Industrial emissions and carbon reductions
These regulate the release of emissions into the environment.
They include provisions on the sulphur content of fuels; emissions allowances for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust from large UK combustion plants; volatile organic compounds; dark smoke emissions; emissions of smoke, grit and dust from non-domestic furnaces; ozone depleting substances; carbon accounting; carbon budgets; fluorinated greenhouse gases; and the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System.
You can find all 35 regulations that relate to industrial emissions and carbon reductions below to the left.
|
The Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Regulations 2009 Regulations underpin the comprehensive EU regulatory framework that aims to minimise emissions of fluorinated greenhouse gases.
|
|
Sulphur Content of Liquid Fuels (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 Sets limits on the sulphur content of heavy fuel oils and diesel.
|
|
The Large Combustion Plants (National Emission Reduction Plan) Regulations 2007 Provides for the operation of a register of allocations and transfers of annual emissions allowances for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust from certain plants in the UK.
|
|
The Pollution Prevention and Control (Unauthorised Part B Processes) (England and Wales) Regulations 2004 Amended certain transitional provisions in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000
|
|
The Volatile Organic Compounds in Paints, Varnishes and Vehicle Refinishing Products Regulations 2005 Prohibits the placing on the market of certain paints if they contain more than a specified amount of VOCs.
|
|
The Volatile Organic Compounds in Paints, Varnishes and Vehicle Refinishing Products (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009 Delegates enforcement functions from Secretary of State to local authorities in England
|
|
The Volatile Organic Compounds in Paints, Varnishes and Vehicle Refinishing Products (Amendment) Regulations 2010 Implements changes arising from Directive 2008/112/EC about harmonising the classification and labelling of substances and mixtures.
|
|
Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) Regulations 1958 Allows derogation from the Clean Air Act 1993 (CAA) s1 prohibition on dark smoke emissions from industrial plant, allowing specified short-term emissions
|
|
Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) (Vessels) Regulations 1958 Allows derogation from the CAA s44 prohibition on dark smoke emissions from vessels, allowing specified short-term emissions
|
|
Clean Air (Emission of Dark Smoke) (Exemption) Regulations 1969 Disapply the CAA s2 prohibition on smoke emissions from industrial or trade premises in relation to burning
|
|
Clean. Air (Emission of Grit and Dust from Furnaces) Regulations 1971 Sets standards under CAA s5 for the amount of grit and dust that may be emitted from non-domestic furnaces.
|
|
Clean Air (Measurement of Grit and Dust from Furnaces) Regulations 1971 Regs under CAA s10 specify that a local authority must give at least 6 weeks notice of a requirement to add to a chimney the means of measuring grit and dust; and the occupier must make the changes within the period given in the notice. Where this is done, the Regs provide the procedures and requirements for undertaking the measurement.
|
|
Clean Air (height of chimneys) (exemption) regulations 1969 Sets out exemptions (eg for temporary plant) from the requirements of CAA s14 to have a chimney height approved.
|
|
Control of Atmospheric Pollution (Research and Publicity) Regulations 1977 Regs under CAA s38 establish procedures and requirements for local authorities serving notices to collect information about air pollution from third parties
|
|
Control of Atmosphere Pollution (Appeals) Regulations 1977 Regs under CAA s37 setting out procedures for appeals against notices under CAA s38 to collect information from third parties
|
|
The Environment Protection (Controls on Ozone-Depleting Substances) Regulations 2011 The Regulations establish the enforcement framework for the EU legislation implementing the Montreal Protocol on Ozone-Depleting Substances.
|
|
The Ozone Depleting Substances (Qualifications) Regulations 2009 The Regulations establish the qualifications needed to work with ozone-depleting substances.
|
|
Clean Air (Emission of Dark Smoke) (Exemption) Regulations 1969 Disapply the CAA s2 prohibition on smoke emissions from industrial or trade premises in relation to burning
|
|
Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) (Vessels) Regulations 1958 Allows derogation from the CAA s44 prohibition on dark smoke emissions from vessels, allowing specified short-term emissions
|
|
Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) Regulations 1958 Allows derogation from the Clean Air Act 1993 (CAA) s1 prohibition on dark smoke emissions from industrial plant, allowing specified short-term emissions
|
|
Carbon Accounting Regulations 2009 Sets out the methodology for calculating the UK’s net carbon account.
|
|
Carbon Budgets Order 2009 A carbon budget is a cap on the total quantity of greenhouse gas emissions emitted in the UK over a specified time. This regulation sets the UK’s first three carbon budget levels for 2008-2022.
|
|
Carbon Budgets Order 2011 A carbon budget is a cap on the total quantity of greenhouse gas emissions emitted in the UK over a specified time. This regulation set the level of the fourth carbon budget for 2023-27.
|
|
Climate Change Act 2008 Set the UK’s emissions reduction targets, introduced a system of five year carbon budgets and set up the Committee on Climate Change.
|
|
Climate Change Act 2008 (2020 Target, Credit Limit and Definitions) Order 2009 Revises the 2020 reduction target in the Climate Change Act, sets the limit on the use of offset credits for the first carbon budget period and defines international aviation emissions.
|
|
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data and National Implementation Measures Regulations 2009 Enables specified greenhouse gas emissions data to be collected, and enables other data to be collected to enable the UK (as required by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Directive) to publish and submit national implementation measures for phase III of the scheme
|
|
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2007 Makes technical amendments to the 2005 Regulations.
|
|
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Fees) and National Emissions Inventory Regulations 2011 Amends the 2005 Regulations to provide that the Environment Agency must determine applications for project activities established under the Kyoto Protocol on or after 1 June 2011, and to require fees to be paid in relation to applications until 6 April 2011.
|
|
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) and National Emissions Inventory Regulations 2005 Implements EU ETS Directive in respect of Kyoto Protocol’s project mechanisms
|
|
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2006 Amends the 2005 Regulations to make a variety of changes, such as providing a mechanism for installations which began operating before 2004 but which have not received an allocation of allowances, to apply for an allocation
|
|
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2007 Permits Emissions Trading Scheme allowances to be allocated by way of auction or sale (in the first phase of the scheme), and permits the Secretary of State to enter into agreements with persons who hold accounts in the emissions trading registry to transfer allowances to those persons in exchange for payment.
|
|
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2007 Specifies the document which is the approved national allocation plan for the second phase of the scheme (2008-2012).
|
|
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Nitrous Oxide) Regulations 2011 Implements option available in EU ETS Directive to Member States to opt-in additional greenhouse gases and sectors.
|
|
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2005 Provides the framework for implementing the European Union’s greenhouse gas emission trading scheme in the UK. The scheme is a ‘cap and trade’ scheme which is intended to control emissions of carbon dioxide.
|
|
The Climate Change Act 2008 (Credit Limit) Order 2011 Sets the limit on the use of offset credits (reductions in carbon emissions made to compensate/offset emissions made elsewhere) in the second carbon budget period 2013-2017
|
Tell us what you think should happen to these regulations and why, being specific where possible:
- Should we scrap them altogether?
- Could their purpose be achieved in a non-regulatory way (eg through a voluntary code?) How?
- Could they be reformed, simplified or merged? How?
- Can we reduce their bureaucracy through better implementation? How?
- Can we make their enforcement less burdensome? How?
- Should they be left as they are?
For example, the Pollution Prevention and Control (Unauthorised Part B Processes) (England and Wales) Regulations 2004 may no longer be needed because they have been largely superseded by the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010.
GM Lindsay said on June 20, 2011 at 9:53 am
The Climate Change Act 2008 is the longest suicide note for our country – and must be scrapped or. at least, significantly modified. The consequences of this act is to put UK industray at a huge disadvantage to other economies where such zealotry is not being followed – aleady many of our high energy consuming industry is being offshored and not one gram of CO2 is being saved on a worldwide basis – instead of emitting CO2 here, we are simply importing it from other countries. Where’s the sense in doing that?
Additionally, on the electricity front, by building ever more heavily subsidised wind turbines, we are acting like Robin Hood in reverse – atling money from the poorest consumers and giving it to rich landowners and developers. The Feed in Tariffs are doing exactly the same – the cost of paying some people 3-4 times the wholesale price merely adds to the intolarable burden being placed on those who cannot instal micro power generation facilities.
If you believe that carbon emissions must be addressed, then the only fair way of doing this is on an international and worldwide basis.
Matt Favier said on June 20, 2011 at 9:27 am
I strongly object to any reduction or rejection of our Climate Change Act or other legislation encouraging more efficient use of energy. They are vitally important in helping prpare the UK for the energy crunch we are entering now, qand that will get considerably worse over th coming decades. It is also commendfable that we are taking a lead in efforts to combat climate change – someone has to be first in these matters, and I an proud it is us! I leave the people who know best about the climate and who spend all their professional lives studying it and the science and patterns behind, to decide the facts about climate change, and there is a clear consensus that most of the potentially dangerous changes to our climate are due to human actions. Ask any climatoligist at the Hadley or Tyndall centre if you have doubts! PLEASE DO NOT SCRAP CLIMATE CHANGE LAWS!
Duncan Williamson said on June 20, 2011 at 8:32 am
The Climate Change act is a vitally important piece of legislation that if anything needs to be strengthened. It demonstrates to the world what a forward thinking democracy can do and what others will need to do if we are to have a clean future, that allows for the conservation of biodiversity and leaves a planet we would recognise to our children.
The evidence for climate change is overwhelming, most scientist agree that is it happening, and even most companies are trying to work to reduce their footprint (this makes sense financially and well as environmentally).
Moving towards a low carbon future is a win win for all, we will have cleaner air, more biodiversity, improved health, we will be able to conserve our countryside and by reducing our demand for energy and becoming more efficient we all save money.
This will help to stimulate a green industry that will create more jobs, specifically in the green energy sector, helping the UK to develop a new industry, new jobs and generate a new economy that will benefit us all, while moving away from a carbon based sector that is going to get increasingly expensive, more risky – do we want more deep water horizon disasters – and leave the UK vulnerable to the oil suppliers and the gas pipelines, who can turn off supply or raise prices. To my mind the green path will save us money, generate jobs and clean the air, while business as usual will cost us more and the money and jobs will go abroad. The Climate change act will help us and needs to be kept and strengthened.
GM Lindsay said on June 20, 2011 at 10:14 am
The science of climate change is most certainly NOT beyond argument. Witness the recent shenanigans of the IPCC to try to keep this assumption going – restorting to Greenpeace driven politics rather than science to justify their ever more absurd position.
The claim that more jobs will be created has been trashed by a recent Spanish report showing that for every green job created some 4 other jobs are lost.
On the subject of jobs going abroad, not one of the major high value components of wind turbines is manufactured in the UK. Additionally, the vast majority of wind developers are from outside the UK – and even many of the temporary jobs on wind sites are performed by non UK nationals. I live on the route between Rosyth dockyard in Scotland and have witnessed [Text deleted] turbine components being transported from the dockyard to the wind sites – including the towers and blades.
The Thanet facility was built largely with overseas labour, overseas components and overseas financing.
Where’s the benefit in this?
Daniel Winterstein said on June 20, 2011 at 8:05 am
The science of climate change is beyond argument. This is a very important and frightening challenge. I’d like to see the UK government continuing to take a leadership role and indeed taking a stringer role.
Leave this legislation alone. And do more to push international action on this issue.
IanB said on June 20, 2011 at 8:36 am
Leaving aside whether the science is indeed ‘beyond argument’, what is indeed true is that even if the UK could somehow reduce its collective CO2 emission to zero this would make essentially no difference to worldwide emission levels. Laws which require our Government to reduce us to penury for no benefit, to anyone, are useless, and should be scrapped.
Charlie2 said on June 20, 2011 at 3:57 am
Leave this leglislation alone apart from the fact it reduces pollution renewable energy is undefr our control unlike gas which these days is under political and price pressure from abroad.
James Kelton said on June 19, 2011 at 10:45 pm
The Climate Change Act 2008 is a joke. We are the only country in the world that has binding legislation regarding green energy and carbon emissions. The UK represents 2% of the worlds emissions so without the actions taken by the UK being mirrored in China, America and the other powers the Act is futile and nothing more than a waste of tax payers money.
Harveyhand said on June 20, 2011 at 10:25 am
The argument that we should give up because we are only two percent of emmissions is a joke. It’s like the old school ‘it doesn’t matter is I drop litter because everyone else does’ or ‘ why should I save water if the water companies are wasting it’. Duh. China and the US have been the largest emmitters, but China’s 12th and 13th 5YPs are super focused on green revolution. In 5 years they will lead the way in green tech and we’ll be left behind as usual. If we repeal these acts we’ll end up more like the US, [Text Deleted] than the Chinese – developing new tech, and building new industry and jobs.
David Russell said on June 15, 2011 at 5:53 am
Scrap all carbon reduction targets and legislation. We should not be basing our whole economy on an unproven and highly doubtful theory.
ian lewis said on June 20, 2011 at 6:58 am
wot does it take to get you deniers to accept the overwhelming evidence for climate change? you are a modern equivalent of those who slated Darwin. Astonishing!
Chris Marsland said on June 13, 2011 at 1:44 pm
I find the governments commitment to carbon reduction to be utterly absurd in the face of increasing doubt over the scientific ‘evidence’ and theories relating to climate change. In my opinion the damage to our economy and energy security far outway the danger posed by the unproven theory of man-made climate change. The astronomical costs being spent are a ridiculous waste of money at a time when we can ill afford to fund such projects. And the damage to our competitiveness in global industry should worry the government far more than the image of their ‘green credentials’.
Cara Donnelly said on June 20, 2011 at 9:22 am
What ‘doubts’ about the wealth of scientific benefits about climate change? Have you read even the Wikipedia about the “Global Warming Controversy”? I quote from the lede: “…there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.”.
We are killing our biosphere, and it is everyone’s responsibility.
Nick said on June 2, 2011 at 11:38 am
I used to support carbon reduction in the hope that I could influence or mitigate the effects of global warming. We had some really warm summers at the start of last decade which was unusual for the UK and perhaps we all thought this was a direct effect of greenhouse gases and our views on carbon reduction seemed vinidicated.
But as I began to approach life with a more open mind I began to question the science behind the theory – especially as my cynicsm grew at the advent of carbon taxes.
I would say to any person that if you investigate the science there is really very little to prove a link between carbon emissions and increase in global temperatures. I can certainly see the benefits in promoting such a theory as it brings together the world on common purpose and that favours globalists and their businesses. However if anyone is serious about saving the planet, a campaign against carbon emissions is complete nonsense. The world is naturaly increasing in temperature and on average this will continue until 2100. A decadal oscillation will vary the upward trend throughout this period and we are in fact now on a downward slope of this oscillation until the year 2030.
You have to understand the natural variations in temperature BEFORE measuring any modulating effects from anthroprogenic sources. It is ridiculous to assume a flat and non changing climate that is only affected by a measurement in carbon emissions.
christopher royal said on May 22, 2011 at 11:54 pm
I applaud the UK Government’s recent commitment to be a world leader in reducing carbon emissions. Although everyone moans that we only contribute 2% of current world GHG output, the UK is the second highest emitter of total GHG in historical terms (from industrial revolution onwards), second only to the US. China pales into comparison if you consider our legacy of emissions. In addition, If you take into account the products that we consume (that are manufactured abroad and hence our emissions are externalised) our current contribution is also much higher than 2%. Climate change legislation should be continually strengthened. Any relevant legislation should ensure that we are meeting our objectives in the most sustainable and economically-efficient manner i.e. by carbon taxation, ensuring the polluter pays and society/commons does not, investment in R&D is massively increased, the UK develops its own strong renewables and alternative energy industry, energy efficiency measures are vastly increased and green taxation is ploughed back in to alternatives and reducing the cost burden.
Martin Donaldson said on June 2, 2011 at 9:31 am
Ref. your remarks on May 22, CO2 concentration lags behind global temperaturs by about 800 years, as evidenced in the Vostok ice cores. There were times in the past when CO2 was 3 times today’s concentration but the planet was in the middle of an ice age. CO2 is NOT A CAUSE OR AN EFFECT. There are many factors influencing climate such as ocean currents, cloud cover, solar radiations, cosmic rays and trying to work out how they interact is horrendously difficult.
CO2 is a trace gas, about 0.3% of the atmosphere, of which human contribution is about one tenth. Does it therefore seem likely that human beings are seriously altering the climate? The computer models which say so are programmed on the assumption that CO2 is the driving force behind global warming, ignoring the effects of cloud cover (water vapour) and solar activity, amongst other things. The IPCC is a political body brought into being to provide a ‘scientific’ rationale for introducing carbon regulation and all the new taxation and renewable energy legislation that goes with it, benefitting a very few rich people in the ‘carbon’ industry and making the rest of us much poorer, including imposing ‘green’ policies on developing countries who need cheap fossil fuels to power their economies. Cut pollution, yes, black smoke and sulphur fumes and other nasties, yes, but CO2 is NOT a pollutant.
What fascinates me is how this is all going to end in several years time when it becomes clear that Mother Nature is doing her own thing, and not behaving like the IPCC computer models say she should. How will the collective loss of face be handled? How great will be the level of spin required? Scrap the entire CO2 emissions legislation and let CO2 do its own thing, benefitting plant life and by the same token ourselves. There has never been such an all-pervading scam in human history.
Tony Locke said on May 21, 2011 at 7:23 pm
I accept that the world needs to curb its greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is that the UK has saddled itself with a huge bureaucratic burden in trying to deal with the issue, and all these regulations aren’t working properly. I advocate the abolition of all the GHG schemes, including EU-ETS, ROCs, LECs, CRC, CCL, REGOS, FiTs and CHPQA, to be replaced with a carbon tax. The revenue raised from the carbon tax should be divided up equally amongst the population, and returned to people through the income tax system. In this way it would be a revenue neutral tax for the government.
A carbon tax is easy to collect, because there aren’t many points that fossil fuels enter the country, eg. ships and pipelines. This is in contrast to the current schemes that involve large numbers of people both in government and industry working on endless form filling.
One of the criticisms of a carbon tax is that it causes fuel poverty. If the revenue is divided up equally amongst the population and returned through the income tax system, fuel poverty would be avoided.
The question arises as to the level that the carbon tax should be set at. I suggest that parliament sets an emissions target, and then every month the carbon tax rate is adjusted by an independent committee to ensure we hit the target. It would work a bit like the Monetary Policy Committee sets interest rates to meet an inflation target.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Regards,
Tony Locke.
Roger Cusdin said on May 19, 2011 at 11:37 am
EPC for self catering units.
Why should I have to spend over £50 for some one to inspect my property to comply with this impertinetnt legislation. I assumes I am unaware of -or not concerned -with our environment when I have already invested in the deeper loft insulation and a solar panel,
I am totally opposed to the compulsion and trust that our coalition government will see sense and make theserequirements for self catering as advisory.
Why does this legislation not apply to B&B’s or indeed to every house in the country
Simon Conway-Smith said on May 17, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Scrap the Climate Change Bill and anything that taxes or regulated CO2 emissions. CO2 doesn’t drive temperature – full stop. The Laws of Thermodynamics falsify the Greenhouse theory, they are diametrically opposed, and only one can be correct.
The IPCC is overtly political, not scientific, the lead authors only used their own prejudiced reports, and other reports were changed to fit the preconceived summary for policymakers. [Text deleted] All the climate change regulation has been driven by vociferous environmentalists, it is NOT science based. The climate system is so complex that computer models, upon which the IPCC place total reliance, even if they could accommodate every parameter and work at a realistic resolution, would run vastly more slowly than time itself. Any regulation and taxation must be on the basis of observable evidence, and there is none to support the greenhouse theory.
This bill is going to cost the UK dearly, place many into fuel and general poverty (which will lead to many deaths), turn off our lights and systems, and destroy the quality of life we have worked so hard to achieve. [Text deleted]
christopher royal said on May 22, 2011 at 11:40 pm
“on the basis of observable evidence, and there is none to support the greenhouse theory”
“CO2 doesn’t drive temperature’?
Greenhouse theory? THEORY?
If there is no evidence to support greenhouse ‘theory’ (i.e. the process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases (incl. CO2), and is re-radiated in all directions) then please explain how Earth maintains its habitable temperature and does not have a similar climate to Mars?
I would love you to try. p.s. it is not pixies or elves.
[text deleted]
FYI – CO2 is both a cause and effect (i.e. leader and amplifier) of temperature change.
For a little scientific knowledge, try the following website.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
PPS. The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus of anthropogenic climate change. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position. If it is just a political movement, why oh why do [text deleted] such firms such as BHP Biliton, Xstrata, Rio Tinto, Shell, BP etc. all agree that climate change is occuring i.e. they have climate policies that fundamentally agree with the consensus position (you can read them online if you like). What do they have to gain by addressing climate change? Please explain.
Iain Stewart said on May 17, 2011 at 12:14 pm
I am not in favour of modifying existing laws aimed at limiting the effects of climate change or reducing green house gas emissions, or protecting the environment. These laws need to be strengthened and widened in scope, not watered down.
Furthermore, I think uncertainty about the future of the regulatory framework in respect of carbon emissions and renewable energy etc, is much worse for UK business than alleged “red tape”.
Trevor Clough said on May 16, 2011 at 9:13 pm
The regulations use much terminology that confuses : ‘reduce carbon dioxide emissions’ in order to ‘ combat climate change’. Are we at war with Climate Change? Where is this invisible enemy? If it does not show itself in the next few years, then what are we fighting, and how much will it have cost us?
Henri leRoi said on May 16, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Scrap all carbon (sic) (dioxide, please!) legislation immediately. My reasons are straightforward:
1. Temperatures have plateaued (fallen?) for at least the last 9 (13?) years, in spite of rapidly increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (all temperature series bar one – GISSTemp produced under the supervision of Jim Hansen, a known fanatical activist ) show this.
2. Even were it relevant to any deleterious effect, the UK produces only some 2% of total world-wide carbon dioxide emissions. Our sacrifice would be enormous, for negligible effect.
3. The cost-effectiveness (let alone the cost-benefit!) of UK measures is appallingly poor.
4. To echo a previous comment, expecting to act as ‘an example’ is politically naïve.
All other emission control legislation should be retained – enforcement, however should be ‘light touch’.
Paul M said on May 16, 2011 at 6:23 pm
I am whole heartedly against any regulations to reduce CO2 production UNLESS the government can produce some empirical evidence that shows that CO2 has ever in the earth’s entire history CAUSED global warming. I’m not asking for proof just some evidence.
A doubling of CO2 traps an extra 1.4watts/sq mtr – that equivalent to 1 candle per 25sq mtrs. Can the government explain why that doesn’t just lead to an undetectably small increase in convection?
We have a number of serious environmental problems on this planet and we need to wake up and stop trying to reduce the levels of plant food (which is what CO2 is) in the atmosphere. Humans only produce 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere anyway.
Mark Piney said on May 16, 2011 at 4:03 pm
All UK regulations requiring carbon dioxide emission reductions should be scrapped. Regulations that related to energy efficiency could be left in place. The department of energy should be completely separate from anything to do with climate change. I suggest these changes for eight reasons:
1. The evidence that rising CO2 levels have caused recent global warming is tenuous. It’s quite likely that the slow and halting rise over the last 150 years is mainly due to natural causes, with some additional warming due to CO2.
2. As one piece of evidence I cite the fact that recently there has been little warming despite a steady increase in CO2 level.
3. The warming effect of CO2 is likely to be relatively small so a slow increase should not be of immediate and urgent concern. There is no need to rush at the problem and take precipitate action.
4. The UK is a small overall emitter of CO2 and the idea of setting the world a moral example is politically naïve.
5. The current coalition wants to increase UK GDP and productivity, and the percentage generated by manufacturing, especially exports. Increasing the cost of energy by a large percentage will disadvantage UK manufacturing industry and export jobs.
6. The idea that, somehow, a move to so-called ‘green-energy’ sources will generate thousands of jobs is a manufactured myth for at least three reasons. Firstly, all renewable sources are either of low intensity and expensive to capture. Secondly, some, such as tidal electricity generation, are in-development and will take years to perfect. Thirdly, all are expensive and many are intermittent (the classic being wind generation).
‘Green energy’ won’t create thousands of manufacturing UK jobs. It will destroy existing manufacturing jobs, and hobble any further development of UK industry. Most ‘green energy’ jobs will be created in China and India.
7. Taking huge long-term economic and political investment decisions precipitately now, which could cripple the UK for decades to come, needs overwhelming and clear evidence of real harm. The UN IPCC has become a political scientific project and cannot be relied upon. Huge interventions require overwhelming evidence.
8. So far the UK government has been poorly served by those institutions traditionally looked to for impartial views. They are all either mesmerised by, or deferring to, the IPCC or represent special interests and hope to benefit from governmental largesse. Somehow the UK government needs to search out independent scientifically literate advice and review all decisions concerning reduction of CO2 emissions. This will take personal integrity and political guts. For the sake of Britain I beg you to think again before it’s too late.
Jilla said on May 16, 2011 at 12:38 pm
consultation on these regulations seems to have tapped a vein of climate change scepticism. I hope the governement will not allow itself to be swayed in any way by these minority and misguided views. Carbon emission reduction is incredibly important and we have a responsibility as a nation to enforce co2 reduction targets for the future wellbeing of our planet and humanity.
peter_dtm said on May 16, 2011 at 8:46 pm
By carbon emissions you mean the emission of Carbon dioxide – a plant food that account for some .03% of the atmosphere.
The UK emits approximately 2% of man’s total emissions. China’s emissions is increasing by that amount every couple of month – fuelled by our demand for wind turbines amongst other things.
To cut our emissions by any meaningful amount will cripple the country and produce NO MEASURABLE BENEFIT.
We will not ‘set a good example’ – if that phrase meant anything China would NOT build our wind turbines for us.
The estimated reduction in the global average temperature by 2100 by our cutting CO2 emissions by 50% would be some 0.001C – and for that you will have crippled the British economy – for nothing.
Simon Conway-Smith said on May 17, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Jilla, these views are not minority, that’s why approx 30,000 scientists voiced their opposition to the original Kyoto treaty, and why a rising number are increasingly speaking out. Remember, the greenhouse effect theory on which the whole AGW program is based violates the laws of thermodynamics, so cannot be true. Even many contributing authors opposed the IPCC summary as it was politically and not scientifically based and perverted their findings.
As peter_dtm says, crippling the UK economy for a 0.001C reduction is madness, and I would add, the resultant energy price rises will push many into poverty, causing hardship for the poorest and most frail, illness and death.
Laura Simpson said on May 16, 2011 at 11:13 am
Mandatory reporting of carbon emissions should be implemented to identify areas where new innovations are needed to reduce overall emissions.
Far from crippling British industry, tightening this legislation offers the opportunity for our world-class engineers to bring us to the forefront of cleaner energy and business practices.
At a time of instability in many of the areas where we traditionally source our (rapidly depleting) fossil fuels, surely measures to reduce our nation’s independence on these as a mode of powering our industry is rather a win: win.
Legislation like this is needed to incentivise and encourage companies to innovate. Moving away from dirty, 20th century technology will give British industry the competitive edge we need to stand out in difficult economic times.
Aside from any quibbles about the legitimacy of climate change as being exacerbated (exponentially) by human activity (and I’m inclined to go along with the 99%+ scientific consensus) the choice is fairly simple. Do nothing, allow our industry to remain stagnant, dependent on overseas oil. Making the giant leap of faith that anthropogenic global warming is false and temperatures and climate remains the same, we are still left with sub-optimal industry.
The alternative: implement legislation that will encourage companies to research and innovate (something the UK’s knowledge economy is fantastically placed to provide), and British business (whatever the outcome in terms of global temperatures and climate) has technology that is fit for purpose past peak oil.
As a nation, we need to stop looking at the short term picture of the next five years or so, and look to what our actions now will mean in 50-100 years. This transition will potentially be difficult for some carbon-intensive businesses in the short run, but action taken now will put the UK back where it belongs at the forefront of industry.
peter_dtm said on May 16, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Laura
Our world class engineers need plentiful; reliable; cheap electricity to compete. Lacking cheap or plentiful will mean our world class engineers will not be able to afford to use computers which are now necessary tools for any engineering. AND if we want to apply our engineers’ skill to manufacturing then again plentiful cheap energy is a pre-requisite for competitive industry. this is why China currently makes ALL our wind turbines (not a single wind turbine was made in the UK over the last three years – we can’t make them cheap enough – even though our world class engineers did indeed help design them.
Other poster have explained why the UK’s minuscule contribution to total man produced CO2 is so small; and how little difference it will make; nor does our example encourage any one – except to take our industry awy (wind turbines to China – CORUS steal to TATA steal to closure in Redcar and TWO larger steel works opened in India.