David Turver: Labour’s Great British Energy Suicide Note

Introduction

This Substack has been highly critical of the Conservative government’s energy policy. However, we are now in an election period, so it is time to subject Labour’s energy plans to some scrutiny. On Friday, Labour announced more details about its plans for Great British Energy.

Their plans include many promises, but precious little detail on how they will be achieved. Labour’s central claim is that they will “cut energy bills for good” and they put some flesh on the bones by claiming in the text of their regional maps their plans will “save £300 off the average annual household energy bill”. Labour’s claim appears to be based upon a report by the energy thinktank Ember. However, it does appear they mean a saving on electricity bills, not overall energy bills.

UK Government defeated in High Court over climate plans – as usual

Time for yet another revised ‘net zero emissions’ plan. Whether any country that used to depend largely on fuel-burning power stations for electricity can meet the demands of its own time-limited climate plans/targets is open to question. The BBC report once again wheels out the old climate propaganda con trick of pretending that sunset shadow effects are scary pollution clouds in its report image.
– – –
The government has been defeated in court – for a second time – for not doing enough to meet its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, reports BBC News.

Environmental campaigners argued that the energy minister signed off the government’s climate plan without evidence it could be achieved.

The High Court ruled on Friday that the government will now be required to redraft the plan again.

In response the government defended its record on climate action.

The UK’s Climate Change Act ‘faces a stress test’

So says an ardent fan of the idea of human-caused weather variations, who thinks UK climate laws were ‘once the envy of the world’. But unwelcome reality strikes in due course, because those in charge ‘underestimate just how far-reaching the necessary changes are’. The article tries to make out that a bit more belt tightening will do the trick, which almost certainly underplays the pain ahead if the current over-the-top net zero policies are persisted with.
– – –
The Scottish government’s decision to row back on its 2030 climate pledge illustrates the crux of any target: it’s easy to set one with a big political flourish, but harder to follow through with a careful plan to achieve it, says The Conversation (via Phys.org).

Does that mean that targets for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gas driving climate change are worthless? Not necessarily.

There are two types of climate target: the empty promise and the calculated ambition. Only one of these works.

European court rules human rights violated by ‘climate inaction’

A victory for cloud cuckoo land thinking. The court has in effect granted a disputed hypothesis the status of truth, based on its assumption that ’emissions’ are driving changes in the climate. Once courts can pick sides in scientific debates, where does that lead?
– – –
A group of older Swiss women have won the first ever climate case victory in the European Court of Human Rights, reports BBC News.

The women, mostly in their 70s, said that their age and gender made them particularly vulnerable to the effects of heatwaves linked to climate change.

The court said Switzerland’s efforts to meet its emission reduction targets had been woefully inadequate.

It is the first time the powerful court has ruled on global warming.

Climate the Movie is here.

Eight years ago, talkshop readers helped film maker Martin Durkin finance ‘Brexit the Movie‘, raising over £8000 towards the total cost of production. Now, Martin has made the long awaited sequel to ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle‘ with help from long time fellow sceptic Tom Nelson. It’s called ‘Climate the Movie: the Cold Truth’ and you can watch it for free here, right now. Enjoy!

Available at Vimeo vimeo.com/924719370
On X at twitter.com/TomANelson/status/1771682333738848477
On Youtube at youtube.com/watch?v=zmfRG8-RHEI
On Rumble at rumble.com/v4kl0dn-climate-the-movie-the-cold-truth-martin-durkin.html

EU’s new fiscal rules too strict for ‘fight’ against climate change? Churchill analogy invoked

The Greens claimed the new rules are ‘suicidal’ (which could also be said of the proposed spending plans), and imagined bean counters telling Churchill to give up because his World War costs were unaffordable. Climate hysteria rumbles on in its own world.
– – –
The new EU rules for national debts and deficit would hamper member states’ ability to make the public investments needed to effectively combat climate change, a new study commissioned by the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament found.

Speaking at a press briefing on Tuesday (30 January), Philippe Lamberts, co-president of the Greens/EFA group, stressed that the fiscal rules currently being negotiated in ‘trilogue’ discussions between the European Commission, Parliament, and Council would render it “legally impossible” for the bloc to achieve its goal of full decarbonisation by 2050, reports Euractiv.

Echoing earlier comments, he accused the EU of being run by “religious fundamentalists” following “suicidal” policies.

Finance problem for Labour’s ‘green power by 2030’ pledge

Cost won’t be the only problem, as weather dependency increases with the percentage of renewables in the electricity generation system, alongside the reduction of thermal power plants. Ploughing on with ‘net zero’ type policies in the face of all the costs and risks seems to have broad appeal in UK political circles.
– – –
Ed Balls has predicted that Sir Keir Starmer will ditch Labour’s flagship £28 billion green pledge, says The Telegraph.

The former Labour shadow chancellor said that the party will need to make a “big U-turn” on the figure to shut down the Tory attack line that Labour will be irresponsible with Britain’s finances.

Sir Keir initially pledged to borrow £28 billion annually to fund green projects from year one if the party were to win power, but has repeatedly watered down that commitment over recent months.

Latest energy policy announcements show that the UK Government has gone Insane

By David Turver at his ‘Eigen Values’ substack blog

Introduction

Back in the summer, there were signs that the consensus around Net Zero policy was starting to crack. The Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak then made his speech that watered down some Net Zero commitments and promised “a more pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic approach that eases the burdens on families.” However, in the run up to Christmas, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) made several announcements about various aspects of energy policy that can only add to consumer costs. These included various announcements about their hydrogen policy, a statement on carbon capture usage and storage (CCUS) and an update on the business models for greenhouse gas removal (GGR) and power from bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).

This article explains that unfortunately, the announcements mark the end of any serious fightback against the Net Zero insanity and demonstrate that the Government has no idea about economics, thermodynamics or energy and has gone completely insane.

The BBC’s “due impartiality” hypocrisy – Net Zero Watch

Who if anyone does the BBC consider itself accountable to, or is it just a law unto itself these days?
– – –
“Due impartiality” means one thing when it’s terrorists, and another when it’s critics of Net Zero, says Andrew Montford @ Net Zero Watch.

The BBC is currently taking a lot of flak for its refusal to refer to Hamas as “terrorists”. Its editorial guidelines, say that that journalists need to mindful of the need for “due accuracy and impartiality”, but say that the t-word is “a barrier to understanding”.

This is a strange position to take. As many people have observed, Hamas is, in law, a proscribed terrorist organisation, so one would have thought that any journalist who was interested in accuracy would need to refer to them as, well, terrorists.

Ben Pile: Rishi’s Net Zero delay has outed the Green Blob’s threadbare theory

Green blob [credit: storybird.com]

Rishi Sunak’s ‘watering down’ of certain Net Zero targets is the first time that the green policy agenda has had ANY scrutiny of any consequence, despite many failures, starting with the ruinously expensive Renewable Obligation, extending into the totally failed CfDs that allowed wind farm developers to lie to achieve planning consent over rival generators and technologies. Not one part of the green policy agenda has lived up to any promise to deliver good to the British public.

It was the mildest possible reversal. It is in fact an attempt to SAVE Net Zero, not roll it back. Complaints that it has left Britain without an ‘industrial policy’ or has left ‘investors’ without ‘confidence’ are for the birds. It has put the UK in the same policy position as the EU (more on which in a bit), and there is no evidence of green policies having delivered any significant industrial development to these shores. No green jobs. No green growth. No green industrial revolution. Not even a BritishVolt. It is a farce.

Transition Tension: Greenlash Wave Jeopardizes Energy Reform

Climate hype

Globetrotting peddlers of climate doom and drastic so-called net-zero remedies may be getting nervous about their public credibility and/or democratic futures.
– – –
When Sweden’s new government took office, they abandoned the country’s previous goal of “100% renewable” electricity in favor of a “100% fossil-free” target, says OilPrice.com.

In the UK, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak outraged environmentalists by saying his cabinet will issue hundreds of new oil and gas licenses for the North Sea if re-elected.

A wave is rising across Europe and the United States, and it’s a wave that should concern transition advocates, including those in government. Because that wave threatens to carry away their seats.

Matt Ridley: I’ll buy a new petrol car in 2029

The rush to electric vehicles risks killing our car industry, shackling us to China and bumping up our taxes to reduce global emissions by just 0.044%. That’s why I’ll be buying a brand new petrol car just before the 2030 ban

Daily Mail July 8

BMW i3 electric car plus battery pack [image credit: carmagazine.co.uk]

Britain’s electric vehicle transition and the ban on petrol car sales from 2030 are a slow-motion car crash. The technology is not ready, the cost will be vast, the logistics are forbidding, the reliance on China is worrying and the backlash from the public is likely to be harsh.

Worst of all, the benefits are derisory at best and may not even exist.

Yes, you read that right. It is possible that we could replace all of Britain’s cars and vans with electric vehicles and still find that carbon dioxide emissions are higher, not lower. Cost-benefit, hello?

Green Omertà – Net Zero Watch

[image credit: beforeitsnews.com]

Conspiracy, mass delusion or a bit of both? Whatever it is, it’s not doing electricity consumers any favours.
– – –
There is a conspiracy of silence about wind power costs, says Andrew Montford @ Net Zero Watch.

I know, I do tend to be a bit repetitive about the cost of wind power.

How many times have I explained that the data is completely clear: that it’s expensive; and that if it’s getting any cheaper, it’s only doing so very slowly. In fact, for onshore wind the trend is clearly upwards.

My determination on the subject is prompted by the refusal of anyone in official circles to accept the facts.

To a man (and woman) they are absolutely resolute in their insistence that wind is staggeringly cheap because windfarms have agreed staggeringly low-priced “strike prices” for power. And because industry bodies and Whitehall says it is.

The fact that nobody has ever delivered power at such a price cuts no mustard with these people.

Nor does the observation that windfarm developers are all saying that new construction will not go ahead without further handouts.

And of course, if you point to the hard data in windfarm financial accounts, they really, really do not want to know at all.

Continued here.

Net zero or busted: Shapps could face potential imprisonment for not having proper plan

Well-known London prison

Cue intensified attempts to reach so-called climate targets at inevitably vast public expense. An exercise in futility.
– – –
Grant Shapps, the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary has revealed during a meeting of the Environment and Climate Change Committee that he faces the risk of being sent to prison for contempt of court if he fails to deliver on the government’s net zero targets, says Energy Live News.

Shapps, who was asked about the current arrangements that support his role in achieving these targets, stated that he has the greatest incentive among his government colleagues and anyone globally to reach these exacting goals.

ULEZ Extension: Damning New Report Shatters ‘Scientific’ Claims Made By London Mayor Khan

The alarmist foundation for ULEZ expansion has disintegrated.

Read the new Together Declaration & Climate Debate UK report by Ben Pile demonstrating that neither the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) nor the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) find evidence of a causal link between air pollution and mortality.

Despite Khan claiming that 4,000 Londoners die each year, both UKHSA and COMEAP explicitly advise against framing the potential mortality risk associated with air pollution exposure in terms of deaths because it is untrue and unscientific.

SCOTUS and Climate Free Speech

.
.
Just finished reading this: Shell directors sued over ‘flawed’ climate plan in pioneering shareholder-led legal action
https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4074221/shell-directors-sued-flawed-climate-plan-pioneering-shareholder-led-legal-action

Science Matters

Donald J. Kochan writes at The Hill Climate change consumer deception lawsuits threaten free speech. Will the Supreme Court take note? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images

Courts are increasingly taking a close look at the validity of climate change lawsuits against oil producers. And for good reason: These cases severely test the boundaries of court jurisdiction, the breadth of tort law, the protections of due process and even the sanctity of free speech.

As one example of this scrutiny, last Oct. 3, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled a serious interest in the proper forum and scope for climate change litigation.

In Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, the Supreme Court invited the solicitor general of the United States to weigh in, even though the United States is not a party to the litigation. The federal government is invited to…

View original post 665 more words

Fed chief Powell: Central banks must not lead fight on climate change

Sounds like the old armed forces ‘mission creep’. In any case puny humans won’t get far with ‘fighting climate change’ instead of adapting where necessary, however much money they try to throw around. Stick to the day job!
– – –
Central banks risk undermining independence by wading into social issues and seeking to tackle climate change, the head of the US Federal Reserve has warned.

Jerome Powell said it was essential that institutions “resist the temptation” to wade into “social issues” that go beyond their remit, reports The Telegraph.

His comments are likely to be seen as a rebuke to the Bank of England, which has been criticised by politicians for its approach to climate change.

UN Annual Joke Book: “Elimination Of Hydrocarbon Fuels Are The Path To Mass Distinction”

.
A trillion here, a trillion there – and then they woke up…or not.

PA Pundits International

By Steve Goreham and Dr. Jay Lehr ~

It is really time for us all to stop taking any of the information broadcast out of the annual United Nations climate conferences called Conference Of The Parties seriously. The 27th such conference which convened in Egypt this month concluded with the following statement.

“The Conference of the Parties…Highlights that about USD 4 trillion per year needs to be invested in renewable energy up until 2030 to be able to reach net zero emissions by 2050.” That which would eliminate all life on earth that depends on carbon dioxide which is all life on earth.

It does not include reparations for loss and damage. That potentially much greater financial flow (as it is called in UN speak) is extra.

The precise nature of this called for transformation of the financial system is not specified but easy money seems a…

View original post 858 more words

Wall Street’s Biggest Names Are Backing Off Their Climate Commitments

Crazy world of climate finance [image credit: renewableenergyfocus.com]

Finance giants don’t like hefty fines for exaggerating their supposed climate virtues, or law suits for not acting in the best interests of their clients. Solution: leave their net-zero climate club.
– – –
Vanguard, the world’s second-largest asset manager, announced that it is resigning from a global net-zero initiative.
. . .
Shortly before COP26, last year’s United Nations climate conference in Glasgow, financial institutions were rushing to announce their climate commitments, says Grist (via Gizmodo).

The conference’s leadership and Mark Carney, a special envoy appointed by the United Nations to push private finance to invest in climate solutions, announced the creation of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net-Zero, or GFANZ.

Solar farm business goes under after borrowing £655million from local council

The UK electricity system’s so-called transition to renewables hits yet another bump in the road. The dream of guaranteed income was just an expensive illusion.
– – –
One of the country’s largest solar farm owners has entered administration amid the fallout from a scandal that forced an Essex council leader to resign, reports The Guardian.

Administrators at Interpath Advisory have been appointed to Toucan Energy Holdings, which owns a portfolio of 53 solar parks with a combined capacity of 513 megawatts across England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

A recent investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that Thurrock council in Essex, Toucan’s main creditor, borrowed hundreds of millions of pounds to invest in the solar farm scheme run by globetrotting financier Liam Kavanagh.