Carbon dioxide levels keep rising

The more the UK cuts emissions of O2 the more the rest of the world increases them. Someone sent me the 2018 latest figures from the BP Energy Review. Since 2010 world CO2 emissions are up 9% whilst the UK has been cutting. Last year there was a 2% global rise, with only the UK and Europe down. The increases were led by China, India and the rest of the world excluding the USA and Europe.

China still uses coal for more than half her energy demands, whilst the UK has eliminated coal in its generation mix. Last year an additional 280 million barrels of oil equivalent of gas, oil and coal was consumed, compared to just 100 m barrel equivalent increase in non carbon renewables and nuclear.  Renewables now account for just 4% of world energy, with hydro and nuclear 11%, whilst coal represents 27% and oil and gas 54%.

Those who see rising carbon dioxide as  a major threat need to answer the simple question what are they going to do about the huge increases in fossil fuel use outside the UK and  Europe. The figures show even if the UK succeeded in eliminating net carbon usage world use and output of CO2 would continue upwards with no visible impact of the UK on the world graph. It will take major changes of behaviour and investment in China,India and the other large carbon users to shift the numbers in  the way climate campaigners want.


  1. Stred
    June 17, 2019

    This is all as agreed in the revered Paris accord and why Trump rejected it. Meanwhile the weeds in my garden are growing at record speed.

    1. oldtimer
      June 17, 2019

      It is said that up to 14th June, this month has been the 17th coldest in the CET (central England temperature) record that stretches back over 300 uninterrupted years. How is that explained if it is all down to CO2? More likely the solar minimum is the greater influence. It will require much more cold weather and crop failures to jolt the political class out of its current group think mode.

      1. Jan Henry
        June 21, 2019

        It is pretty much admitted with the ‘the PAUSE’ in temperature rise despite CO2 steadily rising that there is not a strong immediate link between Co2 levels and temperatures. The fact that now they can’t link CO2 in the near past to the early century temperature to the 1940s rise adds to the picture. There are many reasons various people advance for it- but it boils down to there not being a direct relationship… as to what the relationship is – if any – nobody now knows…

    2. Tad Davison
      June 17, 2019

      I have visions of Greens such as Caroline Lucas and Margaret Howard cycling off to China with their little trailers attached, to demand the Chinese government stops using fossil fuels, then nipping into India on the way home to demand they do the same.

      Perhaps they’ll be good enough to let us know how they get on via carrier pigeon.

      1. Lifelogic
        June 17, 2019

        Indeed. One might have thought that, as leading figures in the Green Party, Caroline Lucas and Natalie Bennett might have bothered to learn a bit about energy engineering, science, energy economics, climate, transport systems, logic and reason. But no not at all, neither have the slightest clue what they are talking about on these matters.

  2. Richard1
    June 17, 2019

    Anyone serious about wanting to reduce CO2 in a sustainable way would favour a massive expansion of nuclear and shale gas. Otherwise it’s just green virtue signalling and humbug. its quite clear that, absent some dramatic technological breakthrough, ‘renewables’ have no chance of replacing fossil fuels.

    But this topic has now become like the NHS – or indeed membership of the EU until a few years ago – something which mainstream politicians just can’t discuss.

    1. Nigl
      June 17, 2019

      I get fed up with Luddite no hope comments. Renewables now represent 30% of our generating capacity and are growing. Who would have prophesied that five years ago with the same arguments then as they are now.

      Costs are coming down and technology is opening up new opportunities and making the industry more efficient.

      Solar, wind, tidal, heat pumps all offer vast opportunities for the future together with a reduction in personal consumption as we ‘force’ new builds esoeciallybto be far more energy efficient.

      As we lead in these technologies, so there are great opportunities to export them to the rest of the world. Just because other countries are not where we are is no excuse to do nothing. I want to live in a green particulate free environment not having to think about nuclear waste being buried in vast holes in the ground etc.

      I am in a country at present where everyone still smokes like chimneys. Is that a reason fir us to still do the same?

      1. Richard1
        June 17, 2019

        your comment about smoking is a non sequitur.

        Perhaps you are misinformed – or understandably confused by propaganda from the renewables industry lobbying for further subsidy. Here are the IEA data for UK primary energy sources for the most recent year for which there are data available – 2016):-

        Natural Gas – 39%
        Oil – 34%
        Nuclear – 11%
        Coal – 7%
        Biofuels & waste – 7%
        Geothermal, solar, wind, hydro – 3%

        Besides, as pointed out by prof Dieter Helm we haven’t really reduced emissions as advertised by the govt, we’ve just exported them.

        There is no luddism in pointing out that ‘renewables’ do not and are not at present likely to go anywhere near replacing fossil fuels. We need solutions not green virtue signalling. Nuclear is much safer then environmental hysterics have been making out these last 70 years. If you want to take that out as well we really do have a problem!

      2. Dennisa
        June 18, 2019

        “Renewables now represent 30% of our generating capacity”, but do not supply that on a regular basis. Their growth is at great cost to the public in their energy bills. Mine will be £150 higher this year. There is a physical limit also to how much renewables can equate with a reliable grid. As they increase, their deliverable capacity reduces.

        The environmental cost is enormous with ugly solar fields and massive wind turbines destroying land and seascapes and wildlife habitat. Also back up generation is necessary for when the wind don’t and the sun don’t shine.

      3. NickC
        June 18, 2019

        Nig1, “Luddites” protested because they saw that new textile technology was more efficient, and hence undercut them and took their jobs away.

        “Renewables” – or “Unreliables” – such as Wind and Solar are less efficient than Coal and Gas fired electricity generation, both in terms of cost and of reliability. The protests against them are thus the opposite of Luddite protests.

        And frankly we would not be saddling ourselves with the Unreliables if it wasn’t for the CAGW scam.

    2. Lifelogic
      June 17, 2019

      If the government really believed in saving CO2 they would ban private jets and flights other than in cattle class and push us all to become vegetarians. These measures alone would save masses of CO2. But they will not as they do not.

      When will government minister/Prince Charles/Emma Thompson types take or suggest actions like these or lead the way? Do as I say not as I do!

      Watching various socialists debate to become leader of the Conservative Party and PM last was rather depressing. Rabb perhaps the best but thank goodness we have Boris even if he is not perfect. Rory is clearly a Libdim at best certainly not a Conservative at all and he is now second favourite! Politics, economics/PPE or law graduates how depressing they are.

      People say Javid can be sound sometimes, but no sigh of it last night. Lefty tosh, virtue signalling and silly sound bytes in the main. Gove even saying he will respect our democracy! Who does he think he will fool?

    3. Fed up with the bull
      June 17, 2019

      Richard1 Great post and very true. It’s all a load of rubbish. We could as you say, get our emissions down and have cheaper energy which would benefit us all if we switched to nuclear and shale. Mind the earthquakes!!!! Those tremors will make you fall over.

      1. Richard1
        June 17, 2019

        Indeed. the data for ‘earthquakes’ are available. those created by fracking are among the smallest measured tremors – and match passing lorries. More green crap from the environmental left.

      2. NigelE
        June 17, 2019

        Fracking, earthquakes. Cannot argue that the former causes the latter but to what extent? We survived 100s years of coal extraction where subsidence was commonplace. A while back, I lived in the E Midlands, prime coal mining area in its day, and ‘endured’ two minor earthquakes – about Richter 2.5 – 3.0 – enough to rattle the ornaments, the windows and my wife, but no structural damage., and nobody fell over.

        When you consider that fracking removes the gas & oil from within the rock – admittedly a soft shale – whereas coal mining removes the rock completely, I do wonder how serious the fracking caused earthquakes would be. Has anyone any data on this?

    4. Lifelogic
      June 17, 2019

      Only about 20% of energy use is electricity nothing really can significantly decarbonise the 80% that is not. We have hardly touched the surface in the 20% electricity area either worldwide.

      1. Richard1
        June 17, 2019

        Indeed, although electricity is the one part of the mix where wind etc can play a significant role – that’s where you get figures such as ‘30% of supply’ cited above. although even this is heavily dependent on subsidy and regs requiring the support of fossil fuel sources for when renewables don’t work.

    5. libertarian
      June 17, 2019


      Absolutely correct

    6. Lifelogic
      June 17, 2019

      It very clearly is just green virtue signalling, humbug and a new fiery hell belief system or religion. The people pushing it the most nearly always have almost zero understanding of science, energy engineering, transport, energy economics, atmospheric physics, economics in general or basic logic.

  3. Ian wragg
    June 17, 2019

    CO2 is plant food and has probably only a very small effect on the climate.
    It is used by corrupt governments to raise taxes and control people.
    Climate has changed for billions of years and will continue after we are extinct.

    1. agricola
      June 17, 2019

      Agreed, it is the Sun that controls climate. It is deliberately coupled with the environment which man controls very badly. Clean up the environment and we improve our quality of life and health. Engineering and science are capable of achieving this without recourse to the ill informed mad chase for everything green and uncompetetively expensive.

    2. Turboterrier
      June 17, 2019

      Ian wragg

      Totally correct. Control by fear of the unknown.

      Our industrial base will be destroyed by these zealots, and we will have to import everything. Sadly for this country 83% of our politicians believe all this rubbish.All these predictions are computer based and are are all slanted to which figures gets them the most publicity and funding.

    3. Lifelogic
      June 17, 2019

      This is largely true. The climate depends on millions of factors many cannot even be known, volcanic activity, plant genetic changes, energy system and new innovations that come about, the population, farming methods and crops, meteor impacts. We cannot even predict the suns activity accurately for years to come.

      If we did have to cool the earth then removing some CO2 from the atmosphere would be far from the best way to do it anyway.

    4. Lifelogic
      June 17, 2019

      Increased CO2 concentrations encourages more plant growth and changes in plant genetics and the plant and tree mix, this is almost certainly a negative feedback on the climate limiting any small warming effects.

    5. Chris
      June 17, 2019

      Summed it up in a nutshell, Ian.

  4. Mark B
    June 17, 2019

    Good morning

    Cui bono.

    It is clear that there is a almost pathological insistence that the UK decarbonise without ever truly understanding what that means. They just make laws without considering the consequences for ordinary people. Watching our political class is like watching a cult. They’re all bloody mad !

    Of course there are those in the shadows who are only too keen to position themselves in order to make a profit. A profit I might add from some of the poorest people in society.

    Oh for someone who will rid us of these enviro-high priests.

    1. Lifelogic
      June 17, 2019


      MPs are virtue signaling, unscientific dopes in love with a new religion. A few are just on the make as they profit from the state subsidised green crony industries and ‘consultancies’. Only a tiny handful understand the real science and reality.

      Almost all MPs voted for Ed Miliband’s climate change act insanity after all. The BBC pushes it all along with their endless unscientific propaganda.

    2. L Jones
      June 17, 2019

      Mark B – you’re right. Our ”leaders” appear to be useful idiots – or puppets. There must be someone somewhere pulling the strings for their own ends.

      Talk about frighteningly gullible.

    3. Turboterrier
      June 17, 2019

      Mark B

      All the time the Lord Debens of this world and his cronies have the ear of government not a snowball hope in hell of it ever happening.

      This country needs a Trump type figure regarding all this crap. Apart from our host and a few of his colleagues the only other public figure who has openly queried all of this is Farage.

    4. Fed up with the bull
      June 17, 2019

      Hear, hear Mark. Follow the money. Those developers who inflicted expensive wind turbines on us all are laughing all the way to the bank while jobs are lost and the stupid thing is that most of them are foreign companies. Our energy network is run by foreigners just like most of our essential services.

    5. forthurst
      June 17, 2019

      They like to think of themselves as performing seals but actually they aren’t that entertaining: simply cattle responding to the dog-whistles which control the public discourse from behind the curtain.

    6. Ian
      June 17, 2019

      As was stated by Duncan Ballantine (Dragons Den) common sense isn’t that common. That in turn highlights how dim a good chunk of the parliament is.

    7. cynic
      June 17, 2019

      It will probably take another ten years for the penny to drop; by then the facts that coastal cities have not been sunk by rising sea levels and we are not shrivelling in sweltering temperatures, will be too obvious to ignore Also, by then, the false prophets of doom will hopefully have retired or moved on to some other scare story.

    8. stred
      June 17, 2019

      Cui bono? Answer globalist investors in countries with cheap labour and unregulated investment and industry. Much more money to be made in China and subsidized generation.

  5. Dominic
    June 17, 2019

    It’s a pertinent article and one that invites one simple question. Why are we having to absorb the cost of political grandstanding by backward leaders who are using the ‘climate change’ issue to signal their virtue?

    Does May for example think that the taxpayer simply exists to finance her legacy to the world? The arrogance and temerity is criminal that she should announce a policy costing billions simply to secure a footnote in history.

    The irony is of course that the west imports huge amounts of goods, services and natural resources from non-Western nation. We are contributing to increases in carbon emissions by these nations simply by buying their exports.

    When will politicians understand that this issue is not an election issue. Genuinely, no one in the real world outside of the political bubble gives a monkeys about this issue.

    We ask only for a leader that recognises simple common sense and embraces those people that live in the ‘real world’.

    1. stred
      June 17, 2019

      Adding imported goods CO2 reduced claimed reduction in UK CO2 by 75%.

  6. J Bush
    June 17, 2019

    So if, as the sjw politicians believe, changes to the climate are only caused by man and the Sun has little or no impact and decide to force zero emissions on the country, the result will be 4-fold

    1. It will have zero impact on changes to Earths climate
    2. It will destroy this country’s economic base and peoples right to self determination
    3. China, India and the rest of the World will be pleased as their exports to the UK will increase – or perhaps not, as it will only be politicians who will be able to afford to buy anything
    4. May gets her way, if we refuse to become EU chattels, so she destroys the country anyway

    I think it is time the Parliamentary candidacy criteria was changed to ban CP graduates, those who receive EU funding and/or those with no successful business experience. Perhaps then some altruism and common sense will return to Parliament.

  7. Roy Grainger
    June 17, 2019

    UK is cutting emissions by taxes and restrictions of various types which penalise UK manufacturers of steel, petrol etc. So we just import those things instead, from countries that have lower emissions standards than us so net emissions go up. Maybe we should put big tariffs on imports from China to correct this problem, but as Trump has done that (for other reasons) no-one dare suggest that without being branded a fascist.

    Truly it is a complex problem only a poor little 16-year-old schoolgirl can solve apparently, or Bristol Council, one of Andy’s two revered expert sources.

  8. /IKH
    June 17, 2019

    Sadly, the whole issue of CO2 emissions is predominantly a propaganda issue. The first key fact about CO2 is that 87 percent of the global warming that CO2 can cause has already happened.

    Secondly, the IPCC estimates that CO2 will cause Global warming of between 1.5 C and 4.5 C for each doubling of CO2 concentration. I.e. a mid level of 3 C. Current levels of CO2 are aprox 400 ppm (parts per million). So we would need to go from 400 ppm ( approx today’s value ) to 800 ppm for a 3 C raise in global temperature. to gain another 3 C raise in temperature would require another doubling from 800 ppm to 1600 ppm and so forth.

    There are many scientists who challenge the IPCC estimates. The IPCC have been estimating climate sensitivity at 1.5 C to 4.5 C for 40 plus years and have been unable to narrow the range. Many other scientists estimate climate sensitivity at about 1 C per doubling of CO2. At 1 C there is no problem of meeting the arbitrary limit the alarmists say we must limit global warming to, of 2 C by 2100. By the way, that arbitrary limit of 2 C is from an arbitrary date of the Temp at 1850.

    In answer to the question in your post, the West is being asked to pay while the East develops.


    1. Jagman84
      June 18, 2019

      The CO2 level reacts to changes in temperature, not the reverse.

  9. Dave Andrews
    June 17, 2019

    I’m more worried about the general pollution from these countries, with effluent and waste running down their rivers. Admittedly, some of this originated from the UK in the form of rubbish shipped out for “recycling”.
    The human race has always trashed wherever it goes, it’s just that there are now so many people around, the natural absorption has become overwhelmed.

    1. stred
      June 17, 2019

      90% of plastic waste in the sea comes fr Asian and African rivers and ships. Europe and the US a tiny fraction. Of the rubbish in Europe, 2% is from bags and straws.

  10. bigneil
    June 17, 2019

    What is going to happen as the rest of the world is imported, all needing heat and travel?

  11. agricola
    June 17, 2019

    The short term answer is for the UK to Frack for its much cheaper gas and oil, reducing our reliance on overseas sources. We are then,via cheaper energy able to re-import those industrial requirements that our expensive chasing of so called green energy has caused our industrialists to move to places such as China and India.

    Long term we need to put maximum resources into solving the production of Fusion Energy which should satisfy almost everyone with an opinion on eneregy. There will of course always be the Luddites and Nimby great unwashed who are in constant search of a cause to imbue with their vocal ignorance.

  12. Simeon
    June 17, 2019

    A study investigating the opportunity cost of investing capital in going green at the expense of wealth creation and investment in under-developed economies is surely long overdue. It would be interesting to see how the left responded to a dichotomy of poverty vs. the planet.

  13. Alex
    June 17, 2019

    The atmosphere has far less CO2 in it than at any time in the history of the Earth. Plant life needs CO2 to grow and we are in a CO2 drought. The recent slight increase has greened hundreds of millions of acres according to NASA. Temperatures have not increased globally nor have sea levels risen and both poles have seen large increases in ice despite the fraudulent claims otherwise. It’s way past time that this massive diversion of resources into alleged green policies (which acually only enrich the few) stops and real problems are addressed.

  14. Mike Wilson
    June 17, 2019

    Burning oil is a filthy business. Air quality in cities is killing people. Schools in London have lockers for every child to keep their asthma puffers in. But, heh-ho, who gives a toss? Not many contributors here.

    There has always been climate change – I hear you cry! Indeed, there has. But you have to be a special kind of half-wit to not even wonder whether the collective actions of 7 billion people could affect climate change. Just because there has been massive climate change in the past – without human input – does not mean that human input cannot cause climate change. It MIGHT! We owe it to future generations to take care of the environment.

    All we can do is live using clean energy ourselves and hope the rest of the world does too. I applaud May’s initiative. If we do nothing else we should plant trees around every field in this country.

    1. Edward2
      June 17, 2019

      As many do you are confusing climate change and pollution mike.
      Two different things.

      1. margaret
        June 17, 2019

        I wrote this am and haven’t been published , There is no confusion : it is rather the different responses from countries on how to look after pollution and the causes of climate change. The lack of care by some and the effort made by others. Plastic waste and care not to to waste demonstrates those who do not care about future. Greenhouse gasses and the frightening pictures of ice melt down regularly shown , rising sea levels and weather changes which some choose to ignore. It is the ignorant and those in denial who refuse to see problems and make excuses for the continuation of large emissions of CO2( often due to business) They call themselves scientists and put the world at risk because they won’t look at strong possibilities. Science is not solely about hindsight it is about looking at risk and eliminating potential harmful cause. Unfortunately the dinosaurs are not here to tell the tale, so the split between evidence and actuality is still present .

        1. Edward2
          June 18, 2019

          I agree there is a connection but their political adherents are deliberately conflating both issues into one green movement.
          You can be in favour of less waste, more recycling, more reusing, less food waste, less litter, less packaging, products that last longer, more efficient methods of transport and so on without thinking that just over one degree of temperature variation measured globally as an average since 1885 will lead in 25 years to us all dying.
          Sea rises have been similarly predicted to be metres but have turned out to be millimetres.
          Polar bears the poster boys of the greens were predicted to be extinct by now yet we have record numbers.
          Humans live and thrive on this planet in environments that vary in temperatures from freezing to very hot and have survived for tens of thousands of years in these areas.

          In 1989 the UN warned that we were all doomed due to the predicted huge temperature rises, saying that 30 years was the timescale.
          They also told us oil would run out by 2015.

          1. hefner
            June 18, 2019

            As far as I remember the first IPCC report in 1990 was not saying any such precise things (30 years?). I still have a copy of it and I can check.
            So if you are so sure can you tell me on what page. Thanks in advance.
            And BTW, the 1990 report was essentially the scientific basis for a possible climate change, all boring physical stuff about which gases are potentially greenhouse gases, radiative transfer, potential impact on convection. The reports on societal impact only started to appear as full features of these assessments five years later.

          2. Edward2
            June 18, 2019

            Gosh getting all technical Hef.
            Check the IPPC report of that era and Gore’s claims from the same time.
            All greens do is push forwatd the doomsday claims a few decades.
            How you doing on Polar bears sea level rises peak oil and predictions of runaway rises post 2000?

          3. hefner
            June 20, 2019

            Do you have a problem with people having some technical knowledge?
            No problem with all that (polar bears, …).
            What about the claim that the volume of glaciers over most of the Hindu Kush-Himalaya is not only decreasing but that the rate of decrease is accelerating (all based on recently released images of US satellites from the 70s and later). Some local politicians are warning of 1 billion people potentially affected within 30-50 years. Are you ready to welcome these future migrants to “mild climate well-watered Britain”?

          4. Edward2
            June 21, 2019

            No only when you use statistics poorly.
            Compare rates of temperature rises to previous alarmist predictions
            Compare rates of sea level rises to alarmist predictions.
            And Prince Charles prediction of the end of the world…and here we are still thriving.

            You ignored my Polar bear tease because it gives just one example of the many you climate alarmists had predicted that never came true.

          5. hefner
            June 21, 2019

            Edward2, Try (if you can) to take off your pink-tinted glasses. Please look not at predictions but at the time-series of records from around 1965/1970 to now, the whole period covered by measurements from different sources, but emphasis on satellite measurements that ensure a global coverage. You will easily find something related to sea-ice cover over the Arctic region, and sea-ice bordering Antarctica. Put that together with the time-series of measurements of sea-ice thickness, as for example provided by US submarines under the Arctic sea. No need to involve “cuddly” polar bears. Make your own conclusions.

    2. stred
      June 17, 2019

      Air pollution near schools has reduced. Pupils used not to have puffers. Asthma is a very specific disease. These people suing pollution to enforce UN policy are not using proper statistics.

  15. Alan Jutson
    June 17, 2019

    Our politicians seem to have a death wish for major industry in our Country.

    Meanwhile those Countries who pay lip service to the so called rules just get richer, and gain employment opportunities for their populations.

    Our politicians just seem to want to keep on increasing tax on the population, but offer them no alternative sources of supply/choice.

    Want to use a car then tax petrol, diesel, the roads, the emissions, and congestion.
    Want to fly then tax the Flights.
    Want to heat the home, then tax the energy supplier.

    If and when alternatives do come forward, then they will tax them as well, because they will have lost tax revenue if they do not.

    I am all for moving forward and trying not to poison our planet, but for goodness sake let us have some common sense solutions which can be applied worldwide.

  16. Ian Wilson
    June 17, 2019

    Excellent news that CO2 is rising! It’s increasing plant growth and food output, helping feed the 6 million extra humans we are adding every month. CO2 levels are still less than a tenth of those during the dinosaur era.

    A new paper by Allen Macrae confirms, inter alia, that CO2 has only a minor effect on climate, is beneficial in terms of food growth, while UK climate & energy policies are causing 35,000 additional winter deaths a year in Britain compared with the US and Canada. Yet every one of the leadership contenders, together with Labour and the Lib Dems, supports the same ruinous policies.

  17. Lifelogic
    June 17, 2019

    The world sensitivity to increased CO2 concentrations has been hugely exaggerated, slightly warmer is not a real problem anyway probably a net positive. Negative feedbacks will almost certainly reduce the effect further. The idea that you save say the Isle of Thanet from being flooded by reducing the UK’s Carbon emissions by some trivial amount in world terms (as some unscientific, illogical. climate loon on some committee was suggesting the other day) is totally insane.

    As you suggest there is no point in us saving trivial amounts of CO2 in the UK (at vast expense) and exporting many jobs and industries when it will have no real effect in world terms. Far better to save the money and use it (as and if needed) – to adapt to any change that occurs (in whatever direction). We cannot after all even stop many countries going to war let alone get them to agree and implement CO2 limits.

    I understand 3% nuclear and 1% hydro (not 11% combined) are more correct figures in terms of total energy production (not just electricity) Also wind, solar, hydro, nuclear still produce some significant greenhouse gasses in construction and maintenance anyway. Policies such as burning imported wood at Drax are total insanity – politics over science. Producing batteries for electric vehicles (which are not zero emission anyway as the energy still has to be generated) also produces large amount of CO2.

    But even Boris and few sound MPs seems to have fallen for this unscientific new religion. The foolish T May seems deterring to do even more harm committing £ trillions of tax payers money pointlessly on green lunacy before she finally crawls back under her stone.

    1. Lifelogic
      June 17, 2019

      May seems determined not deterring!

  18. Peter Miller
    June 17, 2019

    There are two factors here:

    1. CO2 forcing: generally agreed to be around 1.15 degreees C for every doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, and

    2. CO2 feedback, or what happens if the the temperature rises 1.15 degrees C because of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere – dodgy GIGO computer climate models used to predict circa 3 degrees C, now generally down to around 1 degree C, but steadily approaching a figure of circa zero, as indicated by the geological record and modern day satellites like Ceres.

    1. hefner
      June 21, 2019

      Peter Miller, CERES on Terra was launched in December 1999, on Aqua in May 2002. Very interesting data in terms of radiative budget but for proper CO2 measurements, why not consider those of the OCO-2 (Orbiting Carbon Observatory)? And contrary to what you seem to believe, the feedback (indeed lower than 3C/doubling) is not “steadily approaching a figure of circa zero”. What are your references?

  19. Bryan Harris
    June 17, 2019

    One of the ways our lemming government justifies destroying our industry is by saying it sets a good example to the rest of the world – which clearly isn’t working.

    Compared to volcanoes man contributes very little carbon to the atmosphere, but do you see any eco-warriors doing anything to change that?
    Of course we don’t because it’s all about politics, wealth transfer, and the biggest con foisted on mankind ever.

    1. hefner
      June 21, 2019

      Before writing such comments you would be better off to do a bit of research about the persistence/timescale of residence of volcanic ashes (particles) and volcanic gases (a lot of them ammonium and/or sulphur-related gases) related to those of various atmospheric gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, NO2, …) Then make your mind and possibly write an intelligent comment instead of repeating the latest belch from your preferred alt-right website.
      Practically all of the eruptions in the last fifty years had an impact on the atmosphere with a half-life between six months and two years. CO2’s one is of the order of a century+ in the atmosphere, and nobody knows for sure how it is taken/released/precipitated as carbonates in the oceans.

  20. John S
    June 17, 2019

    I suggest look at Piers Corbyn’s (Jeremy’s brother) website. He debunks anthropogenic climate change in a big way.

  21. Newmania
    June 17, 2019

    Well yes … but if it is difficult to create a global Policy on climate change as major world trading block then it is entirely impossible as a isolated Nation.
    It isn’t an easy question because Africa cannot be told it must remain poor even if China and America could be persuaded if the true cost of growth they are unlikely to wish to pay it and we certainly cannot do without growth here .
    Despite all this ,the world was able to act together successfully over CFCs and carbon emission per unit growth is reducing. Better still demographics tell us the population will top out at about 13bn and start to come down fast.
    This problem can be solved but not if the world slips back into the beggar my neighbor populism of which Brexit is an especially dire example

    1. Anonymous
      June 17, 2019

      But Brexit will make us poor therefore our carbon emissions less. *sarcasm*

    2. NickC
      June 18, 2019

      Newmania, It is the EU that has set up “fortress Europe”, and won’t cooperate with its neighbour – the UK. And you seem to revel in EU nationalism. Or perhaps you are rather pining for the return of the British Empire – the world’s biggest trading bloc? After all you make no distinctions in principle.

  22. Stephen Priest
    June 17, 2019

    No matter how much we have to pay for going carbon zero while Germany, China and India fire up the coal and gas power stations, we can all be reassured that the odd lefty columnist in the New York Times will appreciate our sacrifice.

    1. Ian wragg
      June 17, 2019

      This is yet another ploy to bankrupt the country by the people who truly hate Britain.
      We have given so much good to the world and continue to do so much to the chagrin of the Remainiacs who kneel at the altar of Brussels.

  23. James Freeman
    June 17, 2019

    Apparently reducing UK carbon emissions to zero will cost £1 trillion. This will involve subsidies, weakening the economy and only lowering global emissions by 0.2%.

    If instead we spent the money on researching and developing technologies to out compete fossil fuels, this would reduce global emissions by 100% and boost our economy.

    1. stred
      June 17, 2019

      It’s more likely to cost much much more.

    2. NickC
      June 18, 2019

      James Freeman, As Stred says the cost will be higher than £1 trn. The capital cost just to double electrical energy production (ie 100% more) for battery road vehicles will be c£500bn (using Hinckley C costs). And that doesn’t count the cost of grid and cabling upgrades.

      Worse than that, transport only accounts for about 40% of total energy consumption. So if the other 60% (domestic, industry and services) is electrified (principally by gas being eliminated), we will need another c150% of electrical energy (or 250% total increase).

      So government policy is pointing to a near quadrupling of electrical energy production, assuming the same energy demand. Capital cost for that generation capacity is about £1.2 trn (using current energy of 140Mtoe and Hinckley capital cost of £21bn for 28TWhr production, assuming existing plant replaced). It also means nearly 60 Hinckley Cs built in the next 30 years.

      That’s two Hinckleys every year for the next 30 years. This Government/Green policy is absolute bunk – impossible in practice, and vastly more expensive than they claim.

  24. Mark
    June 17, 2019

    I can’t help feeling that having failed to tie us in to the deeply unpopular WA, Mrs May wants to ensure our economic decline by tying us in to zero carbon. The latest report from the CCC is riddled with inconsistency and impossibility, yet the only MPs who spoke in the debate were in favour of it.

    Incidentally, what happened to the project to install 80 fast charging spaces in the HoC car park? Did it get cancelled, or if it went ahead, what did it cost?

  25. Beecee
    June 17, 2019

    It has been known for years, but not mentioned by most politicians, that our greenhouse gas reduction plans will have as much impact on Climate Change as the rise in water levels caused by a sparrow urinating in the Pacific.

    But still the Gove’s etc. of this World continue to prattle on, causing damage to the Economy and high energy costs for the poor, in pursuit of the ‘look good’ factor with the ‘Greens’.

  26. Brian Tomkinson
    June 17, 2019

    When will MPs and others who threaten apocalypse unless we stop CO2 emissions show how they personally as individuals have done in their personal lives to achieve what they themselves would describe as a “zero carbon footprint”?
    I’m sure I heard the other day that, following Mrs May’s latest utterings, in future our gas central heating boilers will burn hydrogen thereby, I presume, producing water vapour which I understood to be another and already the major ‘greenhouse gas’.
    The demonisation of carbon on which life itself depends and greenhouse gases without which there would be no life, as we know it, on earth, seems to be a cynical manipulation of the public’s thought processes by politicians and others.

    1. Mark B
      June 18, 2019

      Hydrogen is a very dangerous gas. It has to be created using vast amounts of energy to split the hydrogen and oxygen atoms from water, frozen to well below sub zero temperatures for storage and transmitted through pipes that will most certainly leak, hydrogen atoms being very small. It is colourless and odourless and cannot easily be detected.

      These politicians really need to stop dreaming up these airy-fairy ideas before they get people killed.

      1. NickC
        June 18, 2019

        Mark B and Brian Tomkinson, Well said.

        A hydrogen refueling station exploded in Norway (10 June). The company operating the station has suspended operation at its other locations following the explosion. Toyota and Hyundai have suspended sales of fuel cell vehicles there.

    2. hefner
      June 21, 2019

      Water vapour is a major greenhouse gas, stronger than CO2 but with a cycling timescale of about five days, thanks to precipitation/evaporation and presence of oceans, all of this cannot be compared to other greenhouse gases with much longer timescales (CO2’s is a century+). That’s rather basic physics.
      As for the difficulty of splitting H2O, let me laugh loudly. In all secondary schools, the experiment is done with a 15V battery, a couple of wires, a deep glass plate and a couple of test tubes.
      As for freezing H2, is it just a bitty more difficult than freezing nitrogen. An awful lot of rockets launched these last 50 years have used some sort of liquid hydrogen.

      These contributors “really need to stop dreaming up these airy-fairy ideas” before people with a bit of knowledge will take them for what they really are …

  27. rick hamilton
    June 17, 2019

    We are told there is a climate emergency. It must be true: an …….. Swedish child with an exaggerated idea of her own importance told us so.

    Emergency is when you call 999, your house is burning down or somebody is dying of a heart attack. What happens when there is a major earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption is an emergency. If the natural cycle of climate change is now classed as an emergency then we had better start building nuclear power stations tomorrow to make sure we can keep the lights on, when those expensive windmills in the sea have corroded away to dust.

    The political class are utterly ignorant of the outside world, or terminally egotistical, or both, if they imagine they can adjust the temperature of the entire globe to suit themselves. Nobody has yet explained why the current climate is the optimal anyway.

    David Starkey is right: everything now is a matter of opinion and facts do not matter.

  28. Andy
    June 17, 2019

    Sometimes you just have to do the right thing – and cutting emissions to net zero is the right thing.

    Climate science is settled. The planet is at risk. Your grandchildren’s lives are at risk. We all need to act.

    There is nothing wrong with leading by example. Others will eventually follow.

    1. Richard1
      June 17, 2019

      could you make a few suggestions – that actually work based on current technology – as to how to do that? see the posts above for background data on the current mix.

    2. Edward2
      June 17, 2019

      Millions will lose their jobs.
      As industry closes down because the virtuous UK is uncompetitive or it moves away to other countries.
      A price worth paying eh andy?

    3. Jiminyjim
      June 17, 2019

      Andy, you’ve surpassed yourself. This posting is the most idiotic of all. Show me a single time in the history of the world when a large and powerful nation has been prepared to sacrifice its own prosperity because other much smaller nations have ‘led by example’.
      What a desperately sad way of showing your ignorance

    4. Anonymous
      June 17, 2019

      Then cut your carbon to zero… today !

      Your carbon footprint os a LOT bigger than mine.

      1. Andy
        June 18, 2019

        Actually – I doubt it is.

        One of the biggest things we can do to reduce our carbon footprints is to eat less meat. I have been a vegetarian for nearly 30 years.

        My home is fitted with solar panels and is exceptionally well insulated. My family walk a lot, cycle a lot and use public transport. When I have to drive I have a hybrid – and my next car will be fully electric.

        I use a green energy supplier. I spend more on foods to get more sustainable stuff.

        I am far from perfect but if everyone was as responsible as me and my family the country would slash emissions.

        1. Anonymous
          June 18, 2019

          Still waaay above me.

        2. Edward2
          June 18, 2019

          You will need to pay way more tax than you currently do Andy to enable us ordinary folk to afford to do al the nice things you have done to save the planet.

        3. NickC
          June 18, 2019

          Andy, How did you get to America? – you walked?? Your solar panels, hybrid car, supposedly “green” electricity, NHS drugs/equipment, future battery car, and public transport are all subsidised by other people. And nowadays much of it (apart from the electricity) is routinely made abroad, and transported here, using “fossil” fuels.

          You claim you are “rich”, whatever that means. So if you spend say four times what the average Joe does, the likelihood is your “carbon footprint” will be about four times more than average. Despite your virtue signalling. You are deluding yourself. As usual.

    5. Fred H
      June 18, 2019

      Andy….people said we were doomed by steam engines, petrol engines, diesel engines, aircraft, space rockets, burning wood, burning coal, erecting power lines …etc.
      Leading by example can be a horror story, who was that fool who introduced tobacco?

  29. Jonathan W
    June 17, 2019

    These are important questions, ultimately you are right – it is action in other countries that will have the largest effect on reducing CO2 emissions. However there are important reasons for the UK to lead the way on this:
    – Britain was the first industrial nation, we benefited enormously from fossil-fuel extraction; if we want a post fossil-fuels era then we are in a better position than poorer, developing countries to develop these technologies.
    – There is a strategic importance in being a world-leader in these new technologies. Coal powers much of India’s electricity at the moment but investment is drying up. Richard1 states that ‘”renewables” have no chance of replacing fossil fuels’ but that is actually what is happening in some places around the world.

    Britain showed the world how an economy could be transformed by the factory system and industrialisation. We can lead the way on transferring away from fossil-fuels now. Yes, what other countries do ultimately matters more; but if we can show them that it can be done, and develop much of the required technology then our role, though small in terms of global capacity, can be one of great importance in terms of leadership.

    1. NickC
      June 18, 2019

      Jonathan W, Why do you want to “lead the way on transferring away from fossil-fuels now”, or at all? Why do you assume that the climate conditions of the 1950s should be the ideal climate? In fact the world, and mankind, will benefit from increasing warmth and CO2.

      Moreover Wind and Solar are not “new technologies”. And by installing them the UK is not “developing the technologies” but merely using what other countries (Germany and China, usually) make for us. Electricity generation should be based on reliability, cost, and pollution. But CO2 is not pollution, unless you believe in the CAGW religion.

  30. Ignoramus
    June 17, 2019

    It is typical of Mrs May in her attempts to have a “legacy” at any cost that she wants a law to make the UK “carbon free” by 2050. This plan has even less chance of success than he Brexit plans. Her real legacy is to have been a Home Secretary and Prime Minister who was allowed to keep her job despite consistent misjudgements and broken promises.

  31. Shirley
    June 17, 2019

    How much has the massive increase in world population affected our environment? A great deal, I should imagine, but it appears to be a taboo subject. Talk of limiting the human population is always met with howls of disapproval.

    1. Ian wragg
      June 17, 2019

      Third world countries don’t emit CO2. It’s only the liberal West
      Much like the only racists are white hetrosexual males.

      1. Dennis
        June 18, 2019

        Ian -‘Third world countries don’t emit CO2. ‘ So their use of ‘western’ products maufactured in those countries or imported have no CO2 emiisions? How is that done? If so there is no CO2 problem anywhere in the world – job done.

        1. Dennis
          June 18, 2019

          Oh I see I misread the comment! Just woken up.

  32. Gareth Warren
    June 17, 2019

    I have my doubts on climate change, a better approach would be to just use resources efficiently, instead we actually act in ways that increase resource use with electric cars and woodchips for Drax.

    I hope the next PM can resist pandering to the climate change prophets at the BBC and wider media, the fact that they do not have his or the nations best interests at heart should make that easy.

  33. Turboterrier
    June 17, 2019

    Sir John.
    The biggest farce of all about CO2 from the religious leaders of the Church of Renewable Energy to save the world not one of them has yet even began to consider the impact on the environment when it comes to the dismantling and disposal of all these turbines and their blades a nd all the solar panels. No one yet has come up with a device to actually measure the efficiency of solar panels because in reality you cannot as the power source is intermittent. At least with gas and oil boilers once a year on its service schedule you can check its efficiency. Power generators are very good at talking up wind power on the good days but in reality they should be forced by law to declare the overall efficiency of their wind farms so that the consumer and more especially the politicians can relate the amount of subsidies being paid to the actual real efficiency of the whole operation. Joe Public can have their vehicle removed from the highway for inefficient exhaust emissions but wind farm operators incur no penalties. Our energy supply system is not played out on a level field. Only the most devout of the CoRE will not and cannot see that fracking if the gas is there will turn this country into the power house which is easily achievable given its abundance of natural resources. This country cannot survive on the road a few short sighted simple minded green believers have steered us onto. The Greens are like water melons. Green on the outside and red in the middle. They will ultimately bankrupt this country.

  34. Christine
    June 17, 2019

    Bowing to the environmental religion will just make the UK uncompetitive. We only contribute a tiny percentage to the world emissions so this suicidal reduction can’t be the right answer. I’m surprised to see so many of our politicians advocating zero emissions. All it does is move our jobs to countries who don’t respect the planet. May must be stopped before she imposes a final destructive policy on our country as her swan song. We need to find an alternative clean and cheap source of energy. Money needs to go to our scientists to do research.

  35. ukretired123
    June 17, 2019

    The hypocritical Climate Change protestors choose UK and European countries to demonstrate knowing they get free publicity and freedoms not entertained in the main coal consuming countries like China who have cracked down hard on any dissent.
    It’s amazing Parliament did not respond to their lead behaviour recently and this gives China good reason to carry on regardless knowing protestors are giving UK the so-called ‘Guilt Trip’ and not China and India.

  36. Oggy
    June 17, 2019

    The real problem is the ever increasing world population and it’s food and energy needs – which in addition to increased industrialisation also increases the clearing of rain forests and ‘green land’ and hence a reduction in CO2 take up. A double whammy.
    Events such as Volcanic eruptions also produce vast amounts of carbon.

    I wonder how much of our so called foreign aid budget is used to ‘discourage’ countries like Brazil and Indonesia from levelling rain forests.

    O/T – I see it reported that Mrs May backed her male equivalent Rory Stewart in the leadership election, and that she has vowed to stop Boris and a so called ‘no deal’ Brexit.
    So much for ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’. She gets more treacherous each and every day.

  37. ukretired123
    June 17, 2019

    Correction :The hypocritical Climate Change protestors choose UK and European countries to demonstrate knowing they get free publicity and freedoms not entertained in the main coal consuming countries like China who have cracked down hard on any dissent.

    It’s amazing Parliament did not respond to their lewd behaviour recently and this gives China good reason to carry on regardless knowing protestors are giving UK the so-called ‘Guilt Trip’ and not China and India.

  38. Jon Davies
    June 17, 2019

    Should we ignore the “Tragedy of the Commons” which will happen on carbon in the atmosphere because we are now a small player in carbon emissions, having been one of the worst overall since the start of the Industrial Revolution?

    The answer is No.

    If we believe we have a role as a global leader then we should demonstrate leadership in this area, not least as it is in all our interests. We can do that by being at the forefront of developing and implementing technology which will provide decarbonising solutions be they for domestic & office heating and energy, transport or industrial processes. Done smartly they need not be an overall burden on tax payers and can deliver significant benefits. They can also make us less reliant on energy from less stable regions of the world.

    A small example is demanding better energy performance in homes (both new and existing). Combining increased insulation with effective ventilation can reduce domestic heating demand and emissions by upwards of 70%, whilst dramatically reducing fuel poverty and improving health. It is hard work to deliver it, but the technologies exist today to achieve that. Building regulations lags behind in requiring this.

    Your role should be to act as an enabler for these technologies and ensuring that government has a strategy for encouraging their development and implementation rather than holding it back.

    1. NickC
      June 18, 2019

      Jon Davies, “Carbon emissions”?? What are they? I don’t believe the UK either does, or should have, “a role as a global leader” at all. I am sure that the UK does not “lead” on emitting “carbon”, or not emitting it; nor on manufacturing and developing technologies for “decarbonising” (whatever that means). I think you are good at trotting out virtue signalling bunk, without stating your assumptions, picked up from the pages of the Guardian, and from listening to too much BBC.

      1. Jon Davies
        June 19, 2019

        Nick C
        Q: Carbon Emissions?
        Answer: A recognised shorthand for Greenhouse Gas emissions which include carbon dioxide amongst others. I think you know that.

        Q: UK as a global leader?
        Answer: It’s my opinion. Leaving the EU we have the opportunity to add more bite and drive to global initiatives rather than slavishly following others. You feel differently. That’s OK by me. The key for me is for MP’s not to block initiatives and innovation in energy supply.

        Your statement: UK does not lead on carbon emissions.
        Response: By some measures UK is a leader in carbon emissions (to clarify that includes carbon dioxide and methane gases amongst others such as nitrous oxide). Based on size of population, Britain is a world leader in greenhouse gas emissions, due to its historic use of coal since the industrial revolution.

        Your comments about my knowledge:
        Response: A cheap shot based on zero understanding of what I know, which is generally from engineering research. My specific example of domestic heating demand is based on engineering research by Currie & Brown and Aecom. Search for the Committee on Climate Change Feb 2019 report (UK housing: Fit for the future?) if you want the specifics. I won’t include the link here to save our kid host from having to check it himself.
        Not sure how saving money on energy bills is virtue signalling bunk but maybe you can explain.

        1. Jon Davies
          June 19, 2019

          That should say kind host!

  39. Prigger
    June 17, 2019

    Carbon Dioxide rising is good. Not enough forests nowadays for nature to burn down. We should plant more trees and allow Nature to burn them down today and so save the world.

    1. stred
      June 17, 2019

      Sorry, then No2 would increase and they’d ban everything anyway.

  40. Ian
    June 17, 2019

    The amount of CO2 on the Planet has remained the same since day 1 when ever that was.

    All though we have managed to move it around and release it for our own use and haven’t forgotten to put it back when we are done with it

    1. stred
      June 17, 2019

      That’s only in your own bathroom.

    2. N. Ominous
      June 17, 2019

      Actually it varies. We make carbon dioxide by burning so-called fossil fuels. During the last century or so we’ve probably doubled the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 0.02% to 0.04%. Even so, there has rarely been such a small proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

  41. agricola
    June 17, 2019

    The major electricity supply failures in South America only highlight the sheer folly of relying on electricity alone for all ones power sources. Transpose the May legacy wish to ten years hence. Not only do factories, shops, and all communications grind to a halt, but so does national and personal transport. Strategically insane except for those who have retained their old diesel generators. May needs to be stopped from this death wish fantasy, how we handle matters is no longer in her remit.

  42. Prigger
    June 17, 2019

    Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Tom Watson says Shakespeare was a Midlands lad like himself and believed in Europe too.
    It’s hard to know where to start with the Labour Party.

  43. Jack Leaver
    June 17, 2019

    It’s the rise in the World’s population that is the biggest threat to the planet not the rise in CO2. It is self delusion to think humans can control the weather and limit global temperatures as if we have a thermostat to hand. We know for a fact that humans can limit population growth by birth control but forced control as what happened in China is politically unacceptable. Unfortunately, voluntary control will never provide an adequate solution as is contrary to human nature, culture and religious beliefs. Let’s face it, human population growth is a massive Ponsi scheme that by its very nature is unsustainable. It will be ironic if climate change is the instrument that limits human population growth to sustainable levels necessary for the survival of Earth’s ecosystem.

    1. Steve
      June 17, 2019


      So in effect it is self regulating.

      1. Jack Leaver
        June 18, 2019

        Steve, hopefully it will but the population will be so high that Earth will not be a pleasant place to live for the vast majority and, as a result, I foresee a complete destruction in civilisation.

  44. Ian
    June 17, 2019

    When Governments talk about being ‘Green’ they usually just mean the end product. Not its life cycle, as in production methods, getting to market and then its use.

    A study by a University in the US a couple of years back showed that a good old 5litre Ford Mustang in comparison to a Toyota Prius created less CO2 over a its life time – manufacture-distribution-use-scrapped.

    The Volkswagen Group with their seemingly efficient use are produced by the most polluting methods possible, using VW’s own coal fired power stations.

    The real amusing one is the ‘Extinction Rebellion’ shower managed to shut down London, coordinating their actions via mobile devices manufactured by the facilities they were complaining about. Double Standards!

    Mrs May as her legacy want the UK to be neutral in CO2 by 2050, as usual without thinking it through. That aim requires the whole of the UK housing stock to be replace. Current Building Regulations are contradictory and even most of the modern homes cannot be adapted to be neutral

    1. stred
      June 18, 2019

      The housing stock could be insulated. ventilated by heat exchanger and heated by air heat pump plus some resistance heating and electric cooking. However, this alone would cost a trillion. The only way to provide enough electricity reliably for heating and transport would be to build about 20 big nuclear stations and a new grid. But they want to build wind farms instead, which would have to occupy the whole Channel and North and Irish seas. Storage for a winter lull would require a huge number of batteries and pumped hydro, costing many more trillions.

  45. hefner
    June 17, 2019

    It is very true that the UK CO2 emissions are small. Another way to look at this could be to consider the role of CO2 in all the products that one consumes. How many are made in China, say, and in that case, can one be held responsible one way or another for the emissions corresponding to that consumption?

  46. Time Machine
    June 17, 2019

    You can get drunk on Oxygen even in our normal atmospheric mixture of gases. It can be fatally toxic too.

    Ideology and similar boxing in of neural pathways including those associated with depression and stress can do similar things to your brains . Undoubtedly, various ideologies have been instrumental in mass murdering throughout our history.

    At every stage of history, we felt 500 years ago was in effect and practice the ignorant Middle Ages and only in our presents do we know what we are doing.

    In my opinion, now,
    we need to go backwards or even forwards if we can BE, that distance, and as best we can THEN see what’s what.

    We evolved from the start or were created from the start, depending on your present perspective, in a world where Carbon Dioxide was at much higher levels. We in whatever shape you decide upon, thrived. If we did not, we would not be here now.

  47. Edwardm
    June 17, 2019

    Climate changes naturally. The climate change protagonists have very little evidence to show that warming is due to increased CO2 levels. There is no complete and correct model on how the climate behaves. 20+ years ago the global warmists fixed their models to give the alarmist predictions they desired – and their predictions proved wrong. Over the last 150 years the climate has been warming – from long before mass consumption of fossil fuel in the last few decades. CO2 is a trace gas, that has minimal heating effect at such low concentrations, and it is food for plants – a bit lower concentration and plants wouldn’t survive.
    I suggest any recent climate change is mainly due to natural causes, and in the last few million years, ice ages have been longer than the warm interglacials in between. Within the interglacials there have been warmer periods than at present, including a number of times since the last ice age – and the changes up and down were not due to man.
    No one really knows the underlying causes – possibly the output of the sun fluctuates very slightly – but could also be other astronomical and geological effects too.

    The concept of global warming – now climate change – has been hi-jacked by left wing extremists for their own ends to undermine the industrial capacity and prosperity of western nations, and to be a general nuisance. They have been successful in spreading their groupthink – if they had genuine environmental concerns (whether misguided or not) they would be campaigning against China and India and not against the UK.

  48. Robert Valence
    June 17, 2019

    On fact whilst the Uk users have to pay the highest prices for power whilst old folk die off in winter unable to pay heating bills whilst British industry is driven to the wall by the ludicrous prices it must pay for electric power so China & India a given a free pass via the Paris accord.
    That was dutifully signed by Cameron’s gov. patting themselves on the back for their virtue
    When will we actually have a gov. & parliament who can think for themselves?

  49. BR
    June 17, 2019

    Do the science, understand the problem, before putting forward ‘solutions’.

    So many climate ‘scientists’, so little knowledge.

  50. MartinC
    June 17, 2019

    . . . and while everyone’s attention is on CO2 . . .

    we are in a period of solar minimum, the magnetosphere has been weakening, the south American anomaly has formed, UVC radiation is now being detected at ground level, the south pole is no longer in Antarctica but in the ocean moving towards Australia, the north pole has split in two (the north pole over Canada is weakening, the other is heading towards Siberia), tectonic plate movement is increasing the number of earthquakes, volcanos around the world are becoming more active, Yellowstone super volcano is recharging and showing all the signs that an explosion is imminent which would cause a form of ‘nuclear winter’.

    The Government should be encouraging farmers to grow as much food as possible that can be stored for long term use. CO2 is the least of our worries.

    1. NickC
      June 18, 2019

      MartinC, Indeed, there are many more important things to worry about than the minor increase in CO2 levels.

  51. kzb
    June 17, 2019

    Completely agree with this post. UK is 1% of global emissions and falling. Cutting UK CO2 emissions to zero tomorrow would have no discernible effect on the world. Yet watching all the protesters they seem to think it is all-important what happens in the UK. In this particular issue, we really are an insignificant little island. They should go and “stop Beijing” if they want to have an effect.

    1. Steve
      June 17, 2019


      Trust me on this……in the end they will try and force us to have a meter attached to the back of our trousers.

  52. Norman
    June 17, 2019

    How come a lame-duck PM can bring bring in a legally binding Net Zero climate target, which forces the UK to eliminate all emissions of carbon dioxide by 2050?
    Currently, the Climate Change Act already commits us to reduce emissions to 20 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050. According to Chancellor, Philip Hammond, this will cost £1 trillion. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC), who drafted the plan last month, put the annual cost at £50bn by 2050, equivalent to £1,800 for every household in the country, so the real cost could turn out to be even more (Source: Breitbart).
    What ‘say’ do voters have over such far-reaching policy, based on what many consider a grossly flawed application of science? The way the enviro-movement is operating is of the same spirit as terrorism and gender politics – an oppressive, coercive spirit of lawlessness and chaos that tramples all in its path, and will destroy Western (Christian) Civilization – the very seed-bed of true scientific inquiry and material well-being. On present showing, there’s little sign the Conservative Party has the ideological clarity of mind to resist. So much is in the balance, and I see little prospect of a return to any degree of sanity. Meanwhile, there’s ‘the blessed hope’ (Titus 2:13).

    1. Norman
      June 17, 2019

      I should add that I do not want to fan the flames of some equally oppressive counter movement. I may feel misunderstood at being called a this-or-that-denier, or various illogical words ending in ‘phobe’, or a bigot. That’s the bitter cost of standing for truth. I can honestly say I have only love in my heart for those who oppose themselves (to quote Paul, ‘such were some of you!’). But,how else will these destructive ideological flood-tides be stopped? This is the real ‘climate’ change.
      I do recognize it’s become enormously difficult for politicians, and hope that Boris turns out to be as resolute, wise and thick-skinned as Trump, in the service of Her Majesty the Queen – our wonderfully long-lived and gracious Christian monarch!

  53. outsider
    June 17, 2019

    Yes Sir John, the most inconvenient truth of all is that carbon emissions can only be stabilised, let alone reduced, if the great countries of Asia have their standard of living frozen and are not allowed to catch up with the mature advanced countries. About 2.75 billion people live in China and India alone and they have the same mixture of aspirations as the 1 billion who live in the EU, North America and Japan. There are as many people like us in Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysian as in the EU and they too want more cars, electrical appliances and industrial power.
    They can achieve growth in living standards with less power-intensity that we have done and with less carbon-intensive power. But there is little evidence of that so far, although China is trying. So, if there is an immediate climate emergency, it can currently be met only at the cost of stopping these aspiring billions becoming better off.
    Redistributing income and output from rich to poor countries actually exacerbates the “crisis”.

  54. acorn
    June 17, 2019

    You will hear politicians crowing about the UK reducing its CO2 emissions by 27% between 1990 and 2014, once CO2 imports from trade are considered this drops to only an 11% reduction. US emissions have increased 9% since 1990; when trade is included that goes up to a 17% increase in US CO2 consumption.

    The benefit of exporting most of UK / US manufacturing industry to foreign countries is UK / US domestic production of CO2 appears to drop in international comparison tables. With a large trade deficit in goods, the UK imports 60% of that reduction in CO2 back again.

  55. Anonymous
    June 17, 2019

    Remain /BBC hold that we are too insignificant to stand outside the EU but influential enough to lead by example on carbon.

  56. Anonymous
    June 17, 2019

    If you believe in zero carbon why wait for 2050 ? Cut yours to zero today ?

    1. Mark B
      June 18, 2019

      Hear, hear.

  57. rose
    June 17, 2019

    If the people pulling Mrs May’s strings were really environmentalists and really believed the great inundation is coming, they would stop virtue signalling and concentrate on preparation. They would move people back from the coasts, out of the flood plains, and they would attend to the dikes and rivers. Above all, they would stop importing millions of extra people. But they don’t do any of these things. So they can’t be that worried, can they, given that we can do nothing about the CO2 from the rest of the world?

  58. Mark
    June 17, 2019

    hydrocarbon fuels have a high energy density. One litre of petrol contains 34.5Mj.

    Lets do a quick back of an envelop calculation, to see how many windturbines we need to “go green”

    A few assumptions. Cars only – not trucks and other heavier vehicles total 30.9 million in the UK
    Lets assume each have 45 litre tanks, and each day either use or have stored half a tank of petrol – so the amount of energy to meet this theoretical demand is

    30,900,000 x 22.5 x 34.5 = 2.4E10 (23,986,125,000) Mega Joules

    do you see where this might be going?

    Lets look at wind turbine energy. Making the massive leap that we somehow get to an electrical nirvana so that all the electrical energy gets into our vehicles (we already know from above how much energy the driving public needs)

    An offshore wind turbine is rated at 600MW, with approximately 50% conversion factor, so lets assume 300MW – thats 300MJ per minute. Energy produced during the day is

    300 x 60 x 24 = 432,000 MJ

    dividing one by t’other we get a notional energy requirement of 55,523 offshore wind turbines.

    The UK currently has the largest offshore wind turbine population in the world – 2,000 turbines………
    Happy to be challeneged on the maths and assumptions – but broadly speaking
    “Houston – we have a problem…….”

    1. NickC
      June 18, 2019

      Mark, Having done this sort of calculation before, on here and on the Bishop Hill blog, I am sorry but I believe your calculations and assumptions are off. Using notation so that 10E9 = 1 billion = 1 Mega

      Both the RAC and the UK Petroleum Industry Association (UKPIA) state that road transport uses 46 billion litres (2014) of petrol (equivalent) per year, and using the same energy figure as you do:
      road transport annual energy = 46 x 10E9 litres x 34.5 MJ/litre
      road transport annual energy = 1587 x 10E9 MJ
      so road transport daily energy = 4.348 x 10E9 MJ (not your 24 x 10E9 MJ) avg.

      No single Wind turbine has a capacity of anything like 600MW, though a large windfarm may. A typical large Wind turbine is more likely to be 6MW – even the very largest is only about 9.5MW:
      BEIS has a long term average load factor of 31% (not the 50% you suggest),
      Also one Watt is one Joule per second (not one Joule per minute as you have it),
      so energy produced per day = (0.31 x 6) x 60 x 60 x 24 MJ (avg)
      so energy produced per day =160.7 x 10E3 MJ

      You are right that the number of such 6MW Wind turbines is excessively large, but it is now ((4.348 x 10E9)/(160.7 x 10E3)) which is over 27000. Such a number is impractical. Worse the unreliability of the output makes total reliance on Wind a non starter.

  59. cornishstu
    June 17, 2019

    There are a thousand plus peer reviewed papers supporting the skeptic side of the argument for man made climate change, a lot of which are based on real world observations as opposed to flawed models, yet like all things these days that don’t fit the mainstreams ideology are suppressed by the likes of the BBC . We then have Politicians and celebrities jumping on the bangwagon with their do as I say not as I do virtue signalling to the point of beggering the country for no realistic gain. There is also a big problem with conflating climate change with pollution in persuance of getting the public onside.

  60. Hugh Rose
    June 17, 2019

    The other “elephant” nobody will discuss is the remorseless rise in the human population and its economic and lifestyle expectations. If we halve our production of CO2 (which would have a huge impact on our lifestyle) and the world population increases by 50 million it nullifies our sacrifice. When Africans and Indians expect the same quality of life as the West, the rise in CO2 will overtake the impact of their rise in population.

  61. Everhopeful
    June 17, 2019

    All about exporting the inevitable mess made by industry.
    TERRIBLE things being done in other countries by firms selling stuff to Europe.
    But soooo cheap…nice low unit costs!
    Bad Europeans and Americans got too happy with high standards of living and unions kept those standards up.
    Cut down to size. Unions gone with help of useful idiots. Took away the jobs and wrapped it all up in cr*p about C02.
    When we are poor, hungry and cold again we will BEG for the jobs…at any price.
    Nicely asset stripped by a Corbyn govt.
    Good grief…we’ll be slaves!

  62. Timaction
    June 17, 2019

    As we are responsible for less than 2% of the man made emissions on this planet I would suggest your Party start getting real about the prohibitive costs to manufacturing and the poorest of our society to heat and cook in their homes of May’s mad policy. She’s looking and acting more deranged by the day, destroying what little respect there is for your Party.

    1. Steve
      June 17, 2019


      As I always understood, the culprit is none other than Ed Miliband.

      And as for Mrs May destroying respect for the conservative party, that is impossible because it hasn’t got any.

  63. David
    June 17, 2019

    A real Conservative government would repeal the Climate Change Act.

    1. Lifelogic
      June 17, 2019

      Indeed they would. The C. C. act it is totally insane and hugely damaging and all but a tiny handful of MPs voted for it. Scientific and economic illiterates and virtue signalling plonkers form about 95% of the UK parliament it seems.

  64. Yossarion
    June 17, 2019

    John until the world stops overpopulating it will carry on using up the worlds resources and see species after species only as a virtual reality hologram in the Natural History Museum.

  65. Steve
    June 17, 2019


    “China still uses coal for more than half her energy demands”

    It’s worse than that, China has for years been creating artificial coal mines, and filling them with as much imported coal as they can lay their hands on.

    I don’t agree with investing in China to get them to clean their act up. Personally I think China and India should not be allowed global industrial status, the planet simply cannot sustain their impact.

    But hey, we’re soft enough to pay extra taxes to clean the planet up, what with our massive population of 60 million compared to China and India’s piddly 2 billion.

  66. ian
    June 17, 2019

    Politicians in the UK parliament are just empty vessels who mimic other people who have bad ideas and always against the people of England. What a sorry lot.

    1. Fred H
      June 18, 2019

      ian…. BUT they fool most of the people most of the time.

  67. Original Richard
    June 17, 2019

    First the EU and the UK swamp used our taxpayer money to subsidise corporates to move their factories out of the UK to improve their profits at the expense of UK jobs.

    Then they encouraged poor EU nationals to immigrate to the UK through high EZ unemployment and UK taxpayer funded tax credits to improve corporate profits by reducing UK wages, while putting unwanted pressure on housing, services and infrastructure.

    Now they intend to completely destroy our democracy, freedom and prosperity through high energy costs to completely close down UK businesses and to restrict personal travel etc. using the pretence of preventing climate change.

  68. Lindsay McDougall
    June 18, 2019

    The important first goal is to stop people burning coal anywhere, whether industrially or domestically. It’s a major task but 20 to 30 years should be enough to complete it. The key fact – I assume it is a fact – is that if the world achieves zero net CO2 emissions by 2060, it should achieve the limit of a 1.5 degree increase in global temperatures. (Source: Economist). Clean (decarbonised) coal is OK but it is an expensive way to create energy.

    What we need is a change to WTO rules. At the moment, individual countries publish their standard tariffs on imports and these are expected to be applied to imports from all other countries unless there is a specific trade agreement. The proposed change is that countries may charge higher tariffs on imports from countries running a dirty economy (China, India, America, Germany and Poland inter alia take note). That change would give a dynamic to reducing carbon emissions.

    We have the ludicrous situation where China is boasting about its environmentally friendly electric buses while generating electricity at coal fired power stations. And while we are about it, high speed rail is NOT environmentally friendly.

    The current climate change agreement allows China and India to complete their economic development using coal fired power stations. This should be scrapped. So too should ‘carbon trading’. A ban is a ban is a ban. We should demand from China, India etc. a schedule of when their existing coal fired power stations will be decommissioned or converted to clean coal. The schedules should name specific sites and years, otherwise they will be ineffective.

    If we want increased use of renewables, they must not be expensive generators of energy. In the UK this will mean more on shore wind farms in locations where the noise can be tolerated (Badenoch Moor? Ilkley Moor?). And fracking, although not renewable, would be a useful interim step in ending the burning of coal. Nuclear is OK but expensive; decommissioning costs are high. India must be able to make use of solar power and wind power is a possibility in the Bay of Bengal and on the Indian east coast, where there is a monsoon climate.

    1. Edward2
      June 19, 2019

      How do you propose to make steel without burning coal?

      And good luck with getting China India and other similar nations to obey your call to ban coal use.

  69. Jan Henry
    June 21, 2019

    Dear John Redwood MP,
    As a researcher in the of CO2 reduction- I never asked the question what is the IDEAL CO2 level! Never! I also never asked the question as to CO2 chemistry. Belatedly I did ask these questions.
    1. I find that ideal CO2 for plants is at least double the highest amount present. I find that that level has no effect on humans needing to hit at least 15,000ppm!
    2. I find that it was known, and has been known from before 1980s, that CO2 doesn’t ‘force’ Water Vapour to absorb more heat and that it has ‘tail off’ absorption of a limited spectrum of heat. Read the work of William Happer CO2 expert.
    So why can’t scientist in one area found out the full range of information they need to understand their own area-
    I give the answer – they didn’t even ask the questions they needed to ask- and I like others are blinded – finally hit me though I research CO2 reduction and NEVER THOUGHT TO ASK ABOUT the Properties and habits of CO2!

    1. hefner
      June 22, 2019

      Dr William Happer, head of the Trump’s Administration’s Political Review Committee, sure the perfect unbiased guy? What you say about beneficial impact of increased CO2 concentration on plant growth is correct assuming that temperature does not increase outside the range of temperatures that a plant is “accustomed to”. Otherwise I guess plant scientists better have to work hard on producing plants to give better yields under increased CO2 concentration AND warmer temperatures. Contrary to what you seem to think, the two things are not independent.

Comments are closed.