It is not difficult, Tomo, the emissions targets in the 2208 CCA were all expressed relative to a 1990 baseline, I guess because the endgame is an 80% reduction from that value by 2050.

<Insert gratuitious ad hom>

2208->2008, obvs.

See, for example, the graphic under 'Carbon Budgets' here

It's just a convention. The baseline for GHG emissions dates from the Kyoto protocol of 1990, it is usual to measure reductions since then. Sure, it would be dishonest if I did not mention the baseline.

But I did and the CCA targets have (so far) been not just met, but exceeded.

I've been thinking a lot about this thread, and about the various studies and articles linked to by both me and Phil Clarke. I've tried to analyse it as though I don't have a dog in this fight, and to be as objective as possible. I have tried to view it as a trial and ask myself what a Court Judge would make of the evidence.

I'm forced to be completely honest and say that I have found none of the evidence on either side to be convincing. Leaving myself exposed to the charge of "ad hominem attack" I can't help thinking that every source that has been cited has an agenda of sorts. Phil might challenge it, but I have no doubt that anyone writing from the Grantham Institute is pre-disposed to look for evidence that supports the CCA, and disregard evidence that undermines it. Anyone writing for the OECD is in favour of globalism and "carbon" reduction. Anyone writing for the GWPF is looking for evidence to attack those arguments. The Government's fuel poverty figures can't be trusted, since they've moved the goalposts by changing the definition. The EEF piece is based on some questionable assumptions, as Phil points out, and they're looking to lobby effectively on behalf of their members. The CCC can't be trusted, since so many of its members make money out of "green" energy and lobbying and since their whole purpose is inextricably linked with the CCA.

In short, if I were a Judge I would say I have found none of the witnesses to be compelling, and none of the evidence proffered to be impartial and disinterested. If I were a Scottish Judge, I would probably return a verdict of unproven.

Which leaves us just falling back on value judgements, and since Phil and I approach this question from different standpoints, we're not going to agree.

My personal view, and it can be no more than that, is that the CCA has been harmful. I believe that UK business would be more competitive without the extra energy costs imposed by its drive for renewables. I believe the drive for renewables is destroying our beautiful landscapes. I think our very energy security is being damaged by going down this route. I think that more people die of cold than heat in this country and I think that fuel poverty and excess winter deaths (in the news only today), although not exclusively caused by the CCA, have been exacerbated by it. I believe the CCA, with its focus on renewables, which grants subsidies to wealthy industrialists and landowners while adding to the cost of consumers' bills, has the egregious effect of redistributing wealth from poor to rich. And I believe that the claimed benefits, such as "Britain leading the way" are simply pie in the sky. No other country seems to have passed any legislation with such exacting demands, all over the world INDC targets and "binding" legislation obligations regarding reduction of GHG emissions are being missed, and globally CO2 emissions continue to rise.

These are my beliefs, though I cannot prove them. That said, I've seen nothing on this thread which proves that I'm wrong.

Needless to say I differ on some conclusions but nonetheless an honest summing up of your position. Thanks, Mark.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46399090
Excess winter deaths highest since 1970s, says ONS
"There were around 50,100 excess winter deaths in England and Wales in 2017-18 - the highest since the winter of 1975-76, figures from the Office for National Statistics show."

Climate Science got Global Warming wrong, so the Greens and Economists were bound to make a mess of the CCA, and condemn people to die of Fuel Poverty

Needless to say I differ on some conclusions but nonetheless an honest summing up of your position. Thanks, Mark.

Nov 30, 2018 at 8:35 PM | Phil Clarke

Do you agree the CCA has been harmful for the UK and cost lives in the UK?

Tomo,

You told us that Barack Obama claimed to have been born in Kenya. This was a lie. You never bothered to check the claim before posting it. You let your prejudices get the better of your fact-checking. Hard to take any complaint from you about 'PR' seriously after that.

You allege 'dishonesty' because the 2008 CCA targets are stated against a 1990 baseline, yet ever since Kyoto this has been the convention. You might as well allege dishonesty because we measure time against the birth of Christ or temperature on the Celsius scale against the freezing point of water.

But please, do carry on. We are in desperate need of diversion in these dark times.

LOL

Do you agree the CCA has been harmful for the UK and cost lives in the UK?

Well, I am evidence-driven. If you could provide some hard evidence, then I would be more than happy to agree. However, I have made similar requests before and been sadly disappointed(*).

* I asked for an example of a post of mine that was factually incorrect. Remember?

Just for the sake of completeness

There were around 50,100 excess winter deaths in England and Wales in 2017-18 - the highest since the winter of 1975-76, figures from the Office for National Statistics show.

The increase is thought to be down to the flu, the ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine in older people and spells of very cold weather last winter.

Most excess deaths occurred in women and the over-85s.

Similar peaks in excess deaths have been seen in previous years.

Before the 2017-18 peak in excess winter deaths, there were peaks in 2014-15 and 1999-2000.
An extra 6,000 deaths are estimated to have occurred during last winter compared with three years ago.
The figures for last winter, counted as December to March, are still provisional while figures for all other previous winters have been confirmed.

Nick Stripe, head of health analysis and life events at the Office for National Statistics said: "Peaks like these are not unusual - we have seen more than eight peaks during the last 40 years. "It is likely that last winter's increase was due to the predominant strain of flu, the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine and below average winter temperatures".

Last winter, two strains of flu - influenza A and B - were circulating.

Despite more people over 65 getting a flu jab, the vaccine was more effective in younger people and could explain why flu had a greater impact on elderly people, the ONS said.

This year, it is hoped that an enhanced flu vaccine for elderly people should perform better.

The ONS said the increases could also be explained partly by colder weather and lower temperatures, compared with the five-year average, in December, February and March.

More than a third of the excess deaths were caused by respiratory diseases, such as pneumonia.

Public Health England has advised all adults over 65 to have the vaccine as soon as possible.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46399090

Before the 2017-18 peak in excess winter deaths, there were peaks in 2014-15 and 1999-2000.

The CCA was enacted in 2008. Maybe all those MPs were secret Time Lords.

Dec 1, 2018 at 12:25 AM | Phil Clarke

Cold weather increases deaths, if people are not warm.

The CCA has increased fuel poverty and driven up the costs of keeping warm.

The CCA is killing people, especially the poor and most vulnerable.

As the UK's worst Peace Time Disaster, its death toll exceeds that of some wars/conflicts.

Stands to reason dunnit?

The CCA has increased fuel poverty

I requested evidence, not assertion. Fuel poverty has several dimensions, the price of energy, the thermal efficiency of housing, household income etc. The Act included an estimate of how its effect on the first of these in isolation would increase the numbers in fuel poverty. However this thread is apparently about all the actions of the CCC, and these include targets and measures to reduce fuel poverty, including subsidising home insulation measures (eg the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) alone installed loft and cavity wall insulation in 3 million homes over 3 years saving about £100 a year per household), and continued payments to the most vulnerable (eg the Cold Weather Payment, Winter Fuel Payment and Warm Home Discount).

The figures for England shows the number of households in fuel poverty is lower than 2008/9 when the Act was passed and that the average household deficit has fallen every year since 2011.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/719106/Fuel_Poverty_Statistics_Report_2018.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/719106/Fuel_Poverty_Statistics_Report_2018.pdf

Household energy bills. ‒

- Current bills. Household bills in 2016 were below 2008 levels as higher prices resulting from low-carbon policies and network costs were more than offset by reductions in energy use

- For the 85% of UK households that are dual-fuel (i.e. using gas for heating and hot water and electricity for lights and appliances) the average annual energy bill was around £1,160 in 2016.

- Bills are about £115 lower in real terms since the Climate Change Act was passed in 2008, having risen around £370 from 2004 to 2008 as international gas prices rose. The majority of the bill reflects wholesale and network costs unrelated to climate policy. Around £105 (9%) of the 2016 bill resulted from the shift towards a UK-based low-carbon electricity supply and support for energy efficiency improvements in homes.

- Gas and electricity use have been cut by 23% and 17% respectively since 2008, saving the average household £290 a year. Average household size was constant over this period and we have corrected for the recent mild winters. Improved appliance, lighting and boiler efficiency driven through minimum standards have substantially reduced energy consumption without significant up-front costs.

Energy Prices and Bills (Interesting discussion on Fuel Poverty also.)

"I requested evidence, not assertion.
Dec 1, 2018 at 12:22 PM | Phil Clarke"

Count the graves for yourself then.

How many lives have Green/Carbon Taxes saved?

"Needless to say I differ on some conclusions but nonetheless an honest summing up of your position. Thanks, Mark."

You're welcome!

But that CCC report you just linked to falls into my category of untrustworthy papers. I glanced at it quickly and saw a short section on fuel poverty which said this:

"Fuel poverty: Energy prices are a key driver of fuel poverty, along with high energy usage and low incomes. In principle, improved energy efficiency and low-carbon heat measures included in our carbon budget scenarios can more than offset increases in bills due to low carbon policy costs, but this will require more funding than is currently allocated."

Which is pretty meaningless, really - "In principle" and "will require more funding than is currently allocated."

As for this:

"The figures for England shows the number of households in fuel poverty is lower than 2008/9 when the Act was passed and that the average household deficit has fallen every year since 2011."

Well, maybe they do, but those statistics aren't reliable because, as discussed, the definition has been changed, so apples are being compared with pears. Try this (it's a briefing paper in the House of Commons library):

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05115

"Fuel poverty trends
The most recent estimates of the fuel poverty rate in each nation in the UK are as follows:

10.4% of all households in England (2.35 million households) in 2013 using the LIHC defintion
And, using their separate definition:

34.9% of all households in Scotland (0.85 million) in 2014
30% of all households in Wales (0.39 million) in 2012
42% of all households in Northern Ireland (0.29 million) in 2011
The fuel poverty measures are sensitive to changes in income, energy prices and energy use (in practice, more energy-efficient housing requires less energy use). Data from the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) for England indicates that households are more likely to be fuel-poor if they are larger, poorer, live in old properties with poor energy efficiency or use fuels other than gas.

Energy prices generally rose in the 10 years leading up to 2013 (more information on trends in energy prices is available in the Library’s Energy prices briefing paper). In the devolved administrations, this trend is reflected in a rise in the number of households defined as fuel poor. This is because the 10% measure is particularly sensitive to changes in energy prices.

In England, the number of households defined as fuel poor did not rise in the same way. This is because the LIHC indicator is designed to be less sensitive to energy prices. Because the measure is relative, price changes that have a similar effect on all households do not cause the number of fuel poor households to increase.

However, rising energy prices are associated with greater depth of fuel poverty. The LIHC indicator allows for measurement of the ‘fuel poverty gap’ – the difference between the average energy costs of fuel-poor households compared to the median for all households. The fuel poverty gap in England has generally grown as energy prices have risen. 2013 is an exception – the gap reduced despite an increase in energy prices, primarily because of rising incomes amongst fuel poor households."

"Well, maybe they do, but those statistics aren't reliable because, as discussed, the definition has been changed, so apples are being compared with pears. "
Dec 1, 2018 at 7:49 PM Mark Hodgson

You are, again, too polite. Climate Science has always abused statistics to arrive at the required political and economic answer. Politicians and Economists have been doing it for far longer than Climate Scientists.

Macron now knows he was lied to, as France counts the costs of Climate Science manufactured statistics.

Well, maybe they do, but those statistics aren't reliable because, as discussed, the definition has been changed, so apples are being compared with pears. 

The historical data to back-calculate the stats on a consistent basis exists, so I assume that's what they did. It would be extraordinarily bad practice to plot different measures on the same graph without even a footnote, in fact the '10%' method is not even mentioned in the report. The methodology handbook reports that

The 10% definition of fuel poverty was previously used to calculate the fuel poverty statistics in England, from 2001 - 2011. In 2012, an independent review was published by Professor John Hills2 , recommending a new method to calculate fuel poverty, with separate indicators that calculate both the extent and depth of fuel poverty. This is known as the Low Income High Costs (LIHC) indicator and has been used since the 2011 fuel poverty statistics (published in 2013) to produce the fuel poverty statistics for England, and long term trends tables have been produced from 2003 using the LIHC

Try this (it's a briefing paper in the House of Commons library):

Thanks for that, I see that as well as the numbers you quoted it does include a 'like for like', that is using the '10% of income' definition, across all the countries of the UK. (Para 2.5). This is sourced to the DECC Annual Fuel Poverty Statistics Report, 2015.

On this measure the 2012 levels of Fuel Poverty expressed as millions of households were

England 2.61 (12.1%)
Scotland 0.84 (35%)
Wales 0.39 (30%)
N Ireland 0.29 (42%)

The problem is proportionately worse outside of England. I hesitate to draw conclusions about this (other than the obvious point that Edinburgh is colder than London), as some of the policies that feed into FP are devolved and Northern Ireland has a very different fuel mix - more fuel oil, less gas.

We are 5 years on from 2012/3 and the most recent DECC report has dropped the UK-wide numbers and only reports on England using the Low Income High Costs definition, which shows a welcome if modest drop since 2008. However the up to date numbers (well, 2016) for the smaller countries are available from the Scottish House Condition Survey, the Welsh Government Environment and Countryside website and the NI House Condition Survey

Again in millions of households, the 2016 numbers are

Scotland 0.649 (21% - down 14 percentage points on 2012)
Wales 0.291 (23% - down 7 points)
N Ireland 0.16 (22% - down 20 points)

(I am assuming the 10% methodology is the same as in 2012, I've no reason to believe otherwise but I have not checked)

I am not complacent about this, and I think we should be allocating more resources and progressing faster, however the numbers do seem to be going in the right direction. Particularly in Northern Ireland where the Survey notes

The 2016 House Condition Survey estimated that approximately 22% (160,000) of households in Northern Ireland were in fuel poverty. This represents a significant improvement in fuel poverty levels since 2011 when the figure was 42% (294,000).

Something seems to be working.

"Something seems to be working."
Dec 1, 2018 at 10:18 PM | Phil Clarke

Yes, people are dying because of the CCA. No lives have been saved. What a sad sense of statistical success you have.

Fuel poverty has fallen in every part of the UK since the CCA was enacted. Northern Ireland has perhaps achieved the most, lifting 134,000 households out of the measure in just five years.

I think that should be celebrated.

Fuel poverty is indeed a complex area, and I think we are all in danger of attributing either its existence, or changes in its (apparent) direction of travel to the CCA. For those interested, the full report I briefly linked to is worth a read:

file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/SN05115.pdf

Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to cut & paste from it, but 2 points seem salient.

1. It refers to a report called "The Cold Man of Europe", which arrived at the following findings:

https://www.e3g.org/library/search&category=energy-bill-revolution

"Fuel poverty is a major social crisis in the UK. There are over five million households in fuel poverty needing to spend more than 10% of their income on energy in order to keep warm. This number will increase significantly if gas prices rise as the Government expects.

This fact-file compares fuel poverty and energy efficiency in the UK to 15 other European countries with comparable levels of prosperity and heating need. It ranks these countries against six key indicators for which consistent and recent European data are available to assess the energy efficiency of the UK’s homes. The UK is ranked lowest for energy (or fuel) poverty out of 13 western European countries and near the bottom of the other league tables on affordability of space heating (14 out of 15), share of household expenditure spent on energy (11 out of 13), homes in poor state of repair (11 out of 15), thermal performance (6 out of 8), and the gap between current thermal performance and what the optimal level of insulation should be in each country (7 out of 8). Overall, no other country of the 16 assessed performs as poorly as the UK across the range of indicators". Since then, however, action has been taken - see para 2 below.

2. Phil's comment that "Something seems to be working" may be correct. but I don't think it's the CCA that's helping to reduce fuel poverty.. Even Ed Davey (when the responsible minister) said "The combination of a long-term target and a strategy setting out our plans for achieving it will help ensure that the fuel poor are not left behind as we meet our wider climate change obligations." As a statement, that seems to me to imply an acknowledgement that meeting "our wider climate change obligations" would indeed make fuel poverty worse unless steps were taken to do something about it (in other words, steps necessitated by the adverse consequences of those "obligations").

"Written Ministerial Statement by Edward Davey on the future fuel poverty framework.

Published 22 July 2014"

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/future-fuel-poverty-framework-target-strategy-and-advisory-group

"Since 2010 the number of households in fuel poverty in England has fallen every year, thanks to government energy efficiency schemes and the Warm Home Discount. However, the problem could rise again unless action is taken to tackle it.

In a package of announcements made today, the government is setting out how it intends to act - taking the next major step forward in overhauling the framework to tackle fuel poverty in England.

We are laying draft Regulations before Parliament to put in place a new long term fuel poverty target. We have also launched Cutting the cost of keeping warm – a consultation helping us to prepare a new fuel poverty strategy to set out how we intend to achieve the target. In addition, DECC is publishing a report with the results of the first Triennial Review of the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group for England (FPAG) a copy of which I will be depositing in the Libraries of the House.

This package builds on a three-year period of detailed work on fuel poverty, which has changed our understanding of the problem and how we need to tackle it. This has included the independent Hills Poverty Review published in March 2012, a Framework for Future Action on Fuel Poverty published in July 2013 and amendments made to the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 (WHECA) last year.

Fuel poverty target
The Fuel Poverty (England) Regulations 2014 set out the objective for addressing the situation of persons in England who live in fuel poverty, as required by section 1A of WHECA. The Regulations will create in law a new fuel poverty target to ensure that as many fuel poor homes as is reasonably practicable achieve a minimum energy efficiency standard of Band C, by 2030.

I am also proposing to set out the following interim milestones in the new fuel poverty strategy:

as many fuel poor homes in England as is reasonably practicable to Band E by 2020
as many fuel poor homes in England as is reasonably practicable to Band D by 2025
This target and the proposed interim milestones imply improving the energy efficiency standards of a significant number of households. In turn, this will mean a real change to these households’ living standards by reducing their fuel poverty gaps or removing them from fuel poverty altogether. Meeting the target will be a major challenge - not just for government but for all those working to tackling this issue."

Phil just said "Fuel poverty has fallen in every part of the UK since the CCA was enacted. Northern Ireland has perhaps achieved the most, lifting 134,000 households out of the measure in just five years.

I think that should be celebrated."

Common ground! Yes, that should be celebrated, and I join in the celebration. But don't raise a glass to the CCA - it's down to other measures, not the CCA, which without Government intervention, would make fuel poverty worse.