Monday
Aug222011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Sometimes it's hard to find words
Aug 22, 2011 Climate: Parliament Energy: costs I'm really struggling to put into words just how insane this government is:
Figures from Utilyx, the energy consultants and traders, forecast a 58pc rise in the cost of power by 2020, largely driven by the impending avalanche of green taxes due to come into force over the next 10 years.
The consultants estimate that 18pc of the current electricity price relates to climate change policies – or £15 per megawatt-hour out of a £82 per megawatt-hour average.
There seems to be a quaint theory in government circles that their policy decisions do not actually have any consequences - they are just part of the ongoing public relations effort.
When is reality going to bite?
Reader Comments (107)
Aug 22, 2011 at 10:08 AM | ZedsDeadBed
here is some science for you :
Null hypothesis (needs no proof) :
Current climate variations are natural and fall well within KNOWN variations. Climate change is natural.
Extreme hypothesis - needs to be proved by making empirically testable predictions (NB models are NOT empirical; a model is always wrong if real world measurements contradict it) :
Man is putting excess COS into the global system. This CO2 is causing the global temperatures to increase.
No proof has yet been offered. On the contrary; the models predicted substantial heating of the troposphere - some very explicit figures were predicted. There have been NO measurable indications that this prediction has been achieved. There *may* be a slight warming IF and only IF only one set of measurements (from a supposedly incorrectly calibrated satellite instrument using a new technology) is believed.
Result : CO2 cause agw (or climate change) has been falsified.
When and only when there is good EMPIRICAL based research showing a direct correlation between Man's CO2 output and the 'average' temperature of the globe (what ever that is - see Pielke snr etc for problems with even this basic concept) do we need to take any cognizance of the effect Man has via CO2 on the climate.
Then and only then will there be any justification on spending a single penny of tax payers' money on this scam - you of course are welcome to donate every last cent to whom so ever you wish; so please buy electricity ONLY from 'renewable sources' - ensuring you don't use any electricity generated by proper renewable sources (coal; gas; nuclear) go here http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ to see when the wind turbines are producing (and I suggest a bicycle driven generator to power your pc and internet connection when there is not enough power from the faux renewable rubbish).
It would help the cause of the AGW religion if a few of the high priests actually lived as though they believed their own propaganda.
ZedsDeadBed - If you truly want to understand what makes us lot tick, maybe the following will be helpful.
A few years ago, I said to myself "I really ought to get a proper understanding of the physics of this climate change stuff". I have an engineering background that equips me perfectly well for understanding complicated physics and mathematical modelling.
As soon as I learned that it is based on predictions from computer models that are inherently incapable of being validated, and with fiddle factors to adjust for parts of the model where the physics is incompletely understood, I smelt a big fat rat.
I have spent enough of my life building and using computer models of physical systems to know only too well that an un-validated model is worthless - actually, it is worse than worthless, if people use its results.
At that time, very sincere people started telling me "2500 climate scientists believe AGW is real" That clinched it for me. I wanted to understand the science for myself - not rely on the idea that some other people believed it was true. Jeff Glassman put it better than I can:
AGW fails the test because it is proclaimed by a consensus. Science places no value on such a vote. A unanimous opinion, much less a consensus, is insufficient. Science advances one scientist at a time and we honor their names. When the article gets around to saying "most scientists believe...," it's time to go back to the comics section. Science relies instead on models that make factual predictions that are or might be validated. (Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law- The Basis of Rational Argument)
Finally I read the Climategate emails. Even if I were not capable of understanding the physics and the statistical analysis for myself, to see the shenanigans of people such as Jones and Mann (leading "climate scientists"), suppressing views they did not agree with, would in any case have convinced me that the whole thing is hokum.
I imagine that many readers of the BH blog have backgrounds in physical science and will have formed opinions about the validity of AGW predictions in roughly the same way I have done.
"Climate scientists in Hawaii, Russia.."
Ah yes, Hawaii. Where the world's representative CO2 is measured, on the slopes of an active, er, volcano...
Zed, you are incredibly arrogant, expecting rational persons to respond to the nonsense question you asked 'an hour ago' when you never answer any question put to you. Rational discussion is similar to dancing the Tango - it takes two.
While you are there, how's your answer coming along to the few questions I have put to you over the recent months?
@ZedsDeadBed,
I have a serious question for you (or any other AGW proponent). "If" all these taxes and changes are needed to head off the horrible climate change, at what levels of GHG emission reduction would be enough to claim "mission complete"? 2000 emission levels? 1990 emission levels? Have you ever thought about the metrics that would determine the success of the project?
Just curious.
ZedsDeadBed - If you truly want to understand what makes us lot tick, maybe the following will be helpful.
A few years ago, I said to myself "I really ought to get a proper understanding of the physics of this climate change stuff". I have an engineering background that equips me perfectly well for understanding complicated physics and mathematical modelling.
As soon as I learned that it is based on predictions from computer models that are inherently incapable of being validated, and with fiddle factors to adjust for parts of the model where the physics is incompletely understood, I smelt a big fat rat.
I have spent enough of my life building and using computer models of physical systems to know only too well that an un-validated model is worthless - actually, it is worse than worthless, if people use its results..
At that time, very sincere people started telling me "2500 climate scientists believe AGW is real" That clinched it for me. I wanted to understand the science for myself - not rely on the idea that some other people believed it was true. Jeff Glassman put it better than I can:
AGW fails the test because it is proclaimed by a consensus. Science places no value on such a vote. A unanimous opinion, much less a consensus, is insufficient. Science advances one scientist at a time and we honor their names. When the article gets around to saying "most scientists believe...," it's time to go back to the comics section. Science relies instead on models that make factual predictions that are or might be validated. (Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law- The Basis of Rational Argument)
Finally I read the Climategate emails. Even if I were not capable of understanding the physics and the statistical analysis for myself, to see the shenanigans of people such as Jones and Mann (leading "climate scientists"), suppressing views they did not agree with, would in any case have convinced me that the whole thing is hokum.
I imagine that many readers of the BH blog have backgrounds in physical science and will have formed opinions about the validity of AGW predictions in roughly the same way I have done.
Philip
How about asking me something easy like explaining Relativity or the theology of the Trinity or why Zed is the way she is? I'm not as sharp as I once was.@Aug 22, 2011 at 3:45 PM | Martin A
Well put.
Martin A. Same for me.
To answer Ms Z's question; for myself, I would do nothing. I am not so arrogant as to think that mankind (person-kind, for you Z?) could alter the climate, one way or another. And I'm certainly not so stupid to believe that taxing a first world country back to a third world country will achieve anything.
But I'd like to enter into the spirit of your debate, juvenile as it is, so can I get an answer to the following question? A Yes or No will suffice: 'Have you stopped beating your wife/husband/partner/dog/cat* yet?'
*Delete as appropriate.
Martin A,
Readers here are a broader church than physical scientists. My branch of applied biology invented modern statistical theory and practice, and to see this work traduced by the likes of Mann and his cabal of shysters makes me incandescent with anger.
A claimed consensus of 'scientists' who are convinced of CAGW simply displays the widespread incompetence in this field - indeed one of the few valid findings of the UEA 'inquiries'.
Only in climate 'science' can an R-squared statistic which accounts for less than 0.01% of variation be claimed to validate a model. If the scientific community at large had a broader understanding in this field, these scammers would face the same fate as the likes of Bernie Madoff, or indeed their former funders at Enron.
Sewing mailbags.
Mike, "How about asking me something easy".
Yes, you're right, my apologies. I keep on hoping that someone will offer some easy answers -- just do X and Y, and it will all be OK -- but I guess the reality is that we just have to be patient and keep on chipping away.
"Fuel Poverty" is now extending to the middle class. Further "green" taxes (burdens) are not going to prove popular.
We need to lobby sitting MPs to break with this lunacy.
The other day I looked at the Met Office web site and what it had to say about climate change. In a 18 March 2011 posting on Climate Modelling, it added this qualification to its predictions "Using Met Office models we have even been able to start to assign probabilities to more dangerous high temperature changes...IF climate turns out to be very sensitive to increased greenhouse gases."
I conclude from this that the Met Office is not prepared to nail its colours to mast that climate IS very sensitive to greenhouse gases. I understand that the main GHGs include water vapour, CO2, methane and ozone. So the Met Office was not referring only to CO2 - let alone man-made CO2.
On 22 June 2011, under a posting headed Seamless Ensemble Prediction, it says:
"We cannot be certain about future climate change because
# some variations in climate are inherently unpredictable (internal variability)
# we evaluate climate model output using measurements which have errors (observational uncertainty)
# we only have plausible storylines of how antropogenic might evolve (emission uncertainty)
# we have limited computer resources and an imperfect knowledge of the Earth system, so climate models have to approximate some of the key processes that affect climate change (modelling uncertainty).
Therefore, there is no single best estimate, only a range, of future climate change."
This does not sound to me to be the firmest of foundations on which to base a swingeing tax policy that will cause a measurable reduction in the standard of living of the citizens of this country.
This got me thinking back to the research that Professor Salby reported on recently and the very good questions he raised about how little we seem to know about the ebb and flow of the carbon cycle into and out of the atmosphere. It was striking, to me at least as a non-scientist, that the man-made component of CO2 was estimated at c5 Gt pa versus natural sources of c150 Gt pa. Furthermore, the UK is estimated to account for about 1.7% of man-made CO2 emissions (ie c1.7% of 5 Gt).
Somehow I doubt that the MilibandE/Cameron/Clegg/Huhne Climate Change Act/Carbon Plan is either going to change the climate or make a material difference to carbon emissions. Not least because the Carbon Plan itself says it is necessary to duplicate renewable energy resources with fossil-fuelled resources and to keep them on standby ready to spring into action when the wind either fails or blows too hard. This is necessary, apparently, in order to protect the integrity of the national grid. We do know, however, that it is a nice little earner for those fortunate enough to own a few thousands acres of land on which to plant a wind farm.
I do not doubt that these points have been made many times to ministers and MPs, not least through the efforts of the GWPF, Christopher Booker and many others. The fact is that the political class has made a conscious decision to ignore them, just as the so-called enquiries have ignored the submissions made to them or even, as in the case of the Oxburgh panel, failed to invite submissions of evidence at all.
Clearly, it is not about science but about a belief system. And like many previous belief systems it is a nice little earner for the high priests and their acolytes who control it.
One day voters may wake up to what is being done to them in the name of this belief in CAGW, though one should not doubt the power of the propaganda machine seeking to keep it alive. I remain of the view that constant pressure on MPs is required to startle them from their comfortable torpor on this issue.
Does anyone know a warmist engineer? I haven't met one yet. I'm an engineer, used to dealing with closed-loop feedback systems, and I don't believe in stable yet positive feedback systems. If the "standard" theory is to be believed the climate should be hard up against the end stops (in either direction) and incapable of recovering. It doesn't happen like that in reality - all feedback HAS to be negative.
ZDB,
I'd be interested to hear what your science background is. Also, your educational background. What did you study at university? To what level have you studied scientific subjects.
Thanks in advance.
James Evans
@ James Evans: you might as well ask a Bible fundamentalist what he knows of geology. He knows what he likes, typically.
@ peter_dtm When and only when there is good EMPIRICAL based research showing a direct correlation between Man's CO2 output and the 'average' temperature of the globe (what ever that is - see Pielke snr etc for problems with even this basic concept) do we need to take any cognizance of the effect Man has via CO2 on the climate.
Actually, Peter, in my view not even then. What is required is evidence that the CAGW explains temperature better than anything else.
It's not enough to get lucky and predict the global mean temperature. First of all, the measurements can be fiddled to hide declines and suchlike. Secondly, what happens if an equally good predictor of this year's average temperature turns out to be last year's temperature? In that event the CAGW conjecture is simply a Heath Robinson contraption for taking a lot of money and effort to do something just as easily accomplished by referring to last year's data.
Philip
I am encouraged by the number of scientists who are prepared to show at least the top of their heads above the parapet.
On this page alone (and I am assuming that you are all what you claim to be!) DaveS, Frederick Bloggsworth, SayNoToFearmongers, and SimonJ have all effectively said that based on their own knowledge of science/technology and how things work, much of the claims being made for climate science are at best dubious and at worst simply wrong.
Correct me if I've misunderstood any of you.
The natural laws are what they are. They don't change because they're being applied to climate. If somebody tells me that his discipline invented modern statistical theory and the way climate scientists apply it is funadamentally wrong then I have to believe he is at least worth listening to.
The trouble is we need all the applied biologists to break cover and all those in other disciplines as well who see their specialties being (as SNTF puts it) "traduced".
But yes, Philip, it's going to be a slow process. Too much credibility and money at stake!
"An interesting parabola awaits. I was born into a world where central heating was an extraordinary luxury...have lived to see it become a "necessity" and by the time I die...it may well be a luxury again.
Aug 22, 2011 at 9:08 AM | Jack Savage"
That's what it looks like to me as well.
However, as consolation, I think our generation well remembers how one lived without central heating, so we know it can be done and how to do it.
I pity all those 'central-heating'-youngsters who haven't got a clue - and who of course never think their elders may actually have some useful information about life ...
@ Mike
You know one thing that has always interested me is that in all the lists we are regaled with of scientific societies that supposedly support the consensus (without polling their members, of course), there is one branch of science conspicuously absent. That branch is anthropology.
I wonder if it's because of this:
I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion....you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. ...Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them...But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.
I may be wrong, but Wikipedia is pretty much owned by full-time ecowarriors and I feel sure that if any anthropological body had swallowed their silly crap it would all over the relevant pages. But it's not. How interesting....
Zed, some time ago:
Typical. Formatting sod-up:
Zed, some time ago:
Carbon tax (not punitively high) funding energy research (Gen IV IFR and renewables, in tandem) and huge, immediate build out of Gen III/Gen III+ baseload plant to displace coal.
As per previous thread. It's a shame you pay so little attention to my comments on energy policy. You might learn something.
What I do not endorse is dishonest (or just plain ignorant) renewables boosterism. It is going to end in complete breakdown of security of supply wherever it becomes the dominant meme informing energy policy.
As James Hansen put it in a recent essay, believing that renewables are going to power the planet and avert serious climate change is on a par with believing in the Easter Bunny.
J4R
As a Christian I have to declare an interest, but basically your argument is correct. I made the point in a blog post some months ago that, while it would be daft to attribute global warming belief to a decline in traditional religion, Chesterton's famous remark that "when men cease to believe in God they don't believe in nothing; they believe in anything" has a certain appeal.
On the fairly well-established basis that a belief system of some sort is (apparently) hard-wired into the human psyche AGW becomes just one more cult on the Gaia-based religious spectrum.
There'll be another along in a minute/week/year ...
@Zdb "There's a reason I state that virtually all scientists agree AGW is the correct theory. We're all aware there are a tiny number of scientists who argue otherwise". So you're actually a scientist Zdb. Why didn't you say so before now?
Martin A. It was the "2400 scientists agree" meme that awakened my suspicions. I've heard forecasts of doom all my life, and up until that moment was ignoring the climate warming issue, but when they told me that 2400 scientists had agreed I knew it was a kipper.
The first, and probably the most important, thing that struck me is that climate is chaotic, and, as far as I was/am aware that makes its future behaviour impossible to forecast. Later I've come to realise, that as others have said, environmentalism is the replacement religion for atheists. And by golly are they religious, they brook no argument and as we've seen from Professor Steve Jones, want no contrarian views to see the light of day.
Please be polite to Zed, she's short on the old scientific knowledge, and even shorter on the engineering knowledge, which, if she had even a modicum of knowledge would tell her that her that:
a) Whatever reductions we make in our CO2 output will be dwarfed by the rise in output from the developing countries;
b) There isn't the remotest possibility of us replacing our current energy requirements with renewables (whatever they are) in the next 50 years, other than nuclear. Not even 50% of them.
To suggest that China is going to stop its rise to becoming a major player in the world to satsify the religious beliefs of rich westerners is beyond parody, it's akin to believing in Father Christmas-which is no bad thing in itself, but honestly is as likely as us finding energy other than fossil fuels or their derivatives in to supply energy in industrial quantities to satisfy our needs in the next fifty years. Unless, of course, the enviro mentalists reduce us to an agrarian economy with an average age or 35, it may be possible then.
I was dotting around this afternoon looking for a 16" wall mounted home/office fan, and I came upon this:
(name) are specialists in cooling, heating, moisture control and air purifying applications. Based at our offices and warehouse in (town) we source from leading and innovative suppliers worldwide ........
Our friendly and knowledgeable staff ..........
We are passionate about the environment and aim to maintain our carbon footprint as low as we can, we re-use supplier packaging and run our offices as paperless as possible.
(name) are proud to support the WWF in their quest to highlight the plight of polar bears and we regularly donate.
For more information about the excellent work undertaken by wildlife charities and information about how to adopt a polar bear please take a moment to visit www.wwf.org.uk and www.polarbearsinternational.org.
It is not just government which is insane, but there are businesses which share the same mental illness, presumably in the hope that it will attract paying customers. It failed with me.
There is a polar bear in their logo and they have a button which takes you to the usual polar bear claptrap.
Fortunately, I was able to resist their urgings on behalf of the thriving polar bear population because the fan they had on offer was £20 more expensive than the one I later selected elsewhere, but I would have gone elsewhere even if they had stocked it at the same lower price.
It is not only MPs who need to be taught a lesson.
Should I have sent them an e-mail (with some links) informing them that they are mis-guided?
Martin A (at 3:45 PM), I agree with your comments but fear that they fall on deaf ears where ZDB is concerned: the basic physics has been explained to her (?) many times on this blog alone but she (?) still shows no willingness to even discuss the evidence presented and seems incapable of grasping the basic mechanism employed by the Scientific Method.
I note that she (?) uses the term AGW, as opposed to CAGW, which is also telling. Maybe she (?) does realise the difference - it's been explained to her (?) many times - and can therefore defend her (?) statements in some small way. However, I doubt this is the case and assume she chooses to remain in a state of 'denial' for purely ideological/political reasons... or maybe she (?) just enjoys being a troll?
ZDB,
It might be useful for you to share your observations on the two points made by geronimo above.
I'm afraid Zed is too busy on the Unthreaded thread being offensive to Peter Walsh to bother with any of our trivia on here.
BBD
I wonder if Hanson could explain why he is prepared to swan around the world, with what sort of a carbon footprint I wouldn't know, in order to support vandals in their efforts to prevent coal-fired power stations if renewables aren't the answer.
What does he want? No power at all?
Deadzedhead, give it a rest man.
Economist Dieter Helm was interviewed last week by the BBC's David Shukman. Prof. Helm is not an AGW sceptic, considering climate change to be an "existential threat" (from an interview in the Times in 2009, his solutions would include CCS, nuclear and a smart grid). But this is what he had to say about offshore wind:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14478226
"Well, if you look at the costs of offshore wind, and indeed if you look practically at what is involved in building an offshore wind farm, it's inherently complicated, it's in a difficult environment, and it's unsurprising that it is really, almost staggeringly, expensive. I mean, if you want a kind of, sort of ballpark order-of-magnitude of cost, here, offshore wind is one of the very few things that makes nuclear power look cheap - and it certainly isn't cheap, nuclear power. And the only thing that makes offshore wind look a cheap way of reducing emissions is the kind of stuff being stuck on people's roofs - solar panels and so on. So what we're doing is choosing, effectively, the most expensive way of reducing emissions first. And we're doing it by an enormous commitment to this one technology. And the sorts of sums involved are of the order of a £100 billion, to be spent by 2020. That's just for the wind farms. Then you've got to put the transmission in place, all the systems, all the backup. That's probably another £30, £40 billion on top, at least. So we want £150 billion to build these wind farms in less than ten years. You can work that out as billions per annum. And then, ultimately, you have to ask yourself: and who's going to pay? And you might like people to pay. You might like customers to pay, you might like industry to pay. But they actually have to be able to do it. And given the extent of fuel poverty, and given the state of our economy, I doubt it can, in fact, be afforded."
Mike Jackson
Hansen is clear about what needs to be done:
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And meanwhile we waste billions (see Alex Cull's post above) on the futility of wind power.
Hanson's problem is that the assorted bits of his brain are unconnected. Read his ramblings from 1988 onwards, along with those of the rest of the neo-Malthusian, environmentalist swivel-eyed fanatics who (allegedly) have brains the size of Mount Olympus.
Life is too short and if they have their own way (when they finally decide what it is) it is going to get a lot shorter for a lot of people.
I only wish that when this coming winter really starts to bite across the northern hemisphere there could be some way of charging them with mass murder.
It's all very well for those who have a nice fat stipend or a nice fat pension or a nice beach-front condo in some warm state of the US. They can sit back comfortably and watch the plebs die of cold secure in the knowledge that it's all for the good of the planet. Their planet, since the rest of us won't be here to enjoy it.
Forget the esoterica of global warming. People are going to die this winter because they are not going to be able to afford to heat themselves and five years time those that are left will be at risk because of power outages.
Global warming may kill us all in 50 years, though personally I doubt it. Hanson et al's activities are going to kill a lot of people an awful lot sooner than that.
Alex Cull
Helm makes good points on wind costs. And costs will include maintenace, which is as hugely fudged as the other issues of construction in deep offshore waters and grid connections to deep offshore arrays.
This Guardian article points to the problems and (perhaps unintentionally) reveals how impractical the proposed solutions are:
Note the assumptions that:
- Engineers living on a platform can actually get from it to malfunctioning turbines in a large footprint array and back again
- They can do so transporting sometimes large components in both directions
- That anyone "[living] inside giant offshore wind turbines in the future, in a similar way to lighthouse keepers" will be able to provide a meaningful level of engineering support while isolated from shore-based resources by bad weather
This is all nonsense. When turbines fail during winter months, they will be inaccessible regardless of engineers battened down on a platform or huddled in the towers themselves. At best, minor internal repairs will be possible to some turbines. This is not good enough.
Nice example of green insanity from my local council who have unanimously decided to blow £5m on this:
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2098401_schools_will_get_solar_power
But at what cost? Sadly the way these deals are structured it does make some sense for councils to join in the subsidy grab. They'll save money and may even make some money but only by pushing the costs on to the people that can least afford it. A church near me did the solar thing and wasn't too happy about me pointing out churches are supposed to reduce poverty, not increase it. They may be rethinking the idea of spending £500k on a wood pellet boiler though given the way that fuel price is also rising.
Re BBD
The idea has some merit. Remove the generators and turn the nacelles into prison cells for the lobbyists that were responsible for these follies. Think of it as recycling and repeating the lessons from the last time we tried windmills.
Someone earlier in this thread speculated that HMG would be the beneficiaries of the subsidy.
In practice the bulk will go to wealthy landowners - typically farmers will be the prime sector. Look at what banks are willing to fund. Their focus is on agriculture. Farmers who are wealthy by virtue of owning larger acreages and who already have access to various HMG and EU honeypots.
Utility companies and HMG will get marginal benefits but it is not true that HMG will be a major winner. So we cannot even accuse HMG of greed. Except for the members of both houses who happen to own farms of course.....
Your Grace
You've really stirred it up big time
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/
@Jack Savage
My children groan when I tell them about the chilblains, the chapped knees, the frost inside the windows, the getting dressed under the bedclothes, the steamy (mouldy) bathoom and the single fire in the sitting room of my childhood, toasting one side and freezing the other. But I really wouldn't wish it on anyone today.
Mike
You asked about Hansen's views on energy policy and I have tried to answer your question.
As far as I know, Hansen is not a neo-Malthusian, although I readily agree that there are plenty of them out there, and many self-identify as 'environmentalists'.
I linked to a fair amount of information on the underpinning science of radiative forcing when we were talking on Unthreaded so I won't go over old ground/go off-topic.
You can read up on the physics and look at the full satellite records vs surface temperatures and consider what is most likely to be causing energy to accumulate in the climate system.
Hansen's assessment of renewables advocacy as akin to faith in the Easter Bunny suggests that his brain is connected up correctly.
According to the IPCC (check the latest emissions scenarios), the best course would appear to be to encourage all those under-developed countries to speed up their development so that they more closely mimic those of us in the developed world. The big plus about doing this is that not only is the greenest way, it is also the best position morally and it's a hell of a lot cheaper to boot. Can't really see any downsides to this - can you?
My MP sends round emails asking for suggestions when he gets to ask a PMQ. So I send him suggestions:
"Could the PM inform us what proportion of my constituents' energy bills will be for the extra costs of renewables by 2014?" Why 2014? Next election.
And I send him emails about CC, asking him to provide answers from Ministers. Ministers answer MPs, they fob off voters. The last one, which was a question to the Minister for Climate Change (Minister for Climate Change! You couldn't make it up, could you?), had this as a final paragraph:
"Mr, Hancock, the next IPCC report will damage the UK's economy, inflame the electorate and put the Government at risk of accusations of collusion -- already there are rumbles about the family interests of the PM's and the deputy PM's wives in the wind farm business. The recent articles in the Daily Telegraph and Mail about 'climate change' costs will have engaged your own interest, perhaps reminding you of my previous correspondence on this matter. Only impeccable science and assessment procedures are acceptable as a reason for raiding the pensions and wages of millions. I repeat my advice: it would be wise to distance yourself from a whole-hearted commitment to raising energy prices on the back of poorly-conceived and badly-implemented science, enriching a few and imposing energy poverty on the many. The many have more votes than the few. "
You have to keep presenting an MP with the thought that he might get the boot. It takes time and effort but you have to keep plugging away.
JF
Aug 22, 2011 at 10:13 PM | Argusfreak
Someone earlier in this thread speculated that HMG would be the beneficiaries of the subsidy.
No, the question was not about subsidies, it was about costs and to what organisations these costs become "revenue" and what do they spend it on.
In the case of my electricity bill nearly one fifth of my "direct cost" goes to government, but indirectly I am also covering the "cost to the supply company" of the tax on their profits which goes to government and so on and so on. "Costs" caused by taxes become "revenue" to the government.
My latest bill from Iberdrola shows a total cost to me of € 166.63.
Iberdrola informed me (in a side panel) that the cost to Iberdrola for generation and distribution of electricity over the period 1 June 2011 to 2 August 2011 was € 93.83.
So Iberdrola have a revenue of € 166.63 but only € 93.83 goes into their wallet.
The difference (166.63 - 93.83) = € 72.80 goes somewhere else.
They tell me that € 32.26 of that € 72.80 goes to taxes, made up of € 6.84 electricity tax plus € 25.42 VAT.
This is 19% of € 166.63 and it becomes "revenue" to the government.
The difference (72.8 - 32.26) = € 40.54 goes to "premiums and other items".
This is 24% of € 166.63. God only knows where that goes, but someone somewhere should be paying tax on it and that becomes "revenue" to the government.
What happens in Spain also happens in the UK (only worse probably) so there is no question that the bulk of "costs" faced by businesses and the ordinary peasant are in fact "revenue" to the Treasury and, I repeat, they just mindlessly hose it up the wall.
If electricity supply is too complex, let us look at another "cost" relating to petrol and then see how much of that "cost" becomes "revenue" to the government.
Untaxed pump price for petrol in December 2010 was about 46p/litre and on 01 January 2011 the duty rate for the main road fuels was 58.95p per litre. This coincided with the 2.5% increase in VAT rate, now at record high of 20%. Thus 46 + 59 = 105p/litre + VAT @ 20% = 126p/litre.
Thus for every litre purchased government has a "revenue" of (126 - 46) = 86p.
You know, I think you must be correct - government is not greedy at all. Sarc/off.
Do you work in DECC or the Treasury by any chance?
OK, let's all try to get this on the table . . .
I see that the author of the following proposal has already posted here but just in case you missed it: -
There is a proposal on the government's epetition website to repeal the CLIMATE CHANGE ACT (nothing to do with me, I'm just concerned about my children's welfare). The link is
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/2035
Economic prosperity is the only route to improving quality of life, so please sign the petition and pass the information on to anyone you can think of who wants to save what's left of our economy.
By the way, Eddy (10.36), I invite you to read UKIP's manifesto from the last general election. I think you might be pleasantly surprised by their range of policies particularly aon this issue
thanks
Terry
BBD
I'm still ploughing through this year's course in clouds and water vapour. I will be back when I have mastered it.
But meanwhile several of my Aged Neighbours are going to have considerable trouble this winter paying their fuel bills. They are not interested in clouds and water vapour, nor are they especially interested in Hansen's agonising about the fate of his grandchildren. One or two of them know the meaning of the word hubris, however.
It is nice to know that Hansen has finally connected the bits of his brain that tell him what instinctively the ANs and a lot of the rest of us have known for the best part of a decade, namely that wind power is an expensive and totally pointless white elephant and that by his (and his fellow environmentalists') opposition to nuclear power and to the replacement of coal-fired power stations he has effectively condemned the UK and quite possibly the US to a massive gap between supply and demand in the very near future.
To decide now that he got it wrong does not absolve either him or the idiots who chose to take his obsession on board from their responsibilities for what will ensue.
In the short term that is fuel poverty (and I blogged as long ago as last Christmas about the "eat or heat" problem then and it will be worse this winter thanks to the gullible fools that run the UK these days); in the medium term it is fuel shortage as everyone scrambles to provide power by whatever means Hansen and others decide is politically acceptable at the time.
Like the ANs and about 59 million other people, I don't care what means of energy generation is politically acceptable; all I (and they) care about is what works.
And frankly none of us, except the professional navel gazers, really care if the temperature is three degrees higher in 50 years. What is of more immediate concern to real people is what it is going to be this winter.
But then 'real people' don't actually count in the rarefied world of academia nor in the corridors of power, do they?
Signed.
I have a hobby when out in the countryside of looking at wind subsidy farms and counting how many aren't turning--never seen one with more than three turbines where all are working at the same time.
And there we see the advantages of putting turbines well out of sight offshore.
Mike
Hansen is a pro-nuclear climate scientist, not an 'environmentalist'.
As Hansen clearly understands the implications of business as usual emissions on future climate, he quite reasonably 'agonises about the fate of his grandchildren'. Which means you cannot reasonably criticise him in these terms:
I'm very glad to hear that you are reading some of the links I suggested. I know it's a lot of work, but there's no short-cut to this. Understanding is earned, as always.
Sorry, BBD; I think you and I will just have to agree to differ about Hansen, as we apparently already do about the "catastrophic" effects of global warming.
Bearing in mind that the maestro's predictions appear to have been fairly consistently off-beam I'm not sure why we should be expected to believe a great deal that he says. He is a doom-monger who has been allowed to get away with scary scenarios virtually unchallenged.
Not to mention interfering in matters which are none of his business with the results that I have already quoted above.