Ed Davey: Committing Britain to unilateral cuts in GHG emission of 40% by 2030

Posted: May 29, 2013 by tallbloke in alarmism, climate, Energy, government, Incompetence, Politics

Blackout_britainFrom EUactiv:

Under the new proposals, to be unveiled by climate and energy secretary Ed Davey today (27 May), the UK would call on the EU to commit to carbon dioxide reductions of 40% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels, rising to 50% if other countries join in with more stringent targets on emissions. World governments are engaged in negotiations on a global climate change deal to replace the Kyoto protocol, with a new agreement to take effect by 2020. The proposals would make the UK the first country to set out its stance on emissions cuts before the next round of talks, in November.

Davey said: “The UK is a global leader in tackling climate change … That is why we will argue for an EU-wide binding emissions reductions target of 50% by 2030 in the context of an ambitious global climate deal and even a unilateral EU 40% target without a global deal.

“This 2030 target is ambitious, but it is achievable and necessary if we are to limit climate change to manageable proportions.”

Davey said: “We want to maintain flexibility for member states in how they meet this ambitious emissions target. There are a variety of options to decarbonise any country’s economy. In the UK, our approach is technology neutral and our reforms will rely on the market and competition to determine the low carbon electricity mix. We will therefore oppose a renewable energy target at an EU level as inflexible and unnecessary.”

The Green Alliance, which campaigns for measures to tackle climate change, welcomed the government’s stance, however. Matthew Spencer, chief executive, said: “This is very good news for anyone who thinks tackling climate security is too important to be a partisan issue. Both Ed Davey and William Hague should be recognised for their efforts in getting this agreed across government.

Read the rest here

  1. Ed Davey, the Custer of global leadership.

  2. clivebest says:

    “Davey said: “The UK is a global leader in tackling climate change”

    Myles Allen writes: “So the time has come to focus on something just as important: that 90 per cent of the measures adopted in Britain and elsewhere since the 1997 Kyoto agreement to cut global emissions are a waste of time and money – including windfarms in Scotland, carbon taxes and Byzantine carbon trading systems.”

  3. Lord Beaverbrook says:

    “we will argue for an EU-wide binding emissions reductions target of 50%”

    “We will therefore oppose a renewable energy target at an EU level as inflexible and unnecessary.”

    Must be a green light for shale gas then

  4. Bloke down the pub says:

    In the UK, our approach is technology neutral and our reforms will rely on the market and competition to determine the low carbon electricity mix

    In other words the useless green technology will ensure that energy in the UK is so expensive, only 60% of the population will be able to afford it.

  5. michael hart says:

    Committing Britain to a unilateral 100% cut in Ed Davey by [insert date here].

    Ladies and Gentlemen. What am I bid… ?

  6. J Martin says:

    Bring on that year without a summer and an even longer winter and wake the bloke up. According to the French Meteo the year without a summer will be this year.

  7. Doug Proctor says:

    When you look at Spain, Italy, Greece, Ireland and Portugal, it is clear that political bodies will pursue paths that are very destructive to the gross national well-being and the middle-to-lower, working classes. The green subsidies in America demonstrate that political statements are worth billions of dollars as long as working people are impressed in the short-term, i.e. get jobs. It hardly needs reminding of what former politicos have done to the UK economy through intellectually satisfying but pragmatically unsound economic policies – even, at times, wrt the rich.

    In the minds of the WWII generation, our governors knew more or better than we did; they did things for good reasons that they could not divulge, a loose-lips-sinks-ships mentality. Of course we have discovered that the average joe was, many times, more knowledgeable and more atuned with reality than those same governors. Still, we see ostensibly foolish things being done and struggle to grasp why.

    Whatever silliness or sense greening the Nation is, the bottom line for a citizen is that his energy bill is going up and his energy security is going down. Perhaps the governors consider this an unfortunate but short-term problem. Their Club will never be without power, nor their estates (especially if they put solar panels and batteries in the basement, at the taxpayer’s expense). It seems hard to figure out why this does not seem to be a problem; by their behaviour, it is as if only a few diehards object.

    When you only talk to your friends, you will feel that you are the best of people, that you are funny, charismatic and wise. Even your flaws are more cute characteristics than flaws. You might know of detractors, but they are not your friends and, your friends agree, they are unworthy of further thought. Is that why we have the obvious problems with our elected? It is not that they pander to the powerful (which they do), but that their circle of influence is so restricted that they are like bubble people of the information world?

    There is a great mystery in how things fall down. In accident investigations (try the program “Mayday”), accidents occur not because one thing went wrong, but because a series of overlapping things went wrong/wer done wrong that feedback on each other. It seems like about 5 things going wrong mean that we are overwhelmed. Is that how it is with our government, that it is not the energy policy that causes us trouble even when wrong, but that the energy policy along with the immigration policy along with the military policy and the X policy, all together, are wrong-headed, and then the whole house falls down.

    Still trying to make sense of what doesn’t make sense, still trying to determine what is so hard about things that aren’t very hard.

  8. Fanakapan says:

    Its clear that there are sufficient anomalies in the Warmista projections to give even the most devout pause for thought. The fact that this Davey fellow simply peddles harder on the issue is Bizarre.

  9. oldbrew says:

    The Germans have been protecting their own industry from expensive renewable energy costs by exempting the major users from the higher charges. Now the EU has waded in demanding an end to it and possibly even repayment.


  10. fjpickett says:


    “Myles Allen writes:”

    Shouldn’t that be, “Even Myles Allen writes:”..?

  11. Brian H says:

    Good thinking, but the decarbonization policy, if implemented as UK legislation contemplates, will single-handedly wreck the economy and wreak murderous havoc on the population.