Energy and climate policy: Remarks from UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond | LIVE EVENT

In both the United Kingdom and the United States, industry and governments face a challenge: tackling climate change while keeping energy bills down and the lights on.

Join AEI as the UK’s Foreign Secretary, the Right Honorable Philip Hammond MP, speaks about conservative beliefs in innovation and free markets — and how they shape his approach to the risks and opportunities of a changing climate.

Join the conversation on social media with #HammondAtAEI.

Subscribe to AEI's YouTube Channel

Like us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

For more information

Photo credit
Foreign Secretary on government response to Tunisia attack (Flickr)

[royalwins]

it's hard to believe government forcing producers to buy another resource (carbon credits) will make them more productive. I just don't accept the premise that we should give governments huge power over energy to solve a problem which (if it even exists) the market will handle in its own efficient way. cronyism

[jdraven]

And my God, "Heat stress making parts of the world uninhabitable" (which the speaker states more than once with great seriousness) does NOT result from a 2 degrees Celsius rise in global average temperatures...unless of course you are relying on maps like the one linked below, and take the predictions therein as if they were established fact:


Note too how the makers of the map couldn't stick to the rise of 2C per Century in the map title (which seems generally regarded as the worst global warming predicted), the catastrophic events they predict are based on 4C or more...

[jdraven]

All respect to the speaker, but he does not differ one iota from the left in accepting and promoting the idea that climate change is entirely man-caused, due entirely to carbon release by human activities, etc. Having accepted every last aspect of "the sky is falling" dogma and then saying that business should rush forward and do to themselves what the government would force, is by no means a fundamentally different approach than the left has to the issue.

Strange too how he notes anything from the Ronald Reagan era, when some of the same climate scientists back then were promoting the idea of a new Ice Age (then Global Warming, then "Climate Change.")

[silverviking]

none of this has been prooved by the latest figures. he should look at the figures again, because this is the only hot air he is talking about. no on has taken into account the human population; it has grown expedentially and with no serios killing by massive wars, humans have to be taken into the mix, but this factor is totally ignored by every group that is doing the figures that are being looked at