In England’s green and pleasant land

PuppetMaster

If the government does pursue its mad energy policy it would mean that they would have to shut down most of the government, as there would not be the wealth to support a large government. Once this fact dawns on them they will jettison the policy.

Robert Eve

Never thought I'd side with the European Commission & the TUC.

Edward

'Shadow energy secretary, Meg Hillier, admitted in a recent interview that “there is more agreement” on energy policy than any other policy area in Britain.'

Which is highly impressive, considering the competition.

Phil

That's probably the first and only time I will ever bat on the same side as the TUC if what you say is true.

Richard

It simply depends on whether one takes the danger of climate change seriously. Measures that stand any chance of making a difference are going to be difficult, and much of the pain in the transition will fall upon the most vulnerable. There's no denying that; it's how our society works. Of course, if we don't take the danger seriously, and tell ourselves it's all a 'scam' and so forth, then we won't accept the need for change. Then we'll be taking an even bigger gamble, staking everything on the chances of the scientists being wrong, and risking greater pain for more people. That's the dilemma.

Frank Sutton

Why can't the UK drag its feet over this nonsense, as everyone else does?
I suppose it's consistent with CMD's proud boast that we give a bigger share of our GDP in foreign aid than any other country.

John Montague

Richard, I'd say it simply depends on whether your wife is earning a very large salary as adviser to a manufacturer of wind turbines.

Windfarms are not just an environmental horror, they're a complete waste of money. If we are to take the dangers of climate change (or of being dependent on oil) seriously, we should build a new generation of nuclear plants.

TomTom

Britain will simply de-industrialise completely but first I think the BBC should produce its energy reduction plans.....cutting studio lights, cutting flights, shutting down offices, and cutting broadcast power. The Service Sector should now start cutting - the House of Commons should shut off lighting and close all non-working areas - bars, restaurants etc

John Richardson

“It simply depends on whether one takes the danger of climate change seriously.”

Richard
May 30th, 2011 4:22pm

Totally wrong in so many ways.

One way in that you are totally wrong Richard, is that Britain (emitting a reported 2% of manmade CO2) makes so little difference to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Thank goodness our repulsive political class have stopped telling their parasitic friends in the MS/Corporate Media, that the world ‘looks to Britain’ for direction.
If Chinese Party Bosses got caught stealing so much money as our political class, they would be shot.

“Measures that stand any chance of making a difference are going to be difficult, and much of the pain in the transition will fall upon the most vulnerable.”

This is just total nonsense.
It sounds as though you heard this on ‘Radio 4’ and you repeat it as though it makes sense.
I will expand if anyone intelligent is interested.

“There's no denying that; it's how our society works.”

I’ve denied ‘it’ and I have tried to disparage and ridicule the idea.

“Of course, if we don't take the danger seriously, and tell ourselves it's all a 'scam' and so forth, then we won't accept the need for change.’

Correct.

“Then we'll be taking an even bigger gamble, staking everything on the chances of the scientists being wrong, and risking greater pain for more people.”

What 'scientists'?

I have not heard or read anything like this from a ‘warmist’ for a couple of years or so. The ‘act now or who knows maybe one day in the future others might suffer’, idiocy has been replaced by the; ‘we can create Green jobs’ lie.
At least that second effort makes sense to someone people ignorant of the facts.

“That's the dilemma.”

No.
Richard, that’s one logical position to take if you ‘take(s) the danger of climate change seriously’.
So it is not ‘the dilemma’ at all.

You might be interested in the comments below today’s ‘Daily Mail’ CO2 threat nonsense article.
People seem increasingly angry at the lies and propaganda.

From the above article:-

“…there is palpable anger that the government has refused to publish an energy policy impact assessment on manufacturers, presumably because its contents are so devastating.”

Well ‘anger’ does not make the political class pause or reflect or think or reason on this issue.

I hope people will begin to ask; ‘As the political class now the damage these measures will have, and they cannot pretend ‘the science is settled’ any more, what is really motivating them?’

EC

David, A timely and most informative article. An excellent round up.

John

If you believe it's 'what the scientitsts say' you've not really taken a look yourself, have you. It's not difficult, try: wattsupwiththat.com for one. Or just the Central England Temperature series, with more-or-less raw data over several hundred years (the longest such record of actual temperatures, not made up ones).

I'm a scientist myself and I'm completely certain the problem is so over-hyped as to count as a scam. There's a background warming of about 0.6 degrees per century, consistent with the previous millions of years of repeated ice ages and warming. Any one day or any one year can be a little warmer or colder but over century timescales nothing to be alarmed about.

Put another way, China opens 1 to 2 coal fired power stations a week. Their annual *growth* in CO2 output now exceeds the UK's total annual output. If we closed down all UK manufacturing, heating etc. (sorry, WHEN we close down...) CO2 will still go up!

I'm afraid there won't be enough global warming to keep us actually warm

JohnOfEnfield

I plan to tell my newly elected MP (de Bois) that, if he doesn't fight tooth and nail against this mad policy of increasing our energy costs, I will vote against him and the Conservative party (for the first time in my life. As a pensioner I can easily foresee the day when I will enter into "fuel poverty".

The science is NOT settled - AGW is NOT proven (to quote Phil Jones "Why should I give you my data so that you can try and priove me wrong"!) and we are taking utterly fantastic steps to reduce "carbon" which is the basis of our life and are our economy.

annassasin

As Briatain has as much effect on global warming as a gnat's fart, the desperation to cut farts by half to save the world, makes little sense.

Humans produce 2% of global CO2. UK produces 2% of that 3%. = gnat's fart.

How much CO2 did the Iceland volcano produce Mr Cameron??

daniel maris

I think the case for renewable energy is not confined to low carbon outputs.

Not sure about the legal position, but if we have a particular problem with some industries I suggest they be allowed to use ring fenced carbon based energy sources until over time we can move to full renewable and carbon-capture.

I hope this article isn't again the Spectator banging the drum for BNFL. Nuclear power is already more expensive than onshore wind. That disparity is only going to get greater.

Great news that Germany is abandoning nuclear power entirely.

JohnOfEnfield

Done it! Written to de Bois that is.

I was going to say that this subject makes me incandescent - but that's been banned!

roger slade

Huhne the Loon strikes again.

annassasin

Oh yes

Massive ice melt in antarctic is now believed to be caused by x-large hole in ozone layer. Also causing shift in global weather patterns. Sadly no money in it so little media attention.

oldtimer

I would not trust the EU Commission on this subject. Fundamentally they believe in the global warming agenda and the scams that go with it.

It is obvious that the Carbon Plan, signed by Cameron, Clegg and Huhne, will discourage new manufacturing investment and cause existing high energy consumers (such as Tata) to reconsider their future in the UK. Wind farms, the favourite renewable of the signatories to this Plan, does not deliver the amount of energy its advocates claim, is unreliable and irregular and thus useless on its own to feed the national grid. It needs to be backed up 100% by a reliable source, such as fossil or nuclear fuel. Capacity must therefore be duplicated. Furthermore wind farms are only built if huge taxpayer subsidies are on offer. I have tried for months to get out of government, via my MP, the economics of wind and solar energy compared with fossil fuel. Each time my questions have been dodged or left unanswered. I have long since advised my (Conservative) MP that he will not get my vote so long as his party supports this absurd policy.

The global warming scam is the source of what probably is the most stupid policy implemented by the coalition. The country cannot afford it, nor its architects - the three party leaders (I include MilibandE for his role in passing the Climate Change Act). The sooner they are dumped by their respective parties the better off we shall all be.

Richard

Let's see.

John Montague,

You may well be right that we need more nuclear power stations. These come with their own serious risks, of course, but perhaps it's the lesser risk, at least for a transitional period. As with the whole climate change question, it's a matter for experts. And, no, I've no connection with the wind farm industry. Aesthetically, I don't like wind farms, but that's not really very important, is it?

John Richardson,

Yes, Britain's contribution to C02 levels is a very small part of the whole, but this whole effort is bedevilled by people waiting for others to step first. If the UK, still one of the world's richest societies, takes an early initiative, others may follow. Or, of course, they may not, preferring short term advantage. But it's worth a try - or are you suggesting we should merely wait for someone else's first move?

John,

These arguments have taken place many times. I've looked before at the web source you mention - it's very partisan. If you are a scientist specialising in this field, explain to me, a layman, why nearly all the others don't agree with you. You need to argue with them, not me. The only responsible thing I can do is trust the experts. If their view changes, I'll be delighted.

Cogito Ergosum

This global warming business reminds me of another scientific scare in the 1970s/80s: genetic manipulation.

The scare was that if we tampered with DNA we might accidentally create mutant bacteria that would destroy civilisation as we know it. Cumbersome regulations and committees were devised to cover everybody's posterior against these alleged risks.

Of course it was all exaggerated nonsense, and eventually the oversight was reduced to a reasonable level.

One day, I trust, global warming will be regarded in a similar way to DNA manipulation by everybody.

The real climate problem Britain faces is the random variation from one year to the next, which dwarfs any long term trend. One summer the tarmac on our roads melts in the hot sun; next year it is under flood water. We should be spending money to cope with random climate variation, not with some elusive and disputed warming trend.

daniel maris

My view would be that we shouldn't load the costs of green energy on to energy users. I see building the renewable energy infrastructure more like creating the motorway system - we didn't expect individual motorists to pay for that.

Remember that in a few years's time the wind turbines and solar energy facilities will be producing extremely cheap energy because of v. low operating and maintenance costs, compared with coal, nuclear and gas.

So I would say use general taxation to subsidise the shift to renewables.

Baron

This imbecility will very likely bury not only us, the whole of the West, too, and for good.

annassasin, sir, excellent point, will anyone listen though?

Asking people to piss into the ocean to stop a tsunami would produce more noticeable impact than all the idiotic DECC measures could ever have on nature’s climatic change that has been the feature of the heavenly abode of ours since it came into being.

If anyone were to say, in a society ruled by rational thinking, sagacity, common sense that the earth temperature has increased by 0.6deg C in the last fifty years, demand the society stop it, he would have been carted to an institution for the rest of his natural life, in a society that lost it, he gets rewarded, is listened to. A. Toynbee got it right: "societies, cultures don’t get murdered, they commit suicide". We are witnessing one such suicide, can do bugger all about it.

Perry

the belief that Britain should lead this green battle

What conceited little twerps!

I hoped that all such people would have departed with the Great Economic Pretender, or been swept out by the incoming 'Government'.

Obviously too much to hope for.

TrevorsDen

Politicians are cornered by the UN and the self serving global warming community of scientists.

I believe that our CO2 output targets are in fact conditional of the rest of EU meeting theirs. So I am not sure of the govt are or will be laying additional taxes on top.

Global warming is a scam and govts world wide need to wake up to it. The business dept is only doing its job in pointing out the effect.

St Bruno

I heard my first cuckoo a few days ago.

I saw my first CO2 ad. on telly yesterday: EDF the proud sponsor of the London Olympics. The provider of low carbon energy. Bless!

They are both up to no good as usual.

disenfranchised

wind turbines are just another idiocy to punish us with. they're all part of the demoralisation process. how to thoroughly wreck the look and peace of this once green and pleasant land.
they always bring to mind that sketch where peter cooke says to jonathan miller "i want you to lay down your life, perkins. we need a futile gesture at this stage. it will raise the whole tone of the war".....

John Montague

Aesthetically, I don't like wind farms, but that's not really very important, is it?

Compared to the advancement of Mrs Clegg's career, I'd say it was. I can't see any other use for them.

I'd much rather spend this money on effective sea-defences for Norfolk than on half-baked gestures like wind farms.

Dimoto

The government accepts that loading new taxes on to the banks will just induce them to go elsewhere.

Loading carbon taxes on heavy industry won't reduce total carbon emissions AT ALL.
They will just be displaced to less deluded jurisdictions.

TomTom

"turbines and solar energy facilities will be producing extremely cheap energy because of v. low operating and maintenance cost"

Give us the benefit of your expertise Daniel Maris, with your knowledge of the cost of producing photovoltaics and the component life cycle of wind turbines you should have the numbers to hand.

Your in-depth study of production costs and TCO should be published to counter fact-based economics which conclude the opposite

paulg

Johnofenfield@ you tell him! you sound like a saxon diarist, and we are all going to support you!

Your MP is going to become a veritable resistance leader: either he leads the fight back or we will have him by the scruff of his neck and the seat of his pants and launch him off a cliff.

There can be no mercy for this slacker, the fate of our nation rests upon his shoulders and your gas bill.

oldtimer

Daniel Maris comments above:
"My view would be that we shouldn't load the costs of green energy on to energy users."

Who can he name who is not an energy user? The fact is everyone is an energy user.

He also has a touching faith in the efficiency and low cost of wind and solar energy. Regarding wind energy he should read the report commissioned by the Muir Trust into the results observed in Scotland. It can be found here:
http://www.jmt.org/news.asp?s=2&nid=JMT-N10561

A spokesperson for the Trust said:
"This report is a real eye opener for anyone who's been wondering just how much power Scotland is getting from the fleet of wind turbines that have taken over many of our most beautiful mountains and hillsides. The answer appears to be not enough, and much less than is routinely claimed.”

The author of the report said:
“Over the two-year period studied in this report, the metered windfarms in the U.K. consistently generated far less energy than wind proponents claim is typical. The intermittent nature of wind also gives rise to low wind coinciding with high energy demand. Sadly, wind power is not what it's cracked up to be and cannot contribute greatly to energy security in the UK."

EC

oldtimer, May 31st, 2011 9:26am

Daniel Maris is a curious case. His solution to poorly performing windfarms is to build more of them! He has never declared his credentials , as it were, as to whether he is a pro or anti carbon scammer but he seems quite content for the Germans abandon carbon free nuclear power and build more gas burning, CO2 producing, power stations and place themselves in the tender care of Vladimir Putin et al.

Daniel Maris is correct about one thing though. The politics of nuclear power have become impossible following the Fuckushima disaster. In Germany Merkel's knee jerk reaction seeking to announce an end date to nuclear power was done from a point of principle, it was done to after watching the results of the recent regional election in the state of Baden-Wurtemburg where the "Greens" won following the Fuckushima disaster. i.e. She needed the announcement to protect the votes of the CDU/CSU party that she leads. The German electorate will then, apparently, feel safe despite the prevailing westerly winds and the string of French reactors on the other side of the Rhine.

alexsandr

Photo voltaics and wind farms use a lot of carbon to manufacture and construct. When is their break even in financial and also carbon terms?

Easiet way to cut CO2 and energy use is not to use it. We waste tons of energy every day.
And the biggest threat to the UK is not global warming but is security of supply. We are at the mercy of world prices and they just seem to go up and up. And it all comes from flakey countries.

James Delingpole

Yes, David, some of us have been saying this for the last few years - only to have our outrageous lunacy regularly mocked by Spectator insiders with names like David Blackburn.
I'll take this as your lengthy apology, then.

TGF UKIP

Long long past the time when this subject should have received coverage from the Speccie. Thanks to our craven editor fearful of jeopardising his position at court, it has until now been given the bargepole treatment in spades notwithstanding the massive democratic deficit it represents.

As someone who follows the energy industry closely (I'm a longstanding investor in UK Coal Plc) I can tell CHers the situation is much worse even than indicated by David's post and by Ridley's piece.

Consents for new unabated gas stations are being handed out like sweeties but the generators for their own ecomic reasons are not building them making the likeliehood of lights out c2015/16 ever more likely especially given that Osborne's massive hike in carbon floor floor price is likely to ensure that the closing down coal sations rattle through their hours before the new floor becomes effective in 2013.

Also worth pointing out that OFGEM's prediction of a doubling of domestic prices by 2020 pre-dated the latest carbon price increases. Also worth mentioning too is the changing of sides by the unions who have so far been on the warmist side given the very large number of unionised jobs that would be created in all the massive construction projects for nuclear and CCS. Clearly they now rightly see so many of their other members' jobs disappearing overseas.

The City of course is entirely pro green given how much loot it can make from the scam and ergo so is Dave especially as it pleases not only the City but also Lady Macbeth with her family windfarm.

There are many reasons for my loathing and contempt for Cameron but his part in this cynical scam and fraud on this country is right at the top.

PS And don't forget, folks, when it comes time to vote UKIP are the only mainstream party avowedly AGW sceptic. Not, of course, that you will ever see mention of that in the Cameron/Nelson Spectator.

Peter From Maidstone

Unfortunately UKIP is NOT a mainstream party. I wish it was, but it is not. What we need is a Real Conservative Party that says it like it is. A party that was not afraid would do very well I think, if it fearlessly told the MSM luvvies where to get off. John Redwood would not make a good PM IMHO, but he, and people like (Pickles was good on TV), could make a real difference. If not a new party then a Real Conservative Tendency that took the Party back from the socialists.

UKIP is not that party. It could and should co-operate entirely with such a party. I wonder if it would be possible to begin a national Real Conservative Party to stand as anti-immigration, anti-EU, pro-Armed Forces, Islamo-sceptic, anti-waste, anti-state intrusion, pro-English, pro-law and order, pro-less spending, pro-speaking honestly.

I am half inclined to stand as a local council candidate.

daniel maris

Oldtimer -

That Muir Trust report was not exactly a very accurate sample. How can you judge the efficacy of wind power if you eliminate from the study those wind turbines that are most efficient in energy terms.

In the end all the study said was that onshore turbines achieved 25% of their capacity. Which is pretty much what one might expect in a low wind year.

The Muir Trust is a landscape preservation society. It's not exactly surprising they oppose wind turbines.

The authort's comments can be safely ignored. Germany, which knows what it is doing, is looking to ramp up wind energy sourcing. The same with China.

Meanwhile I see that that other nation of crazy non-conformists, the Swiss, have given up on nuclear as well.

Nuclear is already far more costly than onshore wind.

daniel maris

EC -

I've declared my position before. I'm a precautionist. So I have no investment of belief in global warming caused by carbon but I accept it may be a possible consequence of us burning hydrocarbons. I have a general rule that it is best not to alter atmospheric values too markedly since we don't know what we are doing - no one really understands the details of climate causation.

The Germans must work out their own salvation. It is not for me to tell whether or not to import Russian gas. I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole personally. There is plenty of LPG available on the world market. Much cheaper than nuclear.

I think we should gradually shift to a 100% green energy economy over 20-30 years.

Those French reactors aren't that impressive...the French government has them on high alert now as supplies of cold water to cool them down are running low.

daniel maris

Alexsandr -

Financial break even(real cost) is probably 7-10years. Depends on a lot of factors. I wouldn't think the carbon break even would take long. I saw a figure for energy break even of 3-4 years. So I would think carbon break even is even quicker.

daniel maris

TGF -

You can build a gas generator in six months. I very much doubt the lights will go out - unless our nuclear industry suffers a spectacular failure as seen in Japan and France.

Fay Kelly-Tuncay

CO2 is good. Please take a moment to sign our petition to repeal the Climate Change Act and stop this global warming alarm movement and get back to a normal, rational energy policy.
http://www.gopetition.com/petition/43914.html

www.repealtheact.co.uk

Epigenes

I suppose people believe in AGW because they know no science whatsoever.

However, it is not a scientific debate that is taking place, it is political. Every scientist, politician or journalist who advocates the case for AGW is making money out it. And you are paying.

This is the modern day equivalent of the the German people following the Nazi propaganda or the Russians siding with the Bolsheviks. They went along with it until it was too late.

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever - absolutely none at all - that anthropogenic CO2 emissions alter 'global temperature' (a totally meaningless concept) or climate.

Climate is stochastic, it cannot even in principle be forecast but the present groups of politicians are going to use it to restrict freedom and wealth.

Oh, and the ozone hole is another scam. What is the natural variation in its size, if any? Nobody knows. What was its size, if any, in 1800?

Richard

Epigenes -

Perhaps it's not worth getting into this argument again, especially now that this thread has dropped from the front page, but really.....

The case for AGW has been advanced in thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers in respected science journals and books. Who are you to say airily that it is not a scientific argument? Dispute it if you like, but flat, unsubstantiated dismissal is unworthy of us all.

Some people will make money out of it, by developing green technologies or through their scientific careers. And your objection to that is...? I didn't think Spectator followers generally objected to entrepreneurial capitalism. Of course, a great deal more money is being made out of business as usual - what about that financial motive for influencing the debate? Is no one allowed to comment if they have any financial stake in any possible outcome?

And on your point about the ozone layer - what is that point exactly? Does the possibility that it may have been weakened in the past mean that damage to it now isn't dangerous?

I'm afraid the term 'sceptic' is woefully inappropriate for people who talk of 'scams' and the like. They give all the benefit of the doubt to a massive conspiracy theory, and none to any other point of view. That isn't scepticism; it's gullibility.

daniel maris

I think the truth is that climate is far too complex an object of study - there being way too many variables - for us to be able to make accurate predictions. On the face of it, increased CO2 ought to raise temperature - we see the effets on Venus, which is far,far hotter than its nominal orbit position ought to make it and it has an atmosphere with heavy concentrations of CO2. However, there can be concomitant effects of industrialisation (some people think the smog of the mid 20th century in Europe and America kept temperatures down).
I've pointed out before that no one appears ever to have assessed the influence of hugely increased irrigation which releases far more water vapour into the atmosphere.

I think the precautionary approach is best. We ought to try and keep CO2 levels reasonably steady. But nuclear power - being so dangerous - cannot be part of any precautionary approach.