|
The scandal, published in the Sunday Telegraph, is just the latest of a series of controversies that have dogged the CCC since its inception.
-
In 2013, it was revealed that CCC chairman Lord Deben had a conflict of interest, retaining his position as chairman of a company involved in windfarm installations after his appointment. He had told the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee that he would divest himself of all such interests if appointed.
-
In 2019, it was revealed that Lord Deben’s family company was still taking large sums of money from businesses working in the environmental sphere.
-
In 2023, it was revealed that those payments to Lord Deben’s company were not properly disclosed in the Register of Interests.
-
In 2021, it was revealed that the CCC had used spurious weather data in their modelling, thus enabling them to reduce the capacity of electricity generation and storage equipment apparently required.
-
It was also revealed that the CCC used spurious figures for the cost of electric vehicles, thus reducing the apparent costs.
-
The CCC tried to hide its model from public scrutiny, spending tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayer’s money fighting a lawful Freedom of Information request.
-
More recently, the CCC admitted that its electricity system modelling is inadequate. The resulting understatement of costs is as much as tens of billions of pounds per year.
-
It has also been revealed that the CCC “waves away” most of the cost problem, simply by assuming extraordinary cost reductions in future. With current technology, the cost of Net Zero will be hundreds of billions of pounds higher.
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:
‘The list of scandals at the Climate Change Committee seems to be endless, but Parliamentarians seem to want to let them get away with it. If the House of Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee again fails to launch an inquiry into the governance of the CCC, and in particular Chris Stark’s management and the adequacy of the modelling that underpinned the 2019 Net Zero report, it will look very bad.’
|
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Fat chance of that, IMHO. The governing elite will do anything to keep their Nett Zero agenda on track, because if it’s allowed to be properly scrutinised and costed, they’ll be out on their ears. Turkeys will never vote for Xmas…..
They’ll be out on their ears anyway, as most educated people realise the absolute twaddle peddled them over the past decade, with more recent revelations on domestic future costs. Voting will be highly tactical, depending upon individual perceptions of the least unlikeable candidate.
Best of luck expecting this current bunch of Parliamentarians to bother investigating the CCC – if truth be known, they all want to get onboard this gravy train- pushing policy that the general public cannot afford but they benefit from with commercial interests racking in the unlimited cash, enriching themselves and their families ensuring that they don’t suffer the consequences of a financial disaster which has no known guesstimate, except that it will be high.
Nett Zero will only cost between £5trillion and £12trillion, mere pocket change for our CCC and Parliamentarians, and of course in typical UK fashion, this will be subject to massive cost outruns, crippling delays in construction leading to greater cash generation opportunities for all those whose snouts are in the trough, Nett Zero will really mean Zero, zero cash as to pay this small cost taxes will rise further and faster, but we must never lose sight of the end goal – Nett Zero will save the Planet so it can continue as a plaything for the very rich and powerful.
The man is trying to destroy your country, and you accuse him of ‘obfuscating.’
This is not a path to redemption.
Slowly slowly makeee monkeeee.
Sophisticated thinking is necessary to encourage the Klymutt house of cards to collapse under it’s own absurd weight of nothing. It is built on nothing and consists on nothing but like a giant Ponzi scheme, as long as it exists, it creates it’s own gravity.
There is too much money involved sadly which means too many people dependent on perpetuating the fraud for their worthless jobs will resist a direct assault, not because they understand or believe the nonsense, but rather because this fraud has become the source of their livelihood(s).
It is incredible to think that in this case, a fraud has been institutionalized.
What is needed is to take a leaf out of the rabid Leftie activist play book. Cut off the oxygen supply (tax payer money) and the beast will collapse and die of natural causes. The bigger problem is that the Klymutt religion is just one branch of the multi headed hydra which is modern marxism.
Even the unelected, highly paid, Climate watchdog Chief, Chris Stark, behind the gas boiler ban still has gas heating in his own home!
You are much more likely to get the present Tory MPs vote for “Free Beer for all the Workers” than for a proper inquiry into the CCC.
Even if, by some weird miracle, one was set up, it would be certain to be run along the same lines as Dame Hallett’s Covid Inquiry which, from the start, has obviously decided that the outcome will be that Lockdowns, masks, rules of six, and mandatory JabbaJabbas should have been “Sooner, Harsher, Longer”.
And they would take enormous care not to look under too many stones, nor to forensically examine the personal finances of Stark, Deben and their chums.
Hiding under the stones, Conservative Environment Network
https://www.cen.uk.com/our-caucus
Thanks Dennis.
What a bunch of Master Baiters.
Any single one of the contraversies should be enough to suspend the whole racket pending an investigation , most of the members are on the extreme left, yet they advise a conservative ( in name only ) government
How on earth this is allowed to go on is beyond me
The day this disgraceful parasitic collection of useless idealogues is disbanded is the day I long for
I think the reason it still goes on is that the appallingly naive and ill-informed Ed Milliband saw to it that net zero and its deadline were enshrined in the legislation and the waypost targets in getting there are also fixed.
Er, it was the inept Theresa May that laid the Net Zero legislation before Parliament.
@gezza
From Wikipedia…
“On 16 October 2008 Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, announced that the [Climate Change] Act would mandate an 80% cut overall in six greenhouse gases by 2050.”
May just made it worse by increasing the number to 100%
Ironically I think the Climate Change Act may be the way to put a stop to this madness as I would argue what is being used in a way not intended by parliament and the government’s plan for net zero is unlawful.
No one honestly believes parliament intended to reduce peoples living standards include making air travel & car use the preserve of the rich & connected), ignore the duties in the electricity act – “the need to secure that all reasonable demands for electricity are met”
– I do wonder when someone will address the fact we don’t have enough generating capacity even in the planning to run all those heat pumps proposed. Are there plans to build enough to meet our equivalent instantaneous natural gas & heating oil demand for an unusually cold winter e.g 1947 or 1963 – https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news-archive/2018/gas-consumption-during-the-beast-from-the-east-how-the-local-gas-system-kept-us-warm ? I doubt it.
Using the common law understand of negligence I would argue the government’s plan for meeting targets under the Climate Change Act have to be technically feasible at scale and they can’t also contain legal fictions like pretending all the imported electricity is zero carbon & Renewable Energy Certificates.
This isn’t the case from intermittent renewables in 2024 as TW/h scale storage does not yet exist or for that matter carbon capture and storage.
But there were things there were thing that were technically feasible in 2008 at scale as far as I’m aware have not even being look at:
1 – a large scale (40GW+) replacement of coal and natural gas generating capacity with nuclear fission using existing reactor designs which France clearly demonstrated was possible
Personally I would worked with the Canadians to build 50hz replica of a multi unit CANDU site e.g Darlington Nuclear Generating Station but with 8 units like Bruce Nuclear Generating Station as we don’t seem to have the heavy forging capacity for pressure vessels for PWR or BWR in the UK (sorting that may slow things). It an established design were the bugs have being worked out and the skills need in refurbishments in Canada are similar to what a new build project would need so of the options the UK has its likely to be built on time and budget.
2 – I would have prohibited the demolition of all the old coal, oil and gas power station as they could clearly be repowered like many old coal power station in the post war period were to oil with small modular heat reactors based on what we use for nuclear submarines in the short term (as we have clear operating experience with them) but with an long term aim to make liquid fluoride thorium reactors work.
3 – looking at ways to for new building to affordably meet the passivhaus standard
4 – natural gas heat pumps
5 – quadricycles
6 – reintroducing trolleybuses
7 – nuclear marine propulsion
Why do we have 28+ GWe wind capacity & are the direct and indirect subsidies for renewables value for money or unnecessarily regressive to people on low incomes compared to the alternatives? Why are subsidise linked to generation when helping with the capital cost would be a more rational approach for the tax payer (if we must build them). Also if the computer models are accurate in future there would likely be less wind at speeds suitable for wind turbines and our winters may get colder.
We already know about the Renewable Heat Incentive or Cash for Ash scandal in Northern Ireland – I want to know if the people who set up net metering & the solar PV feed in tariff personally benefited from it especially as we have people who have done well from subsidy payments who are now donating to probably all the main political parties which feels like Racketeering – we have organisations getting public funds (I include subsidies) then making donations to political parties to influence not saying charities should not be allowed to lobby e.g a charity like citizens advice to keep or increase its funding but it should not feel like politicians scratching their mates back especially if it increases the donor’s personal wealth.
All electrical engineers fully understand that relying on wind and solar for a reliable electricity grid is not going to work, together with the crazy plans to replace petrol and Diesel with batteries and heat our homes with electric heat pumps. There is no way that the existing Distribution Network Operators can get that amount of energy to each house, without replacing every local substation and rewiring every street.
Using smart meters to throttle demand by increasing the price is just immoral, yet that is accepted as inevitable.
The climate change act is driving all this madness, making the reduction of Carbon Dioxide a legal requirement (thanks to Mrs May) has to be revoked.
An enquiry would just be a cover up, like the Covid one, Net Zero is an impossible dream in the time scale that is proposed. Dieter Helm has produced numerous reports outlining this in detail and David MacKay’s book “without hotair” is freely available on the internet.
So the real reason for net zero is to reduce our living standards and impoverish us, and that comes from the elites, Gates and Soros and the WEF with the money, politicians taking bribes and lobbying for green companies (Skidmore), the UN30 doc, a political document to even out living standards across the world (ours goes down). Then we have the 40 cities alliance that Sadiq Khan leads, no cars, one flight every 4 years, LTNs, 15 minute cities.
OR
It is Aliens!!!
“They Live” is an Alien takeover movie.
Alien Movie taking over the word is “They Live” its on youtube, but the link is causing problems.
“They Live” is a relevant aliens taking over the world film, it is on youtube but the link is not working.
oops looks like link eventually worked…..patience is a virtue
Ever noticed they all look like clones of Ferguson
Somethings going on out there
Lizardpeople!
There was an excellent article on the subject in this mornings Telegraph On Line., written by Annobel Denham. I blogged on the story as follows:
” We know that both Stark and Deben have been in receipt of grants from outside organisations who have an interest in the Climate Change Committee’s work. We need to know for what purpose they have been receiving those grants, and whether any other members of the Climate Change Committee are also receiving grants, and who from. I’m sure they will be happy to provide us with the information if it is innocent. Mr Sharks false information to government has probably had the greatest influence on the country’s economic decline than any individual in history.”
We know that both Stark and Deben have been in receipt of grants from outside organisations who have an interest in the Climate Change Committee’s work
My limited understanding of the Fraud Act is that it deals with fraud by false representation and fraud by abuse of position.
Soros is represented on the Climate Change Committee by a guy called Stephen Fries from the Institute for New Economic Thinking, (INET), set up by Soros in 2009 with $50 million. First chair of CCC Adair Turner left to work for said Soros Institute in 2013, still a senior fellow.
Another vested interest CCC member is Ben Caldecott of the Smith School at Oxford:
“Former Vice President at investment bank Climate Change Capital, one of the early leading asset management and advisory firms focused on the net zero carbon transition, where he ran the firm’s research centre and advised clients and funds on the development of policy-driven markets. Previously worked as Research Director for Environment and Energy at the think tank Policy Exchange; as Head of Government Advisory at Bloomberg New Energy Finance; as a Director in the Strategy Directorate of the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (on secondment); as a Deputy Director in the Strategy Directorate of the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (on secondment); as an Advisor to The Prince of Wales’ International Sustainability Unit; as Sherpa to the UK Green Investment Bank Commission; and as the Senior Advisor to the Chair and CEO of the UK Green Finance Institute. He also served as a Trustee of the Green Alliance from 2010 to 2022.”
(Advisory Council for the Smith School includes Al Gore’s business partner David Blood, Ben Goldsmith, James Thornton, CEO of lawfare outfit ClientEarth and the ubiquitous Adair Turner of Soros Institute for New Economic Thinking.)
Add in Swenja Surminski, Chair of the Munich Climate Insurance Initiative, Managing Director Climate and Sustainability at Marsh McLennan and Professor in Practice at the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics (LSE), giving us another US billionaire represented on the Committee.
Further add in Baroness Brown who is a non-exec director of Orsted at £40k a year and we have a wonderfully independent and objective committee with our best interests at heart.
Thank you Dennis, we must keep the pressure on somehow.
Fingers in pies, and low intellect MPs is a fierce combination for fraud.
I’ve just read a new academic paper showing that climate change doesn’t exist, evidence shows that nothing has changed in 300 years – Carolina Tree-Ring Science Laboratory, Department of Geography, Environment, and Sustainability, University of North Carolina Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27412, USA https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/16/4/513 –
This is unfortunate. However, I will continue to what I can to save the planet: yesterday I unplugged a whole row of electric cars no one was using.
I’m glad I wasn’t drinking my coffee when I read that!!
While I applaud your attempts to save the planet I can’t condone you climate crusade actions
Yesterday’s admission by our glorious leaders (UK) that new-build thermal power stations are needed to avoid power cuts should lead to the CCC being dismantled on the grounds of incompetence and risk.
Paul – you might want to look into this campaigning group at the link warmthiswinter.org.uk/gas This morning’s local paper (Cambridge Evening News) has a 4 page outer sleeve with the slogan “Britain’s better off without gas” claiming expensive gas is holding back Britain and that we need to phase it out to lower our heating bills.
The group is a coalition of about 40 charities, including many of the usual suspects.
In this no doubt very expensive advert they claim “GAS IS HOLDING BRITAIN BACK – Cities across North America and Europe are phasing out gas, and cutting electricity bills”
Their solutions are shown below
“What can the government do to solve the energy crisis?
Why are these people so scientifically illiterate?
Why are these people so scientifically illiterate?
Because they believe what they are told to believe.
Advert references gubmint support, presumably from the gubmint’s magic money tree rather than from the taxpayer.
If you are unable to hold down a proper job to help society, then you should join a charity where no common sense or logic is ever needed and you salary is paid by those who work hard and kindly donate to charity from what they earn. This means you can have an easy life, and will enable you and your friends to make outrageously silly suggestions without any fear of losing your job!
Time for a little tutorial on what makes the leftists tick. The answer came to me and others several weeks ago in an interview with Dr. Jan Halper-Hayes on Elijah Streams. She is an American psychologist who lives in England. Her background is in corporate merger work, but she is on a Defense Dept. task force w/ 11 others. It includes a forensic acountant, a forensic anthropologist and 2 “woke social psychologists”. Dr. Jan said she had struggled to understand the leftist/liberal mindset and failed.
Finally she spoke w/ the 2 “woke” psychologists and got her answer. The left does not deal with facts, but with emotions. How you “feel” about something is more important than the facts of the matter. Your feelings are the facts. Your feelings are the truth. It has also been pushed in education, that you rely on your feelings and emotions. Now it is being pushed not to do any research into a situation…..that is dangerous for you (actually for them).
We don’t need an inquiry, it needs scrapping – it’s full of self serving, benefitting types who spin hyperbole & sensationalistic scare stories to keep the nice earning deceit going, a lot like the UNIPCC
There is no proven hazard for the CCC to deal with because there is no proof of the existence of dangerous AGW. How is it therefore possible to justify the continued funding of the CCC on a risk assessment basis? i.e. the money would be better spent on dealing with a proven hazard e.g. pandemics,