Newsbytes from Dr. Benny Peiser at The GWPF:
Power companies were under mounting pressure last night to come clean about the green ‘stealth levies’ secretly added to fuel bills – and tell customers exactly how much they are paying for Britain’s climate change revolution. Consumer groups and MPs say energy suppliers should be forced to lay out on household bills how much customers are paying to subsidise green power and to end the UK’s dependence on coal, oil and gas. Energy minister Charles Hendy said: ‘I would welcome more companies including cost breakdowns on bills.’ —David Derbyshire, Daily Mail, 10 June 2011
People are having to pay more and more for climate change policies – but you won’t find any mention of them on most bills. That suits the Government because if politicians had to raise money for wind farms and other green policies by taxation, it would be incredibly unpopular. –Benny Peiser, Daily Mail, 10 June 2011
The U.K. cut subsidized rates for electricity from solar panels by as much as 71 percent, trying to avoid a proliferation of commercial solar farms that would compete with homes for the funding. The U.K. follows Spain, Germany and Italy in slashing solar tariffs to reduce costs for consumers and utilities that have to pay the higher expense of clean energy. Britain, the smallest market of the group and the latest to introduce subsidies, was the quickest to backpedal. “In terms of a solar industry that’s a generation industry at scale rather than a lifestyle choice, it’s pretty much dead,” said Mark Shorrock. —Bloomberg, 9 June 2011
Declaring that “science is politics in climate change; climate science is politics”, Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh on Wednesday urged Indian scientists to undertake more studies and publish them vigorously to prevent India and other developing countries from being “led by our noses by Western (climate) scientists who have less of a scientific agenda and more of a political agenda”. —Indian Express, 9 June 2011
To find a remedy for New York State’s persistent fiscal problems, New Yorkers need only look down-far down. Over the period 2011 to 2020, New York State could gain $11.4 billion in economic output, 90,000 to 108,000 new jobs, and $1.4 billion in tax revenues. –Diana Furchtgott-Roth, RealClear Markets, 9 June 2011
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
mike g says:
June 10, 2011 at 2:06 pm
“@Tom in Florida
You live in a closet, or what? 731 KWh won’t run an air conditioner all month where I live. More like 1800 KWh just for the AC on a “good cents” home.”
I live in a modest sized home near the Gulf of Mexico with a nice sea breeze most days. My thermostat is set at 83F and I open windows at night to let the breezes in. But then I am a true warmer, I like it warm and toasty. Normally I do not use my a/c until around 10 AM and on days when my wife and I are not home the windows are open and the a/c off.
@ur momisugly Tom in Florida
Your expenses don’t add up.
Actual electric charges 66.30
On call credit 9.50 CR
Storm charge 0.84
Gross receipts tax 1.56
Franchise charge 3.93
Total 63.13
Electric service amount 69.47**
Your bill is 69.47 but the charges add up to 63.13. What else are they charging you?
Our district is categorizing expeditures as ‘regulatory compliance’ if they are primarily caused by government mandates. The goal is to inform our rate-payers so they can help themselves by pushing back on the state and federal requirements that are growing. New requirements are often very high cost for little additional benefit. The state of California is pushing new requirements for us that are well beyond the federal standards. As a result, we are forced to spend many millions of dollars in the next few years to deal with just this one issue. Our small population of less than 30,000 rate payers should not have to pay to jump over a new hurdle that recently was adequate, and to meet the new standard that is not supported by current science. Well, that’s California for you. The regulators add burdens, assuming taxpayers are an endless source of new revenue. We are forced to pass it along. Putting this regulatory compliance cost information right in the bill is a good step forward in fighting back.
By the way Tom in Florida: My thermostat is set to 90, and I usually can’t run the AC except for a few hours from 3pm until maybe 6pm or my electric bills will triple. Time of use metering might make it impossible to use my AC at all (well, except when I don’t need it). These are man made regulatory costs deliberately imposed to force us to accept more government control. Climate hysteria is necessary to justify these measures, and they are only needed because of climate responses. Destroy that justification and the rest falls apart.
It will be possible to calculate the number of senior citizens killed each winter by fuel price increases,and how much of that is directly attributable to carbon tax.
We then have a figure for how many old,cold and poor the environmentalists kill (cull?) every year.
Best not to hold our breaths,I suspect we wont get the chance to accuse the green party of murdering the disadvantaged.
Norwegian Ambassador to U.S. speaks on climate change in Bozeman
[03.06.2011, 06:09am, Fri. GMT]
Norwegian drivers pay $12 per gallon for gasoline due to carbon emission taxes. Norway takes a very strong stance on reducing their contribution to global climate change. The Norwegian Ambassador to the United States spoke in Bozeman on the issue Thursday. The conversation focused on making green initiatives economically viable. Nobel Prize recipient and University of Montana Climate Scientist Steve Running acknowledged a bit of poor timing. His talk centering on Montana drying up from climate change came at the same time as Montana’s widespread flooding. But he urged the audience to look at long term trends, not the weather variables of one year to another.
“As amazing as this year has been so far, it tells me nothing about climate,” Running said.
There was talk of science, but also talk of economics–talk coming from a conservative. American Action Forum President Douglas Holtz-Eakin has worked in two Whitehouses and was a leader in John McCain’s presidential campaign.
He believes current policies around green energy need serious tinkering to be successful.
“We certainly don’t want to continue to do what we’re doing with green energy, which is a hodge-podge of subsidies and tax credits that don’t make any economic sense,” he said.
He advocated putting a tax on carbon, which he says would provide better incentive for people to buy green. He said republicans should support that as a core piece of their philosophy.
“Conservatives are willing to do the hard things in the present for the preservation of freedoms and enhancement of securities in the future. That’s the nature of what we’ve always said we believe in,” Holtz-Eakin said.
http://www.norwaynews.com/en/~view.php?72Ua554lJ64833w285Fkh844UR3887QN76DCi353N9x8
@Tom in Florida
I have to ask if you work for FPL and are promoting On Call – because in the fine print it says
This program is subject to modification or cancellation at any time without notice. *Savings may vary depending on the options you choose. **Central heating units must accompany another qualifying appliance. ***During system emergencies (e.g. extreme weather conditions and capacity shortages as determined by FPL), On Call may be activated for extended periods of time which may exceed your enrollment agreement. However, if for any reason, you are not satisfied with the program, you may cancel at any time by just giving us a call. ****Customers that discontinue participating in the program must wait one year to re-enroll. *****Credits can’t exceed 40% of the non-fuel energy charge.
Your post says “I have the on call device on my electric water heater only.” but the fine print states central heating units must accompany other appliances.
You say you get a $9.50 credit, but the fine print says credits can’t exceed 40% of the non-fuel energy charge. I don’t see what your non-fuel energy charge is, is it at least $23.75?
I’ll give FPL credit, at least it is better than California, where they force similar conditions on your electricity consumption without paying you, but still, electricity is too important a commodity to sell away your rights for so little.
Gary D. says:
June 10, 2011 at 5:26 pm
“@Tom in Florida
I have to ask if you work for FPL and are promoting On Call ”
You gave me a good chuckle with that one. No I do not work for FPL. I only included the explanation about the On Call for those who may not know what the charge meant on the bill. I have not actually read the fine print myself but it is rare that it is used and the device is only attached to the line that supplies the water heater. I have had my a/c unit replaced since then and there was no other connection to it for that purpose.
The breakdown of the “electric service amount” of $69.47 is as follows: (cut and pasted from bill)
“The electric service amount includes the following charges:
Customer charge: $5.90 per month
Fuel: $28.87
(First 1000 kWh at $0.039500)
(Over 1000 kWh at $0.049500)
Non-fuel: $34.70
(First 1000 kWh at $0.047480)
(Over 1000 kWh at $0.057480)”
No other motives here, just curious about the comparison to others around the world on pricing and taxes.
Gary D. says:
June 10, 2011 at 4:33 pm
“@ur momisugly Tom in Florida
Your expenses don’t add up.
Actual electric charges 66.30
On call credit 9.50 CR
Storm charge 0.84
Gross receipts tax 1.56
Franchise charge 3.93
Total 63.13
Electric service amount 69.47**
Your bill is 69.47 but the charges add up to 63.13. What else are they charging you?”
I think the descriptions of charges may not be clear. The electric service amount charges are $69.47 and are the sum of three charges: a customer charge, fuel charge and a non-fuel charge. The amount I actually have to pay is described as “Actual electric charges”. That is $66.30 after the On Call credit and other charges are applied to the electric service amount charge.
It would appear that at long last the UK MSN are finally waking up to the scam! Both the Daily Mail and The Telegraph have editorials on the costs of the insanity. The old BBC keeps plugging the CAGW though. Yesterday was amusing with a report on the current drought there, proceeded by the weather report showing showers all over the UK! The drought report was accompanied by the usual bunch of faceless people claiming more droughts due to “Climate Change”, with no one allowed to challenge them.
I dislike the Daily (hate)Mail and all it represents, but was delighted to see that it was the paper that chose to start this reversal of opinion. It does claim to speak for ‘real England’ and on this, there is a chance that if they do continue to provide evidence of how much this heavily indebted government is spending to try to stop global temps ever changing again, there may be enough ire to change things.
@TerryS says: June 10, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Thanks for link. But it would be very interesting how much more “Greenie” stealth taxation is lurking in some of the other slices of the pie chart.
“Wholesale Electricity” and “Delivery to your home” must also include their own sacrifices to the Great God Gaia!
The Government (and the previous bunch of incompetents and crooks) have been exceptionally careful to hide how much money they are stealing from you. I find it amazing that the energy companies, repeatedly castigated by the very politicians who have set this juggernaut in motion, don’t make it more transparent how much money people are paying.
We do know that the Government’s own estimate of the cost of the Climate Change Act 2008 is £18.4 Billion every year until 2050. That money has to come from somewhere.
IF UK PLC was being run as a company, I have little doubt that the board of directors would have placed the Climate Change Act on hold for the length of this Parliament. Given (1) the size of the deficit and the need to address the same; and (2) the fact that warming has stalled (may be only temporarily) since 1998 such that we have been given more time to act; and (3) the small size of UK emissions, it makes no difference to global temperatures what the UK does or does not do; even a total decarbonisation of the economy will have no measurable downward movement on temperatures. Any sane board would have not increased spending on oversaes aid and halted expenditure on Climate Change and directed the money saved into reducing the deficit. At the start oif the next Parliament (5 years time), the matter would be reviewed once more. If global temperatures are stil salled at this time, it may be an easy decision to continue with the ‘on hold’ policy.
Unfortunately, the UK is not governed by those who are capable of running a successful and profitablke business and instead is run by people with little or no business experience and whose judgment is clouded by ideology (and in some instances by self interest).
Recycle valuable metals yourself. 600Kg of steel got me £165 a few weeks ago. Copper, brass and alumimium gets even more per Kg. Do not let LA waste your money.
Hard hitting pieces from UK heavyweights today in The Daily Telegraph and widely read tabloid Daily Mail, summarised here with links.
http://thepurplescorpion.blogspot.com/2011/06/balls-and-greenballs.html
Electricity Bill from Ontario, Canada. April 6/11 to May9/11
Metered usage=639.73 kWh
Adjusted Usage=639.73×1.02-699kWh
WInter On Peak (till May 1) 127.47 kWh@9.9 cents=12.62
Winter Mid Peak 98.91 kWh@8.1 cents=8.01
Winter Off-Peak 370.38 kWh@5.1 cents=18.89
Summer On Peak (after May 1) 8.16 kWh@10.7 cents-=.87
Summer Mid Peak 10.14 kWh@8.9 cents =.90
Summer Off-Peak 83.52 kWh@5,9 cents=4.93
Total Electricity= 46.22
Delivery=61.98
Regulatory Charges=4.99
Debt Retirement Charge=4.48
HST=15.30
Total $132.97
TerryS
Sorry for not getting back earlier. Here is an article on energy subsidies for nuclear:
http://www.sustainableplant.com/2011/04/nuclear-power-subsidies-the-gift-that-keeps-on-taking/
http://scotland.wwf.org.uk/wwf_articles.cfm?unewsid=4931
Energy from fossil fuel gets 12 times more in subsidies worldwide than sustainable energy, says a new report from the USC Marshall School of Business:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/11/clean-energy-gets-less-subsidies-investment-than-fossil-fuels-says-report.html
On top of these externalities, in the article from Nordex’s Ralf Sigrist the author argues, “The Environmental Law Institute has calculated $70 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels in the period of 2002-2008, in the form of tax breaks, direct spending and even health care costs, like the treatment of black lung disease for coal miners. If those subsidies were to vanish, shock waves would surely shake the nation out of its energy apathy, and we would understand the value of a kilowatt-hour. Renewable alternatives like wind would suddenly look like a bargain deal.”
http://www.windpowerengineering.com/clean-energy-standard/heavily-subsidized-fossil-fuels-lead-to-uneven-energy-pricing-models/
Finally, from 2010, an excellent OECD report calculates and assesses a wide range of different subsidies:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/5/45575666.pdf
From paul on June 13, 2011 at 4:19 am:
Who made that report? (bold added)
Certainly makes said report look less authoritative, and adds to what I’ve been hearing for years about the MBA being a highly-oversold degree, it’s better to hire those with real-world experience.
For that “12 times” figure with actual numbers I recommend this 2010 Bloomberg article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-12-times-support-for-renewables-study-shows.html
Let’s add in some numbers from a 2010 article on a renewable energy site:
http://www.renewablepowernews.com/archives/1413
To note it, there’s obviously some rounding issue there keeping the numbers from adding up exactly, but 88% and 7% are close enough for this.
So to put it in the proper perspective of subsidies per energy produced:
$557 billion/88 = $6.33 billion per percent of global energy production for fossil fuels.
Going with the average, $44.5 billion/7 = $6.36 billion per percent of global energy production for renewables.
Thus renewables and fossil fuels are receiving about the same amount of subsides for the energy produced, not the “12 times!” that’s been claimed by looking only at the dollar amounts without considering actual amounts of energy produced.
There are distortions in there that should be noted, such as “renewables” that don’t receive subsidies such as firewood and dung, which means the well-noted renewables such as wind and solar actually receive higher per-item subsidies. And among the often-mentioned “tax breaks for fossil fuels” are equipment depreciation and other things that are not exclusive to fossil fuel producers and are claimed by businesses in general, which should properly be subtracted from figures of “fossil fuel subsidies.”
Ah, where’s Smokey when you need him? He loves smashing bogus Green claims like you’ve provided!