Jump to content

zero emissions consultation


Recommended Posts

DEFA determined to bankrupt the Island to satisfy their consciences.

Globally speaking our CO2e emissions are so vanishingly small as to be completely inconsequential. 

Our entire annual emissions are less than one week's emissions from just one large polish coal fired powerstation.

The focus should be realistic sustainability, and  how we afford expansion of renewable energy.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, doc.fixit said:


It's a 'kick the ball into touch' for a year move IMHO

Quayle can then say 'we're consulting the public' whilst doing next to nothing about climate change response til next years general election

All he has done really is commit some future politican into achieving zero by 2050, hardly an ambitious target 

Abysmal really

Hope Jessopp is elected for the Green Party to really kick some ass in government

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Climate Change Bill will go the same way as the Ramsey Marina project, to that great compost heap of never-to-be-implemented good ideas.  It's a long Bill but here are my thoughts in brief:

The target is net zero carbon emissions by 2050, which is a reasonable objective given that (a) we need to do it to reduce the impact of climate change and (b) we will be forced to do it anyway at some point by the laws of physics, whether we want to or not, because there is only a limited amount of carbon on the planet available to burn.  However, I think few if any of the provisions of the bill will be implemented voluntarily because the sacrifices needed, and the resulting political unpopularity, would be too great.  For example: almost all air, sea and road transport, manufacturing and agriculture are dependent on the ongoing use of massive quantities of carbon fuels.  To meet that net zero target we would have to cease air transport completely, cease shipping transport except by sail-powered ships, and take all petrol and diesel vehicles off the road and replace them by a (very) much smaller fleet of electric vehicles.  We would have to own up to the fact that most of the emissions generated in China by manufacturing our goods over there and shipping them over here, are actually our emissions, and massively reduce production and consumption of consumer goods.  I could go on but you get my point.  Politicians can talk the talk, but I can't see any politicians having the guts to actually push through what's needed.

And we see this in the Bill, which is shot through with loopholes like:

"Emissions of a greenhouse gas are attributable to the Isle of Man if — (a) they are emitted from a source in the Isle of Man; or (b) regulations specify that they are attributable to the Isle of Man."  (translation: by default, emissions in China are not counted as our emissions)          

"Except as provided for in regulations made under section 13(2), emissions from international aviation and international shipping are not attributable to the Isle of Man" (well that's self explanatory isn't it)

"(1) A person who installs a fossil fuel heating system or after 1 January 2025 — (a) in a new building; or (b) for use in a new building, commits an offence. Maximum penalty — (a) (on information) — a fine; (b) (summary) — a fine of level 5 on the standard scale. (2) The Council of Ministers may by regulations — (a) amend the date in subsection (1); ..." (translation: if the going gets tough, the CoMin has power to scrap this proposal).

And so on, for all 55 pages of the Bill.

Sorry to sound cynical, but I think at some point, good intentions and political reality are going to collide head on and I think political reality will win.  We will just keep burning fossil fuels until we can't, and then we won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concern is that it isn't directly linked to implementation of the Curran Report, the completion of which this government spent an enormous amount of executive time on

You're right to be sceptical and cynical BallaDoc

Edited by Donald Trumps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as inconsequential pollution. 


My wife and I have been working to reduce our carbon footprint for several years now as have many people in our village and in fact all around East Anglia.  This is a thing that must be done and "whataboutary" arguments against reducing every bit of pollution of all sorts are contemptible.





  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...