Thanks to Mark for ably dissecting this absurd piece of (proposed) legislation, and for linking to its supporters. I was relieved to see that my MP is not – yet – on the list of supporters, for otherwise I would have been compelled to send her a pointless missive registering my opposition.
However, I was disappointed to see some 1,200 academics on the list, including assorted Very Smart™ professors and PhDs.
The provisions of the bill are impossible to achieve. That should be obvious to anyone given a cursory glance at a mite of data. On the presumption that the cream of UK’s Ivory Tower Corps have not done so, I’m laying it out here.
The key matter as regards the UK’s CO2 emissions that concerns us here is the SoS’s duty in
…limiting the United Kingdom’s total emissions of carbon dioxide to no more than its proportionate share of the remaining global carbon budget
in 2 (3) (a) of the bill.
It is also ordered that imports of CO2 (as embodied in goods and their production) must decline at the same percentage rate.
The bill gives the remaining Global Carbon Budget as 400 Gt CO2. It covers the period 2020-2050, and on my reading, we have already used up part of our share of the budget in the 5 years between 2020 and 2024.
Here come the numbers
The UK’s population is 0.85% of the Earth’s, giving us a share of the GCB of 0.0085*400 Gt CO2, or
3.4 Gt CO2
in total from 2020 to forever.
Our usage between 2020 and 2024, with a placeholder value of 300 Mt CO2 for 2024, is
1.528 Gt CO2
[This value is the sum of our emissions, from EDGAR, of years 2020-2023 {319, 339, 327, 302 Mt}, with that 300 for 2024. Yes. We have used up nearly half our allowance in 5 years.]
The UK’s remaining allowance is 3.4 – 1.528 =
1.872 Gt CO2
Now, allowing for a linear decrease in CO2 emissions, the length of time remaining to us (showing emissions as Mt for simplicity, and calling the baseline value 300 Mt/yr) is equal to (1872 * 2) / 300 years, or
12.5 years
Giving us until June 2037 to reach the hallowed Net Zero.
***This includes zero imports with any carbon footprint.***
The slope of the required reduction, i.e. the saving per year, is easy to calculate as 300 / 12.5. The answer is a net change of
– 24 Mt CO2 / year
In the first year, this is a modest (!) – 8%. Naturally, the way percentages work, it ramps up rapidly as the amount emitted per year ramps, er, down. By 2028, we have to make a 10% saving on the previous year. By 2031, it’s 15% per year.
What about a constant % reduction each year, giving an exponential decline? Well, this is more difficult to calculate, because by their nature, such curves never hit zero. Very roughly the required annual cut would be 15%, but as noted, it would never reach zero. A 15% cut per year would see us using about 1800 Mt CO2 of our 1872 Mt allocation by 2050. (At 14% cut per year, we would be well over our total allocation by the mid-2040s.)
The (minor) beneficial effect should we reset the baseline…
According to globalcarbonbudget.org, the remaining budget from 2025 onwards is 235 Gt CO2. The UK’s share given 0.85% population is 2 Gt CO2; applying the same reasoning as before, t = (2000 * 2) / 300 or 13.3 years, giving us until April 2038 to reach Net Zero.
How do you find 1200 smart academics willing to sign up in support of a bill so unutterably stupid?
Well, there are a number of reasons why such folk might sign. My interpretation of the possible reasons, in descending likelihood:
1) they have not read the bill, and see an easy demonstration of virtue in signing up to support it
2) they have read the bill, but have not bothered to try to understand the consequences were it to be enacted, and see an easy demonstration of virtue in signing up to support it.
3) they have read the bill, and understood its implications, and see an easy demonstration of virtue in signing up to support it, knowing that it will never come into law.
4) they have read the bill, et cetera, and though they believe that there is a good chance it will become law, they reassure themselves that its impossible nature will end up preventing its worst possible effects coming to pass; in other words, the inevitable failure to reach the stated goals, & associated chaos, still results in a net benefit, by hurrying us along the Net Zero path, by law.
5) they see themselves as exempt from the devastation the bill would imply, and wish to study the rats the size of cats that will roam our deserted cities, post apocalypse.
6) we are living in Clown World.
Climate Scepticism 
Hi Jit – Merry Xmas & Happy new year to you & yours.
I think it’s 5 – lots you can study/dissect with rats & cats.
LikeLike
I wonder how many of the MPs who support the Bill even begin to understand the implications? None, would be my guess.
LikeLike
Jit: it seems to me that the Edgar figures may not tell the whole story as they only refer to domestic emissions whereas the proposed legislation refers also to imported emissions. According to this (dated 2019) our total emissions, including imported emissions, are almost double our domestic emissions. If so, haven’t we used up most of our allowance already?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, I’m not sure. I included imports in my first calculations, which gave me an even shorter time frame: we had to be Net Zero by July 2033.
However, my reading of the text:
(b) reducing emissions of carbon dioxide in respect of imports to the United Kingdom, at the same percentage rate each year as the annual reduction of the United Kingdom’s emissions of carbon dioxide required pursuant to (a);
was that the imports have to be cut at the same rate, but do not count towards our share of the GCB. Hence the revised date in the head post.
LikeLike
Further to the above see THIS. Note that Figure 1 indicates that in 2021 imported emissions were about 450 Mt greater than domestic emissions.
LikeLike
Jit: regarding the text, Clause 1 (2) setting out the overall objective of the proposed legislation is I think clear:
The objectives are to ensure that the United Kingdom — (a) reduces its overall contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions to net zero …
I suggest ‘overall contribution‘ must include imported as well as domestic emissions.
Now I accept that it isn’t at all clear but I think the intention is probably that paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 2 (3) are to be read together. Regarding our very substantial imported emissions (see my post above) as not being a part of our share of the global carbon budget wouldn’t seem to me to make sense – at least not to the deluded people who drafted this nonsense. Here’s the relevant text in full:
(3) The strategy must include measures that, subject to sections 3 and 4, will
achieve the objectives specified in section 1 by
(a) limiting the United Kingdom’s total emissions of carbon dioxide to
no more than its proportionate share of the remaining global carbon
budget;
(b) reducing emissions of carbon dioxide in respect of imports to the
United Kingdom, at the same percentage rate each year as the annual
reduction of the United Kingdom’s emissions of carbon dioxide
required pursuant to (a).
LikeLike
Robin – it isn’t very clear. I’m still leaning towards the imports not counting towards our allocation. Perhaps this is a way to avoid double counting?
The statistics page is well found. I generally go around in circles on .gov.uk. There are two sets of emissions data there. CO2 eq and CO2. CO2 alone is what I have used above (data shown at Figure 5 at your link).
The data for 2021 are:
UK produced goods 147 Mt
UK directly generated 131 Mt
CO2 in imports to UK 248 Mt
So the imports are almost as large as the internal generation (89%). The data I used at first came from OWID, which had imports at 55.7% of internal (2022).
LikeLike
Jit: I think it’s simply poorly drafted. Of course logic says that imported emissions should be counted as domestic at their country of origin – otherwise there’s double counting and global confusion. So you may be right: having read and thought about Clause 2 (3) (a) and (b) again, I too am leaning towards imports not counting towards the UK’s allocation.
BTW regarding your six possible reasons why all those people signed, I suspect they all apply to different signatories (except probably 5 and certainly 6). But I think the majority probably opted for 3. When I first read Mark’s analysis, my reaction was: I don’t have to take this seriously – it’ll never become law.
LikeLike
Robin, my initial reaction was that we SHOULD not have to take this seriously because it SHOULD not become law. However, because of the obsession among our PMs and senior politicians/civil servants for “virtue signalling” that the UK will happily commit economic suicide, I very much fear that we must take it very, very seriously until such time as the proposed legislation is defeated.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
I think, on balance, Jit’s reading of the Bill is the correct one. This is because of the definitions set out in clause 8. Clause 2 says the strategy must include steps (a) “limiting the United Kingdom’s total emissions of carbon dioxide to no more than its proportionate share of the remaining global carbon budget”.
Clause 8 says:
“the United Kingdom’s total emissions of carbon dioxide” means—
(a) all territorial emissions of carbon dioxide from the United 30 Kingdom, and
(b) all emissions of carbon dioxide generated by the United Kingdom’s share of international aviation and shipping, emitted between 2020 and 2050.“
Secondly (back in clause 2) there is separate provision for the strategy to include measures:
“reducing emissions of carbon dioxide in respect of imports to the United Kingdom, at the same percentage rate each year as the annual reduction of the United Kingdom’s emissions of carbon dioxide required pursuant to (a)“.
Then clause 8 says:
“emissions of carbon dioxide in respect of imports to the United Kingdom” means emissions of carbon dioxide generated outside the United Kingdom by the production of goods that are imported to the
United Kingdom, and by the provision of services overseas that are received in the United Kingdom“.
So the latter are outwith the UK’s proportionate share of the remaining global carbon budget, but they have to be reduced at the same percentage rate as the former.
LikeLike
Mark: after some reflection, I was – as I said above – leaning towards believing that the best interpretation is that imports are not counted towards the UK’s allocation. But, especially on such a critical matter, I think you’ll agree that the drafting is dreadful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
I agree that it’s not crystal clear. Until delving into that detail, I was actually thinking that the Parliamentary draftsman had made a good job of reducing nebulous and stupid ideas to a fairly simple Bill that is easy to read and to understand.
LikeLike
Some will have noticed that yesterday Paul Homewood posted second article on the CAN Bill. Regarding our discussion above it’s interesting that Paul understands that the Bill means ‘that imported emissions along with shipping and aviation have to be counted in our carbon budget allowances’.
He spells out the utter stupidity of the whole thing very nicely – concluding: ‘It is crazy, but also frightening, that 192 MPs actually plan to vote for this Bill‘.
I commented (tongue in cheek):
LikeLiked by 1 person
Glancing at the list of academics supporting this insane Bill, I note most of them work in ‘fuzzy’ green linked subjects, in parasitic academia, that are more political than scientific. The vast majority depend on the Climate Alarm scam for their jobs and will benefit in jobs and money if this new scam bill goes through. They will all see themselves as candidates for the new ‘National Assembly oligarchy’ (with its generous expenses and allowances) that will be set up to dictate to the elected parliament. This is how fascism takes charge.
LikeLike
I note that the vast majority of the 1200 names work in ‘fuzzy’ green related academic jobs, that are more political than scientific. I expect they all see themselves as candidates for the proposed ‘National Assembly’ (with its generous expenses and allowances) that will dictate to and dominate the elected parliament. More parasitic green troughing off the taxpayer with this fascist Bill. If everyone of them was sacked from their jobs tomorrow would anyone notice a difference to UK growth or production. Might increase abit with their salaries reallocated to something productive.
This Bill is a door to a Fascist takeover.
LikeLike
Muddy – sorry for the astonishingly bad table service today. For some reason my email crashed this morning. I reopened it, but it did not download any more emails until a bunch just now. I’m guessing Tipler’s comment was you having another go on another account, based on the similarity!
LikeLike
Its a non-problem
https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/minimal-future-warming-from-co2-ch4-n2o/
LikeLike
David Turver has an article about the CAN bill this morning:
Climate and Nature Bill is Our Year Zero
The proposed Climate and Nature Bill will wreak havoc on society and people will die.
tiny.cc/1u85001
It includes a reference to Jit’s article above.
Turver’s conclusion:
A must read.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Chris Morrison has a powerful article in the Daily Sceptic this morning:
MPs to Consider Bill Likely to Cause Mass Starvation, Death, Disease and Societal Collapse in Near Future
Chris notes:
Worth reading in full.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised (although I am) that The Conversation has just posted an article – The UK’s international commitments on climate and nature could soon become law – and better protect our environment – in which Paul Behrens, a Professor at Oxford, and Nathalie Pettorelli, a Professor at the Zoological Society of London, warmly praise the CAN Bill. AND (unusually these days) comments are invited.
An extract:
Its conclusion:
I intend to find time to comment on this tomorrow. I hope I won’t be the only Cliscepper to do so.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Rarely have I read such tripe as that Conversation article. Almost everything they say is easily refutable. I may register tomorrow just for the pleasure of having my first and possibly only comment deleted.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’ve posted the first comment. I wonder if it will remain published? Screenshot it just in case.
https://theconversation.com/the-uks-international-commitments-on-climate-and-nature-could-soon-become-law-and-better-protect-our-environment-247968#comment_3012278
LikeLike
LikeLike
Jaime, surely the Norman Rides, who followed your comment with talk of “climate whiplash” is a spoof? His following comment demonstrates a lack of rational thought, IMO, if he really is genuine:
Wind power was producing 0.3 GW yesterday.
Britain desperately needs massive investment in wind turbines so that we are not reliant on gas imports from countries run by dictators.
We will never have energy security until the number of wind turbines Britain has is tripled, ensuring cheap, renewable, secure energy supplies going forward.
Er, it was the lack of wind that caused wind generation to be pitiful. More wind turbines wouldn’t change that – the wind still wasn’t blowing. And gas only comes from countries with dictators, does it?
LikeLike
I hope he is a troll, because if his comments represent the level of understanding of the bill’s proponents, the UK is doomed.
I’ve registered/ commented. Had to restrain myself somewhat. Considerably.
LikeLiked by 3 people
An outstanding comment Jit – there’s little left for me to say. But I’ll try.
PS: Norman Rides is surely a troll?
LikeLike
I’m not even going to dignify Rides with a response. I’ve fired off an email to my MP this morning, for what that’s worth. I’m afraid I’m imagining the Guardian headline on Friday or Saturday: ‘British MPs Reject Fossil Fuelled Climate Denialism and Trump’s ‘Drill Baby, Drill’ By Voting the Climate and Nature Bill into law.’ Here’s my email (uncommonly polite by my standards):
Dear Mr. Markus Campbell-Savours,
I am writing to you, as one of your constituents, to request that you vote against the forthcoming Climate and Nature Bill to be presented to Parliament on Friday. If passed, it represents a clear and present danger to the people of this country and the overall economic and social well-being of the nation. It will do nothing to address the alleged ‘climate and nature crisis’, if only for the fact that anything we might do here in the UK will have no meaningful impact upon the rest of the world because the main ‘polluting’ nations are not adopting such drastic measures and will not follow our lead.
However, the very science, which those promoting this bill say is ‘clear’ and unequivocal, is not clear, and never has been, despite the monolithic efforts of the IPCC to frame it as such in their ‘Summaries for Policy Makers.’ In fact, the Science has never been less clear. Scientists are still baffled by what caused the extraordinary and sudden warming spurt starting in 2023, which has only started to subside as we head into 2024. The Science of extreme weather attribution, promoted as scientific proof of the global warming cause of numerous extreme weather events across the globe, is extremely dubious.
But what is fairly clear, and the research is published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the data is undisputed and robust, is that nearly all surface warming post 2000 is due to a regionally variable, but globally distributed decrease in low level cloud cover, including the remarkable warming in 2023. It is patently NOT due to a decrease in outgoing long wave (infra red) radiation due to the accumulation of so called ‘heat trapping’ greenhouse gases. The satellite data proves this; incoming short wave solar radiation has increased due to less clouds and at the same time outgoing long wave radiation has also increased, but not sufficiently to counteract the gain in energy from incoming solar radiation (hence the observed warming). If the planet was warming due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases, we would have seen a DECREASE in outgoing long wave radiation over the last 24 years.
Please confirm by return of email and/or post, how you will be voting when this Bill is presented for its second reading in the Commons and hopefully, please confirm that you will be voting against it, as it is absolutely vital that it is defeated.
Kind Regards,
Jaime Jessop,
LikeLiked by 3 people
OMG, Paul Behrens has replied to me with an utterly condescending, dismissive, aggressively ignorant lightweight comment. I need to calm and compose myself before I issue a reply!
LikeLiked by 2 people
At least I think we should welcome the fact that for once The Conversation is allowing (and not deleting) comments and that one of the authors is getting engaged in ‘the conversation’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Snared by the ‘fundamental physics’ he is so fond of quoting, Behrens has just basically accused me of motivated denial of science! I can’t be bothered to respond further. Complete waste of time. He’s deluded, just like the rest of them, and I don’t think anything is going to deter them from their insane, ideological ambition to completely decarbonise the UK. Even Robin can’t get through to him.
LikeLiked by 2 people
‘Even Robin can’t get through to him.‘
We’ll see. I haven’t given up.
LikeLike
Extraordinary arrogance on the part of Professor Behrens, assuming that people who have taken time and trouble to offer thoughtful and detailed comments lack understanding, haven’t read around the subject, and haven’t even read the CAN Bill.
He goes with the old science consensus argument, suggesting that hundreds of climate scientists know better than us and should be trusted, yet in his article he accused the IPCC (the scientific creme de la creme, supposedly) of being insufficiently alarmist, underestimating how bad things will get (if we don’t commit national suicide in order to stop climate change – sic).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Whilst taking the opportunity to respond to articles posted on The Conversation can be gratifying, it has to be acknowledged that it rarely results in an open-minded and mutually respectful exchange. The author will be an academic who is very sure of his/her opinion and who will be fully self-informed regarding the motives and capabilities of those who hold contrary views. You must therefore prepare to be patronised, at best, and angrily derided at worst. I could go on there to invite a technical discussion regarding how the IPCC handles matters of uncertainty and confidence, and if I do so I can almost guarantee that it would be from a position of superior understanding and thoroughness of research — but I know that won’t help. So I think I’ll keep my counsel on this occasion.
LikeLiked by 3 people
John R, likewise. I don’t know, but I suspect, that my first class law degree from Oxford, career as a practising lawyer, deep interest in climate legislation, and detailed perusal of the CAN Bill, might suggest (though not definitely establish) that I understand its implications better than does the learned professor. I don’t want to go down that road on the Conversation, because it then degenerates into the “my expert/expertise is better than yours” nonsense that I deplore when they use it against us. However, it’s interesting that the professor’s no doubt great expertise in his own limited area seems to make him an expert in his own eyes with regard to everything that abuts his area of expertise, certainly sufficiently to patronise people who comment on his article and disagree with him in the process.
We are all potentially guilty of straying into areas beyond our own considerable expertise, but I hope we don’t in the process claim expertise in areas peripheral to our own fields
Part of me feels I should get involved, but the larger part of me fears it will be a waste of time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Disclosure. I have amended a typo in my last comment. I genuinely did not intend to insult the professor by calling him a learner! It really was a typo.
LikeLike
John R, you say ‘You must therefore prepare to be patronised, at best, and angrily derided at worst.’ Not necessarily – I don’t think my exchange with Behrens features either of those reactions. What I’m encountering is caution and – as almost always happens when my opponent doesn’t have an answer – is silence. For example see my comment about the pointlessness of the CAT proposal. Likewise see Jaime’s excellent comment about assembles.
So Mark I suggest you should get involved. I don’t see how he could possibly patronise your undoubted expertise regarding the interpretation of proposed legislation. And this could be important: it’s possible that some of those who are voting tomorrow are following the TC exchange.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
I try to choose my words carefully. Preparing for something is not to say it is inevitable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Against my better judgment I have dipped my toe in the Conversation water. I am afraid I couldn’t be bothered to spend the time that Robin, Jit, John Cullen and Jaime did crafting a polite and reasoned lengthy comment. That was largely because I’ve been busy today and still have things to busy myself with, and a detailed critique is likely to be either misinterpreted or (insofar it can’t be answered) ignored. I settled for lifting a paragraph from the conclusion to my own piece on the CAN Bill:
I think its fair to say that this is one of the most well-meaning, yet absurd, pieces of draft legislation I have ever seen. It seeks to impose mutually contradictory obligations on the Secretary of State (to add to his mutually contradictory job title – energy security and net zero). It seeks to impose a legal liability to implement foreign treaties that aren’t binding on the rest of the world, and to require the UK to take on its fair share of greenhouse gas reduction whether or not the rest of the world follows suit (needless to say, it won’t). There is no provision for the obligations to be reviewed should it become apparent that they have become futile and counter-productive or should scientific opinion alter. It is an attempt to write in tablets of stone the current extremist version of the climate change religion. Given the Herculean, contradictory and indeed unachievable tasks it seeks to impose as a duty, it represents, in my opinion, peak stupidity.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is interesting, especially as the Guardian might well have the inside track with what’s going on in the government:
“Labour MPs ordered to sink landmark climate and environment bill
Exclusive: Supporters of bill say Labour has already insisted on removal of clauses requiring UK to meet targets agreed at Cop and other summits”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/23/labour-mps-ordered-to-sink-landmark-climate-and-environment-bill
A landmark bill that would make the UK’s climate and environment targets legally binding seems doomed after government whips ordered Labour MPs to oppose it following a breakdown in negotiations.
Supporters of the climate and nature bill, introduced by the Liberal Democrat MP Roz Savage, say Labour insisted on the removal of clauses that would require the UK to meet the targets it agreed to at Cop and other international summits.
Although it is a private member’s bill, more than 80 Labour MPs, including several ministers, had publicly signed up to support it.
Some Labour MPs have been ordered to attend the bill’s second reading on Friday morning and to prepare speeches, to deliberately make it run out of time and avoid a vote. Another possibility would be a three-line whip to vote against the bill, leaving any rebels at risk of disciplinary action, including losing the party whip….
Let’s hope they’re right.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John R: a good point. I apologise.
LikeLike
Well done Mark. Your heartfelt comment IMHO easily outshines anything posted there by Jit, John C, Jaime or me. It’a going to be hard for Behrens to respond to that. It’s going to be interesting to see how/if he does.
And he must be feeling rather sore – and I suspect surprised – at the generally hostile response to his article.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Robin, There is no need to apologise. You were quite right to emphasise that a respectful exchange is possible, and I am pleased to confirm that I too have had such an experience. The fact remains, however, that when trying to counter a Conversation article the odds are that you’ll get nowhere. Such is the nature of the beast.
LikeLike
From that article –
“What if all countries abdicate responsibility? It would be a disaster – societal collapse. A classic common action problem and we should be leaders. Previous action and targets has spurred global action and targets. Although things don’t look good they are better than we thought they would be a decade ago (unfortunately the climate impacts are worse than we thought”
Typical head in the sand, our way or the highway. Wonder what age they both are.
LikeLike
I think we’re all a bit surprised. The public are a lot more engaged with this issue than perhaps we imagined, and mostly, they’re highly critical of the attempt to bring in CAN. I posted my email to my MP on X and it got 10,700 views which, for me, is almost unprecedented.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Lib Dem Leader Ed Davey: Go Back to Your Constituencies and Prepare to Live in Mud and Grass Huts”
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/01/24/lib-dem-leader-ed-davey-go-back-to-your-constituencies-and-prepare-to-live-in-mud-and-grass-huts/
Forty years ago, the Liberal leader David Steele told his party to return to their constituencies and prepare for government. Today as the second reading of the Climate and Nature (CAN) Bill is before the British Parliament, the current leader, the clownish Ed Davey, is effectively telling his MPs to return to the voters and prepare to live in mud and grass huts. All 72 Lib Dem MPs are supporting the CAN bill which will cut hydrocarbon use across the entire UK economy by around 90% within a decade. As the Daily Sceptic noted on Tuesday, the bill if passed could lead to mass starvation, death, disease and societal collapse in the near future. Around 200 MPs are reported to support the private member’s bill and with many MPs departing for weekends in often distant constituencies, there is a dangerous chance it could pass.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s encouraging that Mark’s excellent post has not been cancelled. As comments are still open, I’ve posted one welcoming the big day when MPs will vote on the CAT Bill’s Second Reading.
LikeLike
Not cancelled, but not answered either, so far as I can see, Robin. It looks as though that particular conversation might be over. If so, it would be nice to have had the last word.
LikeLike
The Independent has just now reported: Climate and nature recovery law blocked from progressing in the Commons
It says:
So that’s it. For now – and hopefully for ever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How apt. They’ve kicked the CAN down the road – no doubt hoping for a 40C heatwave at an airport in July.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I doubt it Jaime. For the reasons we’ve discussed the Government must find this Bill seriously embarrassing.
But ‘kicked the CAN down the road‘ – I love it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
We need a forensic examination of the MPs who supported this Bill and especially the numerous academics and scientists (like Behrens) who wholeheartedly endorsed its introduction.
LikeLike
Well, there’s a job for a quiet day, Jaime!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s the Guardian’s take on today’s events in Parliament:
“UK climate and nature bill dropped after deal with Labour backbenchers
Ministers avoid internal party row by promising potential rebels they will have input into environmental legislation”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/24/uk-climate-nature-bill-dropped-deal-labour-backbenchers
Ministers have seen off a bill that would have made the UK’s climate and environment targets legally binding, after promising Labour backbenchers that they would have input into environmental legislation.
The deal avoids an internal row over the bill, which was introduced by the Liberal Democrat MP Roz Savage but had support from dozens of Labour MPs.
Before Friday’s debate on the legislation, ministers insisted on the removal of clauses that would have required the UK to meet the targets it agreed to at Cop and other international summits. A Labour source said the bill as it stood would have forced the government to renegotiate its international climate change agreements.
At one point it was suggested that Labour MPs who voted for the bill would lose the whip, but a deal was struck late on Thursday and the bill’s Lib Dem and Labour sponsors agreed there would be no vote.
There is consternation among some in the Labour party about the chancellor Rachel Reeves’s recent comments that she would prioritise economic growth over net zero, with one Labour MP saying during the debate that “there is no growth on a dead planet”.
Supporters of the bill told the Guardian that Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, had made concessions to Labour backbenchers.
These included making a statement on government progress towards international climate and nature targets within six months, a consultation with the bill’s supporters about upcoming environmental legislation, and more meetings between Miliband and MPs who are concerned about the climate crisis….
LikeLike
‘a statement on government progress towards international climate … targets within six months‘
I don’t like the sound of that. At all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Me neither. It sounds like a ridiculously high price to pay for getting rid of the CAN Bill.
LikeLike
Well, The Conversation has closed comments. I wonder what Behrens thought of it all – living I assume in an academic echo chamber he can hardly have been prepared for so much measured and well considered opposition. Several opponents and only one supporter – the idiotic Norman Rides.
I think The Conversation deserves credit for allowing the discussion to continue and develop.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin, I give the Conversation some credit for allowing the discussion to continue and develop, but I give less credit to Professor Behrens. He took issue with the sensible comments from our side, and completely ignored the numerous comments from Norman Rides, many of which were, frankly, risible.
I do not know what motivated Professor Behrens in responding only to his critics (who made good points) and ignoring his sole supporter (who made a number of bad points) but readers both here and at the Conversation can make a guess. I found it disappointing that an Oxford University professor was interested only in arguing with his critics, but not in correcting the truly false impression, based on numerous inaccuracies, of his only supporter. In my time at Oxford, Professors there would be anxious to correct all inaccuracies and errors.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark: I thought it was significant that, although as you say Behrens responded to his critics, he gave up (when I think he didn’t know how to respond) – giving us the last word.
LikeLike
Mark, you wrote, “In my time at Oxford, Professors there would be anxious to correct all inaccuracies and errors.” That makes sense to me too, but, I suspect, marks us out as being somewhat older than, say, prof. Behrens.
Things in universities (throughout the West?) have changed markedly since we were students. I went to university in the late 1960s when tolerance was, apparently, at its height. Today, there is an intellectual monoculture of thought, an intolerance, which has been brought about by, among other factors, (i) universities seeking ever more funding through research which is seen as socially/policy relevant, and (ii) universities accepting bequests from rich donors wanting to promote research in their preferred domains which, coincidentally, may be just those domains favoured by governments who, in their turn, shower the people’s tax revenue on those self same topics. As examples, “renewables” technologies and “climate change” come immediately to mind.
Now that really is a positive feedback loop that climate scientists may (or may not) care to study!
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John C,
You talk of university monocultures. My last article here (“When to Give a Fig”) attempted to throw some light on that problem. I also took the opportunity re-post it at Judith Curry’s blog, just to get some better exposure. That, however, was always going to be a double-edged sword since it is a site that attracts a certain breed of critic, exemplified by “Joshua”. I now find myself returning to this site just to get some respite. 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
John R, thank you for the reminder about ‘When to Give a Fig’! I find Cliscep such a rich site for discussing challenging ideas that, of necessity, I tend to follow some threads in it much more thoroughly than others. And I also find that, all too easily, I forget things that I have read even very recently unless they are among my current key interests; I would like to think that is discernment on my part … but it may simply be anno domini.
Cliscep also seems to be a good site for having ideas well tested but usually without the acrimony of flame wars. Long may it remain so. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 3 people
LikeLiked by 2 people
“MP to launch bill to target superyachts, private jets and fossil fuel producers
Bill would force major polluters to pay into fund for flood defences and home insulation – but has little chance of becoming law”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/15/mp-to-launch-bill-to-target-superyachts-private-jets-and-fossil-fuel-producers
Fossil fuel companies and their shareholders and owners of superyachts and private jets should have to pay into a fund for flood defences and home insulation, according to a private member’s bill to be launched on Thursday.
The bill is part of a broader movement by campaigners to “make polluters pay”, demanding that oil and gas companies, and those who benefit from fossil fuels, should take on more of the direct responsibility for tackling the climate crisis, rather than funding such measures from general taxation.
As well as targeting oil and gas companies, the bill proposes ending subsidies for such businesses, taxing shareholders in receipt of dividends and capital gains on heavily polluting assets and companies whose operations have an impact on nature, and taxing the users and operators of luxury forms of travel including superyachts and private jets.
Richard Burgon, the Labour MP who has tabled the bill in parliament, said: “Fossil fuel giants have driven us to the cliff edge of climate catastrophe. They’ve made obscene profits while millions suffer the consequences. It’s only right that those most responsible for the crisis fund the urgent climate action needed, both at home and abroad.”
The move comes amid growing concerns over a net zero backlash, partly fuelled by Reform UK, which had record success in local elections and is riding high in political opinion polls. Reform has repeatedly taken aim at net zero policies, claiming that they are paid for by people on lower incomes.
Reform’s success has led to questions over how to pay for the shift to a low-carbon economy. Keir Starmer, speaking in parliament on Wednesday, accused Reform of being “anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-business and anti-investment”.
The bill, formally known as the climate finance fund (fossil fuels and pollution) bill, has almost no chance of becoming law, but is aimed at kickstarting a campaign inside and outside parliament to gather support for measures to make polluters pay….
LikeLike
I’m down with that plan. Let’s calculate how much $ climate damages are caused by owning a superyacht, and get the uber-rich to pay out. My prediction is that a fair assessment would be of damages costing less than a round of drinks wherever they prefer to hang out.
Such an assessment would also show that those UK folk still filling up their cars with wet stuff, not electrons, are paying far more in duties than the damage caused by their tailpipes. Bring it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have to laugh at how PC stupid these people (Richard Burgon) are (my bold) –
“The bill is part of a broader movement by campaigners to “make polluters pay”, demanding that oil and gas companies, and those who benefit from fossil fuels, should take on more of the direct responsibility for tackling the climate crisis, rather than funding such measures from general taxation.”
Do they mean most of the people that rely on heating/light/leccy?
Seems they do, as the quoted poll shows –
“Seven in 10 Reform-leaning voters supported higher taxes on oil and gas companies and other high-emitting businesses.
Flossie Boyd, a senior campaigner at Global Witness, said: “Despite Reform leaders’ vocal opposition to climate action, the poll reveals that most Reform-leaning voters are worried about climate change, and a huge proportion want to see the firms and individuals most responsible for it taxed more.”
LikeLike