10 Downing Street Pushes To Hike Fuel Duty ‘So That Boris Will Look Good For UN Climate Conference’
In this newsletter:
1) Dominic Cummings Pushes To Hike Fuel Duty ‘So That Boris Will Look Good For UN Climate Conference’
The Sun, 20 February 2020
2) Read My Lips: Boris Explicitly Told Voters He Had No Intention Of Raiding Fuel Duty
Guido Fawkes, 20 February 2020
3) The Sun Tells Boris: Go Green And Lose Your New Voters
The Sun, 20 February 2020
4) How Boris Johnson Could Put A 'Green Spin' On Raising Fuel Tax (And Face Macron’s Fate)
Nigel Morris, iNews, 20 February 2020
5) China Considers Extending Subsidies To Save Collapsing Electric Cars Sector
Bloomberg, 20 February 2020
6) Failed Auction Illustrates 'Dramatic' Struggle Of German Wind Power
Clean Energy Wire, 20 February 2020
7) Steven Milloy: Sorry Virtue Signallers, A Carbon Tax Would Have No Impact on Climate
Real Clear Markets, 20 February 2020
8) Ben Pile: A Rebellion That The Establishment Loves
Spiked, 20 February 2020
9) And Finally: Bezos Bows To Activist-Employees’ Demands, Creates $10 Billion Climate Plan
The Daily Caller, 17 February 2020
Full details:
1) Dominic Cummings Pushes To Hike Fuel Duty ‘So That Boris Will Look Good For UN Climate Conference’
The Sun, 20 February 2020
“Cummings was pushing Sajid to put up fuel duty, so the PM will look good for the climate conference we’re hosting.”
Britain’s 37million drivers face the first fuel duty hike in ten years – Credit: Press Association
Britain’s 37million drivers could face the first fuel duty rise in a decade next month. They may be targeted in the Budget as Boris Johnson’s all- powerful adviser Dominic Cummings eyes up a £4billion spending pot.
He wants to end the fuel duty freeze, which has been in place since 2010 and saves drivers about £1.50 every time they fill up.
The tax will probably go up by the rate of inflation, putting 2p on a litre of fuel.
However, the rise might be delayed until next year.
Mr Cummings wants to use fuel tax to fund the PM’s promised spending on infrastructure outside the capital, Treasury sources say.
Some in No10 believe it will also boost the Tories’ reputation on the environment.
Fuel duty was frozen thanks to The Sun’s long-running Keep it Down campaign. It was one of the issues on which Mr Cummings and Sajid Javid disagreed before the latter quit as Chancellor last week.
A Treasury official said: “Cummings was pushing Sajid to put up fuel duty, so the PM will look good for the climate conference we’re hosting.”
But Mr Javid’s replacement, Rishi Sunak, is a No10 loyalist and thought unlikely to block any attempt to end the freeze on March 11.
During the election, Mr Johnson told The Sun he had “absolutely no intention” of raising fuel duty.
But allies of Mr Johnson and the new Chancellor refused to rule it out yesterday. One said: “Rishi is still getting his feet under the desk. There have been no decisions yet.”
Experts say a five-year freeze will cost the Government about £4billion a year.
But Tory MP Robert Halfon told The Sun: “This war on motorists has got to stop.”
And Howard Cox, of the FairFuel campaign, said ministers should be trying to cut fuel duty and that any rise would be “devastating to hard-pressed motorists”.
Full story
2) Read My Lips: Boris Explicitly Told Voters He Had No Intention Of Raiding Fuel Duty
Guido Fawkes, 20 February 2020
The Sun is reporting that Number 10 is considering raising fuel duty for the first time in a decade in order to fund its spending plans. This would be the first U-turn for Boris…
Boris at a press conference alongside Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart during the election campaign (29 November 2019), said clearly that “we don’t want to raise fuel duty, I’ve absolutely no intentions to raise duel duty.”
The Sun this morning claims “Cummings was pushing Sajid to put up fuel duty, so the PM will look good for the climate conference we’re hosting”. Given new Tory voters don’t give a fig about COP this seems hard to believe.
Fuel duty is a tax that falls not just on those fabled white van men, it is a cost passed onto all consumers in general prices and adds to inflation. Macron’s problems with the Gilet Jaunes began when he decided to increase a fuel tax. Would Boris really want to antagonise Britain’s high-viz vest wearers?
3) The Sun Tells Boris: Go Green And Lose Your New Voters
The Sun, 20 February 2020
PUNISHING hard-working people for going about their daily business is a sure way to haemorrhage votes.
So why on earth is Boris Johnson’s top adviser considering hiking the fuel tax?
For smart city types blessed with excellent transport links, the increase would be a nuisance.
But for the Prime Minister’s new wave of voters who switched to Tory — ordinary grafters living in towns and villages — it’d be downright disastrous.
Everywhere you look, these people are being hammered by the cost of living.
Millions of Brits work hard day and night, yet come home to brown envelopes with yet more demands to pay. Energy bills, council tax, parking costs, phone bills, food bills — up, up, up.
Of course, it’s great that the Government is investing £5billion in bus and cycling routes to make life that bit cheaper for commuters. That’s exactly the sort of policy we’ve been calling for.
But it can’t come at the expense of Britain’s 37 million drivers. On this occasion, Boris must ignore Dominic Cummings and use his common sense.
Whacking voters with a whopping great tax for the privilege of taking their kids to school won’t make him any friends.
4) How Boris Johnson Could Put A 'Green Spin' On Raising Fuel Tax (And Face Macron’s Fate)
Nigel Morris, iNews, 20 February 2020
It has emerged that Mr Johnson’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, is pushing for the first increase in fuel duty for a decade in the Budget
Will Boris Johnson hit drivers in the pocket to demonstrate his green credentials? (Photo: Getty)
In just nine months’ time Boris Johnson and the UK will be thrust into the international spotlight when leaders from almost every nation attend the COP26 climate change summit.
As host he will be expected to take the lead in arguing for concerted global action to reduce dangerous levels of warming.
The early signs have been mixed, with preparations for the Glasgow summit in turmoil. The former energy minister Claire Perry O’Neill was sacked as President of the event and retaliated by claiming Mr Johnson “doesn't really understand'” climate change, accusing him of “a huge lack of leadership” on the issue.
Cabinet minister Alok Sharma replaced her - but will have to combine the role with his day job as Business Secretary.
In the meantime Downing Street has daggers drawn with Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon over hints the event could be relocated to London.
Growing scrutiny
Mr Johnson will face growing scrutiny during the year over the sincerity of his determination to put Britain on track, and to meet its legally-binding commitment to bring all its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.
He has already announced plans for a ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK to come into force in 2035 at the latest, and his next chance to demonstrate his ability to take tough, and immediate, decisions to tackle global warming will come next month.
It has emerged that Mr Johnson’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, is pushing for the first increase in fuel duty for a decade in the Budget on 11 March.
Planned rises have been frozen since David Cameron, conscious of the electoral power of “white van man”, took office, but The Sun reports that Mr Cummings wants to end the freeze with a potential 2p hike in the cost of a litre of fuel.
The extra revenue would be used for infrastructure projects across the UK, but the move would also be used to put a “green spin” on Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s Budget by demonstrating the government’s environmental credentials.
Politically hazardous move
The decision would be politically hazardous, aggravating many of the new Tory voters who lent Mr Johnson their support in December.
Downing Street will be well aware that far more people regularly use their cars than catch a train, with around 34m people holding driving licences.
An increase could disproportionately hit drivers in the rural areas and smaller “left behind” towns that moved to the Tories in large numbers.
Hitting them in the pocket would be a risky step for Mr Johnson, but it would be a powerful symbol of his willingness to back rhetoric with unpopular action.
Full post
5) China Considers Extending Subsidies To Save Collapsing Electric Cars Sector
Bloomberg, 20 February 2020
China may extend subsidies for electric-vehicle purchases beyond this year in an effort to revive sales in the world’s biggest market, people familiar with the matter said.
Policy makers have been discussing the possibility after China’s first annual decline in sales of new energy vehicles, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private. The fall-off in demand came after the government trimmed subsidies for buyers last July to help streamline the industry and make it less reliant on state support. Though the talks predate the emergence of the coronavirus as a global threat, the outbreak has piled more pressure on the auto industry by causing production halts and keeping people away from showrooms.
Talks are at a preliminary stage and there is no guarantee the subsidies will be extended, the people said. As things stand, they are still set to be phased out at the end of 2020.
Prolonging the handouts would be beneficial to local EV makers such as BYD Co., BAIC BluePark New Energy Technology Co. and NIO Inc. as well as the likes of Tesla Inc., which last month started deliveries from its new Shanghai factory, its first outside the U.S.
Sales of new energy vehicles including electric cars, plug-in hybrids and fuel-cell cars tumbled 54% in January from a year earlier and the wider auto market also shrank, according to China Association of Automobile Manufacturers. Those figures were largely before the coronavirus outbreak took hold and led to city-wide lockdowns and production halts.
China introduced EV subsidies a decade ago and they played a key role in turning the country into the top market globally. They initially lopped as much as 60,000 yuan ($8,700) from a vehicle’s price tag, not including any extra sometimes provided by municipal governments. Subsidies now lower a vehicle’s cost by as much as 25,000 yuan, depending on the driving range.
The government set a timetable about four years ago to phase out subsidies by the end of this year. It also introduced a credit system that essentially required all carmakers -- international and domestic -- to produce at least some EVs. NEV sales accounted for about 8% of Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co.’s total last year.
It is unclear when the subsidies will be rolled back if they are extended beyond this year, the people said.
Full story
6) Failed Auction Illustrates 'Dramatic' Struggle Of German Wind Power
Clean Energy Wire, 20 February 2020
Germany's first renewable power auction of 2020 has once more failed to attract enough bidders for onshore wind power projects, leading industry groups to call for a “breakthrough” in the country's energy transition policy.
"The energy industry expects a swift reaction from the government and a law on renewable power expansion that is adopted as soon as possible," said Kerstin Andreae, head of the German Association of Energy and Water Industries (BDEW). In the auction, only 527 megawatts (MW) were awarded out of the 900 MW available, the Federal Network Agency (BNetzA) said.
During the auctions, companies submit bids based on the amount of government support the projects will require. The average support level of successful bids stood at 6.18 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), slightly more than in the previous auction. Andreae said the latest auction shows the "dramatic" situation Germany's onshore wind power industry is in, adding that the government must find a solution for the protracted debate over minimum distance rules for newly built wind turbines.
"The energy industry urgently needs clarity on which instruments the government plans to use to counter the slump in wind power expansion," she said. Andreae said the government needs to make sure sufficient land area is available for new wind turbines and to remove regulatory hurdles in the licensing process.
Full post
7) Steven Milloy: Sorry Virtue Signallers, A Carbon Tax Would Have No Impact on Climate
Real Clear Markets, 20 February 2020
Many of America’s corporate and academic elites have united to advocate for a carbon tax.
Add cartoon
With all the money and brains behind the self-anointed “Climate Leadership Council” (CLC) you would think it would be able to figure out the math is simple that a carbon tax will have no effect on climate. There are reasons they haven’t.
The CLC is undertaking a media and lobbying blitz to push for a $40-per-ton national carbon tax, escalating by 5% per year. The CLC calls this “the most cost-effective, environmentally ambitious and politically viable climate solution.”
A $40 carbon tax would immediately raise the price of oil by $17, or to about 133% of today’s prices. We’re told not to fret the price increase because the government will remit the tax back to taxpayers as a “carbon dividend.” Most consumers will get back more money via the dividend than they paid in the tax, says the CLC.
Let’s breakdown this hucksterism.
First, a carbon tax is no sort of “climate solution.” Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases in 2019 were 55.3 billion tons of carbon dioxide-equivalents and increasing with no end in sight, according to the United Nations. The U.S. share was 7.2 billion tons ¾ 13% and shrinking as the rest of the world increases emissions.
Imagine the U.S. magically went dark and emitted no more carbon dioxide (CO2) or other greenhouse gases evermore. The rest of the world, which shows no signs of emitting less, would still emit at least 48 BILLION tons annually, which is 13 billion tons greater than the Kyoto Protocol’s goal of stabilizing emissions at 35 billion tons.
Even if the U.S. never emitted again, the difference in atmospheric CO2 concentration would be about two percent (2%) by the year 2100. No matter your view of climate science, that slight difference in CO2 would make no discernible difference to global temperature.
So simple math shows a CO2 tax would accomplish nothing. Even if a CO2 tax only cost you a nickel, you’d still be ripped off.
Next, although taxes tend to reduce use of the thing being taxed, this isn’t meaningfully true with oil. During the mid-2000s when oil rose to $140 per barrel, US oil consumption dipped a mere five percent (i.e., 20 million vs. 19 million barrels per day). Under the CLC’s plan, it would take 35 years to get the current price of oil up to that $140 level which barely reduced oil consumption in the first place. Absent sensible alternatives, Americans would likely cling to gasoline even as they were ripped off by the carbon tax.
Now for the really cynical part of the CLC’s carbon tax the “dividend.”
The CLC’s plan calls for a family of four to receive a $2,000 annual dividend check from the government in the first year, an amount that would grow as the tax increases. But is anyone paying attention to the math?
In 2019, US energy-related emissions were 5.1 billion tons. At $40 per ton, those emissions would raise $204 billion in taxes. Divide that $204 billion by 330 million Americans and you get a carbon tax costing each American $618 ¾ or $2,472 per family of four. But the carbon dividend is only worth $2,000 for a family of four, leaving them to pointlessly pay $472 more in energy costs every year.
The CLC’s device around this is to limit the dividend so that 70 percent of households would receive more in dividends than paid in carbon tax. So the CLC’s tax just amounts to a vote-buying, Marxist income redistribution scheme via climate.
Who exactly is the CLC anyway? It’s comprised of multinational corporate rentseekers and greenwashers, ivory tower economists, has-been politicians and left-wing environment groups.
The carbon tax is not about the climate so much as it is about CLC members’ various economic, political and personal agendas. Here are some of them.
Big Oil members (ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP) want to regain control over the price of oil lost due to the fracking revolution. Nuclear utility Exelon and First Solar hope to advance their interests by making fossil fuels more expensive. Goldman Sachs has investments in all sorts of green technologies. Two members are former Energy secretaries from the Obama ‘war on coal’ years. Former UN climate chief Christina Figueres is a leftist looking to end capitalism, as are the green groups like the World Wildlife Fund and the World Resources Institute.
Full post
8) Ben Pile: A Rebellion That The Establishment Loves
Spiked, 20 February 2020
Why our usually illiberal establishment has been so chilled out about XR’s week of vandalism.
Extinction Rebellion (XR) protesters in Cambridge have launched a week-long campaign of obstruction and petty vandalism.
It began with the protesters issuing demands to Cambridge City Council to hold a citizens’ assembly on climate change, to Cambridgeshire County Council to organise a ‘just transition’ from fossil fuels, and to Cambridge University to cut its ties with the fossil-fuel industry. When the demands were not met, XR set about occupying the council chamber, blocking roads in the city centre, and digging trenches into the neatly manicured and near-ancient lawn outside Trinity College.
‘This is what democracy looks like’, chanted the protesters as they marched with spades and wheelbarrows to Trinity College lawn. Then they tore up the turf while chanting ‘digging for oil’. It was supposed to symbolise the environmental destruction caused by the oil industry, as well as highlight a more local concern: Trinity College’s plans to sell some of the land it owns in nearby Ipswich to property developers.
By any measure, the Trinity College stunt was a pathetic, infantile performance. Rather than speaking to the world, the feeble, moronic chanting made it sound like the protesters were trying to convince themselves that there was some justification for their actions. ‘We’ve come here today, because Trinity [College] does not value the land that is for our common good’, explained one protester. ‘So we’re going to show them that we don’t value their precious grass outside their college. It seems a fair comparison’, he added. Is it really?
Most people watching the protests, in person or on the news, could only see petty vandalism. For most people, the stunt did not raise burning questions about land use or the wrongs of colleges owning investments in energy companies. In fact, the question that most people wanted answered was, ‘Why have these people not been arrested?’.
It is an important question. You do not have to look hard to find cases in which the police and local authorities have demonstrated near-zero tolerance of things that barely meet the category of ‘public disorder’. In recent years, the ever-expanding regulation of public space has led to buskers, beggars and pamphleteers finding themselves on the wrong side of the law. Highly subjective interpretations of what may constitute ‘offensive’ behaviour have been used by police and local authorities to crack down on all sorts of innocent activity and speech. That is not to argue for the increased regulation of protests. But if blocking roads, criminal damage and the blocking of local democracy are not public-order offences, then what are?
Criticism has quickly turned to the authorities. Rather than using their powers to clear the Extinction Rebellion protesters from their roadblock in the town centre, the police shut the roads and diverted traffic. In effect, this gave official sanction to the roadblock. According to a police spokesman, the police had to balance the right to protest against the offence of obstructing highways. Similarly, Trinity College was initially reluctant to make a complaint of criminal damage against the protesters. When officers first turned up, no complaint was made. The college later changed its mind and arrests were made on Tuesday afternoon.
Full post
9) And Finally: Bezos Bows To Activist-Employees’ Demands, Creates $10 Billion Climate Plan
The Daily Caller, 17 February 2020
More than 1,000 Amazon employees walked off their jobs in September 2019 calling on Jeff Bezos to do more on global warming. On Monday the Amazon CEO bowed to their demands and announced a $10-billion plan to tackle what he says is the most important threat facing human beings: man-made global warming.
Bezos is pressing forward with what he dubbed the Bezos Earth Fund, an initiative he hopes will spur investments to find climate solutions.
His statement came as Amazon workers continue to threaten a mass walkout over the company’s supposed lack of climate action.
“Climate change is the biggest threat to our planet,” the billionaire wrote in a statement. “We can save Earth. It’s going to take collective action from big companies, small companies, nation-states, global organizations, and individuals.”
Bezos noted that he is providing a $10-billion infusion of cash to kick off the initiative.
“Earth is the one thing we all have in common — let’s protect it together,” he added.
Amazon employees created a group called Employees for Climate Justice, which published a statement in January updating its plans to allow company employees to speak to the press in September.
More than 1,000 employees walked off their jobs in September 2019 in support of a national march calling on Bezos to do more on global warming.
“Now is a time when we need to have communications policies that let us speak honestly about our company’s role in the climate crisis,” Karen Costa, a user experience principal designer at Amazon, said in a statement in January.
Full story
The London-based Global Warming Policy Forum is a world leading think tank on global warming policy issues. The GWPF newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.thegwpf.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment