Tom Burke
By Paul Homewood
Tom Burke, founding Director of the climate change think tank E3G, appears frequently in the media.
He faced Nigel Farage a couple of months ago:
Farage does his best, but allows Burke to get away with too many facile claims. Most of it is straight out of the AEP playbook:
- Renewables are super cheap
- Batteries are cheap
- Hydrogen is wonderful
- Subsidies are not subsidies but investment
Farage points out that it is the poor who are most affected by the obscene subsidies paid out to renewable generators, which Burke does not dispute. Instead he deflects by claiming it will all be worth it in the long run. What he fails to explain though is why renewable energy still needs subsidies, mandates and carbon taxes to be competitive , if it is so cheap.
Burke then goes onto complain that we have not got enough battery storage, without being challenged over the fact it cannot run the grid for the days on end when the wind fails.
He then says we should insulate our homes more, but does not tell us how much this will cost, or who will pay.
Finally he tells us we should be producing hydrogen from all of the surplus wind power we will have in future. Again however he does not tell us how ridiculously expensive this would be be, especially when electrolysers would be working so intermittently. Nor does he say how much it will cost to store all of this hydrogen, or build lots of new hydrogen burning power stations.
When we stand back though, a clearer picture emerges. This is what Tom Burke wrote in 2013:
https://theecologist.org/2013/dec/11/climate-change-about-survival-not-economics
In that article, Burke called for a massive reallocation of investment capital, which would only happen if subsidies were put in place. There was no talk then of renewables being cheap.
And in common with many environmentalists, Tom Burke is opposed to nuclear power, despite its obvious contribution to decarbonising.
Tom Burke, by the way, is also a former Director of Friends of the Earth, so anything he says about renewable energy and Net Zero need to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
The simple reality is that he wants to get rid of fossil fuels regardless of the cost to the public.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Agreed, public figures like Farage – supposedly on our side of the debate – are often poorly briefed, conceding far too much ground to the drama greens.
“I agree we must act to avert a planet-ending climate crisis caused by man-made CO2 – but your plans seem jolly expensive” is simply NOT a winning argument.
I just want to hear one interviewer ask these so called experts exactly how 16 parts per million of man made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can cause droughts, floods, hurricanes and whatever other extreme weather they think it causes.
No I don’t want to hear that. Because they will think all climate sceptics are as scientifically challenged.
Atmospheric CO2 rose from 200ppm to 280ppm at the end of the last glaciation due to natural warming of the oceans. since the depth of the Little Ice Age, oceans have again warmed and many glaciers have melted. Both will increase atmospheric CO2.
I’ve never seen a number attributed to this.
To kzbkzb – what is the weather currently like in Guangdong Province?
Exactly – and I wonder if his editor and CEO are working him from behind although NO is, still, steadfastly sticking it the WOKE/BLOB/AWGCC nexus consistently such you have to fear for his future tenure on GBN.
Farage and his ilk simply have to start by getting these AWGCC delusionists to state from ball one precisely why they consider CO2 a pollutant/warming GG and provide cited evidence – just as should have been done to the bought off fool Fraser Myers in his ad hominem attack on Bridgen recently. Giving them airtime might stymie complaints to OFCOM, but it is, surely, an abject surrender to a barefaced, scientifically bankrupt lie?
Indeed, let’s hope Mark Steyn and Naomi Wolf succeed at the High Court against Ofcom.
https://www.steynonline.com/13500/steyn-sues-ofcom
“Farage and his ilk simply have to start by getting these AWGCC delusionists to state from ball one precisely why they consider CO2 a pollutant/warming GG and provide cited evidence
No, their response will be 97% of scientists say it is so, end of discussion.
Respectfully you are completely wrong – precisely for the reason that if these AGWCC dillusionists trot out their garbage they can be instantly countered by a knowledgable interviewer 0 e.g., the 97% trope is so easily destroyed as has been done so many times before. You have to expose them by forcing them to reveal their scientific deficit, and not allowing them to give their very one sided opinion – The BBC have decided the “science is settled” – that works the other way surely?
The “97% of scientists agree….” the eco-loons spout is precisely the type of nonsense that can and needs ti be debunked,,,,,,,
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”
Tthe most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,”
Thanks – that comprehensive debunk is exactly what Farage & Co have to get in to their brains and jump all over anyone who trots out the “97%…..lie – as with all the other AWG/CC tripe imho.
Farage has never been one for detail, even on his supposed specialist subject the EU. It isn’t hard to be better informed than an eco-fascist.
Well said Chilli
The majority, especially young people, have no concept of number and consequently any discussion of actual amounts of electricity, hydrogen etc are just ignored by their brains. Presumably the schools don’t teach it because it is too right wing.
“…too right wing…”
Or too left brained?
“To those who feel, the world is a tragedy. To those who think, the world is a comedy.”
To make the right decisions, your calculating left brain has to do more than feed your emotional right brain with the pap it craves.
You cannot have a proper discussion on such an important topic in under five minutes
All I see / hear in interviews is replacement of fossil fuels with electrical energy from wind or solar or occasionally nuclear. But electricity is only one form of energy and is about 20% of UK energy demand. The other 80% is currently transport, heating and chemical industry and this comes from oil / gas. Wind last year generated 8.67GW (28.5%) of electricity (excl biomass, see http://www.grid.iamkate.co.uk) which is 5.7% of UK energy and that is not much from 12,000 windmills on and offshore. We need in todays society gas for the chemical industry – imagine an ICU without plastic. People are advocating a return to pre-inductrial living where life expectancy was poor, with a poor standard of living for most. So to think that by 2050 UK energy consumption must decline as the population continues to increase is politically naïve and people are listening to St Greta and Sir David and Miss Pink Hair rather than engineers.
“Wind last year generated 8.67GW”
Peter that statement is gibberish.
It is; but I understood it as, “produced electric power during the year equivalent to a steady rate of 8.67 GW.” Which sounds about right. But if one is going to talk about “energy used in a year” it is obviously better to use the SI unit for work and energy, which is the joule.
The IEA recently published it’s ‘Energy Technologies Perspectives 2023’ Some encouraging quotes –
“The world still relies on fossil fuels (FFs) for its energy supply. The growth in clean energy supply since 2000 has been dwarfed by that of oil, gas and coal, especially in emerging and developing economies”
“Oil is the single largest source of primary energy (29%) followed by coal (26%), natural gas(23%), solar and wind (2%), nuclear (5%), hydro (2%)”
“Whilst electrification has accelerated over the last two decades, fossil fuels still dominate energy end use – 35% of total energy use in buildings and 95% in transport”
“In 2021 coal equalled 75% of energy used in global steel production and over 50% in cement production while about 70% of chemical production was based on oil or natural gas”
“Demand for ‘critical minerals’ has increased briskly in recent years……..The extraction and processing of critical minerals typically relies on fossil fuels”
‘Climate change is an existential threat to humans and our civilisation [citation needed]. A rapid transition to a renewable energy system must take place if we are to survive, argues Tom Burke – never mind the economics.’
I guess we’re dead, then.
Burke’s goal is the destruction of UK. UK’s unilateral action on ‘climate change’ produces nothing but a dead UK. It is self evident.
Add in, his plan won’t work. Also self evident.
Burke is the marketing man for bad programs for bad reasons.
‘Farage points out that it is the poor who are most affected by the obscene subsidies paid out to renewable generators’
The third appeal to pathos on these pages in the last few days.
It’s a bad argument.
Disagree, always worth pointing out hypocrisy. Greens often say that billions will die in Thermageddon , that seems to work for them unfortunately.
Ahh . . . the old Bandwagon Fallacy in support of the Appeal to Pity Fallacy.
Ooh, there’s posh!
Using British slang for ad hominem on an American makes me smile.
A long time back, I signed on to receive the E3G newsletter. See current one at https://email.e3g.org/t/r-e-ttjkbdd-okjjkurxu-r/ . OK, back then I accepted the “consensus” view that the Earth was warming and that human-emitted CO2 was the cause, since I expected that “the experts” were most likely right and because I hadn’t looked at the data myself. Since then I have spent a while looking at the data, so I don’t see human emitted CO2 as a problem or even as a benefit – natural processes are so much larger than the human emissions that the effect cannot currently be measured. More CO2 is indeed a benefit, but looks like that’s a natural result of warming we don’t control. Still, the E3G newsletter is interesting to see what people are obsessing about and what lies are being told.
Investment capital really boils down to how many person-hours you invest in one function as opposed to other ones that were being done. The higher the percentage of person-hours a country spends on getting energy, the fewer person-hours are available to produce stuff for people to use, or to produce food, heating/cooling, or housing – the necessary stuff for a pleasant life. Thus spending too much on energy means that everything else becomes more expensive, and standard of living goes down. Whatever the financial people figure out to try to hide stuff, the reality is that reward per hour goes down.
Thus the politicians’ promise of “lots of new Green well-paid jobs” is actually a threat to increase the amount of time each person will need to work to earn their living.
Productivity, as in the value of what a person can produce in an hour, largely depends on how much energy that person controls. We thus need to reduce the person-hours invested in getting that energy, and nuclear fission is currently the best way of doing that. I do have hopes that some new physics will give us an even better way of getting energy within the next few years, but that’s somewhat uncertain until the data is in.
At the base is the cost and availability of energy. Making that energy both expensive and uncertain as to availability is precisely the wrong way if you want a better standard of living. I’d also note that the larger the number of educated people you have, and the more free time they have to think and to solve problems, the faster we’ll advance. Reducing the number of people on the Earth is thus also a bad policy as regards improvement of standard of living. It’s normally a very small number of people that produce new ideas, which are then used by the majority.
Tom Burke is opposed to nuclear power, despite its obvious contribution to decarbonising.
Because ‘decarbonising’ is just a front for his real agenda.
Burke? A bit of nominative determinism there.
I wrote to Farage suggesting I felt he needs to be better prepared for environmentalist interviews as they have slick slogans which require to be answered with precise facts. He doesn’t seem to have learnt the lesson yet – or even whether he is fully on the scientific argument.
Yup, agree wholeheartedly – cannot understand how he as a media savvy person ( allegedly) allows these “eco” prefixes to dictate ….. senseless unless he is acting to “orders”, in which case, if the “Steyn” contract is being demanded of him , NO et al, I expect GBN to take on a different stance prior to a collapse in support…hope not.
It’s the same with Rees-Mogg and Neil Oliver unfortunately as they are not prepared to debate with the climate gang with real knowledge of the subject so they lose.
“…real knowledge of the subject…”
It is true that many well meaning “antis” with a little popular science and common sense as their only weapons rush into ambushes.
Successful propaganda chooses just one fact or prejudice to fix in the minds of the people. In the case of CAGW, that successfully implanted idea is ,”We are ruining the climate!” It is no good saying, “The climate is not in danger! the world is hardly even warming!” Nobody will believe you. They “know what they know.”
We could switch to saying, “You are so right. But, go and talk to China and India about it. They are the masters now!” If anybody does go, with any luck they will not come back.
Too often on GB news the interviewer concedes debatable points. Generally, with other topics, they have people with different viewpoints and that is exactly what they should do with climate issues.
BBC long ago accepted that ‘the science was settled’, I suspect that Ofcom agrees with that. Pray for Steyn and Wolf.
Train companies are gradually banning e-things as they are a fire risk.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-65603804
As it’s revealed that in 2023 London Fire Brigade dealt with an e-bike or e-scooter fire once every two days on average – Up 60% in a year.
Just as Norwegian Ferry company/ies – cannot guarantee to put out a fire from a Lithium battery mid fjord..
Makes it a bit difficult if the ferry is battery powered.
https://www.electrive.com/2021/03/02/worlds-largest-electric-ferry-yet-goes-into-service-in-norway/
The Grauniad, no less, recently carried an article saying “Fires sparked by faulty e-bikes and e-scooters have injured at least 190 people in the UK and killed eight……..and occur at the rate of at least six a week”
In January this year a father and son in Merseyside were killed when an e-bike battery charging overnight caused a house fire. (3/5/23)
Yes, Paul, that is exactly right about his views and how Farage never confronted him on his absurdities – because Farage, and others, are not sufficiently briefed on the subject – why invite people when you don’t know the subject. Neil Oliver last Sunday (Saturday?) on GB News couldn’t properly deal with him.
Have you never been invited on any TV channel? Have they done a George Galloway on you?
Keep up ther very good and important work you do.
Anthony
Peter, a GW is a unit of power not energy.
Agreed. Nobody ever asks these activists to prove what they say is true. Neither are they told that Global warming has always preceded an increase in CO2. It does not cause warming. Also that at 410 ppm it is at a low level and almost heat “saturated”. Doubling or trebling will have little effect. Manmade CO2 represents 0.04% of greenhouse gases as opposed to water vapour and clouds which represent 90%. Carbon Dioxide is a good gas, essential to life and is no threat at all.
“Climate change is an existential threat to humans and our civilisation. A rapid transition to a renewable energy system must take place if we are to survive, argues Tom Burke – never mind the economics.”
Tommy? No transition to renewable energies and all-electric transportation can take place without the fuels required in the conventional vehicles that do all of the work. That means a supply of gasolines and the renewable biofuels that depend on gasoline. Solar, wind and nuclear energies do not transport anything but require transportation for their implementation. Reality cannot be ignored.
Correct, as ever, Broadlands but I would like to extend your reasoning. I never hear anyone explaining the crucial role of the ‘tyre’. Basic ingredients for a tyre are, butadiene, styrene and carbon black. All 3 come from oil. No oil no tyres.
Brief history. 1940s, supply of natural rubber from Malaysia is via the oceans and at risk from enemy ships. USA recognises the importance of tyres on all types of transport, so they ask the technologists of companies like Firestone and Goodyear to find a synthetic rubber. These scientists nay, these brilliant scientists, find that carbon black will reinforce styrene butadiene rubber and the whole world has enjoyed synthetic tyres ever since.
The tyre industry employs millions of workers and society has seen enormous advances on the back of both the internal combustion engine and tyres.
I seek two favours:
1. When you ride up your busy roads give at least some thought to what all those vehicles are running on.
2. Can we get someone from the media to ask a ‘stop oil/green’ plonker what they intend to do if we cannot have tyres.
Don’t worry I’m working on an everlasting super tyre made from polluted sea water, plenty of that about.
And the vast majority of tires are on conventional vehicles that run on roads of asphalt or cement/concrete. Are we supposed to give all of that up also. Try flying on an airplane (electric or not) without wheels with tires. Where is reality in all this projected global warming mayhem?
its worth looking at the Govt’s own statistics on the scale of the British economy , currently
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-trade-in-numbers/uk-trade-in-numbers-web-version
Two items of interest :
1. Of the 10 top UK exports (I am assuming that we all concede that without selling abroad we will not survive in our current standard of living) , valued for 12 months to March 2023 at £ 218.6B , 25% is made up of oils and chemicals , the latter mainly derived from oils , so that will be lost entirely by Burke’s Law . Another 25% is earned from cars , aircraft and nonferrous metals , all at risk from Burke’s Law .
2. The top 5 services exports (services are 75% of UK economy ) valued at £350.9B 65% is made up of business and financial services . How that can be sustained if all transactions are conducted with quill pens and business people from abroad are conducted to the City of London by sedan chair or dog cart is difficult to understand , but its all that is allowed by Burke’s Law .
If the policy of Burke , Starmer , the whole of the BBC and most of the Tory cabinet is to return London, say , to the standard of that known to Samuel Pepys , then the population there and in the rest of the UK will have to be downgraded proportionately to the drop in the tools of modern life.
Burke by name and Burk in fact, pie in the sky dreamer or a well paid lobbyist?
The latter I think. Solutions not problems they say, more like no solution to which they cannot find a problem, nuclear being the obvious example.
https://www.e3g.org/
Nutty street schemes creating chaos and danger everywhere. OK the car driver was at fault but why sit diners in the road protected by wavey plastic strips and narrow the other side with planters!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12115727/Moment-Audi-driver-ploughs-tables-outside-Italian-restaurant.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12114669/Fury-man-82-breaks-hip-falling-kerb-looks-similar-road.html
Why give these LOONS like this the time of day , they just talk RUBBISH and cannot back up anything they say with real facts. They won’t even approach a real debate , all they spout is there religious madness, Until they are willing to debate the real science it is not worth giving them any publicity
Landmark Surrey Horse Hill court case could have huge implications for fossil fuel developments
“I hope that the Supreme Court will confirm that no fossil fuel development – coal, oil or gas – should be allowed without consideration of its full climate impact.” According to UKOG the Horse Hill site in Reigate and Banstead has so far produced about 185,000 barrels of oil. Approximately 1.362 million remain.
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/landmark-surrey-horse-hill-court-26968001
The debate should not be .. GreenPR guy vs TV presenter
It should be old style the presenter moderating between 2 sides
this sometimes happens on TalkTV GBnews
but most GreenSupremacists routinely refuse such fair debates.
Quote:-
“The simple reality is that he wants to get rid of fossil fuels regardless of the cost to the public.”
I presume Mr Burke thinks this can happen.
As some one, who’s name I’ve forgotten said ‘ I have got news for you kid’.
What I’d like to understand is why they say “Renewables are super cheap”.
The UK currently has the most expensive domestic electricity prices of any medium or large sized country in the world.
The best I can find is their argument based on the Contracts of Difference, with the Guardian claiming “Offshore windfarm operators will sell power for as little as £37.35 per megawatt hour”. But in reality this isn’t the case with Offshore windfarm operators selling at much higher prices, (trying to find the average cost of UK offshore wind is difficult).
So are the CfD not legally binding? Can new wind farms sell at much higher prices than the agreed CfD?
Yes they can and do sell at higher prices, as long as they have not already triggered their cfds
If they were to sell at £37.35/MWh then the CFD would have to have had a 2012 money strike price of £27.92/MWh and inflation would have to drop to zero.
The reality is that CFDs are averaging £170-175/MWh currently, plus a REGO top up worth another £9/MWh. Offshore wind ROCs are worth £117-130/MWh on top of market prices. Overall, wind is say £200/MWh. Double the capacity and that will contribute £100/MWh to the average even if new wind is free. The cheapest offshore wind CFD in operation is Triton Knoll at £107.19/MWh. They opted for that only after the windfall tax, which makes them better off avoiding the tax via the CFD at market prices up to £155/MWh.
Burke is another one who has made a lucrative career out the whole scam. Here are a few bits from an E3G profile several years ago:
“He was a member of the Council of English Nature, the statutory advisor to the British Government on biodiversity, from 1999-2005. He was Special Advisor to three Secretaries of State for the Environment from 1991-97 after serving as Director of the Green Alliance from 1982-91.
He has been a professional environmentalist for 30 years, (this was about 10 years ago) and was formerly Executive Director of Friends of the Earth and a member of the Executive Committee of the European Environmental Bureau 1988-91. In 1993 he was appointed to United Nations Environment Programme’s `Global 500’ roll of honour. In 1997, he was appointed CBE for services to the environment.”
E3G is a QGO (quasi-governmental organization). They thrived under Tony Blair and have grown massively since then.
Co-Founding Director & Co-Chief Executive Nick Mabey was a senior policy adviser to Tony Blair, and former Head of Sustainable Development in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Environment Policy department. Before he joined government, Mabey was Head of Economics and Development at WWF-UK
Another Founding Director, John Ashton, (not with E3G now) was appointed as Special Representative for Climate Change of the UK Foreign Secretary under the Labour Government, on secondment from E3G, where he had previously been Chief Executive since its inception.
Before E3G, Co-CEO Shane Tomlinson worked in Tony Blair’s Strategy Unit in the Cabinet Office. He provided policy advice and analysis on a number of strategic areas including global health issues, energy policy and resource productivity.
Revolving doors.
“…existential threat…”
So, let me get this clear. Sartre is threatening me? I thought he was dead.
Do I believe the political, media and science consensus that we are in a climate emergency with environmental degradation all around.
Or do I believe my eyes which tell me the opposite that the Environment seems to be doing OK.
I have no idea what will happen in the future.
The context of this interview, as I remember it, was that GB News had decided to give some airtime to Wade Allison, who had recently written a short report criticising wind energy for GWPF. The release of that GWPF report was covered by this Notalot blog post:
Allison was interviewed (and as I remember it, didn’t seem at all comfortable doing an interview) by video link by Farage, and then Burke, presumably for ‘balance’ to satisfy OFCOM, was interviewed in the studio.
Burke seems to be brought in for OFCOM-type balance quite frequently when a critic of renewable energy is interviewed. I remember Farage did an interview with Donald Trump in 2022 where Trump rubbished wind energy during the interview and then Burke was allowed some airtime to react to Trump’s comments.
So when people criticise Farage for not giving Burke as hard a time as he deserves, it should be understood that the GB News viewers will usually have seen a critic of renewable energy talking first before Burke came on. On the other channels, the critics of renewable energy don’t even get any airtime.