Skip to content

Climate Change Committee misled Parliament about the cost of Net Zero

September 26, 2021

By Paul Homewood

 

Hot off the press from GWPF:

 

 

image

* Highly optimistic assumptions about EV costs have been called into question by the actual development of EV costs since the CCC advised Parliament

* Committee on Climate Change spreadsheets only revealed after 2 year freedom of information campaign

* Costs could be £60,000 per household higher than the CCC estimates that MPs used when they were considering Net Zero legislation

London, 26 September – The Sunday Telegraph reports today that Parliament was misled into supporting Net Zero plans to decarbonise the economy.

The Climate Change Committee (CCC) told MPs that British households and businesses would face only a modest cost for reaching Net Zero emissions in 2050, but analysis of their financial models by the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) shows that key assumptions were not credible even at the time the report was published.

The revelations come after the CCC spent two years and tens of thousands of pounds resisting attempts to have the Net Zero model spreadsheets released under Freedom of Information legislation. The Information Tribunal finally forced their disclosure in August this year.

The first results of the GWPF’s analysis focus on the Transport sector costings. The work reveals that the CCC’s claims that decarbonisation could be achieved at no net cost was based on wildly optimistic and sometimes bizarre assumptions.

According to GWPF Deputy Director Andrew Montford:

When they published their report in 2019, the CCC said that small electric car prices would have fallen to around £13,000 by 2021. However, the CCC’s figures for 2019 EV prices were wildly wrong at the time they published their report, so its’ unsuprising tht the current cost of a small electric car is double, or even triple their estimate.”

If instead of the CCC’s optimistic assumptions, we project a realistic decline in EV costs, this adds a staggering £1.8 trillion to the cost of Net Zero, or £60,000 per household, and altogether wipes out the claimed net benefit of decarbonising the transport sector.

Dr Benny Peiser, GWPF director said:

Lord Deben, chairman of the Climate Change Committee, told Parliament the Net Zero report was ‘the most seriously presented, costed effort’ – but it is now clear that the CCC’s costings were incomplete, biased, and grossly misleading.

Parliament was, in essence, misled and Net Zero was badly mis-sold. The public is now facing the price for that deception.”

In a striking new development, the Sunday Telegraph is also reporting that they were initially given misleading information by the CCC, in an attempt to cover up the error and prevent publication. Only repeated requests for clarification revealed the truth.

Dr Peiser said that the CCC’s attempts to whitewash the matter meant that this supposedly independent advisor to government could no longer be seen as a credible source:

The CCC spent years trying to hide their absurd assumptions, and even after the Information Tribunal compelled them to release their spreadsheets, they tried to throw the Sunday Telegraph off the scent. I don’t think Parliament or the public can ever trust them again.”

Craig Mackinlay MP, chairman of the parliamentary Net Zero Scrutiny Group, told the Sunday Telegraph that the findings were “scandalous” and that Parliament had been “misled”.

The GWPF’s analysis of the CCC’s costings is ongoing, and further announcements are expected in the coming weeks.

Detailed findings

Cost of electric vehicles

The CCC’s model assumes that EV costs will fall by 36–59% between 2010 and 2050, depending on category. The price of small EVs is assumed to fall from £26,000 to £11,000. Actual 2021 small EV prices (see graph below) are typically around double the figures used by the CCC in the Net Zero Report.

It must have been obvious to the CCC that their assumed trajectory was wrong at the time the Net Zero report was published. The CCC’s 2019 figure was £14,666, around half the level seen in the marketplace at that time [1].

This can be illustrated by the history of the Nissan Leaf, the archetypal small EV.

The extremely optimistic assumptions made by the CCC about Electric Vehicles are crucially important to their overall cost estimates. Simply changing the shape of the curve to a straight line decline between 2019 and 2050, for all categories of EV, adds £0.7 trillion to the cost of Net Zero.

With batteries now representing only around 25% of the consumer cost of an EV, future cost declines – if any – are likely to be incremental rather than revolutionary. Indeed, there a significant upward cost pressures on EV prices due to increasing costs for energy and critical minerals.

Reducing the rate of decline to 3% per decade more than doubles the cost of Net Zero, amounting to a bill of £60,000 per household. Holding EV prices steady would increase the bill by £2.1 trillion, or £75,000 per household.

[1] All costs are in £2018, ex-VAT and before deduction of any grants.

https://www.thegwpf.com/climate-change-committee-misled-parliament-about-the-cost-of-net-zero/

The encouraging news is that the Sunday Telegraph has gone heavily into this story, courtesy of Edward Malnick, the Political Editor, rather than that soppy Environmental Editor.

Below is the extract regarding how the CCC tried to mislead the Telegraph:

 

Following a legal battle, the GWPF, founded by Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, obtained the spreadsheet containing the assumptions on which the body’s calculations were based.

When The Sunday Telegraph questioned the Committee about the disparity, it initially claimed that the 2019 figures related to cars with small batteries, rather than small cars, despite the fact that the spreadsheet containing the modelling refers to “small cars”.

The CCC claimed that the vehicles “class[ed] as small by battery size” are no longer sold and therefore cannot be compared to small cars currently on the market. The claim was echoed by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), which also said that some smaller electric vehicles cost as little as £16,000.

But after being questioned further over a series of emails, the CCC performed an about-turn, admitting: “Our analysis is based on the size of the car, not on the size of the battery.”

It then claimed that the £13,000 figure was a “social cost” which excluded any additional tax, subsidies or "increased profit taken by manufacturers” compared to costs attached to conventional cars – but admitted that manufacturers are only now “beginning to see profits” on electric vehicles.

With a VAT bill of approximately £2,600 and the Government’s Plug in Vehicle Grant providing a £2,500 saving for drivers, the impact of VAT and the subsidy would simply add £100 to the £13,000 figure.

For the record, the Leaf retails at between £25995 and £29995, depending on model. Prices include VAT and are net of the £2500 Plug in Car Grant.

image

https://www.nissan.co.uk/vehicles/new-vehicles/leaf.html

Laughingly the BEIS try to justify EV savings by saying drivers don’t pay Excise Duty!

image

So that’s alright then!

54 Comments
  1. Mike Jackson permalink
    September 26, 2021 1:20 pm

    So what else has Gummer and his hand-picked “independent” cronies on the CCC been fibbing about?
    Time to amend the Climate Change Act to get rid of these troughers and start taking some objective scientific advice — if this government recognises such a thing!

    • 1saveenergy permalink
      September 26, 2021 1:37 pm

      “So what else has Gummer and his hand-picked “independent” cronies on the CCC been fibbing about?”

      EVERYTHING !!
      Gummer is a pathological liar.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        September 26, 2021 3:46 pm

        We used to call ’em porkies: now, we should call ’em Gummers!

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      September 26, 2021 1:55 pm

      And just by the way … if the entire planet were to go net zero the effect would be to reduce the current level of 420ppm of CO2 to 407ppm! Wowee!
      (On the basis that mankind is responsible for 3% of the total CO2 content of the atmosphere. I haven’t seen that figure disputed but I would be happy to be corrected.)

      • Mad Mike permalink
        September 26, 2021 3:23 pm

        I read somewhere it’s 6% but the point is made that most of the release of CO2 is through natural processes and that is not generally appreciated by the general public.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      September 26, 2021 2:41 pm

      What else? The cost of insulation is probably understated by a similar sum. The cost of hydrogen by a large unknown sum. The cost of trashing the economy by shutting down industry has been excluded altogether. The cost of recabling our streets is underestimated, and the cost of wind power, etc. Pretty soon you are talking serious money.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      September 26, 2021 4:26 pm

      Simple: they vastly inflated the cost of climate change and vastly underestimated the costs of avoiding such change.

      The Stern Report some years ago did the same but on a much smaller scale and so recommended a much slower pace of change and much more adaptation.

      As brighter minds have pointed out, if costs are falling or will fall so fast for things like renewables, then you wait. Why buy now what will cost you much less in the future?

    • charles wardrop permalink
      September 26, 2021 5:52 pm

      Why not just repeal the CCActs?
      Apart from corrupted staffers what/who could lose out?

      I.e., at are we paying to be lied to?

      • T Walker permalink
        September 26, 2021 7:52 pm

        Charles – I don’t think you need an answer to that?

  2. September 26, 2021 1:36 pm

    Gummer’s CCC quango is comprised of imbeciles posing as knowledgeable experts and shysters (including Gummer) who will profit from all the proposed initiatives (think of DRAX scam). This Quango must be abolished as it is corrupt and criminally incompetent.

  3. September 26, 2021 1:57 pm

    On price comparisons between EVs and petrol cars, here is a calculation I posted recently at Cliscep:

    At a Shell petrol station in Newark the other day I parked up close enough to the electric charging station to notice the fee: 41p/kWh.

    Now the energy in 1 kWh is of course 1 kWh, or to put it another way it’s 1000 W * 3600 s = 3.6 MJ. How does that compare to 1 l of petrol, I wondered? Referring to the datasheet I put together for Denierland, I find that the energy in 1 l of petrol is 46.7 MJ/kg * 0.692 kg/l = 32.3 MJ/l.

    So for £1.30 you get 32.3 MJ of petrol, and for £0.41 you get 3.6 MJ of electricity.

    Next we must note that of that £1.30, about 50p is the base price, to which 57.95p is added for duty and about 22p for VAT. To be scrupulous we should also note that of the 41p/ kWh for the leccy, about 7p is VAT. The comparison becomes:

    50p for 32.3 MJ (petrol) vs 34p for 3.6 MJ (electricity).

    Now we must acknowledge that EVs are far more efficient at point of use than petrol cars, about 4 times (c. 80% vs 20%). Which in terms of energy at the wheels brings us to:

    50p for 6.5 MJ (petrol) vs 34p for 2.7 MJ (electricity), or

    8p / MJ (petrol) vs 13p / MJ (electricity).

    Of course, once duty etc is added the leccy still wins, at about

    20p / MJ (petrol) vs 15p / MJ (electricity).

    Nevertheless, that sum is already uncomfortably close to parity.

    Obviously things swing heavily in favour of EVs for home charging (until electricity prices ramp up a long way). But this is a huge disadvantage for the many drivers in built-up areas who do not have access to off-street parking. I will do the sums on the 1p/mile claim shortly to see how far off it is.

    • September 26, 2021 2:10 pm

      From Wiki: Leaf+ battery 62 kWh; range 226 miles. Miles per kWh = 3.65

      Cost of 1 kWh (topping up at Shell, Newark) = £0.41

      Cost per mile = 0.41 / 3.65 = 11p/mile.

      Not the 1p/mile as stated. [Charging at home must reduce the cost to about 3p/mile at the present moment, and for “smart” charging this would have the potential to be less.]

      • Ian Magness permalink
        September 26, 2021 6:16 pm

        Jit,
        Nice maths, thank you.
        We don’t know how the new “1p per mile” stat was fabricated, I mean calculated but I would make the point that, because batteries and their decay, maintenance and/or replacement are such a huge factor in buying and running a BEV, and are not mirrored in ICE cars, you should bring in estimates of battery cost into any “cost of running a BEV” equation. The problem here is that, whilst battery failures are already occurring, very few BEVs have been through a full life cycle yet so the average failure rates of cells (which themselves can cost £2,000 or more to replace – and that figure is real) or complete batteries is unknown. For the sake of a calculation, however, let’s make the heroic and hopeful assumption that a BEV battery costs £10,000 (this would have to be a small vehicle but whatever) and it lasts for 50,000 miles. Let’s assume that the full cost of £10,000 has been necessary to replace individual cells or the whole battery by the end of the 50,000 mile period. The maths is easy – we are looking at 20p per mile for the battery alone for the joy of owning a BEV.
        OK, OK, so my figures may prove to be wildly out but are they going to be 20 times out? We are being told by the CCC that BEVs only cost 1p a mile to run. As you have shown, even the electricity costs alone blow that figure out of the water. Add in the battery costs and it is clear that the CCC wishes to mislead, and that’s putting it politely.

    • Chilli permalink
      September 26, 2021 2:11 pm

      A bigger factor than the cost of fuel is the EV driver will have to waste >30mins of his short irreplaceable life waiting for his car to charge while the petrol car driver is on their way already.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      September 26, 2021 2:35 pm

      Diesel has an energy content of 10kWh per litre, which helps to keep the sums simple. I typically get 10 miles per litre for my ageing estate car, which means the per mile cost is also easy to work out. Real world EV performance was examined by What Car, who rated the Leaf at 2.8 miles per kWh. Other EVs per this chart

      https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/e1ofS/1/

    • Cheshire Red permalink
      September 26, 2021 4:13 pm

      EV consumption advantages are for the short term, as once take-up is widespread gov’t will have to replace billions in lost fuel duty.

      I expect a pay-per-mile scheme to be applied. Equipment integrated into every new car as mandatory. Impossible to avoid. Paid straight from your account.

      Almost all EV mileage benefit over ICE will be stolen by gov’t.

  4. Broadlands permalink
    September 26, 2021 2:01 pm

    How can anyone evaluate the costs when the target has yet to have been specified? How much CO2 will have to be taken out…and by what date? If Dr. Hansen’s 1987 350 ppm target is used that would mean about 500 billion metric tons…65 parts-per-million buried. Obviously absurd. So..what IS the Net-zero target? Does it even matter?

  5. Cheshire Red permalink
    September 26, 2021 2:07 pm

    I do hope Viscount Ridley is paying attention and will raise this matter with HoC colleagues, not to mention make a speech in the Other Place.

    Misleading Parliament is a very serious matter. If proven at Parliamentary level, actions must have consequences.

    • dennisambler permalink
      September 26, 2021 2:59 pm

      I don’t think enough MP’s want to jump off the Climate bandwagon and I suspect it will be side-lined. Vested interest in the CCC is blatant but ignored, viz Rebecca Heaton from Drax, Baroness Brown, director of Orsted, Deben has been exposed many times, but is always cleared of conflicting interest, even though his family company has grown on the back of the measures proposed by the CCC. They had a behavioural scientist long before SAGE came along.

      And of course GWPF will be labelled and smeared as “deniers”:
      https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/climate-change-global-warming-policy-foundation-denial-b1920006.html

      Their latest “progress report” is here:
      https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/2021-progress-report-to-parliament/
      “Lockdown measures led to a record decrease in UK emissions in 2020 of 13% from the previous year. Sustained reductions in emissions require sustained Government leadership, underpinned by a strong Net Zero Strategy”

      • Broadlands permalink
        September 26, 2021 4:02 pm

        “Lockdown measures led to a record decrease in UK emissions in 2020 of 13% from the previous year.”

        They also led to serious social and economic disasters from which we are all still trying to recover.

        ” Sustained reductions in emissions require sustained Government leadership, underpinned by a strong Net Zero Strategy”

        So.. if these reductions are to continue will we expect a different result? Will carbon fuels be rationed, increased in price until there are none…ZERO?
        Where will our food come from? How will they get back home from climate conferences to plant trees everywhere? This is crazy!

      • ThinkingScientist permalink
        September 27, 2021 4:23 pm

        “And of course GWPF will be labelled and smeared as “deniers””

        Not by GB News they won’t. They are getting Andrew Montford on regularly and he talks sense.

        GB News is the additional factor – there is now a news channel where BOTH sides of the debate are happening. And their viewing figures are climbing quickly. The BBC etc no longer have a monopoly and we now have the option to hear the other side of many conversations.

        This may not bet the end, but I am finally hoping it may be beginning of the end of climate hysteria and insane government policies.

      • Luc Ozade permalink
        September 27, 2021 9:58 pm

        @ThinkingScientist:
        Hear, hear! Watch GB News every night. They are making a lot of inroads into ‘difficult’ subjects. Good luck to them.

  6. HotScot permalink
    September 26, 2021 2:39 pm

    Forgive my cynicism but, what a surprise.

  7. Martin Brumby permalink
    September 26, 2021 2:41 pm

    Actions must have consequences.
    But only if you aren’t a GangGreen trougher. They get a free pass everytime and this will happen again and again despite this clear evidence. It is likely only a matter of time until Deben is made a Hereditary Earl. Chuckles will sort that out for him.

    Further down the scale, we have all seen the breathless news reports where some youth with severe mental health issues shows an iterest in Nazi history and allegedly plans some terror outrage. Dragged from his Mum’s basement, he is promptly tried and given a custodial sentence on a terrorism charge. Despite any credible evidence that they’d once swatted a fly. I’m the very last person to support Nazi ideology and unlike the UK left, absolutely support Israel’s right to exist. But the cure for ridiculous ideology is MORE debate, not banning non orthodox views

    Of course, the venal swine like Deben and those who organise actual terror campaigns (Neil Ferguson, Susan Michie, Peter Daszak, Dominic Cummings, Extinction Rebellion and many others who seem to bat for the CCP) are lionised!

  8. Penda100 permalink
    September 26, 2021 3:00 pm

    I don’t know which is worse. That the CCC (responsible for so much wasted investment and excess costs loaded onto the less well off) is so incompetent that it didn’t know its calculations were wrong or, knowing they were wrong, lied to hide the fact that net zero at no additional cost is an impossibility. Can they be sued for the losses we have all suffered?

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      September 26, 2021 4:31 pm

      The CCC simply made it all up – including the supposed cost of not acting immediately. Anybody who thinks a bunch of biased clowns can accurately forecast prices and costs of so many things so far out into the future must be utterly stupid. Nobody should ever believe such things. They have the tiniest chance of being right.

  9. September 26, 2021 3:05 pm

    That’s stranrnge there’s no mention of this on the BBC!

    • September 26, 2021 5:26 pm

      But they are now showing live the German Green party leader waffling – in German – about getting maybe 15% of the vote in today’s national election. Hardly riveting viewing 🙄

  10. 2hmp permalink
    September 26, 2021 3:11 pm

    We haven’t yet properly confronted the health effects in being permanently in magnetic charging fields. People are already being advised not to place phone chargers near them when they are sleeping.

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      September 27, 2021 4:24 pm

      Er….we all live in such a magnetic field. The Earth’s.

  11. Martin Brumby permalink
    September 26, 2021 4:28 pm

    Slightly OT.
    Just been informed that, now Avro Energy has gone tits up, I will be transferred to Octopus Energy (of 100% Ruinable Energy fame.)

    It seems likely that Avro were run along lines similar to a Ponzi scheme. But at least they didn’t insist on an insult-to-your-intelligence “Smart Meter”, nor ram Climate Doom down your throat.

    I’m pissed off. No point in being the proudest guy in the gutter, but I do try to avoid paying even a groat to the most obnoxious shroud-waving GangGreen scam artists.

    I’ll wait the obligatory week and then look at the market. Suggestions welcome. At least I’ve a decent stockpile of wood, coal and candles.

    Offgen appointing Octopus. Vampire squid, more like. What a surprise (not).

    • September 26, 2021 4:59 pm

      I’m with Avro too, as they did not force a smart meter on me.

      This was because smaller companies did not have the obligation forced on them by govt to instal them, one of the reasons why they could undercut the bigger companies.

      Take heart! Assuming Octopus are not charging more than the govt’s price cap, they are probably losing money!

      • Ian Magness permalink
        September 26, 2021 6:35 pm

        Martin, Paul,
        From recent personal experience, trying to get new energy deals without being forced to take a smart meter is becoming very difficult. However, two points:
        1) On the deal I have just signed up to, whilst it is clear that they really want you to have a smart meter, the actual small print in the contract does not make getting a smart meter an explicit contractual requirement. Maybe they know that they cannot legally impose it on you?
        2) One of my sceptic group found similar to 1) last year but avoids the issue by repeatedly telling the energy provider that it’s not convenient (due to illness in the family or similar) to allow someone into his home. He says that, by the time they refuse to accept this excuse any more, he’ll have changed suppliers anyway.

      • REM permalink
        September 27, 2021 7:02 am

        We moved to Octopus for the same reason – they did not force a smart meter on us. They also accept a variable DD to pay the month’s actual usage rather than an average “forecast”, which always (surprise! surprise!) ends up with your money mounting up in suppliers’ bank accounts. It really is past time for Ofgem to knock that one on the head.

      • ThinkingScientist permalink
        September 27, 2021 12:17 pm

        On the smart meter point, I recently switched to the Irish supplier ESB (hopefully too big to fail?). They didn’t keep going on about smart meters either, which was a plus facto (and my bills have “only” gone up 22%!).

        But ESB also apologised that they had to keep telling us every 6 months to get one as it was a government requirement to do so. However they also said if we wanted to we could opt out of the reminder arrangement by simply telling them.

        So it looks like there are mechanisms to opt out of the constant reminders about smart meters. I’ll see how it works when I find out how to do it.

      • September 27, 2021 12:26 pm

        Smart meters are hard sold because of Governmental wishes to control fluctuations in supply when it declines, as will happen.
        If you trust Governments’ energy policies and efficiciency, good luck to you, you’ll need it!

    • GeoffB permalink
      September 26, 2021 10:12 pm

      Avro was my supplier and I put a few friends on it, I wonder if we could take OFGEM to court for recklessly approving suppliers with dodgy business models.

  12. Harry Passfield permalink
    September 26, 2021 4:47 pm

    One of the calculations I love to hear from Greens is that all those lovely EVs that owners have charged overnight can be used to back up the grid. This is as much nonsense as saying that all bicycle and static exercise bikes should be connected so that their pedal-power could also help the grid.

    • JohnM permalink
      September 26, 2021 5:05 pm

      Don’t give them ideas :o)

      My 17 years fit son used the bicycle at the Alternate Energy place in Wales. The family were all surprised at the level of energy needed to produce a few watts on the meter.

      • Ben Vorlich permalink
        September 26, 2021 6:51 pm

        I record my cycle rides, initially so the kids could follow my progress, the app gives an average power rating for any ride. I’m no Wiggins or Cavendish and am doing well to average 100W which means I can manage 200Wh on an average couple of hours round the Derby countryside.

      • T Walker permalink
        September 26, 2021 8:07 pm

        And even then – I believe that the bicycle is the most efficient transport device ever produced – energy in per person per mile – even better than a full train.

        And like Mr Homewood I just love it – even closing in on 80 years of age too rapidly.

      • September 26, 2021 9:10 pm

        Agreed, I should have asked “why”? are we paying for the criminality readers of NOT can recognise.

  13. chriskshaw permalink
    September 26, 2021 5:20 pm

    OT
    Here is a WEF discussion panel on “ecocide”.. the criminalization of breathing out
    https://www.weforum.org/events/sustainable-development-impact-summit-2021/sessions/preventing-ecocide

  14. John Hultquist permalink
    September 26, 2021 6:18 pm

    The Climate Change Committee (CCC) fought, for two years, the release of the information used to advise Parliament.
    How strange.
    Should not this information have been public and given to anyone when the Committee reported? I do understand that pencil pushers [keyboard tappers] need to work without constant interruptions, but who payed for this committee?
    If I pay for advice, I want to know how it is derived.
    And not years after.

  15. REM permalink
    September 26, 2021 6:24 pm

    It’s a little encouraging that some of the fossil media are beginning to wake up.

  16. cookers52 permalink
    September 26, 2021 6:24 pm

    Parliament have been misled, unbelievable!
    MPs didn’t understand it anyway.
    Politics is the art of misleading.

    • T Walker permalink
      September 26, 2021 8:01 pm

      Yes who would have thought it?? Well most of us on here I suspect.

      I have written to my Tory MP asking what is the purpose of a Tory MP. I don’t expect to get an answer – and if I do it will be just waffle.

  17. Andrew Mark Harding permalink
    September 26, 2021 8:42 pm

    There is yet another factor with regard to EV’s that has been conveniently overlooked and that is the mining of the Rare Earth these ‘dodgems’ require.

    As the easiest deposits are mined to exhaustion, it will cost more to mine the moderately available and eventually even more, the very difficult!

    I am not sure if the Earth’s Crust has enough of these minerals anyway, which makes their use irrelevant!

  18. David permalink
    September 26, 2021 9:11 pm

    On a gentle stroll round Woodbridge the other day, the beautiful surroundings were only marred by one thing. – The thought that Gummer had assumed the name of this lovely river. He deserves to be locked up!

  19. Michael permalink
    September 26, 2021 9:19 pm

    It’s not ‘misleading parliament’, it’s called LYING

  20. September 27, 2021 8:12 am

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:

  21. ThinkingScientist permalink
    September 27, 2021 11:29 am

    GB News are running these stories now. Andrew Montford/GWPF is now a regular guest on the shows. And he comes over so reasonable and well informed.

    All the chickens are coming home to roost, and with GB News gaining audience as well as the DT and The Times running these stories the whole thing is going to implode. The public will wake up to the true costs, plus how much of their utility bills already subsidise useless renewables.

    Government and all the political parties can no longer hide the true cost, or the stitch up. Any government forcing up utility costs in a time of austerity is toast. Any other political party offering the same policies will not get far. Miliband calling for “Climate Justice” when energy bills are going to get eyewatering for ordinary, working class people? You watch just how fast they Conservative party will change course on this.

    And the policy is unsustainable – cap on prices with short supply this winter will bankrupt all those stupid “energy companies”. They are not really energy companies, they are commodity traders. What if a real energy company goes under? The government is potentially facing a financial problem like the ERM exit that killed there reputation for credibility in the 1990s.

    And here’s a few little questions to ask ordinary people – if all these little green energy companies were selling 100% certified renewable power, why are they affected by the gas price anyway? And if they were selling 100% renewable which is apparently so cheap, why were they almost exactly the same price as everyone else? How can they ALL be selling 100% renewable tariffs? Mis-selling anyone?

  22. Nial permalink
    September 27, 2021 12:26 pm

    What’s the definition of treason?

    I’m sure the Russians would have given anything to have the West destroying itself from within based on these sort of lies.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: