Guy Leech: The Prime Minister Responds to my Open Letter

Posted: February 14, 2013 by tallbloke in alarmism, climate, general circulation, government, Incompetence, Natural Variation, Politics, propaganda, Robber Barons, weather, wind

You’ll recall that some time ago, contributor Guy Leech sent an excellent letter to the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. David Cameron MP. He has now received a response, and tin-duck-shooting season is open at the Talkshop. We did try fish-in-a-barrel shooting, but found it makes your legs wet after a few shots as you walk round it. Anyway, plinkers at the ready. It’s noticeable that the list of excuses for extorting billions from the taxayer is getting shorter (along with the author list prepared to be associated with them).




  1. kim2ooo says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
    The No Answer – ANSWER

  2. So it’s official…..Heckington Fen wind subsidy farm, is being built to prevent Tropical Cyclones, Hurricanes, reduce rainfall (despite Anglian waters drought restrictions). And Heatwaves.

    …And nothing to do with making money for wealthy play boy Dale Vince through wealth redistribution from the less well off. Or provide an income for Charles Hendry, Yeo, Gummer, Lord Sheffield, or Nick Cleggs wife.

  3. I got the same kinds of walk-arounds from a couple of Canadian premier offices and US governor offices back in 2008 when I asked them about their participation in a US 7-state cap-and-trade program called the “Western Climate Initiative”. None even addressed my questions about the viewpoints of skeptic climate scientists. Best response I ever got was from the top guy at the #4 broadcast news outlet in the US, a two-sentence sidestep of the 1100-word snail mail I sent him. That was so bad, I was prompted to write an entire article about it: “PBS and Global Warming Skeptics’ Lockout”

  4. oldbrew says:

    The DECCs commitment to ‘global collective action’ includes spending over half a million pounds of taxpayer money a year on flights to here there and everywhere.

    Where’s the ‘low carbon’ lifestyle?

  5. tallbloke says:

    Fen, sorry to hear. The Boston Stump and Tattershall castle should be the only things seen for miles around there.

  6. You’ve got it Tallbloke….. Unfortunately Inspector Phillip Major wasn’t listening.

  7. tallbloke says:

    Fen: I’ve heard those cordless angle grinders are great tools.

  8. Geoff Cruickshank says:

    No, cordless angle grinders are useless for serious work. I’m thinking a dead cow flung by a trebuchet in the general direction of the blades. The defence is “normal English eccentric”.

  9. tallbloke says:

    Good thinking Geoff. How about we construct the trebuchet using parts from a downed turbine tower? There’s a certain irony in that.

  10. Phillip Bratby says:

    fenbeagle: We had Inspector Philip Major at a double wind farm public inquiry in Devon about 3 or 4 years ago. He refused both appeals, so he has probably been told to pull himself together and allow all appeals (or he’ll be collecting his P45). By the way, we have a spare downed turbine tower in Devon

    See also today’s Times:

    “England’s doughty army of conservationists and fogeys, young and old, have rarely been so agitated. And with good reason. Next week the High Court considers a case that will have a large bearing on how the English landscape looks for the rest of our lives.

    It’s about a wind farm, of course. But at stake is a lot more than whether four turbines, each higher than St Paul’s Cathedral, are erected in a field in Northamptonshire. The planning inspector’s decision last year to approve the building of Barnwell Manor wind farm is regarded by English Heritage and the National Trust as so perverse, so harmful to a quintessential English landscape including several heritage gems, so likely to set a precedent that could lead to turbines spoiling the most cherished vistas, that — in a rare show of solidarity — both bodies have joined with East Northamptonshire District Council to appeal against the verdict.

    To read the inspector’s judgment is certainly startling. You suddenly realise what sort of mindset the heritage bodies are up against when they try to protect fine landscapes from the hordes of turbines set to sweep across the land — more than 10,000 by 2015, if the energy companies have their way.

    He acknowledges the beauties of the countryside in which the turbines would be imposed. He could hardly not. It contains Grade I listed monuments and houses, and Lowick’s 15th-century St Peter’s Church with its superb tower (“a forest of pinnacles topped by golden weathervanes,” as Simon Jenkins aptly describes it in England’s Thousand Best Churches), as well as the National Trust’s Lyveden New Bield, which the inspector himself calls “probably the finest surviving example of an Elizabethan garden”, with a significance “of the highest magnitude”.

    The inspector accepts that the views to and from these historic sites would be utterly dominated by the turbines. But the argument he deploys time and again to justify his decision is that a “reasonable observer” would not be “confused” by the juxtaposition of historic buildings with 21st-century turbines. Thus the turbines “would not erode from an understanding or appreciation of the significance of the heritage assets”. And in the case of Lyveden New Bield, he adds, “it is not altogether clear” whether the designer “considered views out of the garden to be of any particular significance”.

    Well, of course it isn’t “altogether clear”. We can’t ring up Sir Thomas Tresham and ask him if he cared about the landscape round his estate, because he died in 1605. Nor can we deny that “reasonable observers” can tell the difference between a turbine and an old church. But that’s the conservationists’ point. It’s the very incongruity of these massive turbines, and the aesthetic disruption caused to much-loved landscapes, that upsets people. Yet the planning inspectorate seems blind to such aesthetic considerations, and deaf to the furore in local communities (so much for the Coalition’s vaunted “localism” policy). Or else it believes that Government targets for renewable energy so outweigh aesthetic and social factors that even the lovely vistas round Lyveden New Bield aren’t protected.
    Should they be? That’s what the High Court must decide.

    So far it hasn’t been a great year for wind turbines. Two fell down last month — the wind was too strong. And most Tories are rebelling against their leader’s fervour for them. (How fascinating that David Cameron’s father-in-law, like many wealthy landowners, has reaped hundreds of thousands of pounds a year from subsidised turbines on his estate.)

    I like renewable energy in principle, but hate the bullying way in which these foreign-owned companies are plonking turbines over Cornwall, the Lake District and other landscapes I love. I hope the High Court takes some of the wind out of their sails, albeit in one small corner of Northamptonshire.”

  11. Gary Mirada says:

    I wrote to DECC and this is the reply I got

    “Thank you for email dated 5 November to John McCulley, about climate change. I have been asked to reply.

    Climate change is a global issue that demands a global response – and all countries need to be part of the solution. The UK works through the European Union, the G8, and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to find ways to reach global agreement on addressing the issue.

    The science indicates that increasing global temperatures will likely come with increases in extreme weather events, including more intense tropical cyclones and hurricanes, more heavy rainfall and more heatwaves. It is, however, extremely difficult to attribute an individual extreme weather event to climate change, though in some cases it is possible from detailed risk attribution studies to determine whether climate change has already increased the chances of certain extreme events happening. For example, studies have shown it is very likely that human influence has more than doubled the probability of an extreme European hot summer like that of 2003 and that human greenhouse gas emissions may have roughly doubled the chance of the major floods which happened in the UK in autumn 2000 .

    Domestically the UK is committed to delivering ambitious emission reductions, introducing the 2008 Climate Change Act that introduced legally binding targets to achieve this. This binds the UK to a final target of at least an 80% reduction, based on 1990 levels by 2050. To date our emissions have fallen 26%, and the latest Government projections suggest the UK is on track to meet its first three legislated carbon budgets with current planned policies.

    As well as this domestic work, the UK is among those countries at the forefront of pressing for further action at an EU and International level. Internationally we are supporting low carbon climate resistant development though the £2.9bn UK International Climate Fund. We are also making the case to our partners in the EU that we should continue to show leadership, by increasing the EU’s 2020 emission reduction target from the current level of 20% to 30% (as part of the ambitious low carbon road map that aims to cut EU emissions by 80-95% by 2050).

    Electricity generated from wind power has one of the lowest carbon footprints, compared with other forms of electricity generation. As with other low carbon technologies, nearly all the emissions occur during the manufacturing and construction phases, arising from the production of steel for the tower, concrete for the foundations and epoxy/fibreglass for the rotor blades. These account for 98% of the total life cycle CO2 emissions. Wind turbines typically generate for 20-25 years.

    Emissions generated during the operation of wind turbines are, relatively small and arise from routine maintenance inspection trips. They include the use of lubricants and transport to and from the site[1].

    As an example, a life cycle assessment provided in support of a 60MW wind farm proposal submitted to one of DECC’s predecessors indicated that it would pay back the carbon dioxide emissions due to the development, construction, operation and decommissioning in approximately 7 months.

    I hope that this is helpful.

    Yours sincerely,

    Darwin McIntosh
    DECC Correspondence Unit”

    You dont need to see my letter because no matter what you raise with them they send the same response. Suffice it to say that they did not address any f the specific points I raised. So if it is of any comfort to Guy Leech (whose letter incidentally is superb) they treated me with the same contempt that they showed him. Worthless does not begin to describe these people.

  12. oldbrew says:

    Phillip Bratby says: ‘So far it hasn’t been a great year for wind turbines. Two fell down last month — the wind was too strong.’

    Did they fall or were they pushed (= sabotaged)?