Month: March 2017

Everyone Is Misinterpreting Mattis’s Remarks On Climate Change

Everyone Is Misinterpreting Mattis’s Remarks On Climate Change

via Climate Change Dispatch
http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

You’d think Secretary of Defense James Mattis was as concerned with man-made climate change as the head of Greenpeace based on reporting of leaked written statements he sent to lawmakers in January. “U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis says climate change is already destabilizing the world,” the UK Independent reported from a leaked questionnaire obtained by ProPublica. The […]

via Climate Change Dispatch http://ift.tt/2jXMFWN

March 16, 2017 at 01:10AM

GWPF Condemns Misleading Committee on Climate Change Report on Policy Costs

GWPF Condemns Misleading Committee on Climate Change Report on Policy Costs

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

Today’s statement on Energy Prices and Bills by Lord Deben’s Committee on Climate Change confirms growing suspicions that it is neither objective nor reliable as an advisor to the public about the true cost of climate policies.

The CCC’s attempt to reassure the public about the cost impact of climate policies is a misleading whitewash. Contrary to the spin of the CCC, their own figures show that almost all the projected increase in domestic electricity prices between 2016 and 2030 is the result of energy and climate policies.

According to the CCC’s own work (see chart 1.7) energy and climate policies have increased prices to domestic consumers by 33% in 2016. In other words they are 33% higher at present than they would be in the absence of policies. This figure will rise to 40% in 2020 and to over 50% in 2030.

The CCC covers up this large and damaging price increase by claiming that efficiency measures reduce consumption, meaning that the price increases are not converted into rising energy bills. More objectively one might say that government subsidy spending on renewables, and other climate policies, is preventing consumers from reaping the benefits of efficiency measures leading to lower energy bills.

Dr John Constable, energy editor of the Global Warming Policy Forum, said:

“The CCC’s study has the clear hallmarks of deliberate and shameless obfuscation. With smoke and mirrors they attempt to turn additional climate policy taxes and stealth taxes, which the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates at about £7 billion a year at present and £12 billion a year in 2020, into net benefits for energy consumers. This is nothing short of a disgrace to the current committee members responsible.”

The Global Warming Policy Forum is calling on the government to radically reform the selection and workings of the Committee on Climate Change which is misleading the public on the real cost impacts of climate policy.

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

March 16, 2017 at 01:02AM

New Study: Air quality environmental epidemiology studies are unreliable

New Study: Air quality environmental epidemiology studies are unreliable

via Current News – Principia Scientific International
http://ift.tt/1kjWLPW

New in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology from JunkScience.com friend Stan Young. As always, everything you’ll want to know about air pollution junk science is in “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA.”

Click title above to read the full article

via Current News – Principia Scientific International http://ift.tt/1kjWLPW

March 16, 2017 at 12:59AM

Low carbon drive ‘cuts household bills’

Low carbon drive ‘cuts household bills’

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://ift.tt/2npc9Tt

 

Fake news from the BBC:

 

Britain’s low carbon energy revolution is actually saving money for households, a report says.

Households make a net saving of £11 a month, according to analysis from the Committee on Climate Change.

It calculates that subsidies to wind and solar are adding £9 a month to the average bill, but that rules promoting energy efficiency save £20 a month.

The finding will be challenged by groups which say the UK spends too much on renewable energy.

Savings

But the committee, which advises the government, stands by its analysis, and forecasts a continuing trend of downward prices thanks to low carbon policy.

The trend is being driven by government and EU standards for gas boilers and household appliances like fridges and light bulbs. These bring down carbon emissions and bills at the same time.

It means households don’t need to try specially hard to reduce energy usage – it just happens when they replace their old freezer.

http://ift.tt/2npc9Tt

Let’s be totally clear about this – the Committee on Climate Change is not an independent or objective body, It was set up to push forward the government’s climate change agenda, and cannot be relied upon to give impartial advice.

 

The debate about energy savings v increased prices is not a new one. It is also spurious for several reasons:

 

1) Improving energy efficiency of products has always been an ongoing process, with or without government intervention.

Think, for instance, of cars. Twenty years ago, we would have been lucky to get 30 mpg, whereas now we expect twice as much. This technological progress did not happen because governments decreed it, but because of free market competition.

It is the same with electronic devices such as TVs.

For the government to offset these savings against the cost of its own policies is dishonest.

 

2) Energy savings and the cost of renewable subsidies are two separate issues. In other words, they are not interdependent. You can have one without the other.

Going back to the example of cars, suppose the government doubled fuel duty, arguing that drivers would not be any worse off because of greater fuel efficiency. Guess what the reaction would be!

You might just as well argue that a food tax is justified because government policies are encouraging us all to eat less.

 

3) Many of the energy savings mentioned come at a cost.

Low energy light bulbs, for instance, cost much more then the conventional ones. The same applies with many other products, not to mention insulation schemes and tougher building regulations.

None of these extra costs appear in the CCC analysis.

 

The facts could not be clearer. As the OBR tell us every year, the cost of subsidising inefficient renewable energy will be costing us all £13bn a year by 2021.

The government has a simple choice. It can either abolish the Climate Change Act, or let the country be £13bn worse off.

 

 

 

2.7 Environmental levies

£ billion

Outturn Forecast

2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Carbon reduction commitment 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0
Warm home discount1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4
Feed-in tariffs1 0.0 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6
Renewables obligation 3.9 4.6 5.4 6.3 6.6 6.8 7.0
Contracts for difference 0.0 0.1 0.7 1.3 1.9 2.7 3.2
Capacity market 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.4
Environmental levies 4.6 6.9 8.7 10.7 11.9 12.6 13.5
Memo: Expenditure on renewable heat incentive (RHI) 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Note: The ‘Environmental levies’ line above is consistent with the ‘Environmental levies’ line in Table 4.6 of the March 2017 Economic and fiscal outlook.
1 The ONS have yet to include Warm Home Discount and Feed-in Tariffs in their outturn numbers. If they were included, they would have been £0.3bn and £1.1bn respectively.

http://ift.tt/2neOXCW

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

March 16, 2017 at 12:54AM