[image credit: latinoamericarenovable.com]
Re-writing the laws of physics is not an option. The only thing accelerating at the moment is the downward spiral into energy poverty for ever larger numbers of the population, in manic pursuit of the mystical ‘net zero’ climate target. Another trip to cloud cuckoo land beckons for these blinkered climate obsessives.
– – –
The Environmental Audit Committee announced the inquiry in response to the rise in fossil fuel prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and continued speculation on what will be included in the government’s Energy Security Strategy, reports Energy Live News.
The Committee believes protecting consumers from high fossil fuel prices and fuel poverty while ensuring security of supply and continued progress towards net zero is critical for any strategy on energy security to be successful.
EAC Chairman Philip Dunne MP said: “The Government’s Energy Security Strategy is sorely needed as many households across the country struggle with an ever-increasing cost of living crisis. As speculation mounts over what will be included in the strategy, our committee is wasting no time exploring how to secure domestic energy supplies, accelerate the UK’s transition to net zero and protect households from eye-watering fossil fuel prices.
“Security of energy supply is absolutely vital. There will be a continued role for oil and gas in the coming three decades as we make the transition to net zero.”
Continued here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Reblogged this on Utopia, you are standing in it!.
[…] New inquiry into how the UK can (?) cut fossil fuels and accelerate net zero transition […]
‘The Government’s Energy Security Strategy is sorely needed as many households across the country struggle with an ever-increasing cost of living crisis.’
The government’s energy strategy caused the problem.
The solution to bad government? More government.
‘As speculation mounts over what will be included in the strategy, our committee is wasting no time exploring how to secure domestic energy supplies, accelerate the UK’s transition to net zero and protect households from eye-watering fossil fuel prices.’
Word salad. The committee won’t be producing energy supplies. They will be interfering with those who do. Which is how you got here. In fact, ‘accelerate the UK’s transition to net zero’ literally means interfering more and faster.
The committee is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
If we must have Net Zero, do what Nobel Prize winners suggest – a carbon tax.
Then markets can just take car of it rather than have politicians trying to do what they cannot – as other Nobel Prize winners have pointed out.
But apparently these bright fellows are no match for our MPs. They can find ways of having Net Zero, cheap energy secure energy, and all the rest just by having a chat with each other.
It’s what committees do. Talk talk talk. (In between the latest games and their star actors) They’re so vain they actually believe they are strategizing when all they really do is randomly diddle.
One of the EAC members is Caroline Lucas MP, former leader of the Green party.
Her most substantial work is Green Alternatives to Globalisation: A Manifesto (co-authored with Mike Woodin), which advocates localisation of economies based on minimal trade and greater social and environmental concern, in opposition to neo-liberal, market-led forces of globalisation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Audit_Select_Committee
– – –
Ho-hum.
“If we must have Net Zero, do what Nobel Prize winners suggest – a carbon tax.”
[citation needed]
There is little elasticity in energy prices. A carbon tax would just be a tax, FURTHER screwing your economy.
I find it interesting and appalling that there are endless studies to figure out how to get rid of CO2, All actual “honest science” shows that CO2 is absolutely necessary for Green Plants to even live and at 400 parts per million we are not very far above the lower limit where Green Plants die. Every study about nature shows that more CO2 is better. That is why the alarmists changed the word “CO2” to the broader term “Emissions”. They can make that sound worse, kinda like “Fart” sounds worse than just “Passing Gas”. Coal can be burned hot and clean and the particulates can be filtered out. Before they went totally crazy, even California was building “Clean Coal Power Plants”. The only byproduct that was a problem could be used to manufacture “Cinder Blocks”, an important building material, I have worked on projects that used Cinder Blocks. California even had a law or rule against that and had to put the ashes into landfills. They took a wonderful, useful by product and “colored it BAD”. California Companies that try to do anything that uses energy, are moving to Texas as fast as they can, including Tesla, the Electric Car Company.
I find it interesting and much more appalling that there are absolutely no studies of natural causes of climate change, using history and data to determine “what natural causes” caused the past climate change while CO2 was dangerously below 300 parts per million. Very clearly, for as long as we have data for, CO2 increases and decreases almost always followed temperature changes, just like a warm carbonated drink spews more CO2 when opened than a cold carbonated drink, the Oceans are the Largest Carbonated Drinks on Earth.
The western countries are most all destroying their own power grids, destroying their own capabilities to manufacture anything, destroying their own capabilities to maintain a descent standard of living for their citizens, while their dependence on China and Russia and India for almost everything increases, improving the economy of China and Russia and India, increasing the emissions of CO2 of China and Russia and India, orders of magnitude more than their own reductions, just like the Lemmings that commit mass suicide. For the Lemmings, I have read that the mass suicide is a Myth created by Walt Disney, in a Movie that was supposed to be, “True Live Adventures”. Well, the Western Countries Mass Self Destruction is playing out in real life.
I have read, and I do believe, the “Green Groups” have been “Funded” and “Gas Lighted” by Russia and China for decades. They train people to join and help organize and motivate groups to take up causes that have NO actual SCIENTIFIC basis, they build on every fear known to mankind, and when they get a group or crowd together, the crowd dynamics kicks in and they do irrational actions. Did you ever wonder how “Similar Green Groups” “SPRANG UP” all around almost all the Western Countries at the same time, yet, not in Russia, not in China, not in India, not in many non western countries, ONLY TARGETED COUNTRIES.
NOW, I REPEAT THIS PARAGRAPH!
I find it interesting and much more appalling that there are absolutely no studies of natural causes of climate change, using history and data to determine “what natural causes” caused the past climate change while CO2 was dangerously below 300 parts per million. Very clearly, for as long as we have data for, CO2 increases and decreases almost always followed temperature changes, just like a warm carbonated drink spews more CO2 when opened than a cold carbonated drink, the Oceans are the Largest Carbonated Drinks on Earth.
“accelerate the UK’s transition to net zero and protect households from eye-watering fossil fuel prices.” is a contradiction in terms. How can these people not understand that!
With all current political parties determined to get to Net Zero – whatever that is – the public will have to put up with rising electricity bills, rising food bills, rising fuel prices and maybe loss of employment. The end result is either some new party appears and takes votes away from the major parties (causing a sudden change in policy) or there will be a rebellion.
It is not just in the UK. Already we see Trump in the USA, the Gilet Juanes in France, protests in many other EU countries and the truck convoys in Canada. So far these have been suppressed but at some stage there will be an explosion. Efforts to force people to use expensive electric vehicles and inferior heating systems, all at considerable expense won’t reduce this happening.
It would seem from some surveys that at least 70% of the public don’t want to pay for this obsession against CARBON (as the scientific illiterates call it). And by forcing increasing unreliable and more expensive electricity onto the populace, coupled with a very likely series of blackouts may be the fuse.
Is John Cleese on the Committee? Is this not satire?
Seriously, the government mucks up the energy markets, so the same government forms a committee to urgently investigate what has happened to the energy markets.
‘Security of energy supply is absolutely vital. There will be a continued role for oil and gas in the coming three decades as we make the transition to net zero.’
What oil companies hear: “We are going to kill your business here within 30 years. But we expect you to stick around to help us til then.”
I guess they never read “How to win friends and influence people.”
I should expect the oil companies to take their ball and go home.
ilma says: “accelerate the UK’s transition to net zero and protect households from eye-watering fossil fuel prices.” is a contradiction in terms. How can these people not understand that!
The trick is to notice the ‘fossil fuel’ bit. Getting rid of fossil fuels gives ‘protection’ from their costs, but the price of energy rises even further due to ever-increasing use of expensive and highly inefficient renewables that depend on the weather and/or time of day. This requires ‘eye-watering’ costs for standby/back-up power, whether batteries, diesel generators, under-used gas power plants, hydrogen, imports etc. Plus payments to businesses that volunteer to reduce power usage on request when demand is heading higher than supply.
= = =
Re. earlier comments – the UK already has a climate change levy…
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/climate-change-levy-rates#full-publication-update-history
Grant Shapps says he does not support ‘a vast increase’ in onshore wind farms ahead of the energy security strategy reveal next week
The transport secretary told Sky News’ Ridge on Sunday programme that onshore windfarms are “eyesores” and damage the environment, adding that he personally does not favour “a vast increase” in the number of them.
It had been reported that Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng wanted to double onshore wind power by 2030, and treble it by 2035.
https://news.sky.com/story/grant-shapps-says-he-does-not-support-a-vast-increase-in-onshore-wind-farms-ahead-of-the-energy-security-strategy-reveal-next-week-12581224
Kwarteng is either an idiot or ‘in the trough’. Nuff said.
‘It had been reported that Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng wanted to double onshore wind power by 2030, and treble it by 2035.’
By 2035, vast numbers of wind turbines in service today will be dead. So he’d have to quadruple them.
NUT ZERO
The Nut Zero cultists
Wish to put us back in caves,
By destroying grown up energy
Make us New World Order slaves;
They want to limit plant food
Yet we must live on greens,
They’ll ban God given protein
But feed us on vaccines.
Voltiacs and windmills
We know only work part time,
They need fossil fuelled back up
To deny this is a crime;
Its time to get afracking
And digging up more coal,
We have plenty carbon energy
What we own we can control.
Old and poor can heat or eat
They no longer have a choice,
Social Media gangsters
Deny Realists a voice;
Allied with the Lugenpresse
We’re fed with propaganda,
Sourced from the Davos eunuchs
A Marxist memoranda.
Patrick Healy
Aw, come on now. It’s easy. Just launch all your nukes against yourself and invite a few neighbors to join in. Once you are all dead, CO2 problem solved.
Low winds blamed for fall in Scotland’s renewable energy production
Published 3 days ago
Milder, less windy weather has been blamed for a fall in renewable energy production in Scotland last year.
Ministers had hoped that the country would be generating the equivalent of 100% of its “gross electricity consumption” from renewables by 2020.
It reached 98.6% that year, but in 2021 the figure fell back to 83.7%
The Scottish government said that milder weather was a factor but added that many new projects were in the pipeline.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60948639
– – –
Isn’t ‘milder’ weather predicted by climate alarmists, meaning more of it is expected?