Dear Subscribers,
In Baku, at COP 29, Keir Starmer announced that he would set a new target on carbon emissions: an 81% reduction from 1990 levels by 2035. The target will be legally binding and is a sign, we are told, of Britain’s ‘leadership’ on the issue of global climate change. It is, in fact, an act of national self-harm which will have a negligible effect on global warming and be roundly ignored by the rest of the world. The leaders of China, USA, India, France, and Germany (among others) didn’t even bother to show up.
Starmer shoots Britain in the foot at COP
The ruling coalition in Germany has collapsed, meaning that new elections will be held in February. The differences between the tax-and-spend SPD and the fiscally conservative FDP proved irreconcilable. This comes in the same week that German Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke with President Putin about the war in Ukraine, a move widely criticised by pro-Ukrainian commentators.
Rachel Reeves announced plans to merge existing public pension funds into ‘megafunds’, which she says will allow fund managers to make higher-risk, higher-return investments. Attempts were made by George Osboune and by Jeremy Hunt to pool local government pension schemes, which together represent one of the largest defined-benefit schemes in the world. The danger is that the resulting megafunds are used to fund projects for political reasons rather than reasons of profit.
Europe’s stock market is lagging behind that of the US by the greatest margin for almost 30 years. Investors have responded positively to the outcome of the election, while Europe continues to deindustrialise. The Governor of the Bank of England says that the UK should try to ‘reset relations’ with the EU — the government would do better to take its lead from financial markets, and focus on making the most of its relationship with the US.
Trump bump for US stocks
Data from the ONS showed that the UK economy contracted slightly in September, with growth for Q3 of 2024 amounting to just 0.1% of GDP. Rachel Reeves promised to focus on growth during the election campaign. So far, all she has managed to do is raise taxes.
Media
Rupert Darwall on the death of COP
Peter Franklin on Reeves plans for pension funds
Blog
Why Leaving the EU was no big deal by Warwick Lightfoot
Former Treasury advisor Warwick Lightfoot argues that joining the EU made little difference to the UK economy and equally leaving it in 2021 has done little harm. The main reason is that EU competencies applied to only a minor part of the UK economy.
The dull truth is that the big brouhaha over Brexit and the economy was always exaggerated. Much of the argument about UK membership of the EU was dressed up in economic clothes and economic rationale, because the protagonists favouring remaining in the EU, were uncomfortable with engaging with the principal political and federal purposes of the project. This was a feature of the debates when Britain entered the EEC. The central problem of British membership was that it was reluctant and transactional. The principal benefit of being out of the EU is that the UK has the freedom to pursue a course of action, decide it is a mistake and then do the opposite without an external legal constraint. The great advantage of being out of the EU is that it clarifies responsibility for policy. The public can interrogate policy and identify the minister and public body that is responsible for it. The EU made both the making of policy, and attribution of responsibility for policy, opaque. Today policy makers have discretion, freedom and responsibility. Moreover, while they may be able to run, they cannot hide from accountability.
Key Points
In Baku, at COP 29, Keir Starmer announced that he would set a new target on carbon emissions: an 81% reduction from 1990 levels by 2035. The target will be legally binding and is a sign, we are told, of Britain’s ‘leadership’ on the issue of global climate change. It is, in fact, an act of national self-harm, designed to prevent any future government from pursuing prosperity by making the most of Britain’s natural resources, which will have a negligible effect on global warming and be roundly ignored by the rest of the world.
There is not, on the face of it, any reason why a government with a large majority and the Civil Service very much on its side would need to write the target into law. But the intention is not to make things easier for this government, but to make things harder for the next.To see why legally-binding climate targets are bad news, we should look at recent climate litigation in Europe. The ECtHR recently found that insufficient government action on climate change can amount to a violation of human rights and ordered the Swiss Government to compensate litigants and reverse policies. This followed a ruling in the Dutch Supreme Court in 2019 ordering their government to reduce emissions by 25%. Once governments bind themselves, they put their own policies at the mercy of the courts and activist lawyers.
Suppose a future Conservative government tries to reverse some of the damage this government is doing and will do to Britain’s energy supply. With this target on the statute books, they will be vulnerable to judicial review or other forms of litigation which will argue that the government is under a duty not to secure Britain’s energy supply by burning fossil fuels. Repealing the target will expend valuable political capital and prompt charges of ‘climate change denial’ or ‘regressive’ energy policy. A legally-binding emissions target is an attempt to govern long after this government has been voted out of office.
While Britain tangles itself in legal knots, the rest of the world is being realistic, and investing in the only reliable source of energy currently available: fossil fuels. As long as China, India, and the US among others are making the most of their natural resources, reductions in carbon emissions from a medium-sized country in the North Atlantic will make no difference whatsoever to the fate of the planet. The only people affected will be British citizens, who find energy increasingly expensive and their quality of life decreasing in relation to people in other parts of the world. The stated intention behind the target is to show that Britain is ‘leading the world’ on decarbonisation. That it may be, but the world is choosing not to follow.
