UK Climate Change Chief Demands Ban on Domestic Gas

Lord Deben, source Flickr, Photographer Tale Bærland
Lord Deben, source Flickr, Photographer Tale Bærland

 Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Lord Deben, who recently faced calls to resign over a claimed conflict of interest between his role as chair of the UK Government Committee on Climate Change and his thriving green business interests, wants to ensure all new homes use expensive green electricity like the kind of electricity his businesses supply.

End of the gas hob as government advisers say new homes should be ‘off gas grid’ by 2025

Jillian Ambrose
21 FEBRUARY 2019 • 12:01AM

Gas hobs could be banned from being installed in new homes within seven years over fears that they are harming the environment.

Under new plans unveiled on Thursday by climate watchdogs no new homes will be connected to the gas grid after 2025 at the latest, in order for the UK to meet its legally binding climate targets.

The proposals, from Government’s official climate advisers, would call time on new gas radiators, boilers and cooking hobs.

The move away from gas hobs is likely to disappoint many home cooks who prefer them to electric as they find the heat is easier to control.

Instead, the Committee on Climate Change has said new homes should rely solely on low-carbon heat sources, such as electric heat pumps or district heating schemes.

Read more:

Heating a home in Britain using electricity can be very expensive, which is why a lot of people prefer gas. No doubt his Lordship will do his best to ensure poor people have adequate access to community heating schemes, like industrial cooling water, so they can heat their homes with the waste heat.

You have to admire his lordship, the way he tirelessly works to save us from the menace of climate change, both through chairing the government climate committee and through his private business efforts to make renewable energy available to everyone in Britain.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dan Sudlik
February 21, 2019 2:07 pm

Follow the money.

Chris Norman
Reply to  Dan Sudlik
February 21, 2019 2:41 pm

What legally binding climate targets?

Reply to  Chris Norman
February 21, 2019 2:52 pm

Did the UK stupidly sign up to impossible EU targets like Ireland did?

If so it won’t be long before you’ll be having the greens lying to you about inevitable unprecedented and “automatic” fines for nor reaching them.

Which is nonsense, regardless of Brexit, as there are no automatic fines.

Ireland can only be fined after a successful prosecution case from the ECJ.

Reply to  Dee
February 21, 2019 3:47 pm

We signed up to targets even more pie-in-the-sky.. I mean, “ambitious”.

Reply to  Keith
February 21, 2019 3:59 pm

This is why it’s better to be a sovereign nation. Sovereign nations can change their minds.

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  Dee
February 21, 2019 10:11 pm

Yes, the idiot PM Tony Blair signed up for 15% of the UK’s energy to come from renewable sources. He was supposed to sign up for 15% of the UK’s electricity to come from renewable sources. But he didn’t know that energy and electricity were different. It is because of idiots like him that we have stupid energy policies.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
February 21, 2019 11:49 pm

Many of the renewables supporters are under the same misconception, that wind and solar provide something like 8% of world energy. No, that’s electricity, for energy it’s more like 1%.

Since the Greens want to switch transport and heating to electricity, it’s the energy figure that matters. Oh, and achieving even that small amount has cost us the equivalent of two entire Apollo programs a year for the last decade.

Derek Colman
Reply to  Dee
February 22, 2019 5:28 pm

The UK Parliament signed the Climate Change Act 2008 which legally binds the country to make unattainable CO2 emission cuts, with only 2 MPs voting against. The cuts could only be achieved by shutting down the UK economy, and obviously illustrate the complete scientific illiteracy of our politicians.

Reply to  Chris Norman
February 21, 2019 3:41 pm

Our clever MP`s have given us the “Climate Change Act 2008”
“We are sleep-walking towards what threatens to be the greatest self-inflicted disaster this country has ever faced. And the astonishing thing is that the last people to be aware of what is going on are those politicians who have brought this about. Their brains are so addled by groupthink about climate change that, even when the lights do go out, they will still have no idea that it was entirely their own blind stupidity, which made such a catastrophe inevitable.”
Booker explains here:
It may well make you laugh but it makes me cry.

Reply to  Chris Norman
February 22, 2019 12:56 am

UK emissions were 43% below 1990 levels in 2017. The first carbon budget (2008-12) has been met and the UK is currently on track to outperform the second (2013-17) and third (2018-22) carbon budgets, but is not on track to meet the fourth, which covers the period 2023-27.

But we can do something about that…

So, these so far have been achievable climate targets, haven’t they?

Reply to  griff
February 22, 2019 1:18 am

A repeated lie is still a lie, and easily exposed as such once you factor in the CO2 reduction from exporting heavy industry.

Reply to  griff
February 22, 2019 3:13 am

Much of that reduction occurred in the 1990s, long before we had a climate policy, as a result of the dash for gas, which switched generation away from coal

Most of the rest of the reduction has come from outsourcing of industry to Asia

Don’t believe me, this is from the Tyndall Centre:

And the cost of the small saving from switching to renewables is huge – £12bn this year, or £500 per household

Paul Penrose
Reply to  griff
February 22, 2019 11:21 am

Conflating “carbon” with CO2 is just one of the lies you constantly tell, griff.

Reply to  griff
February 23, 2019 2:18 am

If I take griff at his word, it seems to me then that the UK has already done more than its fair share of reduction. Anything further is clearly an attempt to drive people back into caves and kill them off before they are 30 years old.

Griff, I believe you, no go and preach your words in china and don’t leave until you get the same results there. No really, DO NOT LEAVE China.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  Dan Sudlik
February 21, 2019 4:31 pm

“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
P. J. O’Rourke

Ron Long
Reply to  Dan Sudlik
February 21, 2019 4:43 pm

Congratulations, Dan. You obviously were paying attention when your parents explained to you how to understand politicians.

February 21, 2019 2:09 pm

Years of inbreeding has reduced the IQ level of occupants of the House of Lords to the present level where they can can understand nothing except how to gather money for themselves.

Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 21, 2019 2:51 pm

I don’t think it’s about IQ or hording money, but is the result of pride. Many ideologues on both sides are deluded into thinking that what they’re doing is for the greater good and that any financial benefit they gain is their reward for a job well done.

None the less, he’s going down the wrong path, since if the effects of CO2 were actually as dire as he thinks, governments should be more concerned about preparation, rather than whining about an unstoppable cause, which for all intents and purposes is a global desire for an increased standard of living. Since even the lower bound of what the IPCC claims can occur exceeds the limitations of the laws of physics, what we really need to be concerned about is the harm to agriculture once we stop enriching the atmosphere with a vital nutrient.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 22, 2019 12:22 am

It’s the House of Commons, where this originated.
The majority of Peers are now Life Peers, appointed to their jobs, by whatever Government is in power, under the “Honours List” system.

One reason we’ve got the likes of “Lord Deben”, formerly known as John Selwyn-Gummer.
Another gem, is Baroness Worthington. It is she that was the lead author of the ruinous 2008 Climate Change Act & advised the Primeminsiter at the time, Ed Milliband. Her history, from Wiki is this.
“Bryony Worthington was born and grew up in Wales,[4] and graduated in English literature at Queens’ College, Cambridge,[5] before joining Operation Raleigh as a fundraiser. In the mid 1990s, she worked for an environmental charity, and by 2000 had moved to work for Friends of the Earth as a climate change campaigner. She then worked for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, implementing public awareness campaigns and helping draft the Climate Change Bill, before becoming head of government relations for the energy company, Scottish and Southern Energy. She left to form Sandbag in 2008.[6]
She was created a life peer on 31 January 2011 with the title Baroness Worthington, of Cambridge in the County of Cambridgeshire,[7] and sat on the Labour benches, until redesignating as a non-affiliated member in April 2017.”
Highly qualified to work on matters scientific, as you can see.

Phil Rae
Reply to  Adam Gallon
February 22, 2019 7:44 am

Fortunately for everyone, Ed Milliband was never Prime Minister (that was Gordon Brown, at the time)! But he was Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change – not bad for a “champagne socialist” with no scientific background, whatsoever. His father was a Marxist intellectual (sic) and that philosophy probably rubbed off on his son and helps account for the significant leftward shift the labour party has undergone in recent years. And now we have Corbyn/McDonnell running the Labour Party, a couple of self-proclaimed Marxists……….what a nightmare!

Reply to  Nicholas William Tesdorf
February 22, 2019 12:31 am

Most of the aristocrats who formerly made up the House of Lords were kicked off many years ago . Today it is made up mostly of
1 former MPs who have been thrown out of the Commons by their electors or
2. have reached an age where they can no longer competently carry out ministerial duties , or
3. have performed financial benefits for their party , or
4. are theatrical, musical , artistic or sporting celebrities.
You will not find many scientists or engineers in that assembly.
There is a sprinkling of Bishops and a few worthy people who have justly earned the honour through their charitable work but mainly it is political cronies, heavily leftwing biassed. It should (IMHO) either be abolished or subject to popular electoral selection. It certainly needs reform , which will never happen.

Nigel Goodwin
Reply to  mikewaite
February 22, 2019 2:14 am

I think you will find more scientists and engineers in the HoL than in the HoC. Yes, HoL needs reform, but you leave out the fact that many industrialists and business people are in the HoL. I don’t think celebrities attend many debates or are active.

Just correcting myths for our US friends.

February 21, 2019 2:12 pm

So they want to continue clear cutting American forests for their wood pellets.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 21, 2019 7:42 pm

These trees are tree farms. We have way more trees now then we did 120 years ago. The British are free – no encouraged – to buy all the wood they want. We need the trade.

Now, I have to admit, it makes NO SENSE WHAT-SO-EVER to buy wood from America when you have tons of gas and coal lying under your feet in Briton, but I would never turn down more trade.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
February 21, 2019 7:55 pm

He is talking about Drax, with wood pellets from old growth native US Forrest.

Reply to  Peter
February 21, 2019 10:39 pm

Living Dogwood forests, cut down, chipped and transported 5,000 miles to be burnt in a furnace 1,000 feet from 600 million year dead trees.

Sounds logical to me.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
February 22, 2019 10:14 am

Just keep in mind that the wood pellet market for export exists because of comparatively depressed housing market conditions and lack of upward pressure on wood markets. So the other green policy of impact fees on new housing development drives home prices above the qualifying incomes of young people and others and thereby sends the lowered value fiber out of country in the process. Just so you know, all the unintended consequences rolling here, the impact fee policy and other “keep out” programs like rooftop solar requirement in California drives young people and others away from career enhancing job opportunities while depressing housing input prices and driving the inputs into low value added projects and activity like raw material exports. That issue is not being studied because it calls into question liberal authority and involves explanations that do not fit in a sound bite or on a protest sign.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
February 22, 2019 12:53 am

All UK green organisations oppose this – it is NOT green or likely to reduce CO2.

The UK govt look to be coming to their senses on this… at least green groups have seen off an expansion in this daft idea.

Reply to  griff
February 22, 2019 10:43 am

Greens are educable. I’m surprised.

February 21, 2019 2:14 pm

More evidence that the fear of CO2 emissions has gotten out of hand with too many people in high places who don’t have a clue and/or are heavily vested in the ‘green savior’. Unfortunately, the scientific truth is too politically toxic for many of them to ever accept.

February 21, 2019 2:16 pm

He was my member of parliament. He hasn’t a clue about physics, science or maths but knows how to control parliamentary procedure in order redistribute taxpayers’ money to benefit MPs and selected businesses.

Solomon Green
Reply to  SuffolkBoy
February 22, 2019 5:34 am

“…in order redistribute taxpayers’ money to benefit MPs and selected businesses” and himself!

Crispin in Waterloo
February 21, 2019 2:18 pm

“UK Climate Change Chief Demands Ban on Domestic Gas”

Well he would, wouldn’t he.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
February 21, 2019 3:03 pm

It’s just like a Progressive/Socialist to suggest that we should eliminate farting. AOC doesn’t want us to eat meat and this guy doesn’t want us to eat beans. Is this all in preparation for Soylent Green?

M Courtney
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 21, 2019 3:37 pm

He’s on the right of the Tory Party.
A true Thatcherite.

Reply to  M Courtney
February 21, 2019 3:43 pm

Being on the right side of the Tory Party doesn’t preclude someone from also being a progressive/socialist.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  MarkW
February 21, 2019 4:07 pm

or opportunist.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  MarkW
February 21, 2019 4:18 pm

Or a time-honoured, old fashioned, conservative crony capitalist.

richard verney
Reply to  MarkW
February 21, 2019 10:14 pm

That’s news to me.
I unaware of any true conservative views he holds and campaigns for.

rchard verney
Reply to  MarkW
February 21, 2019 10:36 pm

Further to my above observation, a quick search on Gummer (his name before he was given a peerage) throws up an article in The Guardian that describes him as pro_european and a wet. Apparently, he supported Kenneth Clark another well known wet in a leadership.contest.
Anyone who knows anything about UK politics will know that being a wer means that you are a wholly liberal socialist, not conservative.
He is most definitely from the left wing of the Conservative party.

For the benefit of US citizens, he would be left of centre in the Democrat party if he were a US trougher/politician.

Reply to  M Courtney
February 21, 2019 5:03 pm

He’s on the right of the Tory Party.

That’s interesting. In America, the Democrats believe in CAGW and the Republicans don’t. The usual explanation is that the left wing Democrats see CAGW as an excuse to extend government power and the right wing Republicans loathe that prospect.

I was always under the impression that Thatcher supported small government. Apparently things weren’t that simple. link Anyway, assuming that Thatcherites love small government, what is the motivation for a Thatcherite to push CAGW?

Reply to  commieBob
February 21, 2019 6:16 pm

US Democrats push CAGW because radical environmentists tend to be Democrats who embraced CAGW in support of their hate of oil companies and pushed it into the party platform. The Republicans oppose CAGW, not because they understand the science, but because they recognize the proposed green ‘solutions’ are economically irresponsible.

The desire for big government seems to be embraced by both parties while both seem oblivious to the ‘take over the world’s economy by controlling energy’ agenda of the UNFCCC, which if properly understood should be of grave concern to all.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  commieBob
February 22, 2019 12:28 am

Her motive, was to remove the power of the National Union of Mineworkers, the coal miners’ union, who under their Communist leadership, Arthur Scargill & Mick McGahey, were a perpetual thorn in the UK’s side, in the 1970s.

Bryan A
February 21, 2019 2:18 pm

Any politician that pontificates the end of fossil fuel usage should walk the walk and immediately curtail their own gas usage. Once they have lived through 5 winters at zero fossil fuel usage, then they will have earned the right to request that everyone else do the same. (though never the right to force anyone to do likewise)

Melvyn Dackombe
Reply to  Bryan A
February 21, 2019 2:51 pm

In the absence of a like button, plus 10,000.

Reply to  Bryan A
February 21, 2019 3:44 pm

Whether he is walking the walk or not, I can’t tell. However he’s rich enough that he could afford to if he wanted to. Unlike the rest of the people he’s trying to force into that lifestyle.

February 21, 2019 2:31 pm

The Telegraph’s ‘journalist’ is either very sloppy, or doing a blatant ‘bait and switch on her readers here:

“The move away from gas hobs is likely to disappoint many home cooks who prefer them to electric as they find the heat is easier to control.

Instead, the Committee on Climate Change has said new homes should rely solely on low-carbon heat sources, such as electric heat pumps or district heating schemes.”
One minute she is talking about banning gas for cooking, and then about switching to electric home heating. Is this stupidity or (as we Aussies say) plain rat cunning? I hope the average Telegraph reader is smarter than their journalists.

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
February 21, 2019 3:23 pm

I think I am because I cancelled my subscription to that rag several years ago.

Rod Evans
Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
February 21, 2019 9:14 pm

Rest assured the balance of intellect between Telegraph journalists and the readers is well established. The readership wins that one every time.
If you have any doubts, just check out what the so called science editor puts her name to, from time to time.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
February 22, 2019 12:29 am

Sloppy & completely uncomprehending of the issue too.

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
February 22, 2019 12:49 am

The quality of the journalism from the Telegraph (as with most other sources of news in the UK now ) has been criticised constantly in sites such as that of Paul Homewood for its total lack of proper research , not even a glance at easy sources such as Wiki.
However I think there is a simple explanation : if , like me , you receive the Telegraph only on Saturday, you would be astonished that almost 90% of the paper and its many supplements is advertising . This is the only way in which the newspaper can survive in the Internet age
Now who do the most shopping , and take most delight in shopping? The paper clearly thinks that it is women and in the last 10 years it has steadily increasedthe number of female journalists, sacked male correspondents and slanted all news stories to have a predominantly female interest – or what it perceives as being female interest .
Now you could argue , with some justification , that that is a change long overdue, but the effect is that the whole tone of the paper is towards a more liberal , even left wing , stance on matters affecting “quality of life” which is seen , wrongly or rightly to be of more interest to female than male readers . The environment and climate change topics fall into that “quality of life ” area and so are treated with more concern for what is thought to be popular consensus than for proper , old fashioned , journalistic research.

Phil Rae
Reply to  mikewaite
February 22, 2019 7:57 am


Fair comment and a good observation and, no doubt, you will have noticed a similar trend at that ultimate “Green Machine” the BBC which, more & more, resembles a cross between a racy women’s interest magazine and a Greenpeace manifesto. Its ridiculous feminist, vegan, LGBTQ+, “renewable energy”, electric cars, anti-plastics, anti-hydrocarbon, anti-industry propaganda is enough to make one sick. Such a shame that the once venerable state broadcaster should have sunk to the level it has.

A C Osborn
Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
February 22, 2019 3:24 am

What they actually want to ban is Gas Hobs, Gas Ovens and Gas Central heating Boilers.
Which use about 6 to 7 time as much Energy as the current Electricity Grid, they would therefore need to exapnd the Grid by a Factor of 6 or 7 if they wanted a Complete ban.
And that is before you factor in EVs.
They do not have a clue.

michael hart
February 21, 2019 2:36 pm

I’ve only functioned as a DJ once in my life.
But they loved it when I said “Now we’re cooking on gas”.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
February 21, 2019 2:50 pm

Every time it looks as if the depths of stupidity have been reached some eco-liar busy lining his own nest plunges even deeper into the abyss. It seems we are in a race with South Australia, California and Germany as to who can bring the greatest unemployment, poverty and death by unaffordable energy and hypothermia to our respective citizens. The chimera of renewable energy seems to have crowded out all reason in these people. Who will they blame when the results of their folly become clear to the masses, as one day it will?

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
February 21, 2019 3:17 pm

Stupidity has no limits.

Reply to  SMC
February 21, 2019 8:14 pm

We should add that ambition knows no limits.

Melvyn Dackombe
February 21, 2019 2:52 pm

In the absence of a like button, plus 10,000.

February 21, 2019 2:57 pm

Carbon hypocrisy apart there is simply no means or method by which the UK can reliably produce electricity to cover the supply demand for cookers and heating if they all turned to electricity. This is without the potential demand from EVs too.
Has anyone done the figures to establish the needed increase? A typical home heating system can require up to 10kW distributed across radiators – my ONE bed (small) house has 3 radiators each of 1.6kW and they struggle in winter – I have to supplement them with a 3kW fan heater!
Multiply this across all the homes that aren’t ‘new’ (most) and there is simply no way the infrastructure could cope – now or in any number of years in the future – given the lack of energy generation policy.

February 21, 2019 3:07 pm

We need a ban on corrupt politicians. Far more urgent.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  Alasdair
February 21, 2019 11:53 pm

Only problem is you’ll never get that voted in.

Robert of Ottawa
February 21, 2019 3:07 pm

Let`s see. He wants all Brits to run electric vehicles, cook with electricity and buy Russian gas; all the time while making electricity generation more innefficient and expensive. Does this make sense

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
February 21, 2019 3:46 pm

From the article, it seems he has interests in companies that provide that inefficient and expensive electricity. So for him, it does make sense.

February 21, 2019 3:26 pm

I cook on gas, as many others in the village do, but its propane, bought in cans from the local garage as the nearest gas main is 11k away on the other side of a river.
If you make that gas illegal you may end up stopping all the weekend camping expeditions with the children .
Maybe I should hand in my oxy-acet welding bottles as well ?

Reply to  jono1066
February 22, 2019 3:29 am

That wouldn’t be illegal… there would just be no new domestic gas installations in new houses. which could of course be built to higher standards of insulation, so not need gas heating…

James Bull
Reply to  griff
February 22, 2019 6:35 am

They tried that making building regs to such a degree that new houses were almost airtight which was OK during the week when people went in and out to work school etc but it was pointed out that come the weekend it was possible if noone left the house from Friday evening till Monday morning a family of 4 plus pets could end up unconcious or dead due to lowered O2 levels.

Julian Flood
Reply to  James Bull
February 23, 2019 8:25 am

I was invited to some new build social housing flats in Haverhill a couple of years ago. They were so airtight that they needed continuously operating electric fans to draw in carefully measured fresh air.

I’m not a betting man, but I’d wager a pint of Adnam’s Best that there will be problems eventually — mould, particulates, build up of organic chemicals etc. But by then those who have mandated the standards of ventilation will be long gone to other virtue-signalling occupations. They, of course, live in old, draugfty farmhouses.


slow to follow
February 21, 2019 3:34 pm

Follow the money:

Dr. Rebecca Heaton joins Committee on Climate Change
27 March 2017

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) today announces that Dr. Rebecca Heaton has been appointed to the Committee to strengthen its expertise in business affairs.

Dr. Heaton’s role on the Committee also includes duties with regards to the interests of Wales and Northern Ireland. She has been appointed for a five-year term.

Dr. Heaton replaces Professor Samuel Fankhauser who stepped down from the Committee in December 2016 after nine years of service.

Welcoming the appointment, Lord Deben, CCC Chairman, said:

“I am extremely pleased that Dr. Heaton has been appointed to join the Committee. Her expertise and long experience in business will be of real benefit to the CCC as we formulate our advice to government on driving forward the UK’s low-carbon economy.”

Responding to the news, Dr. Heaton said:

“‘I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to the vitally important work of the CCC. I’m particularly looking forward to supporting the development of pragmatic approaches that enable businesses to deliver on the UK’s climate change agenda.”

Reflecting on his time at the CCC, Professor Fankhauser said:

“The CCC has achieved a lot since its creation nine years ago and I feel immensely privileged that I was allowed to contribute to its success. We have shaped Britain’s carbon budgets for a quarter of a century and set the UK on the path to a low-carbon future. We have worked with governments of all colours – Labour, Coalition and Conservative – offering independent, evidence-based advice on how to achieve the UK’s 2050 commitment to reduce emissions at least cost and to greatest benefit.”


Rebecca Heaton is Head of Sustainability and Policy at Drax Group and has responsibility for the sustainability of the global forest supply chains used to deliver sustainable biomass to its power station. She is also responsible for research and policy work. Rebecca has extensive experience of working with businesses on a range of topics, from biofuels, land-use and forestry, adaptation, as well as broader sustainability and social investment projects.
Rebecca Heaton was selected following a transparent and highly competitive process conducted in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments Code of Practice.

John in Oz
February 21, 2019 3:52 pm

Should we expect his lordship to visit South Australia soon to stop the connection of gas to Mount Barker?$33-million-natural-gas-pipeline

“The Mount Barker region has been identified as a key part of Adelaide’s urban land supply, with population in the area predicted to grow from 33,000 to 55,000 people by the year 2036,” he said.
“We will be delighted to be able to provide homes and businesses in one of South Australia’s fastest-growing areas with the choice of a more affordable and reliable energy source and to have the ability to connect customers as the region grows into the future.”

February 21, 2019 3:54 pm

What is the primary driving force here, greed, lust for power or stupidity. Don’t doubt all are involved but wonder which is strongest.

Reply to  JimG1
February 21, 2019 4:12 pm

This is John Gummer aka Lord Deben. So what about the 600,000 pounds he received from green interests? Sorry, don’t have a British pounds button on my tablet or is it euros?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  JimG1
February 21, 2019 4:25 pm

GBP600,000 works too.

On the outer Barcoo
Reply to  JimG1
February 21, 2019 4:25 pm

Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Patrick MJD
February 21, 2019 4:01 pm

First it was electric vacuum cleaners and patio gas heaters that were destroying the planet. Now gas hobs? Domestic gas was favoured over electricity for heating and cooking BECAUSE it was cheaper and more efficient. Deben wouldn’t have a conflict of interest there would he? Nah…nothing to see…oooh look! Squirrel!

February 21, 2019 4:11 pm

I’ve noticed a sudden uptick in anti natural gas sentiment since some advised using it as a lower carbon content bridge fuel. How can burning wood chips be a cleaner alternative to natural gas? It seems the green movement is pushing an energy crisis and the ensuing chaos. Frightened people are easier to manipulate.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Tommyboy
February 21, 2019 7:48 pm

You grow tees, cut them down, use them for fuel – so a lot of the Carbon is taken from the atmosphere within the last 100 years or so and regrowing the trees takes it back. The tree is kind of a battery for solar power…

You drill gas, burn it – that’s Carbon that was sequestered (using their terms) in the ground and you are releasing back into the air. It could have been safely sequestered for millions of years but you went and dug it up.

So burning wood recycles the Carbon already in the air.

Not my logic, just trying to explain their thinking.

rchard verney
Reply to  Robert of Texas
February 21, 2019 10:54 pm

Their logic is flawed since if one is concerned about rising CO2 levels between now and 2050 it does not matter wherher CO2 was sequestered 30/50’years ago or many millions of years ago.
Burning biomass is only carbon neutral if one plants a tree today and cuts it down in 50 years time and then burn it.
In fact coal and gas would be carbon neutral simply by planting trees to offset the CO2 emitted when burning gas or coal and never cutting the trees down at all.
After all trees act as a carbon sink.
Further biomass has a lower calorific value than coal or. gas and therefore emits more CO2 per unit of energy produced. GREENS overlook this unfortunate fact as well as the increase in particulate matter.
DRAX now converted to biomass has halved the number of furnaces but still produces as much CO2 as it did when burning coal. Energy down by half but the same CO2 emissions (although these emissions are not counted because of the free pass given to biomass)

Reply to  Robert of Texas
February 22, 2019 3:32 am

Well, that works OK where you have quick growth trees, like willow, or manage your woodland by coppicing (UK woodland practice – look it up!)… or use sawmill waste products (sawdust) or scrap wood (e.g. from demolition, broken pallets). And it especially works where you use the wood locally. But large scale tree felling of established forest and shipping the output across to the UK isn’t at all green or CO2 reducing. We should close Drax now.

Reply to  Tommyboy
February 21, 2019 8:57 pm

No natural gas allowed in the Green New Deal from the dems for USA, same objective.

February 21, 2019 4:28 pm

Politicians: “We’ve made a lot of poor people, but they’re just not miserable enough. What can we do to really make them suffer?”

February 21, 2019 4:29 pm

And where will the infrastructure and electricity come from? This will seriously limit rural building and impact urban upgrading to new structures.

James Clarke
Reply to  markl
February 21, 2019 7:18 pm

Same place as the power for electric vehicles, when you move away from the petrol/diesel model. The electricity fairies will distill it from unicorn farts.

February 21, 2019 6:00 pm

Take a look at this post on LinkedIn, , I believe the solar and wind proponents are liars trying to outlaw all fossil fuels for no reason other than their own profits.

February 21, 2019 6:07 pm

Take a look at this post on LinkedIn , It shouldchange your mind about coal and natural gas. And yes it is real and true.

Donald Kasper
February 21, 2019 6:44 pm

Going full throttle mental.

February 21, 2019 7:35 pm

Yes, the world should have their gas supply pipelined in from Russia!
No need to explore and deplete local reserves when you an suckle from someone else.

Eve Stevens
February 21, 2019 8:16 pm

If the effects of CO2 were actually as dire as he thinks, governments would be building nuclear plants.

Rod Evans
February 21, 2019 9:28 pm

I think it is now very obvious, we must test the IQ of all those who put themselves forward for public office or for any position of responsibility. Those below 100 should never be allowed beyond the application stage.
I suspect if such a simple filter was adopted we would be spared the more stupid ideas that get proposed from time to time. I also suspect the AOC type individual that seems to be common among the socialists and Greens, would have to find other ways to express their lunacy.

rchard verney
February 21, 2019 10:55 pm

Their logic is flawed since if one is concerned about rising CO2 levels between now and 2050 it does not matter wherher CO2 was sequestered 30/50’years ago or many millions of years ago.
Burning biomass is only carbon neutral if one plants a tree today and cuts it down in 50 years time and then burn it.
In fact coal and gas would be carbon neutral simply by planting trees to offset the CO2 emitted when burning gas or coal and never cutting the trees down at all.
After all trees act as a carbon sink.
Further biomass has a lower calorific value than coal or. gas and therefore emits more CO2 per unit of energy produced. GREENS overlook this unfortunate fact as well as the increase in particulate matter.
DRAX now converted to biomass has halved the number of furnaces but still produces as much CO2 as it did when burning coal. Energy down by half but the same CO2 emissions (although these emissions are not counted because of the free pass given to biomass)

February 22, 2019 12:24 am

And now this scare story on methane, a classic case of follow the money.

February 22, 2019 12:51 am

I beleive the Netherlands and Germany already banned gas heating for new homes.

With a programme of insulation – UK homes are very poorly insulated – there’d be a lot less energy used in heating.

and with 33% of UK electricity from renewables in 2018 and prices not rising as a result (gas price is still the major factor in UK electricity prices)…

Reply to  griff
February 22, 2019 4:06 am

At the end of 2016, the Dutch government presented its “Energy Agenda” which indicates the policies that should lead to an almost carbon-neutral economy in 2050. With regard to emissions from buildings, the two main policies are better insulation to reduce heat demand and the replacement of natural gas by alternative fuels with lower emissions. Currently every house or residence is still legally entitled to a connection to the gas grid. This law will be annulled and replaced by a “right to a heating connection”. New houses will not be connected to the gas grid anymore in any case. The 7 million existing houses will be gradually disconnected from the gas grid.

David Stone
February 22, 2019 2:13 am

The view of the Engineer is different.
Turning gas into electricity in the UK is about 50% efficient, so heating our home to use less gas needs a heat pump with an efficiency of 200% to break even (in very round figures). We might manage 300% on a good day where the outside temperature is not too low. Sounds good so far, but then reality hits!

Our electricity infrastructure can supply about 50GW when there is no wind or sun, assuming that everything is working at full power, so just about 1.5 kW for each house. But the politicians have already used every bit of this to charge electric vehicles which they are very keen to promote! So they need to build another 50 GW at least, of generation and distribution for each house to reduce its heat load by around 80%, or on a windless night 65 million people will freeze to death! They say insulate more but this is simply not possible unless all the property is rebuilt, most windows removed and any ventilation not permitted. The deaths will mount very quickly in winter as the poorest will suffer most, as they cannot afford the step change.

It costs about £16 billion to build a new nuclear power station of 4GW output, and even then everyone is cancelling them now, so lets round this to £200 billion overall. Another £200 billion on distribution infrastructure and we are still freezing to death!

Is this policy in any way capable of working? The greens think so, and the government here (UK) appears to be unable to do the simple arithmetic above, and the MSM is completely obsessed with “climate change”!

No one here listens to the electrical engineers any more! Even Lord Monckton is having trouble.
David (CEng, PE)

Reply to  David Stone
February 22, 2019 3:27 am

Are you assuming that there is no improvement in insulation?

Because houses which are built to use heat pumps will have very good insulation, may even be to ‘passivehaus’ standards

(My local lord of the manor has put in a heat pump system and his house is warm for the first time since the mid 19th century!)

A C Osborn
Reply to  David Stone
February 22, 2019 3:38 am

David, your figures are way off.
Gas use is about 6 to 7 times as much Energy as Electricity.
Gas Boilers are about 85% efficient compared to Gas>Electricity generation of 40-50%.

In the Real World
Reply to  David Stone
February 22, 2019 5:53 am

I know what you are saying David . It is a long long time since I qualified to be an A M I Mech E,
& I have forgotten more than I can remember .
But if I try to explain that you cannot run a grid on nonsynchronous generation , [ wind & solar ] , without 100% conventional generation backup , then most people do not understand , or do not want to understand .

This idea of electric heating for houses was worked out previously ,,
and was concluded to be totally unworkable .
Even with houses insulated up to the standard of Austria , it would need an extra 200 GW of capacity .
That would need another 60 Hinckly C power stations .
About £1000 Billion plus the same again for upgrading the grid , & that is without electric vehicles , which is probably about half that again just for cars .

February 22, 2019 3:17 am

If it makes anyone feels better, this Lord Deben, which is the name of a local river and an area in Suffolk , although then do not have any solar panels or wind power at his rather nice house. Does have a backup diesel generator, in case the power goes down.

Russell Johnson
February 22, 2019 4:39 am

UK Brethren, I really feel sorry for all of you. Your combined nation has become a caricature of “1984″, “Fahrenheit 451” and “An Inconvenient Truth”. Isn’t being on camera 24/7 a bit over the top? There has never been a bigger globalist (communist ) scam than “climate change” You have so many in a position of power that worship Gaia fervently and are willing to put all of you at risk to save the earth and it’s done with such certainty.
Globalists have identified the hobgoblin that they say will destroy earth—carbon dioxide. They have declared humanity as the greatest emitter of this killer gas and we must be punished. By their own admission humanity is accountable for 5% of annual CO2 emissions—95% belongs to nature. But in case you haven’t noticed CO2 cannot be banished or reduced it is an insoluble problem that doesn’t need solving.

February 22, 2019 4:41 am

[John Selwyn] Gumboot is an old school crook and nothing more.

I recall the hamburger incident during the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy thing in the 1980s.

A dodgy used car salesman.

February 22, 2019 6:12 am

UK trying to out-kook AOC’s new greenie deal?

James Bull
February 22, 2019 6:48 am

The other day in our local plumbers merchants I was saying the sooner that the UK’s climate change act is repealed the better, one of the people there asked why and I replied that it would remove domestic gas from supply once it had worked it’s way from coal.

James Bull

Derek Colman
February 22, 2019 5:47 pm

This proposal advocates all new houses to be built to the highest insulation standard and use air source heat pumps for heating. That would mean that all new houses built would be for the very well off, because the middle income middle class are already struggling to afford house purchase. Also those heat pumps really do not work well in the UK for technical reasons. The UK has a cold and damp climate which causes their heat exchangers to rapidly ice up and render the device inoperative. However the device has a way to deal with this by sucking warm air out of the house to thaw out the heat exchanger. The system compensates by drawing hot water from an electrically heated tank. Many people who bought new houses fitted with these systems found themselves faced with astronomical electricity bills. I should mention heat pumps work perfectly in California and save owners a lot of money for heating. The other alternative to gas heating is electric heating. Currently electricity costs 3 times as much as gas per kWh, and is due to rise to 4 tames as much by 2025 as more expensive renewable energy is added to the Grid.

February 23, 2019 3:10 pm

I expect firms like “Calorgas” and other purveyors of LP gas will do rather well out of this. (I wonder where I could get shares?)
In 3rd world countries, and other countries that lack a gas grid, domestic gas is obtained/delivered this way and the gas cylinder home delivery companies are often very efficient.

%d bloggers like this: