Manifesto For 2022
By Paul Homewood
Any suggestions welcome, but I suggest we circulate this to our local MPs and Conservative candidates:
MANIFESTO FOR 2022
Preamble
It is gradually dawning on the public just how ruinously expensive and suicidal the Net Zero project is going to be.
Sadly though Net Zero is embedded across all the main political parties, throughout the establishment and the media. There is therefore no realistic chance that it will be abandoned anytime soon.
However there are a number of things which could and should be done, that would effectively put the brakes on Net Zero and help to reduce some of the costs already being incurred by the public because of climate policy.
Fundamental Principles
All government actions regarding Net Zero should be consistent with two fundamental principles:
1) Policy should be affordable, both for the public and government finances.
2) Decarbonisation in future should not be at a faster rate than the rest of the world.
Policy Actions
The following actions are therefore proposed:
1) All Carbon Budget targets should be suspended.
2) The proposed ban on gas boilers should be postponed until alternatives are cost competitive
3) The proposed ban on petrol/diesel cars should also be postponed, until:
a) Alternatives are cost competitive
b) Solutions are found for the millions of drivers without off-street parking
c) A nationwide charging network is established, with sufficient capacity and at no cost to the public purse
d) The electricity grid and distribution network has been upgraded
4) Immediately abolish carbon pricing and the UK Emissions Trading System, which is already driving up power prices.
5) Implement an Intermittency Tax for wind and solar generators, so that they bear the cost of standby and grid balancing, instead of electricity consumers.
6) Implement a Windfall Tax on all recipients of Renewable Obligation Certificates, who currently benefit from high wholesale power prices in addition to ROCs, which currently cost consumers £6bn a year. The revenue to be used to offset ROC costs currently added to electricity bills.
7) End all constraint payments to wind farms
8) Put a stop to all new subsidies for renewable energy
9) Fully commit to a long tern future for North Sea oil and gas, necessary to encourage development. This must include a recognition of the need for substantial amounts of natural gas in the medium term.
10) End the ban on fracking, and lift all unnecessary restrictions which were previously in place.
11) Extend the life of existing coal power plants.
12) Fast track mini nuclear development.
13) Immediately approve the Cumbria coal mine
14) Guarantee that no new taxes will be raised, designed to “encourage” consumers away from high carbon consumption. In particular, no new tax on meat or gas.
15) Put an immediate stop on plans to force landlords to meet higher energy efficiency and low-carbon standards
16) Put an end to plans to ban mortgages for homes which don’t meet energy efficiency and low-carbon standards.
Financial Impact
Many of the above actions could be speedily introduced and would have an immediate impact on energy bills.
For instance:
- Carbon pricing – £1.4bn
- Intermittency tax – £2.0bn
- Windfall Tax – £6.4bn
- Constraint payments – £0.1bn
A total saving of £9.9 billion would reduce average household energy bills by £366 a year.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Spot on Paul
I’d vote for a party that could deliver this
Cheers
Oh come on Paul, since when did any politician learn to do joined up thinking?
I agree completely with the manifesro. It contains every issue that i think is important. I intend to send it to my mp, Graham Brady,
Keep up the good work in 2022.
There is no proof that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change
Yeah but that is looking at it from practical, sensible point of view but we FEEL that they do.
IPCC
Have a nice 2022
Why not all party candidates, even Sturgeon’s trend-crazy SNP?YoursBen CosinPS “public…finances” reads badly, even if ‘government’ appears in between. “Peoples’ ” would be better.
I think you should demand that the government commit to supply independently-audited estimates of the cost of each initiative that it proposes, and the resultant cost burden on each IK household
Sorry Paul but I could not vote (will not vote) for a party which does not:
1. scrap the climate change act.
2. scrap the climate change committee.
3. stop trying to fight climate change.
4. double defence spending.
5. Get rid of Boris and Carrie.
6. Allow the use of all Fossil fuels so that our industrial base can grow.
THERE! That should give me lots of excuses to stay home on election day.l
Or spoil your ballot paper with a curt message – “All global warming numpties not worthy of my vote”!
Colin, one of the things which sticks in this very old mind, was a lovely old ‘yogel’ who when asked by a bbc dick who he was voting for said ” I’m not voting, because no matter who I vote for the Government gets in”
I think we must hold those who worked so hard to get us into this mess MUST be held to account. Pour encourager les autres.
There are a large number of obvious candidates but I suggest a good start would be Crispin Tickell, David King, Bob Watson, Ed Miliband, Bryony Worthington, Chris Huhne, Ed Davey, Phil Jones, David Cameron, Prince Charles, Theresa May and Boris.
These (and a hundred more) should all be totally removed from the teat of taxpayer’s money.
Personally, I would prefer heads on pikestaffs, but accept that would perhaps be thought unkind.
Martin, for the record here is Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change CHRIS HUHNE’s thinking in 2011 as quoted from a letter he wrote to my MP. As a practising electrical machines engineer I had contacted my MP because I was (and still am!) concerned about the UK’s increasing adoption of renewables on the electricity grid; my MP had forwarded my letter to Huhne.
Huhne wrote, “With larger proportions of wind on the system this [i.e. intermittency] becomes more of an issue and it is something we are planning for very carefully. In future, the impact of intermittency on the system could be reduced through storage – pump storage and hydrogen or battery technologies are coming through at an impressive rate. That will start to move the technology on from working only when the wind blows to allowing electricity to be available when people need it.”
Huhne concluded, “There are costs associated with renewable energy but there are also huge opportunities. The renewable energy sector could support hundreds of thousands of jobs by 2020. Renewable energy will stem the rise in our use of imported fossil fuels, with the need for gas imports projected to be 20-30% lower than they would have been in 2020.”
My MP forwarded a copy of Huhne’s letter (above) to me with the entirely accurate comment, “I realise you may not be reassured …”.
Regards,
John.
Heads on pikestaffs sounds fine to me and glad you have not forgotten Bob Watson!
Shouldn’t…
“2) Decarbonisation in future should not be at a faster rate than the rest of the world.”…
be…
“2) The decarbonisation policy should be at least demoted to secondary, only revisited when an economically and practically viable suite of new energy generation technologies and systems are available and suitable for deploying at scale.”?
Those good ideas will have politicians laughing all the way to the pub. We yanks have gotten good returns and changed many laws by voting libertarian: Visit Libertariantranslator https://tinyurl.com/y4xs7o25
REPEAL THE CLIMATE CHANGE ACT. Close down the CLIMATE CHANGE COMMITTEE Everything else follows.
The proposed ban on gas boilers should be postponed until [equally effiicient] alternatives are cost competitive.
Is there anyway of counteracting the BBC’s propaganda? This site does a wonderful job in doing this but it does need to get to the uninformed public, those who do not seek for the truth.
Would attempting to get a slot on GB News be worth a try?
Absolutely Christopher. I for one would be delighted to either advise or present on GB News – it’s the only UK media outlet of any kind that might even entertain AGW sceptic ideas. And it’s about bloody time somebody did!
Excellent..well said ; I so much appreciate all the effort you put in to expose this âclimateâ nonsense…RegardsAlec Gwynn Sent from Mail for Windows From: NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THATSent: 01 January 2022 19:09To: alecgwynn@gmail.comSubject: [New post] Manifesto For 2022 Paul Homewood posted: "By Paul Homewood Any suggestions welcome, but I suggest we circulate this to our local MPs and Conservative candidates: MANIFESTO FOR 2022 Preamble It is gradually dawning on the public just how ruinously expensi"
There is no reason for fielding the arguments, which are very good.
There needs to be a reason why the Climate Emergency should be set aside.
I refer to Judith Curry’s
“With the very large range of climate sensitivity values provided by the CMIP6 models, we are arguably in a period of negative learning. And this is in spite of the IPCC AR6 substantially reducing the range of ECS from the long-standing 1.5-4.5C to 2.5 to 4C (reminder: I am not buying this reduction on the low end, more on this soon).”
Basically, as I understand the development, Gavin Smith and others finally admitted that the Climate Models were running too hot so a group of IPCC scientists got together and took 0.5C off the top of ECS forecasts and for good measure (and without a scientific argument) took a full 1C off the bottom. That’s the basis for the climate emergency. Had to reduce the top but took 1C off the bottom so that the inconvenient 1.5C for a doubling was eliminated otherwise it was possible to stay within 1.5C scientifically.
I really do not understand why these arguments have not been driven through much harder as a group of scientist sit down and manufacture a range of degrees because their models are running hot surely should be the death knell to a Climate Emergency if common sense prevailed.
I may be wrong but then I am open to correction as I am not a climate scientist.
Whatever happens the letter proposed needs a rebuttal of the climate emergency notion.
Whilst I whole heartedly agree with all the proposals the problem is that this Tory Government are well aware that any alternative government whether, Labour, Liberal, Green or heaven forbid a coalition of the three, the policies would be harsher on the general public and, therefore, they feel free to pursue their own catastrophic agenda
An excellent manifesto. Yes repeal the CCA 2008 and the CCC. Stop the use of biomass and use coal or gas instead.
Paul Homewood, please make contact with Nigel Farage at GB News.
I’ve seen Inaya Folarin do a couple of really good segments on energy. Encouraging to see someone in the younger generation being interested and broadly competent. She seems to take the trouble to do some homework before interviewing people – much less chance of lies getting past her, although Farage clearly gets the bigger audience and secondary publicity.
Mark Steyn seems to have a regular Friday slot on GB News and he’s about the most sceptical AGW sceptic in the media you could find.
And in despair we come to obvious answers, yet shall our “betters” listen, let alone put into practice what the most humble and poor of us see as not just sensible but sane? No. Those in places of power, those who would aspire to be in those places of power and those who benefit from association or complicity, cooperation and corruption with those who have power, suffer not a whit from the results of their ill-founded plans. In fact, they are enriched in social standing, accumulate more power and riches through the rewards given to those who shout out fashionable Virtues, virtues in word but not action they signal to the other, hidden holders of power and influence – the activist, the journalist, the ideologue enthroned by Hollywood.
There can be no reckoning for failure to hold safe the Common Good of a nation’s citizen until the pain comes to the holders of power in the only ways that matter to them: a loss of power certainly, but more importantly, a loss of richness, from which their power actually flows.
Words matter. Intent matters less. Self-interest dominates.
A great list but, right now, one shouted into the dark.
Never look for logic when there is none present.
Net zero policies make us more vulnerable to extreme weather events, drought and cold weather risk is very high and net zero does nothing to solve the vulnerability.
Most Green “policies” are simply the various irrational hatreds of rather ignorant people. Greens detested the oil & gas industry long before Global Warming was a thing, for reasons that were never clear. Nuclear is the same. Many hate cars and cheap flying, which has allowed the plebs to overrun places that should be reserved for the elites. There is a similar attitude to development in Africa And, where people should be paid to stay in villages so that Greens can go on safari. And underlying much of it is the utter intolerance of other people choosing to do things they “shouldn’t “. Going Green is an exercise in allowing free rein to irrational hatreds and prejudices.
Paul,
In parallel with the important legislative/legal policies that you have outlined we need a scientific thread that introduces the “red team versus blue team” approach so that scientific and semi-science concepts can be properly challenged and tested in much the same way that legal cases are tested through the courts. This would start to tease apart the semi-science consensus that has monopolised the media for decades.
Unless counter arguments can reach the public I fear that the media will continue with their lazy, alarmist, copy-and-paste green narrative and we shall be left in the alarmist bubble of “there is no alternative” i.e. we will be little further forward.
The Net-Zero disaster is already unfolding upon Europe, but politicians are likely to double down on present policies unless they can see good reasons to change course. We must present them with as many good reasons (e.g. legislative, economic and scientific) as possible.
In short, we need a narrative of our own rather than simply a series of policy initiatives, however good, that risk being perceived as ad hoc rather part of a coherent and cost-effective new strategy.
Regards,
John.
Frankly you just need basic economics. But the Left refuses to follow the science there, and much of the Right shys away from it too, if the answer is what they like.
The trouble with a science approach is that we really know very little about most things. The correct answer to most questions – particularly about the future – is therefore “don’t know”. What we do know however is that restricting supply but not demand leads to higher prices, that attempting to pick winners in technology always fails and that all costs have to be paid by individuals, even if it appears as if something else is paying.
Congratulations and praise Phoenix44, the only person other than me who has IMHO given the right view of ‘The Science’.
No scientist on the planet understands the climate but they never say “I don’t know” because their funding depends on saying the opposite.
Keep the faith sir ^.^
Hi Paul .I see your posts and articles on TCW so thats another spot plus Lockdown sceptics as I think Toby will support any anti climate change ideas.As a base manifesto its spot on but needs to get out out to a much wider audience ..other than above and MPs not sure where to start.
I haven’t seen Paul’s excellent pieces on TCW (Defending Freedom) recently – is this a change of their editorial policy? I hope not.
The manifesto is brilliant, but it is too much, too soon, to be accepted the green activists, who seem to rule our country. Just change the percentage reduction of carbon (dioxide) emissions in the climate change act from 100% to 60% and the greens save face and we get the U turn started, With the EU now classing natural gas as green I think it may fly. Theresa May did not have any problems going from 80% to 100% when she got sacked, so the same procedure could be used. I know it is not going as far as we want, but we win a battle in the war for the very first time.
GeooffB, yes, saving face is key and a palatable feint that starts the process is also logical. Otherwise there’ll be a brick wall.
Repeal the CCA.
Disband the CCC.
Remove from the legislation any paper, bill or act with the word “carbon” in it. Carbon taxes, credits etc will disappear.
Contract all power suppliers that they be able to supply a stated wattage for, say, 95% of the time on demand. Intermittent suppliers will have to supply their own backup sources for when the sun and wind are uncooperative. This will put the cost of spinning reserve where it should be.
There should be as much publicity as possible so people are made aware of where their precious pension funds are being spent and sacrificed so the likes of Stateside, Vanguard, Blackrock and Rockefeller can skim off the profits. The drive for green power is driven by financial giants, only large scale public pushback in the West will slow or stop it.
Excellent Paul.Is it OK if I forward your EM to my local MP?
Also I think we should write to the newspapers to present our views,and give as much info.for them to use as possible.
I noticed that the Daily Mail printed a good selection of letters the other day.
OMG. London has had its hottest NY day since 1916. The dogs are barking.
In St James Park so they reported. Amazing the places that find themselves to be bellwethers of AGW.
And if you don’t like that location no doubt at some stage the local cremmer will be proffered.
Must have been a “hotter” day in 1916 then. Sounds like the wind was blowing from the South on those days.
A manifesto for ordinary people, who never choose to get caught up in this madness.
Totally agree. Well said.
I think the carbon pricing cost is rather higher. At £80/tonne CO2 it is adding around £30/MWh to generating costs for a CCGT generator. If we take demand as 275TWh/year (we get to pay for energy embodied in the things we buy and are taxed to provide, as well as our own consumption), and assume that CCGT is the price setter, the total is over £8bn. The government is actually auctioning 80 million UKAs per year worth about £6.4bn to the Treasury at £80/tonne CO2, while “giving away” another 75 million to established CO2 emitters. Previously, the government was only getting the revenue from the difference between the floor price of £18/tonne CO2 and the EUA price, which was about €7/tonne CO2. It’s probably adding more to our bills than is being collected in direct revenues, although I suppose you could say that it reduces the payout on CFDs, and obviously there are times when excess wind or solar set the price.
ROCs are worth over £55/MWh at the moment at auction. The current year requires 125 million of them to be presented, so that is worth £6.875bn. You might need to offer something to the high cost technologies, but they don’t account for much of the total cost. I notice too that REGO prices are creeping up: the latest REGO auction achieved an average of £6.20 for ‘deep green’ REGOs and £4.25 for fuelled ones. This doubled the values seen in the last auction in October. Yet another back door subsidy to wind.
But it’s not true carbon pricing. Renewables don’t pay it on manufacturing for example, so prices are utterly artificial and there’s no actual impact on emissions. That is the utter lunacy of this stuff. E10 petrol is worse for the environment than normal petrol, because it decreaes efficiency. Germany’s emissions are now higher than they were. Yet the only country that went a market route – the US – not only has lower prices but lower emissions too. And which country is vilified? This is a political agenda. It is not about the environment.
The first problem with carbon pricing in the UK is that it is completely detached from any attempt to estimate a true social cost of carbon, which would turn out to be inconveniently low. Instead, the official view is that the carbon price should be set as high as is necessary to achieve a given level of emissions. Lower the permitted emissions by speeding up decarbonisatio and the tax soars. If we went with a true social cost of carbon it would likely have very little impact on economic activity, beyond creating a whole new industry for assessing it that would be a drag on costs.
A first class idea..
Can the manifesto when finally agreed be dolled up in the form of an A4 poster that we can all print off as required for our own distribution? Producing a manifesto is one thing, but it is totally useless if it isn’t read by the people who we wish to read it. This is a vital and excellent site for we sceptics to get our voices heard, but simply leaving the manifesto as a blog in these columns will I fear not achieve the coverage that is otherwise possible.
When available, a copy of the poster could be sent to the Prime Minister, all members of the Cabinet, and shadow ministers in the Labour and Liberal Parties in envelopes marked ‘Personal’ to ensure they all get to read it. Further than that, I believe it would be possible to get a copy into the hands of every MP. We could also send copies similarly to the editors of all the main newspapers and television channels and the named climate change fanatics writing for those news channels?.
Perhaps we could go further and for each of us to contribute to a list of ”for’ or ‘against’ people in the industry and wider public who we feel should read it.
All this might prove to be too much work for you Paul, on top of the masses of vital info you produce for us, IFfso I would be prepared to offer my services to you free of charge to put these proposals into practice on your behalf.
I will email you Paul to get your reaction.
. .
I think you may have been reading my posts elsewhere 😉 – we have a high degree of agreement. Here’s my contribution as I made it originally:
Short term actions that would lower costs for consumers
1) Maximise coal burn. Coal is much cheaper than gas. Ensuring it operates at baseload would mean it was not being kept to screw maximum prices in the Balancing Mechanism, ensuring greater competition and lower costs of operation for peaking use from gas fired assets. Save £2bn.
2) Reduce or eliminate UKA carbon taxes until the crisis is over. The price has now reached £80/tonne CO2, and at that level auctioned allowances provide £6.4bn to Treasury coffers, while the cost to consumers in terms of higher electricity bills is probably over £8bn, since it is the impact on costs for CCGT generators that sets most electricity market prices.
3) Halt green programmes that do not have a rapid investment payback yet are charged to customer bills. Ecohomes and smart meters are obvious candidates.
4) Put most Renewables Obligations into cold storage (those getting up to 2ROCs/MWh). Generators who get these are benefitting from unexpectedly high market prices, and most do not need the subsidy (only the highest cost operations like tidal stream need higher than current market prices). The notional sums earned can be accounted for, and charged and paid progressively when either the wholesale prices average less than say £100/MWh in a quarter, or the installation is closed and dismantled. Another £6bn of relief to bills.
Immediate actions that would hold out a prospect of less high bills longer term
1) Promote development of UK fossil fuel resources and make clear that they will not be shut down until at least 80% of global energy is carbon free.
2) Support the development of fossil fuel projects in other friendly countries, reversing the recent change of policy. We need diversified supply, and competition for Russia as supplier and China as investor.
3) Announce a fast track nuclear programme for 6-8GW, to be built with minimum interference from the ONR where the technology is already proven and low cost. Aim to award 50-100% to one supplier to benefit from scale and learning curve cost reductions. No EPRs.
4) Announce an intention to develop SMRs on a fast track
5) Announce a fast track CCGT programme aimed at maintaining 100% coverage of demand by dispatchable supply (nuclear plus coal plus gas plus non pumped hydro)
6) Cancel the renewables CFD auction and the bids for new interconnectors in a clear signal of intent to provide reliable power from our own resources.
7) Announce Net Zero will be put on hold until wholesale electricity remains below £75/MWh for at least a rolling year average.
8) Start headhunting to replace Lord Deben at CCC, putting Lord Monckton in charge of recruitment
9) Break up OFGEM, giving oversight of financial fitness to the FCA, sacking Brearley, and ensuring its remit is confined to consumer interest issues.
“Maximise coal burn.”
“Announce a fast track nuclear programme for 6-8GW”
“Announce a fast track CCGT programme aimed at maintaining 100% coverage of demand by dispatchable supply (nuclear plus coal plus gas plus non pumped hydro)”
On the earlier “Policy Traincrash” thread, I suggest our 30 years of “playing Maggie’s market game” has failed for the power industry. The above selection of manifesto suggestions looks like a call for modern-day CEGB.
Walter Marshall ran AERE Harwell when I worked there, and there is no doubt that his leadership of that institution and of the CEGB was seminal. But we have had neither his inspired leadership nor a proper market for the last 20 years. Maximum coal burn would have been automatic under either, and so certainly would more CCGTs. Nuclear might have made it too – certainly under Marshall. It was David Miliband who killed nuclear.
Probably can’t agree with ALL of these, but certainly No. 5 Intermittency tax, should, and could easily, be implimented – without too much political fallout.
No, that’s the stupid one. Who do you think will pay that tax? Intermittency is a cost of the system. Consumers have to pay the full cost of the system. Yes it’s a stupid cost, but the same could be said of many costs in many other areas. You cannot reduce costs by shifting who pays at any given point.
The point of such a tax would be to discourage investment into intermittent generation.
Since reliable generation is cheaper than intermittent+backup, the costs will eventually go down, as old wind/solar power goes offline and new conventional power is built.
Sorry Paul, you’re still asking “how high” instead of “why?” Here’s how I’d start the proposal:
Fundamental Principles
All government actions regarding Net Zero should be halted until proper studies of the risks involved are carried out. by disinterested parties.
If such studies show that there is any/some truth in the theory of anthropogenic climate change, then:
1) Policy should be affordable, both for the public and government finances.
2) Decarbonisation in future should not be at a faster rate than the rest of the world.
etc, etc.
Paul,
I suggest to add the following:
Policy Actions:
3)
e) Prices of electric vehicles drop to a competitive level vis-a-vis comparable petrol/diesel vehicles.
f) Battery pack prices drop to a reasonable level, say < £1000.
g) Battery packs are guaranteed to last at least say 8 years, including used vehicles.
17) Enact legislation to aggressively control and minimize toxic emissions from all industrial, commercial and public processes, keeping in mind that CO2 is not a toxic substance.
My best wishes for 2022!
There have been a number of comments concerning the lack of opportunity in gaining wider readership or publicity of narrative that counters the ‘global warming fear-mongering’ and the declarations of climate Emergency now-cascaded through the local authorities and down to the Parish Councils. Yes, at the national level there are glimmers of some sense of reality beginning to pervade some of the media’s output, but I suspect very little has been published at the more local level – the regional media; the town and village magazines/newsletters. I am sure that some clever and easily digested article that challenges the current direction of travel, informative without being technical, would help people to focus on their future way of life. That would also reinforce the perception that many do have, without admitting to it from fear of retribution from family, friends and the local community, that the Government’s policies of carbon are very wrong from all sorts of reasons: no national debate or consensus to the policies; the seemingly imposition of draconian laws, and regulations by unelected bodies; the seemingly total subservience of politicians – ministers – to the unelected civil servants that effectively manage the policies and their implementation without challenge. The green lobby is active at every level of society; currently there is no effective challenge to it such is the power of that green religion.
Spot on.
Such is the power of the BBC, who refuse to give voice to any sceptic viewpoint.
Very true. I suggest we start locally at e.g. WIs and other groups. Top down will never work.
The local press is now mainly in national control, with syndicated stories and very little true local content, which is often utterly dire in its limited reporting, regurgitating police statements etc.
I would add:
Ban all solar farms from being built on farmland
Ban the growing of energy crops on farmland
Increase spending on the development of fusions power
Why? Land should be used for whatever produces the greatest value. Biofuels and solar farms should not be higher value than most other uses but are because of subsidies, incentives etc. Remove those and your solve any problem.
Keep the government out of Fusion – it is doing just fine already somewhere near Oxford : https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/ ^.^
Personally, I think Thorium/LFTR nuclear is a much better bet, and likely far more economic to develop and run.
I’m not sure what the above is aiming to achieve. Surely the answer, if presented with a “Manifesto” would be to start a political party and put up candidates. Or join a political party and seek to influence its manifesto. Then these things could be put forward in a public vote.
It is possible to complain that voters do not have a reasonable choice on the matters raised, but the answer would surely be the same.
The myths and beliefs presented by the decarbonisers need to be publically countered by facts e.g.
That the recent and impending monstrous increases in UK energy costs are primarily due to the current energy mix i.e. failure to exploit coal
That there are approx 10k deaths each year due to fuel poverty arising from the high cost of domestic energy
The costs are exacerbated by the government’s failure to create storage facilities for gas allowing for it to be bought when cheap to hedge against price rises. it is not as if they were not warned storage was needed but successive moronic ministers including the current Kwasi Modo said it was not needed.
Someone posted a link to a website that compared gas storage capacity by country, the UK’s capacity was dismal.
UK gas spot price, although measured monthly
https://www.erce.energy/graph/uk-natural-gas-nbp-spot-price/
Futures
https://www.erce.energy/graph/uk-natural-gas-futures-curve/
Six month’s storage would be a useful buffer.
The problem is that voters only get a choice of the party and not the individual items in manifestos.
Agreed Realist. That’s why I mentioned joining a party and trying to influence its manifesto from the inside.
Getting proper input to the manifesto is much more difficult. I have been regularly drawing John Redwood’s attention to one issue after another. He’s been excellent about taking up many of the points I raise, writing specific blogs about them, as well as newspaper articles and providing the foundation for TV interviews. He has a couple of wilful blindspots so as not to upset the party machine: coal generation for example.
Steve Baker is even now on the board at GWPF so he plainly gets top drawer briefings from there. But penetrating the inner sanctums of manifesto writing requires spies at the heart of Downing Street. Persuading Richard Tice to risk a much more proactive line, rather than kowtowing to green sentiment is also I suspect no easy matter. Perhaps there will be some event that encourages him to do so. Trying to confound the Lib Dems or Labour by pointing out the nonsense of their policies is I suspect a non starter.
Perhaps add another condition regarding the electric car compulsion, to delay until alternatives are found to the environmentally damaging mineral mining for the batteries with 200 tons of rock blasted per battery and no more children being send down the cobalt mines.
There is no sensible mandate like this. Either government does nothing and leaves it to the market and individual choice or it intervenes.
This is an attempt to semi-manage the issue but that’s still attempting to centrally plan vast swathes of the economy. That never works.
If we are to do anything, a proper carbon tax is the best option by far as it is fiscally neutral and ensures that ALL areas pay the tax, including renewables and EVs where CO2 is emitted in manufacturing. Governments do not then get to pick and choose what we use and what gets taxed.
Slightly off topic, but the EU seems to be re-assessing what can be included in green energy definition.
Brussels unveils plan for ‘green’ gas and nuclear label | Euronews….
https://www.euronews.com/2022/01/01/brussels-unveils-plan-for-green-gas-and-nuclear-label
A lot of good points there, but don’t “postpone” the ban on petrol and diesel. Scrap that proposed ban altogether. The competition (electric cars) needs to fix its own products both for practicality and price instead of misusing the legal system to remove things that actually work and what users need.
And of course not only the UK. The “climate” and “green” and anti-mobility hysterics are Europe-wide. It is astounding they are _still_ going on in the UK at all given the infamous “Brexit”.
I’ve sent an email to my MP Mark Jenkinson, using these excellent points.
A logical, merited and entirely fair list of sensible policies.
They have absolutely no chance of being implemented.
I want all Cabinet ministers to implement the green lunacy concerning domestic heat, insulation and power to their personal properties (including any they rent out) at their own expense. The results and costs should be examined approved and published by a truly independent group of engineers and economists by the end of this parliament.
Net Zero is laughable – painfully. It will have no effect on the planet or climate, as several new studies have shown that limiting human emissions will not even affect how much CO2 is in the air.
https://scc.klimarealistene.com/2021/10/new-papers-on-control-of-atmospheric-co2/
https://scc.klimarealistene.com/produkt/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/
There are many welcome suggestions in all of the foregoing but please, please remember that each and every change has to be supported by a majority in Parliament. That, for better or worse, is the nature of the democracy we live in. Presently, and as far as I can see in the furure, no submission that challenges the climate emergency orthodoxy has a chance of getting through. The best hope is that offered by the small but increasing number of sceptical Tory MPs whose voices are starting to be heard plus the impacts on the public of the inflationary impacts of NZ. There must come a point when MPs put their own survival ahead on principles. But we are not there yet.
I think that many of us will have fire in our bellies going forward,but if we can persuade our MPs or even Boris to do what is actually needed:that is asking for the evidence that CO2 is the cause of global warming/climate change.
Most of us are aware that there is no evidence,but it would be advantageous for the whole world to see what nonsense the greens believe in,and re establish science back to where it belongs.
Anyone who causes the deaths of the poor,the old and the cold,does not get my vote.
Only my revulsion.
I have repeatedly asked for the evidence my (Cons) MP makes regarding ‘climate change’ (he’s a 100% sold-out supporter), but to date, not bed a single piece. This is strange, as I put it to him that he must have it and have understood it to vote on it.
(apols for the phone typos; delete “bed”)
Paul Great article, but please remember those of us, mostly in rural areas, who rely on oil heating, already much more expensive than gas, and scheduled to be banned five years before gas. Bob Liddell
Sent from my iPad
>
At the moment oil is probably somewhat cheaper than gas would be absent the price cap. It was also rather cheaper than gas in most of 2020.
Oil would be a LOT less expensive if the TAX was drastically reduced, ideally scrapped. Look at the tax element of the actual price at the pump for petrol and diesel and also for heating oil.
A great idea, but there are none so blind as those who do not want to see!
Paul, Please don’t be too bothered by net zero or, even climate change. Net zero means that every gram of greenhouse gases we emit must be soaked up. This is misleading, deceptive and, anyway impossible to achieve. Gross zero is also impractical and impossible to get anywhere near zero!
Going green on a green planet is sensible for that very reason. Living as though our very useful fossil fuels will never become exhausted is foolish. Cutting back on them as much as possible is sensible. I have always thought that in order to leave the planet in better shape for my descendants. I want to be a good ancestor.
Therefore, dear Paul, why do you want us all to rip into them as if there is no tomorrow? Tim
Much of what you say makes good sense, Tim
But as you say, it has nothing to do with Net Zero or Climate Change.
Instead of wasting trillions on decarbonisation , we should be devoting resources to developing new energy sources and making the planet greener. Indeed, the latter has been happening for decades in the Capitalist West. Wealthier societies have more resources to devote to things like that.
I suggest you check out environmentalists like Bjorn Lomborg and Michael Shellenberger who think along the same lines