#Labour’s Green Plan: Economic suicide note sounds climate alarm klaxon

Posted: April 24, 2015 by tallbloke in alarmism, Incompetence, Politics
Tags: , ,

Here we have the real underlying economic agenda of the Labour/SNP/Green party. It is in denial of scientific facts and makes false claims about weather events in denial of past mismanagement of rivers by Eco-bureaucrats carrying out EU diktat.

ed-wants-you

Image Credit: Tory Aardvaark

Labour’s Green Plan
GLOBAL ACTION TO TACKLE CLIMATE CHANGE
As the terrible impact of the floods in Britain showed last year, climate change is now an issue of national, as well as global security. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made clear that if the world is going to hold warming below the internationally agreed goal of two degrees, global emissions need to peak and then decline rapidly to reach net zero emissions by the second half of this century. The weaker the action now, the more rapid and costly the reductions will need to be later.

The general election means 2015 is a critical year for Britain. It is also a critical year for the world on climate change. Within months of Britain voting, the UN is holding a summit in Paris to agree a binding global agreement to tackle climate change. Analysis of the plans submitted so far, however, reveals they are not ambitious enough to limit global temperature rises to two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Based on the pledges made by governments, warming would only be limited to 2.9 to 3.1 degrees – well above the two degree threshold.

A Labour Government will champion increased climate ambition from all the world’s major economies, beginning by making sure that Europe and European leaders are doing their bit. The European Union is currently committed to a 40 per cent cut in emissions on 1990 levels by 2030. Labour would work with other European governments for more ambition. UK Carbon Budgets – enshrined under the last Labour Government’s ground breaking Climate Change Act and to which a future Labour Government is committed– already require deeper cuts in emissions than those currently proposed by the European Union. If the other big economies step up, we can get back on track for two degrees.

The effects of climate change hit the poorest hardest. Eradicating poverty will only be possible if we tackle climate change. If we do not cap temperature rises below two degrees, millions will fall back into poverty. This is why Labour will put climate change at the heart of our foreign policy. To tackle the inherent inequality that those who contribute least to a changing climate are those that are suffering most. In Paris, Labour will work for a global, legally-binding and ambitious agreement that includes:

• Ambitious emissions targets for all countries, strengthened every five years on the basis of a scientific assessment of the progress towards the two degrees goal.
• A goal of net zero global emissions in the second half of this century.
• Transparent, universal rules for measuring, verifying and reporting emissions.
• All countries adopting climate change adaptation plans.
• An equitable deal in which richer countries provide support to poorer nations in their efforts to combat climate change.

Labour’s Green Plan
We are proud of our achievements in government. With a Labour government, the Department for International Development led in helping developing countries adapt to climate change, helping protect more than 300,000 Bangladeshis from flooding by raising their homesteads above sea level, and supporting Caribbean countries to develop better early warning systems. We will expand the role of the Department for International Development to mitigate the risks of a changing climate, and support sustainable livelihoods for the world’s poorest people. We will focus on mitigation, but also make countries more resilient through climate adaptation such as flood defences.

DOMESTIC ACTION TO ADAPT AND MITIGATE
As well as working with our partners abroad, a Labour Government will show leadership at home to tackle climate change. The last Labour government introduced the Climate Change Act – a world first, binding the UK by law to reduce carbon emissions and inspiring action in countries across the world. We remain committed to the Carbon Budgets enshrined under this Act, which commit the UK to a 50 per cent cut in emissions on 1990 levels by 2025. The roll out of low carbon power generation by 2030 is a key part of the cost-effective path towards meeting our 2050 target. The power sector is responsible for over a quarter of emissions and low carbon electricity offers a route to reducing emissions in other sectors of the economy, such as heat and transport.

The next Labour Government will therefore set a legally binding target to decarbonise the electricity supply by 2030, consistent with advice from the Committee on Climate Change. Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have blocked such a target in the last Parliament, and the Conservative manifesto explicitly rules out any targets for the decarbonisation of the power sector. Labour’s decarbonisation target will mean that most new generation through the 2020s will be low carbon. Importantly, it allows for a portfolio of options, giving us maximum flexibility to reduce emissions in the most cost-effective way possible for consumers. Our commitment will underpin a clear long term policy framework, giving investors the certainty Labour will:

• Champion increased climate ambition from all the world’s major economies, beginning by making sure that Europe and European leaders are doing their bit to hold warming below the internationally agreed goal of two degrees.
• Work for an ambitious global agreement on climate change in Paris later this year, with ambitious emissions targets for all countries, strengthened every five years and a goal of net zero global emissions in the second half of this century.
• Expand the role of the Department of International Development to mitigate the risks of a changing climate, and support sustainable livelihoods for the world’s poorest people.

Read the rest, if you can stomach it.

Comments
  1. A C Osborn says:

    No I can’t stomach any more.

  2. mkelly says:

    “…sustainable livelihoods for the world’s poorest people.”

    ======

    I read this to say “We got them down let us keep them down.”

    Sustaining a poor life style is not a good thing.

  3. EternalOptimist says:

    change a few words, and ‘hey presto’

    The Institute for financial studies has made clear that if the UK is going to hold the deficit down to manageable levels, borrowing need to peak and then decline rapidly to reach net zero by the second half of this next parliament. The weaker the austerity now, the more rapid and costly the cuts will need to be later.

  4. oldbrew says:

    Look behind you Ed.

    It’s time to check in with the Climate Uncertainty Monster
    http://www.thegwpf.com/judith-curry-stalking-the-uncertainty-monster/

  5. oldbrew says:

    Earth to Ed…

    ‘Satellite temperature readings show there has been no warming trend for nearly 18 and one-half years, meaning there has been no statistically significant warming since the late 1990s.’

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/24/global-warming-pause/

  6. craigm350 says:

    The last Labour government introduced the Climate Change Act

    I rest my case😉

  7. steverichards1984 says:

    What’s not to like! /sarc

    The vast majority of over educated but stupid politicians are suckers for and well sold idea.

    And I think that the idea of ‘Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming’ is a very simple concept and extremely well sold!

    So well sold that we will have to up our game if we are to but this daft idea back into the genie’s bottle.

    The idea that we should discuss calmly how each part of the idea is refuted has been shown not to work.

    We need to fight harder and harder until genuine common sense prevails.

    That a potential governing party can proudly say nonsense like this shows how hard the journey will be.

  8. Martin Clark says:

    I actually thought the above was a spoof, but if so I would have expected the file metadata would be cleared. You have my sympathy.
    On one or two occasions, I have wondered if there was a wisdom in us managing to escape from the UK about 30 years ago. Now I know there was. It seems we were not destined to freeze to death anyway.

  9. Kon DEaler says:

    More of Bryony’s (Worthington) wet dreams here.

  10. tallbloke says:

    I will be confronting this nonsense in front of a large audience next Wednesday.
    http://www.leedsforchange.org.uk/resources/fair-ten-challenge/the-2015-fair-ten-challenge-questions/
    And on made.tv next Monday.

  11. A. Ames says:

    Here’s wishing you the best possible. Hopefully you can get through to some.

  12. oldbrew says:

    By the time the naive majority realise they’ve been taken for an expensive ride by the climate mafia, it will be too late to get any of their money back except for a bit of loose change from scrap metal for old turbines.

  13. tom0mason says:

    I can’t imagine that Lib/Labour/SNP/Green/Con parties will take any notice or understand this new paper .

    Where researchers at Duke University say global warming isn’t progressing as rapidly as it would under the severe scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and for good reason.

    In reviewing the last 1,000 years of temperature records, researchers found that natural variability in surface temperatures over just a decade can account for increases and decreases in warming rates. These researchers said that most of the variability might happen because of interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and/or other natural factors.

    As such, they say trends over just a 10-year period don’t show a lot about long-term warming the Earth can expect to experience over century long periods.

    UKIP would probably understand what the paper says, and what it means for the CAGW pigs’ swill-machine though.

    [reply] agreed

  14. Graeme No.3 says:

    100% carbon free electricity supply by 2030?

    I would believe that if Ed (any sort) walks across the Thames in summer time. (preferably with heavy weight attached).

    Don’t these idiots realise it is completely impossible? Should they persist all industry and commerce in the UK will cease. Unemployment will be enormous, and taxation revenue will consist of the government withholding a percentage of public employes’ pay sufficient to pay them; let’s see, that’s a tax rate of civil servants/teachers/nurses/etc. of 100%. Their pay will now be the same as the unemployed who, of course, won’t get any benefits as there is nothing in the pot to pay out. 100% misery abolishes poverty if everybody earns zero. Everybody will be starving; unless they take a bite out of Ed.

  15. oldbrew says:

    Graeme: re ‘100% carbon free electricity supply by 2030?’

    It’s not completely impossible in theory, but it would require a whole new fleet of nuclear power stations which aren’t going to be in place by 2030 or any other known date, if ever. Energy rationing beckons😉

  16. green says:

    “Labour/SNP/Green party”. These are three radically different parties. Labour is closer to the LibDems and Cons.. The SNP, Greens, UKIP and BNP are outsiders.
    ” weather events in denial of past mismanagement of rivers by Eco-bureaucrats carrying out EU diktat.”
    How does Brussels dictate flood management policy? Some countries do very well eg France and Holland. Some do very badly eg the UK but it would appear because they fail to manage things well (a very modern British thing) and let the building lobby build over flood plains etc.

  17. tallbloke says:

    Green: I suggest you search for floods and somerset on this blog to get clued up.

  18. Green says:

    I did as you suggested. The only item blaming the EU links to this ET article.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10625663/Flooding-Somerset-Levels-disaster-is-being-driven-by-EU-policy.html

    Was the UK obliged to implement these directives? Did it in fact do so? What is the actual effect of the EU policies? A little more in depth investigation is needed then a ET article methinks. We see so many lies in the MSM we are beholden to dig further so we do not fall for the old “the EU says bananas must be straight trick” no?

    A simple lookup of the causes of the European floods of 2013 shows that unusually heavy rains were to blame. (Likely linked to more extreme climate)
    As with other English people here in France I note a lack of flooding because farmers (somehow apparently in defiance of the EU) are paid to maintain drainage ditches. The UK does very little of that. It does build houses on flood plains though.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/the-more-the-experts-warn-against-the-more-we-build-on-flood-plains-9101710.html

    But the ET would have us believe that wildlife reserves are responsible. Well they absorb water and there are no houses in them. If the whole country was a wildlife reserve we’d not even be debating the issue would we?
    Try the rightwing Daily Mail

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2543600/Climate-change-NOT-main-cause-floods-say-experts-Building-plains-cutting-trees-true-reasons.html
    Climate change is NOT main cause of floods, say experts: Building on plains and cutting down trees are among the true reasons.

    The EU doesn’t mandate cutting down trees.

    Now the Somerset levels is just one area of Britain. What is the general case? How do wildlife reserves cause flooding in the SouthEast? They clearly don’t.

  19. Green says:

    Another reasons why flooding is getting worse is the fall in investment for flood management.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/05/risk-of-floods-in-england-up-due-to-cuts-in-government-funding-say-nao

    Another problem is that the UK is simply over-populated.