Forum Topic

This is how seriously the government takes the climate emergency

Why did Shell pay no windfall tax despite huge profits? Because Sunak introduced extended tax breaks for investment in extraction in North Sea oilfields. Tells you all you need to know about how seriously (ie, not at all) Sunak regards the climate emergency (and apologies for the reference below to non-tofu eating, non-Guardian readers and the non-wokerati). https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/27/shell-doubles-its-profits-to-95bn

Richard Carter ● 962d27 Comments

Desmog lists donations from oil and gas producers and foundations created by those who made money in those areas - particularly interesting where those running for PM are concerned.

Philippa Bond ● 958d

"unchanged rate of the 10 countries that produce the most emissions"This completely ignore not only production vs consumption but per capita rates.Until we take into account consumption and population it is really a dishonest comparison. We need to address these issues not just for emissions but to be more efficient to compete. As for the Amazon deforestation - when the BBC starts to make documentaries on UK & Ireland deforestation then we may get somewhere. We need to lead by example and the UK has a shameful history of deforestation on not only the UK but occupied countries.I have to agree with the buses and 4x4. We should have moved to smaller lighter vehicles in cities. In China one of the most popular vehicle is a small electric car that costs $4K (Wuling Hongguang Mini EV).

Ed Robinson ● 961d

You could always head out with a bag of lentils Ivonne ;)https://www.tyreextinguishers.com/

Matt Palmer ● 961d

I have no problem with UNEP's document.My main bones of contention with climate change issues are:  (a) the continuing burning of the Amazon and the Indonesian jungle as well as the destruction of the Congo rainforest; and(b) the unchanged rate of the 10 countries that produce the most emissions (China, USA, India, Russia, Japan, Germany, Iran, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia).We can all do our bit, of course, but, as a comparison, there is not much point my dropping my small green car if the market for 4x4 continues to increase and/or polluting buses continue to circulate in London.

Ivonne Holliday ● 961d

There is “no credible pathway to 1.5C in place”, the UN’s environment agency has said, and the failure to reduce carbon emissions means the only way to limit the worst impacts of the climate crisis is a “rapid transformation of societies”. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/climate-crisis-un-pathway-1-5-c

Matt Palmer ● 961d

"China closes down all of its coal fired power stations"China are closing lots of small inefficient coal power stations and add larger but cleaner ones. Which they plan to use to plug the renewable gap. They have been investigating heavily in renewables and energy storage.It seems they are still reluctant to use nuclear inland.Worth a deeper look at what China is doing from high speed rail links not just in China but into neighboring countries too.This will undoubtedly make China even more competitive. We need to be keeping up for the environment and the economy.From memory a huge chunk of our renewables was actually from burning stuff that it turns out isn't very renewable.

Ed Robinson ● 961d

I'm sure all the answers to those questions are out there John, go have a read :)

Matt Palmer ● 961d

My cousin saw him today he was at Sutton Tesco, they have the ExRay containers in their car park.

Barbara Stevens ● 961d

Mr Palmer'According to the UN we need a minumum 45% cut in global emissions by 2030.Anyone who thinks we ought to cheer up is deluded.'What recommendations have they made to do this ?'The West' stops driving cars ?China closes down all of its coal fired power stations ?Poorer African countries stop cooking over wood burning ovens ?

John Hawkes ● 961d

According to the UN we need a minumum 45% cut in global emissions by 2030.Anyone who thinks we ought to cheer up is deluded.

Matt Palmer ● 961d

I don't think I've said Shell or Sunak have a plan to deliberately destroy the planet; just a concern that they might have other distractions which don't give climate change the necessary priority: shareholder returns? trying to improve Conservative party polls? Of course, windfall taxes were the original topic and that's more related to the economy and poverty than directly to climate change. Still, the two are interrelated - that's an interesting report and seems to contradict one from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) which says there no credible pathway to limiting global warming to 1.5 C. https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129912
I'm not going to try to  ascertain which one is right or wrong but it would be nice to have some agreement over this? With this amount of uncertainty it's surely only right to be concerned and sceptical? After all big business doesn't have a great reputation; look at how they were happy to take advantage when Trump repealed environmental laws in the US, or deforest Brazil under Bolsonaro?

Michael Ixer ● 961d

I know many here have a sincere view that Shell and Sunak have a deliberate plan to destroy the planet and eliminate mankind.However things look more positive on a macro governmental scale as these dialectical forces weigh in.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/27/carbon-emissions-to-peak-in-2025-in-historic-turning-point-says-iea'Carbon emissions from energy to peak in 2025 in ‘historic turning point’, says IEA.International Energy Agency says Ukraine invasion boosted state spending on clean energy and ‘will accelerate transition to renewables’Global carbon emissions from energy will peak in 2025 thanks to massively increased government spending on clean fuels in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to analysis by the world’s leading energy organisation'.So cheer up LCpl Jones and Privates Carter, Ixer and Winstanley !

John Hawkes ● 961d

One way of looking at the windfall tax is that it redresses the balance between the energy companies who have made an additional, excessive, profit that they've not done nothing extra to achieve but only benefited from the way markets have reacted to a world events with those who are being charged an excessive fuel bill through no fault or bad planning by themselves and may not be able to afford it. Even if one can afford it then it may reduce money that could otherwise be spent on hospitality, entertainment, holidays, etc which will further damage the local economy; excess profits will usually result in higher dividends for a few which will not necessarily find their way back into the local economies (although they might bolster some pension funds).The tax system may need reforming but as Richard says that's unlikely to happen in the short term and one needs.pragmatism to alleviate the current situation. Longer termz if one wants to help the poorest then perhaps a shift to direct income and wealth taxation at national and local level rather than indirect VAT, duties and fixed charges such as countil tav would be more equitable? (Note the question mark!)

Michael Ixer ● 961d

"The argument that one-off taxes hide the need for proper tax reform may be technically correct but in practical terms is just silly"The likelihood of any of the two main parties addressing tax reform is remote hence the Labour talk only of a windfall tax.If the main political parties can't reform tax then perhaps they should consider their positions and let other parties do it."A temporary tax is thus appropriate, particularly when the state is hard up."That is true Michael but the energy companies are not the only ones that made bumper profits hence this not only misses those companies but also robs the state of future finding.If this was in addition to tax reform to correct a one off then I may have a different option but it is instead of any reform.It was the only thing Labour came up with after more than a decade in opposition. The Tories have failed to deliver any reasonable reform during that period. How long do they both need?It was various quick fixes that have partly resulted in many of the issues today including taxation.The lazy short term view the political parties take should not be encouraged unless accompanied by long term changes.

Ed Robinson ● 961d

The argument that one-off taxes hide the need for proper tax reform may be technically correct but in practical terms is just silly, because there is zero likelihood that this government in particular will carry out any serious reforms of the tax system

Richard Carter ● 961d

They couldn't make it clearer that it's not a priority than their decision to cut both the climate minister Graham Stuart and Cop26 President Alok Sharma from the cabinet.

Richard Carter ● 961d

The issue is that these companies are making bumper profits temporarily, through no "fault" of their own. A temporary tax is thus appropriate, particularly when the state is hard up.Though anyone who thinks Shell makes 95bn profit in any jurisdiction fails a maths test.

Michael Winstanley ● 962d

Personally, I'm against windfall taxes.They tend to be one off taxes that hide the need for propper tax reform. Companies pay it and then continue as before. Is that good enough?They are also retrospective and business should be able to plan ahead with reasonable certainty concerning tax. If tax needs reform then lets reform it, that's where the discussion should be. These one offs tend to let the politicians off from addressing some of the underlined issues.

Ed Robinson ● 962d

Actually this is slightly unfair, at least Rishi has re-banned fracking - otherwise known as 'sticking to the manifesto'

Matt Palmer ● 962d

Rishi isnt off to Cop27Rishi removed Cop president Alok Sharma from the cabinetRishi removed climate minister Graham Stuart from the cabinet.Amazing.

Matt Palmer ● 962d

Now we have serious health threats from climate change:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63386814However, our new PM doesn't think COP27 is worth attending as there are internal UK problems that need attention. Aren't our problems cause by having no forward thinking: aren't threats to the UK's health, economy, etc from global warming important internal as well as global issues? Have e stopped wanting to be world leaders

Michael Ixer ● 962d

The figures are a bit confusing. There's this from a BBC article:Oil and gas firms operating in the North Sea are taxed differently to other firms. They pay 30% corporation tax on their profits as well as a supplementary 10% rate. On top of that, they pay the windfall tax taking their total tax rate to 65%.However, firms have been able to reduce the amount of tax they pay by factoring in losses or spending on things like decommissioning North Sea oil platforms. It means that in recent years, the likes of BP and Shell have paid almost no tax in the UK.My understanding was that meant it only applied to profits on the North Sea element of the profits, which they'd need to account for separately. I'd have thought as I think Shell is now registered in the UK they'd pay corporation tax on profits anyway, but I'm not sure of the details. Their foreign exploration licences may require them to be taxed locally in which case I don't think they'd be double taxed.

Michael Ixer ● 962d

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-living-support/energy-profits-levy-factsheet-26-may-2022they dont get away scot free

Adam Tripp ● 962d

I thought the £95b quoted was the worldwide profits. But if that's just GB then a question to be answered yes indeed.

Andy Pike ● 962d

Andy. As I understand it Richard's and my post only referred to Sunak's windfall tax and corresponding relief which just applies to UK profits, not to profits taxed elsewhere.

Michael Ixer ● 962d

Have to be careful here as Shells profits are their total world wide profits and they are taxed in the various countries where those profits are earned. Not right for UK  govt to tax them again on their foreign earnings. No doubt someone has been able to come up with the profit made on their UK business on which they pay 40% normal tax and 25% windfall . Could be a case to argue that the windfall should increase but by how much 5, 10 or 15% more? What figure affects their plans to re invest in renewables? Dont know the answers personally but no doubt the headline writers dont make it look good but they could af least give all the facts.

Andy Pike ● 962d

The problem is that none of the results from this investment - like JRM's announcement of a fusion energy plant in Nottingham - is going to help the current energy crisis (and we'll be lucky if fusion is feeding energy into the grid in two decades, if it ever does). Renewables have their issues but they can be manufactured and installed relatively quick, as could installing insulation if grants we're made? Even with renewables an insulation I understand there's an issue with supply as the UK hasn't geared up for installation. Twelve years of a short sighted (non existent?) energy policy!Perhaps the tax relief should be limited to investment n green energy sources? Once new fossil fuel resources are developed companies are going to want to sell their products - it doesn't bode well for reducing global warming :-(

Michael Ixer ● 962d