Skip to content

Green Campaigner Advises Govt On CCS

September 12, 2016

By Paul Homewood 


Baroness Worthington.

 I mentioned earlier that Bryony Worthington is a member of Lord Oxburgh’s Parliamentary Advisory Group on CCS.

Most will be aware that she worked for Friends of the Earth, before joining DEFRA to effectively write the Climate Change Act for the idiot Ed Miliband.


Many may not be aware of what she has been doing since.

In fact after leaving DEFRA in 2008, she formed Sandbag, a not for profit think tank, which, according to their website, campaigns for environmentally effective climate policies.


Sandbag has two core funders, The European Climate Foundation (ECF) and the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation.

The ECF is at the heart of the Green Blob, identified by David Rose in the Daily Mail two years ago, and is heavily funded by a number of liberal foundations in the US.

Sandbag also list WWF and FOE amongst other donors.

Last year, Sandbag received grants worth £355K.


Can anybody please explain to me why someone, who actively campaigns for certain climate policies, is invited to advise the government?

  1. September 12, 2016 4:02 pm

    Paul & all need to watch this video from Germany, especially where it covers the huge lobbying the wind energy industry undertook to limit the German Government’s reduction in subsidies ..

    The Green Party and so called environmentalist B.U.N.D. where at the forefront plus Enercon..

    Wind Turbine Battle

    “A few make huge profits at the expense of citizens and nature.”
    In this 29-minute documentary of the first German public television channel, all the essential issues were treated:
    •destruction of the environment by wind turbines
    •uselessness of wind turbines
    •conflict of interests of local councillors
    •wind turbine pollution
    •collusion between the nature protection association and the wind lobby
    •energy poverty
    •wind lobby up in arms against the reform of the renewable energy law
    •pressure put on decision-makers by the wind lobby

    • September 12, 2016 4:26 pm

      A great video which I have been sharing. Gives a good idea of where we are going if we are not careful.

  2. Broadlands permalink
    September 12, 2016 4:11 pm

    “Can anybody please explain to me why someone, who actively campaigns for certain climate policies, is invited to advise the government?”

    You should not be surprised. With the “science settled” (for the first time in history) isn’t that what all governments are now doing? Skeptics, especially so-called “Neo-skeptics” need not advise. For doing so they may even be arrested… in the US at least. Legitimate skepticism used to be the way good science was done. Now it’s considered a term of derision. Re-read the quote from J. Robert Oppenheimer at the top of this page.

  3. Keith Gugan permalink
    September 12, 2016 4:50 pm

    Having worked in the Oil and Gas industry for longer than I can remember; from exploration and drilling, through to ‘downstream’ refining and distribution, and having read much about CO2 and CCS I feel I ought to give my two-penneth. My experience as a safety and environmental consultant has been that anything gaseous or liquid that we put underground or underwater, unless in strong containers – and even then for how long?, comes back again. Even the stuff that has been down there for eons is continually weeping to the surface all around the world. But to deliberately endeavour to put an alien material back into a spent ‘seam’ whether salt, coal, oil or gas is fraught with dangers.

    The properties of CO2 are seemingly benign but we really do not know the risk that high pressure liquefied CO2 poses decades or centuries into the future. The simple question is are we prepared to take that risk for future generations. Emergence of ‘small’ quantities of CO2 happens around the world and the experience is that when it does animal life, including us, dies.

    Of course, companies, often set up to take advantage of the incentives, will portray this as scaremongering. But when they’ve taken their windfall and retired into the distance the time-bomb they have created remains. Often the temptation in running these sorts of enterprises is to stretch the boundaries so that more capacity or pressure than designed for is stored.

    The question those responsible have to ask is – am I prepared to take the blame? Once these reservoirs start to leak it will be unstoppable. Now that might not be so bad as the green life, etc. will benefit hugely. And as we rely on the green fodder either directly or, mostly, indirectly we shall benefit. But what it isn’t a leak, perhaps its a gush? CO2 in largish quantities (20,000ppm+) is toxic for animals, whereas 1,000ppm is tolerable.

    It’s not a difficult one. Let the CO2 do its thing. Enrich the planet with greenery, water the sahara. Lots of things to do just get on with it!

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      September 12, 2016 7:43 pm

      Great comment, Keith. I’m often amazed that the people who would scream blue murder if someone wanted to bury radioactive waste in deep, secure, granite, yet are quite happy to bury a deadly (like, immediately deadly, as opposed to RW) gas in a semi-porous oil field.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      September 12, 2016 8:42 pm

      Even if/while it stays underground, the simply gargantuan quantities that would have to be stored pose significant risk of causing seismic events. The more you store, the bigger the earthquake you can trigger. Storing amounts that would make any practical difference to global CO2 levels is quite a task. Whether it could be made more safe and stay economic by changing the chemistry (e.g. recent research in Iceland where pumping down water into volcanic rock alongside the CO2 produced limestone after a while) is an unknown.

    • 4 Eyes permalink
      September 13, 2016 9:40 am

      Keith, Harry and Arithmetically Challenged -Stick to things you know about. The comments just above are misleading. And they take no account of probabilistic risk or reflect everyday reality. Having designed the hardware and completed onsite some of the biggest gas producers in the world and as an expert in well integrity and having been a reservoir engineer preparing reservoir management plans all I can say in the time available is that you are wrong in fact and wrong in insinuation and conjecture. Unqualified, biased comments destroy meaningful discussion.

    • 4 Eyes permalink
      September 13, 2016 9:46 am

      By the way in the last 18 months I have made $0.00 from the oil and gas industry. Unfortunately they do not send big cheques as commonly thought.

  4. September 12, 2016 5:38 pm

    But, but she’s qualified… Queens College, Cambridge, B.A. (English)..
    and she’s an expert….

    “Areas of expertise: Climate policy, carbon budgets, emissions trading and carbon markets, energy policy, fisheries management, clean energy technologies, European policy making and politics.”

    The government need those who have become expert by advising the government to advise the government because they are experts.

    • Billy Liar permalink
      September 12, 2016 6:39 pm

      She has no ‘expertise’ in anything.

      She’s visited a few companies and listened to presentations – does that make you an expert?

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      September 12, 2016 7:46 pm

      Ahh…but she’s not a ‘climate scientist’ – as apparently any sceptic has to be to dis this crap.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      September 13, 2016 1:02 pm

      She tells them what they want to hear which is therefore not advice.

  5. Nigel S permalink
    September 12, 2016 9:50 pm

    Sandbag, a hostage to fortune indeed. Something to hide behind at least when the proverbial hits the fan as it soon must.

  6. September 12, 2016 10:12 pm

    ‘Can anybody please explain to me why someone, who actively campaigns for certain climate policies, is invited to advise the government?’

    Because the government only wants to hear from people with the same batty ideas as itself.

  7. Reasonable Skeptic permalink
    September 13, 2016 1:04 am

    Conflict of interest can only happen on one side of the debate. That is what the consensus says.

  8. September 13, 2016 7:11 am

    ‘Can anybody please explain to me why someone, who actively campaigns for certain climate policies, is invited to advise the government?’

    Confirmation bias?

  9. Don Keiller permalink
    September 13, 2016 8:53 am

    Barrenness Worthless. That well-known climate science expert, with the highly relevant degree in English literature.
    Says it all.

  10. September 13, 2016 9:31 am

    I suspect that CCS enthusiasm is just another weapon for the Green Blob to use against nuclear, and to increase the price of gas-fired energy, but if and when that objective is achieved then CCS will be ditched or slowly killed off by forcing up its price, by demanding gold-plated storage of the CO2.

    The Green Blob doesn’t really care about carbon, its largely an anti-capitalist fight against large corporations, fossil-fuel ones in particular. CCS would allow the large fossil fuel corporations to remain in business, so many will see it as a delaying tactic, helping to bring forward the Holy Grail of community-owned wind turbans, solar panels and batteries.

  11. Russ Wood permalink
    September 14, 2016 2:08 pm

    Can’t the Government send her on a ‘fact-finding’ mission to Lake Nyos, so she can see what happens if captured CO2 doesn’t stay down?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: