Newsbytes from Dr. Benny Peiser at the GWPF:
The British government faces a public backlash against its green energy agenda as consumers are unwilling to spend more on power and gas bills to pay for investment in low-carbon forms of energy, a parliamentary committee warned on Monday. An opinion poll published by utility Centrica last month showed only one quarter of respondents thought the government should stick to its plans for a greener economy if it means higher energy price. —Reuters, 25 July 2011
Industry faces energy price increases of up to 70 per cent as a result of new ‘green taxes’ imposed by the Government. Studies by the Energy Intensive Users Group, which represents industries such as chemicals and steel, show that the extra costs are so high that many companies may be tempted to move to countries that do not have such extreme environmental laws. —Tom McGhie, This is Money, 24 July 2011
There are some wholly implausible assumptions about the pass-through of carbon and renewable subsidy costs. Our suspicion is that DECC has massaged the figures to make the impacts look less severe. —Jeremy Nicholson, Bloomberg, 29 July 2011
If the Prime Minister wants to get involved in climate change policy he should focus on problems closer to home first. Just last week the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published a report which estimated that prices would rise for large energy intensive users by up to 52 per cent by 2020, with a central estimate of a 31 per cent rise. Unfortunately, this may be about as reliable as their farcical estimates for domestic consumers. —Matthew Sinclair, Conservative Home, 1 August 2011
The UK government has welcomed new developments in “unconventional” gas resources. It is largely a let’s-wait-and-see response, which acknowledges the economic, environmental and security benefits of shale gas. Calls from environmentalist campaigners to freeze exploration in the UK have been given the bum’s rush. ––Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 26 July 2011
Climate change is far less serious than ‘alarmists’ predict, an eminent NASA scientist has said. Dr Roy Spencer, who works on the space agency’s temperature-monitoring satellites, claimed they showed ‘a huge discrepancy’ between the real levels of heating and forecasts by the United Nations and other groups. After looking at the levels of radiation in the atmosphere over the past ten years, he believes the Earth releases a lot more heat into space than previously thought. This means carbon dioxide emissions do not trap as much heat or force temperatures up as much as global warming bodies fear. —Tamara Cohen, Daily Mail, 30 July 2011
Bystander says:
August 1, 2011 at 8:47 am
I note that everyone has just totally ignored your comment and rightfully so. Just the most prattish thing I’ve read in ages. I live in france and know better than you that electricity bills in the UK have already risen at four times the rate in france. They have exceeded 20% over the last year and will gather an extra 20% this coming year from rises already announced by the suppliers.
The government have been asking the electricity distributers to hide the green taxes in the total rate in order to deflect criticism from themselves. If the UK liberal tories continue their stupidity it willo be even worse next year. Their chancellor added a £16 a tonne tax to fossil fuels at the last finance budget which will not take effect until next year. Drax power station supplies a huge % of the UK’s power from burning coal (mostly) and wood. It’s millions of tons !!! Millions times £16 should be easy to calculate even for you.
“consumers are unwilling to spend more on power and gas bills to pay for investment in low-carbon forms of energy,”
Consumers are not allowed to buy low-carbon energy–the Khmer Vert don’t approve of nuclear. I would love to buy my electricity supplied by reliable low carbon energy, but instead face ridiculous power price increases for highly efficient wind subsidy farms. It’s a pity they’re not so good for generating electricity.
I begin to think that the curious 2011 census question about the form of home heating used was to get a preliminary estimate of how big the winter culls will be as the ever increasing numbers in fuel poverty freeze to death, increasing further when the lights start going out in a few years
If Plod or the press can pay some attention to something other than kicking Murdoch now he’s down, there at least one candidate worthy of a good kicking.
To paraphrase a famous quote:
“Will no one will rid us of this turbulent Energy Minister?”
richard verney says:
August 1, 2011 at 8:47 am
There needs to be large scale rebellion to bring the government to its sense.
If everyone refused to pay the green tax/subsidy element of their energy bill, there is little that the energy companies could do given the sheer numbers involved. This would act as a wake up call, letting everyone know precisely what the ordinary citizen thinks.
This would never happen in the UK! The british are cowardly little sheep. Rebellion is what we do in france. It is our DUTY under the constitution of the republique françaises. That’s why we don’t have a CO² tax, YET.
Latitude says:
August 1, 2011 at 9:32 am
Actually, they do care. They care enough to know if they continue stonewalling the CAGW crowd, that crowd will point the climate catastrophe gun at their own head head and pull the trigger. They care enough to know that burning fuels rich in CO2 effluent will make their crops and trees grow faster and with less water. And they care enough to know that they’ll have an economic and strategic advantage when the rest of the world hamstrings themselves with silly notions that their good example will be followed by nations they assume are non-caring.
It’s a funny world.
Oz has its convoy to Canberra, Uk on the verge or rioting over green taxes. Us Broke, Spain bankrupt. Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Italy gone (financially). You know it would have been a grand plan of the greens if they just had not run out of OPM.
I think someone needs to re-visit their history books. Rioting, revolutions and the chopping off of heads are all very British activities. It’s part of the (very) modern myth that the British don’t rebel. Some of our current parasite class would probably do well to remember that.
>>Malcolm
>> “”Khmer Vert””
LOL 😉 !!
.
malcolm says:
August 1, 2011 at 1:28 pm
To paraphrase a famous quote:
“Will no one will rid us of this turbulent Energy Minister?”
May I suggest an amendment
” will no one rid us of these turbulent Politicians”
I can only hope that the UKIP makes a lot of gains at the next election!
Isn’t this what Green Taxes are supposed to do. Make energy consumption so expensive that people cut back on their consumption.
Its not to reduce CO2 or to help the environment. It is to make people cut back on using fossil fuels (or even more to the point, to get votes from people who think it is actually about helping the environment).
As I sit in my Yurt crouched over the llama dung fire, cooking my rat leg soup, with the kids doing their global warming homework by the flickering light of the ethanol candle, I gaze at my fairtrade, ethically sourced rattan and hemp hoody with the fading greenpeace badges on the sleeves and wish to hell I had not succeeded in preventing those nuclear and coal stations being built. I wish it was more than 6/10ths of a degree warmer this century, even the damned windmill is iced up! I am definitely moving out of Basingstoke before next annual global warming temporary negatve phase. (Much easier when we just called it winter.) Must remember to pay my daily Huhne-tax tomorrow morning for the anti global warming international travel fund.
Its not just Hunhe and the Lib Dem watermelons, our Primeminister is as bad:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8673736/David-Cameron-supports-Australian-carbon-tax.html
Ralph says:
August 1, 2011 at 1:11 pm
They are not truly “green”, they are “red” in disguise … (aka “watermelons”)
Green / carbon taxes are needed to cover the costs of political welfare!
In other words, social welfare for greedy politicians and other scammers …
Maybe the point is to deliberately cause overpopulation by creating an energy grid that can no longer support us? Perhaps they want the human population to crash and burn, so that only the elite remain to build a new society based entirely upon their ideals?
Bystander says:
August 1, 2011 at 8:47 am
This looks like a cherry picking exerise. For example, in the last article cited this following from the artcile was omitted “Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said: ‘It’s a simplistic theory and we will need to look very closely at these measurements as he is far from proving conclusively that this is the cause.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020427/Climate-change-far-alarmists-predict-says-NASA-scientist.html#ixzz1TnD1vZ34
Bystander you have a real problem if you pit Bob Ward of ‘Grantham Research Institute’ against Roy Spencer of UAH. Bob Ward is totally wrong that its a ‘simple theory’ – it is a simple FACT the heat leaving the Earth measured by NASA satellites is higher than the models predict.. Observations trump models and hypotheses every time.
Born as I was in Wales it pains me to return to my homeland to find that this once mighty nation has lost the work ethic that created the “Industrial Revolution”.
Nevertheless, I still believe that the UK is capable of showing the “Renewable Energy” charlatans the door within a year. After that look out for a rebirth of nuclear power that will put the French to shame.
Here in the Land of Oz the thin air scammers have started even before the Gillard Govt’s carbon tax/ETS legislation hits the Parliament-
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/they_care_for_earthcaire/
Do follow Tim Blair’s links for a breathtaking tour of the usual.
Cameron is a failure. He thinks the UK taxpayer will keep subsidising Green garbage initiatives and we will not! He is a pale spectre of his tough pre election image. Time for some real Conservatives to take over. Eton has failed to produce any political ‘Stars’ for decades now – just Green Hysterical imitations.
No more Renewable ideas. Back to basics.
Carbon Dioxide is neither poison nor pollutant, especially to us Carbon life forms!
All Carbon compensation/footprint/trading schemes are scams.
Left Wing Academics need not apply or expect any grant monies from now on.
Pre World War Two, at a Schneider Trophy contest Lady Houston’s huge yacht was lit up with the slogan “WAKE UP ENGLAND!”
It really is time we did.
Sad. That so many who dared not act on their lawful duty to refuse to support a society that would be party to mass murder, now think that they might drive each other to rebel against a “reality” of their own making . . leaves me laughing . . . and groaning at the absolute and truly perverse stupidity of the reasons they offer for their collective failure to think. Folks . . its ‘too late’ . . . we are now on the slide ‘down’ the Hubbert Curve and you are SCR***D beyond your ability to understand, plan and re-act.
Such aside, do access http://www.medicangel.com and have a look at someone who ‘planned and prepared’ and continues to do his utmost to help those who suffer due the support of cowards for nations that would use nuclear and / or other weapons of mass murder against defenseless fellow human beings.
gallumphingdromedary;
Voting whom into office? The pols and greens have made sure there are few or no available alternatives. Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber are your choices.
Coldfinger says:
“Its not just Hunhe and the Lib Dem watermelons, our Primeminister is as bad:”
The trouble is that to Cameron and his advisers their energy policy is about “detoxifying” the Tory Party, i.e. making it acceptable to the Guardian and the BBC. Energy itself is not something they worry about because it is a technical matter and can be left, so they think, to engineers – the sort of people who get their hands dirty fixing things. A windmill is much easier to understand than a nuclear power station so if engineers are told to build windmills there should be no problems.
That’s energy sorted! Now what else should the PM be turning his mind to in order to detoxify his party’s brand?
Roy
Don’t worry the UK government has worked out how to get people out of fuel poverty :-
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/08/there-is-no-hope.html
Although your house has to be in the right place, pointing the right direction and be heavily subsidised
Don’t move to oz – they have insane Carbon “pricing” (known to non-lying scum bags of the Gillard type as taxes) and you won’t be able to afford the currency either!
The British Government has welcomed the unconventional gas exploitation. Has it? Why then have they stopped the fracking?
The British Government is short of money and has to balance the books. They are also religiously wedded to ‘Green Energy’ and it will take a seismic shift of policy to get them to change their minds(?). To get competitive again we need cheap energy. Piling on green taxes is the worse thing to do for this end.
Recent speech by Secretary of State Chris Huhne setting out the science behind UK energy policy is at
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/chsp_artsci_cc/chsp_cc.aspx
Relevant extract is below:
++++++++++
“The basics
Nearly two centuries ago, a French mathematician and physicist named Joseph Fourier wondered why the Earth was warm enough to support life.
We are the best part of 100 million miles away from the sun. The planet ought to be much colder.
Fourier considered a new possibility: that the atmosphere that we breathe also traps heat. In 1827, he described the greenhouse effect.
Let me put that into perspective. Our understanding of the greenhouse effect has been around longer than the periodic table. It predates the study of genetics and the theory of evolution.
It not only well-understood – it essential to life. Energy from the sun passes through the atmosphere and warms the earth. The earth radiates heat, which is absorbed by the trace gases in the atmosphere. The warming is fed back, and amplified. Without it, our planet would be some 33 degrees colder.
Over millennia, global temperatures and weather patterns vary. A natural equilibrium keeps it all in balance. Given enough time, Nature is largely self-correcting.
Changes
But since Fourier made his discovery, things have changed.
Much of the planet has industrialised. Its population has soared. We have moved from small scale agriculture to large scale industry. We have swapped horses for horsepower. And we are emitting more greenhouse gas than ever before.
The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is rising. Concentrations of CO2 have grown by 40% since pre-industrial times. Two thirds of that increase has happened in the last 50 years.
With all this extra greenhouse gas floating about, we would expect the Earth’s surface to get warmer. And so it has: by about 0.8 degrees in the last century.
Much of this warming has occurred in the last 50 years. From 1960, temperatures have risen at an average rate of 0.13 degrees per decade. The ten warmest years on record were all from 1998 onwards.
So the basic science is clear. It tells us these three things: greenhouse gases warm the planet. Global emissions continue to climb. And the world is warming up.
It is a compelling picture, and one supported by a growing body of evidence.
Arctic sea ice is melting. Since 1900, global sea levels have risen by more than eight inches.
Severe droughts are now twice as common as they were in 1970.
Research suggests human action doubled the risk of the 2003 European heatwave.
And climate change made the autumn 2000 floods in the UK about twice as likely.
Every major scientific institution in the world concurs: the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, the Academie des sciences. Change on this scale cannot be explained by anything else.
There is no computer model of world temperature and climate that can explain what has happened without greenhouse-gas induced global warming. None.
Unless we act to curb greenhouse gas emissions, continued warming is not a matter of speculation. It is inevitable. And scientists fear it will accelerate.
Thresholds
As temperatures rise, so does the risk of crossing dangerous thresholds in the climate system – leading to sudden, irreversible change.
The Amazon rainforest holds about 10% of all the carbon stored in ecosystems. If it dries out, scientists fear it could release more carbon than it absorbs. Warmer temperatures and more frequent droughts would kill more trees, releasing more carbon.
Arctic ice helps to regulate global temperature by reflecting sunlight back into space.
As it melts, it exposes dark ocean beneath, which absorbs more heat, melting more ice and amplifying the warming.
The dangers
We cannot risk setting off these climate chain reactions. Let us be clear: the kind of world where global warming hits three or four degrees is not the kind of world we want to live in.
It is not about sunbathing in the Scottish Highlands. It will likely be a nastier, more brutal world. Climate change above 2 degrees is called catastrophic for a reason.
Warmer air carries more water. Humidity means storms, hurricanes, flash floods.
Understanding these risks means setting aside ideology and being clear-eyed about the dangers. Forget the political posturing, and listen to the people who are paid to think about risk.
In 2009, the Association of British Insurers said – and I quote – ‘our assessment of climate change convinces us that the threat is real and is with us now’.
Last month, more than 70 European companies, including Ikea and Coca Cola, asked the European Union to aim for more ambitious carbon cuts.
Scientists tell us we must act. Businesses tell us we must act. Even militaries tell us we must act. We have a democratic responsibility to answer the call.
Government governs with the consent of the people. That consent is given only in exchange for basic assurances: that government will provide and protect. Climate change threatens our ability to do both.
Government cannot sit idle. If it were any other threat to our very existence, we would act.
We would not shirk from our duty to provide our people with clean water, or enough food, or protection from invasion. A stable climate is no different.
The deadline
Luckily, there is a growing political consensus, as we saw in Cancun; and a plan. We need to keep global warming to within 2 degrees of pre-industrial levels to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
That doesn’t sound ambitious. The kind of timescales used in climate science – looking ahead to 2050, or back to the 19th century – can give the impression that this is all quite distant.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, in our complex climate system, there is a delayed reaction between emissions and warming.
We could turn off the engine today, but the flywheel is still spinning. It will not come to rest for some time.
Temperatures have risen by 0.8 degrees already. Even if we completely stopped all emissions, today, they would still rise by about half a degree.
That takes us more than halfway toward our limit. Next time someone mentions the 2 degree limit, remember that we are already 1.3 degrees along the way.
So this is not an abstract discussion. There will come a time when it is too late to turn this thing around. That time is rapidly approaching.
If we do nothing now, it will cost us more to do something later – environmentally, economically, and politically.
Sticking to our 2 degree limit means global emissions must peak by 2020 at the latest.
To avoid radical upheaval, we need to shift the world economy onto a low-carbon path by the middle of the decade.”
(Previously posted to Tips & Notes)
Couple of points.
Firstly, the British government has belatedly seen the error of its ways regarding the ‘feed-in’ tariff for solar farms – and has slashed the figure by about 80%. Result..? No more solar farms being built from cut-off day (yesterday), because its obvious that the developers weren’t in the least interested in ‘saving the planet’ – they were simply after the money. Incidentally – I haven’t heard anyone explain what happens during the twelve hours of darkness every day – never mind cloudy/snowy days…
Secondly, surely eventually the government will realise that giving huge ‘feed-in’ payments to wind farms (from our energy bills) is equally daft; I passed a big wind farm in Cambridgeshire the other day where clearly the electricity output was…. zero. The last couple of weeks have seen the contribution from wind to electricity demand (which, being summer, is about 60% of what it is in winter) has been less than 1% – currently 0.3%.
Finally – different country, but the same planet, when I last checked. In Venezuela, gasoline is – wait for it – 1.4 British pence/2.25 US cents per litre….