Most Firms “Care” About Green Energy-Survey Finds
By Paul Homewood
I was sent this survey by an outfit called EnergyBillKill, essentially an energy broker like uSwitch.
https://www.energybillkill.com/energy-switch-survey-2020/
The most revealing section was this:
There are two distinct elements:
1) The first is that 70% of businesses believe that within the next 10 years, businesses will not give business to ‘non-green’ suppliers.
This is how mass delusion begins.
Just because a company signs up with a so-called green energy supplier does not mean it is actually buying green energy, or even contributing to a national increase in such.
As we have seen so often before, the amount of renewable energy generated within the national system is fixed, determined by the capacity available. Just because Company X signs a deal with Green Energy Company Y does not alter that fact. It simply means that Company Y sells meaningless bits of paper to Company X, to “prove” that it only buys renewable energy.
Many firms probably realise all of this, but still worry that other firms won’t deal with them if they refuse to virtue signal too.
They have no interest in “being green”. They are just scared of being seen “not to be green”.
Will somebody have the courage to stand up and tell the emperor he has no clothes on?
2) 44% also apparently believe that green energy is actually cheaper.
Obviously nobody has told them that they, and every other consumer in the UK, are paying through the teeth to subsidise the billions sent to renewable energy producers every year.
Whatever deals they get from Good Energy, or whoever, don’t reflect the actual costs of wind or solar energy.
Ironically, as I have found myself, small “green” suppliers can often undercut the bigger suppliers because they have not got the extra cost of smart meter rollout and other green impositions.
Be careful what you wish for, the saying goes.
When the nation has gone 100% renewable, don’t say you were not warned!!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The only way to be a carbon neutral business is to cease trading.
Manmade CO2 from the UK is a negligible proportion of the global total, at 1/3 of 1%.
Not wanting to be pedantic but there is no such thing as man made CO2. Fossil fuels are fossilized sun energy. Take Water, CO2 and Energy (the Sun) and photosynthesis takes place. That the product of that photosynthesis did not oxidize immediately in history liberating energy CO2 and Water until we asked it to is the wonder that is fossil fuel. Man is liberating stored energy water and of course CO2 completing the circle by burning fossil fuels putting that CO2 back into the Carbon Cycle where it belongs. The Carbon Cycle and this is critical to life. Since 160 million years ago the CO2 content of the atmosphere has been declining steadily. During that time multiple Ice Ages have come and gone which should say something about the claims regarding CO2 and its effect on global temperature! Why has CO2 been declining? Because the Carbon Cycle became and remains significantly out of sync. Unlike what is reported in the “impartial mainstream media, CO2 is present in three mediums. Air, Water AND Rock and historically has never been at such a low level in the atmosphere. Rocks present the problem because CO2 has been removed from the Carbon Cycle and is locked up and relatively unmovable. 160my ago saw the evolution of marine organisms which sequestrate CO2 and combine it with Calcium to produce hard shells (CaCO3). How successful they have been is testified for by the immense quantity of organic shelly limestones around the world. During the first half of the current Ice Age atmospheric CO2 levels have been recorded as low as 180ppm or 20ppm above the level at which plants die which is at around 160ppm CO2. When the angiosperms we eat evolved atmospheric CO2 was around 2500-2800ppm down from around 7000ppm in the Cambrian. Plants need CO2., It is plant food and is the source of the oxygen we breath! Oh by the way the Oceans have NEVER been acidic throughout the whole of Earths history which makes you question the impartiality of supposed scientists who receive funding to “worry” about it. All scientists are not equal, particularly not those who see a route to easy cash. Throughout Earth’s history atmospheric CO2 has been multiple times higher than it is today (average 2500ppm) and also the Earth much warmer. Life went on, no, biodiversity exploded!
So! For my party trick, if a ruler is placed on the decline in atmospheric CO2 which began 160my ago the atmospheric CO2 level hits the death line in around 1.8my from now, probably earlier because if the second part of the Ice Age will be as hard as the first then I would say in the next 100k years the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will redline. So you ask, what about the CO2 we are liberating? A very welcome but sadly all too temporary halt in the decline. With what I have said, now consider the sanity of those who want to get rid of CO2! What data do you think is most important to pay attention to? A time series of 160 million years with much data redundancy, the level recorded on Mona Loa for around 60 years or the great MANNipulators hockey stick, which cannot be reproduced because he refuses to show his data…can you believe this in something claimed to be science?…..which claims a view of some 1000 years: What kind of fool wants to do anything but celebrate our good fortune in that we are inadvertently halting the decline. What we should be doing is working out how to keep liberating CO2 when the oil and coal run out. Reducing limestones of course. Strange do you not think that the paragons of virtue in the media avoid this bit of geological common knowledge… You would almost think they form part of a politically motivated conspiracy to wilfully mislead the population to force a particularly nasty unwelcome form of political control on the world or at least the West?
It is noteworthy that over geological time the atmospheric percentage ratio between oxygen and CO2 is now up to 525 to one. The lion’s share of that ‘lost’ CO2 is resting buried in the Earth’s limestones, most all of which are biomineralized as carbonate shells. The rest is buried as fossil fuel organic matter, oil and coal, natural gas…except for what is moved around by the natural carbon cycle…the biomass, the CO2 dissolved in the oceans and equilibrated with the atmosphere. Green photosynthesis converted as food by aerobic oxygenic respiration and recycled back into an invisible tasteless, colorless trace gas. Plants to animals and back again.
For humans to believe they can duplicate that natural capture and storage back into the Earth enough to affect what is in the day-to-day carbon cycle in any amount that could affect the climate is a ‘tooth-fairy’ or Santa Claus belief. In effect, trying to put 44 tons of oxidized carbon back into the 12 ton carton it came in. Simply not possible.
Thank you Jonathan Scott for the outline of the place of CO2 in the worlds history. If I may be so bold I would like to use your words in debate with anyone not too clear on how important CO2 is.
Nick Perrin.
-“Businesses are becoming increasingly aware of their environmental impact and are taking more steps than ever to . One of the most significant changes a business can make is switching to green or renewable energy.”-
What businesses would those be I wonder :
-Perhaps garden centres and growers that have lost many millions of income from the lock down and disposal of unsaleable produce.
-perhaps pubs and restaurants that have had no customers for 2 months , but still pay rent and some staff .
– perhaps engineering firms that previously existed by supplying car makers that have been closed down for 2 months
– or maybe hairdressers whose former customers now possess locks reaching down to their knees
– or maybe the service stations who have had no one to service for 2 months and who have seen a drop in petrol price by 20% and with it their margins and will never reopen
– or perhaps — but need I go on ?
So many of the businesses that we formerly patronised or worked for will be gone before blundering Boris gets his head together that the question of whether the survivors will want green or, indeed, anything other than the cheapest, energy will be purely academic.
Elon Musk told California he is leaving. I hope it happens.
I have a neighbor who signed up with local power co-op to get green electricity. Put a sign up in his yard. I asked where the new wiring was.
“Huh?”
“K. You are still being fed by the same substation as me.”
“But . . . but (sputtered)”
Sign gone next day. Virtue signaling. Reality bites.
The problem is there is absolutely no public debate going on about this. Despite Paul Homewood’s best efforts, hardly anybody understands how green subsidies are levied and who pays for them. The GWPF excepted – which seems to be a largely politically oriented think tank – there is no organisation attempting to educate the wider public and business communities about the nature of energy policy and the wider issues associated with AGW. Whenever I have come across like-minded individuals, there seems to be no appetite to come together to fight the battle against misinformation and obfuscation; rather individuals seem wrapped up in their own beliefs, or are completely defeatist. It is a shame Mr Farage has not been able to be recruited to the cause – probably because he doesn’t see it as a battle he can win. All I get from writing to my MP now is standard letters from his intern.
It is worse. The debate should not have left the starting blocks as to the case against CO2 still is without hard evidence! Just saying something becomes fact only in a totalitarian state. We find ourselves for the first time since the beginning of the Enlightenment having to argue with empiricism against dogma. As of today 12th May 2020 and all the billions wasted on this non issue I can state simply that there exists is NO statistically significant empirical data anywhere which supports the contention that CO2 liberated by man caused or had any significant part in the current warming which began 350 years ago, the fourth documented warming in the past 3000 years. The physics I have been practicing for the last 35 years says it isn’t a problem because there IS no problem regarding CO2 except there is not enough! This is the real problem and strangely one no one is taling about…. that comes from my first education which is in geology. Strange all those supposed embracers of “science” seem to ignore very important areas of science. I wonder why? There is no geological precedent for any of the garbage being claimed or passed off by the rent seeking doomsayers as products of modelling and the subsequent abuse of statistical methods of reporting the output. The IPCC are repeatedly guilty of unprofessional presentation of claimed scientific data. There can be no mistake. This represents a clear and wilful intention to deceive.
Here are some of the perpetrators
The Green New Dealers
A ballot box circumventing effort at targeting and subverting legislators and public servants
– nasty bunch with a totalitarian streak
The only factor that will make or break ‘green energy’ is reality and for the foreseeable future green energy isn’t compatible with industry in either cost or reliability.
I keep saying that companies that claim to sell only renewable electricity are trading fraudulently. I’m sure some of their customers do not believe that and presumably buy on a cost basis. However that doesn’t change that they are selling on the basis that if a customer changes to their supply then they contributing to ‘saving the planet’ by going green, when of course, it makes no difference whatsoever, it’s not how it works.
Some people however believe these companies, as I’ve found when I say that electric vehicles are charged with fossil fuel generation as only dispatchable power can meet the extra demand. The reply, no, I buy renewable electricity from a green supplier.
So some of their customers at least have been misled and to me that is fraud.
These companies that buy green energy are like the members of a firing squad who believe that they are are the one with a blank round in their rifle.
How many electricity sellers are 100% supplied with green electricity, and who keeps a check on the sellers to see that they are not selling the same green electricity several times over?
Why does NI get any electricity price cut at all – where’s ours? Where’s the explanation for rising network costs and the increasing irrelevance of the price of oil?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-52625228
Compare and contrast.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-52614770
https://www.deccanherald.com/business/indias-coal-production-to-clock-record-700-mn-tonnes-in-fy21-coal-secretary-835857.html
While I enjoy reading much of the learned text which these issues stimulate the absence of graphical analysis discourages the editors of the press — from the Daily Mail to the F.T. and not forgetting the BBC.
If you have the time , Paul, can a plot be generated of the increase in the price of electricity prior to and post the green ‘invasion’? A second linear trend based on what the increase might have been had we continued to be supplied entirely by non green sources would show emphatically how the green burden is making industrial production in the UK uncompetitive and how the domestic consumer has been surcharged.
It may not convince Extinction Rebellion who have another agenda entirely but it might inform some of the more perceptive politicians what sort of blind alley they are entering at our expense.