On Monday 29th October, the Government sets out plans for reducing the UK's 2% contribution to global man-made CO2 emissions in the 'Canutian' style Climate Change Bill.
 
Meanwhile, the ABD applauds the brave efforts of Gwyn Prins of the London School of Economics and Steve Rayner of the University of Oxford, who point out that 'the king has no clothes'. Their newly published commentary in the influential weekly science magazine Nature is entitled 'Time to ditch Kyoto'. The article states:

"The Kyoto Protocol is a symbolically important expression of governments' concern about climate change. But as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions, it has failed. It has produced no demonstrable reductions in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth. And it pays no more than token attention to the needs of societies to adapt to existing climate change. The impending United Nations Climate Change Conference being held in Bali in December - to decide international policy after 2012 - needs to radically rethink climate policy. Kyoto's supporters often blame non-signatory governments, especially the United States and Australia, for its woes. But the Kyoto Protocol was always the wrong tool for the nature of the job."

Prins and Rayner argue that Climate policy after 2012, when the Kyoto treaty expires, needs a radical rethink. More of the same won't do. Instead they suggest that public investment in Energy Research and Development should be put on a "wartime footing".
 
The ABD has long argued that CO2 reductions, particularly if they are unilateral, represent a futile attempt to control the non-linear, multi-factorial chaotic climate system, and are simply being used as a means to impose yet more taxes and restrictions on individuals.
 
ABD environment spokesman Ben Adams comments:

"Kyoto type polices are dead - let's bury Kyoto, hold the wake, and move on. Developing secure energy sources and adaptation to inevitable natural climate change is the only way forward."

The ABD urges all policymakers to read the Prins and Rayner article in order to prevent repetition of past mistakes.