Thin bit of egg-timer draws near for Cameron as 70,000 UK jobs face axe due to useless Eco-rules

Posted: December 27, 2012 by Rog Tallbloke in Incompetence, Philosophy, Politics, propaganda

From the ‘time to pull your thumbs out of your arses’ dept. This from the Daily mail via GWPF:

Up to 70,000 British jobs are at risk as a direct result of European carbon reduction targets, according to a report. The policies have pushed up the cost of energy, threatening the vital mineral industries which deal in materials such as  cement, chemicals, glass, ceramics and steel, the study claims.

It says the aluminium industry has been ‘virtually eradicated’ after closures in Anglesey and Northumberland, and blames policies which penalise ‘energy-intensive’ industries for emitting too much carbon dioxide.

As a result, firms in such industries, which employ 70,000 people, could be driven abroad where there are less stringent targets, costing jobs on our shores with no overall environmental benefits.

The study by think-tank Civitas claims the only way to save the £400billion-a-year industry is to scrap plans to fine firms which produce too much carbon dioxide.

Ministers should exempt such companies from the climate change levy – a tax on industries which do not use renewable energy – to the maximum extent permitted under EU directives.

And it says the Coalition should abandon its ‘unachievable’ target of generating  20 per cent of electricity by renewable methods by 2020 – the most far-reaching target in the EU.

The report said that EU legislation adds ‘considerable costs’ to energy prices, while the UK’s environmental strategy raises energy prices to high levels, even in comparison with the rest of the continent.

Unlike other countries with ambitious carbon reduction targets, Britain does not currently legislate to protect key industries.

It says the aluminium industry has been ‘virtually eradicated’ after closures in Anglesey and Northumberland, and blames policies which penalise ‘energy-intensive’ industries for emitting too much carbon dioxide

Study author Kaveh Pourvand said: ‘Germany is careful to protect its energy-efficient industries with significant concessions on energy costs, estimated to be  nine billion euros in 2011.’

The report advocates scrapping the ‘carbon price floor’, the amount companies will have to pay per ton of carbon dioxide they emit, which is intended to come into force in April.

The author points out that the EU-wide policy means that the continent is allowed to emit a certain amount of CO2 each year.

But the ‘obvious flaw’ is that if Britain reduces its amount of CO2, other countries will be allowed to produce more, meaning British industry is unfairly shackled.

It concludes: ‘Following David Cameron’s pledge to lead the “greenest” government ever, the Coalition has stuck firmly to the implementation and continuance of the 2008 Climate Change Act, committing the UK to a unilateral cut in carbon emissions of 80 per cent by 2050 compared with 1990 levels.

‘For British manufacturing to revive, the Government should abandon its expensive climate change policies.’

Daily Mail, 27 Dedember 2012

Comments
  1. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Talk about shooting the wrong fox! Just exempting some industries from the effects of the carbon tax is just not enough – wage demands are fuelled by high domestic energy costs too. The whole carbon nonsense should be demolished. This mania is driving UK into bankruptcy.
    The only way to stop the rot is to explode the whole anthropogenic global warming myth. Tampering with targets diverts attention from the real issue.

  2. tckev says:

    Lest we forget -

    We have European carbon reduction targets because of global warming. No global warming for 16 years, so why exactly do we still have European carbon reduction targets?

    This ridiculous policy MUST be abandoned immediately.

  3. Even though he does not seem to have declared it, John Gummer is a Council Member of the World Future Council.

    Their agenda is a basically Marxist One World one. Whilst he is Chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, there is no chance of any meaningful change in current policy.

    Indeed, with their manifesto, it is hard to see how Gummer gets close to any public office. The man is dangerous.

    Please read more on the WFC here. You really will be shocked.

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/john-gummer-and-the-world-future-council/

    [Reply] Thanks Paul: reblogged

  4. Dennis Cox says:

    Hmmm… It’s a common mispronunciation in the UK, I know. But mispelling aluminum as “aluminium” ranks right up there with mispronouncing nuclear by saying “nuk ya ler”.

  5. Gray says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#History

    Etymology

    The earliest citation given in the Oxford English Dictionary for any word used as a name for this element is alumium, which British chemist and inventor Humphry Davy employed in 1808 for the metal he was trying to isolate electrolytically from the mineral alumina. The citation is from the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: “Had I been so fortunate as to have obtained more certain evidences on this subject, and to have procured the metallic substances I was in search of, I should have proposed for them the names of silicium, alumium, zirconium, and glucium.”

    Davy settled on aluminum by the time he published his 1812 book Chemical Philosophy: “This substance appears to contain a peculiar metal, but as yet Aluminum has not been obtained in a perfectly free state, though alloys of it with other metalline substances have been procured sufficiently distinct to indicate the probable nature of alumina.” But the same year, an anonymous contributor to the Quarterly Review, a British political-literary journal, in a review of Davy’s book, objected to aluminum and proposed the name aluminium, “for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound.”

  6. J Martin says:

    Jedes Volk hat die Regierung, die es verdient.

    Graf Joseph de Maistre, 1754-1821 This phrase and others like it appears in many languages, but has a particular ring to it when said in German I think.

    Why is it that we only ever seem to have gullible, easily brainwashed and manipulated politicians in this country.

    Destroying our economy by sending industry and jobs abroad and in the process failing to achieve what they set out to achieve, namely reducing co2. Indeed apart from destroying our economy they will in fact increase co2 output by sending those industries abroad.

    Utter fools.

  7. cosmic says:

    Set up a state machine to achieve something and it’s bound to reduce to a box ticking exercise whose purpose becomes completely divorced from the original intentions and is totally dedicated to preserving itself.

    In this case, it’s supposed to be dealing with global warming, and exporting industries to places which don’t give a stuff isn’t tackling the global problem, it’s making it worse. But hey, who cares? The boxes are ticked.

    What’s more, setting up a machine like that is quite easy, as are all attempts to increase the remit of the state. Dismantling it is hard.

  8. Brian H says:

    Since green policies are stupid and suicidal, being the ‘greenest government ever’ is just advertising honestly.