Month: March 2024

The ‘elephant in the room’ that risks exposing Britain’s net zero agenda

By Paul Homewood

h/t Paul Kolk

 

 

 image

image

It’s one of the Government’s proudest boasts. Britain, it claims, has almost halved its greenhouse gas emissions from 800m tonnes in 1990 to just 417m tonnes in 2022.

It’s a staggering decrease – a faster decline than almost any other advanced nation. And it is a fact that is used regularly by politicians to trumpet the UK’s progress.

“We’re far ahead of every other country in the world,” Rishi Sunak said in September. “We’ve had the fastest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the G7. Down almost 50pc since 1990. France? 22pc. The US? No change at all. China? Up by over 300pc.”

But can a nation whose population has grown by several million in the past two decades, with each citizen consuming more than ever, really have cut emissions by such a massive amount?

Part of the answer to that question lies in the databases of Leeds University where the UK’s official “consumption emissions” figures – the statistical elephant in the room – are compiled by a team led by Professor John Barrett.

When politicians say that emissions have fallen to 400m tonnes, they are referring to the greenhouse gases emitted within Britain’s borders, from power stations, cars, homes, offices and what’s left of industry. These are known as territorial – or production – emissions.

What they exclude is everything else, meaning all foreign-produced cars, clothes, food and every other import as well as the shipping that imports those goods into the UK, and most of the aviation fuel burned for passenger flights.

These overseas emissions used to be relatively small, but as the UK’s own industries have shrunk, they have become an ever-increasing proportion of the overall carbon footprint.

In real terms it means that, in addition to the 400m or so tonnes of CO2 pouring from Britain’s homes, vehicles and remaining smokestacks, there are another 350m to 400m tonnes being produced on the UK’s behalf but in other countries. If you add those two figures together and make an adjustment for the UK’s exports, you get Britain’s overall carbon footprint – its consumption emissions – which now total around 750m to 800m tonnes.

It is a marked fall from 1990 when the UK’s consumption emissions totalled 1bn tonnes but nowhere near the 50pc cut claimed by Mr Sunak last year.

“We have provided the Government with the UK’s consumption-based emissions data for many years,” says Barrett. “However, it is rarely or never quoted when statements are made about emission reduction. I believe it should be. Both approaches are needed.”

Energy consumption figures give an answer as to why the UK’s own CO2 emissions have sunk so rapidly. In 2022, the country used less energy from all sources including coal, gas and renewables than in any year since 1970.

The Government’s energy statistics briefings link this to warm weather and improved efficiency.

For economists there has always been a direct link between economic growth and rising energy consumption; the more energy a country can consume, the richer its population becomes.

Jorge León, senior vice-president for oil and energy research at Rystad Energy, says: “I’ve heard loads of politicians saying, ‘look, this decline in energy consumption is great, we’ve become more efficient’. But I don’t think it is all due to greater efficiency.

“We have seen many energy intensive industries closing down in Europe because of the high energy costs. This is a broad macroeconomic environment where things are not looking great, where output is decreasing. Our declining emissions reflect that.”

The Government’s own statistics show that the sector experiencing the biggest decline in energy use is UK industry. In 1970 when the UK still had its own steel and other heavy industries, energy equivalent to 65m tonnes of oil was consumed. By 2022 that had plummeted by two-thirds to 22m tonnes.

However the Government’s own advisers, the Climate Change Committee, said in its latest progress report to ministers, that the UK “must also reduce its consumption emissions, those embedded in imported goods and services”.

It added: “The Committee will continue to scrutinise progress on consumption emissions alongside territorial emissions and advise on policies that reduce both. Reducing emissions in the UK must not be at the expense of exporting jobs and emissions overseas.”

Myles Allen, Oxford University’s professor of geosystem science, who served on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says the real discussions about emissions should be around ending them completely.

“Achieving net zero should mean, from 2050, no one can be allowed to sell stuff that causes global warming,” he says. “So anyone who sells a product that causes global warming would need to explain how they are going to stop it causing global warming – whether through its production, use or disposal – by 2050.

“If a single politician could spell it out in these not-very-complicated terms, it would have far more impact than claims about the UK’s carbon footprint.”

https://vnexplorer.net/the-big-net-zero-lie-britains-hidden-carbon-emissions-s1833292.html

The various suggestions from the CCC and others that the government should take account of consumption emissions are utterly absurd. How on earth can the UK influence what China, for instance, are doing with their emissions. Do they then propose some form of rationing of imports? As for Myles Allen, his plan would effectively end the importing of any products, raw materials or food. Does he have the slightest idea what that would entail for the UK’s population?

Far from “taking account” of consumption emissions, they expose the whole hypocrisy and futility of the UK’s Net Zero agenda. Until the rest of the world phases out fossil fuels, nothing we can do will make the blindest bit of difference.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/wFU12XZ

March 11, 2024 at 11:42AM

Eco-Hypocrite Indigo Off On Another Rant

By Paul Homewood

 

The eco-loon, Indigo, has been bragging off on X again:

 

 

image

Image.

image

https://twitter.com/IndigoRumbelow/status/1766873230978019387

As one alert commenter revealed however, this is the same eco-loon who has racked thousands of air miles gallivanting around the world:

image

https://twitter.com/JohnTreneer/status/1766927802891141561.

Is it not time that we just locked up these nutters, and gave them no more publicity?

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/E4qlRnF

March 11, 2024 at 11:42AM

More cash for wind farms near towns as net zero shift stretches grid

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

  image

Developers are to be handed more cash to erect wind turbines and solar farms near towns and cities in a bid to get more power generation near to where it is needed.

Renewable energy companies will be allowed to charge customers more for their power if they generate it close to where it is needed, rather than in sparsely populated parts of the country.

The scheme, to be formally announced on Tuesday by Claire Coutinho, the Energy Secretary, is designed to trigger a rush to build wind and solar infrastructure on farmland around cities.

However, the policy is also likely to prove highly controversial with environment groups because of the likely impact on treasured landscapes.

The Government will introduce zonal pricing, with generators paid different rates according to the distance between their assets and consumers.

The UK will be divided into about half a dozen generating zones so that onshore wind and solar farms in the Home Counties could be paid more for their power than those in Scotland, for example.

Research by Ofgem suggests that making electricity prices higher in the South East, where demand is strongest and supply weakest, would incentivise solar developers.

They would be encouraged to buy up swathes of farmland in a region stretching from London to Bristol and up to Norwich and Cambridge for solar parks and wind farms.

Ofgem has calculated that 20 gigawatts of solar power generation is needed in southern England. Solar farms need up to 4,000 acres of land for each gigawatt, implying 60 million industrial solar panels need to be spread across an area equivalent to 40,000 football pitches.

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England has warned that such a plan could mean many tenant farmers being thrown off their land, greater pressure on the green belt, and rural landscapes altered forever.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/10/wind-solar-farms-south-england-charge-more-energy/

The government claims this will reduce bills, but this is just another of the lies about Net Zero. How enabling renewable energy companies to charge customers more will cut bills is a mystery.

But more to the point, why would we want to trash the countryside by covering it with hundreds of thousands of acres of solar panels, when they produce next to nothing in winter months, the time when demand for power is at its highest?

Yesterday for instance, solar generation only ran at 7% of capacity. Today it only reached a pitiful 1.96 GW for a few minutes.

image

https://www.solar.sheffield.ac.uk/pvlive/#

In January it was much lower, just 3%.

And, of course, we get nothing from them at all for 18 hours a day in midwinter.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/KhJADSg

March 11, 2024 at 11:42AM

Tuesday

0 out of 10 based on 0 rating

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/NnVa2e8

March 11, 2024 at 10:04AM