Nicola Sturgeon ‘better off moving out of government HQ’ than making it go green

Domestic gas central heating boiler

Another setback for climate obsessives – their pet heating methods for buildings can be too expensive and impractical even for governments. Going green – as they imagine – means going broke?
– – –
Report reveals that her policy of replacing gas boilers at St Andrew’s House with eco-friendly ones would not provide value for money, says the Telegraph.

Nicola Sturgeon’s demand that Scotland’s homes and offices replace their gas heating systems by 2030 is so difficult to implement in her government’s headquarters that she has been advised to consider moving out and selling it.

The Telegraph has obtained an expert assessment, commissioned by the Scottish Government, of bringing St Andrew’s House in Edinburgh up to the carbon emissions standard required of all buildings by the end of the decade.

The assessment, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, warned ministers that ripping out their headquarters’ gas heating and replacing it with a low emissions system would cost nearly £5.8 million of taxpayers’ money.
. . .
The boilers at St Andrew’s House were last replaced in 2013 and they are expected to last until 2033.

Full article here.

Critics warn carbon price proposal would exacerbate energy poverty

No surprise that cranking up the cost of essentials is a greater burden for people on low incomes than for others. But nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of overblown climate obsessions, it seems. Carbon dioxide must be demonised no matter how tenuous the evidence against its tiny 0.04% share of the atmosphere, much of which pre-dates the modern era anyway.
– – –
Energy poverty could be exacerbated ad prices rise under the European Commission’s proposed revamped emissions trading scheme, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) has warned, with other stakeholders raising similar misgivings.

Proposals under the European Commission’s Fit for 55 package include creating a new emissions trading scheme to impose a carbon price on road transport and buildings (ETS II), says Euractiv.

But stakeholders are warning that the move would hit society’s most vulnerable.

Climate referendum: Swiss reject higher carbon taxes

Credit: myswitzerland.com

Democratic accountability can be a menace to climate obsessives. Suppressing and ignoring widespread disagreeable — to them — views is more their style. Looking at you, G7 leaders.
– – –
Swiss voters have rejected legislation at the heart of the country’s strategy to abide by the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, reports Swiss Info (via The GWPF).

The CO2 law was turned down on Sunday by 51.6% of voters. The negative outcome represents a major upset in the tiny nation that is disproportionately affected by climate change [Talkshop comment – says who?].

Switzerland’s temperatures are rising at about twice the pace of the global average [Talkshop comment – says who?] and its Alpine glaciers risk disappearing by the end of the century [Talkshop comment – empty waffle].

We still don’t know enough about new heat technologies to decide the best way forward

Posted on 2 March, 2021 by Green Alliance blog

This post is a reblog of an article by Dr Robert Sansom, independent consultant and member of the IET’s Energy Policy Panel.

Recently, Professor Cebon wrote on this blog that pursuing the hydrogen economy would be a mistake. I am neither an advocate of hydrogen nor am I associated with the oil and gas industry, but I was the lead author of a report, produced by the IET in 2019, which focused on the engineering questions that need to be addressed if the UK is to transition to hydrogen.  There are also major questions around the electrification of heat. Until these questions are dealt with, I do not believe anyone can say that one technology is better than another.

Congressional Democrats just admitted the US can’t afford the Green New Deal

Anyone thinking the benefit (?) would be a noticeable effect on global temperatures is going to be disappointed, as the article points out. Government-controlled climate is a fantasy, however much the exchequer is robbed.
– – –
Democrats accidentally showed their hand by voting for a new loophole to the U.S. House of Representatives budget rules, says the Washington Examiner.

The “pay as you go” rule, which imposes a modicum of fiscal restraint by requiring spending increases to be accompanied by spending cuts to keep the national deficit from growing, now specifically excludes climate change-related bills.

In going forward with it, the House essentially admitted that we can’t afford the Green New Deal and that Democrats don’t want you to know how much it costs, either.

Carving out special treatment for big-government climate programs will give Congress license to spend with abandon on nominally eco-friendly initiatives without the slightest impact on climate change.

Electric cars will leave hole in tax revenues, says Treasury

They’re just stating the obvious, but now a few people have made the switch away from fuel-burning cars their warnings will no doubt become louder. Non-car owners can’t be penalised with an electricity surcharge, and EV subsidies can’t be handed out to everyone forever. They add a free dollop of climate alarm miserablism to their mutterings.
– – –
Taxes must increase or services be cut to compensate for the loss of fuel tax income thanks to the advent of electric cars, the Treasury has admitted.

Officials have been long concerned about the future loss of more than £30bn in revenue from drivers, says BBC News.

In a new review the Treasury has acknowledged the problem in a way that will spark a debate about how driving should be taxed in the future.

One idea would be to charge motorists for every mile they drive.

Wind farms creating ‘new Clearances’ for residents in Scotland

Windfarm objection in Galloway

The suspicion may exist that the ruling Scottish Nationalist Party never seems to win in this sparsely populated region, so is not inclined to much sympathy for its residents when making decisions on the many windfarm applications.
– – –
Residents are moving away from parts of south-west Scotland because they are losing much of the local landscape to wind farm developments, it has been claimed.

Now Trevor and Elaine Procter, who live at Knockvennie, near Dumfries, are urging people to contact local councillors to object to the “tsunami” of planning applications for such developments, reports The National (via Wind Watch).

They have lived in their current home for 12-years, and Trevor said the effect on locals was comparable to the Highland Clearances.

Still waiting for greenhouse: No response to my last email to Roy Spencer

Before the last time I had to dive deeply into politics to defend the EU referendum result, I had an email conversation with Roy Spencer in an attempt to resolve the conflict between physicists like himself, who believe the radiative greenhouse theory is correct, but it’s effect small, and physicists like Ned Nikolov, who contend that the theory is fundamentally incorrect.

After a couple of to and fro emails I sent this response in Feb 2019, to which I never received a reply. It’s time we got this discussion back out in the open, because Boris’ green reset #netzero plan for the UK post Brexit and post pandemic is set to ruin our economy and cause untold suffering, deprivation, and death.

the lukewarmers have utterly failed to convince the fanatics that although they think their theory is correct (it isn’t, but that’s their misguided opinion), they’ve overestimated the magnitude of the effect.

It’s time they stopped supporting the fanatics by deploying false arguments against better theory which will exonerate CO2 and move the debate away from ridiculous and expensive ‘mitigation’, and forward to adaption to the effects of natural climatic change.

The great green reset is at odds with economic and energy reality.

From Forbes, by Tilak Doshi H/T to Andrew Gibson

As the world emerges from Covid-19 lockdown we are now being told that the economic recovery from the pandemic-panic needs to be “green.” Political leaders and mass media editors cite the well-known slogan “never let a crisis go to waste,” and claim that massive sums need to be spent on economic recovery plans, and that the spending has to be “sustainable.”

Prince Charles – a prognosticator of apocalyptic climate change – said at the opening of a virtual World Economic Forum event that the global pandemic presented an opportunity to “reset the global economy and prioritize sustainable development.” Using similar language, the founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab calls for a “Great Reset” of capitalism. Seeing a silver lining in the pandemic, he advocates “radical changes” to “create a new economic system” including sustainably green urban infrastructure.

UK government may give drivers £6,000 to switch to electric cars

Not the latest model

Obviously bribery is thought to be the only way, short of coercion, to appeal to reluctant drivers who see clearly enough the various disadvantages and high cost of EVs they were never asked if they wanted to buy. Under cover of the virus situation they plan to pour more public money down their ideological drain to appease the greenblob.
– – –
It has been reported that Boris Johnson is considering launching a car scrappage scheme to boost the automotive industry, says The Shropshire Star.

Motoring and environmental groups have welcomed the prospect of a new car scrappage scheme encouraging motorists to switch to electric vehicles.

The AA described it as “fantastic” while Greenpeace said it would be “moving in the right direction”.

Wrightbus boss in push for £500m hydrogen subsidy

Hydrogen-powered London bus

Fare-paying travellers can rejoice in subsidising the buses and the means of producing the fuel for them, i.e. the wind turbines, under this plan. Maybe do the same for trains too.

The owner of manufacturer Wrightbus has said he hopes to bring another 1,500 jobs to Ballymena as he pushes for a Government subsidy to fund the building of more than 3,000 buses in the town, reports the Belfast Telegraph.

Jo Bamford, executive chairman of the historic bus-builder, said the use of hydrogen could usher in a new era of environmentally-friendly transport.

It’s seeking subsidy funding of £500m from the UK Government, with the aim of building over 3,000 hydrogen-fuelled buses in Ballymena by 2024.

COP26: Climate summit may cost UK ‘several hundred million pounds’

This candidate for the UK’s most expensive non-event ever is already hitting the headlines for the wrong reasons. We’re informed ‘that COP26 attendees will peak at 15,000 on the busiest day, but the overall figure could rise to 90,000 over the period of the conference’. Don’t mention the ’emissions’ – which are what it’s supposed to be all about – as they all fly in and out again.

The cost of a UN climate change conference in Glasgow could be “several hundred million pounds”, police say.

Up to 90,000 people – delegates, observers, heads of state and media – are expected to attend COP26, over 12 days in November, says BBC News.

A Scottish Police Authority report says it will be the largest mobilisation of police officers in the UK.

Scottish ministers say they expect the UK government to cover the “core costs” including emergency services funding.

Quotes from COP25: It’s a nothing-burger

Here are key quotes from leaders, experts and activists on the UN Climate Change Conference (COP25) outcome.

Antonio Guterres, UN secretary general

“I am disappointed with the results of COP25. The international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation and finance to tackle the climate crisis.”

Offshore wind decommissioning could cost UK £3.6bn

Offshore wind farm [image credit: Wikipedia]

According to Wind Power Offshore, UK Decommissioning of 37 offshore wind farms in various stages of development in UK waters could cost the taxpayer between £1.28 billion (€1.44 billion) and £3.64 billion (€4.12 billion), a new report has revealed.

Developers and owners are liable to cover the costs, which are believed to be less than 1% of levelised cost of energy (LCOE), according to a study carried out for the Department for Businesses, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).

But if they are unable to organise and fund decommissioning, BEIS, seabed landlord the Crown Estate and the Scottish government could pick up the bill.