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« A new low | Main | Here we go again »

Deal or no deal?

Accompanied by the obligatory picture of steam coming from the cooling towers of a power station, and another of a fracking site tower looking as though it had been surreptitiously photographed by  a "Frack Off" supporter, the BBC online reports:

 In the early hours of Friday, Mr Van Rompuy, wrote in a tweet: "Deal! At least 40% emissions cut by 2030. World's most ambitious, cost-effective, fair #EU2030 climate energy policy agreed."

The EU also agreed to boost the use of renewable energy to 27% in the total energy mix and increase energy efficiency to at least 27%.

Van Rompuy  is also reported as saying that this decision is “about survival”, and unsurprisingly the environmentalists were less happy about the latest proposals.

For those without high blood pressure, Roger Harrabin’s analysis is on the same page.


Update 12.11pm

GWPF report that the "agreement "is non-binding. Read all about it.....


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (68)

I'm apolitical, but it seems UKIP could kill two birds with the same stone .....

Oct 24, 2014 at 8:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public

Is there a section where we all get a free magical pony that runs on wishes and can take us emissions free anywhere on the planet so long as we really, really need to go? 'Cause we're all going to need one to even start meeting those targets.

Do you think they ever look at past emissions reductions and ask themselves how much of them are unrepeatable or due to mere accounting changes? For the UK, if you add together all the savings due to the installation of the last nuclear station, the dash for gas, modest energy efficiency, installation of insulation and the export of high energy manufacturing jobs to China, there isn't that much that can be repeated to reduce emissions further. OK we could replace the last of our coal stations for gas (assuming we get fracking up and running and have no qualms about relying on it into the future) but even the old nuclear stations are struggling to be replaced, never mind building new ones to account for any more emissions reduction. Sure we could shut all manufacturing down but even assuming we have enough insane politicians to do that and a public that will accept it, it's just an illusory cut in emissions. It's not even as if the <50% of homes that still need to be insulated represent a huge saving. Electric cars are still an exhaust pipe dream and the renewables we've got are verging on making our energy grid unstable.

Have they looked at a calendar and worked out how few years there are between now and 2030? It's one thing to set an ambitious target but another to make silly goals you are doomed to fail at. I'd have welcomed an even more ludicrous target because the sooner industry and the public wake up to how insane these people are, the better.

Oct 24, 2014 at 8:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

How is Germany going to manage that without nuclear power?

Oct 24, 2014 at 8:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Schofield

The reality is, sadly, that this is going to happen whether we like it or not.

The only question I have is how I go about getting on the EU gravy train. It's the old if you can't beat them you might as well join them.


Oct 24, 2014 at 8:57 AM | Unregistered Commentermailman

Britain charged an extra £1.7billion by EU as our economy is doing well – while France receives a £790 million rebate

"...... The prime minister was last night attempting to challenge the fee in meetings with Brussels.

Mr Cameron urged other EU countries to press ahead with economic reforms in a bid to boost Britain’s recovery.

The prime minister warned that Britain could be dragged back into crisis by sluggish economic performances elsewhere in Europe.........."

Cameron negotiate? Can't even carry out due diligence in his own country! Deal or No Deal, one thing for sure our politicos and their officers will ensure the UK jumps the highest hurdles.

Or maybe it is now our Officers/NGOs and their politicos?

Oct 24, 2014 at 9:05 AM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

The euro in on lifesupport. Committing more of our scarce founds to this hot air project is suicidal. Yes, we will meet the targets, not because of emission reductions, but because of economic contraction and hence a reduction in economic activity and wealth.

These people think we still can afford it. Even The Economist does not face up to the realities.

With a borrowed phrase. And so passes the age of Europe as the home of the some of the worlds richest and most powerful nations, and slide into a prolonged recession and depression, with contracting economies.

It is fairly easy to understand that dealing with the climate is a lot easier, if we have a healthy economy to foot the bill. But we have not. It amazing that the politicians and economists does not see this reality.

And I'll be looking to move to Norway.

Oct 24, 2014 at 9:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterHalken

These people are hell bent on destroying Europe in a way that a temperature rise of a couple of degrees couldn't.

Only a bureaucratic system as inept, corrupt and complex as the EU could contrive such ludicrous policies.

I know who I am voting for next year.

Oct 24, 2014 at 9:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Jones


Possibly not suicidal, but homicidal It was American ratings agencies that brought down the Euro zone.

Oct 24, 2014 at 9:41 AM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

For those without high blood pressure, Roger Harrabin’s analysis is on the same page

TOO LATE. I saw harribin's crap before coming here. Worse still was yesterday's declaration by 50 CEOs that europe wasn't going fast enough. The CEO of Phillips declared they (the EU) could do more "look at the technology like LED bulbs".
I want someone to quatify the cost/benefit EXACTLY for wind and solar energy.

Oct 24, 2014 at 9:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

The euro in on lifesupport. Committing more of our scarce funds to this hot air project is suicidal. Yes, we will meet the targets, not because of emission reductions, but because of economic contraction and hence a reduction in economic activity and wealth

A presenter on CNBC pointed this out to an analyst yesterday and included the facts that China, India etc are doing nothing . The reply was that the world has to start somewhere !!! This was a financial analyst. OMG !!

Oct 24, 2014 at 9:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

How is Germany going to manage that without nuclear power?

Oct 24, 2014 at 8:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Schofield

How are they going to manage without the UK. The burden on the german population will be enormous. The UKs net contribution is about £9b but her total contribution is a great deal more than that plus a new £1.7b

Oct 24, 2014 at 9:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

Stephen Richards

Americans aren't committed to anything, either. Meanwhile Europe's industrial wealth takes a slow boat to China.

Oct 24, 2014 at 9:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterE. Smiff

The reality is, sadly, that this is going to happen whether we like it or not.

Oct 24, 2014 at 8:57 AM | Unregistered Commentermailman

Not without nuclear power it isn't. And even that is doubtful before 2030. If the EU thinks they can achieve significant progress towards that in a few years then they are signing the (political) death warrant for the European Union.

Oct 24, 2014 at 9:50 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

"The reality is, sadly, that this is going to happen whether we like it or not."

It can't really happen as it isn't really possible. Losing about 5% of our grid capacity will probably give us outages this winter so it will be interesting to see what probable nasty affects this will cause. How about banning all road transport next week. According to "environmental protection uk" this is 22% of our CO2 emissions. As all the alarmists seem to manage to cope without ever driving a fossil fuel powered car I'm sure it wouldn't be that big a deal ;-)

Oct 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

Ask the Greenpeace spokesman how we could have done more.

The numbers are daunting. The UK's energy consumption is 200 millions tons oil equivalent - a consumption of 266 GW. A 40 % cut is thus a cut of 100 GW - by 2030! If we will have achieved 20 % by 2020, then between 2020 and 2030 we have to cut 50 GW. We could do that by building 5 GW of new nuclear per annum. That would be the cheapest option as it would require no major change to infrastructure (build on existing sites). But it will cost us over £10b per annum - at the very least.

Then there's the silly requirement for a certain proportion of renewables is it 27 % of all energy consumption again? That'll be interesting! 71 GW of renewables - 14,000 offshore windmills in ten years. No problem sir. That'l be £280 b .

But why worry? We'll have Caroline Flint along soon telling us it can all be done through community energy projects and home insulation - see, problem sorted.And that would create 10 million, highly skilled, green jobs.

Oct 24, 2014 at 9:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterCapell

I read Harrabin's rubbish. What I want him to do is define for me what he means by "dangerous" climate change? First, what is it that makes a modicum of warming "dangerous"? Secondly, what is the level of such danger if it exists?

Oct 24, 2014 at 10:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

Michael and Rob,

While I agree with you 120% we are talking about the EU here where reality doesn't have to be dealt with.

The carbon cuts are going to happen regardless of whether nuclear power is in the mix it not simply because the easiest way to achieve their targets is to starve their populations of co2 produced energy!

Better to be part of the gravy train so you can afford NOT to become a victim of their lunacy!


Oct 24, 2014 at 10:10 AM | Unregistered Commentermailman

It's long past time to get out of the EU.

They want to "increase energy efficiency to at least 27%." Well coal, gas and nuclear power stations are much more efficient than that - 40 to 60+% at least. They obviously want to get rid of solar, which is about 15% efficient and wind which tends to be in the low 20s%. Of course that is not what they mean, but that just shows what idiots are in charge at the EU.

Oct 24, 2014 at 10:26 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

The deal contains several opportunities to review if other nations don't pull their weight, plus much is non-binding. So essentially it's a face-saver deal designed to give the media a headline today, with not a lot of thought into how such stupidity can be delivered tomorrow.

"But key aspects of the deal that will form a bargaining position for global climate talks in Paris next year were left vague or voluntary, raising questions as to how the aims would be realised."

"But a clause was inserted into the text that could trigger a review of the EU’s new targets if other countries do not come forward with comparable commitments in Paris."

Oct 24, 2014 at 10:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterCheshirered

What's going on ? Complex news by tweet is a pain in the bum
1. The Poles etc. were supposed to be set to hold out - seems they've been bribed with €€ promises

The 28-nation bloc agreed CO2 cuts of 40 percent by 2030, compared with 1990 levels, but offered to compensate poorer nations like Poland, who rely on coal for around 90 percent of its energy needs, making the cuts less expensive for industry. -Under the deal, Poland will be able to transfer emission permits to power sector firms free of charge, which should guarantee that electricity prices do not grow, Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz said.
2. We are supposed to have a new anti-green Climate commissioner
3. The 40% is for the EU as a whole, not individual countries there will be plenty of wriggle room
4. Why the rush ? Why couldn't it just be putn off for 6 months ?
5. The main people benefitting seem to be the solar/wind subsidy mafia, as their talk is about renewunables rather than Nuclear...FFS if it was about CO2 & not about the subsidies then they'd be talking about FUSION ..which is still a possibility by 2030.

Oct 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Anyone have any idea what effect the Energy and Climate Change Bill has had on our economy or similar in the EU to date?

Oct 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterCharlie Furniss

To me it's like you have a gambler in the family "Trust me man, I've got a hot tip from this bloke Gore about this race called Global Warming.. this horse called MWS (Magic Wind & Solar) is a sure-fire winner..we should put all the family's money it"
- If such green activists are so certain of the odds for Global Warming race ever resuming & MGS winning, when the sceptical MAJORITY aren't at all, what right do they have to take all the families money ?
- Seems the EU vote was a democratic decision, but why did the heads of our families like Cameron take such a reckless commitment ? What would have been the penalty for not signing ?

- Another question ..why has these new 1.7bn EU tax demand suddenly come up after the signing ? Firstly it clouds out today's news. Secondly would the contract have been signed if it was known before hand and the public was so angry
- Bottomline Cameron has signed a path to keep energy prices rising & industry declining until 2030.

Oct 24, 2014 at 10:51 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Mailman, as the first comment on today's post at WUWT helpfully reminded us, the EU has a history of passing treaties, edicts, laws (call them what you will), then ignoring them or those that flout them. To attempt to follow this latest one would indeed be political and economic suicide so, in reality, it probably won't be.

In the past, I have often read that this is something the Anglo-Saxon nations (more properly the English speaking ones, including the USA) fail to understand about the EU: The laws are not actually intended to be obeyed a lot of the time.

By continental Europeans they are more often taken as a form of advice to be frequently ignored. The real politics comes down to deciding when, and how, they might be enforced if and when there is a political consensus to do so. The UK is sometimes accused of naively attempting to follow (and worsen!) too much of the crap that comes out of Brussels/Strasbourg/Luxembourg

Oct 24, 2014 at 10:53 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

@Cheshirered Thanks for explaining about the get out clauses, and that it's really a negotiating position for Paris 2015 ie "World we have done something, now you do something" ..and when they inevitabley don't ..we can drop the 2030 promise also

Oct 24, 2014 at 11:10 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Saw the start of Question Time last night – stood it long enough to hear the UKIP member challenged about not having a policy (as if “having a policy” was essential), and she brilliantly batted that idea aside with (paraphrased): “Of course not. We will let the people decide what they want to do with this.”

The look on Caroline Flint’s face could have soured milk from 50 paces for most of the time I watched (about 10 minutes). The sooner the proles wake up to what is happening, and do something positive to change it, the better. That said, if Mrs Duffy is anything to go by, while not liking what’s on offer, they will do nothing to change it (she is still voting Liebore).

If you cannot bring yourself to vote for UKIP, vote for anyone but the LibLabCON; the sooner we are out of the EU, the sooner we get rid of the freeloaders in government (i.e. most of them), and the sooner we return to rationality, the better.

Oct 24, 2014 at 11:11 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

How can you, I mean how can the British allow these continental dills who run the European Union, run your country? You defeated them, or their predecessors with the help of the Colonials, in WW2 only to surrender yourselves to their ridiculous directives at this time. Why aren't you fracking and using nuclear power for all its worth to make sure that GREAT Britain is still great? As a Colonial, removed from the scene and with a sensible Prime Minister, I despair. I religiously read the Bishop every day and fume and fret about the state of our mother country.

Oct 24, 2014 at 11:14 AM | Unregistered Commentersouthern girl

Given the winters are getting worse, the Green energy projects sucking the money out of meaningful power generation, the EU slipping quickly into another recession not to mention the upcoming rolling blackouts there is no need to panic for the current in place policies and practices will cause a Die Off of Western Europeans by more than 40% in the next 20 years. Except, of course, Germany, who will have more coal-fired power plants than China.

Oct 24, 2014 at 11:28 AM | Unregistered Commentercedarhill

southern girl: I can assure you that many of us are doing our best. It is very difficult when we are up against an unelected bureaucracy like the EU; a political establishment in the UK (known as LibLabCon) which ignores the general public and can get away with consistently lying; and a media which has largely been taken over by the green blob and also gets away with bias and lying. It has not helped that there has been a deliberate dumbing down of the education system and a massively swollen bureaucracy which wants to keep the status quo, from which it gains huge financial benefits.

Oct 24, 2014 at 11:44 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

if liberal retards call something "fair" it means they hauled off the boot 100% as they wanted and are counting their innings already

Oct 24, 2014 at 12:02 PM | Unregistered Commenterptw

southern girl, it's like an abusive relationship. After a while you start believing the insults and the blows are your own fault and you deserve it. We have become too dependant on being part of a marriage to seek divorce but maybe we're on the verge of a new life? The problem is, being part of Europe isn't too bad. It's peaceful and reasonably profitable, even at the same time it's restrictive and draining. It's not even all Europe's fault and some of the red tape was manufactured here. Europe happily ignores our moans becuase we've been threatening to leave almost from the first and we're still here. Like the Scottish referendum the EU will suddenly realise at the last minute that break up is possible and make a load of offers at the last minute. We should state upfront what the UK needs to remain part of Europe so that they know what to offer just before the referendum. I very much doubt Cameron has the guts to do anything other than whine but even he is becoming angry at EU cheek.

It's worth noting that sadly, a lot of the green rubbish is being generated here.

Oct 24, 2014 at 12:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

BTW, what does Harrabin mean by “…cut CO2 threefold…"? Is this another of the utterly illogical “ten times less” thinking that seems to be gaining ascendancy, in preference over “one tenth”? Or does he mean that there are three key areas in which CO2 may be cut? Perhaps the molecule itself might be able to be cut 3 ways – that is feasible; cut off one or the other of the 2 oxygen molecules, or cut off the carbon molecule. No: I think he does mean “…cut CO2 to one-third…” What hope is there for the English language in the hands of such vociferous people as this? What hope is there for our bourgeoning plant life if CO2 is reduced to less than 200ppm?

Oct 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Why not offer Vlad a constraint payment for turning the gas off. That's got to be a win win in the colleagues version of reality. Simples!

Oct 24, 2014 at 12:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Y

"..ambitious, cost-effective, fair "
Ambitious without doubt, cost-effective perhaps only in killing off pensioners quicker and fair in that everone will suffer (though windfarm owners will have anice subsidy cushion to fall back on),

Oct 24, 2014 at 12:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

Why not offer Vlad a constraint payment for turning the gas off. That's got to be a win win in the colleagues version of reality. Simples!

Oct 24, 2014 at 12:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Y

I like that idea. Pay Putin to cut european gas supplies during the coming very cold winter. Trouble though, it won't affect the multimillionaire, people funded lunies in Brussels.

Oct 24, 2014 at 12:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

A nice cold winter this time should define the outcome of the May elections. Plenty of calm frosty mornings should be the order of the day.

Oct 24, 2014 at 1:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

Maybe I can see some tricky thinking : putting up energy costs using renewables does lead to lots of inefficiencies/waste and losses due to corruption, however it may well give the illusion of growth cos citizens & industry would have to spend more money to buy the same things as today. Furthermore the net amount of the % the government take on taxing energy would go up, likewise energy suppliers profits would go up and they would pay be paying higher net taxes.
- It does make it "Don't invest in European industry DoubleDecade", but the politicians will give their mates special exemptions and let the rest of industry go to the wall or move to Poland with it's special subsidised energy prices.

Oct 24, 2014 at 1:48 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

BBC News.

" the science is very firm. Whatever you might hear or read or hear down the pub, it's very clear that CO2 emissions from our cars and homes and everything we do is warming the atmosphere... and it's making our oceans more acidic as the CO2 soaks into the oceans, so a very serious problem...from Europe's point of view it is a good deal to have got it done... from the climate's point of view that is a different matter as to whether it's a good deal, because if you talk to UN scientists they'll say what's being done now, although it may look good on paper, leaves an unachievable target for our children and grandchildren to make if they want to have a stable climate in future."-Roger Harrabin.

Who else.
Shouldn't this site be renamed The Bishop Hill Arms just to spite him?

Oct 24, 2014 at 1:51 PM | Unregistered Commenterlindzen4pm

@indzen4pm PROJECTION again as it's Harrabin who sounds like drunk who swallowed a lot of Green PR pixie juice.

Now Cameron is on TV explaining he had a high old time at the EU Gentlemen's Club last night, but then the first he heard of it was when he tried to leave the bouncers presented him with a €2bn bill for "drinks for the ladies"
.. he's angry & red faced saying "I won't be paying that on Dec1 ! ..It's not going to happen"
(there was always expected an adjustment , but not of this magnitude)

Oct 24, 2014 at 2:01 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

lindze4pm: I saw him on the lunchtime news and just refrained from putting my foot through Harrabin's smug and condescending face. I didn't know the UN employed scientists for Harrabin to talk to. Don't you just wish for a stable climate, like the one they had in the Little Ice Age?

Oct 24, 2014 at 2:06 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Now Cameron can negotiate his way out of paying an extra £1.7 billion, hold the in out EU referrendum believing and telling the nation he has clawed back for the country a couple of billion quid. Of course its a couple of billion we weren't paying in the first place but thats niether here nor there.

Or maybe its a couple of billion that will find its way into the treasury of eastern EU countries who would otherwise veto the climate deal.

Oct 24, 2014 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartyn

Caught the Harrabin lunchtime lecture, just posted the following on unthreaded:-

He came over all uptight and self opinionated enough to believe that the populous was in need of a Harrabin lecture.

Whilst he did not mention all the get out clauses in the binding agreement I think they must have been preying on his mind.

Oct 24, 2014 at 2:11 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

China and India both have 2020 emissions targets. If they achieve them, China's emissions will be equivalent to 60-65% of the 1990 GLOBAL emissions, and India's about 13%. Yet both will still have lower emissions per capita than many rich countries, and India lower than any EU country even if they all reach their emissions target. It is just they each have three times the population of the EU28 and have been growing rapidly.
Other emerging economies will have massively increased emissions on 1990 through strong economic growth.
If the EU had people to critically review policy it would not be trying to impose huge costs on people for virtually zero impact. Instead it listens to a small group of very dogmatic people who cannot think the issues through.

Oct 24, 2014 at 2:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Marshall

Saw and listened to Harrabin on the news! nearly threw the laptop through the tv ! Only stopped cos i wanted to see what others were saying here and i can't afford a new laptop. What a load of utter cobblers he talks. I suspect that his grace would delete my post i i said what i really thought.

Oct 24, 2014 at 2:55 PM | Unregistered Commenterdave38

@Halken 9:16 AM "And I'll be looking to move to Norway."

I'm in Norway already. It is hard to find a more ideological pro AGW location. In the UK at least you have some political opposition. Over here there is none.

Oct 24, 2014 at 3:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterAmatør1

According to GWPF it is all just a big fudge and imho, for the Brussels crime syndicate, it is the beginning of climb down to CO² limitation targets.

If and soon, For Flips Sakes - it can't come quick enough....... after the 2015 GE when the LiblavCON claque have been given such a fearful pasting that, the rump of the Westminster MPs won't even countenance making any cuts in CO² and via the bulldozer smashing [forever] the 2008 CCA. Thus ending all hope, of a bastard son Kyoto, aka CO² emissions limitation treaty. It will be the death knell of the great scam and left to be just a figment of green imaginings....


"It was American ratings agencies that brought down the Euro zone."

No, I think you'll find that the Eurozone did it all by themselves, a single currency without fiscal and monetary union, was lunacy of the first order - only the Brussels federasts - the Kommissars: could be that stupid.

Oct 24, 2014 at 3:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

More votes for Nigel.

Oct 24, 2014 at 3:37 PM | Unregistered Commenterjamspid

I think after Russia does what Russia will likely do this winter that the majority of people who mistakenly think greens are well intentioned good policy planners will wake up to reality.
The only way to cut emissions 40% by 2030 is to destroy the economies of the victim countries.
Big green is in this for big green's profits and power.
Big green does not give a hoot about the people of Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia or anwhere else.
Big green simply wants power- power to rule, power to take money from those who work.

Oct 24, 2014 at 4:08 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Big green does not give a hoot about the people

They say they are doing it for the children and grandchildren
To which my response must be "Why should i care? What have they ever done for me?"

Oct 24, 2014 at 4:23 PM | Unregistered Commenterdave38

Radical Rodent:

Harrabin's degree is in English.

Oct 24, 2014 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterIt doesn't add up...

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>