Connect with us

Business

UK leader Rishi Sunak signals plan to backtrack on some climate goals

Published

7 minute read

Oxfam’s Rishi Sunak ‘big head’ protests outside the Parliament in London, Tuesday, Sept. 19, 2023. On the eve of the UN Climate Ambition Summit, Oxfam’s Rishi Sunak ‘big head’ staged a protest on top of a giant oil barrel, amongst dozens of real oil drums, supporting the Make Polluters Pay campaign. Calling for oil and gas giants, such as BP and Shell, to pay more tax to raise critical funds to help communities devastated by climate change. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung)

By Jill Lawless in London

LONDON (AP) — Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is preparing to water down some of Britain’s environmental commitments on Wednesday, saying the country must fight climate change without penalizing workers and consumers.

The news drew wide criticism from political opponents, environmental groups and large chunks of U.K. industry, but was welcomed by sections of the governing Conservative Party.

Sunak issued a late-night statement Tuesday in response to a BBC report saying the prime minister is considering extending deadlines for bans on new gasoline and diesel cars — currently set for 2030 — and on new natural-gas home heating, due in 2035.

Sunak said he would set out a “proportionate” approach to the environment. He summoned his Cabinet to an unscheduled conference call to discuss the plans ahead of a speech hastily rescheduled for Wednesday afternoon. It had been due later in the week.

“For too many years, politicians in governments of all stripes have not been honest about costs and trade-offs,” Sunak said. “Instead, they have taken the easy way out, saying we can have it all.”

Sunak did not confirm details of his announcements. He said he would keep a promise to reduce the U.K.’s emissions of climate-warming greenhouse gases to net zero by 2050, but “in a better, more proportionate way.”

The government has previously boasted of Britain being a leader in cutting carbon emissions. U.K. greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 46% from 1990 levels, mainly because of the almost complete removal of coal from electricity generation. The government had pledged to reduce emissions by 68% of 1990 levels by 2030 and to reach net zero by 2050.

But with just seven years to go until the first goalpost, the government’s climate advisers said in June that the pace of action is “worryingly slow.” Sunak’s decision in July to approve new North Sea oil and gas drilling also spurred critics to question his commitment to climate goals.

Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who brought in the 2030 gasoline car target when he was leader, said businesses “must have certainty about our net-zero commitments.”

“We cannot afford to falter now or in any way lose our ambition for this country,” he said.

News of plans to backtrack broke as senior politicians and diplomats from the U.K. and around the world — as well as heir to the British throne Prince William — gathered at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where climate is high on the agenda. Sunak is not attending, sending his deputy instead.

Greenpeace U.K. policy director Doug Parr said the prime minister was “taking the public for fools.”

“Rowing back on home insulation and commitments to help people move away from gas will ensure we stay at the mercy of volatile fossil fuels and exploitative energy companies,” Parr said.

Environmentalists were not the only ones blindsided by the move. Automakers, who have invested heavily in the switch to electric vehicles, expressed frustration at the government’s apparent change of plan.

“We’re questioning what is the strategy here, because we need to shift the mobility of road transport away from fossil fuels towards sustainable transport,” said Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, an industry body.

Ford U.K. head Lisa Brankin said the company had invested 430 million pounds ($530 million) to build electric cars in Britain.

“Our business needs three things from the U.K. government: ambition, commitment and consistency. A relaxation of 2030 would undermine all three,” she said.

Analyst Tara Clee of investment firm Hargreaves Lansdown said the retreat could undermine Britain’s hard-won reputation for leadership on green technology, threatening the wider economy.

“The market has been directing capital to the net-zero transition and has been working in good faith,” Clee said. “These changes send a message that nothing is set in stone, and committing in earnest to a movable goalpost could be a major business risk.”

Britain’s Conservatives have been openly reassessing their climate change promises after a special election result in July that was widely seen as a thumbs-down from voters to a tax on polluting cars.

The party, which trails behind the Labour opposition nationwide, unexpectedly won the contest for the suburban London Uxbridge district by focusing on a divisive levy on older vehicles imposed by London’s Labour mayor, Sadiq Khan. Some Conservatives believe axing green policies is a vote-winner that can help the party avoid defeat in a national election due by the end of next year.

“We’re not going to save the planet by bankrupting the British people,” Home Secretary Suella Braverman said Wednesday.

But Conservative lawmaker Alok Sharma, who chaired the COP26 international climate conference in Glasgow in 2021, warned that it would be “incredibly damaging … if the political consensus that we have forged in our country on the environment and climate action is fractured.”

“And frankly, I really do not believe that it’s going to help any political party electorally which chooses to go down this path,” he told the BBC.

Storytelling is in our DNA. We provide credible, compelling multimedia storytelling and services in English and French to help captivate your digital, broadcast and print audiences. As Canada’s national news agency for 100 years, we give Canadians an unbiased news source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

Follow Author

Business

Mark Carney is Planning to Hide His Revised, Sneaky Carbon Tax and This Time, No Rebates

Published on

 

Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney seems to think giving you a discount code on a new furnace or some extra insulation is the best way to help you with affordability.

And he’s going to pay for the discounts by hitting businesses like fuel refineries and power plants with a hidden carbon tax. Of course, those businesses will just pass on the cost.

Bottom line: You still get hit with that hidden carbon tax when you buy gas or pay your bills.

But it gets worse.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at least attempted to give you some of the carbon tax money back through rebates. The Parliamentary Budget Officer consistently made it clear the rebates don’t cover all of the costs. But at least you could spend the money on the things you need most.

But under Carney’s “affordability” plan, you don’t get cash to pay down your credit card or buy groceries. You can only use the credits to buy things like e-bikes and heat pumps.

Here’s how Carney explained it.

“We will have the big polluters pay for climate incentives by developing and integrating a new consumer carbon credit market into the industrial pricing system,” Carney told a Halifax crowd. “While we still provide price certainty for households when they make climate smart choices.”

Translation: Carney would still make Canadians pay, but he’ll only help them with affordability if they’re making “smart” choices.

Sound familiar? This is a lot like the scheme former opposition leader Erin O’Toole ran on. And it ended his political career.

Carney’s carbon tax plan is terrible for two reasons.

First: it’s sneaky. Carney wants to hide the cost of the carbon tax. A powerplant running on natural gas is not going to eat the cost of Carney’s carbon tax; it will pass that expense down to ordinary people who paying the bills.

Second: as anemic as the Trudeau government rebates are, at least Canadians could use the money for the things they need most. It’s cash they can put it towards the next heating bill, or buy a pair of winter boots, or pay for birthday party decorations.

That kind of messy freedom makes some central planning politicians twitchy.

Here’s the thing: half of Canadians are broke and a discount on a new Tesla probably won’t solve their problems.

About 50 per cent are within $200 each month of not being able to make the minimum payments on their bills.

With the cost of groceries up $800 this year for a family of four, people are watching flyers for peanut butter. Food banks have record demand.

Yet, Carney wants Canadians to keep paying the carbon tax while blindfolded and then send thank-you cards when they get a few bucks off on a solar panel they can’t afford.

Clearly the architects of Carney’s plan haven’t spent many sleepless nights worrying about paying rent.

One of Carney’s recent gigs was governor of the Bank of England where he was paid $862,000 per year plus a $449,000 housing allowance.

With ermine earmuffs that thick, it’s hard to hear people’s worries.

About a thousand Canadians recently posted home heating bills online.

Kelly’s family in Northern Ontario paid $134 in the carbon tax for December’s home heating. Lilly’s household bill near Winnipeg was $140 in the carbon tax.

The average Alberta household will pay about $440 extra in the carbon tax on home heating this year.

After the carbon tax is hiked April 1, it will add an extra 21 cents to a litre of gasoline and 25 cents per litre of diesel. Filling a minivan will cost about $15 extra, filling a pickup truck will cost about $25 extra, and a trucker filling a big rig will have to pay about $250 extra in the carbon tax.

Trudeau’s carbon tax data is posted online.

Carney’s carbon tax would be hidden.

Carney isn’t saying the carbon tax is an unfair punishment for Canadians who are trying to drive to work and heat their homes.

He says the problem is “perception.”

“It has become very divisive for Canadians,” Carney told his Halifax crowd about the carbon tax. “It’s the perceptions of the negative impacts of the carbon tax on households, without fully recognizing the positive impacts of the rebate.”

Carney isn’t trying to fix the problem. He’s trying to hide it. And he wants Canadians to be happy with discount codes on “smart” purchases instead of cash.

Kris Sims is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Continue Reading

Business

Mike Benz Exposes How USAID Funds State-Sponsored Hit Pieces to Crush Political Opponents

Published on

Vigilant News

USAID wasn’t just funding biased reporting. They were actively reshaping foreign governments.

Former State Department official Mike Benz, an expert on cyber policy, censorship, and information warfare, appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience Wednesday and dropped jaw-dropping insights into USAID’s absurd abuse of US tax dollars.

According to Benz, USAID has been funneling taxpayer dollars into so-called investigative journalism, but the real goal isn’t transparency—it is control.

“Everything they do is a hit piece about an instance of corruption that can be used by prosecutors in the area to arrest the political opponents of the State Department,” Benz explained.

USAID’s program, officially called Strengthening Transparency and Accountability through Investigative Reporting, claims to promote a free press. But Benz revealed its true purpose is to ruin people’s lives and go after political targets in order to change the policies of foreign governments from the inside.

Join 100K+ Substack readers and 1.5 million 𝕏 users who follow the work of Vigilant Fox. Subscribe to Vigilant News for exclusive stories you won’t find anywhere else.

For a mere investment of $20 million, USAID’s state-sponsored hit pieces were able to:

• Generate at least $4.5 billion in fines against targets of these hit pieces.

• Influence over 548 policy changes across foreign governments and private sectors.

USAID justified these programs under the term “capacity building,” which Benz warned is a red flag. “Now, this is the phrase everybody has to know. Capacity building is what this is all built under. That means pumping up the Blob’s assets, he explained.

And USAID wasn’t just funding biased reporting. They were actively reshaping foreign governments. Benz revealed 548 policy changes resulted from these state-sponsored media attacks, which he suggested were for the “furtherance of USAID’s or the State Department’s foreign policy goals.”

Think about what that means. The U.S. government is secretly funding media outlets to push narratives, destroy political opponents, and manipulate foreign policy, all under the guise of investigative journalism.

The question is – if they’re doing this overseas, how much of it is happening at home?

Watch the full conversation below:

Share

Subscribe to Vigilant News.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X