Peter Lilley MP here uncovers a can of worms, of government
deliberate deceit and withholding of information. Lilley is no
‘Climate Change denier”. as most informed people now are, but
nevertheless sees that the grotesque provisions of the Climate
Change Bill are totally unsupportable for a country in economic
crisis. But this Bill went to the Commons without anyone having the
least idea of the costs involved. and which are only leaking out now!
If MPs pass such legislation without the facts they are not doing
their job and in any other field would be sacked.
I have only today had this drawn to my attention by one of the
readers of my postings - thanks Terry! - although Lilley put it out
over two weeks ago. The press have totally ignored it and we look
like being ‘dropped in the mire’ thoroughly thanks to idle MPs,
deceitful ministers, lazy editors and journalists and - it must be
said - and failure on Lilley’s part to follow it up.
What an expensive shambles of our democracy!
xxxxxxxxxxxxx cs
=================================
<http://www.peterlilley.co.uk/article.aspx?id=10&ref=1421>
Press Release
LILLEY SEEKS ANSWERS ON COST OF CLIMATE CHANGE ACT
Peter Lilley, MP for Hitchin and Harpenden, has challenged the
government to provide an opportunity for full public scrutiny of the
costs and benefits of the Climate Change Act.
He said: “Revised figures which showed a massive increase in the
projected costs of the measure were sneaked out recently without any
publicity whatsoever.
“I have written to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate
Change, Ed Miliband, asking him to explain the truly remarkable
increase in costs and to justify the thinking behind the astonishing
change in expected benefits. I have yet to receive a reply.
“By the government’s own figures, this measure could cost every
household in the country between£16,000 and £20,000. That’s a lot of
money and everyone should expect clarity and openness about why it’s
being spent.
“So far, the government seems unwilling or unable to debate this very
important matter.”
** A copy of Peter Lilley’s letter to Ed Miliband is set out below.
ENDS
==================================================
I hope that on consideration, you will agree that changes amounting
to nearly £1 trillion require both discussion in, and explanation to,
Parliament. This is particularly important given the extraordinary
way the government treated its own original estimates of the costs
and benefits of the Climate Change Bill during the Bill’s passage
through Parliament.
You will recall that your original estimates of costs and benefits of
the Climate Change Bill showed that its potential costs[1] at some
£205 billion were almost twice the maximum benefits of £110
billion. This was embarrassing for you because the reason
governments are required to publish an Impact Assessment giving
estimates of costs and benefits of any Bill is to enable Parliament
to “determine whether the benefits justify the costs”[2].
In this case, on the basis of your figures, they clearly did not.
Moreover, your initial calculations were based on the original target
of reducing emissions by 60%, which was increased to 80% during the
passage of the Bill. Normally each extra percentage reduction will
require increasing marginal costs and generate declining marginal
benefits. So the higher target was likely to make the disparity
between costs and benefits even worse.
You nonetheless ignored your own department’s figures, refused to
discuss them and proceeded to drive the Bill through – surely the
first time any government has recommended Parliament to vote for a
Bill which its own Assessment showed could cost far more than the
maximum benefits?
However, you promised to produce revised estimates though, rather
bizarrely, not in time for Parliament to consider them but after
Royal Assent.
Five months have passed since then. Inevitably such a lengthy delay
arouses suspicions – aggravated by the scale of the changes – that
the figures have had to be heavily massaged to remove the original
embarrassment.
The new figures for both costs and benefits have indeed been changed
dramatically. As so often in the debate on Global Warming – when
the facts don’t fit the theory they change the facts.
As recently as your last departmental question time on 5th March your
Minister of State, Joan Ruddock, suggested to me that the original
estimate of potential costs of up to £205 billion might be too high.
She said “We are likely to find that the costs, which covered a very
large range, were exaggerated…” Yet despite correcting for any
previous downward bias the revised figures you have now published are
not lower but substantially higher. The bottom of the new range for
costs is in fact £324 billion – nearly 60% higher than the highest
figure I have been quoting. And the top of the range is now £404
billion.
In other words the government now estimates that the Climate Change
Act will cost every household in the country between £16,000 and
£20,000 each. [I query his maths here! Does he really think there
are only 2o million homes in the UK ? I would put this calculation at
nearer £10,000 to £13, 000 - But it doesn’t alter the argument - cs )
When it comes to your revised estimates of the benefits, however, we
enter Alice in Wonderland territory. Even though costs have broadly
doubled, the embarrassment of them exceeding your own estimate of the
maximum benefits has been eliminated. The benefits have been
dramatically increased tenfold from £105 billion to over £1
trillion. I congratulate on finding nearly £1 trillion of benefits
which had previously escaped your notice.
But surely such an astounding discovery merits explanation? The
one element of the revision which is mentioned appears, of itself, to
justify doubling estimates based on the previous methodology. But
where did the rest of the newly discovered benefits arise from ?
As you know, having studied physics at Cambridge, I do not dispute
the existence of a greenhouse effect, though I am sceptical about the
model building which seeks to amplify it. I support sensible
measures to reduce CO2 emissions, economise on hydrocarbon use and
help the poorest countries adapt to adverse climate change whatever
its cause – as long as the measures we adopt are sensible and cost
effective. But we cannot judge what is sensible and cost effective
if we do not have reliable figures, and subject them to proper
parliamentary scrutiny.
When the Department slips out figures which it appears to be unable
to explain, unwilling to debate and which are so flaky they vary by a
factor of ten - it can only provoke scepticism.
I should be grateful if you could answer the following questions:
1) When will Parliament be given an opportunity to discuss these
new figures?
2) What is the explanation of the huge revisions in costs and,
more particularly, benefits?
3) Why has it taken five months to produce these revised figures?
4) What is the purpose of publishing Impact Assessments which are
ignored or not available until after Parliament has considered a Bill?
5) Which minister signed offthe required declaration that the
original Impact Assessment “represented a reasonable view of the
likely costs, benefits and impact”?
6) Can you confirm that the costs of the Climate Change Act
amount to between £16,000 and £20,000 for every UK household?
7) Can you confirm that the revised cost estimates still exclude
transitional costs (which could amount to 1% of GDP up to 2020),
ignore the cost of driving British firms overseas, and assume that
all businesses identify and immediately apply the most carbon
efficient technology available?
8) Can you confirm that although the costs of the Act will fall
on UK households the benefits will largely accrue to the rest of the
world?
9) Can you confirm that the Climate Change Act binds UK
governments to pursue the targets regardless of whether other
countries follow our lead (or indeed whether the climate warms or not)?
Yours sincerely
Peter Lilley
[1] Cost estimates exclude transitional costs which were put at about
1% of GDP until 2020, omit the cost of driving carbon intensive UK
industries abroad which was said to be significantly likely, and
assume that businesses will identify and implement immediately the
optimum new carbon efficient technologies.
[2]Impact Assessment Guidance - BERR
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
PETER LILLEY MP’s website 20.4.09
The costs of the Climate Change Bill are horrendous, on top of the
rocketing National Debt.
Can the UK really carry this cost ?
LETTER TO SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Dear Secretary of State
You recently slipped out, without notifying Parliament, a massive
revision of the estimated costs and benefits of the Climate Change Act.
Posts
