Skip to main content

Government caught out making statement about CO2 which is 'plainly wrong' -- Guest post by James Abbott

[This blog has been arguing over the past year that the government are telling porkies about the level of British carbon emissions. See for instance:
What follows is a GUEST POST by Cllr. James Abbott, national Green Party spokesman on dangerous climate change, on this same important topic:]
 
'In an interview on the Today programme earlier this week, Hillary Benn stated that by 2010, UK CO2 emissions are on course to be 16% below 1990 levels - he went on to say that this more than met the Kyoto obligations. The claim coloured the rest of the interview with John Humphrys (and George Mombiot).

I have tried to get R4 to do a follow up interview to question this claim - John Humphrys could not promise this would happen but agreed that Ministers need to be chased up on statistics if they were questionable.

Not for the first time, a minister, in this case the Sec. of State, appears to be misleading the public about UK emissions. DEFRAs own figures show that UK CO2 emissions have fallen much less than 16% - more like 6% - since 1990. All of that reduction took place prior to Labour coming to office when the Tories were in power and there was a major recession, closures of heavy industry and a switch to gas burning in power stations.

Mr Benn appeared to be talking about the Kyoto basket of greenhouse gases (6 in all) which is on track to meet Kyoto.

The important difference is that CO2 is the single most important greenhouse gas, and Labour has failed to reduce it - which they will not admit to and rarely get pinned down on. About 70% of human induced global warming is due to CO2 emissions.

The UK is set to miss its own CO2 target. And no wonder - with yet more road building, airport expansion and incinerators being promoted by Mr Brown and his colleagues. 

It is really important that ministers are challenged on their misuse of statistics in this vital field. Sometimes its arguable what they are claiming due to the choice of words, but in this case Mr Benn made a statement specifically about CO2 which was plainly wrong.'

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Post-Growth: A new vision for a fairer and more sustainable Britain

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...