Energy

Tim Yeo is now posing as a friend of the consumer. Launching the latest report from the Energy and Climate Change Committee this morning, he attacked the Treasury for ‘refusing to back new contracts to deliver investment in nuclear, wind, wave and carbon capture and storage’. The report argues that could ‘impose unnecessary costs on consumers’. The basic logic of his claim is this: investments are more expensive when they are riskier. Investors expect to be compensated for the risks being taken with their money. If the Government offers guarantees that reduce the amount of risk energy companies run by investing in expensive sources of energy like offshore wind, then those firms

On Monday, David Cameron reiterated his opposition to scrapping the winter fuel payment as a universal benefit. During his speech on welfare, the Prime Minister said: ‘There is also a debate about some of the extra benefits that pensioners can receive – and whether they should be means-tested. On this I want to be very clear: two years ago I made a promise to the elderly of this country and I am keeping it.’ Even though means-testing winter fuel payments might be off the table, I understand that work is still going on within Whitehall to alter the benefit. This time it’s not in the Work and Pensions department, which

For all the talk about Greece and France and the Eurozone, it’s telling just how much our politicians are focusing on Iran. Indeed, some of the most concrete political settlements of the past few days have concerned that turbulent state. On Friday, the US Congress approved a Bill which included the blunt reminder that, ‘It shall be the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies or Iran’s neighbours with a nuclear weapon.’ And the G8 subsequently put out a statement about oil reserves that clearly had Iran in mind. ‘Looking ahead to

Does anyone believe Chinese GDP figures? Officially, the economy is roaring at 9 per cent a year. But thanks to WikiLeaks we know that Chinese Politburo member Li Keqiang thinks that the official GDP data is ‘for reference only’ — and that if you want to know how fast China is growing you should look at electricity consumption, rail cargo volume and bank lending etc. So today’s announcement of China’s electricity consumption figures for April showing a year-on-year growth of 3.7 per cent is quite significant. This is growth beyond George Osborne’s wildest dreams, but by recent Chinese standards is pretty paltry. Last year China’s electricity consumption grew 12 per

The ‘word of the year’ for 2011 is already featuring prominently in 2012. Yep, the ‘squeezed middle’ is the focus of the Resolution Foundation’s latest report, which they launched in central London earlier today. It’s a fascinating and nicely presented study, and I’d recommend you read it in full: this think tank really is very good at choosing the most revealing metrics to bring some clarity to an often vague debate. But, in the meantime, here are some of the things that stood out to me from today’s event:   1. The squeeze started long before the recession. Talk of the ‘squeezed middle’ often focuses on the impact of the

The Climate Change Committee, a quango set up to advise the Government on its emissions targets, make a big claim in their report today. They have, they suggest, disproved the argument that climate policy is set to drive substantial increases in energy bills by 2020. They say that ‘policies to achieve a low-carbon economy will add a further £110 to bills in 2020, almost entirely due to support for investments in low-carbon power generation’, less than other estimates. And so the Guardian have used that as a pretext to let climate attack dog Bob Ward accuse the TaxPayers’ Alliance and Nigel Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation of an attempt to

This morning the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) told us that the climate summit in Durban, which concluded over the weekend, has been ‘heralded a success’. As they say, the ‘talks resulted in a decision to adopt the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol next year in return for a roadmap to a global legal agreement covering all parties for the first time’. Should anyone be heralding that as some kind of step forward? Was I wrong to be sceptical last week? As it happens, the various parties were actually trying to secure that ‘global legal agreement’, covering all of them, two years ago in Copenhagen —

Will Durban break the cycle of climate change meetings that repeatedly disappoint those hoping to replace Kyoto with an upgraded model? With so much else on, most people seem to be ignoring the latest summit entirely. Scanning the major newspaper websites, only the Guardian and the Independent mention “Durban” on their homepages.    First Copenhagen failed to live up to the massive hype. Then Cancun continued the stalemate on the big picture and negotiators contented themselves with addressing some relatively minor points. But Kyoto’s commitment period ends at the end of 2012, so those hoping for new mandatory targets can’t content themselves with stalling forever.   Despite the scale of

It may be a week old, but last Monday’s episode of Panorama really is worth putting half-an-hour aside for, if you haven’t seen it already. Its subject was energy prices, and it raised some very urgent concerns about the government’s policies in that area. You can watch it on the BBC site, but here’s a brief summary in the meantime. All in all, switching our dependence away from coal and oil is going to be enormously expensive. Some £200 billion of taxpayers’ money is to be spent on increasing renewable energy output from seven to thirty percent by 2020. And, because sources like offshore wind costs almost £100 an hour