BP: CO2 reduction efforts futile

Forecasts 25% rise in annual CO2 emissions by 2035

BP-LogoSubmitted by Eric Worrall –

BP has controversially predicted that the huge rise in energy demand over the next 20 years can only be met with fossil fuels.

According to BP;

“Rising global demand for energy over the next two decades is at odds with the fight against climate change, the head of BP said on Tuesday, as he outlined the oil giant’s forecasts showing unsustainable increases in carbon emissions.

BP’s annual energy outlook predicted that the world economy would double in size in the next 20 years, resulting in demand for energy rising by almost 40%. The company said two-thirds of this demand would be met from fossil fuels – oil, gas and coal – and that this would lead to a 25% increase in carbon emissions.

BP said slower growth in China and India coupled with greater energy efficiency would mean that demand would rise by 1.5% a year over the next two decades, rather than the 2.5% a year recorded during the past decade.


From BP’s forecast paper:

Fossil fuels are projected to provide the majority of the world’s energy needs, meeting two-thirds of the increase in energy demand out to 2035. However, the mix will shift. Renewables and unconventional fossil fuels will take a larger share, along with gas, which is set to be the fastest growing fossil fuel, as well as the cleanest, meeting as much of the increase in demand as coal and oil combined. Meanwhile, coal is now expected to be the slowest growing fuel, as industrialization in emerging Asian economies slows and environmental policies aroundthe globe tighten.

That brings us to the environmental challenge. The most likely path for carbon emissions, despite current government policies and intentions, does not appear sustainable. The projections highlight the scale of the challenge facing policy makers at this year’s UN-led discussions in Paris. No single change or policy is likely to be sufficient on its own. And identifying in advance which changes are likely to be most effective is fraught with difficulty.

BP-2035-forecastSource: http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Energy-economics/energy-outlook-2015/Energy_Outlook_2035_booklet.pdf

Any national effort to cut CO2 emissions will be a futile waste of time, if BP forecasts are correct.

The desire of people in poor countries to industrialise, and create economic opportunities for their children, is irrepressible.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 18, 2015 12:29 am

reality is setting in:
17 Feb: Reuters: Valerie Volcovici: U.S. EPA chief hints at softening carbon rule interim timeline
The Environmental Protection Agency said on Tuesday that it may ease an interim deadline for states to meet tougher carbon emission standards after regulators and electric utilities complained a lack of time may destabilize electricity supplies.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told an audience of state utility regulators meeting in Washington that she was giving them a “big hint” the agency may loosen the interim targets set in its proposed rule for existing power plants, under which each state would need to show an assigned average emission reduction between 2020 and 2029…
Janet McCabe, assistant administrator for air and radiation at the EPA, confirmed later in the day that the EPA may revisit the timeline, noting a change in the interim target “was very much on the table.”…
18 Feb: Bloomberg: Mark Drajem: EPA Considers Delaying Carbon Deadline After Utilities Object
McCarthy said the EPA is unwilling to eliminate interim benchmarks altogether because the agency wants to ensure states are on a “glide path” to hit the 2030 target. The final rule will be released after the middle of this year, she said…

Bubba Cow
Reply to  pat
February 18, 2015 2:44 am

While I’ll take any small slice of a window to shove at the mad hatter (Bernie Sanders – who will just rant louder with exaggerated hand waving) to slow down bird and bat beaters in VT and argue that intermittent and failed technology off the ridges, why should anyone listen to, much less abide, the EPA?
CO2 is a pollutant? Is the Carbon Cycle no longer taught/learned in grade school?
Will McCarthy need to burn more carbon to revisit the Vatican?

Reply to  Bubba Cow
February 18, 2015 2:49 am

CO2 is not a pollutant, so relax. CO2 does not drive climate change so let the developing countries develop.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Bubba Cow
February 18, 2015 3:10 am

John – I know, you know, and we know that CO2 is plant food, but I watched a generation of college students yesterday rise to the carbon pollution BS at a Bernie affair in VT on his way to stump in Iowa for his insane dream of becoming POTUS – he is truly delusional, a very animated useful idiot. Boggles my mind that parents, who also must not know, spend so much money to send kids to college for what?
I asked after his carbon footprint (hey, why not?). Didn’t think his face could get redder.

DD More
Reply to  pat
February 18, 2015 6:10 am

Pat, nothing like putting a little distance between EPA’s actions and the low-info people seeing the results. “Gee, it couldn’t have been our rules, look how long ago that was.”

JJM Gommers
February 18, 2015 12:30 am

The energy issue is an economical and logistic problem, relatively short term, not a climate problem

Reply to  JJM Gommers
February 18, 2015 1:31 am

I agree.
And, while there inevitably are undesirable side effects to the functioning of our society, a humanity twice as wealthy as it is today represents an unimaginable leap forward. We will yet get to see far greater advances that we’ve seen so far. I’m looking forward to that.

Reply to  Brute
February 18, 2015 4:28 am

The growing energy demand for fossil fuels is why the latest campaign to boycott fossil fuels in the UK is futile. The world is NOT just Western Europe and the USA. World population will continue to grow until at least 2050 (UN says 2100) so there you have it.

Renewables and unconventional fossil fuels will take a larger share, along with gas, which is set to be the fastest growing fossil fuel,….

Don’t you just love the way BP mixed its sentence?
Here is the track record of renewables.

Roger Pielke Jr – 9 July 2013
“Clean Energy Stagnation
Growth in Renewables Outpaced by Fossil Fuels
The world was moving faster towards reducing its reliance on carbon intensive energy consumption in the 1970s and 1980s than in the past several decades. In fact, over the past 20 years there has been little if any progress in expanding the share of carbon-free energy in the global mix. Despite the rhetoric around the rise of renewable energy, the data tells a far different story……
The figure above shows the proportion of global energy consumption that comes from carbon-free sources. These sources include nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass……
However, since 1999 the proportion of carbon-free energy in the global mix has dropped slightly…….”

Now imagine if the Greens were given their wish and nuclear plants were all closed down – it would be even worse.

Reply to  Brute
February 18, 2015 4:31 am
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Brute
February 18, 2015 9:42 am

“Carbon Free” might have a stable and therefore useful definition, but “renewable” is mangled to mean different things depending on the speaker. It tends to end up meaning “anything except all those evil energy sources I don’t like”. I’ll bet virtually all that “carbon free” energy is nuclear or hydro.
In fact, here’s the link which proves that: http://jmkorhonen.net/2013/07/12/the-stagnation-of-clean-energy-with-more-detail/
Green-approved(™) renewable energy sources amount to roughly 2% of the world’s energy consumption.

Reply to  Brute
February 18, 2015 10:50 am

jimbo – Mixed indeed. What about “The most likely path for carbon emissions, despite current government policies and intentions, does not appear sustainable.“. What on Earth does that mean? Does it mean that if we follow the most likely path – more fossil fuel use – then we won’t be able to sustain the resulting high CO2 emissions (presumably because at some time we hit Peak Fossil Fuel?), or does it mean that government policies are unsustainable (the sentence used does not mean that, not in my version of English)?
My interpretation is that BP knew they had to use the buzzwords CO2 emissions and sustainability, in order to avoid criticism, and carefully chose a meaningless set of words that looked good enough to persuade those that needed persuading that these “important” subjects had been addressed.
When will the madness end…..

February 18, 2015 12:39 am

The solution always seems to come back around to reducing the population. In fact, the call to reduce CO2 is mainly just an excuse to greatly restrict the use of fossil fuels, which they know will have the effect of reducing the world’s population.

Reply to  Louis
February 18, 2015 1:37 am

Agreed. I have heard it said that progressives love humanity but hate people.

Reply to  markstoval
February 18, 2015 2:23 am

I don’t allow them to use that word. The Regressives destroyed Australia in just one term of govt, by going back to the past. 1970s industrial relations law, 1980s border protection, 1960s gender wars, 1970s fiscal policy, and 13th century energy policy. Nothing they represent is in any way related to progress, nothing new was introduced (if you exclude Pink Batts – also a 1970s idea).

Reply to  markstoval
February 18, 2015 9:37 am

What’s interesting when talking with one of those progressive’s (misinformed believers in stupid stuff), is asking them who should die first? Who will chose? If you believe, why don’t you voluntarily neutralize yourself? After all, it is so noble to save the planet. Cheers!

Reply to  markstoval
February 18, 2015 10:54 am

Andrew is right. “Progressive” is incorrect. Use “Regressive” or “Repressive”. (I find it all depressive).

February 18, 2015 12:42 am

***new CAGW meme. we must listen to Big Oil…..and invest more in renewables:
18 Feb: UK Indepedent: James Moore: Deflation? Let’s worry about our carbon footprint instead
As we ought to know by now, there is a drawback to using oil to fuel anything. In the case of cars, it comes in the form of pollution and carbon emissions…
BP warns of this in its Energy Outlook 2035. The report highlights that much of the production boom that has helped to send prices into a tailspin has been driven by North America’s enthusiasm for fracking, a process that is facilitating the energy independence that US security hawks have long craved. But fracking’s growth is slowing…
The renewables sector is also becoming increasingly important and economically attractive. Despite critics complaining about the subsidies handed to it (while turning a blind eye to subsidies given to fossil fuel producers), renewables are getting cheaper and the process is accelerating. As operators learn by doing, costs are coming down…
***These are welcome developments, but more investment is required.
When oil producers start twitching about the impact on the environment of their energy projections, if they come to pass, we really ought to hear what they are saying…
There are signs that other sectors are similarly concerned: the insurance industry, in particular. But even so, we are still planning to pump a staggering amount of carbon into the atmosphere over the next 20 years. The impact of that may be far more economically malign than a bit of inflation. Or a bit of deflation.

Reply to  pat
February 18, 2015 2:12 am

Atmospheric CO2 is entirely beneficial.
It is the basis for life. All flora and fauna flourish under higher levels of CO2.
It is a plant fertilizer and increases agricultural yields, a most important benefit in view of the world’s burgeoning population.
It is also said to raise minimum temperatures and provide some measure of relief from the miseries of winter in the higher latitudes, although there is no evidence of such effect yet.
Do not listen to the climate alarmists.

Reply to  pat
February 18, 2015 5:54 am

And as we emit that staggering amount of carbon, the world’s flora will absorb that staggering amount of carbon, whilst emitting a staggering amount of oxygen and producing an incalculable quantity of food to feed the world’s fauna. On the down side, the temperature of the earth’ s atmosphere may increase a few hundredths of a degree.

Reply to  Spartan79
February 18, 2015 10:59 am

An increase of a few hundredths of a degree is upside, though modest. Current understanding is that downside doesn’t start until the increase tops something like 2 degrees.

Phil Cartier
Reply to  pat
February 18, 2015 12:04 pm

In the USA a report by the Environmental Law Institute laid out the following figures: over 7 years the cumulative subsidy for fossil fuels was $10.1 avg. billion per year. For renewable energy, including ethanol, the subsidy was $2.9 avg. billion per year. That sounds rather asymmetric until you factor in the amount produced. USA energy usage 78.3% fossil fuel, 12% nuclear, and 1% renewable. Or renewables received $290 per unit vs $13 per unit for fossil fuels. Yes fossil fuels received many more dollars, but the subsidies covered many, many more units. Renewables got ~22 times the subsidy.
I have seen all to much of this kind of propaganda in environmental studies of any kind over the years. Our own Environmental Protection Agency does it all the time.

Reply to  Phil Cartier
February 18, 2015 12:25 pm

Exxon Mobil paid over $31 billion dollars in Federal Tax in 2012. Did they get a subsidy?

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Phil Cartier
February 27, 2015 7:50 am

Most of the so called subsidy to fossil fuels comes in the form of a tax deduction under Internal Revenue Code § 199 which provides a deduction for “domestic production activities”. A deduction is not a true subsidy because it only allows the taxpayer to retain his own profits. Further, the deduction cannot reduce the tax owed below zero. The section 199 deduction is fairly small and is intended to level the playing field between manufacturing business and service and financial businesses, and between domestic and foreign production.
The subsidies paid to wind, solar, and ethanol are true subsidies because they are paid regardless of profits.
The “Environmental Law Institute” whoever they may be (they may be a front for Rosneft and Gazprom), has issued a political screed intended to propagandize for subsidies to wind, solar, and ethanol, and attack domestic fossil fuel producers.

February 18, 2015 12:55 am

Rising global demand for energy over the next two decades is at odds with the fight against climate change, the head of BP said on Tuesday, as he outlined the oil giant’s forecasts showing unsustainable increases in carbon emissions.

On what ‘authority’ are increases in carbon emissions unsustainable? Certainly not ‘climate science’ ®

Reply to  Streetcred
February 19, 2015 1:37 pm

He who commands the Army rules the land (is King).
But an army marches on its stomach, so he who controls the food rules the land.
But agriclture is dependent on fuels, so he who produces the fuels controls the food supply,
so controls the fighting ability of armies, so rules the land.
BP is King.

Reply to  Sleepalot
February 19, 2015 2:39 pm

BP has a long history of supporting guerrilla wars in west Central Africa to protect its oil interests.

February 18, 2015 12:59 am

McCarthy said the EPA is unwilling to eliminate interim benchmarks altogether because the agency wants to ensure states are on a “glide path” to hit the 2030 target.

McCarthy best be careful that she doesn’t find her touche on “a glide path” to gaol long before 2030!

M Courtney
February 18, 2015 1:20 am

That all sounds reasonable.
And as China and India won’t worry about their emissions targets then the story is – the world is getting richer.
This is a good thing.

February 18, 2015 1:40 am

The CAGW “scientists” can now climb back into their lab coats, stop playing at being propagandists, shut up and get on with serious alternative energy research – after all, THAT (real results) is what you are actually being paid for!

Phil R
Reply to  cnxtim
February 20, 2015 4:54 am


The CAGW “scientists” can now climb back into their lab coats, stop playing at being propagandists…

The most depressing thing is, they’re not playing.

February 18, 2015 1:42 am

BP used to be conflicted as to how to deal with greenmail at a high level. The company at one time had a greenish marketing campaign called, “BP: Beyond Petroleum”. They would trot this out on NPR and PBS stations, and brag about some windmill or solar panel scam they were funding. This way they could be a “nice” big oil wicked company for the shakedown artists and other lefties at so-called public media. The tone of this report sounds like they are possibly getting over the conflict, but the tone of this report still kow tows to the greens far too much by tacitly accepting the alarmist premise far too much.

Dodgy Geezer
February 18, 2015 1:51 am

“…BP has controversially predicted that the huge rise in energy demand over the next 20 years can only be met with fossil fuels….”
This is GREAT news for environmental activists!
They WANT there to be lots of fossil fuel use. Otherwise there would be nothing to protest about, and no funds for them. And having BP point this out is even better – now they can claim that it’s all BP’s fault…

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
February 19, 2015 4:19 am

@Dodgy, and here I have been led to believe it was all Bush’s fault, can’t those guys make up their minds?

February 18, 2015 1:56 am

The pause will be 38 years old in 2035. And by then only thing unsustainable will be the prophecy that CAGW is destroying the earth and mankind.
It will be filed with Paul Erlich’s ‘Club of Rome’ nonsense about unsustainable population growth.

Bubba Cow
February 18, 2015 2:34 am

I might just be thick – but what are those units on the ordinate of that lower left graph where “index 1990 = 100”? 100 whats?
And it projects GDP is going to be great. Not a big fan of GDP either – unless perhaps this suggests lots of product for the people.

Reply to  Bubba Cow
February 18, 2015 7:46 pm

Bubba Cow: What the graph is saying is that in 1990 the total monetary value of, say the GDP, is a certain value. say 32 trillion dollars. Rather than using the actual dollars they assign a value of 100 to that value. Then the total value of the goods and services (aka GDP) produced in a country or the world in 2006 is now180. Rather than using the actual numbers which most people wouldn’t be able to understand. It is a lot easier to comprehend that going from 100 to 180 is a measurable increase. If I am not mistaken that indexing removes the effects of inflation ( I may be wrong on that). Or in other words the monetary value of the world GDP is now 57.6 trillion dollars.

February 18, 2015 2:41 am

If I remember Dr. Watts, you had a paper posted here not long ago, it only takes a volcano or two to wipe out any gains.
Two, it seems to me the earth and ocean are doing their job in absorbing CO2.

Dave VanArsdale
February 18, 2015 2:59 am

Pat said, “The renewables sector is also becoming increasingly important and economically attractive”
I see nothing that is either. There is only the constant and irrational chant from those who would rob us of our freedoms.

Reply to  Dave VanArsdale
February 18, 2015 8:28 am

That wasn’t Pat who said it. He merely quoted James Moore of the UK.Independent

February 18, 2015 3:06 am

In case renewable energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels, the exploitation of the fossil fuels would gradually stop, and we’d have a carbon free society. As long as the renewables are subsidised and expensive, they rise a price bar of the fossils for which exploitation became cost effective even at ridiculously expensive locations.
I fail to foresee renewables becoming any less expensive any time soon, so lets stop kidding ourselves.

February 18, 2015 3:08 am

“forecasts showing unsustainable increases in carbon emissions.”
Thankfully, CO2 output will be able to be sustained for a very long time. 🙂
Thanks to human development, the planet is not in any danger of the CO2 deprivation levels of 350ppm and below, for a very, very long time.

February 18, 2015 3:43 am

BP and other Big Oil know they are winners regardless of any political or enviro-mental movement. Plastics and lubricants alone will assure their long term profitability. They can, and will sit back and patiently wait this all out, knowing any new technology will require massive amounts of Processed fossil fuel products.

Reply to  sully
February 19, 2015 4:28 am

Hit the nail, there few if any products we take for granted, need or our lives depend on that didn’t require processed fossil fuel. And I would love to hear which ones any those “products” are. ( a fleeting thought, there is a hole in your bucket, dear greenies, dear greenies, a hole in your in your bucket)

February 18, 2015 3:52 am

The CAGW hype and fears of future energy shortages are moot.
China’s thorium reactor program recently cut 15 years off its development plan, and now expects to have a commercial thorium reactor design ready for large-scale rollout by 2024; just 9 years away.
China’s first test thorium reactor goes online this year….
The thorium paradigm shift will be impressive.

February 18, 2015 3:58 am

BP should have stated the least expensive way to meet energy needs is using hydrocarbons. However, if we spent only 1/3 of what the politicians are tossing their Green Energy boondogglers building nuke plants with hydrocarbon manufacturing plants, we’d be able to provide electrical and hydrocarbon energy. When thorium is ever developed, we’re be able to produce energy up to the time the Sun eats the Earth after it’s helium cycle.
BP just might have more interest in hydrocarbon extraction than manufacturing.

February 18, 2015 4:25 am

Interestingly, according to an internal memo to employees before the BP Energy report was published, two very telling statements were there in black and white from the CEO; “……coal is to be the slowest growing [note the word growing, not reducing] of the three fossil fuels…” and more telling; “……a business that can be responsive to the policies that are required the world is to move towards a lower carbon economy…” not when or as.

February 18, 2015 4:26 am

a business that can be responsive to the policies that are required IF the world is to move towards a lower carbon economy…” not when or as.
bloody wordpress……

Walt D.
February 18, 2015 4:26 am

Climate change, according to the Obama Administration, is the biggest threat to national security. Actually, it is the Obama Administration’s policy that is the biggest threat. While they are subsidizing uneconomic and ineffective technologies, China and India are looking at thorium reactors.
If they succeed and develop a technology that is cheap and has a high energy density, they will have a huge economic advantage in manufacturing anything that requires a lot of energy.

Tom in Florida
February 18, 2015 4:45 am

Why don’t we just ask those in the Northeast U. S. how they about any efforts to prevent warming.

February 18, 2015 5:07 am

To control CO2 you have to follow the demand chain. It is earths vegetation driving the demand for CO2. They are forcing oil corporations to slavishly supply the means to continually increase amounts of CO2.
We demand you declare War on Plants! Get your protest posters ready!
1st poster.
Less CO2 for the plants!
More Oxygen for the people!
2nd poster
Stop the Demand!
Stop the Plants!
Reduce the CO2!
Sad to say I missed Global Divestment Day this past weekend. Since 350.org believes in divesting or ridding ourselves of fossil fuels since they are no longer needed, I am sure my posters would have been a huge hit.
…Oops meant to post this on 350.org.

Reply to  Alx
February 18, 2015 1:07 pm

TOWARDS 700+ppm CO2
CO2 : greening the world !!! http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gradds55/Itsnotwarming.jpg

February 18, 2015 6:03 am

If you are living in the brutally cold eastern half of the US, you should be thankful that those awful coal plants have been turning their generator turbines at a constant 3600 RPM’s.

February 18, 2015 7:00 am

Can anyone explain what are the supposed replacement fuels under “decarbonization” for the world’s air transport, shipping, trucking industries. Of course everyone is planning to be using driverless electric personal vehicles, even in winter in Canada and the US North East!

Gary Pearse
February 18, 2015 7:20 am

Did the BP jerks say CO2 emissions are unsustainable! His shareholders should show him the door right away.

February 18, 2015 7:27 am

Bravo BP for having the guts to say it!

Reply to  Tom G(ologist)
February 18, 2015 4:30 pm

I agree. Good for them. As a shareholder, I applaud.

michael hart
February 18, 2015 8:37 am

Why describe the prediction as “controversial”? That makes you sound like the BBC. Except to those of a green bent, BP are just voicing the obvious.
Those who really wished to significantly reduce CO2 emissions would promote the development of nuclear power. Their past obstructionist sins are coming back to haunt them.

Reply to  michael hart
February 18, 2015 1:03 pm

‘Obvious’ = => blindingly bleeding obvious.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 18, 2015 9:21 am

I suspect this means that BP does not expect to go into the wind and solar farm business.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
February 18, 2015 6:14 pm

BP once held the patents/rights for the most efficient solar panels, along with an Australian airline company (I forget which). BP sold those pantents/rights so time ago. I am sure there is a very good reason for that.

Mike Maguire
February 18, 2015 3:14 pm

I remember when we started pushing hard to increase ethanol production. . It was sold to us as a way to significantly reduce our dependency on foreign oil. A renewable energy source with less pollution and CO2 emissions. Grow locally by our farmers.
Turns out that other than rewarding our hard working farmers, ethanol from corn was one of the most ruinous energy policies ever for this country.
However, we have the ethanol plants and industry thriving today, not because it’s makes sense(it uses up natural resources and pollutes, as well as increases food prices/ takes away 30 million acres of fertile ground that could grow something else)
Now, we have a system in place that includes massive ethanol production dialed into it. Regardless of detrimental aspects, it’s here for good.
Are we headed down the same path regarding fossil fuels?
The reason to mention this, is that we can pass all sorts of regulations and shut down coal plants and increase other forms of (renewable) energy sources but if they don’t work out, there is a tendency to fight returning to the previous environment, even if it makes sense. Even if it costs more, is less efficient and even if the benefits don’t meet expectations, like corn grown for ethanol, we tend to stick with the ruinous policy.
Even when it becomes obvious that something may not have been the best idea, those that are benefiting or that have control of the new industries will do everything in their power to sustain it.

Leo Morgan
February 18, 2015 3:33 pm

Carbon Emissions Reduction is easy.
It only takes the Greens stopping their efforts to oppose Nuclear power, hydro electricity, fracking and GM crops.
Just by shutting the eff up, they will do more to cut CO2 emissions than they did with all their decades of effort in ‘renewables’ .

February 19, 2015 7:56 am

The simple proof that CO2 change does not cause climate change has been hiding in plain sight and here it is.
CO2 has been considered to be a forcing with units Joules/sec. Energy change, which is revealed by temperature change, has units Joules. Average forcing times duration produces energy change. Equivalently, a scale factor times the time-integral of the CO2 level produces the temperature change.
During previous glaciations and interglacials (as so dramatically displayed in An Inconvenient Truth) CO2 and temperature went up and down nearly together. This is impossible if CO2 is a significant forcing (scale factor not zero) so this actually proves CO2 CHANGE DOES NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE.
Application of this analysis methodology to CO2 levels for the entire Phanerozoic eon (about 542 million years) (Berner, 2001) proves that CO2 levels up to at least 6 times the present will have no significant effect on average global temperature.
See more on this and discover the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com . The two factors which explain the last 300+ years of climate change are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.

February 23, 2015 7:32 pm

Futile and the UK consumer is on the hook to pay $900Million in subsidies chasing this fools errand. Sick. These politicians should be taken to court and made to pay for their stupidity.

%d bloggers like this: