The Logical Conclusion Politics and progress

Why We Need To Repeal the Climate Change Act

Personally, I believe that some global warming may be caused by man, but I don't buy into Al Gore et al's sensationalism.

But even for a complete devout follower to the AGW cause and a worshipper at the IPCC temple, it makes sense to suspend the Climate Change Act until a global legislation can replace it, because is going to cost £760 billion (that's just the cost through taxes, it doesn't cover the cost of compliance for businesses & individuals) over 40 years in order to reduce world global emissions by less than 1.5% (80% of Britain's 1.86%).

This amounts to a ~1.2% reduction in the rate warming of the planet according to IPCC models, which assume we are responsible for around 80% of the warming. In other words, even if we implemented this 80% reduction overnight (we're implementing it over 40 years), and the IPCCs most catastrophic predictions (4°C over 100 years) were accurate, we would be able to reduce this by 0.048°C/100 years, or 0.00048°C/year, at the cost of £1.8 trillion (£18 billion a year) in real terms.

To put this in perspective, we're going to be spending at least £375 billion in real terms over the next century, or £3.75 billion a year, for each 0.01°C of warming we mitigate over 100 years.

In other words, even if the IPCC's most catastrophic predictions are right, this unilateral measure is only harming British businesses global competitiveness, costing the taxpayer a fortune in green energy and will have no relevant positive effect on the environment (the planet will warm 3.94°C instead of 4°C).

Another issue on the climate debate is the idea that it's all done and dusted, and there's no room for an argument, but science is founded on scepticism and challenging consensus.

However, climate scientists (and even moreso, their associated media lackeys and politicians) have picked up quite a habit for dismissing scepticism as 'climate denial', misusing information (see the video below) and getting their predictions hopelessly wrong.

This man is not a climate sceptic, he believes in man-made global warming and is now heading a study to re-do the Climategate study. Regardless of that, he's willing to call out junk science when he sees it.

We cannot afford to write unilateral laws to 'show the right signs'; we need to move to an evidence and effect-based policy on environmental and AGW legislature based on three key principles:

• The law must be based on a scientific proof, not a belief with a load of evidence against it which hasn't yet been refuted.
• Any legally-binding targets actually need to have a significantly positive effect i.e. they need to provide a comprehensive fix.
• Where possible, environmental policy should be established globally, or at least include China and the USA.

In order to support the repeal of the act, sign the petition here and if you're a UK resident, let the government know that you want them to get rid of this draconian piece of legislation via their Red Tape Challenge website.