The true cost of Labour's net zero plans is slowly being revealed – and the sums are staggering - "Sir Keir Starmer has promised that a new Labour government would decarbonise the UK’s electricity system by 2030 and would, at the same time, reduce average energy bills by up to £300 or roughly 20 per cent of their current level. We know that senior politicians and lawyers see visions that not granted to mere mortals. But is there any connection between this vision and reality?... The vision implies building new plants at rates between two and six times what was achieved in the last 15 years. Where would the skills, other resources and finance come from? Recent experience tells us that crash programmes of this kind incur costs that are anything from 50 per cent to 100 per cent higher than “normal” costs. Since Britain is not alone is trying to build lots of new wind and solar plants in next five years, it is a certainty that the costs will be much higher than claimed. Even at current costs, such a program is likely to require investment of £200-£250 billion. Adjusting for probable cost inflation, actual costs are likely to be £300-£350 billion. The sum of £8 billion promised for GB Energy is a rounding error in such a programme. This is only the start. Huge investments are required in both transmission and distribution to deliver the large increase in electricity generation... Financing such investments will only be possible with strong government guarantees... In broad terms, electricity bills would have to double by 2030 to achieve Labour’s goal of decarbonising our electricity system with the costs incurred being passed on to electricity customers. The extra costs could be met in other ways but these are variants of robbing Peter to pay Paul – using taxes or deferring payments. In addition, it is very unlikely that manufacturing and other industries would be willing to pay a 100 per cent increase in their electricity bills. Either such businesses must be protected in some way or they will simply close down. The result will be larger increases in bills for households. No-one should believe that decarbonisation of the electricity system means literally that. Solar and wind power are highly intermittent sources of generation. Detailed modelling of the electricity system using many years of weather data suggests that some gas generation would be required for 50 per cent to 60 per cent of hours in the year even after the heavy investments outlined above and allowing for potential imports from other countries. The options for preventing power blackouts in the early 2030s are either storage – mostly batteries – or carbon capture and storage (CCS). The first option is extremely expensive. It is only economic for load shifting from the middle of the day to the evening, so that gas generation would still be required for 40 per cent to 50 per cent of hours in the year. CCS is an experimental technology which up to now has failed everywhere it has been deployed on a commercial scale. Still, visions being what they are, this is the get-out-of-jail card for Labour policy. Stepping back, there is an underlying trend that few appreciate. When we discuss energy prices most assume that the major component of what we pay is the market cost of energy – electricity or gas. That is wrong. In the period 2005-10 the wholesale price of electricity was an average of 38 per cent of the retail price paid by households. The figure for 2024 is 21 per cent, which reflects the typical value since 2019 excluding the 2021-22 when prices were subsidised. The share of the wholesale price of gas in the retail price paid by households is currently 36 per cent but has also been falling. Over nearly two decades governments have used levies on energy prices as a form of taxation, both to subsidise investments in renewable energy and to fund a variety of programmes. A Labour government is likely to go further down this road. It could reduce energy bills by removing levies on energy consumption. That is about as likely as any of us being struck by lightning, because it would have to raise taxes to fund the change. Instead, the prospect is for a very large increase in energy levies and bills to pay for the very high costs of pursuing the vision of rapid decarbonisation."
Trust the Experts!
Thread by @shellenberger on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Over the last two decades, scientists and the media published thousands of articles claiming that climate change would destroy small atoll islands due to sea level rise. And the climate change was our fault. "You're making this island disappear," claimed @CNN It was all a big lie. Scientists have known since 2018 that, "Over the past decades, atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization in the face of sea-level rise." And now, six years after scientists published that study, which found that 89% of the islands were stable or had increased in size, the New York Times has finally informed its readers of this "surprising climate find." In truth, it's only "surprising" to readers of New York Times, CNN, and the rest of the mainstream news media because they brainwashed their readers into believing that the islands were disappearing, causing an epidemic of adolescent climate anxiety culminating in the toxic disinformation of @GretaThunberg The Times writes today that "atoll nations like the Maldives... seemed doomed to vanish... Of late, though, scientists have begun telling a surprising new story." Of late? The year 2018 is "of late"? No, it's not. There was never evidence that the islands were disappearing; it was only a theory. The scientists simply assumed that sea level rise was the only factor in the size of islands and denied the obvious reality that islands can grow.
They said that climate change was "killing" the Great Barrier Reef.
In truth, there is more coral on the Great Barrier Reef than at any point since they started studying it. They said climate change was making wildfires more intense. In truth, better forest management to reduce wood fuel accumulation makes them less intense, even with hotter temperatures, as everyone always knew:
You can't trust the news media to report the truth on climate change. You have to dig into the facts. I did so in my bestselling book, Apocalypse Never, which was translated into 16 languages and sold in 18 nations. I was censored for telling the truth, which is finally coming out. .@CNN must now retract its garbage article by @jdsutter and apologize for its central role in giving millions of children climate anxiety. .@algore should apologize for lying to billions of people about the Maldives and giving climate anxiety to millions of children. One of the "most-shocking parts of the movie, a sequence of imagery depicting flooding scenarios driven by projected sea-level rise, is becoming very real—especially in some of the low-lying islands in the Pacific and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean."
President @JoeBiden is a Climate Disinformation Superspreader, and according to the policies pursued by his administration, he should be aggressively censored by social media platforms. The New York Times is a climate disinformation superspreader and, according to its own editorial line, social media platforms should censor it aggressively. .@AP & @washingtonpost : Climate Disinformation Superspreaders Both advocate social media censorship and thus they should be censored for their relentless disinformation efforts. .@Reuters, small island governments, and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea are Climate Disinformation Superspreaders and grifters. They should all be censored, according to the the rules proposed by Biden, @nytimes @washingtonpost and the rest of the regime. .@guardian @TheEconomist Climate Disinformation Superspreaders. @guardian @TheEconomist .@AFPFactCheck Climate Disinformation Superspreader. .@WorldBank Climate Disinformation Superspreader. @WorldBank .@60MinutesAUS Climate Disinformation Superspreader @YouTube should, according to its own policies, attach a warning label to this disinformation. @WorldBank @60MinutesAUS @YouTube The government-funded pro-censorship hacks at @CEDMOhub are Climate Disinformation Superspreaders and should be censored, according to their own position on censoring disinformation"
Climate change hystericists get very upset whenever I point to this as yet another in their long line of failed predictions. Cognitive dissonance is a classic feature of cults
Thread by @shellenberger on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Many say climate change caused the deadly fires in Hawaii but it didn’t. What caused the fires was Hawaiian Electric’s failure to clear flammable grasses from around electric wires because its focus, and ratepayer money, was going to renewables. “Between 2019 and 2022, it invested less than $245,000 on wildfire-specific projects on the island” “While there was concern for wildfire risk, politically the focus was on electricity generation.” “Looking back with hindsight, the business opportunities were on the generation side, and the utility was going out for bid with all these big renewable-energy projects,” he said. “But in retrospect, it seems clear, we weren’t as focused on these fire risks as we should have been.” Same thing happened in California. Gov. @GavinNewsom pushed the utilities to spend billions on renewables and cut the budget for forest fire prevention. The result was more forest fires. When they were caught, they blamed climate change. I have been debunking climate and fire disinformation for three years. The media know better and continue to lie about it."
Climate change hysteria has very real costs. The fact that "combating climate change" leads to more problems that are then blamed on climate change is brilliant
Extinction Rebellion co-founder avoids jail term for drone action near Heathrow - "Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil’s co-founder Roger Hallam has avoided imprisonment after attempting to bring disruption to Heathrow airport by getting involved in an action to fly toy drones in the vicinity. Climate activists said the aim of the plan was to raise awareness about the impact of the airport’s proposed third runway on the climate. Hallam, along with Dr Larch Maxey, had previously been found guilty of conspiracy to cause public nuisance in relation to the Heathrow drones action. A third man, Mike Lynch-White, pleaded guilty. At a sentencing hearing at Isleworth crown court in west London on Friday, Hallam and Maxey were both given two-year sentences suspended for 18 months. Lynch-White was given a 17-month sentence suspended for 18 months. All are required to carry out hundreds of hours of community service... In a statement issued before the sentencing hearing, Hallam said: “Humankind is heading for indescribable suffering if we continue to put carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Thousands of people need to create mass economic disruption and go to prison in order to force governments to protect their people and enact legislation that will rapidly reduce carbon emissions.”"
Continued defiance and urging people to continue to destroy society still gets you a suspended sentence. Of course, if you don't push the left wing agenda, off to jail you go. They can give the Bristol statue defence to justify anything that the left loves
Michael Taube: Throw the book at radical environmentalists throwing paint - "if “rain had come into contact with the powder, damage could have been significant.” Unbelievable. Then again, this is part of a pattern we’ve seen the past couple of years... The punishment they’ve received? The equivalent to a slap on the wrist. Here’s an example. Two members of Just Stop Oil were found guilty of causing about £2,000 (about $3,460 CAD) of damage when they glued themselves to the frame of Van Gogh’s Peach Trees in Blossom at the Courtauld Gallery in London, England on June 30, 2022. The 18th-century frame “is not in a state where it can return to its original state,” Judge Neeta Minhas said while delivering her verdict on Nov. 22, 2022. “The painting has significant, historical and art value and I consider the damage to be substantial. It is not minor, insignificant, temporary or trivial.” What did the radical left-wing activists get as punishment? One received a 21-day sentence, suspended for six months, and was made “subject to an electronically monitored six-week curfew,” while the other was jailed for three weeks. How do these sentences work as deterrents in preventing future art vandalism? They don’t, and that’s why these nutbar organizations will keep on doing it. In fact, some left-wing radicals are getting more aggressive in their attacks. Most of the previously targeted paintings were under protective glass and weren’t damaged when cans of soup and mashed potatoes were thrown at them. That changed earlier this year. Two elderly female protesters “used a hammer and chisel to try and break the glass case” housing the Magna Carta at the British Library, as described in a May 13 piece in The Art Newspaper. Video showed they got through part of the protective glass, but the “library’s security team intervened to prevent further damage to the case” which was apparently “minimal.” The two women were both part of (surprise, surprise) Just Stop Oil. One of them was a reverend... This is more than public mischief. It’s the attempted desecration of great works of art, and thumbing your nose at authority, tradition and public institutions. If radical left-wing environmentalists don’t respect what defines a decent, law-abiding society in a democratic society, our legal system isn’t required to respect these rule breakers and malcontents. Don’t treat them above the law, and punish them accordingly."
Imagine the hand-wringing if activists not pushing the left wing agenda tried even a fraction of this
Umicore suspends construction of battery plant in Ontario - "The global materials company says it made the decision because of scaled-back expectations for growth in the electric vehicle market. Last October, the federal government committed to put $551.3 million toward the project and the Ontario government said it would spend up to $424.6 million in capital costs."
How ignorant! They don't know electric cars are the future!
EV owners have to drive farther to break even, study suggests - "British Columbians pondering a switch to an electric vehicle would need to drive almost double the daily distance of an average motorist to break even, according to a study by University of B.C. researchers. The study, published in the most recent edition of the journal Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability, set out to determine how long it would take a driver to recoup the higher up-front cost of buying a new electric vehicle (EV). Its authors concluded that to break even over seven years — roughly the average time they said people own a new vehicle — EV drivers in B.C. would have to drive 64 kilometres daily, nearly double the average 34 kilometres a day a motorist drives, according to Statistics Canada... Co-author Amanda Giang, an assistant professor at UBC's mechanical engineering faculty, told CBC News that the study raises questions about Ottawa's plan to stop manufacturing internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles after 2035 and how average Canadians can afford EVs, which are generally more expensive. The study noted the distance of daily drive required to recoup EV costs varies significantly between provinces, taking into account rebates on EV purchases and the price of gas and electricity. EV owners in Ontario, for example — with no rebates, cheaper gas and pricier electricity — would have to drive 88 kilometres a day to break even. For EV drivers in Alberta, which offers no rebates and has the cheapest gas, researchers found the daily drive would need to be even farther."
Notably, in all geographical regions, the breakeven point was above the average km driven
Who covers the gas tax when the electric revolution hits? - "Alberta this past spring slipped EV owners a bill for $200 — due every year on top of the standard registration fees — to account for the wear and tear on roads their cars cause. In doing so, it joined Saskatchewan and a number of jurisdictions in the United States that have imposed additional fees on EV drivers to compensate for the fact that they’re not paying taxes on gasoline. Alberta also said it’s because EVs are heavier on average, so they cause more wear and tear on roads. The $200 annual fee is meant to offset the estimated fuel tax that EV drivers would have paid if they were filling up at the pump... So far, the government has raised money by charging taxes at filling stations. But simply putting a tax on electricity may not work because not all electricity is used to recharge vehicle batteries, and not all EV drivers use public charging stations. Although raising taxes on electricity to replace declining gas taxes may be possible, it might not be politically feasible."
Deborah Yedlin: 'Greenwashing' ban has already put a chill on climate disclosure targets - "Within hours of Bill C-59 being passed, which introduced an amendment to the Competition Act, businesses and industry associations took down climate related disclosures from their websites. Some gave reasons, stating the risks associated with non-compliance with the legislation was too high while others simply removed language associated with climate disclosure or significantly reduced their online presence. Not only should this be seen as preventing Canadian companies from communicating with their stakeholders and the broader public, it will also run counter to the axiom in securities regulations requiring full, true and plain disclosure. In other words, it could contravene securities regulations in Canada and the United States. Briefly, the federal Liberal amendment is aimed at addressing so-called ‘greenwashing’ claims against companies, requiring them to defend their environmental stewardship statements, practices and goals beyond what currently exists. It would all be done according to an international methodology that has yet to be defined, and on forward-looking ambitions that have yet to come to fruition. This will derail investment directed at reducing emissions – across all sectors – and cause Canada to miss, not meet, its climate targets. There is absolutely no scenario in which a company will make investment decisions without knowing the standards against which they will be measured... The irony is that companies that are spending a lot of money on emissions reducing initiatives will now be muzzled from telling investors, employees and other stakeholders about their efforts and successes... this would affect the entire economy and add a bureaucratic burden to both government and the private sector. Nor would it help our sagging per capita productivity. Governments need to set the table for stable policy that facilitates investment, not discourages it. Companies don’t invest under a ‘just in case’ scenario; they invest to grow their businesses and allocate capital where the risks can be managed. What seems to have been lost is the fact markets are already requiring companies to report and reconcile targets – not to mention comply with existing legislation in other jurisdictions if they have operations outside Canada or are listed on another stock exchange... investors are demanding more disclosure, not less, on emissions reductions targets and the plans to get there and companies across all sectors are responding accordingly. In fact, 85 per cent of publicly-listed companies in Canada have sustainability reports. It should be noted that the information is also required in the context of complying with existing regulations, as well companies accessing government incentives such as tax credits. The legislation could result in the Competition Tribunal or the courts being asked to investigate ‘greenwashing’ claims on behalf of third parties within a year of the legislation being passed. This would be tantamount to allowing entities that are not associated with a company – nor have anything at risk, to delay and obfuscate progress related to emissions reductions investments. If anything, this will be counterproductive to our long-term goals as a country and harm our global reputation because our climate goals would inevitably be missed... Canada was already fighting against the U.S. and the Inflation Reduction Act to keep investment dollars in the country and Bill C-59 will accelerate the flight of capital. It didn’t need to be this way."
Virtue signalling strikes again
World Economic Forum on X - "Venus was once Earth-like, but climate change made it uninhabitable https://t.co/feWrYtJgmI #Space #ClimateChange"
We need to learn from the mistakes of the Venusians and increase taxes and let the government take over the economy, to prevent catastrophic climate change
The Science Museum will pay a high price for surrendering to the mob - "Don’t support museums, the arts or educational institutions. That surely must be the lesson that large corporations are drawing from the instance of a museum ending a sponsorship deal with big oil. The Science Museum in South Kensington, which until now has a record of robustly standing up to activist groups demanding an end to fossil fuel support for its programmes, will no longer accept funding from Equinor, a Norwegian state-owned oil company. Equinor is now beyond the pale, because the museum has deemed that the oil producer failed to limit its carbon emissions to align with the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement’s target of limiting global warming to 1.5C – perhaps not the easiest of goals to meet for a firm whose raison d’etre is to pump out petroleum. Equinor’s real sin is to own 80 per cent of Rosebank, the North Sea’s largest undeveloped oil and gas field... The Science Museum is late to the game of cutting its ties with extractive industries. BP, for many years one of the most generous sponsors of the arts in the UK, has since 2017 had its largesse rejected by the Tate, National Portrait Gallery, Scottish Ballet, Royal Opera House and the Royal Shakespeare Company. They were all past recipients. Only the British Museum has stood out by renewing a 10 year, £50 million sponsorship deal with the oil major last year. Why have these institutions turned down free money? They have been targetted by Just Stop Oil and their likes, and the museums and performing arts organisations have all too readily caved in... But what does this severing of ties with the oil industry achieve for the climate activists’ cause, other than publicity? Those who want to dictate who can legitimately give to the arts seem to believe that donating does great, indeed magical, things for the companies involved. But does anyone really change their mind about climate change because they see the BP logo outside an exhibition? If an oil company with as robust standards as Equinor is beyond the pale – Norway is not known for its cavalier attitude to the environment – then isn’t the lesson that may be drawn by fossil fuel investors the exact opposite of what environmentalists should want? Namely, since we will be regarded as pariahs anyway, to hell with trying to ameliorate the environmental costs of extraction. Museums, galleries and the performing arts should be under no illusion that such campaigns will stop when the last sponsorship deal with an oil and gas company has been ripped up. Already this year the investment managers Baillie Gifford has had its sponsorship, dating back decades, of literary festivals, including Hay and Cheltenham, severed. Its crime is having interests, as part of a wide portfolio, in fossil fuels and investments in Israel. Perhaps the most successful campaign against an arts donor has been that waged against the Sackler family. Their UK charitable trust has given over £60 million to British charities since 2010 and donated £14 million to British institutions in 2020. But then it all went wrong. The Sackler’s wealth is derived from Purdue Pharma, whose marketing of OxyContin is blamed by some for exacerbating the United States’s opioid crisis... Removing the taint of the Sackler name may make those who run these institutions feel better, but it will do precisely nothing to alleviate opiate addiction. The severing of ties only works as a powerful disincentive to potential donors, in case they should fall foul of future opprobrium. Indeed, the lesson that will surely be drawn is that acts of generosity make wealthy individuals and corporations more vulnerable to targetted campaigns. If our institutions continue to give in to activist demands they will find it harder and harder to raise money. Inevitably, this will make them more reliant on government funding. But in these straightened times, as the English National Opera most notably discovered last year, they should not expect such support to be generous or to come without tighter strings than any corporation or philanthropist would dare to impose. The Science Museum has previously been vocal in defended its sponsorship arrangements and explaining why they are essential. That it too has succumbed to activist demands is a worrying sign for all who care about Britain’s arts and museums."
The left wing obsession with purity over results strikes again. But they love to demand more government funding anyway, so this kills multiple birds with one stone
GOLDSTEIN: Carbon pricing to cost workers $6,700 annually: report - "The Trudeau government’s climate change plan will cost Canadian workers $6,700 annually by 2030, cut national employment by 164,000 jobs and fail to achieve promised emission reduction targets, according to a new study by University of Guelph economist Ross McKitrick. “The government’s plan will significantly hurt Canada’s economy and cost workers money and jobs,” said McKitrick in his report, “The Economic Impact and GHG Effects of the Federal Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan Through 2030”... “This poorly-designed plan, which will worsen the current downward trends in productivity and income, will reduce emissions but at a cost many times higher than the government’s estimated benefits,” McKitrick said, predicting it will reduce Canada’s Gross Domestic Product by 6.2% by 2030. While most economists argue federal carbon pricing (a.k.a. the carbon tax) is the most efficient way of reducing industrial greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change, McKitrick notes the tax is actually just one of 140 programs the Trudeau government has launched related to climate change. (Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said last year the government has committed more than $200 billion of taxpayers’ money to over 100 government programs aimed at addressing climate change.) “The large number of different policies testifies more to an overall lack of focus than to a commitment to optimal policy making,” McKitrick’s report says. “Carbon pricing is part of the federal policy mix, but the profusion of accompanying regulations, subsidies, and mandates undermines any economic efficiency attained by the emission charge and ensures the package as a whole will be relatively inefficient for what it accomplishes.”... The federal government has acknowledged that its own calculations predict Canada’s GDP will be lower by almost 1%, or $25 billion, in 2030 because of federal carbon pricing. Giroux predicted in a 2022 report that the negative impact in 2030 would be 1.3%. The feds argue that Giroux’s calculation doesn’t include the economic cost of doing nothing to combat climate change because of economic damage caused by the more severe weather that results. But both McKitrick and Giroux argued that Canada’s emissions, at 1.5% of the global total, are too small to materially impact climate change and that, for carbon pricing to work, global emissions have to decrease. The Statistical Review of World Energy reported last month that global industrial greenhouse gas emissions rose by 2% in 2023 compared to 2022, exceeding 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent for the first time."
Were climate-protest jail sentences fair? Metro readers have their say - "Prosecutors pointed out that their plans had crippled the motorway, endangered lives, blocked ambulances and caused serious disruption. This demonstration alone cost the Metropolitan Police £1.1million. Now we need similar severe jail sentences
for members of the numerous other eco-groups who are not eco-warriors but eco-terrorists."
"Commenting on the sentencing of the Just Stop Oil criminals, Packham demanded a recorded meeting with Keir Starmer’s new attorney general ‘to address this grotesque miscarriage of justice’. That is a direct attack on our justice system and giving support to convicted criminals. He has absolutely no right to be paid by licence-fee money and the BBC CEO should stand by her assertion the BBC is impartial and send Packham packing"
When taxes need to rise to cover the costs of left wing disruption, this will be proof that capitalism has failed and that we need to eat the rich and that societies need to just fold to all left wing demands because the activists were forced to disrupt society
Celebrities add voices to outcry over severity of Just Stop Oil sentences - "Chris Packham has called for a meeting with the attorney general for England and Wales as he joined a chorus of prominent voices condemning long jail terms for Just Stop Oil protesters. Speaking after five activists were sentenced to up to five years for planning protests on the M25, the broadcaster and naturalist said: “Be clear, be very, very clear, this is not just about climate activism. “The laws that have been drafted, the injustices that are being wrought, threaten all rights of free speech. We stand here today because our future security may be compromised by the reckless and irresponsible erosion of our human rights, of our fundamental freedoms.” Packham called for a recorded meeting with the new attorney general, Richard Hermer KC, “as rapidly as possible” to “address this grotesque miscarriage of justice”... Vince issued a statement saying: “I think climate denial should be illegal, but instead it’s illegal to talk about the climate crisis in court.""
If you are supporting the left wing agenda, you can disrupt society as much as you want and anyone who opposes you is a bad person. But good luck if you're supporting anything even vaguely on the right
It's telling that "climate denial" i.e. disagreeing with climate change hysteria should be illegal, but not being allowed to cause social chaos (apparently blocking the motorway means you are talking in court) is a risk to free speech