Bishop Hill A steady trickle
Oct 27, 2014 Climate: Parliament There is a steady trickle of articles coming through about the absurdity of energy and climate change policy in the UK. Take a look at this from the FT:
Although not a total consensus, the 2008 policy was grounded on the broad acceptance of four cornerstone propositions, which over time have turned to dust. These core beliefs were:
* fossil fuel prices would rise inexorably as global demand exceeded supply;
* Europe could gain a material competitive advantage by being the first major region in the world to develop a low-carbon economy based on renewables;
* a gradually rising carbon price would increase the cost of externalities including air pollution and climate change, until renewables became fully competitive;
* the negative effects of higher energy costs on competitiveness would be mitigated by a global deal with all the world’s major economies making progress towards the common goal of reducing emissions.
The inconvenient truth is that none of these beliefs have proved to be true.
Could it be that word is finally going to get round that all this greenery is a liability at the ballot box?
Reader Comments (23)
It was also based on the idea that global temperatures were rising inexorably...
"* fossil fuel prices would rise inexorably as global demand exceeded supply;" It is symptomatic that Simon, proved right, is wilfully ignored by the Green Blob to the point where Simon has been almost forgotten while Erhlich, proved wrong, is feted by those who like his sort of millennialism.
I would say the trickle is becoming a flood, which Governments will not be able to ignore (particularly as the election in the UK draws near). I struggle to keep up with posting these articles on our local (Devon) website.
"* Europe could gain a material competitive advantage by being the first major region in the world to develop a low-carbon economy based on renewables;"
That is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.
It's like saying "the world is going to start throwing away money - we will get a competitive advantage by being the first and biggest to throw it away".
The recent collapse in price for oil, gas and coal has really started to focus minds. When those prices were high even the doubters of the renewable miracle were content to keep quiet as subsidised profits rolled in. Renewables are still unreliable but now they're suddenly looking astronomically pricey compared to open market prices of (plentiful) fossil fuels.
Result: panic stations!!!
It is like that story of the car manufacturers in 1930 ish (?) USA - supposedly banding together to fight the unions but whilst one stuck to the agreement and had to deal with strikes and no production, the other manufacturers ignored the agreement, made deals with the unions and sold cars as per normal.
The other manufactures saw a way of getting rid of a competitor.
I wonder if some of the worlds trading blocks cannot believe their luck that Europe is so happy to commit economic suicide?
@ Duncan at 4:28 PM
"It was also based on the idea that global temperatures were catastrophically rising inexorably..."
It's so difficult for the legacy parties to formulate sensible energy and environment policies without agreeing with the fruitcakes :)
NO ! Cameron has made it clear very recently that his quest for the holy grail of de-carbonisation continues apace.
That is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard.
It's like saying "the world is going to start throwing away money - we will get a competitive advantage by being the first and biggest to throw it away".
MikeHaseler
Yes Mike but that is exactly how the idiots minds work. You hear it all the time, in france, in germany, in the UK and the USA. The polis want to be the first to lead their countries to totall disastre, sorry, I mean to de-carb paradis.
The FT ...sometimes you have to wonder about these guys. The four points the article mentions - the cornerstone propositions - were not actual real things but simply talking points used to snooker and reel in the UK into signing/ratifying its climate change act. Nimble legislatures like Australia got rid of this nonsense very quickly.
Just emailed the link for this to my local MP, Dr. Julian Huppert.
His views on Climate Change make Ed Davey look a sceptic.
What is more he has no excuse, except tunnel vision, as he has a PhD in Chemistry.
If the greens had just spent a little more studying economics rather than wallowing in self-loathing, they would have understood as prices rise supply increases. That is precisely what has happened to fossil fuels. Natural gas prices rose to historic highs in the late 1990s and early years of the new century and new fracking technology brought on new supplies. The same thing is happening with oil prices. High prices encourage new exploration and opens up new fields. The world is awash in cheap natural has and oil. Just about every country in the world has large untapped reserves of shale gas and oil. Watching the greens keep pushing uneconomic wind and solar power would be funny were it not for the harm it is doing our economies.
Despite the green blob the truth is now being featured in the National Press and must be getting through to the Public at large.
Andrew Neil in taking Liz Truss apart showed that no one in Government has any idea how the 2050 targets will be met.First of all she said fossils fuels are running out, then when it was pointed out to her that decarbonisation precluded the burning of gas for heating and cooking she was flummoxed. On this point she appeared to disagree, gas being cleaner than coal
The lady appeared to be out of her depth. Not that Miliband and his dumb belles are any better informed, they follow Nutticelli in the Guardian.
Roger Helmer is well read on this subject and his policy written for UKIP (As a one time Electrical Transmission Engineer) has my approval. So I know where my vote will be going in 2015 - to the only party with any knowledge and common sense - UKIP.
Mike - You say:
"" ' Europe could gain a material competitive advantage by being the first major region in the world to develop a low-carbon economy based on renewables;'
That is the most bizarre thing I've ever heard."
It actually makes a certain sort of sense IF you believe that it is inevitable that the rest of the world will follow along. But the implied belief inherent in this proposition is the most interesting aspect of their claim.
I believe you across the pond have a very apt poem for this momentous EU climate agreement occaision.
Tennyson's Charge of the Light Brigade.
Good luck with this winters likely rolling blackouts. STOR demand side will cripple industry. STOR supply side is a fools errand. No hospital is going to lend the GRID their backup generation to prevent the grid from failing. The backup is there to keep their patients alive IF the grid fails.
And the notion that the UK still has 2% reserve because it has ( after fires, nuc crackings, and other misfortunes) 60 Gw baseload still on line when peak winter demand averages 58 is daft. The the issue is not the average peak demand. It is the peak peak demand given variation statistics. Standard deviations, and such Stats 101 stuff. That peak is well over 60Gw. And it is highly likely to occur even in an average winter.
If your winter is below average, like the US experienced last year...hello blackouts, candles, and cold.
Cameron was banging on today about the marvellous new EU climate change agreement. There was a great deal of enthusiasm for persuading China and India to follow.. I think our Eastern friends are somewhat keener on increasing industrialisation, not killing it. Are our politicians as stupid as they seem?
Are our politicians as stupid as they seem?
Peter Stroud
Absolutely. And they may be even more stupid than that. You will see this winter. The North Atlantic temp anomoly has crashed in the last month. Cold weather has already set in across the NH.
This coming 6 months is going to be the most interesting in my life. I hope I live long enough to see the result.
UK ! Listen. VOTE UKIP and we will vote FN le Pen.
Oct 27, 2014 at 9:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Stroud
Are our politicians as stupid as they seem?
==============================
No. They're worse. Much, much worse :
"Government environmental measures may already have helped to slow down global warming, an energy minister has claimed.
Baroness Sandip Verma said the rate of warming might have decreased, which could support the effectiveness of green policies".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2809995/Government-measures-slowed-global-warming-Energy-minister-claims-policies-playing-role-curbing-rising-temperature.html
Anything is possible
And from the same source there it a nice article about how it all gets funded –
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807849/EXPOSED-shadowy-network-funded-foreign-millions-making-household-energy-bills-soar-low-carbon-Britain.html
shub:
"Nimble legislatures like Australia got rid of this nonsense very quickly."
The then PM Julia Gillard appered on TV 2 days before the 2010 election promising NO Carbon Tax. Within a week she "changed her mind". From then on she was behind in the polls, so far behind that Labor brought back the PM they'd deposed as a last ditch effort to save seats. He promptly dumped the Carbon Tax he had tried to introduce, and saved Labor from annihilation (they 'won' 37% of the seats, inflated by preferential voting).
Despite this Labor, the Greens and a ratbag controlling a few votes blocked abolition in the Senate to keep the Carbon Tax. Eventually the PM managed to persuade Clive Palmer to swing his votes behind abolition. Labor then promised to re-introduce the tax if elected at the next election. Some people think they might not be listening.
"a gradually rising carbon price would increase the cost of externalities including air pollution and climate change, until renewables became fully competitive"
What kind of idiot equates an increasing tax with an increasing price?
"Renewables" are not competitive with anything if the price of anything has to forced up by the State in order to create the appearance of price comparability.
Why does anyone at all fall for this tosh?