Independent Gal on X - "The inconvenient truth -- None of Al Gore's predictions ever actually happened!"
David Turver on X - "They're formulating ever more desperate measures to pay for Miliband's Clean Power 2030 plan. Now they want to turn energy bills into a kind of income tax."
Increased bills for higher earners could fund UK energy upgrade, Ofgem says
Meme - Possum Reviews: "It's a slow trickle."
"Sometime within the next ten years, there will be a push to ban ownership of cats or dogs, possibly both. The pretense will likely be "safety" or "public health". You will be told you don't need one and will be mocked and called selfish and evil for refusing to give up your pets."
Mother Jones @Motherones: "Dogs have "extensive and multifarious" environmental impacts, disturbing wildlife, polluting waterways and contributing to carbon emissions, new research has found."
Nigel Farage is right: net zero is the new Brexit - "Personally, I tend to feel that, if you really want to know whether the public supports net zero, the question to ask is not, “Do you support net zero?” Instead, the question to ask is: “To help achieve net zero, what sacrifices would you personally be willing to make? Would you be willing to give up flying? How much more would you be willing to pay in green taxes? Exactly how much poorer are you willing to be? And, given that Britain is responsible for less than one per cent of the planet’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, how much difference do you think it would make to global temperatures even if this country somehow achieved net zero tomorrow? Oh, and before you answer: did you see the FT headline from February, which read: ‘China’s Construction of Coal-Fired Power Plants Reaches Highest in a Decade’?” Even asking those questions, however, wouldn’t necessarily lead us to the truth. Because public opinion isn’t always what it seems. For years before the EU referendum, polls consistently gave the impression that the British public had very little interest in the EU, one way or the other. A week before the 2015 general election, for example, Ipsos asked the public what it considered to be the most important issues facing Britain. The EU didn’t even make the top 10. Yet, just a little over one year later, 17.4million people voted to leave the EU. This suggests one of two things. Either a very large number of voters had always held rather stronger views about the EU than they were willing to admit to pollsters. Or, once they were finally forced to consider the issue in real depth, they swiftly formed views that were an awful lot stronger than the ones they’d held before. Either way, it turned out that the polls weren’t telling the whole story."
Thread by @Andercot on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "100,000 flights per day at altitudes from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, mandating a tiny amount of sulfur in the aviation fuel could probably halt and reverse global warming. 🤷♂️
The point of this post is to make you think - there's a 100,000 flights every day at high altitude. They will be burning and spitting stuff into the atmosphere. Is there some compound or substance that can be included that would dramatically counter-act CO2 greenhouse effect? The answer is: almost certainly, yes. What are its second order effects? Is Sulfur Dioxide the best choice? These are important questions to determine. All we know right now is - SO2 had a dramatic effect on warming when it was emitted by ships. Any which way you slice it, the fastest way to deploy a solution to an industrial scale problem is to use industrial scale distribution. Planting a tree and recycling a pop can will make you feel better. If you want to actually change the world, change industry. This was all a pretty off-hand tweet but it turns out Scott Kirby, CEO of United Airlines, suggested SO2 injection into aviation fuel as a climate change tool last month in an internal all-hands meeting. 🤷♂️"
Too bad that will threaten the left wing agenda, so it's a no go
Stephanie Peacock MP on X - "🚨 The Steel Industry Bill has just passed 🚨 Proud to be in Parliament today to help to secure British Steel 🇬🇧 This Labour Government will protect British industry and jobs."
Andrew Neil on X - "I am in awe of your self-sacrifice. To screw up the steel industry (plus just about every other heavy industry we once had) with your inane and expensive pursuit of net zero (in cahoots with every other mainstream party) then give up a whole Saturday afternoon to try to fix steel (which you haven’t) really is beyond the call of duty. Don’t forget to do your travel/accommodation/taxi expenses for selflessly coming to London to do your jobs."
Climate crisis making world’s forests shorter and younger, study finds (2020)
Study Finds Trees Growing Taller Due to Climate Change (2021)
This just shows how powerful climate change is
Solar panels on all new homes as part of Labour’s net-zero push - "Ministers were poised to announce that almost every new home in England would be fitted with solar panels as standard within two years, as Sir Keir Starmer rejected Sir Tony Blair’s criticism of Labour’s net-zero policies. Housebuilders would be mandated by law to install solar roof panels on new properties by 2027 under new rules, seen by The Times, which ministers have claimed would slash energy bills and reduce emissions. The change was estimated to add about £3,300 to the cost of building a semi-detached or terraced house and just under £4,000 for a detached property... The move comes despite pressure from developers to make solar panels optional over claims that the technology was not suitable for all new properties... Ministers — who set a target of building 1.5 million new homes by the end of the parliament — said the change was vital if they were to meet their target of decarbonising the electricity grid by 2030 and reducing average energy bills by up to £300... Blair’s comments received backing from one of the country’s most left-wing unions who warned workers would not support Labour’s plans without investment."
Time to blame "greedy developers" when home prices rise
Apparently "The union... does not normally support Sir Tony"
‘I was sold. Until I started driving’: Diary of an electric car novice - "The first warning light popped up the moment I hit 21mph in a 20 zone. The car politely scolded me. Moments later, it flashed another alert for “driver inattention” – which felt a bit rich, considering I was merely trying to switch on Google Maps via the touchscreen. It was like being told off by a very expensive nanny. Navigating rush hour in west London on a Friday is never fun, but having your car second-guess your every move doesn’t help. The Lexus seemed to think I was dangerous behind the wheel. The feeling, at that point, was mutual... I pulled into my parents’ house in Warwickshire for a tea break – and hit my next hurdle: charging. My parents, proud owners of an ageing Range Rover and a Mini Cooper, have never needed an EV charger at their home. So, I downloaded the notorious ZapMap app indicating all the chargers in the locality and headed off in search of some charge. The nearest charger? A McDonald’s, naturally. With an indicated 15 miles of charge remaining in the battery, I rolled in and tackled my first EV charging point... I also had ample time to contemplate the state of EV infrastructure in the UK and lament the fact that my 2012 Seat Ibiza can do more than 400 miles on a full tank, while the Lexus topped just over 200 from a full charge. That range wouldn’t be a deal-breaker if you lived in a city and rarely drove beyond the ring road. But for someone like me, who regularly drives to the Midlands and Cheshire, it’s a non-starter. Worse still, the range drops in cold weather, regardless of how frugally you drive, which is apparently common for all EVs. By the time I’d driven to and around North Wales and back to London, I’d charged the car five times. That’s five separate £45 deposits and five extended breaks that made a mockery of the word “rapid” (although registering with one of the many charge providers, supplying your card details, makes the process easier and cheaper). On my return journey to London, I’d stopped for a Mother’s Day meal, where I spent half the time calculating whether I’d make it to a charger in time... until infrastructure improves and battery range catches up, EVs remain an awkward fit for a lot of UK drivers. It’s like buying an AI-powered smartphone with a two-hour battery life and a charger that only works in certain cafés."
I drove an electric car over 3,000 miles in three months - "A 30 per cent charge took 45 minutes, welcome to real life… In fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen anywhere near the full capacity of any charger flowing into the Ford. That is understandable when the state of charge is above 80 per cent, less so below that figure. Since the speed of charge is dependent on so many variables, the charging industry is able to kick the question down the road. You roam the undiscovered parts of the country when you travel electric. Small housing estates, tiny back roads and obscure forecourts are all part of the daily search for volts. I’m reminded of various government ministers and charge-company executives trilling about how convenient it all is, without giving a thought to those without private driveways on which to enjoy cheap VAT-free recharging and who might find forking out £40,000-plus for an EV rather more than their wallet will bear. Still, it’s always good to hear how the other half are getting on... A year ago, I was quoting Ionity’s 78p per kW as expensive, but now even a 50kW charge is 85p/kW and I’ve paid up to 91p. Compare that with the 22.36 p/kWh average price of domestic electricity in the UK and weep. A typical fill for the Ford has always cost in excess of £50 and far from the quoted efficiency of 3.79 miles per kWh. I’ve been getting about 2.8m/kWh on a long run using a bit of air-con, which gives a real-world range of 274 miles. Yet in reality it’s nothing of the sort, because you always start looking for a charge when the battery level drops to about 20 per cent, so reckon on just over 200 miles. I’ve tried pushing the range, of course, and ended up in Honiton to be greeted by an out-of-service BP Pulse charger. This prompted backtracking to Exeter Services, limping to the bank of Gridserve chargers with less than five per cent in the battery... In the past three months I’ve learnt to navigate the country using Lidl supermarkets, most of which have a little-used 50kW charger tucked in the corner of the car park. Perhaps this isn’t quite the brave new world extolled by government... I’ve not seen any efforts by local authorities to provide public charging and when I’ve asked about running a cable across a pavement to the Ford, I’ve received a distinctly chilly reply from my local council planning office. It’s also hard not to boggle at the ethical and dialectical gymnastics involved in simultaneously urging the splurging of council tax on providing EV charge posts for the 1.1 million electric cars on our roads, while also ending the universal winter fuel allowance to old folk. The minister also echoed ChargeUK calls to go “further and faster” in the rollout of charging points and recognised the need to provide “a reliable, accessible and affordable EV charging network”. So far, they’re not doing particularly well, even by their own measure. One recent study from charging specialist Konect and fuelling specialist Gilbarco Veeder-Root showed that the US, Europe and the UK are more than six times behind the number of plugs needed to meet growing EV demand by 2030. As for the reliability, in three months and more than 3,000 miles of electric driving, charging on the go, I’ve found more than 20 out-of-service chargers, I’ve had my vehicle locked inside fields while charging and also been locked irretrievably to a charger twice when the plug refused to let go, which requires an engineer to release you and hours out of your life – EV motoring means constantly apologising for being late. And as well as being expensive, it’s also hard to claim costs back as no charging post provides a receipt so getting one is long-winded and confusing. And while the touch-and-charge card system is slowly being introduced, you still need to create accounts with several suppliers to access lower unit prices and get reasonable coverage... The late Tony Benn had five questions to address to democratic power: What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you? I’d suggest a similar set of questions to anyone shilling for EV cars, or the EV charging industry. They are: do you own your electric car and did you spend your own PAYE income on it without grant or tax incentives? Will you personally pay for any fall in resale values? Do you own or have access to a combustion-engined vehicle? Do you have access to off-street parking and a home wallbox? Do you or anyone close to you have a vested interest in talking up the EV industry?"
TYDI on X - "The most powerful governments in the world can’t solve homelessness, but they can change the Earth’s temperature if you pay more taxes."
Tony Blair calls for radical reset of climate change policies in major intervention - "The major intervention by the former prime minister torpedoes current net zero policies and calls for the COP process to be torn down and replaced. It is a shot across the bows of the current Labour government and energy secretary Ed Miliband’s plans to push headlong towards renewables. Writing the foreword for his own think tank’s new paper, The Climate Paradox: Why We Need to Reset Action on Climate Change, Sir Tony warned that there is a widening credibility gap with voters who are “being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal.”... Highlighting a cycle that pushes proposals but delivers little real progress on global emissions, he wrote that “political leaders by and large know that the debate has become irrational” but are “terrified of saying so, for fear of being accused of being ‘climate deniers.’”... Sir Tony pointed to global trends that undermine today’s climate approach: fossil fuel use is set to rise further up to 2030, airline travel is to double over the next 20 years, and by 2030, almost two-thirds of emissions will come from China, India, and Southeast Asia. These are “inconvenient facts” he says, that mean that “any strategy based on either ‘phasing out’ fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail.”"c
Damn climate change denier!
Alberta is right to challenge Ottawa's clean-electricity overstep - "If more provinces stood up for themselves when the feds started encroaching, we’d be a lot better off as a country. That in mind, it was good to see Alberta announce on Thursday that it would be challenging the federal Clean Electricity Regulations, which became law in December. The new rules aim to net-zeroify the entire Canadian grid by 2050, banning carbon emissions by new units with at least 25 MW of electrical generation capacity over a preset “technology-neutral annual emissions limit” by 2035; the ban will also cover existing units by 2050 at the latest. It’s expected to cost the country $40 billion from now until 2050 — and it’s justified because magic math in Ottawa pegs the benefits to society in that time will be worth $55 billion. Aside from spelling disaster in Alberta (and other provinces, to a lesser extent), there’s a pesky little document that could stand in its way: the Constitution... Like Smith, the feds are well aware that Alberta is a fossil-fuel rich province that relies on natural gas for most of its power and does not have an abundance of dammable rivers... “Ontario and Alberta are modelled to take on nearly 70 per cent of the total costs net of cost-savings accounted for in the (cost benefit analysis), largely driven by incremental capital costs for new electricity system capacity.” Before the regulations were finalized, Alberta did its best to express concerns with the real-life effects of the proposed framework. For example, the draft regulations proposed to cap power generation at peaker plants, which run at peak times to ensure blackouts don’t happen, at 450 hours per year, which would limit these facilities to using only five per cent of their capacity. Alberta protested, and the time limits were removed — but even so, the other provisions of the regulations will cap these facilities to operating at a maximum of 20 per cent capacity. In the end, it means Ottawa is still strangling the provinces’ ability to manage their grids at peak times. For another example, look at how the regulations treat emergency management. The first draft actually required the federal government to sign off on allowing exemptions to the rules in cases of local emergency — which exposed anyone who needed to break the rules to the risk of jail. Alberta objected, and now the final rules allow emissions in emergency circumstances (which must meet federal criteria) to be exempt from the overall emissions cap for 30 days (extensions would be allowed, but only with federal approval) — with an added requirement that any use of this provision must come with a detailed justification... criminal penalties for those who step outside the federally drawn lines are still on the table... “What CEO is going to, by 2035, building with today’s technology, be able to guarantee a 95 per cent abatement on their CO2 within 10 years, with technology that doesn’t exist, on the risk of going to jail? I’m going to tell you there are zero,” she added. It’s unclear how this will go in the courts. The feds will no doubt point to the top court’s 2021 ruling on greenhouse gas pricing, which opened up new bubbles of federal jurisdiction within what was otherwise provincial domain if the intent was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A majority of the court figured that climate change was such a dire and existential threat that it was entitled to greenlight one very specific policy tool to deal with it: former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax. In reality, climate change turned out to be not as cataclysmic as originally thought, because the Liberals set the carbon tax to zero in March. Meanwhile, it’s also been demonstrated that playing the environment card doesn’t always work. Major provisions in the federal government’s overzealous Impact Assessment Act were declared unconstitutional after a different court challenge by Alberta; the law cast its net so wide that it unlawfully pulled provincial projects into the onerous federal review process. (This law has since been revised, but unsatisfactorily, so it’s off to the courts again). Smith is doing the right thing by fighting out these incursions in court. Just like how lawns need to be edged, the naturally expanding bureaucratic hulk of federal jurisdiction needs to be checked. If Alberta ends up winning — and it’s very possible it does — it would be a victory for not just the province’s grid, but for every province that believes in preserving the Constitution’s division of powers."
NASA satellites show Antarctica has gained ice despite rising global temperatures. How is that possible?
Trust the Science! It is Settled! Though it keeps making failed predictions
Jamie Sarkonak: Steven Guilbeault clings to myth of peak oil - "For years, activists have claimed that the highest volumes of oil consumption were just over the horizon, only to be proven wrong time and time again. Just like how the deadline on COVID restrictions of “two weeks to flatten the curve” was stretched to two years, the impending decline of oil constantly moved farther and farther out. The theory was first put forward in 1956. Geologist and Shell researcher M. King Hubbert put forward a paper predicting the beginning of the end of U.S. oil production somewhere between 1965 and 1971... Globally, Hubbert predicted a production peak for 2000. In reality, production hit what is now a mini-peak in 1979, sinking to early ’70s levels during the early ’80s — but it later picked up speed and steadily climbed over the years. No ceiling was hit in 2000; production kept on rising... On the far end of peak-oil predictors was Shell energy, which pegged the end-time at “2025 or later,” and energy economist Michael C. Lynch, who in 2003 dismissed the hysteria and predicted no foreseeable peak at all. The math behind this supposed end to oil was shoddy and inconclusive. “Most of their key findings appear to be no more than a misunderstanding of statistical analysis,” Lynch wrote of the alarmists in a later paper. “Not only can some of their methods be demonstrated to be ineffective, and their conclusions repeatedly failed, but the authors publish data and cases selectively, omitting those which contradict their theories, implying that the work is unreliable.” Now that previous predictions have been blown by at hurricane speeds, new ones are being made... “In recent years, the IEA has pushed for ideologically driven net-zero goals, ones that have often been accompanied by targets or timelines that lack a grasp of what meeting them truly involves.” The same could probably be said about the Canada Energy Regulator (CER), which in 2023 predicted peak oil would hit as early as 2026. The CER is independent but its leadership consists of many federal appointees, which after a decade of Liberal governance makes it a softly Liberal institution, governance-wise. Its CEO lists her pronouns and an Indigenous territorial acknowledgement in her bio and one of its overall goals is the achievement of net-zero. Those aggressively pushing for net-zero — including agencies and regulators ideologically opposed to hydrocarbon extraction — will point to their alarming figures as evidence that there’s no need to construct additional pipelines and refineries. If demand is about to plummet, they say, it’s not worth the environmental and financial cost. It’s fair to assume that someday, perhaps if humanity unlocks fusion energy and superconductors, that oil will be a thing of the past, much like how coal no longer fuels trains and firewood is no longer used for cooking, at least in the developed world. But that’s likely years, even decades, away yet — the experts certainly haven’t reached a consensus. Indeed, artificially constraining oil production and forcing energy prices to rise for climate reasons could hamper the very technological advancement we need."
Inflation rate drops to 1.7% in April, driven by lower energy prices after carbon tax removal
Weird. We kept being told that the carbon tax had no impact on inflation
Volkswagen deal to take 20 years to break even, not five - "It will take 20 years for the federal and provincial governments to break even on massive subsidies to auto giants Volkswagen and Stellantis, not the five years that the government initially pledged, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer."
From 2023
Canada's $52B EV gamble didn't pay off, observers say - "“Not all that has been spent, some of it is commitments for the future — so obviously, if those commitments can be rescinded, then we don’t lose it the money that has been spent up to this point,” said University of Guelph economics Prof. Ross McKitrick, explaining that any money that has been spent so far is as good as gone. “It’s a sunk cost, there’s no getting it back. And for the automobile companies, they’re now looking at the U.S. market as a completely different field. Now the customers will not be constrained in what they purchase, so the companies will make cars for the customers.”... With the Trudeau Liberals’ zero emission vehicle rebate program running out of money earlier this month, Canada’s auto industry held a press conference on Parliament Hill last week calling for an end to Canada’s mandates. Automakers, McKitrick said, lose money making electric vehicles and aren’t keen on being compelled to make them a core part of their business. “The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association has echoed that. Their whole industry is losing money, they don’t want to be doing this,” he said. “The argument was simply, ‘Well, you have to, because we’re going to force customers to buy EVs whether they want them or not,’ but the public isn’t buying them.” While EV sales were indeed brisk in the 2020s, McKitrick said they were typically purchased as second cars for high-income households. “The (U.S.) mandates wouldn’t have survived because you can’t force one of our largest industries into bankruptcy and not pay a huge political price,” he said. Nicolas Gagnon, Quebec director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, tells the Toronto Sun that investing billions in building an EV industry was too big of a gamble to make with tax dollars. “That risk was not for taxpayers to make in he first place, and clearly now that risk has increased because of the decision of the United States government,” he said. “If you really want to encourage industries, give a tax cut to all corporations and let them compete properly — don’t choose players, don’t put taxpayer’s money into risky bets.”"
How ignorant. Don't they know that EVs are the future?
Trudeau's EV subsidy racket is unravelling before his eyes - "U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to do away with Biden-era electric vehicle (EV) subsidies highlights the folly of countries competing over who can offer the most lucrative bribes to manufacturers, and companies making decisions based on the whims of political leaders rather than the demands of the market. Two years ago, the Americans were looking to attract “green jobs” with the US$369-billion slush fund known as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), European legislators were frantically drafting their own bill to offer competing subsidies and the Trudeau Liberals were furiously inking multi-billion-dollar deals to entice EV battery manufacturers to this country. At the time, I described it as a “race to the bottom of the pork barrel that Canada can’t hope to win.”... EVs... still can’t compete with gas-powered cars without government support. After Germany got rid of its EV subsidies at the end of 2023, electric vehicle sales dropped precipitously, falling 26 per cent through the first 11 months of 2024 compared to a year earlier... Canada’s policies surrounding EV sales and manufacturing seem to have been predicated on the idea that our government, and those of our trading partners, would be dominated by climate alarmists for decades to come. But with voters in many parts of the western world lashing out against left-wing economic and social policies, Canada risks being left holding a very expensive bag. Unless a future government changes course, all new vehicles sold in this country will be required to be electric by 2035. And Ottawa has promised an estimated $52.5 billion in government supports for EV manufacturing, much of which is being “invested” in battery production. At least some of those funds will only be released if the plants actually produce batteries; other supports are reportedly predicated on similar subsidies south of the border, so if the Inflation Reduction Act is repealed, Canada will have an easier time getting out of its existing commitments. Either way, we run the risk of losing millions on “investments” in factories that never become operational, or becoming a “world leader” in producing something that few people actually want to buy... But if global EV subsidies dry up and demand continues to fall short of expectations, automakers will have no one to blame but themselves. This, after all, is the risk they took when they started basing business decisions on the demands of the Davos elite, rather than their own customers... It wasn’t long ago when smog posed a major problem in our big cities. It was largely solved, not by forcing everyone to ride bikes, but through the invention of the catalytic converter, which removes 98 per cent of pollutants from exhaust fumes. Similar, tech-based solutions need to be found for global warming, and while electric vehicles may end up being part of the answer, it’s foolish for governments to push them on the public before they’re able to compete with their gas-powered equivalents on both features and price. It certainly doesn’t make sense to governments to force taxpayers to subsidize the whole endeavour — especially when all their plans can be disrupted based on the whims of whoever is sitting in the Oval Office."
Meme - "In 1993 Al Gore First Started His Climate Alarmist Hoax 10 Year Challenge
1993 - We only have 10 years to save the planet
2003 - We only have 10 years to save the planet
2013 - We only have 10 years to save the planet.
2022 - We only have 10 years to save the planet."
Even the Climate Change Committee have had enough of Ed Miliband - "The major business groups have had enough. The Chancellor doesn’t want to write any more cheques. Ordinary consumers are fed up with the endless bills, and the trade unions with the mounting job losses. No one has asked him but it is probably a safe bet that his older brother doesn’t have a very high opinion of him. Still, amid all the flak, Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, probably thought there was always one body he could rely on. The eco warriors of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) would surely always have his back? But hold on. Even they have now turned on him – and that is a sign that enough is finally enough. It was a damning verdict on Miliband’s first year in office. In a report this week, the CCC, the unelected quango created to monitor our progress towards net zero, argued that the Energy Secretary had not done enough to remove green levies from bills, which was making electricity too expensive. Even worse, by leaving bills so high, he was deterring people from buying electric cars and heat pumps and so delaying our progress to climate salvation. If it was an end of school report, it would have been four out of ten at best, along with a terse “Ed must try harder” from the headmaster. It is perfectly legitimate to question whether the CCC has any real authority or expertise to criticise anyone. No one voted for it, and in its short life it has proved time and again that it is made up of fanatical deep greens for whom no proposal is too batty if it will save a ton or two of carbon from escaping into the atmosphere. This is a body that argues for a frequent flyer levy on families taking too many holidays, and which favours a steady reduction in meat consumption, if not full-scale rationing, to help the environment. Whatever adjective you might attach to the committee, “moderate” would not be among them. But that aside, the important point is this. It is a clear sign of how poorly Miliband has performed in office that even the CCC now regards him as a liability to the cause. In reality, there are two big problems. First, Green Ed wildly over-promised, and then under-delivered. He told everyone that the transition to net zero would bring down electricity prices, that it would create tens of thousands of “well-paid green jobs”, and that the world would follow Britain’s heroic lead in eliminating carbon emissions. Instead, bills have gone up, industrial jobs have been decimated, and the world has hardly noticed. The endless broken pledges are simply generating scepticism about the whole project. Next, his programme has been very poorly planned. GB Energy is up and running, and lavishing public money on staff and offices, but still no one has any idea what it will do. The serious players in the wind industry, such as Norway’s giant Ørsted, have pulled out of projects in the North Sea because costs have risen so high that they don’t believe they can make any money. Plans such as putting solar panels in supermarket car parks are nothing more than gimmicks that will make no serious difference to the country’s power supply. Meanwhile, factories are closing every week because we have the highest industrial electricity prices in the world. It is a mess, and Miliband clearly has no idea how to fix it."
