Skip to content

The Tories must seize the chance to rethink climate change policy – Telegraph

June 19, 2015

Are we finally seeing the first signs of commonsense from the MSM, regarding climate change?
Apart from the likes of Booker, Dellers and Rose, there has been little more then the odd whinge about energy bills.

Enter Fraser Nelson of the Spectator, who starts:

When Benedictine monks first arrived to restore Pluscarden Abbey, a beautiful ruin in northeast Scotland, they faced a battle against the elements. It had no roof, let alone heating, and even when restored to its medieval glory it cost a fortune to keep warm. But when I visited last month, I learned that a miracle has happened. A biomass boiler has arrived, tucked away next to the organ, with a subsidy scheme that turns cost into profit. For every £1 spent in woodchip, the monks receive £4 in subsidy. The Lord works in mysterious ways, but nothing is more mysterious than the financing of green energy.

The economics will be familiar to any wily aristocrat with a ballroom to heat. The boiler is expensive, but the cost is recovered in about five years; and subsidies are guaranteed for 20 years. Owning an eco-boiler is as close as you get to a licence to print money. “Every stately home I know is now like a sauna in winter, with windows wide open,” one Conservative peer tells me. Little wonder the Pope is so enthusiastic about the environmental agenda; it’s saving monasteries. But for George Osborne, all this makes less sense. The Chancellor senses an expensive problem, in need of a conservative solution.

He goes on to discuss climate sensivity, the pause, the CO2 benefits of fracking, fuel poverty, the uselessness of wind power, loss of industrial competitiveness, China/India and the immorality of withholding cheap energy from the third world

He concludes:

There is little chance of a new Kyoto Treaty, given the abject failure of the last one. So it will be time for a new conversation – and George Osborne has already started it. In his 2011 Tory conference speech he suggested that Britain would cut carbon emissions “no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe”. This can be seen as an Osborne Doctrine; a sensible idea, but strikingly different to the 2008 Climate Change Act, which committed Britain to eye-wateringly carbon reduction target no matter what happened overseas.

Maybe the first real cracks are starting to appear?

  1. Mark Leskovar permalink
    June 19, 2015 9:28 pm

    “Maybe the first real cracks are starting to appear?”

    We can only hope! Every one is all in for saving the earth until reality rears its’ head. “This is going to cost me how much?” It’s all well and good until the impact is personal then people will want accounting and take notice of what they’re being asked to pay for. Then all the alarmist ‘the sky is falling’ nonsense scare stories will come home to roost.

    • Brian H permalink
      June 20, 2015 7:17 am

      The policy was fatally cracked from the onset.

      • Kartoffel permalink
        June 20, 2015 9:40 am

        It all started with Maurice Strong but where is he?

      • AndyG55 permalink
        June 20, 2015 9:50 am

        iirc he is in China.. The country producing the most CO2.

    • johnmarshall permalink
      June 20, 2015 11:46 am

      The Earth does not need saving it is the humans that are screwed up and need that injection of reality that is missing.

  2. Retired Dave permalink
    June 19, 2015 9:57 pm

    The Renewable Heat Insanity (sorry Incentive) is the biggest piece of stupidity imaginable. It makes the Feed-in Tariffs for solar PV look positively sensible.

    In the RHI scheme of things, the more heat you use the more subsidy you get. Admittedly you first need to meet certain criteria and buy certain types of boilers etc. but……………….

    If one wants to subsidise reductions in CO2 then we should be incentivising the means to use less energy in the first place. Someone who buys expensive heat pumps (using electricity) gets a big handout of my money – someone who builds a home that is well insulated and requires little energy gets nothing. Madness.

  3. June 20, 2015 6:48 am

    “…..So in years to come,
    When these follies stand still,
    And every countryside scene
    Their rusting hulks fill,
    We can tell our children
    An incredulous tale,
    Of when you tilt at windmills
    And let common sense fail.”


    • Brian H permalink
      June 20, 2015 7:20 am

      A tale can be incredible, but only people can be incredulous.

      • June 20, 2015 11:54 am

        To err is human,
        To forgive divine,
        The correction I’ve made
        And now it’s in line.
        Thanks for that.

  4. Bloke down the pub permalink
    June 20, 2015 8:08 am

    The case against this environ-mental fiasco has been clear for a long time. What has been lacking are politicians who are prepared to withstand the howls of anguish that will inevitably come from the green blob when they’re told that the scam has to end. Too many politicians would hear the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby echoing in their ears, “Very brave of you minister“.

  5. June 20, 2015 8:35 am

    The main problem is that we have very few MPs who understand science and engineering. The handful that do are sceptical of “climate change” and understand the disastrous implications of the renewable energy scam but are ignored by the ignorant other MPs.

    • Kartoffel permalink
      June 20, 2015 9:44 am

      Hopefully the French president will fix it even without a First Lady.

  6. Bitter&Twisted permalink
    June 20, 2015 11:33 am

    Philip- if only that were true. Julian Huppert (the thankfully ex- Lib-Dem MP for Cambridge) has a PhD in biological chemistry. Yet he was (and is) a rabid cheerleader for “action” against climate change. I suspect climate insanity runs in the family. His dad (Herbert) is a Professor of geophysics and a cheerleader for carbon capture.

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      June 20, 2015 3:21 pm

      Margaret Beckett (Derby South) has a metallurgy degree but is convinced that “it may be too late” and that was several years ago.

  7. Kelvin Vaughan permalink
    June 20, 2015 12:44 pm

    When did the word than die?

  8. June 20, 2015 1:26 pm

    The Osborne Doctrine is similar to Stephen Harper’s position.

    Stephen Harper as Canadian Prime Minister has always claimed that his reluctance to address climate change is based on two factors.

    First, he says he does not want to put Canada’s economy at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the U.S.

    Second, he says that an international climate change deal makes little sense when some of the world’s biggest carbon dioxide emitters, like China, are not taking part.

    The China-US deal is less than meets the eye. China will keep on their present course, and the US side of it is politically fragile.

    Harper’s theory of the Canadian economy views resources — particularly energy resources — as the driving forces of the entire economy. If oil is the focus, then most of Obama’s climate-change initiatives are, to this Canadian government, irrelevant. The U.S. president has tackled his country’s biggest carbon emitters — coal-fired electricity generating plants. What he has not done is introduce regulations to reduce emissions from U.S. oil and gas producers.

    Until Washington does that, Harper won’t act against Canada’s petroleum industry, even though it is now the single biggest source of carbon emissions in this country. That’s what the prime minister means when he talks of matching Canada’s actions to those of the U.S., sector by sector. To this government, the fact that the U.S. is on track to meeting its carbon-reduction targets while Canada is not, is immaterial.

  9. June 20, 2015 3:09 pm

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    Paul is seeing stirring in the swamp.

  10. June 20, 2015 6:52 pm

    Biomass and Biofuel are the most idiotically stupid policies imaginable to ‘tackle climate change’. The first encourages deforestation on a scale not seen since medieval times. The second encourages UK farmers to carpet their land with rapeseed, Asian farmers to expand Palm oil plantations and American farmers to divert corn from food to ethanol. Both destroy rainforests and kill biodiversity through pesticides and mono-cultivation. The environmental damage is enormous.

    The profits flowing to the green lobby are all based on government subsidies to meet ‘biofuel’ targets that they themselves defined !

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      June 20, 2015 7:12 pm

      I was talking to someone returned from Borneo (earlier this year) who was very bitter about the deforestation. They had flattened tens of thousands of square kilometres of rain forest to grow oil palms, but with the recent decline in demand some plantations had been cut down and left to rot. There is little chance of the forest regenerating there in the near future.

      I would give you his exact words, but they would result in my post being censored.

    • roger permalink
      June 21, 2015 8:33 am

      So we grow subsidised rape seed for biofuel and subject a not inconsiderable proportion of the population to hay fever and exacerbate existing respiratory conditions in others.
      The NHS pick up a huge bill as a result and many peoples lives are made miserable.
      Farmers and subsidies; will they never stand on their own two feet?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: