Cameron's ruddy duck

So David Cameron won himself a majority and the chance to return some sanity to the UK's energy policy after the disastrous tenures of Ed Davey and, before him, Ed Milliband. All it was going to take was the gumption to face down the green blob and put the consumer interest ahead of the vested interest.

Unfortunately, Mr Cameron may well have ducked this particular challenge, as it has now emerged that the DECC portfolio is being handed to Amber Rudd, formerly a junior minister in the department, who is seen as a green friendly appointment. In an interview last year she had this to say:

The main purpose for me [here] is to get up to speed with the relationships and the issues to do with delivering one of the most important things we're ever going to do, which is limiting global warming to under 2°C.

I don't think you could get a cigarette paper between me and Labour on our commitment to getting a deal in Paris.

Lucky old vested interests.

Update on May 11, 2015 by Bishop Hill

Interestingly, the Culture portfolio has gone to John Whittingdale, a man who has described the BBC licence fee as "worse than the poll tax". Fair to say though, that with a wafer thin majority, the chances of Cameron getting a bill to abolish the licence fee are close to zero.

Update on May 11, 2015 by Bishop Hill

Rudd is apparently pro-shale gas too. Is it paying lip-service to greenery on the one hand and going hell for leather for gas on the other? It doesn't seem very sensible if so, given that the subsidies that go with the greenery make burning gas unprofitable.

Deben's new witchhunt

Readers may be aware that Bjorn Lomborg has been lucky enough to win a significant tranche of funding for his think tank from the Australian government, a story that was widely reported at the end of last week.

The result, I suppose, was inevitable and it seems that a new witchhunt has been launched by the illiberal left. At the forefront is our very own Lord Deben:

.@Thom_Mitchell @marxdeane Surely no responsible academic institution would connive at this blatant bias against science?

— John Deben (@lorddeben) April 22, 2015

This displays many of the hallmarks of the great Lord Deb. It is well known that Lomborg accepts all of mainstream climate science as gospel - his work is focused on climate policy and more specifically considers how spending on climate issues should rank compared to spending on other matters. Deben is therefore fairly nakedly fabricating a false allegation that the Dane thinks otherwise. The other way that this tweet epitomises Deben's malign influence on the climate debate is the immediate attempt to destroy Lomborg's livelihood. Deben has no arguments to put forward, no case to make. He simply wants dissent silenced.

You can't imagine ever voting for a party that had Deben in it, can you?

Update on Apr 22, 2015 by Bishop Hill

Jo Nova looks at the Australian reaction here.

Tory comedy

Not that the Conservative manifesto is much better. Here are some excerpts. First up is a proposal to put a non-endangered species on the endangered species list:

We will press for full ‘endangered species’ status for polar bears and a ban on the international trade in polar bear skins, as well as for greater attention to be paid to the impact of climate change on wildlife and habitats in Polar Regions in the Arctic Council and other international fora.

Then there is a case of highlighting "things we have done nothing to change":

Click to read more ...

Hague's chosen fruitloop

While he was in post as Special Adviser on Climate Change at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, John Ashton kept a relatively low profile. For someone of such (how to put this politely?) eccentric views, this was probably a wise move, and helpful to his boss, William Hague.

However, Ashton has now moved on, and is positively flaunting his intellectual weirdness. Just take a look at the diatribe he launched at the head of Shell recently:

Click to read more ...

Money talks

Two related stories caught my eye over the last couple of days, which seem to put our choices at election time in a fairly stark light.

At Guido's we learn that David Cameron has received a donation from one of the partners in his father-in-law's windfarm venture.

Meanwhile, the Times (£) reports that Labour have secretly told windfarm businesses that subsidies will flow unabated should they win the election. Indeed there seems to be a suggestion that the flood of money will turn into a tsunami.

A vote for either seems to be a vote to have your wallet emptied.

Political neutrality at the BBC

Michael Marshall, the deputy editor of BBC Earth tweets:

Shock: Tory MP is ignorant about climate change RT @James_BG: Ann Widdecombe's attack on Climate Change Act http://t.co/V55Fl7aPbv

— Michael Marshall (@m_c_marshall) October 31, 2014

Update on Oct 31, 2014 by Bishop Hill

Marshall's tweet about the ignorance of Conservatives is amusing when one recalls what a pig's ear he made of his article about climate sensitivity last year.

Interestingly, Marshall has also been using his Twitter account to campaign for the Green Party.

Yup RT @ZacGoldsmith: The Greens deserve to be in the Leaders debate. Same number of MPs as UKIP; higher in the polls than the LibDems.

— Michael Marshall (@m_c_marshall) October 31, 2014

The crony capitalism candidate?

Bloomberg New Energy Finance enjoys a certain reputation among watchers of the climate and energy scene, exhibiting a tendency to talk down the costs of wind energy by various nefarious means. They have also produced a report that talked up the cost of shale gas, without actually letting anyone see where their figures came from.

It's interesting then to see that the BNEF's founder Michael Liebreich is considering putting himself forward to be the Conservative candidate for mayor of London. Greg Barker, one of the leading lights of the Tories' crony capitalist wing, has already tweeted his support as have a motley selection of environmentalists and even a trade unionist.

2020 Tories want central planning

The 2020 group of Conservative MPs has apparently submitted a paper to the Conservative manifesto project, which demands that the economy generate motherhood and apple pie in equal proportions:

The group’s first submission to the Tory manifesto process, published Monday, calls for a major drive to boost productivity by making better use of resources instead of relying on cutting labour costs. It says that Britain is lagging behind its rivals in areas such as recycling and “remanufacturing” so that materials or parts have a second or third life. It urges the Government to transfer responsibility for waste from the Environment to the Business department.

Laura Sandys, the Tory MP who wrote the report, “Sweating our Assets,” said such a push could result in a 12 per cent increase in annual profits for manufacturers; create more than 300,000 jobs in the “remanufacturing sector”; improve Britain’s balance of payments by £20 billion by 2020 and save £3 billion by reduced landfill costs and retaining the value of resources.

Whether efficiency gains are actually achieved from recycling depends, of course, on whether it is actually more efficient to recycle. We are already, for example, grinding up waste glass at vast expense, a process that everyone agrees is a waste of resources. My belief is that this comes about through a wicked combination of politicians wanting to be seen to do something, intellectually challenged greens thinking they are saving the planet, and bureaucrats trying to expand their empires.

Reading between the lines, the 2020 group's idea seems to be to have more of the same: to expand the reach of central planning in the economy, give further ground to the greens and to recruit more bureaucrats.

Mr Farage will be pleased.

Reshuffle

Among the reshuffle news today is this interesting switch at Defra:

Owen Paterson has been appointed DEFRA secretary, according to reports.

Mr Paterson will replace the outgoing Caroline Spelman as David Cameron carries out a major reshuffle of his Cabinet.

Apparently those of a green persuasion are not impressed by the switch, with Paterson seen as being much more hostile to environmentalists than his predecessor.

Other changes are being viewed equally dimly in green quarters:

Downing Street also confirmed this morning that former chief whip Patrick McLoughlin will take over as Transport Secretary from Justine Greening, who has been moved to the Department for International Development.

McLoughlin has in the past voted against Heathrow expansion, but green groups have already voiced concerns that the removal of Greening and Transport Minister Theresa Villiers from the Department for Transport appears designed to enable a Conservatvie U-turn on its opposition to a third runway at Heathrow before the next election.

Paterson is widely seen as being on the right of the Conservative Party and green groups were quick to highlight his previous hostility to environmental campaigns.

Update on Sep 4, 2012 by Bishop Hill

Damian Carrington is worried:

Paterson is no treehugger. In May, he reportedly told the Cabinet that it should end all energy subsidies, such as those for wind and solar power, and fast-track shale gas exploitation...As MP for North Shropshire, Paterson has spoken against wind farms and the new pylons needed to carry their power to the national grid.

A reminder of madness past

Benedict Brogan's review of the Conservative party's position on windfarms is well worth a read.

In a few weeks, as part of the Energy Bill, ministers will announce a reduction of up to a quarter in the value of Renewable Obligation Certificates – or “Rocs”. Yes, I realise that’s hardly a sentence to set the pulse racing. But if one considers that Rocs are the means by which the taxpayer subsidises the wind farm industry, and that the Chancellor proposes to slash that giveaway by 25 per cent, then translated into plain English it means this: onshore wind farms will be killed stone dead.

If the ROCs cuts kills new windfarms "stone dead" then that is to be welcomed, but as Brogan goes on to note, it's not clear what effect the cuts will have on existing installations. So although he expressed the hope that the move will win votes to the Conservatives from UKIP, it may well be that the existing windfarms stay put, every day reminding ex-Tory voters of why they left the fold.

Murdo Fraser breaks ranks

Murdo Fraser is the deputy leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland. He seems to have a somewhat off-message view of energy policy. Here's what he thinks we should do.

Instead of the Government directing energy policy from the centre, let the people choose.

This would involve the scrapping of ALL subsidies for power generation, direct or indirect.  So all ROCs, FiTs, payments for nuclear decommissioning, tax breaks for gas extraction, and so on, would go.  The real whole-life cost of each technology would be apparent.  Each consumer could then choose the source, or mix of sources, for their electricity, in much the same was as at present one can choose energy supplier, or even a ‘green’ tariff, and pay accordingly.

Ordinary people deciding for themselves? Whatever next?

All change

Further evidence of the decline influence of green extremism in the UK, with two news stories today. The Mail on Sunday reports that a go-ahead appears likely for Cuadrilla to resume shale gas exploration in Lancashire. Work was suspended after some minor earth tremors were reported.

Meanwhile, hot off the presses is the news that the UK will oppose the idea of the EU producing a new renewables target for 2030 - the existing one runs out in 2020. Given the damage that greens - including those in the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties -  have done to the UK economy already, this is probably wise, or at least not quite so extraordinarily foolish as previously.

A letter from the Conservative leader

This is a letter from Scottish Conservative Party leader Ruth Davidson to a windfarm campaigner. It was posted on the Facebook page of the Stop St Andrews University Windfarm group.

Thank you for contacting me about the issue of windfarms.

There is no doubt that renewable energy is a potentially highly beneficial  energy source. However it should not be pushed upon the people of Scotland  at any cost. Although attaining clean, renewable energy sources should  always remain a priority for Scotland, current strategies excessively burden communities, outweighing any possible benefits. In particular, many  people feel that their communities are coming under attack as wind farm  developers submit increasing numbers of speculative applications for  industrial wind farms. The current Government’s obsession with wind energy  over all other energy sources and the lack of any coherent strategy to  ensure that wind farms are put in appropriate locations, is unacceptable.

The continuing lack of any proper guidance to local authorities from  Government on the siting of wind farms is the root cause of much of the  anger and frustration felt in communities across Scotland. The cumulative  impact of more and more wind farms is becoming almost unbearable for an  increasing number of people. It is for this reason that we have called on  the Scottish Government to consider a moratorium on further development  until the public’s concerns have been addressed.

We should not forget that nuclear power currently provides a large  proportion of our electricity needs, yet Alex Salmond has, thus far,  failed to include nuclear power in its energy strategy. Nuclear power  provides thousands of jobs, which guarantees Scotland’s retention of  engineering talent. Despite what the SNP Government might say about the  safety of nuclear power, the fact remains that Scotland is one of the  world’s safest nuclear power providers. While the wind may not blow,  nuclear provides a reliable and secure energy supply.

The Scottish Government has set an ambitious target of sourcing 100% of  our electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020, and while that  target is questionable in itself, it is even more unlikely to be achieved  when the SNP government places greater emphasis on wind power at the  expense of other sources of renewable energy. By focusing on wind energy, which is highly unreliable, the Scottish Government is failing to plan to  provide Scotland with a secure energy supply.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me and for making me aware of  your position.

Yours sincerely,

Ruth Davidson MSP

The suggestion that renewables are good but windfarms are bad seems rather odd in the Scottish context, since there are few other forms of renewables on the table at the moment. I don't know whether this represents the beginning of the Tories backing away from greenery or just standard political two-facedness.

Conservative Home against wind subsidies

I think this could be significant. In the latest of its pieces on how to build a majority at the next election, Conservative Home, the biggest website for the Tory grassroots, has come out against subsidies for windfarms.

Breaking with the cross-party consensus on climate change would put Cameron on the side of families and manufacturers. Perhaps free from the obsession with change-the-world environmentalism we could also be freed up as a party to focus on a more practical, local environmentalism. Conservatives should, of course, be conservationists but our focus should be on cleaner rivers, planting trees and protecting habitats of outstanding beauty. Yes, we should invest in clean technologies that will help the global environment but we shouldn't be spending money on imported and immature windfarm technologies.

Planning a fiasco - Josh 117

Something a bit different - but then so is trying to get your head round a 'green government' bulldozing green spaces. Inspired by George at the Guardian.