Skip to content

What Bob Ward Forgot To Tell You

May 22, 2016

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/05/21/letters-the-pursuit-of-a-european-superstate-recalls-the-contine/

 

Bob Ward has responded to news, that MPs are calling for decarbonisation targets for 2028-32 postponed, with a typically misleading reply.

Let’s ignore the fact that the Committee on Climate Change is neither independent or expert. They are no more than a bunch of committed alarmists, and any pronouncements from them needs to be viewed in that light.

Let’s instead start by looking at what the CCC actually say in the Fifth Carbon Budget:

 

 

image

https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-fifth-carbon-budget-the-next-step-towards-a-low-carbon-economy/

 

Apart from saying it is the lowest cost path, there is no mention of costs, and no supporting data is supplied, either in the report or supplementary files.

Indeed, how could there be, as nobody can have the slightest idea what various technologies and costs will look like in twenty years time. In other words, it is little more than meaningless waffle.

 

But let’s consider what we do know, again according to the CCC.

In the Technical Report, they have this to say about costs:

 

image

image

https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/sectoral-scenarios-for-the-fifth-carbon-budget-technical-report/

 

Even on these figures (at 2014 prices), meeting the CCC’s target will cost the UK economy £145 billion between now and 2030. And this cost, which only applies to the power sector, is also deliberately and misleadingly understated, as it assumes a Carbon Price Floor, rising to £78/tCO2 by 2030 (currently at £18/t).

This trick artificially inflates the cost of gas power generation, thus making renewable subsidies appear less.

The CCC dishonestly do not show the effect of this, but their detailed workings suggest this would amount to an extra cost of £1.7 billion a year.

Also note that this dishonestly also does not include the costs of the Capacity Market Mechanism, ie the cost of providing standby power.

As I say, this only applies to power. There are numerous other costs which are not included, such as converting to uneconomical electric cars, the hugely expensive electrification of domestic heating and knock on costs on industry.

Only a charlatan would forget to point all of this out.

 

Ward’s whole argument is that, if we don’t decarbonise now, it will be much more expensive to do so later on. This is arrant and obvious nonsense.

For a start we simply don’t know whether new technologies will reduce the cost of decarbonisation in years to come. For instance, what if a commercially viable form of CCS could be found – or fission power?   Wouldn’t we feel idiots for having signed up to a obscenely expensive 35 year contract for Hinkley Point and utterly pointless wind farms?

But much worse, we are even told by the CCC that the cost of renewable power is already gradually coming down.     

 

image

https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/sectoral-scenarios-for-the-fifth-carbon-budget-technical-report/

 

In what sane world would we be signing up for long term contracts at sky high prices, when we could wait a few years and get it at a much reduced price? And all in the name of a purely arbitrary and unnecessary target.

 

Bob Ward, the CCC and nobody else have the faintest idea what will happen in twenty, thirty or forty years time. What we do know is that the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change will inflict on the UK a huge and immensely damaging cost in the next decade or so, costs which will not be borne by our competitors in most of the EU, or the rest of the world.

15 Comments leave one →
  1. May 22, 2016 8:00 pm

    Basically unless the Climate Change Act is repealed, the “independent” CCC is disbanded and intermittent, unpredictable and unreliable renewable energy schemes are decommissioned, it is certain that by 2030 this country will have become a third world country with mass poverty and starvation (unless there has been mass civil unrest before then).

    • dennisambler permalink
      May 23, 2016 12:47 pm

      If by any chance we got to leave the EU, high energy costs and recession would be blamed on the our leaving.

  2. Kestrel27 permalink
    May 22, 2016 10:44 pm

    Of all the thoroughly annoying proselytisers for unreliables Bob Ward is surely the most intellectually bankrupt. His letter is economical with the truth from the first three words; he isn’t in the least surprised that 15 MPs have called for weaker targets.

    • May 24, 2016 6:28 am

      Even the LSE tagline is misleading. He only rents an office there.

  3. May 22, 2016 11:55 pm

    All this without the evidence that reducing emissions will have an effect on climate change
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743

  4. Tim Hammond permalink
    May 23, 2016 9:51 am

    As you say what is actually known is easy to summarise:

    That the cost of renewables will not get more expensive but could become cheaper

    That technology will not go backwards but could go forward.

    That if we grow economically we will be richer in the future and thus more able to afford things.

    Ward’s argument – even leaving aside the questionable assumption about climate change – is utter nonsense.

  5. CheshireRed permalink
    May 23, 2016 10:15 am

    at least £145 billion in the next 14 years and all of it, every single penny, completely unnecessary. And some are wittering on about how bad things could be if we left the EU. Dear oh dear, talk about misplaced priorities. We’re governed by complete imbeciles.

  6. Gamecock permalink
    May 23, 2016 11:56 am

    Independent, robust, cost-effective, ultimate goal, helping the world, dangerous climate change.

    Word salad.

  7. dennisambler permalink
    May 23, 2016 12:56 pm

    We do not need to de-carbonise at all, how did this happen without our profligate use of previously affordable energy?:

    http://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/

    Title: “The Coming Ice Age” – download pdf

    “….at a certain time the ocean suddenly changed from cold to warm. The pink sediment contained shells of minute warm-water animals; the gray sediment, cold-water animals.”

    Back at Lamont, measurement of radiocarbon showed that this sudden warming took place throughout the length and breadth of the vast Atlantic Ocean — 11,000 years ago. The cores showed virtually no change in temperature for 90,000 years — except for this one sudden increase. Donn, Lamont’s meteorological expert, was as mystified as Ewing.

    “What happened 11,000 years ago to heat the ocean?” they kept asking themselves at odd moments over the next year or so. “What could change the climate of the whole ocean so abruptly?”

  8. Bitter& Twisted permalink
    May 23, 2016 1:38 pm

    What else can you expect from Blob Award a veteran distorter of the facts.

  9. May 23, 2016 3:40 pm

    ‘Let’s ignore the fact that the Committee on Climate Change is neither independent or expert.’

    Or let’s not. They are worse than clueless i.e. highly damaging.

  10. It doesn't add up... permalink
    May 23, 2016 10:18 pm

    Just as well fracking has been approved at Kirby Misperton

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/20/fracking-north-yorkshire-councillors-debate-third-energy-plan/

  11. Manfred permalink
    May 24, 2016 1:12 am

    They’re book burning in Oregon. How long before they’re compelled to do tyrannical Green at the end of a gun? What warning signs are not present?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: