It’s been documented and explained for years by Richard North and Christopher Booker. But those who have not seen their many warnings about what was in store for us as a result of policies, that so many people cheered for being ‘green’, might benefit from this very quick summary that Booker puts in his column today.
Two weeks ago, in a column headed “It’s showdown time for our insane green energy policies”, I observed that this is the moment when the roof is finally starting to fall in on a collective flight from reality that I have been reporting here for years.
But what few people yet realise is how far this catastrophic mess we are in was not only predictable, but has also been quite deliberately brought about, through the Government’s own policies.
Their central aim, though never openly explained, has been twofold. One leg has been to build, by 2020, some 30,000 wind turbines, so ludicrously expensive that we must pay double or treble the market rate for the power they so inefficiently produce.
The other leg is that, to make this seem competitive, we should also eventually be made to pay twice the going rate for all other forms of electricity: hence the “carbon tax” on coal and gas, and the colossal price we are to pay for power from Hinkley Point and other new nuclear power stations (four times the cost of nuclear, estimated by a Royal Academy of Engineering study only nine years ago).
That is why our energy companies pathetically try to explain that a third of the increased costs driving their latest price rises are made inevitable by the various levies we must pay directly for those “green” policies, such as the hidden subsidies being showered on the owners of our ever-growing number of wind farms and acres of solar panels.
Another third represents what we must pay for the thousands of miles of cabling needed to connect those “renewables” to the grid (which Ofgem estimated might, by 2020, cost us another £40 billion).
Then there are the other measures needed to counteract the unbalancing of the grid by the intermittency of “renewables”, such as hiring those thousands of diesel generators to provide back-up, which makes a further mockery of the “de-carbonisation” policy mandated by the Climate Change Act that Mr Cameron was so keen on.
The truth is that we are being brought face to face with the utter absurdity of everything this Government’s bizarre ragbag of policies has been trying to achieve.
For Mr Cameron to blame all this on Mr Miliband only shows that the fuses in his brain have at last begun to blow. By mindlessly going along with all this nonsense, it is our entire political class that has created this shambles. It is the rest of us, alas, who must now live with the consequences.
Given all this, does anyone believe a word these pompous hypocrites have to say, and does anyone believe the laughably and ridiculously low amount DECC claims we pay to support this insanity? Little over £100 per year on energy bills doesn’t come close to covering the cost to energy consumers and taxpayers of all these politically mandated measures.
You might be asking yourself why the political class has done all this. The answer to that is simple. ‘Sustainability’. But it’s essential to understand that the notion of sustainability has been corrupted. Instead it encompassing the development of low impact sustainable ways of providing sufficient energy, water, shelter and other basic human needs to meet the demands of a growing population – which technology can achieve – it has been twisted into meaning that people must use less of everything. How can they be sure people will use less? By restricting supply (e.g. unreliable turbines instead of reliable coal and gas, no new reservoirs combined with water metering) and driving up prices to a level that many people cannot afford. Simple, and vicious. But then, these are the very people who continually argue that the world population needs to be reduced because they consider humans to be a virus that is destroying the planet. But the politicians believed (and some still believe) that aligning with these people mark them as responsible and virtuous, therefore more electorally appealing.
In light of the anger these supply and price measures are provoking and the slowly growing awareness of just what lays behind these measures, I think back to those ‘enlightened’ environmentally aware people who queued up to ridicule North and Booker for their projections of the effects the policies would have. One wonders where these previously vocal people are now, as the chickens are starting to come home to roost.
The pips are already squeaking and we are not even close to the full impact of this political insanity. This issue is one that will keep coming back to the fore as the prices continue to be ramped up. The politicians have created a mess they have no solution to. Time to get the popcorn, while making sure you do what you must to stay warm this winter…
Autonomous Mind 
“But then, these are the very people who continually argue that the world population needs to be reduced because they consider humans to be a virus that is destroying the planet.”
If they really believe that, then why don’t they take themselves out?
I’d be very happy to give them a hand…
“But then, these are the very people who continually argue…… . . . . . ”
Tux. Indeed so, and that is why all who are aware of the bigger agenda need to ram down our MPs throats that their policies based on their flawed ideology, rather than economic and scientific facts must and will be rejected.
They must be told again and again, ad nauseam, that because their ideology is flawed then their polices CANNOT ever work. That there is not the slightest evidence of AGW, and that “climate change” is wholly unpredictable – being driven largely by solar activity and other complex physical elements, but not ONE element, namely the essential and beneficial CO2.
Once our political class discover that their empty theories will cost them their precious career prospects and seats in Parliament – then you bet the ‘kink in their think’ will magically disappear.
This cannot be repeated often enough.
Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is the very stuff of life.
It is as if many western politicians, much of the scientific establishment, and all Green Global Warming advocates have all collectively and conveniently forgotten all their elementary school biology about photosynthesis and the carbon cycle.
As a result, the Western world has been forced into a massive guilt trip with endless predictions of impending global catastrophes from the over production of CO2 by mankind.
But in reality added CO2 is the essential food for plants and has already contributed to the fertility of the planet, for example in the greening of the Sahel.
Mankind’s use of fossil fuels simply releases the very diffuse and intermittent energy from sunlight converted by plants in the past, that has been concentrated and stored by earlier geologic processes over many millions of years.
And its release back into the biosphere now is to the benefit of all plant life.
Global Warming Advocates only ever emphasise the catastrophe that awaits the world in the future as a result of Man-made Global warming. The obverse is likely to be true. Increased levels of CO2 and a rather warmer climate within natural limits can bring real benefits to mankind. The world could well survive having additional areas available for viable, well fertilised, agriculture.
Instead it is likely that any current global warming is a natural process, is within normal limits and is probably beneficial to Mankind even up to a level of about an additional +2.0°C. Sadly warming may be not now even be occurring at all in the coming century.
The probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case it could be not be influenced by any remedial action, however drastic, taken by a minority of nations.
That prospect should be greeted with unmitigated joy.
If it is so:
* all concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be entirely discounted.
* the cost to the European economy alone is considered to be ~ £175 billion per annum in Europe alone till the end of the century, not including the diversion of employment and industries to elsewhere. These vast resources should be spent for much more worthwhile endeavours, because its far from clear that those activities will be effective
* if warming were happening it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for mankind.
* any extra CO2 has already increased the fertility of all plant life on the planet.
* if warming is occurring at all, a warmer climate within natural variation would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development, especially so for the third world.
As global temperatures are already showing cooling over at least the last fifteen years or more, the world should fear the real and detrimental effects of global cooling rather than being hysterical about limited or now non-existent warming.
It remains absolutely clear that our planet is vastly damaged by many human activities such as:
* toxic environmental pollution. (Whatever is asserted CO2 is neither toxic nor a pollutant).
* over fishing.
* rain forest clearance, especially for the production of biofuels.
* biosphere destructive industrial farming at all levels.
* wild habitat destruction throughout the biosphere.
* many green and renewable energy activities actually detrimental to the environment.
The world should indeed be strenuously finding ways to improve these situations.
But the unwarranted concentration on reducing CO2 emissions has deflected even well-meaning green activists from these more immediate and more worthwhile objectives.
Them ain’t chickens comin’ home t’ roost…..Them’s buzzards!
“Little over £100 per year on energy bills doesn’t come close to covering the cost to energy consumers and taxpayers of all these politically mandated measures.”
Set to rise sharply to 33% by 2020 according to DECC’s own figures.
But domestic energy bills and the cost of subsidies doesn’t come close to covering the real costs, such as driving industries off-shore, with the cost of jobs and having to import goods, and the generally inflationary consequences of artificially increasing the price of energy.
Then of course there are the social and wait for it – environmental – costs of the lunacy.
@edmh. Tell you what bro, I’ll put you in a room with 20% CO2 whilst I sit in a room with 20% O2. Care to guess which one of us will be alive in 20 minutes time?
The government should be held responsible for the mess they have created. Prison time is in order for these lying miscreants. This is, and always was, a giant pyramid scheme. Nothing more than a global money-grab. It is doing NOTHING to improve our environment.
Reblogged this on Mothers Against Wind Turbines and commented:
Imprison those responsible!!!
@edmh. Thanks. Look forward to that!
Energy prices paid by the consumer within the UK are one of the lowest in Europe; the issue isn’t the price you pay for your electricity, but the amount that you use. The real question you should be asking is “why are we using so much more electricity?” especially when so much is more efficient.
As a home owner with two kids and several energy-hungry devices in my household, I’d happily pay more on my energy bills if it led to the end of the colossal waste of resources that are fossil fuel power stations.
It’s telling that those who complain most about energy prices are those unwilling to make efficiency saving and remain either ignorant of the science behind climate change, or are actively denying the very well grounded theories that underpin it.
The solution? Put the subsidies on localised power generation schemes like solar roof tiles, small-scale hydro-electrics and ground heat pumps and ramp up the taxes on fossil fuel burning. Only when it becomes unprofitable to burn dead plants from millions of years ago will we see a reduction in prices, as the infrastructure changes from this unsustainable and environmentally damaging process to more reliable and efficient sources, including nuclear.
Edmh’s attitude is typical of the scientific illiterati that fester in the comments sections of the Daily Mail and do nothing but regurgitate half-understood points made by journalists and politicians, all the while ignoring the science.
Dagasnnr. . I think your comment makes so many assumptions that it must be a wind (no pun intended) up.
Incidentally. What do you think is wrong with developing our massive coal resources – apart from the obvious fact that it is automatically “de rigour” to oppose all carbon based fuel for ideological “green” driven reasons?
Graham 27/10/2013 at 3:50 pm
Perhaps you would tell us how long you would survive in a room with 100% oxygen?
Its not just that windmills are 2-3 times more expensive than baseload.
There is also the fact that nuclear is artificially pushed up so as not to undercut baseload. For example Hinkley is nearly 4 times more expensive than a slightly smaller project designed & built by Europeans in China.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/09/european-nuclear-reactors-are-three.html
Indeed if you include the fact that Chinese ones will be completed in 3 years and UK in 10, that means 7 extra years of interest payments before there is a return. Beyond that there is the fact that if reactors were mass produced they would obviously be much cheaper.
Put all these together and it is clear electricity prices could be at least 90% lower if government would allow it, perhaps significantly more than 90%.
Graham;
Where do you think that 20% O2 came from?
Atmospheric O2 is maintained only by plants, feeding off CO2, which once was even higher than that O2 number, and thus over 5000 times as much as present.
Fool.
Graham:
It’s not an ‘ideological green reason’ to oppose the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that hasn’t been there in 180 million years ago. And it’s not just the carbon dioxide. Burning coal also releases vast quantities of sulfur dioxide, which turns into acid rain, and levels of radioactive isotopes that would put a nuclear reactor to shame.
It doesn’t take much analysis of the data to establish that if the Earth was warmer when that CO2 was atmospheric, releasing it now, when the sun’s output is also significantly greater, is going to cause issues with the climate.
Incidently, edmh’s post is full of other glaring misconceptions, including the one about how an increase in global temperatures will benefit humans, that are fractally wrong. Parts of the Earth will be cooler due to the shift in ocean currents and weather systems, thanks to the extra energy now present, will be bigger, stronger and more destructive. Desertification will grow, the increased acidity of the oceans will cause a mass extinction of vunerable sea-life and some pests and diseases, once restricted by the cold winters of parts of the world, will spread in more affluent and urban areas.
These aren’t assumptions, these are happening, right now.
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Great post from blogger ‘Autonomous Mind’.
Pierre Gosselin, over at NoTricksZone, has discovered another way “They” have found to force us into “sustainability”: ban the plebs from using anything which “the Great and the Good” deem to be “too powerful”.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/27/another-european-directive-that-really-sucks-eu-now-banning-energy-hungry-home-appliances/
These people are all heart. Pity it’s such a vicious, scheming, evil heart.
“DECC claims we pay ………… Little over £100 per year on energy bills ”
But that’s only 1/3 of the costs, the figure via household energy bills. DECC continues that Industry & Commerce picks up the other ⅔rds. And households then have to pay most of that figure too, via increases in the prices of all goods and services bought in.
The real cost “per household”, is therefore in the region of £160/year.
Reblogged this on Cornwall Wind Watch.
Dagsannr gives a list of CAGW effects that “are happening now” including increase in deserts (the Sahara is actually shrinking) & tropical diseases spreading north (malaria is often mentioned – a century ago it was a major killer on Murmansk so if this was true it must now be a major killer at the north pole).
As, with all the hundreds of eco scare stories, this is clearly false. I have yet to find a single econut who can name a single of their massive scare stories that proved true.
Dagasnnr 27/10/2013 at 5:18 pm
Another brainwashed fool coming to a site like this and expounding warmist dogma, I admire their spirit, but not their stupidity, remind anyone of adamin berlinio on Tallbloke’s talkshop?
No data just recycled nonsense.
Who said anything about 100% O2? Certianly not me so that straw man is well and truely shotstraight away.
And BrianH, I know you are but really there is no need to advertise it on here. If you don’t understand the science just say so, noone will think you foolish for admiting that.
Graham “@edmh. Tell you what bro, I’ll put you in a room with 20% CO2 whilst I sit in a room with 20% O2. Care to guess which one of us will be alive in 20 minutes time?”
What a ridiculous comment. Tell you what, I’ll put you on a planet with no CO2, which is a necessity for plants and trees to release oxygen that we need to survive, and see how long you live for. CO2 is not a pollutant and has less greenhouse concentration than water vapour. But I suppose it’s hard to tax and reduce water vapour emissions, so best focus on something that sounds bad.
Reblogged this on CraigM350.
Graham;
O2 cannot persist in an atmosphere not continually replenished, as it is so reactive. Plants use CO2 and H2O to build hydrocarbons, and discard some of the oxygen, keeping the C and H, which are the limiting inputs. Added CO2 permits use and discarding (transpiration) of less water. Its effects are overwhelmingly beneficial.
L.