Mad Miliband Is Out Of Control

By Paul Homewood

ac713df8-a2c0-4f1b-af0d-f70f64a95b10

Ed Miliband, it seems, is now totally out of control. Even Starmer and Reeves are no longer able to reign him in.

A few examples just in the last week illustrate this.

 

First the Telegraph report that he is being urged to raise energy bills in the South to “save Net Zero”:

Ed Miliband must ramp up energy bills across London and southern England to hit net zero targets, a parliamentary committee has said.

The Energy Secretary is likely to miss his target of making the electricity grid 95pc carbon free by the end of the decade unless he embraces so-called zonal pricing, a new report from the Lords industry committee warned.

Such a change would mean splitting Britain’s single electricity market into almost a dozen regions, with the price of power determined by supply and demand within each area rather than set nationally.

In practice, prices would surge in London, southern England and the Midlands where renewables are in short supply, but plummet in Scotland because of its plentiful wind farms.

Full story here.

The whole idea is absurd any way. The idea that more renewable generators will be built down south in search of higher prices ignores the fact that they will all get the same CfD price anyway. The real object is to suppress demand in areas with low renewable output.

But more to the point, how on earth does Miliband get the authority to set energy prices?

Secondly the Telegraph also report:

Labour’s windfall tax on oil and gas producers will leave 1.5bn barrels of oil and gas stuck in abandoned North Sea oil wells, according to new analysis of the levy’s impact.

The predicted output between now and 2050 has fallen 40pc from 3.6bn barrels of oil equivalent to just 2.1bn barrels, according to a report from investment bank Stifel.

The findings are based on data supplied by the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), the Government’s oil and gas regulator.

The slump in expected output comes after a surge in the number of companies abandoning productive wells, following Rachel Reeves’s decision to extend the tax on oil and gas profits to 78pc. Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, has also banned new drilling.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/05/23/labours-tax-raid-to-trap-15bn-barrels-of-oil-and-gas/

1.5 billion barrels is worth about £100 billion at current prices. While Rachel Reeves’ tax raid has not helped, it is the idiot Miliband who is ultimately responsible from keeping this godsend under the ground.

And finally, Miliband is plotting to massively increase gas prices, as a way of forcing people to buy useless heat pumps. Again, from the Telegraph:

Ed Miliband is considering plans to overhaul green levies, which experts have warned would push up the average gas bill by £120 a year.

The Energy Secretary is looking at removing the taxes that are applied to electricity as part of his plans to encourage more people to buy heat pumps.

But he has admitted Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, would not cover the £4.8 billion-a-year cost, meaning the charges would likely have to be shifted on to gas bills.

Government ministers and Ofgem, the industry regulator, have spoken positively about the plans, which experts calculate would add 15 per cent to the cost of gas.

Ed Miliband is considering plans to overhaul green levies, which experts have warned would push up the average gas bill by £120 a year.

The Energy Secretary is looking at removing the taxes that are applied to electricity as part of his plans to encourage more people to buy heat pumps.

But he has admitted Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, would not cover the £4.8 billion-a-year cost, meaning the charges would likely have to be shifted on to gas bills.

Government ministers and Ofgem, the industry regulator, have spoken positively about the plans, which experts calculate would add 15 per cent to the cost of gas.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/31/miliband-plots-120-gbp-net-zero-gas-bill-rise/

As has been pointed out, this amounts to a tax on gas. But normally any tax would have to be properly vetted by the Treasury, with impact assessments etc. So how comes Miliband gets to to set taxes of his own without any proper oversight?

The argument is that the increase in gas bills will be offset by equal falls in electricity bills. That may be true overall, but there will inevitably be huge anomalies.

Richer households with EVs and heat pumps will be much better off, while poorer people reliant on gas boilers, and unable to afford heat pumps, will end up worse off.

And, yet again, this switch will have virtually no effect. Homeowners are already offered subsidies of £7500 to buy a heat pump, yet still refuse to buy them. Clearly the £7500 subsidy is not affordable at scale in the long run – it would amount to everybody subsidising their own pumps.

So why on earth would anybody buy one of the useless things just to save a couple of hundred quid a year, when a bribe of £7500 did not do the trick.

All these suggested policies have one thing in common – the Net Zero establishment is now getting desperate. It sees people refusing to waste money on heat pumps and useless EVs.

It has realised that there will be catastrophic shortages of electricity in a few short years time, if Miliband’s mad policies are pursued.

And it knows that continuing supplies of cheap, homegrown oil and gas will fatally undermine the transition to expensive, unreliable renewables.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/q356tCs

June 5, 2025 at 03:11PM

Net Zero Straitjacket

By Paul Homewood

London, 5 June 2025: The Net Zero Straitjacket: Five Reasons Net Zero Will Bankrupt Britain, has been published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). It describes how Britain’s Net Zero target locks in higher energy prices and forces ministers to restrict the choices of the public.
In this damning new analysis, GWPF Head of Policy, Harry Wilkinson, outlines how Net Zero policies, rooted in the Climate Change Act, are driving energy prices higher, crushing industrial competitiveness, and stripping the UK of energy sovereignty. 
“With admirable impartiality, Wilkinson has explained the devastating cost of Net Zero,” said Steve Baker, the Chief Provocation Officer at The Provocation People. “Every politician and journalist should read this paper to get ahead of the scandal which is our energy policy. It is an important contribution to rescuing our civilisation from the consequences of unaffordable, intermittent energy.”

Lord Frost hailed the report as “a welcome corrective to a debate long stifled by orthodoxy and wishful thinking,” noting that it “concisely exposes the fundamental flaws of Net Zero,” particularly “the restrictive and authoritarian character of the Climate Change Act, which must be repealed if we are to avoid calamity.”
Graham Stringer MP said: “The evidence is overwhelming that Net Zero is destroying jobs and damaging the economy. An initially well-meaning initiative has turned into an out-of-control Frankenstein’s monster that this paper exposes. We cannot continue with self-harming, disastrous policy.”
GWPF Director, Lord Mackinlay, described Net Zero as “perfectly described by the image of a straitjacket,” adding: “Businesses and their workers who can’t decarbonise fast enough will be simply thrown on the scrap heap; a process that has already started. I hope this report will help unravel some of the misguided thinking that has brought us to this dangerous situation.”
In The Net Zero Straitjacket, Wilkinson sets out five key arguments:
The cost of renewable energy has been underestimated. Published official analyses have not adequately accounted for variable weather patterns which mean there can be periods of entire wind drought years. This means that the quantity of electricity generation and storage required in 2050 has not been calculated correctly. 
Electricity prices are likely to rise further, an outcome that the renewable industry appears to be betting on, and which is ‘built in’ by rising renewable energy subsidies and growing grid inefficiency.
Compulsory policies put Britain in a straitjacket and can only leave the public poorer. Mandating the use of EVs, heat pumps and overly strict environmental standards reduces consumer choice and leaves the public worse off. The Climate Change Act ties all future governments to these rigid requirements.
We will miss out on using the energy under our feet. The missed opportunities from our pursuit of Net Zero need to be recognised. Failing to extract our significant fossil fuel reserves means large sums of potential tax revenues go uncollected and many people miss out on high-skilled and high-paid jobs. Importing gas and oil means tax revenues, jobs and investments go abroad.
The benefits don’t stack up. The Government uses flawed ‘carbon values’ to claim large benefits for its climate policies. However, these are highly contestable and don’t represent real benefits for the British public from lower emissions.
In his own words, Harry Wilkinson warns: “The public has been misled about the costs and consequences of Net Zero. This report shines a light on the reality: a deeply authoritarian agenda that increases the cost of living for everyone.”
The full report is available to read here: The Net Zero Straitjacket (pdf).

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/wQEFdR8

June 5, 2025 at 12:35PM

When Lithium-Ion Batteries Set Sail: Another Warning to be Ignored by the Climate Technocrats

On June 4, 2025, the Morning Midas—a cargo ship loaded with over 3,000 vehicles, including approximately 800 electric and hybrid models—was left adrift in the Pacific Ocean after catching fire 300 miles southwest of Alaska’s Adak Island. Thankfully, all 22 crew members were safely evacuated. But the fire, reportedly starting on the vehicle deck, overwhelmed the vessel’s onboard suppression systems and forced a total abandonment. The ship, flagged under Liberia and en route from China to Mexico, now floats like a ghost vessel—a monument to the hazards of our increasingly electrified obsession.

This latest incident is more than just a maritime mishap. It’s a warning. A costly one, literally and figuratively, about the technological delusions driving climate-centric energy policies.

Let’s not mince words: the proliferation of electric vehicles (EVs) is a politically engineered phenomenon. It’s not market demand but bureaucratic fiat, massive subsidies, and regulatory cudgels that are flooding global supply chains with lithium-ion batteries. And when these batteries go up in flames, they don’t just emit smoke—they torch the narrative that this energy transition is safe, sustainable, or rational.

The Lithium-Ion Fire Problem: Not Just a Technical Glitch

According to The Times, “The fire broke out on the vehicle deck of the ship, which is carrying electric vehicles that contain lithium-ion batteries, a type of battery known for being difficult to extinguish once ignited.” Fire suppression systems failed to contain the blaze—just like they did in similar disasters, including the Felicity Ace, which sank in 2022 along with 4,000 vehicles after a battery-related fire.

As The Washington Post notes,

“Lithium-ion battery fires are notoriously hard to extinguish. They often require immense volumes of water and can reignite even after appearing extinguished. Once a fire begins on a cargo ship, especially one carrying EVs, the danger multiplies.”

None of this is surprising to those who’ve been paying attention. Lithium-ion batteries, the workhorse of the EV movement, are not merely flammable—they’re energetic time bombs under the right conditions. They’re prone to thermal runaway, a fancy term for “you can’t put the fire out once it starts.” This is not a minor engineering inconvenience. It’s a fundamental flaw of the very core of the so-called clean energy revolution.

This event highlights, yet again, the hubris of the technocratic caste who believe that spreadsheets, slogans, and subsidies can override physics and chemistry. The push for EVs has never been about sound science or market viability—it has been a triumph of ideology over evidence. And it’s average people, logistics networks, and now even global shipping routes that are paying the price.

The Morning Midas fire is a maritime echo of policy arrogance: a floating allegory of what happens when top-down climate mandates ignore the inconvenient details. These details include not only the fire risk of EV batteries but also the human cost of cobalt mining, the environmental degradation of lithium extraction, and the limited recyclability of these so-called green technologies.

And to reiterate, this isn’t even the first time a ship has been sacrificed at the altar of climate policy. As The Wall Street Journal notes,

“In 2022, the Felicity Ace, carrying thousands of EVs including high-end brands, caught fire and eventually sank in the Atlantic Ocean, resulting in the loss of vehicles valued at over $400 million.”

What did we learn? Apparently nothing.

One might expect policymakers to pause and reconsider the wisdom of forcing an electrified fleet onto the world. Instead, incidents like this are met with silence or worse—more deflection and rhetorical gymnastics about how such setbacks are just “growing pains.” If a fossil-fueled cargo ship carrying traditional cars went up in flames this regularly, you can bet there’d be a parade of headlines and UN statements calling for the end of internal combustion engines.

But when EVs ignite, the media response is muted. Why? Because to question the safety of EVs is to question the entire green transition—and that is a heresy punishable by cancellation.

Let’s be clear: no one is suggesting that lithium-ion batteries be banned. What’s being demanded is honesty. It’s one thing to promote EVs in a competitive market that values performance, price, and safety. It’s another to enforce their adoption through regulatory compulsion while ignoring their very real dangers.

The fire aboard the Morning Midas is the logical outcome of a world governed by narrative rather than nuance. Climate policy today operates more like a religion than a science—complete with saints (Greta), sinners (Exxon), and sacraments (Net Zero). It elevates technologies to sacred status without demanding proof of their safety, scalability, or superiority.

The global shipping industry is already grappling with draconian emissions targets and bureaucratic overreach. Now, it’s being asked to risk floating battery farms across oceans, all to appease climate prophets in Geneva and Brussels.

We need a serious reassessment. Not more subsidies. Not more mandates. A real, skeptical, evidence-based appraisal of where this so-called transition is actually leading us.

Because if the goal is to save the planet, setting fire to it with lithium doesn’t seem like the smartest route.

H/T Mike, John W, recukeet, Walter S, and “someone”


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/TpQHRt3

June 5, 2025 at 12:02PM

UAH v6.1 Global Temperature Update for May, 2025: +0.50 deg. C

The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for May, 2025 was +0.50 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the April, 2025 anomaly of +0.61 deg. C.

The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through May 2025) remains at +0.15 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).

The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 17 months (record highs are in red).

YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2024 Jan +0.80 +1.02 +0.58 +1.20 -0.19 +0.40 +1.12
2024 Feb +0.88 +0.95 +0.81 +1.17 +1.31 +0.86 +1.16
2024 Mar +0.88 +0.96 +0.80 +1.26 +0.22 +1.05 +1.34
2024 Apr +0.94 +1.12 +0.76 +1.15 +0.86 +0.88 +0.54
2024 May +0.78 +0.77 +0.78 +1.20 +0.05 +0.20 +0.53
2024 June +0.69 +0.78 +0.60 +0.85 +1.37 +0.64 +0.91
2024 July +0.74 +0.86 +0.61 +0.97 +0.44 +0.56 -0.07
2024 Aug +0.76 +0.82 +0.69 +0.74 +0.40 +0.88 +1.75
2024 Sep +0.81 +1.04 +0.58 +0.82 +1.31 +1.48 +0.98
2024 Oct +0.75 +0.89 +0.60 +0.63 +1.90 +0.81 +1.09
2024 Nov +0.64 +0.87 +0.41 +0.53 +1.12 +0.79 +1.00
2024 Dec +0.62 +0.76 +0.48 +0.52 +1.42 +1.12 +1.54
2025 Jan +0.45 +0.70 +0.21 +0.24 -1.06 +0.74 +0.48
2025 Feb +0.50 +0.55 +0.45 +0.26 +1.04 +2.10 +0.87
2025 Mar +0.57 +0.74 +0.41 +0.40 +1.24 +1.23 +1.20
2025 Apr +0.61 +0.77 +0.46 +0.37 +0.82 +0.85 +1.21
2025 May +0.50 +0.45 +0.55 +0.30 +0.15 +0.75 +0.99

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for May, 2025, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.

The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:

Lower Troposphere

Mid-Troposphere

Tropopause

Lower Stratosphere

via Roy Spencer, PhD.

https://ift.tt/oSc2N4R

June 5, 2025 at 11:24AM