You can see my interview with Tim Iredale, (above), on The Sunday Politics Show (Yorkshire and Lincolnshire by clicking this link, (about 44 minutes in).
You can see my interview with Tim Iredale, (above), on The Sunday Politics Show (Yorkshire and Lincolnshire by clicking this link, (about 44 minutes in).
The guiding principles agreed by the EU 27 with regard to the Brexit negotiations include the extraordinary proposition that the rights of EU citizens in the post-Brexit UK should be adjudicated by the ECJ, whose writ would then, at least in that respect, cover EU citizens in Britain. They seem oblivious to the fact that a key factor in the UK’s Brexit debate was independence — the right to make our own laws for our own country.
Think about it for a moment. Imagine a US citizen who was disputing his right to work or reside in an EU member-state. If the member-state courts ruled against him, could he then appeal to the US Supreme Court to decide on his behalf? And would Brussels and the ECJ accept the US Supreme Court ruling? Of course not.
Similarly the case of an EU citizen in the USA. If his residence status or Green Card were in dispute in the USA, could he appeal over the heads of American courts and ask the ECJ to rule on his behalf? And if it did, would the US of A accept the ECJ ruling? Again, of course not. Clearly the EU Commission recognises that the USA is a sovereign, independent country, but does not accept that a post-Brexit UK will be independent and sovereign.
Accordingly I Tweeted: Question for Brussels: Are US citizens in the EU subject to US law, or EU law? Why should EU citizens in post-Brexit UK be under the ECJ?
Now of course you can’t get all the nuances into 140 Twitter characters, so internet critics (that term “trolls” is so over-used, don’t you think?) can have a field day with (often deliberate) misunderstandings. We immediately had Professor Michael Merrifield (who should, and probably does, know better) come up with: “Yes, quite a large section of US law applies extraterritorially. Funny when your ignorance makes the opposite point”.
In fact I have spent quite a lot of time in the USA since 1972, and I daresay I know as much about it as Professor Merrifield.
But not to be outdone, a certain Nathan Dennis comes up with a similar complaint: “US law has no territorial boundaries and US citizens are bound by it globally. Your ignorance is frightening, is this a parody account?”
It is true that some US law applies extraterritorially, but it then applies to US citizens in addition to the laws of the country in which they happen to be at the time. An American cannot exclude himself from (say) French law by appealing over the heads of French and European courts to the US Supreme Court. Yet that is exactly parallel to what the Commission and the EU 27 want to be the case for EU citizens in dispute with post-Brexit Britain.
Of course the good Professor knows all this perfectly well, and probably Mr. Dennis does too. But they couldn’t resist the temptation for childish name-calling and playground insults.
My response to a letter I received from Russell Blair
Mr Blair invited me to publicise his ideas, which I am happy to do – http://www.identitybilingualism.com
Thank you for your letter of February 28th, with attachments, which has just come to my attention. I have to be frank and tell you that I simply haven’t the time to read all 34 pages in detail, but I have flicked through and at least glanced at every page. And the extraordinary thing is that having done so, I can’t find any coherent explanation of what your phrase “Identity Bilingualism” actually means.
Clearly if I don’t know what your policy proposal is, it is difficult for me to give you a coherent reply. But I can offer some general observations.
First, it may be true that EU Citizens need something concrete and uplifting at this time – something that the EU project has signally failed to deliver. But given that the UK is now set to leave the sinking ship, I think that this is a matter for the residual EU citizens, and for Brussels, not for me. We in Britain have Brexit, which I find enormously concrete and uplifting. You add that your objective is “Making Europeans”. But in the aftermath of Brexit, it seems to me that the task is un-making Europeans.
Secondly, I think you will find that language and identity are deeply ingrained, and attempts at a political level to impose or promote language policies tend to be at best unsuccessful, and at worst oppressive. Some people have an aptitude for languages and are keen to learn. Good luck to them. Others have less interest and resent being bulldozed.
Thirdly, there is a de facto common European language. It’s called English, and I have every confidence that this will remain so after Brexit. During my first five-year term in the parliament (1999/2004) all the display screens in the parliament were in French. We had séances and réunions. It took me a while to notice, but soon after the 2004 elections I realised that it had all changed. We has sittings and meetings. English was taking over. Rather than regretting our poor showing at foreign languages, we Brits should celebrate and exploit the fact that we have the world’s language.
A final observation: I have always treasured John Stuart Mill’s aperçu that “Where people lack fellow feeling, and especially where they speak and read different languages, the common public opinion necessary for representative government, cannot exist”. This is possibly the best argument for Brexit.
ROGER HELMER MEP
The EU has long been committed to “the fight against global warming”. In this context it has created a series of measures, most of which increase energy costs for industry and for households. The result has been to force millions of UK households into fuel poverty, and to drive energy-intensive industries off-shore. Industries which have borne the brunt of these policies have included steel, aluminium, chemicals and fertilisers, petroleum refining, cement, glass and ceramics.
Plant closures are only part of the problem: we should also bear in mind potential new investment, which is driven offshore by these measures. We are in fact exporting industries and jobs, while worsening our balance of payments as we import materials previously made in Europe. And the real irony is that the production often goes to jurisdictions with lower environmental standards, so the result is an increase in global emissions.
Measures have included aggressive targets for renewable energy, and for emissions. These are overlapping and conflicting provisions. In particular, nuclear energy contributes to emissions targets but not to renewable targets, so policy, which ideally should be technology-neutral, is biased in favour of wind and solar and against nuclear. All these technologies have attracted subsidies. They have also created the need for additional levels of subsidy, since intermittent renewables require back-up. The back-up, typically gas, has to be run intermittently to complement intermittent renewables. But there is no economic or investment case to build gas-fired plants to run intermittently, so they require “capacity payments”: a whole new level of subsidy.
Then we have the Large Combustion Plant Directive, which has resulted in the closure of perfectly good coal plants across the UK, threatening both price and availability of electricity. But perhaps the greatest folly is the Emissions Trading Scheme. It has been sold as a “market mechanism” designed to allocate emissions permits where they will be most efficient and to incentivise investment in low-carbon and energy-saving technologies. It has largely failed over ten years and more. The price of a ton of CO2 emitted has generally been below €10, which the level generally accepted as necessary to send signals to the market would be €30 plus. The Commission and parliament come back to the issue every few years with a sticking-plaster solution – which never delivers. Moreover a “market mechanism” which requires constant regulatory intervention is not really a market mechanism at all: it is a very complicated tax.
The additional problem is “carbon leakage” – an EU euphemism for driving energy-intensive businesses offshore. The plan is to establish a level of “free allocation” of carbon permits to industries at risk – but to reduce the total allocation each year in order to drive down emissions. But the level is not sufficient to start with. And some industries are based on chemical processes that emit CO2 as part of their fundamental chemistry which no amount of efficiency savings can eliminate. The policy amounts to a slow suffocation of heavy industry. Indeed former Industry Commissioner Antonio Tajani has said “EU Energy Policy is creating an industrial massacre in Europe”. UKIP agrees.
Regulatory uncertainty: We have created such a complex cat’s-cradle (or dog’s breakfast) of regulation, taxation and subsidy, subject to constant change at the whim of politicians and bureaucrats, that it has become almost impossible for the market to make rational investment decisions on multi-billion pound projects with time scales in decades. This is why incentives designed to promote gas-fired power stations have had the perverse effect of promoting diesel generators instead, and why the government had to accept an eye-watering guaranteed price to EDF for Hinckley C.
Not just an EU problem
It would be nice to promise that this energy policy chaos could be unwound immediately after Brexit. But if the problem with Brussels is bad enough, Westminster has made it worse. The Climate Change Act (2008), one of the most expensive pieces of peace-time legislation, was passed almost unanimously in Westminster, by MPs who had little or no idea of the consequences of their actions. It even includes statutory emissions targets for 2050 – something no other country in the world has. So after the Brexit battle, we have another battle here at home to deliver a rational UK energy policy.
What the UK should do post-Brexit
UKIP energy policy will be expanded in detail in our next Manifesto, and this will include our positions on Shale Gas, and Nuclear Power.
See my appearance on The Sunday Politics Show East Midlands – click here – 45 minutes in.
As UKIP’s Energy Spokesman, I have drafted an open letter, (see below), to President Donald Trump, and signed by twenty MEPs, from six countries and three political groups, calling for early implementation of his campaign pledge to pull the USA out of the Paris Climate Treaty.
In the letter, we say that a US withdrawal from the Paris accord “would effectively neuter it, to the benefit of us all.”
We applaud the new and more positive approach which President Trump is taking to climate and energy issues and we are pressing for similar policies on this (European) side of the Atlantic.
The letter also raises concerns about the EPA’s “endangerment” finding with regard to CO2, and urges the President to revisit the issue. We argue that the finding has no sound basis in science, but provides a pretext for damaging and extreme environmental policies.
It is clear that the EU’s extreme green policies are doing huge damage to EU industry and EU competitiveness, and are driving energy-intensive industries out of the EU entirely, taking their jobs and their investments with them.
At the same time these policies have a trivial effect on the climate. Billions spent on “green” investments amount to little more than gesture politics and virtue-signalling from politicians spending other people’s money.
The letter was signed by 20 MEPs from six EU member-states:
Roger Helmer MEP
Stuart Agnew MEP
Tim Aker MEP
David Coburn MEP
Bill Etheridge MEP
Nathan Gill MEP
Mike Hookem MEP
Margot Parker MEP
Diane James MEP
Ray Finch MEP
Julia Reid MEP
Steven Woolfe MEP
Janice Atkinson MEP
Beatrix von Storch MEP
Marcus Pretzell MEP
Peter Lundgren MEP
Kristina Winberg MEP
Petr Mach MEP
Marcel de Graff MEP
Michał Marusik MEP
The Honourable Mr. Donald J. Trump,
President of the United States of America,
The White House,
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW,
Washington, DC 20500, USA
Dear Mr. President,
We the undersigned, Members of the European parliament, would like to offer you our sincere congratulations on your election as President of the United States of America. We are glad to affirm the high value we place on the Transatlantic Alliance, which has been such a force for peace, for prosperity and for the values we share.
We particularly applaud the new realism which you personally have brought to the climate issue and to energy policy. We recognise the very positive impact which your decisions will have in ensuring the availability of secure and affordable energy in the USA, underpinning American competitiveness. We on our part are pressing for similar policies on this side of the Atlantic.
We recall your campaign pledge to withdraw the USA from the Paris Climate Treaty, and we would urge you to put this into effect with as little delay as possible. We believe that the Paris agreement is potentially damaging, especially to developed western economies. We also believe that an early decision by your Administration to pull out of the Paris agreement will effectively neuter it, to the benefit of us all. At the same time, we would urge you to take action to withdraw the carbon dioxide endangerment finding, which has no sound basis in science, but which provides a pretext for damaging and extreme environmental policies.
Policy developments under your leadership, Mr. President, are already very encouraging and exciting. We look forward to following the progress of your Administration, and we offer you our support and encouragement in pursuing rational and effective energy and climate policies.
Listen to my interview on BBC Three Counties JVS Show click here about 49 minutes in.
The following courtesy of my good colleague William Dartmouth, UKIP’s trade Spokesman:
Adrian Webster writes (Sunday Telegraph April 2nd) : “… No new trade deal (with the EU) comes without immigration quotas….”
The EU has over 100 Trade Agreements. Of these, it is only the four EFTA countries – Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway whose specific and particular trade agreements require “freedom of movement”. Of these four, Liechtenstein has a derogation and Switzerland voted against “freedom of movement” in a referendum in 2014. So that leaves just two countries – Norway and Iceland – who have granted “freedom of movement” in return for a Trade Agreement with the EU.
None of the EU’s other trade agreements has freedom of movement — let alone immigration quotas.
Mr. Webster is in good company when he peddles this blatant falsehood. It has been restated on Bloomberg and – endlessly — on the BBC.
By guest Blogger Alex Henney:
On 12 January last year David Attenborough introduced a programme about the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). Its purpose was to scare viewers into believing “A new threat has begun to be recognised, climate change, we are seeing an increase in the temperature and acidity of the Reef of our seas. Both are killing the inhabitants of the Reef”. With help from four reef scientists in Queensland I complained about the programme, showing that none of these three claims were credible.
According to data from US satellites the average monthly temperature of the Reef increased at a rate of 0.084C/decade from 1982 to 2015 but for the period 2000 to 2015 decreased at a rate of 0.048C/decade. The temperatures off Papua-New Guinea where the same corals thrive are notably higher than the Reef.
The claim that oceans are “acidifying” due to an increase of CO2 is misleading. According to leading Australian geologist Ian Plimer, the oceans have been alkaline with pH varying between 7.9 to 8.2 for more than a billion years (acidity has a pH of less than 7.0), including the period 440-550 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 concentration is estimated to have ranged from 10 to 17 times current levels. Ocean pH fluctuates on all time scales down to hours and is kept within a narrow range by the carbonate equilibrium, silicates and borates, all of which tend to resist change. Some researchers report a slight reduction in reef pH over the last few decades but critically there is no evidence of any reduction of the rate of calcification of corals, which is what Attenborough’s febrile song and dance was about.
The BBC’s complaints procedure is byzantine bureaucracy. First came a Complaints Officer, who knew little. Next the Head of Complaints, who drew on Australian scientists who had a vested interest in Reef scares to get grant funding. Then the complaint went to the BBC Trust to an Advisor who had been a producer of Desert Island Discs and thus among the BBC literati eminently qualified to rule on matters scientific. Finally it went to a Panel of the Editorial Guidance Committee who ruled in January, a year after the programme.
Not surprisingly, as I was not only complaining about one of the BBC’s leading stars but also against the BBC party line on climate scares, the complaint was rejected at each stage. The BBC did not produce any data that supported Attenborough’s contentions, while my temperature and alkalinity data were dismissed out of hand with no good reason. The BBC breached its own rule which was applied to me that evidence available after a programme has been shown is not permissible. The Panel cited a paper published late 2016, and in a manifestation of the ignorance of the Advisor and the Panel they cited the high sea temperatures for February, March, and April 2016 which were driven by the El Nino as evidence of the climate warming. The El Nino, which raises the temperature of the Pacific, is a regularly occurring natural event that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated is nothing to do with climate change. Subsequently, as it always does after an El Nino, the temperature has dropped back. The Advisor and Panel also claimed that there had been an increase in extreme weather, a view which is not supported by the IPCC’s Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012) and its Fifth Assessment Report (2013).
The BBC is enjoined to “educate and inform”- which implies being accurate – and to be impartial. Not only does it seem to be incapable of achieving these lofty aims in climate programmes which are always spun to scare, the complaints process lacks intellectual integrity-it is a dishonest disgrace, showing no concern for facts and everything for BBC faith in the fiction of dangerous anthropogenic warming.
A colleague and I have put in a complaint about “Yellowstone: Wildest Winter to Blazing Summer” presented by Kate Humble on 5 January this year. The programme was full of hyperbole about the allegedly record temperatures, unusually extensive wildfires and suffering wildlife. If the BBC had the wish and competence to research facts instead of preferring to scare us with slop and spin and news, it would have found that the hottest year in Yellowstone was 1934, and there is no trend in wildfire acreage published by the National Interagency Fire Centre. And it could still have made a good programme out of the truth, rather than truthiness.
Scroll to 11.25 for my speech.
Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen, Friends and Colleagues, and greetings from the European parliament.
You’ve just seen a speech I gave a couple of weeks back in the plenary session in Strasbourg. If you’re wondering why there were so few members in the chamber — that’s because it was about 10:30 at night. In the translation booths around the room there would have been forty or fifty interpreters, for a rather smaller number of Members.
And if you’re wondering why the speech was so short, that’s because in the European parliament, speaking time is rationed between 750 members, and is typically sixty seconds. It’s a great training for focus and brevity. But I understand that Jim Lakely has kindly allowed me slightly more time this evening.
I’d like to start out tonight by offering a big thank-you to Michael Mann, and his Hockey Stick Graph. Without him, I might never have engaged with the climate issue. It was about ten years ago, when I’d been in the European parliament for maybe eight years, that I saw that graph, and it made a big impact.
If Mann was right, we were walking blindfold into a pretty spectacular problem — a problem not least for the four million UK voters I was elected to represent.
So I started reading up on the issue, looking at both sides of the debate. And pretty soon I’d convinced myself that Michael Mann was wrong, and that the sceptics were right.
At that time I hadn’t read Andrew Montford’s great book “The Hockey Stick Illusion” (perhaps because it wasn’t published till 2010) but I’m sure you all know it, and it’s a tremendous read. Michael Mann may or may not know his climatology, but he seems to find statistics a bit challenging.
I organised a conference in Brussels to address the issue. We had former Chancellor — that’s English-speak for Finance Minister — Nigel Lawson, who has gone on to create a London think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation. We had Fred Singer — and I can’t tell you what a huge support and inspiration Fred has been in the last ten years. We had prominent London economist Roger Bootle. And at the end of the event, we showed Michael Durkin’s great movie “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.
Walking out afterwards I overheard a couple of staffers chatting. One of them said “I never knew that there was an alternative view on global warming until tonight”.
I don’t know how many converts we made at that event, but we certainly put down a marker for the climate sceptic cause.
Sadly, however, we didn’t manage to reverse the EU’s climate juggernaut. There’s an inbuilt “progressive” majority in the European institutions which votes with depressing regularity for anything with a green label on it.
As you saw in my video clip, the EU says it is committed to “secure, affordable and sustainable energy”. We could have a great debate about the misuse of the word sustainable — all my experience suggests that green policies are not sustainable at all. And as I have said in innumerable meetings over the last ten years, every single decision I’ve seen the EU make has had the effect of making energy more expensive, and less secure.
We’ve seen measure after measure. Many of these measures are overlapping and counterproductive, and create conflicting incentives and market distortions.
For example, we have separate targets for renewables, and for CO2 emissions reduction. Where does that leave nuclear? OK for emissions, but doing nothing for renewables targets.
Then we have the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme, or ETS. You know it as Cap’n’Trade. The aim was to set a carbon price of €30 to €40 a ton, which would incentivise renewables, and investment in green, low-emission technologies.
But despite numerous tweaks and revisions, including “back-loading”, and the “Market Stability Reserve” the CO2 price never rose much above €10 a ton. This week it was below five. Enough to be a nuisance. Enough to spawn a vast lobbying industry. But not enough to have a material effect on renewables investment.
For ten long years, repeated changes to the ETS have failed to deliver. There’s a saying attributed to Einstein (although to many other people as well) that repeating the same action many times while expecting a different outcome is a sign of madness. But I’m afraid that’s the EU’s bureaucratic mind-set: they prefer to gnaw on the bones of past failure, rather than embrace a radical new approach, or start again with a clean sheet.
But there’s another problem. Because distributors are mandated to use “green” energy when available, the fossil fuel back-up runs intermittently. It therefore runs inefficiently and uneconomically. So no one wants to invest in desperately needed gas-fired power stations.
Indeed the EU has created an entirely new and additional level of subsidy, known as “capacity payments”, to subsidise the inefficient operation of intermittent back-up.
The German people have invested billions of euros in their “energiewende” or green transition, yet this last year their CO2 emissions increased marginally. Angela Merkel made a snap decision after Fukushima to close down the German nuclear fleet, and they are currently making up the shortfall with lignite — of all things.
You’re probably familiar with the analysis of Bjørn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist, who used the IPCC’s own assumptions to calculate the impact of the Germans’ $110 bn investment in green energy. He concluded that the effect would be, by the end of this century, to delay the trajectory of global warming by only 37 hours. But given there’s been no significant warming for nearly two decades, a 37 hour delay is effectively zero.
I ask you — was ever so much money squandered by so many to so little effect?
We on our side know that global warming is so last-century. We have a two-stage response to climate alarmism. Firstly, as we have discussed at this conference, the orthodox paradigm is almost certainly wrong. But secondly, even if Al Gore and Michael Mann are right, the remedies and policies proposed will have a trivial effect on the climate — but a devastating effect on our economies. Climate alarmism is not only unsustainable — it’s also unaffordable.
In the UK, our dependence on renewables, coupled with the lack of investment in back-up, plus the closure of perfectly good coal-fired power stations under the EU’s large combustion plant directive, has resulted in a real risk of power outages. As a solution, our distributor the National Grid has been doing deals with businesses with large back-up diesel generation to call on that source in emergencies.
Ladies and Gentlemen you could hardly make it up. We’re going to save the planet by relying on diesel generation. Just like Angela Merkel is saving the planet with lignite.
The predictable result of EU energy policies has been a body-blow to European competitiveness. You don’t have to take my word for it. Let me quote Italian MEP Mr. Antonio Tajani. Mr. Tajani was EU Industry Commissioner from 2009 to 2014. He is now President of the European parliament. And his comment as Industry Commissioner: “Energy prices are creating an industrial massacre in Europe”. Strong language for a European Commissioner.
Meantime in the rest of the world — especially here in America, but also in China and India — energy prices remain competitive. In the USA, recent developments suggest that sustained low energy prices will drive economic development for many years to come.
As a result, there has been a massive exodus of energy-intensive businesses from the EU. We’ve heard a great deal about steel, and about Chinese exports. But the hard truth is that with European energy prices, steelmakers find it hugely difficult to compete. No one in his right mind would be investing in steel production in Europe today.
But it’s not just steel. We have the same pattern — maybe worse — in aluminium. Job losses. Plant closures. Business moving abroad.
Chemicals. Fertilisers. Petrochemical refining. Glass. Ceramics. Some of these industries, notably glass, are setting up production in neighbouring countries — North Africa, Turkey, Ukraine — for export into the EU.
There is evidence to suggest that by moving production to jurisdictions with less stringent environmental standards, Europe is actually increasing global emissions. The steel industry tells me that a ton of steel made in Shanghai produces double the CO2 of the same ton of steel made in Sheffield. A UK government report says that imported refined petroleum products typically incur 35% higher emissions than domestic production.
Meantime the EU congratulates itself on reducing its emissions. It accounts for no more than 11% or so of global emissions. EU politicians see this as grounds for virtue signalling and gesture politics. They get photographed under a wind turbine and expect to be thanked for saving future generations.
What they don’t mention is that if you look at the emissions associated with materials used in Europe, including imports — all that Chinese steel for example — there’s no reduction.
EU policy has not merely exported jobs, and industry, and investment — it has also, quite simply, exported emissions too. But if you’re concerned about atmospheric CO2 levels, a ton of CO2 in Beijing has exactly the same effect as a ton of CO2 in Birmingham or Barcelona.
By now I guess some of you are thinking that maybe the UK’s decision to leave the EU is just about the best thing we could have done for energy policy and industrial competitiveness. We stand on the cusp of a new era for the UK. Our Prime Minister Theresa May will write the momentous letter invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty — and kicking off the formal process of Brexit — on Wednesday next week. March 29th.
In boys’ storybooks in my childhood there was a phrase often repeated, often quoted — indeed often ridiculed — and that phrase was “with one bound, he was free”. I wish I could stand here today and tell you the same about UK energy policy. “With one bound, it was free”.
But sadly it’s not that simple. The same green mind-set that has done so much damage in Brussels is alive and well in London. In 2008, the Westminster parliament passed the Climate Change Act, the work of former Labour Party Leader Ed Miliband. It was debated in October 2008, when ironically London had its first October snow for seventy years. And it was passed almost unanimously, with only five votes against.
It was one of the most expensive Acts ever passed in peacetime. A recent study by MP Peter Lilley (who was one of the famous five who voted against the Act) suggests that if maintained, it will cost the UK £300 billion by 2030. It is the only climate measure in the world that sets legally binding targets as far ahead as 2050 — much more restrictive than even Brussels’ plans.
Or put it the other way: how would we feel today if we found we were legally bound to climate targets passed 42 years ago, in 1975?
In my party — Nigel Farage’s party — we insist that the first energy priority for a newly independent Britain should be the repeal of the Climate Change Act. But it will be an uphill struggle.
Meantime the mendacious anti-shale gas propaganda put out by the green lobby has poisoned the minds of voters in the UK. Polluted water, earthquakes, vast drilling rigs, thousands of lorry movements — who’ll vote for that?
Of course the truth is rather different. I have endlessly pointed out that on just about every measure, shale gas is cleaner and safer than the coal industry on which the British Industrial Revolution was based. If Greenpeace had been around in the eighteenth century, coal might have been left in the ground. Britain today could be an impoverished peasant society, every man with an acre and a cow.
I have had the pleasure and privilege of visiting shale gas fields in Pennsylvania and Texas. I have talked to local residents about economic renaissance, new businesses; new jobs; new hotels and restaurants; higher house prices. None seemed to want to complain about environmental problems.
I have stood alongside a shale well-head — the photo appeared in our last party election manifesto — and observed that the well-head was about the same size as a man. In visual intrusion terms, infinitely preferable to a wind turbine.
In parentheses, I’d like to recount a story told by Fritz Vahrenholt, the German climate sceptic and author of “The Quiet Sun”. Prof Vahrenholt was present when the Chinese energy minister was in Germany talking to the German Energy minister. The topic was wind farms. The issue was what to do when a wind pulse overloads the grid. Through an interpreter the German minister explained that the wind-farms are asked to shut down, but that they are then paid for the energy they do not supply (as also happens in the UK, by the way).
The interpreter explained this to the Chinese minister who immediately became angry with the interpreter, telling him that he had clearly not understood the German minister’s answer. So he was told to repeat the question. Same answer. The Chinese minister told the interpreter to ask a third time: and again, the same answer!
When the Chinese minster realised that this was truly the position in
Germany, he was astonished and said that in China no one got paid for doing nothing!
Reverting to shale gas, its potential in the UK could be huge — though we need more drilling to verify it. But we also have a huge job to shift public opinion to see the possibilities: new jobs, prosperity, lower energy prices, increased industrial competitiveness; lower imports and stronger balance of payments; more energy security as we become less dependent on politically unstable suppliers; more tax revenues for the Treasury.
Ladies and Gentlemen I’ve been visiting the United States, meeting ALEC and Heritage and Heartland, for many years, and I always say that after the stultifying political atmosphere in Brussels, a visit to the States is like coming up for air.
It is doubly so today — here with Heartland, with a Trump Presidency in place. I could scarcely believe the good news as the results of the General Election came in. I hoped and prayed that President Trump would deliver on his campaign rhetoric on climate, and I’ve not been disappointed.
The position I’ve taken on climate in Brussels has been a lonely and isolated one, with only a handful of supporters and sympathisers. But suddenly the big battalions are on the right side. I feel vindicated.
I’d like to thank those who’ve given me their support and encouragement over the years. I’ve already mentioned Fred Singer, but I must also thank Mark Morano, who came over with his “Climate Hustle” movie a few months back. And the great work that Heartland, CFact and Climate Depot have been doing has been a huge encouragement.
I’ve known Myron Ebell for years as a doughty protagonist in the climate realist cause. Imagine my surprise — and delight — when I heard he had been named by the President to head the EPA transition team. Myron was over in Brussels in February, and I had the pleasure of dining with him there. I don’t know Scott Pruitt, who now heads the EPA, but all I hear about him is good.
Sometimes I have to pinch myself to remind myself that this is reality. The world has changed. The world’s biggest economy is embracing climate realism.
America must now take global leadership on the issue. We must repudiate the absurd and doctrinaire Paris agreement. We can deliver a world of realism, growth, prosperity, with secure and affordable energy for all. We have a paradigm shift. We can consign the myth of man-made global warming to the dustbin of history. Together, let’s make it happen.
Guest Blog by UKIP Agriculture Spokesman Stuart Agnew MEP
The recent findings of the ECHA are to be welcomed, but the path from here is far from smooth…
I have received a lot of emails and letters about the possible ban on glyphosate.
It will be well known by now that in March 2017 the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) found that the active ingredient did not meet the criteria for being a carcinogen, supporting the findings of the European Food Standards Agency (EFSA) and contradicting the controversial findings of the IARC.
The stage is, therefore, set for the Commission to move to reauthorise glyphosate, which it would ideally move to do for the maximum period possible in order to avoid a repeat of this debacle before time.
However, the legislation governing active ingredient renewals suggests that the Commission now needs to submit its draft proposal for reauthorisation back to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) for approval.
This was the body that failed to make a decision last time, leading to the temporary approval that is currently ongoing pending full re-approval.
This is because politics inevitably gets involved in decision making in SCoPAFF: the committee is made up of representatives of the national governments of the Member States.
Thus, despite the ECHA decision representing a battle win, it is clear that the war is far from over. On its return to SCoPAFF, the vote on the proposal will be on the basis of Qualified Majority Voting.
This means that in order to pass, 55% of member states (i.e. 16 out of 28) and representing 65% of the EU’s population must vote in favour. A blocking minority of 4 Member States representing more than 35% of the population can scupper this, or Member States can abstain so that no decision is reached.
This is what happened in 2016, when 7 Member States abstained, resulting in the current temporary extension and postponement of decision for the ECHA report. STUART AGNEW MEP 1 A quick look at the maths of the Member States voting in Council shows that the known anti-glyphos (France 13%, Netherlands 3.4% and Sweden 2%) make up 18% already. Germany, with 16% of the population, and Italy, with 12%, and both with vocal anti-glypho lobbies, voting against would be enough for a blocking minority.
However, as occurred last year, abstentions would produce a similar non-approval situation and the decision would fall back to the Appeals Committee of the Council (again a political decision), and then failing a decision again, back to the Commission for a final determination.
And all of this while the European Parliament could move again for a Resolution appealing to the Commission to take citizens’ supposed concerns into account (how many them would still be concerned if there was a food shortage ongoing at the present time?).
The temporary re-approval will expire at the end of 2017 so a decision is needed without delay. The last Commission President was particularly critical of member states “hiding” behind the committee procedure to avoid making difficult decisions on matters such as genetic modification and chemicals re-approval. Ex-President Juncker said that this was “not democracy”, but this belies the democratic deficit of the Commission powers which have supposedly been given to it by the Member States.
The Commission may again become the fall guy for this difficult decision on glyphosate renewal, but political leadership in difficult decisions is a prerequisite of any functioning administrative body. While the EU has responsibility for chemicals regulation decisions, it is the EU that must act.
It is worth remembering that even following re-approval, Member States are entitled to legislate at national level as to the use of approved active ingredients in plant protection products on their territories. Member States who are concerned can enact national restrictions, such as on recreational usage, accordingly.
The cynic in me notes that the farcical charade of trying to find democratic consensus on this simple issue amongst 28 countries further damages the credibility of the EU project as a whole and reaffirms that we are better off out. If the Commission now fails to act in accordance with the considered opinion of its advisory bodies, it inflicts another wound into the whole system of harmonised legislation, perhaps even mortally so if the decision making process becomes gripped by political paralysis.
On the other hand, whilst UK farmers absolutely do not want non-approval of glyphosate, if a ban is coming at EU level, as a secondary measure we don’t want any nonapproval affecting us prior to the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.
In this context, any delay is a potentially useful one. But this is where I introduce a note of caution STUART AGNEW MEP 2 though: currently chemicals approval is devolved to the European Commission and the twin bodies of EFSA and ECHA, and we urgently need an understanding of which body will take over from these in the UK after Brexit. Any EU level restriction on glyphosate, and the protracted and inefficient committee approval processes, must not be copied over to the UK under the clumsy and constitutionally catastrophic auspices of the Great Repeal Bill.
I will write to Minister George Eustace to ask for clarification on this – what we absolutely do not want is the convoluted EU process to be used as the UK approvals process even on an interim basis. A clean break is essential so that when we leave the EU, decisions can be made quickly and on the basis of best available science and risk assessment. Our farmers must be able to rely on this essential farm chemistry without protracted and intransigent political wrangling.
Motivation to attack the credibility of glyphosate is largely driven by an irrational fear of GM technology and the anti-corporate agenda irresponsibly fuelled by the green lobby conspiracists in certain Member States.
I urge all farmers and concerned parties to use whatever means available to them to help spread the broader message about the value glyphosate brings to farming and food security, particularly conservation agriculture practices. Social media and Facebook are good for getting the message across, particularly as to the minimal relative toxicity of glyphosate compared to everyday substances such as table salt and caffeine.
Please keep lobbying your MEPs and MPs for their support too and invite them to see glyphosate working on your farms. I will continue to be a voice of reason in this debate, but it can make a real difference if there are multiple voices uniting in support of common sense.
We know now that the scientific consensus is overwhelming in favour of the responsible usage of this chemical. The data is there and the safeguards are there. Brexit may give us the lifeline we need, but within the restrictions of the current legislative framework, it would be preferable if the Commission simply drew an end to this debacle an and allowed us to get on and farm.
From my interview with Debating Europe – the full story and link is here