Originally Posted by: comet 
Originally Posted by: Ravenscar 
There is one simple remedy, tell the EU and the LCP diktat to bugger off - and at the same time inform Brussels that we are binning the green agenda.
But that would be in another world - Tories would rather cut off their noses, than spite the EU.
It's not so simple as the EU bossing them about and them being afraid to confront it.
British governments have been determined to lead the way on this silliness and have helped influence the EU, which in turn influences the UK. You can't see them as separate from the EU, and don't forget the Civil Service.
Confronting the EU would mean getting out of it, and as we've seen, the political classes are determined not to do that.
Nor is there much point singling out any of the main parties as the main culprit for the mess energy policy is in. They've been pretty much in total agreement on this for the past ten years at least.
spot on.
We have been leading the way on this since Houghton got his sticky little fingers all over the IPCC in 1988.
Actually, our 'leading the way on this' makes the charge of the light brigade look like a carefully measured advance.
The government of the UK has a legally binding obligation to reduce our CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 and the so-called 'independent' bodies set up to oversee this are stuffed to the gunwales with the worst kind of eco-fascist.
This is a slow march to economic oblivion which is approaching the point where it becomes irreversible.
This is the point of the Climate Change Act, not an unfortunate by-product and for as long as it remains unrepealed, every word this government spouts about resolving the country's malaise is a lie and every action they take is a fraud.
I often have occasion to ask my greentard/uneducated 'friends' three very simple questions: -
1. Name all the countries in the world whose governments have a legal obligation to reduce their country's CO2 emissions by 80%
2. What effect will reducing the UK emissions of CO2 by 80% have on global temperature (if that was indeed measurable and you accept the CAGW argument)?
3. From whence was the target for an 80% reduction in CO2 derived?
Not difficult to imagine the response . . .