Carbon budgets for all?

The government today will announce carbon budgets for all, with precise targets for reductions by 2020 and 2050.

All this comes from a government which still has not learned how to run a cash budget for its spending. Never have the public accounts be so out of control as they are currently.

I doubt the public sector will be any better at running carbon budgets than they are at controlling spending. I see no evidence today, at the dawn of the new measured carbon era, that Westminster has got the message. When I arrived in my office some system or person as always had used power to draw the mechanical blinds overnight, so I had to use more power to let in some daylight. The lights were on in the public areas, although there was no-one around needing to use them. (There are no local switches to switch many of them off and no people sensors for automatic mode). The heating and air conditioning are centrally controlled, often producing a room which is too hot in winter and too cool in summer.

People in the many parts of the public sector are not in control of their costs and are not made responsible for their costs. This applies to energy use like everything else. Until that changes, the government is unlikely to adhere to its own green budgets.

This entry was posted in Blog. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

14 Comments

  1. Mike Stallard
    Posted July 15, 2009 at 6:47 am | Permalink

    If you have a system of unelected people issuing their random thoughts more or less unchecked by any form of expert criticism, then you get random laws.
    If these random laws are a way of making a lot of money very quickly, then they will be widely accepted and hotly defended.
    But that does not make the random thoughts true. What you get is a load of lies and half truths which you are forced to try to believe.
    Global Warming falls into this category. It is not proven. It is issued by people who we did not elect and who have a severe vested interest in its being universally accepted without question.
    This carbon business is a swindle out of which a lot of people are becoming very rich.
    You had better believe it.

  2. Mick Anderson
    Posted July 15, 2009 at 7:11 am | Permalink

    The more cynical amongst us will point out that all of the Green posturing is merely to provide Government with another stick to beat the population with. Another excuse for higher taxes.

    One point about automatic control systems, though. It’s quite easy to design energy-saving automatic lighting, heating and air conditioning systems when a building is being constructed or refurbished, but a complete nightmare to try and implement at any other time.

    There may also be limitations on what can be done within a listed building, due to lack of ducting and cabling space for a more sophisticated system.

  3. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted July 15, 2009 at 7:56 am | Permalink

    At first they called it “global warming” and then changed it to the all encompassing expression “climate change”. One thing stayed constant – the knowledge amongst us sceptics that this was going to be used as a money making racket by governments and businesses alike. Miliband junior has confirmed this at last. Regrettably, I expect little difference from a Conservative government.

    • Cynical Middle Englander
      Posted July 15, 2009 at 10:46 am | Permalink

      Could not agree more. The “science” of climate change is an absolute con perpetuated by grant funded organisations and the ‘green’ lobby. The Met Office admits that the accuracy of forecasts more than 48 hours ahead is little better than 70% despite massive investment in their computing power. So to talk of 1 – 6 degree temperature rises over the coming decades is pure speculation based on a set of flawed mathematical models.

      The evidence to date is that Labour and the Conservatives are simply using “climate change” as an excuse to raise indirect taxes. It is time to stop this nonsense. Lets drop the renewables levy on powere generation – wind power is NOT a viable source of a significant portion of the UK’s power. Instead lets put in place new nuclear powere stations to handle the base load supplemented by coal, gas and limited green-energy schemes to provide the capacity we need for the coming decades.

      This is an area where the Leader of the Opposition could show som real leadership rather than just buying into Labour’s green mantra.

    • jean baker
      Posted July 15, 2009 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

      Conservative’s plan to reinstate localized government will abolish the ever expanding IT programming attached to centralized, state control.

      How much energy is being taken in Nulabor’s use of ‘electronic monitoring/control’ – our nation being the most spied on in the world.

  4. Freddy
    Posted July 15, 2009 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    ” … today, at the dawn of the new measured carbon era, … ”

    But today is not such a dawn, because a new Tory government is going to chuck this global warming nonsense into the dustbin of history.

    Right ?

    • Freddy
      Posted July 15, 2009 at 10:19 am | Permalink

      Hmmm. No answer.

  5. Paul
    Posted July 15, 2009 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    Here’s a cunning plan…. Our glorious government has signed up to cutting carbon emissions by 80% in 2050 in order to reduce average temperatures by 2 degrees.

    Currently the average temperature is 2 degrees lower in rural areas than it is in London. Move the HoC to Kent…job done.

    Stop the nonsense

    We urgently need more nuclear and clean coal power stations

  6. Neil Craig
    Posted July 15, 2009 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    There is a close correlation between power usage & GNP & all power except nuclear (which is a fast declining part of our power) & reneables (which except for a little hydro produces intermittent & horrendously expensive useless power) invlovesburning things.

    Alleged global warming is a scam. The globe is cooling & there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that the predicted warming is going to happen. However in the War Against Fire we are supposed to be cutting CO2 by about 4% a year compounded to reach 80% down by 2050. That will give us a level of energy consumption not seen since 1850 & a standard of living not far above it. It will have no measurable effect whatsoever on the climate.

    Any politician who doesn’t know that is unfit for office due to incompetence & laziness & any who does & still votes for this is knowingly & deliberately damaging the country & thus in my view unfit for office due to treason. We have recently seen Peter Sissons, who is retiring from the BBC, say that it has been BBC policy to censor & lie to promote this obscene corrupting totalitarian scre fraud.

    It is time for some honest politician to speak for England (as a Scot i am disgusted that not one of our parasitic *%£(# MSPs has spoken for my country).

  7. Citizen Responsible
    Posted July 15, 2009 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    This sounds like the proposals announced in the US called the “Cap and Trade” system. As I understand it, the U.S. government’s goal is to reduce the carbon dioxide the US emits by 17% by 2020, and 83% by 2050. An army of bureaucrats will work out how much pollution companies are producing and how much they should be allowed to produce. These companies will then be given a “carbon credits allowance”. If they are unable to meet the new emission standards, they will be able to purchase excess credits from companies that have managed to reduce their emissions, or buy additional carbon credits from the government. The costs of this new tax, if it becomes law, will have to be passed on to the customer and will give businesses even more incentive to re-locate to countries which are carbon tax free.

  8. Adam Collyer
    Posted July 15, 2009 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    This is really just desperate posturing by the government anyway. If they were really serious about reducing carbon emissions they would not have repeatedly booted the Severn Barrage scheme into the long grass. Already two complete feasibility studies have been done, both concluding it is feasible. That single scheme could provide up to 5% of Britain’s electricity. And not a smokestack or CO2 emission in sight. But the government has simply announced more “studies”, “working groups” and so on – and put off the decision.

    The announcements of carbon budgets have one great advantage from the government’s point of view – implementation is all way, way into the future. Great headlines now – and no immediate action required.

  9. Adrian Peirson
    Posted July 15, 2009 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    I also hear our great leader is proposing carbon capture technology that will suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere,
    Of course we will have to pay for this technology via increased fuel bills and taxation.
    Here’s how the con will be carried out.
    First they will buy a Large white Freezer from Curries, add on a few non functioning Gizmos / props from the Doctor Who dept of the BBC.
    Then attach a Pipe leading from the Freezer, sorry non relativistic de kelvinator, and place a shovel full of soot next to the end of the output pipe.

    Next Mr Brown, wearing a White coat stanmdimg next to the DeKelvinator, will announce the Great success of the technology and how it will save Polar bear cubs, bacy chicks, kittens, baby otters etc.

    All we have to do is hand over our Cash.

  10. Adrian Peirson
    Posted July 15, 2009 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    I did write to my MP that CO2 emmissions, road congestion and Lanfill problems and a whole host of other problems could be solved by closing the borders and reducing the population.
    And Planting tens of billions of Trees, which as every high school science student knows are made mostly of Carbon , fixed from the Atmsophere, but No, apparently, mass immigration and higher taxes are the way to solve these problems.

    • alan jutson
      Posted July 16, 2009 at 6:50 am | Permalink

      Exactly. no joined up thinking by government as usual.

      We have a problem so lets take action that will create further problems/side effects and then we have even more problems to slove. Put taxes on all of them, and hey ho we have some more money to spend.

      We are an overcrowded island, the more people, the more energy used, what do they expect, you cannot grow land to give us more space, unless of course you reclaim it from the sea. But then we are giving up coastal defences in many areas as the sea rises, so it will get worse.
      Oh almost forgot, you could always use as much as you like and pay someone else in another country to use less, or plant some trees there. Something called carbon offset/trading.
      Does not change the problem just moves it around as usual.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page