I have long said that when the costs of fossil fuel suppression policies start to hit home to average consumers, the whole climate alarm movement will become politically toxic, and will fade away.
So far in the U.S. we haven’t seen much movement in this direction. The red states are mostly alert to the issue of the costs of Net Zero, and want no part of fossil fuel suppression. The blue states have inflicted some substantial early costs on themselves (up to about doubling the cost of electricity in the case of California) without the voters having yet gotten too upset. At the federal level, the misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act” passes out hundreds of billions of dollars worth of handouts and subsidies to hide the cost of fossil fuel suppression from the public. It could be several more years before blue state voters figure out how they are getting fleeced.
But in Europe, and particularly in the UK, there are serious signs of shifting political winds. The Global Warming Policy Foundation is the UK’s leading think tank opposing Net Zero energy policies; and as a board member of its U.S. affiliate American Friends of the GWPF, I have a ringside seat to observe the shift.
In Europe, ever since the issue became political, there has been a near-unanimous all-party consensus in favor of fossil fuel suppression as a way to control “climate change.” You might think that some large party of the right or center-right in some country would speak up to say that these policies will impoverish us without having any noticeable effect on global climate. But for many years, that has not occurred.
In the UK, the logical party to be the home of climate realism would be the Conservative party. The Conservatives have been the governing party in the UK since all the way back to 2010. They led the way to the vote for Brexit in 2016, and to concluding the UK’s departure from the EU in 2020. But throughout their now 13 years running the government, the Conservatives have been very much on board with the program of “saving the planet” through fossil fuel suppression. In 2019, during the time Theresa May was Prime Minister, the UK parliament passed into law a binding requirement for “Net Zero” emissions by 2050. May’s successor Boris Johnson, who had made noises of being a climate skeptic before becoming Prime Minister, proved to be even more zealous than May in pursuing the Net Zero goal during his three years in office (2019 – 2022).
Current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak took office last October. Along the way to the top, he had pledged fealty to the Net Zero goal, but without giving many clues as to whether he was a zealous versus half-hearted proponent.
The UK’s road to Net Zero has so far included all the usual elements of the program: closing coal-fired power stations, building large numbers of on-shore and off-shore wind turbines, building large numbers of solar panels (despite the UK being in high north latitudes and being famously cloudy), banning “fracking” for oil and natural gas (despite having a large shale formation under foot), restricting further drilling in the North Sea, and so forth.
A somewhat unique feature of the UK fossil fuel suppression regime appears to have been the catalyst to set off the recent political shift. As far back as 2008 the government of London had initiated what they called a “Low Emissions Zone” in the central areas, with restrictions on the emissions of various sorts of vehicles entering the area, and financial charges for those driving in based on emissions levels. The standards gradually tightened over the years, and in 2020 the Mayor instituted what was now called the “Ultra Low Emissions Zone” in the central areas.
Having gotten away with this so far, the London government announced earlier this year that the ULEZ would be extended beyond the central areas to all London boroughs as of August 29. Most significantly, this would mean that essentially everybody entering this extended area in a gasoline or diesel powered motor vehicle would be charged 12.5 pounds per day — about $15, not an insignificant amount of money.
On July 20 a by-election was held for a seat in Parliament for the district known as Uxbridge and South Ruislip. This was the seat previously held by none other than ex-PM Boris Johnson, who had decided to resign since it wouldn’t be much fun hanging around in Parliament not being PM any more. With the Tories doing poorly in the polls, it was thought that they would be highly unlikely to hold this seat. But the Uxbridge and South Ruislip seat is in the outer ring of London boroughs about to become part of the ULEZ. The Conservative candidate came out against expanding the ULEZ, and the by-election turned into essentially a one-issue referendum on that subject. The Conservative candidate narrowly won.
Suddenly, opposing a policy initiative being sold as “for the climate” had proved to be a political winner. Meanwhile, the UK had also experienced a large spike in household energy costs last fall and spring (although the price of natural gas has eased somewhat since). And thus in the last week we see a flurry of policy initiatives from PM Sunak and his ministers, running counter to the Net Zero program, with enthusiastic support at least among the Tory grassroots. From the Telegraph, August 4, “Rishi Sunak’s popularity surges as he toughens Net Zero stance”:
In the aftermath of the vote [in Uxbridge and South Ruislip], Mr Sunak declared that he was on motorists’ side as he asked the Department for Transport to carry out a review of low-traffic neighbourhoods across the country. On Monday, he announced the Government was granting hundreds of new licences for North Sea oil and gas exploration.
Other parts of the UK’s Net Zero program include a requirement for 22% of motor vehicle sales to be EVs by next year, and a ban on new gasoline-powered cars by 2030. From the Sun, August 2:
Net Zero Secretary Grant Shapps was yesterday forced to admit the National Grid is hopelessly underpowered for the challenge of charging up millions more electric vehicles. And Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch is warning — along with car manufacturers — that an arbitrary requirement for 22 per cent of all car sales to be electric by NEXT YEAR is risking jobs and investment. . . . [A]s ex-Cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg argues, if the PM were to back The Sun and put the brakes on net zero as part of his 2024 election manifesto, it would be popular with voters. And it could well get him back on the road to victory.
We’ve been waiting a long time for this. Finally, it’s a start.
Unfortunately, virtually all of the British media are still fanatic supporters of net zero policies. They have kept the British public uninformed about the gigantic costs of net zero. As an example of this, I used to get letters published in various newspapers pointing out the absurdities of the net zero target. Since Cop26 was announced in Britain, I have found it impossible to get letters published in the British media. I was trying to highlight the ridiculous lies in the many articles they have published about the net zero target. The media appear to have taken a collective decision to suppress all dissent about net zero and global warming. Until this changes, the prospects for ordinary Britons look dire.
The British public is gradually starting to see some of the direct impacts on their lives that net zero policies are starting to cause and dissent is increasing. The conservative party is starting to take some tiny steps back from the lunacy but they have been roundly condemned in the British media for doing so. Until the British media stops their ludicrous green propaganda, I cannot see net zero being abandoned.
Unfortunately, it’s worse than that, Bill. It’s not just the media that have been hiding the costs of “net zero.” The entire establishment has been doing it.
They have been finding steadily crazier ways to prevent any objective cost-benefit analysis being done on anything involving CO2 emissions. First, Nicholas Stern biasing his report in favour of “climate action” in 2006. Then, the abandonment of the “social cost of carbon” approach in 2007-9, resulting in a situation where the calculated “costs” of CO2 emissions were driven, not by science or facts, but by the political commitments that had been made. The supposed cost and benefit analysis of “net zero,” published in 2019, was nothing of the kind. And in 2020, they changed the “green book,” which gives official guidelines on how to assess costs and benefits of UK government projects, to exempt “strategic” projects, specifically including “net zero,” from any requirements for cost-benefit analysis at all.
It was Sunak, right after he took over as Chancellor, who initiated the review that changed the “green book” in this way. So Sunak is hopelessly compromised, and no-one should believe a single word he says.
Here are two articles revealing the costs of UK/US offshore wind systems.
The electricity costs are at least 15 c/kWh, for
1) Wind turbines and about 30 miles of cabling to shore
2) Expansion/augmentation of onshore grids
3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the ups and downs of variable wind (and solar) output, 24/7/365.
If li-ion battery systems were contemplated, they would add at least 20 c/kWh to the cost of any electricity passing through them, during their 15-y useful service lives!
US/UK 56,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-offshore-wind-systems-by-2030-a-total-fantasy
EXCERPT
The US government, not the US people, has the insane fantasy of wanting to build 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., just 7 years, but several companies, building projects for Massachusetts, will be allowed to walk away from the signed PPAs, and rebid at much higher prices next year.
The UK government, not the UK people, has the insane fantasy of wanting to build 26,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., in just 7 years, but Vattenfall, a Swedish company, is putting 4,200 MW on hold, because Vattenfall spreadsheets show a “net revenue shortage” of about 40%, meaning the prices, c/kWh, offered by the UK auctions are about 40% too low.
BTW, about 7,000 MW offshore was accepted after the 4th Auction bids in 2022; at least 4,200 MW are on hold.
The continent-based European big wind companies have only one third of the capacity per year for building 56,000 MW offshore by 2030, or 8,000 MW/y.
These companies will concentrate on the U.S. market, because the Biden “Inflation-Reduction-Act” subsidies are at least 50% higher than in the UK
NOTE: “The expense associated with a typical US offshore project, before bonus tax credits related to the Inflation Reduction Act, has increased by 57% since 2021,” Bloomberg recently reported, citing figures from Bloomberg-NEF.
“Inflation of materials, energy, components, and labor costs explain about 40% of that, with 60% due to increased interest rates.”
NOTE: The EU, the UK and the Fed central banks just increased interest rates, which will make everything more expensive.
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
Instead of expensive wind and solar that produce unreliable, expensive electricity, the US should be building at least 20 nuclear plants each year; each plant with two 1,200 MW reactors.
Look at Russia and China
Russia is building 30 (11 in Russia, 19 outside) and China 46 (32 in China, 14 outside), a total of 76 nuclear reactors
Russia and China have a total of 33 reactors being built outside their countries, which represents 70% of the world market
Of the 30 Russian reactors, 19 are being built outside Russia, such as in Belarus, China, Hungary, Turkey, Egypt, etc
Of the 46 Chinese reactors, 14 are being built outside of China.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/China-and-Russia-account-for-70-of-new-nuclear-plants
+1. Sunak will say anything if he thinks it’ll be to his advantage to say it. Then do something different. Remember how he was ‘absolutely’ in favour of fracking (albeit with the caveat of having local support) when up against Truss for the leadership, then buried fracking as soon as he replaced her. Starmer is just as bad. Complete dross, the pair of them.
End the dross, vote Reform UK, they are not signed up to nut zero
Fortunately, there are some in the British media that are prepared to fight back although it will probably be a long time before you see something like this on the BBC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV-8F630_Ls
(From 1:30.00 to 1:45.00)
Also there appears to be some underground resistance. At least in my demographic.
The pointless uselessness of Net Zero often comes up in conversation, I’m sure there are secret WUWT readers amongst my peers.
There are many more non alarmists out there, but they have to keep quiet low profiles for job / banking security concerns
A BBC-wide lobotomy/shock-treatment would be required to undo its collective mindset, and government money and access, which turned the BBC into a government lap poodle, would need to be withdrawn.
You obviously know little about the situation. The BBC, from the very outset, was set up as a public broadcast organisation. That means it will broadcast what is favourable to the two main political parties, the ‘establishment’, and very little else. It has always been biased, conservative (small c) and a useful propaganda tool of the government of the time; even Joseph Goebbels admitted he couldn’t compete against the BBC propaganda. Yes the licence fee needs to be removed and the BBC ‘cut loose’ from its state broadcaster role – it’s no longer needed, there are plenty of avenues for government propaganda without needing to pay so much for it. The BBC wasn’t ‘turned into’ a government ‘lap poodle’ – it was intended as such from the very beginning.
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/licencefee
Funding through the TV licenseA standard TV license is currently £159/year
A TV licence is required if you:
This applies to any provider you use and any device, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.
What the license fee pays for
Funding from the license fee allows the BBC to provide an unparalleled range of program and services across TV, radio and online.
More information about the breadth of content the BBC produces can be found here: https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whatwedo/publicservices/
In addition to funding program and services, a proportion of the license fee funds the BBC World Service broadcasting in 42 languages including English globally, as well as funding the Welsh Language TV channel S4C and Local Democracy Reporters.
The license fee allows the BBC’s UK services to remain free of advertisements and independent of shareholder and political interest.
That statement probably is false
It looks like you have to pay the “license fee” to hear/see anything
Does the government approve the “license fee”?
I think you misunderstood what I said – I didn’t disagree with the point that the licence fee should be abolished. I was just clarifying the point you made that, at some point, they turned into a government lap poodle. They have always been that way, it’s just been getting more noticeable.
Muttering anything that goes against the climate alarmist narrative could get you debanked these days, as Nigel Farage has recently found out
From outright censorship, to cancelling or labelling opposing views as misinformation, to policing what you can access on the internet, to monitoring your private communications by cancellation of encryption services etc etc – the nefarious stuff we regularly condemn China, North Korea etc for, are now being put in place by western leaders, pushed by far left Marxist agents, as citizen controls – it would appear the horrific sacrifices, for democracy and to end tyranny, made by millions in WW1 & WW2, were for nothing – western leaders should hang their heads in shame, they are an embarrassing sham and do not represent my morals, ethics and integrity
We’re seeing much of the same type of dissident suppression in Canada probably because the mainstream media has been directed by the environmental organizations to over-exaggerate any climate events and to downplay or ignore any information that undermines their man-made climate change theories. Otherwise it shouldn’t expect any of the generous donations it has been receiving in the past. Nor would it surprise anyone if the federal governments, which heavily funds the news agencies like CBC, have been consistently issuing similar directives. Just try to find some article or story on the CBC that presents the other side of the climate picture. We’re fortunate that sites like WUWT and its associates have been quick to point out the flaws in the climate alarmist logic.
Waiting for the Aust Gov to come to the same conclusion – won’t be long now. After that, the wondering ALBOtross will be heard to say, ”It seems we need to go nuclear to achieve our emission objectives because wind and solar will cost too much” In 10, 9 ,8…….
Japan too? Or they setting up coal plants again?
Chris Bowen is mad, he’s the problem, not least that he is a thick as two house bricks.
What Australia needs is an opposition, both federally and in the states, that has some backbone, and guts and simply just stands up and puts forward a policy that places Australians first, not the UN or the IPCC.
Stop the Nut-Zero madness.
Of course the “Ultra Low Emissions Zone” policy has nothing to do with climate because the emissions referred to are genuine air pollutants like nitrogen oxides carbon monoxide particulates etc.
Governments and rent-seekers for a long time have employed equivocation (‘the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth’) to confuse the public by referring to CO2 as ‘pollution’, it would be satisfying to see them ‘hoisted with their own petard’.
Chris, you are totally correct about the Ulez scheme in London. This is the text of a letter I sent to the Sunday Times pointing this out. Unfortunately, the new editor of the Sunday Times is a climate alarmist and refuses to print any letters which are sceptical of the global warming religion.
“Paul Marfleet (Letters, 30/7/23) has failed to understand the purpose of the Ulez scheme in London which has nothing whatsoever to do with the climate. The point of the scheme is to reduce air pollution in London, not to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide which is not a pollutant.
If Sadiq Khan was really serious about reducing air pollution in London, he should ban all electric cars from London. The most dangerous form of air pollution in our cities is particulate matter emissions from tyre wear. Since electric cars are considerably heavier than petrol and diesel cars, their pollution from this source is much worse”.
“If Sadiq Khan was really serious about reducing air pollution in London,”
He would close the tube down tomorrow.
Actually, ULEZ has quite a bit to do with climate. The PM2.5 and NOx pollution issues came about because of Blair, Brown and King’s 2001 decision to encourage people to buy diesel cars rather than petrol. Their rationale for this? Diesel cars emit less CO2 than petrol ones! As a result, the car market was skewed, and some manufacturers all but stopped making petrol models. So, making the problems worse.
In any case, recent measurements made of air quality in outer London have shown that there isn’t an air pollution problem on the roads there any more. So, extending ULEZ isn’t going to bring any air quality benefits anyway. There was even a report (sorry, don’t have the link to hand) that showed that, even in central London, ULEZ hasn’t made any significant improvement in air quality since its very first few months in force.
And beyond even that, the ULEZ charges are, and have been since the very beginning, way higher than any sane estimate of the social cost of the pollution. I was already wise to this before ULEZ even came in, see here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/11/the-social-costs-of-air-pollution-from-cars-in-the-uk/. ULEZ is, and always has been, a money grab.
ULEZ is the means for filling the black hole in TfL’s finances
Nothing more
And who was it that cratered TfL’s finances? Step forward Genghis Khan. Still, he can be got rid of next May.
Don’t use public transport – as we were told…
Correct – paying £12.50 isn’t going to affect air quality one jot – of course, it’s not meant to, it’s just a stealth tax with significant income – the air quality map on DEFRAs website shows the whole UK with very low air pollution levels – Khans data was, as has already been proven, deceitful – it’s all a scam
Just a technical note. ULEZ will only affect older higher emission vehicles, affecting about 300,000 Londoners and their families, as well as anyone coming into Heathrow from outside the zone (the catchment area is easily twice the area of Greater London and possibly twice the affected population also). Meanwhile the pollution control benefits will be negligible as shown by Khan’s own council initiated (and ignored) report, and the everyday transport effect will be significant for those struggling to maintain their cars in already financially challenging times in areas where public transport is substantially less effective than central London.
In reality it’s a tax meant to plug a financial black hole created in part Covid effect, partly by his own budgetary malfeasance, while also forcing change on the poorest car owners.
I’m not holding my breath
It will be funny if Corbyn decides to run
He has mentioned it in passing. God knows what he was thinking (or smoking?) before he said that. London would be even more of a disaster if he got in.
It would split the vote at the very least
It’s customary but not compulsory for an MP to resign his seat before running for Mayor (Ken Livingstone didn’t) but Corbyn’s going to be running against a proper Labour candidate next election anyway. I also don’t know if the PLP will let him be an ‘official’ Labour mayoral candidate or whether he’d have to run as an independant. Also don’t know how much support he’s still got outside of Labour.
Nope – I’m still agin it, on balance!
But is it climate, or just weather?
Good summary – apart from this
“ essentially everybody entering this extended area in a gasoline or diesel powered motor vehicle would be charged 12.5 pounds per day”
Most cars are exempt. i think I saw a figure that said something like 10% of the vehicles would be subject to the charge
It’s the older cheaper cars which are most likely to be affected. These are the cars which are owned by the poorest people in London. The British Labour party has completely lost touch with the people it traditionally used to support. The Labour party is now dominated by the metropolitan elite who have no understanding or empathy for ordinary people and how they live.
The cars caught by the charge are essentially petrol cars made before 2006 and diesels made before September 2015.
Diesels the Blair government told people to buy….
Correct – that’s my point – the article said “essentially everyone” which is not the case.
It’s just the start.
The ULEZ hasn’t reduced “pollution” so we’ll include all diesels. Oh that didn’t work, we’ll have to include all ICE vehicles. Sorry we’re still not meeting targets it’s hybrids now. Oops it’s brake and tyre particulates from large EVs doing the damage and roads need more maintenance so they’re included now. Then 10 years from now to be fair every motor vehicle including two wheeled has to pay something.
It depends on the age of the vehicle and whether it meets certain EU emissions standards or not.
EU emission standards? Because Brexit doesn’t affect London I suppose?
I think it’s a confusion with the Congestion Charge which applied to the central zone and cost £12.50. But only during ‘working’ hours.
Then came the Low Emission charge which applied to the same (central only) zone but was charged 24/7/365
Then the Low Emission became Ultra Low Emission – again only in the central zone but still 24/7/365
The Great Leap this time is that the Ultra Low Emission is being extended to cover all of London inside the M25 Circular motorway (tho it is more like a car-park most days)
So, e.g. if you have a pre ‘Euro6’ diesel and venture into Central London during daytime working hours you’ll be landed with a £25 charge
But local boroughs and councils within London are setting up all sorts of ‘Rat Run’ charges – it’s a total nightmare
And 40 years ago I used to drive into London ‘just for an explore’ and could go there and find a free on-street parking space within 200 yards of Piccadilly Circus. (Or the Hammersmith Odeon of course)
Charges would be £25 now just to get there and about same again, per hour, for parking.
It hurts your head just to even think about that now
The ‘Low Emmissions’ charge is for larger vehicles, trucks, lorries and buses mostly, and is still in place; ULEZ is for smaller vehicles, cars and motorbikes. All 3 charges are still in place (I think) and would be expected to work together.
ULEZ expansion was just an excuse to get the cameras put in place. Next step is per mile charging for EVERY motor vehicle within the M25. Never was about environment, public health or any other “noble” cause.
I think there is a slight confusion here regarding the area covered. It’s NOT everything within the M25; it’s out to where the London boroughs meet the adjacent counties. Khan has no jurisdiction in the counties, the populations of which did not vote for him (and can’t vote him out) but who often have to cross the boundary into what will become the ULEZ zone to go to their local shops, hospitals etc. That’s why the cointies are refusing to co-operate and allow signs and cameras to be erected on the roads approaching the charging area which lie within their jurisdiction.
That’s quite probably the case….
“Ultra Low Emissions Zone” – lol!!! Only the faceless central planners can come up with an incomprehensibly stupid scheme like that. Government the lowest common denominators.
The explanation for the conversion of Boris from skeptic to believer is found between the legs of his green activist latest wife, where his brain resides.
Thank you, Ed, I wanted to say the same thing but was unable to phrase it as delicately as that…
The man is a proven liar anyway and it unbelievable that Tory Party members inflicted him upon us.
First chuckle of my day (-:
I’ve been trying to explain why ULEZ is unchangeable.
It’s been fixed by the UK government and Sadiq Khan cannot back out even if he wanted to. This has been misunderstood by many readers here.
But this Politico article explains it well.
https://www.politico.eu/article/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-ulez-cant-just-scrap-his-clean-air-plan/https://www.politico.eu/article/london-mayor-sadiq-khan-ulez-cant-just-scrap-his-clean-air-plan/
You’re wrong. Sadiq Khan, as mayor, has a wide range of powers at his disposal that could actually reduce air pollution in London. ULEZ doesn’t reduce any air pollution – it just forces road users to pay for the ‘privilege’ of driving in London. If air pollution was as serious as these advocacy groups are making out, then cleaning up those areas that produce the most air pollution might have been a top priority. One might imagine he’d want to do something about the TfL diesel overground trains or the hundreds of diesel trains going through London overground but no, apparently, they don’t matter when he can grab the low-hanging fruit from the magic money tree.
Yes, there’s been a huge holw in Transport for London’s finances ever since Covid!
Wrong – the outer boroughs who went to Court to stop the expansion, did so against the London Mayoral Office, not the Govt – the Tories won the ex Boris constituency by election on an anti ULEZ ticket
There is now a legal challenge to the Glasgow ULEZ which charges £60 minimum (doubling on each day of visit) for non compliant vehicles on the basis that it is not needed, as the air quality meets the targets, and the ULEZ will do nothing useful. It is being allowed to go ahead.
From the article: “So far in the U.S. we haven’t seen much movement in this direction. The red states are mostly alert to the issue of the costs of Net Zero, and want no part of fossil fuel suppression.”
That’s true, but it hasn’t kept my electricity bill from going higher, since my Red State is in a powerpool of a number of other States, and among those States, conventional generation has been reduced by over 2 percent, so now we get warnings about using too much electricity. None of us voted for this.
The introducing picture is a nice one, but I think, the following has more logic:
Banksy, devolved parliament
Now you just stop that right there. I happen to like chimpanzee’s and seeing them denigrated as a pack of greedy, inconsiderate morons is a step too far. Stop it.
Must be something to do with “animal rights”?
Ha they look rather more evolved if you ask me.
The most amazing thing about the UK political class and media consensus on Net Zero is that everyone keeps repeating that the reason for doing all this stuff is climate, when none of the measures they are supporting can have any effect on global emissions or on the climate.
Its like the old childrens saying, eat up your dinner because of the starving children in India. And don’t ask how much difference eating your dinner will make to them.
Sometimes recently politicians have said how important it is to keep on so as not to lose Britain’s leading position in climate or renewables. A lead which doesn’t exist except in their fevered imaginations. And which, if it did exist, would anyway be of no value to the population of Britain.
There are now more and more dissenting voices, after the Uxbridge by-election. But no-one in the mainstream has yet dared to say that the whole climate catastrophe idea is nonsense. And no-one has yet dared to advocate repealing the Climate Change Act. And Labour still has close links with the lunatic environmentalist left.
One does notice however that the CCA author, Ed Milliband, seems to have been very quiet lately. The rumor is that he has been grounded as a liability. Let’s hope so.
Took their time finding that out, didn’t they?
The bacon sandwich should have been a dead giveaway.
There is no mention here of the cost shifting, delay tactics designed to shield residents from market costs. Such delays might be a vote benefit for politicos, but it also allows the policy distortions to get larger in the process. How long can they blame Putin for everything done by years of bad public (advocacy) policy?
After Putin’s funeral it might quieten down a little but then it’s bound to all start up again as ‘Putin’s Legacy.’ They’ll be able to spin it out for decades, if necessary.
Nut zero will cost citizens both as private buyers of peddled tat, from battery cars, to heat pumps, as well as taxpayers and consumers in the form of subsidies & levies added to utility bills, it’s a double edge green samurai sword
The masses will not part with more money than they already have to, to finance some fanciful, deceitful con that makes them worse off than they are now – ICE vehicles are far superior and cheaper than battery cars, gas boilers are far superior and cheaper than heat pumps – there will be no mass take up of more expensive, far inferior tech, unless Govt actually stop ICE vehicles and gas systems, but in reality, no Govt is going to open that Pandora’s box – they will nudge and bribe and cajole, but they won’t force – the adverse effect of coercive authoritarianism on society and its resultant push back, would frighten even the most brain drained, hubris filled politician
https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/china-abandons-paris-agreement-making-us-efforts-painful-and-pointless
Meanwhile, back in the land of climate & energy sanity, China waves farewell to the Wests silly climate con
“But in Europe, and particularly in the UK, there are serious signs of shifting political winds.”
That hasn’t stopped the government putting up the price of carbon-based fuels. As of today, the tax on alcohol went up 10% overnight. This isn’t caused by inflation, it is deliberate inflation.
As well as saving the planet they are also going to save your liver. All done for your own good of course. Nothing to do with raising more revenue from items which already raise large sums for the treasury.
The dog that didn’t bark in the night.
According to the CFD Auction timetable, August 8th:
Delivery Body issues a ‘Notice of Auction’ inviting qualified applicants to submit sealed bids
The ‘Notice of Auction’ will specify that an auction is to be held and the deadline for the submission of sealed bids
There has been no such notice publicised. That means that there are insufficient potential bids to merit an auction. All applicants will therefore get the full Administrative Strike Price for their technology. This is likely to mean very small volumes of expensive tidal (£270/MWh in today’s money) and floating wind (£155/MWh in today’s money), and perhaps a few solar projects if they can get a grid connection, but even these must be in doubt. It increases the probability that there are no bids at all for ordinary offshore wind.
This is acutely embarrassing for the government who has just had a massive slap in the face: they will need to re-run the auction with much more generous terms on offer if they hope to procure any useful volume of capacity. The idea that wind was getting ever cheaper, already challenged by Vattenfall’s decision to pull out of its Norfolk Boreas project has now been blown out of the water by an industry wide raspberry.