Skip to content

GWPF Energy Manifesto

April 26, 2017

The first priority of British energy policy should be to enable business and households alike to have access to cheap and reliable sources of energy.


This is the key message of the Global Warming Policy Forum’s Energy Manifesto 2017 published today.




The GWPF has published its new Energy Manifesto.

The main demands are:


The new government should 

  • Undertake a new and up-to-date review of the economics of climate change.
  • Suspend commitment to the Carbon Budgets in line with the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee’s recommendation.
  • Suspend the Carbon Price Floor, a unilateral carbon tax that puts an unequal and unfair burden on British industry.
  • Suspend commitments post-2020 under the EU Renewables Directive which puts an unequal burden on the UK economy.
  • Phase out subsidies for renewable energy generators of heat and electricity. The renewables industry repeatedly claims that they are now cheaper than conventional energy. Government should take them at their word and cut all support after 2020.
  • Freeze commitments to ethanol and biodiesel under the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, which is distorting international food and crop markets.
  • Remove mistaken incentives for the use of diesel in passenger vehicles.
  • Remove all fiscal obstacles to further realisation of the potential of the North Sea reserves of oil and natural gas.
  • Promote hydraulic fracturing to exploit the full potential of the massive UK shale resources.
  • Increase research budgets for nuclear fission and fusion, and also for electricity storage.
  • Redirect the UK’s international climate diplomacy towards equitable, joint approaches instead of the self-harm of unilateral targets and virtue signalling.



  1. April 26, 2017 10:09 am

    What would really help is to include all green subsidies as any form as part of government spending and therefore accountable to parliament.

    The problem at the moment – and it was clearly done intentionally for this reason – is that things such as the “renewable obligation” – which are a de facto tax on consumers, are pretended not to be. The result is precisely the same: we pay money out which the government then directs as to how it is spent.

    However, because it is (fraudulently) not recorded as part of government spending there is almost no oversight of the spending, the press don’t ever cover it and the public are not constantly reminded of the massive taxation we now have under this green stupidity.

    • April 26, 2017 11:48 am

      Indeed scottish sceptic. This calls to mind the “Off Balance Sheet” trick of Gordon Brown.

  2. April 26, 2017 11:00 am

    I can’t argue with the list of demands, but we shouldn’t wait until 2020 and the government should consider a new tax on all existing renewable generators to exactly cancel out the subsidies from the RO, FiT, RHI etc.

  3. Dave Ward permalink
    April 26, 2017 11:04 am

    Unless my eyesight really is worse than I thought, there doesn’t appear to be any mention of scrapping the Climate Change Act 2008. That is surely the most obvious starting point, but are they admitting this could be a legal nightmare, and all the above points will have much the same effect, but without the hassle?

    • April 26, 2017 11:14 am

      I agree, but that is not going to happen. The best that can be hoped for is that the SoS changes the targets and sets up a truly independent Committee on Climate Change.

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        April 26, 2017 3:06 pm

        A form of words that “amends” the targets in a way which effectively nullifies them completely should not be beyond the wit of man, and certainly not beyond the wit of Whitehall Man.

        There is nothing in what the GWPF proposes that I would disgree with. I think that repealing the CCA, which would send a powerful signal if it were possible, might be a bit further than the lobbyists would allow Honourable Members to go! Amending targets could be slid through parliament before they had time to react.

  4. Jack Broughton permalink
    April 26, 2017 11:08 am

    Agree with the policy as good sense.
    Scottish sceptic makes a good point about the secretive form of tax that is used to buy high capital, low utilisation plant from Germany and Denmark, and subsidise generators even though they are not able to generate when needed. The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum and seem to be in total command now.

  5. April 26, 2017 12:31 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    I concur. As any sane and humane person should.

    This point resonates the loudest for mine:
    – Increase research budgets for nuclear fission and fusion…

  6. rwoollaston permalink
    April 26, 2017 12:33 pm

    They need to change the rules about what emits CO2 and what doesn’t in order to reflect reality for a start, because IF you’re concerned about CO2 causing irreversible global warming then it’s no good relying on a bureaucratic rule that says you aren’t emitting it when in fact you are.

    Solar – panels use as much (fossil fuel produced) energy in manufacture as they produce in their lifetime (in this country) so should have emissions counted similar to that of coal fired power generation;

    Biomass – the North American wood pellets used at the converted generators at Drax emit about 17% more CO2 than coal – never mind the emissions in their processing and transportation (and as N America isn’t signed up to the Kyoto deforestation protocol, the felling of trees to produce pellets isn’t counted as deforestation either!)

    Wind – we need to count the emissions of standby plant (typically gas) kept warm for when the wind don’t blow – similarly for solar.

    Then we should look at the efficiency of engery conversion into whatever it becomes. For example, assuming that domestic and industrial consumption already uses the different power sources we have, the extra power required for EVs will by definition come from gas. So we convert gas into electricity, transmit the electricity (30% loss), charge the EV batteries (another 12% loss) then power the vehicle. It would be more efficient to have just one energy conversion process – an internal combustion engine powered by LPG. Less CO2 emissions, but that’s not what the ‘rules’ say. (And for goodness’ sake don’t mention the Ecotricity scam!)

    We should also start to estimate the emissions caused by the production of goods imported into the UK. It’s no good closing a factory in the UK, claiming a reduction in CO2 emissions, then importing the same goods from a factory that probably has a far worse fossil fuel footprint than the one that closed.

    For a full picture, I believe we should develop an environmental ‘scorecard’ for each energy source which includes:

    – Actual (direct and indirect) CO2 and other emissions;
    – Environmental impact – land consumption
    – Environmental impact – transportation
    – Environmental impact – the visual environment
    – Environmental impact – impact on wildlife
    – Health & safety risk factors to communities affected by these processes

    Financially, we should (as described above) measure the subsidy attracted for each power source, and express it as a cost to the taxpayer.

    This doesn’t even touch the loss of competitiveness caused by higher than necessary taxes and energy prices, and the uncertainty surrounding government policy in this area.

    Isn’t this all too easy and obvious?

    • Dung permalink
      April 27, 2017 9:58 am

      Yes indeed but….they do not really believe in AGW, they believe we are over using limited resources which is just as daft.

  7. April 26, 2017 12:45 pm

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    I particularly like this bit (bid added)
    Phase out subsidies for renewable energy generators of heat and electricity. The renewables industry repeatedly claims that they are now cheaper than conventional energy. Government should take them at their word and cut all support after 2020.

  8. April 26, 2017 2:46 pm

    New fusion energy devices are moving along smartly … the best of them is designed for ultra-cheap, aneutronic, direct generation of electric power …. the Focus Fusion-1 reactor has been built for a mere $5 million and is now #5 in the world … and that’s just in the early phase research versions..

  9. Santa's little helper permalink
    April 27, 2017 6:24 am

    No mention of the golden ticket…research into molten salt reactors.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: