Skip to content

Now Jeremy Warner Loses The Plot!

February 4, 2017

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Patsy Lacey

 

image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/02/bad-news-petrol-heads-trump-no-trump-green-revolution-coming/

 

Jeremy Warner has caught Ambrose Evans-Pritchard fever!

 

From the Telegraph:

 

Prepare to be outraged – again. If you think the future of the planet is being put at risk by excessive use of fossil fuels, then there is seemingly more bad news on the way. The question is not so much if Donald Trump withdraws from the Paris accord on climate change, as when.

For Trump, the Paris agreement is the very embodiment of the “top down” multilateralism he and his ideological éminence grise, Steve Bannon, love to hate. What’s more, he thinks climate change is a “hoax”, or, as he once put it, a “very, very expensive form of tax”. Who knows; he may even be right. It wouldn’t be the first time the scientific orthodoxy has been entirely wrong.

Already, the climate change lobby is in ragged retreat before the Donald’s penchant for government by pen-flourishing executive order, and the fossil fuel brigade in a state of resurgent, high excitement. We seem to be at the start of a new age of “drill, baby, drill” licence for the rednecks of Big Oil. Supposedly consigned to the dustbin of history by clean energy concerns, hydrocarbons are all of a sudden being given a new lease of life.

Yet for those interested in the economics of energy, there is a much more significant question to answer than Trump’s designs on the Paris accord: whether climate change is a hoax or not, does it any longer matter? Put more succinctly, is it actually necessary to have binding national targets for carbon emissions in order to move to a low-carbon economy?

If not, then Paris will eventually be seen as of little importance, a well-intentioned, but largely pointless talk-fest of backslapping mutual governmental congratulation barely deserving of a footnote in the history books.

We may not be there quite yet, but we are close. Green technologies are reaching a tipping point of take-up, cost and efficiency which make their eventual wholesale adoption virtually inevitable, regardless of anything that might be done to reinvigorate fossil fuel industries in the meantime.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/02/bad-news-petrol-heads-trump-no-trump-green-revolution-coming/

 

Of course he is right in one respect – economics will always trump political diktat.

But he misses the real point. The climate change movement and the Paris Agreement never were about global warming. It was always about “top down multilateralism”. It was about UN control, crippling of western economies, undermining capitalism and redistribution of global wealth.

 

 

 

I have no doubt at all that the energy landscape will alter out of all recognition in decades to come, and it’s quite possible that future generations will laugh at some of the renewable technology we have now.

But for the foreseeable future, the wind and solar technologies he thinks are going to take the world by storm simply are not capable of replacing fossil fuels.

That is not to say that there is not a niche for them, but the world’s growing appetite for reliable and cheap energy will ensure that fossil fuels continue to dominate. Even the IEA admit that demand for oil won’t peak until at least 2040.

 

In the past decade, although energy from wind and solar power has increased by 216 Mtoe, total demand for energy has risen by 1880 Mtoe. This pattern will continue for the foreseeable future.

 

image

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

 

Meanwhile, Warner has a vision of a world of virtually cost free energy, of smart phones powered by radiant light alone, and of office blocks and houses that derive all their energy from the sun, the wind, and their own waste.

Obviously nobody has told him that sometimes the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow!

Advertisements
27 Comments
  1. Dave Ward permalink
    February 4, 2017 1:00 pm

    “Of course he is right in one respect”:

    “It wouldn’t be the first time the scientific orthodoxy has been entirely wrong”

    But not in this one:

    “A world of virtually cost free energy”

    When Nuclear power was being introduced, the powers that be (sic) were telling us that it would be too cheap to make it worth the bother of metering it…

    • February 4, 2017 1:34 pm

      Dave, you are repeating the old myth. Lewis Strauss, Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, was talking about nuclear fusion, not nuclear fission when he used the words “too cheap to meter” in 1954.

      • Dave Ward permalink
        February 4, 2017 10:09 pm

        My apologies, Philip. I was rather young at the time – minus two!

  2. AlecM permalink
    February 4, 2017 1:11 pm

    Jemery Wraner is an idiot, which is why the DT publishes his arguably stupid meanderings.

    However, the same argument may well be applied to most ‘journalists’ of the MSM.

  3. Pjatgrassoc@aol.com permalink
    February 4, 2017 1:17 pm

    Hi Paul, Am sure you will have seen in Zero Hedge on 3rd, Christiane Figures admitting that Climate Change Agenda is screen to drop Capitalism…… Peter Green in Bronte Land…

  4. February 4, 2017 1:36 pm

    You have to wonder how the Telegraph manages to find and then to employ these people who don’t have a clue about the topics they write. I see Little Emily seems to have moved on to pastures new at the Times.

    • February 4, 2017 9:00 pm

      Today Pg 58 Energy expert Little Emily
      “low subsidy price awarded … £6.95 per kilowatt”
      “average £34 per Kilowatt”
      Em I guess it’s actually Megawatts
      Per hour…MWh

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        February 5, 2017 12:28 am

        Not having access to her article, I suppose it is possible that she is writing about capacity subsidies paid annually. £34/kW/a works out as about £0.38/MWh if they had 100% utilisation. If we take a CCGT plant cost of £1000/kW to build, then £34/kW/a might pay most of the loan bill in the current market assuming say a 40 year life. For plant in mid to late life the capital cost element would be somewhat lower.

  5. Broadlands permalink
    February 4, 2017 1:48 pm

    Clueless and in the dark? Carbon capture and storage costs have been estimated at about 130 US dollars a ton. Just one ppm of CO2 is two billion metric tons. No wonder that NASA says we’ll never see a value below 400 again. What does Jeremy think we can do at no cost since we are supposed to lower CO2 to 350 ppm? Even a per-capita cost is “astronomical”.

    • AlecM permalink
      February 4, 2017 6:59 pm

      Data: [CO2] is controlled by ocean mean temperature. That has started to fall.

      Question: will [CO2] keep rising? Answers on a postcard pulleeze.

  6. February 4, 2017 2:23 pm

    He states: For Trump, the Paris agreement is the very embodiment of the “top down” multilateralism he and his ideological éminence grise, Steve Bannon, love to hate. What’s more, he thinks climate change is a “hoax”, or, as he once put it, a “very, very expensive form of tax”. Donald Trump “gets it.” That is why we voted for him.

    I found his last statement in that paragraph particularly troubling. ” Who knows; he may even be right. It wouldn’t be the first time the scientific orthodoxy has been entirely wrong.” Mr. Warner is cavalierly discounting the lives of thousands who die from lack of adequate heat or electricity or ushered into deeper poverty due to the prices caused by this giant hoax. It shows how unimportant the lives of the “little people”, defined as “everyone except us,” really are to them. We are nothing more than pawns in their global chess game.

    I find it amazing that a billionaire, President Donald John Trump, is the one who told us, “I will never let you down,” and is already keeping his promise. And much to chagrin of the “elite,” who seek to always let us down. Former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, has done a fascinating series for The Heritage Foundation on understanding “Trumpism.” It is a series well worth the time on YouTube. Newt, a PhD Historian and former college professor, describes Trump’s actions this way: imagine a table with 4 legs–hatred of the left; hatred of political correctness; hatred of stupidity and passionate love for the United States. He has given himself permission to operate anywhere on that table top within the parameters of those 4 legs–any direction at any speed at any time.

  7. CheshireRed permalink
    February 4, 2017 2:32 pm

    If Warner took even 1 minute to look at renewables costs without subsidy and FF costs without onerous taxes and regulation he’d see the error of his piece. Incredible that a senior Telegraph writer can fail so badly.

    Meanwhile I see Labour are pledging to bar energy price rises. This from the party that introduced the stupid and pointless £300 billion CC Act in the first place. To say that this is annoying would be some understatement.

    • February 4, 2017 3:16 pm

      It was very noticeable that the BBC covered this in the news, but there was not one mention of what the big 6 energy companies will do when they start making losses because of the ever increasing cost of electricity resulting from Labour’s CCA and its introduction of massive subsidies for RE.

    • Hivemind permalink
      February 4, 2017 10:18 pm

      “Incredible that a senior Telegraph writer can fail so badly. ”

      Not a failure at all. Simply another piece of misdirection. He hopes that by making people look at his right hand, nobody will see the gigantic level of subsidies and covert taxes being pushed through on his left hand.

  8. February 4, 2017 3:17 pm

    The Telegraph is in desperate financial trouble, bleeding cash. I have no evidence, just the suspicion, that a lot of the pieces nowadays are sponsored links in everything but name.
    No comments and no opposition.

    • AlecM permalink
      February 4, 2017 7:01 pm

      Yup, which is why highly economically and historically competent A E-P writes scientific rubbish.

  9. D Couzens permalink
    February 4, 2017 5:46 pm

    This is good news. If wind and solar are going to be that cheap lets remove all subsidies and cancel carbon taxes on fossil fuels and we will se what happens.
    Davec

  10. February 4, 2017 6:38 pm

    I see Japan is turning their back on Nuclear Power and opening 45 new coal powered stations over the coming years. Add those the the one per week construction programmes in India and China and any efforts to cut carbon emissions in the West will be pointless and very expensive to the consumers.
    In Germany the Merkels are shutting down nuclear reactors in favour of renewables. The costs per kwh have risen to three times to that of the USA. So much that Chemicals Giant BASF has opened up a new factory Stateside and more are to follow to save production costs.
    It is an absolutely crazy policy but in keeping with the Establishment’s policy of crippling the western economies, undermining capitalism and the redistribution of global wealth. Though their end game is not clear to see right now.

  11. mwhite permalink
    February 4, 2017 7:28 pm

    ” smart phones powered by radiant light alone,” – Don’t know where he’s going to get the plastic to make the phones.

  12. John F. Hultquist permalink
    February 4, 2017 7:57 pm

    Green technologies are reaching a tipping point of take-up, cost and efficiency…

    Had Jeremy put the above at the beginning there would have been no incentive to read further. It is likely not necessary to discuss this issue for the regular readers of Paul’s posts.

    Another issue to consider is the existing developed urban-scape and all that goes with it. This was described 50 or so years ago as “the hardening of the arteries” as society has built cities.
    Roads, utilities, and buildings, once in place, are not easily changed. The rule of law applied to land ownership restricts changes utopians would like to implement. Airports, trains & tracks, and all the rolling stock (autos easily last 20 – 40 years – See Havana) will not just go away.
    It would be interesting to have the writer sketch out what he thinks London or NYC will look like in 2050 and explain how society will operate. The term fantasy comes to mind.

  13. February 4, 2017 8:11 pm

    The ‘tipping point’ for renewables would be when all subsidies are abolished as unnecessary.

    Then we would see who really wants them enough to buy them at a ‘market price’.

  14. February 4, 2017 9:35 pm

    Feb 3
    James Delingpole‏ @JamesDelingpole
    .@JeremyWarnerUK Do, please, explain how – as per your article – “taking away the tax breaks” won’t halt the progress of wind turbines.

  15. February 4, 2017 9:44 pm

    Jeremy is retweeted by his mates at ECIU & CarbonTracker

    Oct 2015 He wrote
    “Internal combustion engine faces quick death”
    Strangely it ends with ‘or maybe not”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11967048/Internal-combustion-engine-faces-quick-death.html

    • Athelstan permalink
      February 4, 2017 11:39 pm

      Planned obsolescence” [seach on wiki]…………………. via another road if you’ll excuse the punnery. Corporatism is the nasty twin of Communism, where no choice is: the ONLY CHOICE>

      Wot we’ve got here, is not the purchaser, client, demand, the market dictating to the manufacturer………oh no, we get what they want to sell us and if we don’t want tht particular product OK then, they’ll change the rules – see it, believe it, realize and then say to them – stop or else.

      Always, the political stitch up, where the Auto industry, civil servants, bought and paid for scientists the sock puppet lobby carousel any excuse will do “man made CO2!”…… and big presents in back pockets for the legislators – that’s how laws is made in the EU-OWG………….

      Rigging emissions regulation with ever more stringent testing [no don’t larf!!!]….. and then cheating the figures via government shills in the pay of big MOTOR INDUSTRY………. is the way the corporate blob will attempt to phase out the combustion engine, or they’ll phase out the drivers………….oh wait!

      Hmm, but strange to report the only thing they’ve come up as alternatives [ the combustion engine]….. Are; diesel cars [combustion], hybrids, electric and all of these need some form of energy derived from one form of hydrocarbon or another and besides, remember NB:

      whatever Jeremy bloody Warner says – I usually to tend to the opposite view.

  16. Athelstan permalink
    February 4, 2017 11:42 pm

    read “search on wiki” – I’ve just started to use a new keyboard and the keys feel so different…the number of times I hit ‘capslock’ and shift………………..um – sorry.

  17. Malcolm Carter permalink
    February 7, 2017 4:27 am

    Ah yes the sun may not shine and the wind may not blow but man will continue to make waste and Jeremy’s article should be added to the heap.

  18. February 7, 2017 6:51 pm

    He is losing the plot. Recently he said US wind employs more people than the coal industry! Does it?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: