Bishop Hill Yeo's speech
Dec 18, 2012 Climate: Parliament Energy: gas Energy: other Energy: solar Energy: wind Tim Yeo has given a speech in London on energy policy (Telegraph coverage here). Here is the text.
Two hundred and fifty years ago, Britain sparked the first industrial revolution.
By harnessing the force of fossil fuels like coal;
Enterprising British engineers were able to deliver astounding innovations in industry and travel;
Creating huge wealth and prosperity as they forged the modern world.
In the first half of the 20th century, Britain built the first integrated national electricity grid in the world;
Powering millions of homes and factories by connecting them to network of enormous coal burning power stations.
Forward-thinking legislation had laid the framework for a cutting-edge nation-wide electricity system that would be copied the world over.
In the eighties, Britain led Europe in liberalising its energy markets;
By breaking up the out-dated nationalised utilities and introducing competition;
The Government created an electricity market that, for all its imperfections, still delivers cheaper energy prices than on much of the continent.
In those days Britain was not afraid to lead!
Now in the 21st century, tremendous technological changes are again sweeping the world.
Information technology and social media is revolutionising the way we do business and organise our lives
Exciting new energy technologies could bring equally radical changes to the way we power our homes and businesses.
But instead of being out in front again, leading the green industrial revolution Britain risks being left behind.
Our competitors... China, Japan, Germany and the US are pushing ahead on clean new technologies;
Only last month, the UK fell from fifth to sixth place in the renewable energy attractiveness rankings globally.
China is at the top and shows no signs of slowing down its low-carbon investment.
When my Committee visited China earlier this year we saw the incredible innovations they are making in this area first hand.
Its current five year plan is reducing the carbon intensity of its economy, delivering a new climate law and introducing carbon trading.
Germany - the industrial powerhouse of Europe - now gets 25 per cent of electricity from solar, wind and biomass and has set a target to get 80 per cent of its power from renewable by 2050.
In Germany last year, there were around 380,000 jobs in the renewable energy sector, and this is expected to increase to 500,000 or 600,000 by 2030.
By contrast, both the last UK government and the present one have been dithering and indecisive on energy and climate change policy.
Despite a decade of chatter and promises not a single new nuclear power station has been started.
Incentives for low carbon renewable have been chopped and changed, sometimes with little warning.
The step change in energy efficiency that even climate change sceptics support has been the subject of more rhetoric than action.
Setting a target for emissions from electricity generation as recommended by the Climate Change Committee has been put off until 2016, prolonging the political and regulatory uncertainty that is killing investment.
The choice we face
The Government's new Energy Bill presents Parliament with an opportunity to put an end to this uncertainty and set the UK on course to become a true world leader in clean technology.
Worryingly however, the Chancellor's new gas strategy is being interpreted by some as being at odds with this aim.
If this interpretation gains credence it could undermine the confidence of clean energy investors and make the Government's commitments on climate change hard to fulfil.
As Chairman of the Commons Energy Committee I think the choice facing Britain is clear.
We can embrace the technology of the future, set a target to reduce our present heavy dependence on fossil fuels and upgrade our electricity system.
Or we can cling to the combustion-based technologies of the past, gamble the future on assumptions about the availability of abundant cheap gas and slow down the process of decarbonising our economy.
Britain must look forward, or risk getting left behind.
The argument
Lumbering the UK economy with a centralised power system largely reliant on gas, would be like running an office using a fax machine in the age of the iPad.
Gas does have a significant role to play as we make the transition to a low carbon economy, but it would be rash to bet the future on one fuel or energy source.
It is time to upgrade our electricity system to 2.0.
Super efficient solar cells, anaerobic digestion, wind power, new nuclear reactors, wave and tidal power and carbon capture and storage - these are the technologies of the future!
Smart meters, new grid technology and increased interconnection across the continent will lead to a new ‘energy internet' ; decentralising electricity generation, giving consumers much more control of their use of energy, and empowering people and businesses, both large and small, to produce and sell electricity back to the grid themselves.
The dynamic demand management allowed by these new technological developments will help to address the problem posed by increasing proportions of intermittent generation in the system;
Gradually reducing the amount of gas back up that is needed.
And, as wider deployment of low-carbon technologies enables economies of scale to be achieved, the up-front capital costs of many of these systems are expected to come down.
In contrast, the dash for gas would be a gamble, because it is by no means certain that gas prices are going to come down.
Let us be clear here. My Committee was one of the first to call for Britain to exploit its shale gas reserves.
Personally I welcome anything which reduces our growing dependence on imports.
It is possible also that if the recoverable reserves are sufficiently large we may be spared some of the effect of the likely upward pressure on the gas price.
My Committee is currently examining the impact that shale gas could have on energy markets.
Abundant shale deposits in America have pushed US gas prices down, but it remains to be seen whether there are enough reserves in the UK and Europe for it to be a game-changer on this side of the Atlantic.
A robust regulatory framework and a clear system of community benefit will also be needed to make fracking publically acceptable and politically viable in a country like Britain where population density is much greater than in those parts of the US where the most rapid expansion of shale gas development is occurring.
In reality therefore, prudence suggests we should avoid staking the game on one particular energy technology.
To be fair, DECC has ensured that the Energy Bill does not do this. It is designed to deliver a diverse energy mix that lowers carbon emissions.
To put Britain at the forefront of this new industrial evolution however, the Bill should be more ambitious and set a clean energy target to cut dependence on fossil fuels for electricity generation by 2030 - as the Government's own independent climate advisors have recommended.
Arguments against
Some people believe that we should simply exploit the cheapest forms of energy available to us - regardless of the consequences in terms of climate change.
They complain that low-carbon energy needs subsidies that increase bills.
And say that we should forget a target to phase out fossil fuels from electricity, because exploiting our gas reserves will bring gas prices crashing down.
In answer to the clean energy sceptics...
Financial support for low-carbon technologies is needed to accelerate their development and deliver the economies of scale that will bring costs down.
What many forget is that these costs will not continue indefinitely.
Giving these technologies a short-term boost will soon lead to costs coming down.
Reader Comments (48)
He was quoted on R4 this morning. Nobody mentioned conflicts of interest...
"Giving these technologies a short-term boost will soon lead to costs coming down."
Pile in more of your own money then Timbo; I prefer to pass on the opportunity to be a co-investor.
I did not notice the conflict of interest disclaimer. Must have read it too fast.
"Giving these technologies a short-term boost will soon lead to costs coming down"
And my profits going up... (he omitted to say)
Tim Yeo was born: March 20, 1945, so he would be only 9 years old when Calder Hall nuclear power station in the United Kingdom was the world's first nuclear power station to produce electricity in commercial quantities.
I wonder why he missed out that the UK then led the world for decades in clean nuclear power, seems to be a big gap - 1950 to 1980 in Mr Yeo’s history of the achievements by “Enterprising British engineers”. Some how I do not think it was an inadvertent oversight.
Beware the 'smart meter.'
At the recent energy committee meeting the Civil Servants said we might not need so many new power stations.
They were questioned further by the MPs about the need for a safety margin to cover sudden peak demand.
The reason they gave was to reduce 'demand side' problems by use of smart meters to cut off consumers when appropriate.
This they spun as a popular choice for the consumers since it would reduce their energy bills.
When your cut off you wont be charged they said without blinking.
and on to the broad sunlit uplands... where subsidy mills roar and impoverish the poor...
this man is obscene.
Yeo-Yeo : Slang. a stupid, foolish, or incompetent person. (see dictionary.com).
Green Heat of Technology?
Government planned engineering break-throughs, how quaint.
Yeo has firmly seated himself on a bandwagon which is in reverse gear.
"We can embrace the technology of the future, set a target to reduce our present heavy dependence on fossil fuels and upgrade our electricity system.
Or we can cling to the combustion-based technologies of the past, gamble the future on assumptions about the availability of abundant cheap gas and slow down the process of decarbonising our economy."
Yeo's sense of logic is sadly lacking.
Any "technology of the future", is, by definition, a gamble.
You can bet smart meters will only cut off the poor, people on benefits and the folk in the middle. You could bet your mortgage rent seeking politicians and "important" people won't have their energy cut.
Comment 59 on Guido's Yeo post
E’en so here below, below
Let windmill blades be spunen
And Yeo, Yeo, Yeo
By Greenpeace people sungen
Gloria, Renewables in excelsis
Gloria, Renewables in excelsis
http://order-order.com/2012/12/18/dont-yeo-forget-it/#comments
Yeo. "Germany - the industrial powerhouse of Europe - now gets 25 per cent of electricity from solar, wind and biomass and has set a target to get 80 per cent of its power from renewable by 2050."
May be better expressed as;
Germany gets 25% of its electricity from 'renewables' including the burning of biomass, to keep the lights on it is building brown coal fired stations to replace decommissioned nuclear. As well as what is happening in reality, it is also committing itself to a target of 80% of its energy from renewables. Whether that can be achieved while remaining 'the industrial powerhouse of Europe' is yet to be seen in the face of North America having half the energy/feedstock costs and China, half the labour costs of Europe.
I could go on....
Mr. Yeo is clearly a fellow who pursued a career in sales whilst studiously avoiding one in mathematics.
I could go on.....in fact, I think I will;
Grid instability "In the long run, if we can't guarantee a stable grid, companies will leave (Germany)," Spiegel.
The great accomplishments of the UK in the past that Yeo uses as props to his argument came from engineering, a subject which Yeo goes on to demonstrate that he knows nothing about.
Just been listening to Radio 5, not paying too much attention but ears pricked up when some commentator postulated that the Conservatives had lost one sixth of their support to UKIP in the last 2 months.
Didn't catch the name, driving at the time so had more important things to deal with. Though did pick up that Labour gaining big from Lib Dems and Tory losing to UKIP can only mean deep six? for Top Cat!
Not mentioned but to my mind there is a definite Yeo - Yeo effect
Reminds me a lot of the "White hot technical revolution" speech of one Anthony Wedgewood-Ben (who later renamed himself to Tony Ben to curry favour with the peasant classes).
That government sponsored revolution was spectacularly unsuccessful.
Green Sand
Richard North has a post on the UKIP thingy here http://www.eureferendum.com
This is blatant opportunism to make him personnally rich; he doesn't give a monkey's about those poor sods already in fuel poverty soon to be joined by thousands more if Yeo and his gang have their way. A green industrial revolution? No thanks, at least the last one didn't put the lights out - quite the contrary.
PJP
Benn - The Post Office Tower, Concorde and British (on a quiet night you could hear them rust) Leyland.
The boy done well!
Dolphinhead
Thanks will have a look
Britain led the world in so many substantive, beneficial, cost-effective technologies for so long... so,.... Now, for something completely different!
Maybe there is a tenured faculty member at Hogwarts who can explain the whole 'short-term boost /costs coming down' thing. The fact that this has never worked so far ethanol or any other alt energy source is left for an exercise for the student.
May this serial liar and shameless fornicator rot in hell.
It was PM Harold Wilson who spoke of the "white heat of this (technological) revolution'. Tony Benn was Minister of Technology in that government ensconced in Millbank Tower - very futuristic, at that time. I was in my first job as a civil servant (EO) there and took the great man one of his endless cups of tea, one day. Now his awful son, Hilary is my MP.
"...Super efficient solar cells, anaerobic digestion, wind power, new nuclear reactors, wave and tidal power and carbon capture and storage - these are the technologies of the future!..."
I hope that Bernard gave him the correct general-purpose speech. You will recall the one in 'Yes Minister' - their general-purpose line went like this:
"... Things are changing fast. We live in a world of change. The silicon chip is changing our lives. The quality of life is becoming more and more important. The environment, conservation, the problems of pollution, the future of our children and our children’s children – these are today’s issues...."
I think I recognise the same hand of a civil-service functionary writing both of these...
As Tim Yeo said Great Britain led the world in the Industrial Revolution. Now he wants us to lead it in the De-industrialisation Revolution.
PJP wrote:
Reminds me a lot of the "White hot technical revolution" speech of one Anthony Wedgewood-Ben (who later renamed himself to Tony Ben to curry favour with the peasant classes).
That government sponsored revolution was spectacularly unsuccessful.
It was spectacularly unsuccessful partly because the government did not sponsor a revolution. "The White Hot Technological Revolution" was never more than an election slogan - but a very successful one. Our current generation of "leaders" think in the same way.
Yeo is badly advised.
There is no economy of scale in solar cells (nor will there ever be 'super efficient' solar cells) - there will never be a 1.5GW solar power station.
There is no economy of scale in anaerobic digestion, the biggest proposed digester in the UK was proposed in 2009 at 8MW (I don't believe it has been built). A ridiculously large amout of s**t would be required to produce 1.5GW.
There is no economy of scale in wind power; there will never be a 1.5GW windmill. The largest proposed windmill is 15MW and won't be around until 2020 (if ever).
There is no economy of scale in wave power. There will never be a 1.5GW wave machine; no proposed machine seems to be larger than 1MW in output. They seem to have a troubled history - not surprising to people familiar with the sea.
Carbon capture and storage is not a method of generating electricity. It is merely a method of crippling the efficiency of existing power plant designs and brings with it all the difficulties of pumping high pressure liquids underground.
Tidal power can achieve the economies of scale. There could be an 8GW (?) tidal power station.
Both nuclear power and fossil fuel powered generators can achieve the economies of scale. There are 1.5GW nuclear and fossil fuelled power stations.
Renewable energy, as defined by Yeo, does not benefit from the economies of scale, with the exceptions outlined above.
The future's bleak; the future's green.
Short term subsidies? FITs run for 25 years don't they, short term in the geological sense, rather less so in terms of the average working life.
As for 'not staking the game on one technology', presumably windfarms are exempted from this crass generalisation in view of the fact that they don't really work unless you want to intermittently pump water from below sea level areas of land.
Idiot.
What Trougher Yeo forgot to mention is the inefficient power sources that fossil fuels and the National Grid replaced. Let me think now. Ah yes Bio-fuels used in the form of charcoal to work metals replaced by coal fired blast furnaces thus permitting modern metal engineering. Food production using, dare I say it, windmills, changed from grinding corn for flower whenever, to doing it when needed as wind power was almost immediately phased out in favour of electric milling. Factories powered by belts driven by....you've guessed it , water wheels, almost immediately phased out in favour of coal fired steam power. Transport; wind power, at sea, horse power on land replaced by steam from fossil fuels.
So our mate Trougher Yeo's list of super modern " lead the world" technology turns out to be a rehash of the technology that was blasted into history by fossil fuels. Way to go Yeo!
If you think your "Back to the Future" scenario is an advance in technological achievement then I suggest you consult your wrist sundial as it is obviously running backwards.
Ivor Ward
"In the eighties, Britain led Europe in liberalising its energy markets;By breaking up the out-dated nationalised utilities and introducing competition;"
That worked well, didn't it ? Cheaper energy from great British entrepreneurs like E.ON, Centrica, EDF, Iberdrola (Scottish Power) and so forth.
Maggie Fatcha, the little girl who destroyed her country and all traces of Victorian values (enterprise) for the Yankee oil dollar (and global warming).
Only last month, the UK fell from fifth to sixth place in the renewable energy attractiveness rankings globally.
Good! But further please.
When my Committee visited China earlier this year we saw the incredible innovations they are making in this area first hand.
They didn't show you any of the coal-fired power stations then?
Roy
"As Tim Yeo said Great Britain led the world in the Industrial Revolution. Now he wants us to lead it in the De-industrialisation Revolution."
That is part of the plan. Banks get to build factories in India and China. Read the book "Fantasy Island" by Larry Elliott for the truth about Blair's post industrial Britain.
Since Yeo is intelligent he must therefore be a liar or insane. Our industries can not compete againts their American counterparts unless our energy costs move somewhere close to theirs.
Ultimately it is a straight choice between shale gas and economic recovery or renewables and economic collapse.
In view of the fact that after Doha only 35% of global emissions are from countries who have agreed targets, any attempt to force Britain to stick to its targets is industrial sabotage. We really need to get rid of the Climate Change Act!
'The unacceptable face of capitalism', an expression that has stayed with me for years. And here we see it again in the person of the smug, self-congratulatory, self-regarding, sneering Tim Yeo, a positive parody of the modern Tory throw-back.
What a properly nasty piece of work he is.
If I recall correctly wind, solar, hydro and thermal have been receiving subsidies for the best part of two decades. Doesn't sound very short term to me.
That Yeo is something of a tosser is I think proven. I would use the "c" word but this is someone else's gaff.
He's missed the entire point of all of the previous energy systems. They were all *cheaper* than the ones that came before. Coal's a darn sight cheaper than horses for example.
And when you come back, Mr. Yeo, and show us that solar (as I expect it will be at some point) is cheaper than coal, nuclear, gas, whatever, then we'll all quite naturally use it, just as our forefathers used all the previous cheaper technologies.
Until then bugger off would you?
Down straight Tim Worstall. The only way that wealth can be created is by doing things better. In the case of energy that means more efficiently and as you so rightly point out more cheaply. At the point that you start to make energy more expensive, for whatever misguided reason, you destroy wealth. I know nothing about this man Yeo but the fact that he wants to destroy wealth makes him an enemy of mankind. As you say he is a complete [to be completed at your gaff].
Tim's family motto: Ye omit
Yeo is a lying traitor...
Apologies for the length of the post Bish but, doing my bit to help keep public sector costs of informing us down, here are a few searches on behalf of Today's BBC researchers :
//
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/121203/yeo_tim.htm
Remunerated directorships
AFC Energy; company developing alkaline fuel cell technology. Address: Unit 71.4 Dunsfold Park, Stovolds Hill, Cranleigh, Surrey, GU6 8TB. Undertake duties as Chair, run board meetings and keep in touch with senior management.
Received payment of £5,000, 14 November 2011. Hours: 10 hrs. (Registered 13 December 2011)
Received payment of £5,000, 13 December 2011. Hours: 12 hrs. (Registered 2 February 2012)
Received payment of £5,000, 10 January 2012. Hours: 9 hrs. (Registered 9 February 2012)
Received payment of £3,350, 8 February 2012. Hours: 8 hrs. (Registered 13 March 2012)
Received payment of £990, 29 February 2012. Hours: 2 hrs. (Registered 13 March 2012)
Received payment of £3,350, 5 March 2012. Hours: 8 hrs. (Registered 9 May 2012)
Received payment of £990, 30 March 2012. Hours: 2 hrs. (Registered 9 May 2012)
Received payment of £3,350, 10 April 2012. Hours: 9 hrs. (Registered 9 May 2012)
Received payment of £990, 30 April 2012. Hours: 3 hrs. (Registered 9 May 2012)
Received payment of £3,350, 8 May 2012. Hours: 10 hrs. (Registered 16 June 2012)
Received payment of £990, 31 May 2012. Hours: 3 hrs. (Registered 16 June 2012)
Received payment of £3,350, 18 June 2012. Hours: 10 hrs. (Registered 11 July 2012)
Received payment of £990, 29 June 2012. Hours: 3 hrs. (Registered 11 July 2012)
Received payment of £3,350, 10 July 2012. Hours: 9 hrs. (Registered 15 August 2012)
Received payment of £990, 31 July 2012. Hours: 3 hrs. (Registered 15 August 2012)
Received payment of £3,350, 24 September 2012. Hours: 9 hrs. (Registered 8 October 2012)
Received payment of £990, 28 September 2012. Hours: 3 hrs. (Registered 8 October 2012)
Received payment of £3,350, 10 October 2012. Hours: 9 hrs. (Registered 12 November 2012)
Received payment of £990, 31 October 2012. Hours: 3 hrs. (Registered 12 November 2012)
//
http://www.afcenergy.com/:
AFC Energy is the world’s leading developer of low-cost alkaline fuel cell technology. Focused on large-scale, industrial application AFC Energy’s technology is fully-scalable to provide clean electricity on-demand. The fuel cell has the potential to be the catalyst which transforms the way in which industries of today produce energy for tomorrow.
//
Chairman of TMO Renewables Limited, 40 Alan Turing Road, Surrey Research Park, Guilford, Surrey GU2 7YF. The company is developing and supplying technology for second generation biofuels. My duties involve chairing board meetings and keeping in touch with senior management.
Received payment of £4,166, 24 November 2011. Hours: 13 hrs. (Registered 13 December 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 25 November 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 13 December 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 12 December 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 2 February 2012)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 22 December 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 2 February 2012)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 24 January 2012. Hours: 12 hrs. (Registered 9 February 2012)
Received payment of £1,666.53, 25 January 2012. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 9 February 2012)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 24 February 2012. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 13 March 2012)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 24 February 2012. Hours: 15 hrs. (Registered 13 March 2012)
Received payment of £1,250.13, 23 March 2012. Hours: 4 hrs. (Registered 9 May 2012)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 29 March 2012. Hours: 11 hrs. (Registered 9 May 2012)
Received payment of £1,250.13, 25 April 2012. Hours: 4 hrs. (Registered 9 May 2012)
Received payment of £1,250.13, 25 May 2012. Hours: 4 hrs. (Registered 16 June 2012)
Received payment of £4,166, 26 May 2012. Hours: 13 hrs. (Registered 16 June 2012)
Received payment of £1,250.13, 25 June 2012. Hours: 4 hrs. (Registered 11 July 2012)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 26 June 2012. Hours: 13 hrs. (Registered 11 July 2012)
Received payment of £1,249.73, 25 July 2012. Hours: 4 hrs. (Registered 15 August 2012)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 26 July 2012. Hours: 13 hrs. (Registered 15 August 2012)
Received payment of £1,250.13, 25 September 2012. Hours: 4 hrs. (Registered 8 October 2012)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 26 September 2012. Hours: 14 hrs. (Registered 8 October 2012)
Received payment of £1,249.73, 25 October 2012. Hours: 4 hrs. (Registered 12 November 2012)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 26 October 2012. Hours: 14 hrs. (Registered 12 November 2012)
//
http://tmo-group.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/financial_statements_2011.pdf
Page 8 gives the split in costs between admin and research, page 25 gives the split in emloyee numbers between admin and eng/research, page 43 totals Mr Yeo's consultancy work.
//
http://tmo-group.com/uk-prime-minister-david-cameron-endorses-tmos-expertise-and-achievements-during-ukti-delegation-to-brazil/
http://tmo-group.com/ammb-unit-to-pay-1-6m-to-settle-sec-charges/#more-74
When I joined the company I took a good look at its technology and TMO has many more commercially valuable processes and technologies, as yet unexploited, which I am already in the process of converting into commercial offerings and taking them into the market. My vision is that the company will generate revenues by, at the latest, one year from today. However, as you might expect these necessary, yet not insignificant, changes to the company’s direction and business plan will take a little time to settle in. We ask you to be patient with us during this time and to join us on what we all believe will be a very exciting and successful journey in further expanding the company’s growth worldwide.
David Weaver
Chief Executive Officer
//
Miscellaneous
Unremunerated director of ITI Energy Limited; suppliers of gasification equipment. I have not received any financial benefit from this directorship.
//
http://www.iti-energy.com/
ITI Energy Limited manufactures a compact and highly efficient thermal conversion technology based on a patented advanced gasification design. Combined with the most up to date, commercially available gas clean-up systems the technology generates a synthetic gas that is clean enough to fuel an internal combustion engine
//
Anacol Holdings Ltd.; a family investment company
Company Summary
Anacol Holdings Limited is an Inactive business incorporated in England & Wales on 10th January 1979. Their business activity is recorded as Non-trading Company. Anacol Holdings Limited is run by 2 current directors and 1 company secretary. 2 Shareholders own the total shares within the company. It is also part of a group. The latest Annual Accounts submitted to Companies House for the year up to 31/03/2012 reported 'cash at bank' of £0, 'liabilities' worth £0, 'net worth' of £0 and 'assets' worth £0. Anacol Holdings Limited's Risk Score was amended on 24/11/2012.
http://companycheck.co.uk/company/01408288
//
Eco City Vehicles plc, Hemming House, Hemming Street, London, E1 5BL; distributes and services London taxis. Duties include chairing board meetings and keeping in touch with senior management. (Resigned 6 September 2012)
(No payments made to me by Eco City Vehicles plc between October 2011 and October 2012.)
Received payment of £40,000, 2 October 2012. Payment covers 91 hours between 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012. (Registered 8 October 2012)
//
http://www.ecocityvehicles.com/
500th Vito Taxi sold
Group subsidiary KPM UK Taxis recently sold the 500th Vito Taxi into London Full story in our News section
http://rsi-cda.mercedes-benz.com/content/unitedkingdom/retailer-E/kpm_taxis/en/home/van.flash.html
"We've been working absolutely flat out with the taxi trade," Boris told us.
"We've relaxed the rules on the age of the taxis to try help them. We've also made sure they can rent more taxis. As I understand it there are Mercedes on the market now for £154 a week."
//
New age limit for London's taxis
The Mayor of London announced on the 14th December [2010] that the oldest black cabs in the capital will lose their licence to operate as a result of new standards to improve air quality in the capital. You can read the full announcement from the Mayors office here, and Eco City Vehicles announcement to shareholders here.
http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press_releases_mayoral/mayors-tough-new-air-quality-standards-remove-dirtiest-black-cabs-londo
//
November 2012:
http://www.lbc.co.uk/boris-doing-all-he-can-to-save-black-cab-63342
//
Energy Bill: Tim Yeo on government fossil fuels targets
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20771198
//
BBC Democracy Live - "Search, find and watch the politics that affects you"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/representatives/profiles/25224.stm
//
OK - last two:
One definition of lobbying says it means:
"in a professional capacity, attempting to influence, or advising those who wish to influence, the United Kingdom Government, Parliament, the devolved legislatures or administrations, regional or local government or other public bodies on any matter within their competence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_Kingdom
"A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Whoops! Sorry again re: the long post Bish - I just saw this post from September
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/9/11/yeo-resigns-one-of-his-interests.html
C S Lewis wrote a novel called That Hideous Strength. In it his anti-hero has to write for the papers about a riot. It was an engineered riot to let the police state take over. He writes one piece for a tabloid paper. It has sentences which are very short. Which are full of non-sequiturs. Some without verbs. Which abuse common-sense.
In a later scene the eldil Mercury takes the power of sensible speech away from the plotters.
Mr Yeo has cleverly combined the two scenes. He uses short sentences. Some without verbs. He talks nonsense. Well done, Mr Yeo. I expect you scribbled it during a board meeting. One of the many windfarm board meetings you have to attend as an expert. Without any conflict of interest. It must be nice to earn so much money while still having time for a hobby. And to write stuff you know is nonsense. While being paid. Without any conflict of interest.
Extruding nonsense while troughing. No change there, then.
JF
Yeo, Yeo, Yeo the scrote,
Expenses quite obscene,
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
Grasping all that gleams......
Beware any quasi-governmental policy propoganda which ends in an exclamation mark (i.e. - 'We think this is all jolly good stuff - not sure how it will work but by golly, its exciting...')
Hmmm.... Just glad I've invested in a standby generator...
Oh - and that bit about Germany getting '25 percent of its electricity from solar, wind and biomass...' is pure b*ll*cks - witness them building 20+ new 'brown coal' power stations, because fairy breath and glimpses of the sun won't keep the Audis, BMWs and Mercs rolling out of the factories...
I think Yeo needs to read this:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmcode/735/73508.htm
Totally unambiguous.
Look, he KNOWS costs of wind power will come down, ok, so stop fussing.
"The Conservative MP Tim Yeo is taking a principled stand on the Energy Bill and plans to include a ‘decarbonisation target’ amendment as the Bill gets debated in Parliament."
Oh.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-independent-view-why-ed-davey-should-support-tim-yeo-for-the-sake-of-our-energy-and-environment-32277.html