The continuing shortage of wind on some days means there is an urgent need to change energy policy

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, how much additional carbon dioxide is generated by importing and burning LNG compared to using more natural gas delivered by pipeline from UK fields. (96748)

Tabled on: 04 January 2022

Answer:
Greg Hands:

The Oil and Gas Association published analysis in May 2020, comparing the carbon intensity of United Kingdom Continental Shelf gas with imported liquified natural gas and pipelined gas:

https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/the-move-to-net-zero/net-zero-benchmarking-and-analysis/natural-gas-carbon-footprint-analysis/.

This analysis shows that gas extracted from the United Kingdom Continental Shelf has an average emission intensity of 22 kgCO2e/boe; whereas imported liquified natural gas has a significantly higher average intensity of 59 kgCO2e/boe. The process of liquefaction, combined with the emissions produced by the transportation and regasification of the liquified natural gas once in the United Kingdom, is responsible for the higher emissions intensity.

The answer was submitted on 12 Jan 2022 at 16:57.

 

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what his policy is on the required minimum level of oil stocks for national resilience. (96749)

Tabled on: 04 January 2022

Answer:
Greg Hands:

Emergency oil stocks are a critical tool to defend against the harmful impacts of major disruptions to global oil supply. The UK holds emergency stocks of oil, primarily to release in a co-ordinated fashion with other members to the international market in the event of such major supply disruption. As a member of the International Energy Agency the UK is obligated to hold a minimum of 90 days of net imports. This obligation is passed on to companies that supply more than 50 thousand tonnes of key fuels to the UK market in a twelve-month period.

The answer was submitted on 12 Jan 2022 at 16:12.

Ā These two answers illustrate different features of the unsatisfactory energy policy pursued by the UK government. The government is still failing to licence the output of more gas from the UK North Sea, even though on their own figures for carbon dioxide output it would be hugely beneficial on this ground alone to substitute more UK natural gas for imported LNG. As officials and the Regulator seem to regard cutting CO 2 as the main requirement, often ignoring the need to maintain a secure supply and to keep prices down they should deduce from their own figures that they must substitute UK natural gas for imported LNG on green grounds alone. Price, security of supply, availability and the jobs, tax revenuesĀ  and incomes UK gas would generate also are potent arguments for more UK gas. Ministers have said they want this, so where are the new permits and where is the policy of encouragement to operators in the UK North Sea?

The government adopts the minimum standard for oil reserves and leaves that to the private sector, meaning the stocks areĀ  not held in a UK strategic reserve here at home as some other countries do. The derisory level of gas stocks is a wanton disregard for national security.Ā 

249 Comments

  1. Gary Megson
    January 17, 2022

    Can you give an estimate of how much taxpayers’ money is spent on answering these questions which you keep asking? You complain about the costs of the civil service but you are stopping them doing their job

    Reply I see you cannot defend the answers. it is my job to ask tge questions and their job to answer them. There is no shortage of civil servants.

    1. turboterrier
      January 17, 2022

      Reply to reply
      No shortage of civil servants.

      Got to be the understatement of the year so far.
      Very good entry today Sir John.

      1. Hope
        January 17, 2022

        Guido points out Ā£404,000 of taxpayers money for inclusion and diversity officer non job type woke roles. Adds no value at all to the sectors ie MI5, CPS etc etc. waster Johnson keeps on giving in Marxist left. What is wrong with HR being incompetent ? Better still get rid of Equality Act, it is nothing of the sort, high Jack a term to move everyone compliantly to the left.

        1. Lifelogic
          January 18, 2022

          For just three days a week it seems & probably plus pensions and other expenses and costs too.

    2. BOF
      January 17, 2022

      G M. The client state consists of half the workforce, probably half of them not gainfully employed. Why don’t you address this cost to the tax payer?

      1. Lifelogic
        January 18, 2022

        Many are actually doing positive harm.

    3. Narrow Shoulders
      January 17, 2022

      @Gazza – I assume there are questions that yo do not mind being asked in order to hold Government to account.

      In your world is it only those with whom you agree who are allowed to make waves. I suggest you dial back the worthiness until you can treat everyone equally.

      1. hefner
        January 17, 2022

        Do you realise what you are saying? This blog is filled at 95% by people with the same views on the economics, immigration, climate change, renewables, European Union, COVID, ā€¦ and you are the one accusing the 5% who do not follow Sir Johnā€™s lead in all circumstances of being in a different world. How can you be so sure that your world is the real world?
        Donā€™t you think you could also ā€˜dial back the worthiness until you treat everyone equally?ā€™

        1. Narrow Shoulders
          January 17, 2022

          snort

        2. Peter2
          January 17, 2022

          You come on and regularly berate anyone who doesn’t hold your own world views hef.
          You hold a different world view.
          Maybe you could start to treat everyone equally too.

    4. Nottingham Lad Himself
      January 17, 2022

      This headline might as well have been “The continuing shortage of wind means that children should be educated as a matter of urgency as to the evil pointlessness of kites” or “Incidence of wet days in summer means that farmers should be warned as to severe problems of hay-making”.

      1. Micky Taking
        January 17, 2022

        you sitting there bored this morning Martin? Or a bit headsore after the pub?

    5. Roy Grainger
      January 17, 2022

      Can* you* give an estimate of how much taxpayersā€™ money is spent on John answering these worthless questions which you keep asking? Why are you allowed to keep asking questions when he apparently isn’t ?

    6. rose
      January 17, 2022

      The Executive, or the Crown in Parliament, i.e. the Queen’s Ministers, are obliged to account for themselves in both Houses of Parliament, every day that Parliament is sitting. That is how they retain the confidence of Parliament – which is representing us. If they lose that confidence, the Government falls. How would you prefer them to account for themselves? To the BBC Today Programme? To Kay Burley? Or not at all, because of the cost?

    7. Denis Cooper
      January 17, 2022

      Vaguely recalling a past instance when the government’s reply to a parliamentary question was that it would be too expensive to collect the information required to provide a substantive answer I had a look in my files to see if I could find it and whether as I suspected it related to the proportion of our new laws which were derived from the EU – 50%, as some suggested, or only 7% as Nick Clegg claimed … I couldn’t find that, but while searching my eye lit upon this other interesting item from April 28 2016:

      https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/04/28/cbu-says-improving-outlook-for-second-quarter-during-brexit-vote/#comment-811713

      “Off-topic, I was watching Sky News last night and I was astounded to see George Osborne tell Faisal Islam that regulations in this country are ā€œentirelyā€ under our control, and so there was no reason to include any potential benefits of deregulation in his analysis of the economic implications of leaving the EU … ”

      “… there are many things which can legitimately be said about regulation but not that it is ā€œentirelyā€ under our control, and as Osborne is undoubtedly aware of that the only conclusion can be that he is prepared to lie in order to keep us in the EU.”

      Yet his “Project Fear” lies still hang heavy over the minds of many in our political elite:

      https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/01/16/the-prime-minister-and-brexit/#comment-1292318

      1. Denis Cooper
        January 17, 2022

        Oh yes, I remember, it came to me in a flash that it was Denis MacShane, and here it is:

        https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo021217/text/21217w21.htm

        “It would entail disproportionate cost to research and compile the number of legislative measures enacted each year in the UK directly implementing EC legislation.”

        That was in 2002 when he was a Labour MP and a minister, etc ed:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_MacShane

    8. lifelogic
      January 17, 2022

      About one billionth of what they are wasting on the net zero lunacy perhaps?

    9. Elli Ron
      January 17, 2022

      Subsidy is: 10 billion per year and growing.
      GB News reported that the subsidy for wind amounts to 10 billion a year, going to rich land owners and global companies who own the wind farms as investments.
      The actual wind turbines are sourced in the EU with zero local content, the cost of maintenance for the off shore turbines in HUGE, requiring special ships to carry and lift up to a 100 m long new blades.
      The actual turbines are subject to huge wind forces and sea salt spray which limit their lives to 10-15 years.
      Wind energy is NOT free, every one of the off shore turbines needs to be replaced every 10 – 15 years, this comes at a hefty $2 million per MW of capacity (not actual output, just theoretical top limit).

      1. dixie
        January 17, 2022

        What is your point, Oil & Gas energy have never been FREE – According to the IMF the fossil fuel industry enjoyed global subsidies of US$ 5.2 trillion in 2017, 6.5% of global GDP.
        We are energy intensive societies and the energy sources and processes have always involved subsidies, why would you expect new energy processes to be different.
        The question you need to address is ignoring the climate change/CO2 scam can we afford not to developalternative means when the demand and therefore competition for readily accessible energy supplies is increasing in the world and outstripping supply

      2. turboterrier
        January 17, 2022

        Elli Ron
        Very good informative post. Thank you

      3. Mitchel
        January 17, 2022

        You’ve heard of the Military Industrial Complex.Well,the Pharma Industrial Complex is now also in place, following that very profitable model, and the Green Industrial Complex is next in line.

        Got to keep the oligarchy in yachts!

      4. rose
        January 18, 2022

        Also, just as the wind blowing too much can impede the actual production of energy, so does it make it very dangerous and often impossible to maintain the offshore turbines.

    10. Mark
      January 17, 2022

      Can you give an estimate of what it costs billpayers not to have proper answers to these questions? Start at Ā£20bn…

  2. Lifelogic
    January 17, 2022

    Indeed keep pushing these points. The current May/Carrie/Boris net zero energy policy is economic and political insanity. More and more people are (and will) realise this as the proverbial hits the fan and the bills land home. Especially anyone who knows anything about energy – unlike most ministers, advisors and MPs it seems. It is surely only driven by vested interests, a mad group think religion and even blatant corruption – what other rational reasons are there after all?

    Also ask how much more CO2 is produced by burning imported wood (young coal) at Drax rather than burning methane in combined cycle plants? Methane that we could easily extract very cheaply in the UK if the government just got out of the damn way. Methane in the US is about 1/3 of the cost it is here. Also how much less economic (and energy efficient) it is to ramp gas stations up and down to further subsidise and enable wind production?

    Further ask how much more CO2 is produced by someone trading in their old small diesel car for a new electric one (of say similar range) rather than running the old one for 10 more years. Must be at least 2 to 3 time more CO2 for the electric one (after manufacture of car & battery, recycling and charging is fully considered). We have no zero CO2 sources of electricity for charging after all anyway not even wind or solar are.

    Not of course that CO2 is a very significant problem anyway – in reality.

    1. Ian Wragg
      January 17, 2022

      It seems that the government wants all CO2 production done abroad so we will import LNG as the emissions belong elsewhere.
      This is about as stupid as stupid gets.
      We are awash with coal, oil and gas but continue on the ruinous road of I.porting.
      Where is this money going to come from in the future when everything is outsourced.

      1. Ian Wragg
        January 17, 2022

        Today we are running the coal stations and open circuit gas turbines to keep the lights on. Wind is providing only 15%.
        Has anyone ever thought that the more windmills you install will cause less wind locally as it’s converted to electricity. It becomes a game of diminishing returns after a while and I believe that has already started.

        1. Enough Already
          January 17, 2022

          Currently demand is 42GW. Installed capacity for wind is over 24GW but right now wind is only producing 3.6GW (8.5%).

        2. lifelogic
          January 17, 2022

          They do certainly cause wind shadows so have to be significantly spaced out for that reason.

      2. lifelogic
        January 17, 2022

        +1

      3. Micky Taking
        January 17, 2022

        The stupid pot has hardly been touched…plenty left in there, give it time.

    2. James1
      January 17, 2022

      Quite right. The UKā€™s so called carbon footprint is a tiny percentage of global emissions. The lunacy of our current energy policy is said to be justified by some who say that we are leading the way, and that other countries will follow us and copy us. They are not going to follow us and copy us, they are too busy laughing at us.

    3. Mark
      January 17, 2022

      We should be far more focused on costs. Some questions I think should be answered

      How much would our cost of imports reduce if we burned coal in place of gas as much as we could?
      How can ROC subsidies be justified when renewables benefitting from them are also benefitting from extremely high market prices?
      How can the government justify the radical increase in carbon taxes that was designed to penalise fossil fuels when the cost of these is far beyond the intended penalty, and where the effect is simply to add to consumer bills and effective renewables subsidies?
      How does the government plan to spend its windfall from North Sea taxes on sharply higher prices?
      Why is the government not encouraging more tax and production from the North Sea and shale?

    4. Timaction
      January 17, 2022

      …………Not of course that CO2 is a very significant problem anyway ā€“ in reality……… we all know this. I watched a science documentary the other night on BBC 4 expecting to learn about extreme weather events. In the hour long programme I learnt about the jet stream and how that drives our weather. Anyway, during the whole programme no mention at all about the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere, a plant food, without which, all life forms on the planet would die! Please ask the Minister where is the scientific evidence to prove that CO2 is a problem, whereas most people believe that the Sun and its intensity has impact on our jet stream and weather. Of course we don’t want pollution but not this net zero lunacy. I’m not giving up the ability to get around and turning my heating on when I get cold. So which Party represents us the majority out here in the real world. No Party in Westminster!

    5. Mockbeggar
      January 17, 2022

      I agree. There must be some national medium out there that is not blinded by the dictum that this country must stop using its own gas and use someone else’s in the name of “Green” policies. Can we find one or more willing to publicise these figures?

    6. X-Tory
      January 17, 2022

      Sir John asks sensible questions which expose the government’s failings, but NOTHING happens as a result, because the government have their policy and are not going to change it, REGARDLESS of what any backbench MP says. I keep pointing out that the government don’t give a toss about backbench opinion, so Sir John is, unfortunately, just completely wasting his time.

      Until Tory MPs find the balls to conspire with the Opposition to oust a minister (any one will do – they are all equally useless!) through a motion of no-confidence, ministers will continue to believe that the backbenches can be ignored with impunity.

  3. Mark B
    January 17, 2022

    Good morning

    And thank you Sir John for you, Sir John for your continued efforts.

    . . . keep prices down . . .

    My guess is, that they want to keep prices high. The higher the prices the greater the VAT revenue. It also forces people to use energy more efficently and adopt more energy efficient items, such as LED lamps etc.

    Another ‘nudge’ in a certain direction me thinks.

    šŸ˜‰

    1. graham1946
      January 17, 2022

      When people save energy, they merely put the price up. I have done all that I can in low energy lighting, all my large appliances are now best in class for consumption, I don’t waste it and my energy total is the lowest its ever been, but my bills are the highest they have ever been.

  4. Mark B
    January 17, 2022

    Oops ! Not enough coffee šŸ˜‰

  5. Lifelogic
    January 17, 2022

    Indeed –

    “The derisory level of gas stocks is a wanton disregard for national security” – correct.

    “unsatisfactory energy policy pursued by the UK government” – not “unsatisfactory” but scientific, economic and political insanity – surely only driven by vested (or corrupt) interests.

    1. Nig l
      January 17, 2022

      Zero evidence. Your total ignorance or avoidance of the pan global political perspective makes your comments meaningless (not necessarily inaccurate) until you offer a solution that melds both.

      1. Narrow Shoulders
        January 17, 2022

        To be fair to @LL he regularly calls for fracking to be allowed in this country and for more North Sea production so he has suggested a solution. It may not be one you agree with but it is out there.

        1. lifelogic
          January 17, 2022

          Short term use what fossil fuel we can extract and medium to long term better nuclear and fusion.

          1. dixie
            January 17, 2022

            Which require large amounts of capital that you do not wish to support through taxes and/or higher energy prices.

        2. dixie
          January 17, 2022

          kicking the can down the road is not a solution.

          1. Narrow Shoulders
            January 17, 2022

            At this time it may not be a solution but until such time as we have a workable solution that doesn’t impoverish us and our country it is the best approach.

          2. dixie
            January 18, 2022

            Even if fracking and North Sea gas field developments proceed we still have to invest now in sustainable long term solutions. Doing nothing is not an option and solutions will require public funding.

        3. hefner
          January 17, 2022

          NS, I can also call for more fracking and more North Sea production without having the very first inkling whether any private company would be willing to put money into such endeavours. Today we are told that Shell, BP and SSE might invest in more offshore wind developments around Scotland. Why do these companies not rush to invest in fracking and more North Sea production?

          I am afraid that this type of meaningless comment is the tune that dear beloved Lifelogic plays everyday on this blog.
          Where are his plans/solutions to finance such things? Nowhere, but that does not prevent him for telling us that every Chancellor from Major, Brown, Darling, Osborne, Hammond, Javid to Sunak has been a ā€˜piss down the drain, incompetent, PPE-stupid, ā€¦ā€™, simply because they might have caused a little drop in his annual earnings.

          I am sorry but I think that someone who can only judge other human beings by the topics they had studied at university, most of them at least twenty years ago, without even considering what experience they might have acquired during those years, has a ā€¦ problem (to put it nicely).

          That a number of you appear unable to discern such an obvious fact (and even claim to ā€˜enjoy his postsā€™) makes me think you are not the ā€˜prettiest cups in the tea setā€™ either.

          1. Peter2
            January 17, 2022

            They are prepared to invest hef
            Surely you know they have not been granted permission to frack.
            Sneer on.

          2. hefner
            January 25, 2022

            Are they? What is your proof, or are you making that up?
            There is nothing whatsoever about investing in UK fracking in any of Shellā€™s or BPā€™s recent annual reports. They are investing in other countries (USA, Canada, Argentina, Australia, China, Oman).

            Not that you would know, eh?

      2. Fedupsoutherner
        January 17, 2022

        Nig1. You’ve obviously got a problem with L/L. As far as I can see he often comes up with solutions and very sensible ones. I enjoy his posts.

        1. Nig l
          January 17, 2022

          Ah. Politically deaf? Read all my words. The ones in brackets are the clue. None politically acceptable so he isnā€™t offering solutions.

          Now if he got out of his armchair, successfully stood for office like the people he criticises then he could turn his suggestions into reality.

          1. lifelogic
            January 17, 2022

            To stand for parliament I would have to return to live in the UK (which would mean a tax bill increasing by many times the MPs salary). I would not be acceptable to the Conservative Party anyway as I would not be prepared to constantly lie about masks, taxes, lockdowns, Covid vaccines for children, vaccine passports, the net zero lunacy and insane energy policy, HS2, test and traceā€¦ and I am not a tax to death socialist either which seems to be required now.

          2. Fedupsoutherner
            January 17, 2022

            NigL. We’ll perhaps we should all get out of our chairs then. Practically everyone on this site runs down MP’S and the government. It’s not exclusively LL

        2. dixie
          January 18, 2022

          @FUS – Lifelogic doesn’t live in the UK and sounds like a tax exile yet every day floods this blog with whining complaints from a safe distance in his comfy armchair about issues that affect us but not him. Why?

      3. graham1946
        January 17, 2022

        Nigl1

        Oil prices for instance are at the lower end of the recent historical scale, yet prices at the pumps and for heating oil are at a high. Let’s hear you explain that away as you obviously think you are an expert.

      4. lifelogic
        January 17, 2022

        Zero evidence of what?

    2. Shirley M
      January 17, 2022

      +1 Insanity? Whose pocket are they in, because nobody on this planet would think these are sensible actions that are in the interests of the UK. It is looking more and more like corruption and self interest.

      1. Fedupsoutherner
        January 17, 2022

        Shirley. There can be no other conclusion. The policies being followed now are seemingly created by people with no interest in opportunities to make things better in the UK. One can only assume it’s a case of follow the money for many. None of it makes any sense to sane people.

        1. Mickey Taking
          January 17, 2022

          BBC website.
          The pandemic has made the world’s wealthiest far richer but has led to more people living in poverty, according to the charity Oxfam. Lower incomes for the world’s poorest contributed to the death of 21,000 people each day, its report claims.
          But the world’s 10 richest men have more than doubled their collective fortunes since March 2020, Oxfam said. Oxfam typically releases a report on global inequality at the start of the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos.
          That event usually sees thousands of corporate and political leaders, celebrities, campaigners, economists and journalists gather in the Swiss ski resort for panel discussions, drinks parties and schmoozing.

    3. Timaction
      January 17, 2022

      Not fit for purpose Government who has no regard for our National Security where energy generation self sufficiency is a must for our people and our industries. Why do they allow us to get to a point where we can be blackmailed by foreign Governments? Why is fishing linked to the provision of electricity in Boris’s oven ready Turkey? We are run by idiots.

  6. Oldtimer
    January 17, 2022

    What we see is the climate/CO2 con in action. UK policy is to suppress UK activities that produce CO2 regardless of the consequences on people and the economy all in the name of saving the planet. Those activities, with their associated jobs, contribution to GDP and national prosperity, are exported abroad so that the politicians and NGOs can claim how virtuous they and the UK are. They fail to mention that their re-import back into the UK, often in finished goods form, actually generates even more CO2 than keeping it in the UK in the first place!

    1. lifelogic
      January 17, 2022

      +1 and how are we going to pay for this agenda?

    2. X-Tory
      January 17, 2022

      The insanity and treachery of the current policy on green taxes being imposed on Britain by the PM and her husband was exposed recently by the Taxpayers’ Alliance which showed that these taxes will rise by over 40% under this government, from Ā£11.7 billion in 2019 to Ā£16.7 billion in 2024. The number of these taxes is bewildering, from the climate change levy to the carbon price floor, from the carbon reduction commitment to the emissions trading scheme. It is all utter madness which has pushed the UK’s tax rate up to a 70-year high.

      There is NOTHING ‘Conservative’ about this government, and nothing will change until the Prime Minister and her useless and stupid husband are booted out of Number 10.

  7. Oldtimer
    January 17, 2022

    These same politicians and NGOs also either fail to mention or fail to see or understand the implications of their push for that substitute to the internal combustion engine the lithium ion battery. These require graphite for the anodes. There is not enough naturally occurring mined graphite to satisfy soaring demand. It is therefore necessary to create synthetic graphite using an energy intensive process involving petroleum coke and coal tar. It produces 4.9kg of CO2 for each 1kg of graphite. This is madness in action.

    1. turboterrier
      January 17, 2022

      Oldtimer
      Spot on the money.

    2. Shirley M
      January 17, 2022

      Yes, it always amuses me that the panic over limited natural supplies of fossil fuels are replaced by zero panic over limited natural resources of materials needed for batteries. Out of the frying pan into the fire!

      1. Mark
        January 17, 2022

        It is the degree of Chinese control over so many of those resources and the soaring prices that should frighten us all. Breaking that stranglehold is going to be far more difficult than cracking the power of OPEC, where competition for revenue eventually broke the cartel.

        1. dixie
          January 18, 2022

          @Mark – rare earth plants being developed on Teeside and at Saltend on the Humber

          1. Mark
            January 18, 2022

            Thanks for the pointers. The Tanzanian project seems to have stalled. Hope the Angolan one fares better.

      2. dixie
        January 18, 2022

        A valid observation. Except whilst you can’t recycle oil, gas, petrol or diesel after you have burned it you can repurpose, recover, recycle batteries and materials after they have reached a level of use. Further, new battery chemistries R&D is constant and ongoing to replace the more critical and toxic materials.
        It does require funding but doing nothing is not an option.

    3. Rhoddas
      January 17, 2022

      Need a new PM and cabinet to stand behind your precise requirements Sir J and then deliver, not renege.
      I will be looking for such commitments when the candidates for the next PM stand.

      These existential problems are of the making of the old/current regime. Appalling, not even an apology nor contrition, never mind beginning with fixing matters.

    4. Timaction
      January 17, 2022

      Spot on. There is not enough raw materials, full stop, to produce sufficient batteries for the UK population and its needs, especially as they import 700,000 more people every year plus 10’s of thousands illegals by dingy without action. How does the import of these numbers help their climate change objectives and our CO2 production? You couldn’t make up the rank stupidity of the political class in Westminster.

  8. DOM
    January 17, 2022

    We can therefore conclude based on this analysis that the primary aim of the Europhile’s British State’s policy regarding the production of energy for both domestic and industrial usage is driven not by any concerns for the environment by reducing Co2 emissions but by some other not yet disclosed reason

    It is fair to say that there are domestic and international political forces at work that are deliberately nudging this nation away from self-sufficiency in energy and other areas towards import dependency. Why?

    It’s almost as if policy makers are designing a future that is designed to fail or at least trigger shortages or emergencies. Someone is playing politics with our futures and they are doing it out of spite, malice, ideological lunacy and destructive intent

    1. turboterrier
      January 17, 2022

      DOM
      +1

    2. Oldtimer
      January 17, 2022

      The elevation of CO2 to bogeyman status is indeed cover for other objectives. Among its originators in the 1980s and 90s was the concern that the rapidly growing global population and industrialisation in Asia would cause unsustainable demands on natural resources. Rising CO2 and its alleged global warming qualities were selected as the means to generate fear about the consequences; this tactics was openly espoused by the then DG of the Met Office (also the first chair of the IPCC). Since then project Fear has been adopted as the tool of choice to persuade the public to toe the line, to push through the Climate Change Act and all that has followed. Politicians saw CO2 as a prime target for taxation. Nowadays they talk openly about the abolition of private car ownership and the end of meat eating to name but two aspects of the green bandwagon that NGOs have climbed aboard to pursue pet projects . It is also obvious that the USA is pressurising European countries to shun Russian gas in favour of US gas. Common to all of these initiatives is the use of fear to control people. It is and will cost the rest of us freedoms once taken for granted unless resisted.

      1. No Longer Anonymous
        January 17, 2022

        Rice bicycles and boiler suits.

        1. Nottingham Lad Himself
          January 17, 2022

          Parlez-vous…

        2. glen cullen
          January 17, 2022

          The future is green ‘Soylent Green’

        3. Mockbeggar
          January 17, 2022

          Rice growing equals more CO2 than cattle.

      2. hefner
        January 17, 2022

        First chair of IPCC was the Swedish Prof. Bert Bolin who never was DG at the Met.Office. I guess youā€™re talking about Sir John Houghton.
        There was no need to ā€˜selectā€™ CO2 as a means to generate fear as ā€˜growing global population and industrialisationā€™ was concomitant with increasing CO2 and pollution, a rather obvious fact. Remember the acid rain, then the CFCs and the ā€˜ozone holeā€™.
        What you obviously fail to mention is that the increased industrialisation that occurred in Asia from the ā€˜80s onwards following essentially the same model previously used in the ā€˜Westā€™ could not care less for the ā€˜externalitiesā€™, something that had already been pointed out for years, e.g., by Rachel Carsonā€™s ā€˜Silent Springā€™ in 1962 or by the 1972 report ā€˜The Limits to Growthā€™ from the Club of Rome.

        So your ā€˜diatribeā€™ might make you feel good but for me it is a rather worthless comment as it does not bear much resemblance with ā€˜historicalā€™ facts and as all aspects of pollution, whether CO2, other gases, or various other legal or illegal dumpings ā€¦ do not seem to be of much concern to you.

        1. Nottingham Lad Himself
          January 18, 2022

          LL’s purpose is not to advance arguments which withstand proper scrutiny.

          It is to support those – if any might be reading – who vote according to ill-formed conclusions in the erroneous beliefs that they hold, with the aim of continuing their voting habits.

          Most right-wing comment probably falls into this category.

          1. Peter2
            January 18, 2022

            Yet you think NHL, uniquely, that your comments could never apply to left wing voters.
            How odd.

      3. Mitchel
        January 17, 2022

        I see Gazprom has again booked no capacity for the month of February on the pipelines that pass through Poland and Ukraine.

        1. Mickey Taking
          January 17, 2022

          Putin’s revenge!

    3. Shirley M
      January 17, 2022

      DOM

      Agreed, the most obvious being energy and food, both essential and both capable of more self sufficiency but the government is discouraging self sufficiency and prioritising imports from hostile, and potentially hostile, countries. Another deliberate act of harm to our country.

      1. Timaction
        January 17, 2022

        Why??? I believe its to make us dependent on foreign nations, particularly the EU to soften us up for re entry. That’s when there will be extreme trouble as the people are waking up the to stupidity of the current Parties in Parliament. No one will vote for banning their cars, boilers, eating meat, higher energy bills and taxes for what? A religion that we don’t believe.

    4. No Longer Anonymous
      January 17, 2022

      Nail on head.

      Operation ‘Red Meat’ says it all.

      “Throw ’em some red meat.” Jesus !

      The Tories and the Monarchy are just a veneer to fool the people into thinking things are normal and that there is democracy.

      They are now part of the problem. We need to get rid of both and start again.

      1. MWB
        January 17, 2022

        NLA – +1.

      2. Nottingham Lad Himself
        January 17, 2022

        You’ve been clamouring for it.

        They might as well give it a try.

      3. X-Tory
        January 17, 2022

        “Operation ā€˜Red Meatā€™ says it all.”

        Yes, it does ‘say it all’ – it says that the useless, stupid, cowardly and uxorious Boris Johnson must be forced, with a gun to his head, to do what he should be doing normally: adopting conservative policies. There is your proof that Boris Johnson is NOT a genuine conservative. But he is a CON-man. So even now his ‘red meat’ policies are a FRAUD. Just look at the two mentioned so far:

        1. Scrapping the BBC Licence Fee. despite the impression given, this is going to go UP after the temporary two-year freeze. WHY? Why not freeze it permanently until it is replaced? And WHAT will replace it? If the government genuinely intended to scrap the Licence Fee they would be straight with us and tell us what was going to replace it. After all, given that the so-called ‘end’ of the Licence Fee will come after the next general election, this will be a huge issue in the vote, so the public will insist on knowing the answer. Why not therefore tell us now? The electorate does not like uncertainty. It would take an especially stupid government to commit to ending the Licence Fee without already knowing what was going to replace this, so tell us NOW.

        2. Bringing in the armed forces to tackle the immigrant invasion. This is just deceitful window-dressing. You would have to be a very stupid Tory MP to fall for this, since unless the government actually start turning boats back (as agreed by the government and their lawyers last year!) then the military will simply add to the illegal immigrant taxi service. And even if asylum seekers are sent offshore somewhere for processing, so what? If their applications for asylum continue to be considered on the same basis as now, they will continue to be granted, and these bogus asylum claimants will eventually come here after all – and the pull factor will remain! So NOTHING will change. As I have said before: the government must declare that NOBODY will receive asylum or ELR under ANY circumstances, and they will NEVER be allowed to set foot in the UK. That’s the ONLY solution.

    5. SecretPeople
      January 17, 2022

      Totally. +1

  9. Donna
    January 17, 2022

    The Government’s Energy Policy is an abnegation of their responsibility to keep the country safe and secure.

    We are either being ruled by Quislings or fools …… or possibly they’re both.

    1. lifelogic
      January 17, 2022

      +1

  10. Sea_Warrior
    January 17, 2022

    Keeep pushing, Sir John. You have exposed the government’s policy for the lunacy that it is. This parliament has three years to run. Your party has a healthy majority. So will the Conservatives be able to reduce LNG imports and increase home production?

    1. turboterrier
      January 17, 2022

      Sea Warrior
      Increase home production?

      Oh do behave. The ministers and their departments haven’t got a bleeding clue. Incompetence driven by ignorance and too arrogant to admit they are totally and utterly wrong.

      1. miami.mode
        January 17, 2022

        tt, the dogma of Borius Ineptus.

      2. majorfrustration
        January 17, 2022

        +plus

      3. rose
        January 17, 2022

        Arrogant? Surely hamstrung by Mrs May’s legislation, the last thing she did with the Traitors’ Parliament. If she can now see the folly of shutting down the country for a pandemic, why didn’t she see the folly of the CO2 cult?

        1. lifelogic
          January 17, 2022

          +1 and Ed Miliband’s hugely damaging Climate Change Act with the creation of Lord Debden/ Gummerā€™s appallingly misguided ā€œCommittee for Climate Changeā€. This alas voted for by all but a tiny handful of MPs so ignorant of energy, science, climate and economics as nearly all of them are.

          1. glen cullen
            January 17, 2022

            Don’t blame Labour….the Tory government haven’t repealed the Climate Change Act, something it could do tomorrow
            They could also repeal the ECHR….there are hundreds of things this government could do, but the leadership has its head in the sand and no vision

          2. lifelogic
            January 17, 2022

            @ glen cullen indeed but most MPs are deluded art graduates & in love with the net zero religion.

        2. Mike Wilson
          January 17, 2022

          Surely hamstrung by Mrs Mayā€™s legislation, the last thing she did with the Traitorsā€™ Parliament

          Surely, with a majority of 80 and an iron grip on the party, that legislation could be repealed.

          1. lifelogic
            January 17, 2022

            +1

          2. rose
            January 17, 2022

            The Equality Act and the Human Rights Act should also be repealed.

            An 80 seat majority can’t be guaranteed to get this sort of virtue signalling legislation repealed by our Parliament. Look what happened in the Foreign Aid and Internal Market debates. The majority of MPs and Peers are far more concerned about what they think their opposite numbers in the UN will think about them than what we think.

  11. Shirley M
    January 17, 2022

    Unbelievable. They admit that they cause more CO2 by importing gas than using home produced gas despite Boris’s new ‘net zero’ religion. They also shovel money at foreign countries in the process and increase imports instead of providing UK jobs and collecting UK tax.

    The more I learn about this government, the more certain I am that they are deliberately damaging the UK. Nobody can be that thick. Who are the advisers …. the EU, or some other organisation that would love to see the downfall of Brexit UK?

    1. turboterrier
      January 17, 2022

      Shirley M
      Nobody can be that thick?
      But they are, and like you I do wonder if there is a concerted cunning plan to bring us to our knees.
      Too many politicians are trying to operate well above their levels of their competence and it shows.
      It is systematic across all the parties and their individual central offices must shoulder some of the responsibility in not changing the selection process criteria.

      1. Sir Joe Soap
        January 17, 2022

        No they can’t be that thick. Something else is going on.

        1. Micky Taking
          January 17, 2022

          Some ARE thick, others are intent on making UK third world – and succeeding.

      2. BW
        January 17, 2022

        If ever there was or is an epidemic it is the breakout of the ā€œPeter Principle ā€ in Parliament.

    2. Andy
      January 17, 2022

      Brexitists are running the country.

      The are doing an embarrassingly poor job, donā€™t you think?

      Imagine – if they are prepared to lie this much to you about parties, what else are they lying to you about?

      1. Nottingham Lad Himself
        January 17, 2022

        Yes, those kids who smoked behind the bike sheds instead of attending lessons are now running the school according to their regard for education.

      2. Roy Grainger
        January 17, 2022

        True – they are lying to us about the costs and benefits of going for Net Zero for a start. Glad you pointed that out.

        1. Andy
          January 17, 2022

          The costs of going net zero are high. The costs of not going net zero are higher.

          Last year it was Germany and Belgium. Homes washed away in man made climate change related floods and mudslides.

          Before that it was wildfires in Canada, California and Australia. Or huge storms in Texas. Or New York.

          It may not have happened here – yet. But it doesnā€™t mean it wonā€™t. And it doesnā€™t mean it wonā€™t be your home washed away.

          Thatā€™d have two benefits. Firstly, youā€™d stop whining about wind farms. Secondly, youā€™d get to find out what itā€™s really like to be a refugee.

          1. lifelogic
            January 17, 2022

            The costs of not going net zero are higher. Complete B/S mate.

            And anyway just the UK going ā€œnet zeroā€ will clearly have no beneficial effects whatsoever. Not only that but EVs, heat pumps, wind, solar, hydrogen ā€¦ will not even save any significant CO2 anyway.

      3. Nig l
        January 17, 2022

        Factually inaccurate yet again. Liz Truss for instance voted to Remain. Unlike you she has moved on. As with your obsessive stance we see the EU determined to punish us rather than pragmatically accepting the democratic vote, incidentally we are seeing both push back across the Continent, even your beloved France and the squashing of any hint of democracy.

        1. Andy
          January 17, 2022

          I have moved on too. I have gone from being sad about Brexit – and all you have stolen from us – to laughing hysterically by how badly it is going.

          I enjoy Brexit. Prior to 2016 I just thought you were all completely bonkers. Now I have proof. Itā€™s brilliantly entertaining.

          1. Mickey Taking
            January 17, 2022

            Andy – — seriously now, laughing hysterically is a sign of being unbalanced.
            I think you should consult professionals about your mental state.

      4. Oldtimer
        January 17, 2022

        Nothing to do with Brexit. The big push came from the Blair government elected in 1997.

      5. No Longer Anonymous
        January 17, 2022

        Andy,

        They aren’t.

        God knows what Boris is. A chaotic opportunist perhaps.

        1. Micky Taking
          January 17, 2022

          ‘what Boris is’ – I won’t write what the conclusion is, Sir John doesn’t publish even a mild rebuke.

      6. rose
        January 17, 2022

        Remainiac civil servants are running the country, trying to impoverish it so they can justify taking it back into the EU.

        1. hefner
          January 25, 2022

          As if the EU27 countries would be able to agree between themselves to readmit the UK among themā€¦
          As if Labour (or even less the Conservative Party) would be in any shape or form willing to push for reapplying to the EUā€¦
          I can only conclude one thing: people like you, rose, are so afraid of or so uncertain of what the future of the UK is going to be that you are already preparing excuses to try to explain why it might not be as wonderful as you thought: a dereliction of duty of some kind, donā€™t you think?

      7. Peter2
        January 17, 2022

        If only the majority of civil servants and MPs were brexitists young Andy.

        1. Shirley M
          January 17, 2022

          Peter2
          +1

        2. Andy
          January 17, 2022

          You have to be smart to be a civil servant. This is why most civil servants are not Brexitists.

          1. Peter2
            January 17, 2022

            Twaddle.

          2. Mickey Taking
            January 17, 2022

            How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

      8. a-tracy
        January 17, 2022

        But brexitists haven’t been running the country source lbc How many Cabinet members voted for Brexit?
        64% of the 22 members of the extended cabinet voted Remain, compared to just 36% who voted for Brexit.https://www.lbc.co.uk/politics/the-news-explained/boris-johnsons-cabinet-brexit-or-remain/

        Do you have the current stats Andy to back up your thoughts that Brexitists are running the Country?

      9. Nig l
        January 17, 2022

        And we see it is alleged that the EU are banning us from their ā€˜scientific groupā€™ despite our membership being in the Brexit agreement using it as a lever to break the spirit of another agreement they signed, the NI protocol.

        I think you have Stockholm Syndrome.

      10. Nig l
        January 17, 2022

        And a message received this morning from a German contact. Re travel GB so much more normal than German politicians. Yes. He wished he had our freedoms.

      11. rose
        January 17, 2022

        “Brexitists are running the country.”

        We are talking about Mr Hands here and Mr Hands was a remainer.

    3. Sir Joe Soap
      January 17, 2022

      The question is “who is behind this deliberate damage?” As you say, they can’t be that thick, so why and by whom? Wherever you look, it’s happening. Sudden U-turns on BBC, channel immigrants, show that they know they’ve been doing wrong by the country but again why, and under whose direction? Chinese, EU or home grown influences?
      Until we (and our host)get to the bottom of these 2 questions, no fundamental change can happen.

    4. Fedupsoutherner
      January 17, 2022

      Shirley. Can they be that thick? Certainly not. Something else is going on and I think it’s total control of everything we do or should I say can’t do as it doesn’t look much like we will be allowed to have much of a life soon. We have all been led to believe that this virus is so serious. Really? Why then wasn’t Boris after supposedly being so ill with Covid more strict on his parties at Downing St? Have we been had? Personally I feel that unless we can get rid of the voting system in this country we are doomed to more of this crap.

      1. R.Grange
        January 17, 2022

        ‘Have we been had’, FedupS? Many of us, but in my view that’s nothing anyone should be ashamed of. After all, the psyop campaign was so skilled and overwhelming that most people were bound to fall for it. It was far more overpowering than the Swine flu campaign in 2009, or any other previous health scare.

        Not many people have the time or the inclination to research things for themselves, and get behind the media infowall. But ‘partygate’ has meant they don’t have to – it’s now obvious that Johnson and his crew knew they were at no risk. And if they weren’t, most of us weren’t either. The more we learn now, the more it’s clear focused protection of the vulnerable, and leaving the economy open and healthy people going about their business, would have been the right policy with Covid.

      2. Nig l
        January 17, 2022

        Get rid of the voting system and replace it with what. ā€˜Your?ā€™ Dictatorship. As I said politically deaf.

    5. Julian Flood
      January 18, 2022

      “Nobody can be that thick.”

      Don’t you believe it! Let me tell you a story…

      Well before I got involved in local politics I’d been writing to my MP about the folly of wind turbines and how they would fail us during prolonged periods of high pressure. When he became Minister for Energy and Climate Change his replies did not become any less uninformative. Then one day I was at a meeting in Haverhill and he bounced up to me.
      “Julian, good news! Solar! Solar’s the thing! Really cheap now, made in China, we can use solar!”
      “Yes, Minister, but you’ll have to store the energy.”
      You know that blank look he has, lights not on and nobody in? Three seconds of that. Then…
      “Store the energy! Yes, we’ll have to store the energy!”
      He tiggered away.
      The Minister for Energy didn’t know that you either use electricity at once or it has to be stored. Maybe his civil servants didn’t know either because they certainly hadn’t briefed him.

      That is the level of ignorance which has produced sky high prices, made the Grid increasingly insecure and made some renewable providers very wealthy indeed. That’s the level of ignorance which is pressing ahead with the almost unbuildable French-designed European Pressurised water Reactors with involvement by China General Nuclear*, and Framatome supplying its control equipment to China, UK and Finland. You might as well hand China the keys to our Grid.

      JF
      *There was a flurry of reports about stopping CGN’s involvement with our nuke programme but I can’t find out if anything was actually done about it. If not it would be all of a piece with the way these entitled poshoes are running the country. And the way the MSM has been bought by billionaires who lack commitment to our welfare.

  12. turboterrier
    January 17, 2022

    Further proof that in reality we don’t have an effective energy policy. It would seem nothing much has changed from the time the Libdum leader was in charge off energy supply, put his faith into diesel generators to prevent black outs. All this time this country has stood still, closing down the evil fossil fuel generating plants and relying on wind and solar.
    The price of total blind devotion to the climate change religion will ultimately destroy this country. Industries need power cheap power to assist them in being competitive. When there is none or too expensive the writing is on the wall for their demise. Net Zero and all it entails just compounds the situation.

    1. rose
      January 17, 2022

      You don’t mention the Liberal leader’s cultivation by the Chinese.

      1. turboterrier
        January 17, 2022

        rose

        Sorry

      2. Shirley M
        January 17, 2022

        The SNP and Labour also seem hand in glove with the Chinese. Why were the Tories left out … or were they?

        1. rose
          January 17, 2022

          Davey was targeted because he was the Energy Secretary; Gardiner was for a short time the Shadow. It was our energy the Chinese wanted to influence and find out about.

  13. BOF
    January 17, 2022

    What a tale of wanton stupidity, so much so that there can only be another agenda. Surely not only to achieve zero stupid, or combat climate change as they run headlong into the destruction of energy security at enormous cost to the tax payer and to leave the consumer cold, hungry and broke. And without transport!

    Buy coal. It’s in the ground.
    Buy gas. It’s under the sea and under the ground.
    Buy oil. It’s under the sea.
    All at the cost of MORE CO2. So reduction of CO2 is NOT the agenda.

    Where’s Hands? Sat on his hands! Yes Sir John. Derisory.

    1. Sir Joe Soap
      January 17, 2022

      Indeed, and we need to know who is writing the other agenda. It can’t be Mrs Johnson, that’s too pathetic. They surely have a strong influence, and are now allowing a few scraps to keep their man in power. Beware – we need somebody completely free of malign influence.

    2. glen cullen
      January 17, 2022

      +1

  14. PeteB
    January 17, 2022

    Confirmation that North Sea gas would have a lower CO2 production/delivery impact than LNG. No surprise there.

    Greg Hands could also note North Sea production provides: skilled, well paid jobs for UK people, more UK energy security, more capacity to manage consumer prices, a positive impact on balance of trade and for all the woke fanatics I suspect UK environmental and production regulations are tighter than those in the middle east.

    Given all this, of course it make sense to import from there & Russia… Oh, hang on.

    1. Shirley M
      January 17, 2022

      +1 This government is incapable (or unwilling) of helping the UK be self sufficient.

    2. Mickey Taking
      January 17, 2022

      ‘Confirmation that North Sea gas would have a lower CO2 production/delivery impact than LNG. ‘
      Why does it take a ‘troublesome’ MP to drag this response out of Government?
      Nobody officially went on record to give us the facts?
      Funny that -and if Sir John hadn’t told us?

  15. Nig l
    January 17, 2022

    With a wounded PM no better time to construct an alliance to force change.

    1. Everhopeful
      January 17, 2022

      I think ( hope) one is well underway.
      Remember when Rat, Mole and Badger took Toad in hand?
      ā€œYou knew it must come to this, sooner or later, Toad,’ the Badger explained severely.
      You’ve disregarded all the warnings we’ve given you, you’ve gone on squandering the moneyā€¦ā€
      Rat et al were not very successfulā€¦letā€™s hope this ā€œreining inā€ goes better!

  16. Narrow Shoulders
    January 17, 2022

    Dear Mr Hands,

    How much Carbon Dioxide was released by the recent eruption of the Tongan Volcano?

    How many years’ carbon outsourcing for the UK does this equate to? Are we worshipping false gods?

    1. Nottingham Lad Himself
      January 17, 2022

      The net effect of most vulcanism, owing to the release of sulphur dioxide and dust is generally global cooling.

      1. Mickey Taking
        January 17, 2022

        Cooling yes -should enough follow suit -we’ll all die….
        However you don’t state—-
        Ninety-nine percent of the gas molecules emitted during a volcanic eruption are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The remaining one percent is comprised of small amounts of hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and other minor gas species.
        Facts Martin facts.

      2. Narrow Shoulders
        January 17, 2022

        That was not the question though was it? Notts Chap

        And the fact that a volcano emits more Sulphur than Carbon does not minimise the amount of carbon thrown into the air. Carbon is either bad or it is not – it is presented by the green fringe as a dichotomy.

        If there is indeed nuance, let’s have the discussion over a reasonable period of time, with realistic, pragmatic solutions factored in.

    2. Everhopeful
      January 17, 2022

      +1
      Think I read that doesnā€™t countā€¦not man made. Some carbon goodā€¦some bad!!

      Very calm reporting from Matangi Tongaā€™s Leading News Website 15th Jan
      Unlike our keen to ramp it up msm!

      ā€œBig day yesterday indeed!. It was great getting out there during the volcano’s peak hours. It’s a geologist’s dream to see actual geological events in process,ā€ he told Matangi Tonga.

      ā€œAt 10:00am this morning Saturday, the National Tsunami Warning Centre cancelled the tsunami marine warning for Tongatapu, Ha’apai and southern Tonga .ā€

      1. glen cullen
        January 17, 2022

        You canā€™t tax a volcano for erupting but you can tax someone driving a petrol car

        1. Everhopeful
          January 17, 2022

          +1
          Ha! Yes!
          Very good point.

      2. hefner
        January 17, 2022

        Wait a minute, your 10:00am, is it local time or GMT? Because if it is GMT, you might look rather ridiculous if not plain stupid, as the eruption occurred around 04:10 GMT, the four-feet tsunami in Tonga occurred just after, so it is quite reasonable to see the warning cancelled about six hours later. What do you think?

    3. No Longer Anonymous
      January 17, 2022

      What temperature would he like the atmosphere to be set at ?

      It’s a serious question – ridiculous though it is.

      1. Fedupsoutherner
        January 17, 2022

        NLA. Be patient. The thermostatic controller hasn’t been invented yet.

        1. Julian Flood
          January 18, 2022

          Yes it has. CO2 is the control knob for global temperature.

          You can prove that by simply looking at the way temperatures rose during the twentieth century. From 1975 to the end of the century there was an almost continuous rise in global warming and during that time CO2 rose, post hoc ergo propter hoc as our erudite PM might put it. And before CO2 levels began to rise, from 1910 to 1940, the temperature hardly… ummm. That’s odd. While CO2 levels remained steady global warming increased at the same rate as post 1975. So that means… it can’t… Hmmm.

          I’ll check in with thought control central and get back to you…

          JF

      2. glen cullen
        January 17, 2022

        Your answer will be supplied at the next UN IPCC COP event

    4. glen cullen
      January 17, 2022

      Volcano eruption isnā€™t a man-made population, its natural, so therefore isnā€™t included by UN IPCC as dangerous to the world and its rising temperatureā€¦.to them itā€™s a green event

      1. hefner
        January 17, 2022

        As soon as a volcano erupts nowadays, satellite data about the plume of smoke and whatever info (obviously rather limited to start with) about its composition is entered in the analysis of meteorological (weather forecast) models. The minimum is the horizontal extent of the plume every 1, 3 or 6 hours, the height it reaches and its brightness temperature. All that from geostationary satellites.
        Possibly if that volcano had erupted before, is entered the probability the plume is essentially made of sulphur-related or carbonaceous particles. This type of information is also linked to whether a volcano is producing an effusive or explosive eruption.

        Which means that every future reanalysis of meteorological data (say over the period 1900 to 2022) will include this particular volcano. Previously erupting volcanoes are also included either using the actual measurements at the time, or in case of volcanoes having occurred when there was no such data by using the average info collected for more recent volcanoes. Which means that the IPCC info on the past century will have it.

        You should try to inform yourself before writing.

      2. Everhopeful
        January 17, 2022

        +1
        Itā€™s Gaia at work!

  17. Richard1
    January 17, 2022

    You donā€™t need to dig very far into the actual facts and data to expose the utter illogicality of the green crap-driven energy policy. Anti-CO2 posturing which makes energy expensive and unreliable – but does nothing and indeed is often negative for actual CO2 emissions. Yet it carries on.

    It was reported yesterday that the taxpayer funded met office has produced a ā€˜reportā€™ forecasting that climate change could lead to right wing militias taking over the U.K. and the privatisation of the NHS by the end of this century. How can it be that with a Conservative govt the civil service is able to make fools of the tax paying public by shovelling money to these absurd far-left fantasists?

    1. hefner
      January 17, 2022

      Proper reference to that report, please, so that everybody on this blog can judge how bad it is.

      1. Julian Flood
        January 18, 2022

        Can’t you just tell us? You obviously know about these things.

        JF

    2. Mark
      January 17, 2022

      We are at severe risk of a dystopia of militia control if we continue to pursue net zero. Enforcers checking that you aren’t burning logs to keep warm and making sure you cycle to the labour camp instead. Perhaps the Met Office authors have an alternative career as Hollywood writers in mind?

  18. Sakara Gold
    January 17, 2022

    You are obsessed with a mythical “shortage” of wind. By it’s very nature wind is variable. This morning wind is generating 7.2GW, renewables total 10.6GW or 27% of electricity demand. CCGT and coal have easily taken up the slack. There have been no national power cuts this winter. Again we are exporting electricity to the French. Where is the shortage?

    One solution to assuage your concerns is to develop our unbelievably cheap and highly efficient green hydrogen capability with oxygen as its vauable by-product. Coupled with grid scale energy storage and new nuclear we could become the energy powerhouse of Europe.

    To “develop” further fossil fuel resources here would require tremendous subsidy from the government because they are uneconomic, as you are well aware. But the oil companies doing it will demand the current high price for their product. A double whammy for the British taxpayer.

    Reply Yes we relied on three coal power stations they wish to close

    1. Fedupsoutherner
      January 17, 2022

      So funny Sakara. What happens when we don’t have the coal fired power stations?

      1. Mickey Taking
        January 17, 2022

        we shiver?

    2. PeteB
      January 17, 2022

      Sakera,

      Will you be eulogizing about wind energy levels later in the week when high pressure sits on top of the UK. Even today production has tailed off as the wind tails off.

      Do you keep on quoting here for an ulterior, commercial purpose?

    3. Mark
      January 17, 2022

      The shortage is in France and across the continent and the UK when winds are slight. Just as well the interconnectors are at reduced capacity, otherwise we would be in a bidding war to share more of the shortage. In fact, that’s exactly where we were on Friday, when the Continent bid to import 4.5 GW from us instead of supplying 4.5 GW. Even after that was prevented we had a 50% risk of a blackout, and soaring prices. To balance supply industry had to cut back.

    4. Barbara
      January 17, 2022

      Fossil fuels are only ā€˜uneconomicā€™, as you call it, because Green energy companies receive Ā£10 billion a year in subsidy from the taxpayer (source: netzerowatch).

      1. dixie
        January 18, 2022

        Fossil fuels have received and are receiving extensive subsidy also, the problem is that demand for energy is increasing along with the cost and complexity of extraction/generation.

    5. turboterrier
      January 17, 2022

      SG
      No matter how many of your turbines are actually generating power, there will be other fossil fuel generators operating, just ticking over to ensure when the wind drops or chan.ges they can be ramped up quickly to prevent outage. But most politicians and green zealots choose to ignore this important fact.

      1. dixie
        January 18, 2022

        The same is true for meeting demand changes even with nuclear.

    6. Original Richard
      January 17, 2022

      Sakara Gold :

      ā€œOne solution to assuage your concerns is to develop our unbelievably cheap and highly efficient green hydrogen capability with oxygen as its vauable by-product. Coupled with grid scale energy storage and new nuclear we could become the energy powerhouse of Europe.ā€

      As I write, wind is down to 3GW (7% of demand (41GW)) and windmill energy can only exist because it is backed up by fossil fuel. Weā€™re only sending 1GW to France.

      Your ā€œgreen hydrogenā€ (hydrolysis of water I presume) is hideously expensive as the water molecule is tightly bound and very stable and thus requires a lot of energy to break up.

      There is no non-fossil fuel grid scale storage and the government hasnā€™t committed to any new nuclear since Lib Dem Ed Davey (Oxford PPE), then Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, gave the go-ahead for Hinkley Point C in 2012, a project financed by the Chinese.

      Dieter Helm, professor of Energy Policy at the University of Oxford, told the BBC 04/06/2018 :

      ā€œHinkley Point C would have been roughly half the cost if the government had been borrowing the money to build it at 2%, rather than EDF’s cost of capital, which was 9%.”

      Interestingly Ed Davey has been in the news recently for his local branch receiving a donation from the CCP informant, Christine Lee, in 2013, whilst he himself has received a donation from Huawei in 2020.

      Fossil fuels are far cheaper than wind, do not require subsidy and are totally reliable. Gas in the US is a third of that in the UK.

      1. dixie
        January 18, 2022

        But there are fossil fuel subsidies

    7. acorn
      January 17, 2022

      Nonsense JR. The system did not rely on 1,500 MW of coal plant. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself on how the UK “free market” electric system actually works. You really should stop taking the piss out of the likes of Fedupsoutherner and most others on this site, who hang on your every word.

      BTW. I had a nightmare where Nadine Dorries became Prime Minister and her first Cabinet appointment was you as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Can you imagine the hate mail she is going to get; plus, the might of BBC journalism taking her whole life apart.

      Reply Strange then they had to run the coal stations when they are very anti coal.

      1. Fedupsoutherner
        January 17, 2022

        Acorn. If I think Sir John is taking the piss out of me I shall stop reading his diaries. Until then I don’t need the likes of you to tell me. Thank you.

    8. lifelogic
      January 17, 2022

      ā€œto develop our unbelievably cheap and highly efficient green hydrogen capabilityā€

      There is nothing remotely ā€œefficientā€ or ā€œcheapā€ about generating green hydrogen it is absurdly inefficient. Unless you have found some way to change the laws of physics perhaps?

    9. dixie
      January 18, 2022

      At 0837 Tusday 18th Gridwatch shows a total demand of 41GW with wind providing 4.21GW (11%), Nuclear 5GW (12%) and CCGT 23GW (56%) so far from “taking up the slack” we are very dependent on the fossil fuel stations to meet demand.
      At the same time we are exporting 2% of our power to France. Why? If we are having to run CCGT because nuclear and wind aren’t meeting demand why are we exporting part of our fossil fuel generation to France?
      You are as obsessed with wind as the black crap brigade are with gas.
      We need a sustainable solution that works for the UK and even with local storage at the generation sites wind by itself is not it.

    10. Nottingham Lad Himself
      January 18, 2022

      Who are “they”, Sir John?

  19. Denis Cooper
    January 17, 2022

    Off topic, a contact in Ireland has just mentioned this:

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2022/0116/1274050-foreign-affairs-gathering-covid/

    “Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney has ordered an investigation into a gathering of officials in his department in June 2020, in the aftermath of Ireland winning a UN Security Council seat.”

    “An image which was shared on social media at the time shows a number of officials from the Department’s UN Security Council campaign team gathered together posing for a photograph indoors.”

    That “number” being over twenty … now they can stop gloating about what our lot got up to.

  20. George Brooks.
    January 17, 2022

    The replies you have received Sir John are totally contradictory to the title of the department and illustrates the very nasty undercurrent running through Westminster.

    To import at higher cost is not good business. Not to have our energy supply secure and with sufficient stocks and the strategy designed to keep us linked with the EU is nothing more than criminal.

    We need to get these Remainers out of these important departments and that includes the Environment for farming and fishing to name but two.

  21. Everhopeful
    January 17, 2022

    Is it true that we pay a 25% ā€œgreen levyā€ on our energy bills already?
    If so they are very good at extorting money for stuff we never voted for arenā€™t they?
    According to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy ( lol šŸ¤­), cutting this green tax in the face of government engineered inflation and rising costs is considered a ā€œretrogradeā€ stepā€¦.like going back to windmills?
    More like ( as someone said on here) being ā€œforcedā€ back into the EU!

  22. agricola
    January 17, 2022

    Just two more aspects of a shambolic fuel policy. Enough in fact to suggest that there isn’t a policy. The rush to pray and be seen to pray in the green church has blinded our government to the reality of fuel supply. This fiasco is going to cost the population an unnecessary fortune and conservative politics will be tossed aside by the electorate. The costs will be coming through the letter box in time for the local elections, tactically brilliant.

    1. glen cullen
      January 17, 2022

      Using Ā£1.45 per litre of E10 petrol you may average 15 miles distance
      Thatā€™s the yard stickā€¦.I canā€™t find a baseline to EV, so whats the comparison
      (1) using public charging station
      (2) using rapid charging station and
      (3) using domestic home charging
      Remember to include the monthly subscription costs, what distance will the equivalent Ā£1.45 of electricity get you

      1. Mike Wilson
        January 17, 2022

        Your petrol driven car does 67.5 mpg?

        1. Mickey Taking
          January 17, 2022

          Our 1.4cc does 40-43 per gallon – it did using E5 and no difference with E10.
          11 years old.

          1. Mickey Taking
            January 17, 2022

            not that small an engine…s/be 1400cc

      2. dixie
        January 18, 2022

        I was lucky to get 9 miles per litre in my merc.
        A reasonable average for EVs would be around 4 miles per kWh
        At approx 20p (domestic) per kWh that would be around 80p for 16 miles so around 30 miles for your Ā£1.45.
        However, there are overnight charging tariffs, eg with Octopus, that would cost you much less eg 7.5p per kWh so that would give 30p for 16 miles and 77 miles for your Ā£1.45.
        I haven’t used public charging for over a year so couldn’t tell you what the current rates are.

  23. Nig l
    January 17, 2022

    And in other news the Speccie shreds Sage etc modelling and assumptions pointing out how widely inaccurate they were. On the basis that Javed et al were quick to quote them and happy to hide behind them, the public who have suffered both personally and economically deserve a forthright independent review.

    The frankly useless Grant Shapps (read the shambles of Smart Motorways and people killed because of it) ruined unnecessarily thousands of families holidays by imposing an unnecessary and proven ineffective testing regime.

  24. Julian Flood
    January 17, 2022

    Sir John.,

    The most mind-boggling fact about LNG is the fact that it stays liquid by allowing some to boil off. Any methane gas not used to power the tanker adds to AGW at a rate much greater than the equivalent amount of CO2.

    Thank you for exposing the penalty we suffer for our STEM-illiterate political class.

    JF

    1. Denis Cooper
      January 17, 2022

      Thanks for mentioning that.

    2. lifelogic
      January 17, 2022

      +1

    3. dixie
      January 19, 2022

      I see what you did there – the liquid state is maintained by constant pressure and ambient heat causes increased pressure hence the boil off to relieve the pressure. Using the BOG as fuel is very clever.

  25. rose
    January 17, 2022

    32 years ago, the BBC campaigned day and night to kill the poll tax. It did so on the ground that the dustman should not pay the same as the duke. It incited riots, some of the nastiest we have ever had.

    At that time, not just the duke, but the Dorchester Hotel was paying the same BBC tax as the dustman, despite hotels having many, many TV sets. Now, the dustman is still paying the same BBC tax as the duke, if not the Dorchester Hotel. As far as the bloated BBC goes, it really is one rule for one…

    Rectifying this wrong will not save the Government, but appointing Sir John as Chancellor would, because only he could stop the Treasury impoverishing us all on behalf of the EU.

    1. Nottingham Lad Himself
      January 17, 2022

      It was the facts that incited the riots, which everyone knew anyway.

      It was not the reporting of them.

      1. Mickey Taking
        January 18, 2022

        The reporting included the coach loads of ‘rent a mob’ taking opportunity to ‘pick a fight with authorities’.
        There was no spontaneity about it.

        1. Nottingham Lad Himself
          January 18, 2022

          My rates were Ā£43 per year before the poll tax. The Poll Tax for me was Ā£400 per year, an overnight increase of the order of 1,000%.

          There was room for four adults in my then house. Had they been living there, then that would have been Ā£1,600 per year from the occupants of that modest dwelling.

          The Poll Tax was was a tax on people for simply existing. Millions felt exactly as did the rioters.

          Anything said by the media added or subtracted little to or from that vast reservoir of justified rage.

          1. Peter2
            January 18, 2022

            It reflects the costs you incur by living in a local area as part of the local community and all the things you get provided by the local council.
            Comes as a shock doesn’t it NHL

  26. Denis Cooper
    January 17, 2022

    JR, as you know I am not one of your constituents but please could you ask a question about the official projections of the economic benefit to the UK of its Trade and Co-operation Agreement with the EU.

    As I have mentioned before:

    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2021/12/21/what-a-recovery-package-would-look-like/#comment-1285747

    five government departments – trade, business, Treasury, Cabinet Office and FCDO – have all sidestepped this question when it was posed as FOI requests.

    It does seem rather important to know how much this deal is actually worth to us, not least because the EU has threatened to suspend or cancel it over UK breaches of the Irish protocol.

    Obviously it would be pointless for me to try to get my own MP Theresa May to ask about it.

  27. alan jutson
    January 17, 2022

    Good Questions John, shame about the answers.
    Do they not recognise they are making themselves look like fools.

    I see Australia are now deporting a tennis player who filled in his work permit/entry form incorrectly.
    Would we have done the same, given we seem to allow thousands of people who we know have entered the Country through illegal means, who have not filled in any forms at all, or indeed seem to have lost all means of identification.
    No, we put them up indefinitely, paying the whole cost of accommodation, food, heat, light, power health care, and give them some spending money as well !!

    1. Fedupsoutherner
      January 17, 2022

      +1

    2. Philip P.
      January 17, 2022

      Alan, that’s because government policy in Australia is to punish those who exercise the right to bodily autonomy. Whereas in this country, it’s government policy to reward those who abuse the right to political asylum.

      1. Mickey Taking
        January 17, 2022

        Wrong ….Australia have always elected Governments who ensure the laws protect their citizens.
        If you don’t like it don’t go there.
        Many UK Governments over decades have whittled down our laws to the point where people doing illegal things are better protected than those who were victims.

        1. Philip P.
          January 18, 2022

          You haven’t been following, Micky. Australian law as ruled on by a Court allowed Djokovic in. A diktat by a politician threw him out.

          1. dixie
            January 19, 2022

            You haven’t been following, Philip. The government’s job is to protect it’s citizens. Unlike that in Australia ours is failing miserably.
            I wonder why.

    3. glen cullen
      January 17, 2022

      The French tell them the boat isnā€™t big enough nor fast enough, youā€™d better call the UK Border Force for helpā€¦.still not big enough nor fast enough call the RNLIā€¦still not big enough best call the Royal Navy to help you cross safely

      1. Fedupsoutherner
        January 17, 2022

        Glen. I said that. The navy will be able to pick up more men to bring to the UK. Farage pointed out that towing a dinghy back to France is not as easy as the wooden boats used to get to Australia. Still as he said they could just load them on and take them back to Calais. I’ll be gobsmacked if that happens.

        1. rose
          January 18, 2022

          Farage has been opportunistic and dishonest over this matter: for months he told his audience HMG should be towing the boats back to France. Then Lord West explained to him what the practical and legal difficulties were and he went quiet for a few weeks. Then he started up again, full of the same old aggression against the Home Secretary personally, but with no solution. He was asked point blank by a lady on his programme what his solution was and he dodged the question, brazenly. Now he is himself pointing out the drawbacks to towing. He must have a low opinion of his audience’s memory and intelligence. Etc ed Depressing to witness in a great man.

    4. rose
      January 18, 2022

      And then allow them to bring in their families. They are the bridgehead.

  28. Bryan Harris
    January 17, 2022

    With the answers all dressed up in woolly ‘diplomatic’ language it appears that they are hiding something.

    Why can’t they give a straight answer – Are they afraid more people will recognize that these so called policies are a deliberate effort to deprive us of energy?

    I read that legislation is being considered that will out-law private ownership of cars in some not too distant date – I’ll be interested to see the exclusions to this.

    The only conclusion to this, however, never mind the great reset or agenda 21/30, is that we are destined to enter a new manufactured dark age.

    1. glen cullen
      January 17, 2022

      I remember the first time I read ā€˜agenda 21ā€™ I thought I was reading the communist party manifesto (its a UN document)

      1. turboterrier
        January 17, 2022

        glen cullen
        I found it all rather frightening.
        Since then have always been very sceptical about every report they issue.

        1. glen cullen
          January 18, 2022

          Its still a live document

    2. David L
      January 17, 2022

      The “out-lawing of private cars” story may well be a misinterpretation (deliberate?) of a minister’s support for car clubs, where members use a car only for when it is needed and don’t have one parked up for 95% of the time as most are. At least, I hope that is the correct story. I’ll be separated from my little old convertible only by overwhelming force!

      1. Bryan Harris
        January 18, 2022

        @David L

        Oh it’s part of the plans alright – a government sponsored ‘way forward to net-zero’ shows us that they want to deprive us of any ability to travel or enjoy life in the future.

  29. Julian Flood
    January 17, 2022

    Sir John,

    Our less than optimum policy on natural gas inevitably has knock on effects with other aspects of energy supply. Near me is a solar ‘farm’ proposal which intends to use very large battery compounds to store surplus energy for release after the sun goes down. Concerns have been raised over the safety of the battery storage areas — in a Daily Mail report they have been likened to the situation before the 2020 Beirut explosion. More worrying, the HSE seems to have washed its hands of its responsibility for fire safety at these sites, declaring batteries as ‘articles’ and as such outside their remit.

    This buck-passing is reminiscent of the Grenfell enquiry. Perhaps it would be sensible to answer the questions about who is responsible for safety at solar farms before we get another Grenfell?
    “Storm clouds ahead down on the solar farm” at TCW has more details. The videos of lithium ion battery fires are sobering.

    JF

    1. dixie
      January 19, 2022

      Best get rid of your smartphone, laptop, tablet, rechargeable vacuum cleaner and appliances then.

  30. oldwulf
    January 17, 2022

    Sir

    It seems that “partygate” is likely to be the reason for the downfall of this Government whereas the real reason should be the incompetent energy policy.

    Hopefully, the downfall will happen sooner rather than later so that we can all move on.

  31. The Prangwizard
    January 17, 2022

    The facts obtained to your questions are appalling in relation to our national interest in both gas and oil. Your summary covers the horror and danger perfectly.

    The government holds no national reserve oil stocks here, which ‘Boris’ is clearly happy with, and that if there is a supply problem we help other nations, not ourselves, in fact we have nothing to help ourselves with.

    My guess is that ‘Boris’ has no interest in such security and has never asked the questions you have. How will we be placed if Russia invades Ukraine and disrupts sea movements around our shores?

    This government does not deserve to continue in office just on this neglect alone and ‘Boris’ must be removed first, urgently.

  32. Atlas
    January 17, 2022

    The real root of the problem is that the ‘Global Warming’ Science is not as strong as has been made out to non-scientists.

    Unlike laboratory based sciences – eg Physics, Chemistry, you cannot build a real physical World (with all its detailed structures including its climate) in your lab and explore how it would react to various changes you would like to make to it.

    Climate science is like Geology and Astronomy, where there are large parts of those disciplines where all that can be done is to observe from afar and theorise. Computer models are highly simplified compared to any real entity – whether it is the workings of a star or the core of planet or our climate. As a result most Scientists in these disciplines have a healthy scepticism about computer model results. Yet we have a situation where one set of scientists and an awful lot of non-scientists not only claim that the “Science is settled” but also commit the highly unscientific actions of trying to ban anybody who disagrees with them.

    We are now back in mediaeval times where dogma ruled unquestioned. I despair.

    1. dixie
      January 19, 2022

      “all that can be done is to observe from afar and theorise”
      Sounds like journalism, except they don’t theorise in anything approaching a disciplined process.

      How many MPs, apart from Gove and Johnson are journalists and how many of the rest are lawyers with no background, experience or appreciation of STEM, no connection with the “real” world. One might also wonder about what makes the civil service “tick”.

      And how much science is really an excercise in protecting grant funding.

  33. Iain Gill
    January 17, 2022

    the continuing shortage of cancer and cardio vascular treatments means there is an urgent need to change health policy, NHS is far too slow at adopting newer treatments that are routine in the rest of the world, far too slow at delivering them to the individuals that need them, far too inconsistent, far too little accountability and changing and evolving to meet changing circumstances

  34. ChrisS
    January 17, 2022

    Apart from the usual suspects, everyone posting here agrees with you that we need to be producing more of our own gas, oil and coal, rather than importing it.

    The problem is that the government is scared stiff of the environmental lobby and won’t adopt and defend perfectly logical and sensible policies for fear of the furore from Carrie, Caroline Lucas and their idiotic friends.

    We saw it when there were discussions on opening a new small coal mine recently in Cumbria to produce the specialist coking coal which is essential for producing steel. Such was the anger and criticism, that Boris backed down, saying he doesn’t want us to produce any more coal, in the face of clear evidence that producing the fuel here was far greener than importing it from Australia and North America. We still haven’t had a definitive answer from the minister, Mr Gove but I think we can guyess what the answer will be !

    Now we have the lunacy of our heritage railway industry having to import more polluting and less efficient Russian coal to power our historic steam locomotives which are loved by all who see them.

    Why don’t ministers stand their ground, take the argument to the protestors and do what’s sensible ?

    1. Mickey Taking
      January 18, 2022

      All who cherish the Heritage Railway societies , supporting, maintaining and using are dumbfounded by the ridiculously low amount of quality coal required – now being forced to import poor quality.

  35. Denis Cooper
    January 17, 2022

    Off topic, the Central Statistics Office in Ireland has issued some statistics on cross-border trade:

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/goods-imports-from-britain-fall-by-fifth-since-brexit-1.4778489

    My first question is “Why?”. In the autumn of 2017 it was unequivocally stated that the Irish government would not, could not, tolerate “anything that would imply a border on the island of Ireland”:

    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2017/12/02/the-irish-border/#comment-904608

    and compiling statistics about cross-border trade obviously implies that there is a border.

    My second question is “How?” This is an open border, there are no checks and controls at the actual border on the goods that are crossing it in either direction, and nor can the Irish authorities have conducted any checks and controls on those goods elsewhere because we know it to have become their “firm position that any checks or controls anywhere on the island would constitute a hard borderā€:

    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2021/11/15/levelling-up-7/#comment-1276472

    and they insist that a hard border is something to be avoided at all costs. So how then has the Irish Central Office of Statistics obtained its statistics on trade across that border, the one that does not exist?

    My third question is “How much does this matter?”, given the relatively low value of the goods crossing that non-existent border according to these statistics which it would be impermissible to compile:

    “Imports from Northern Ireland into the Republic increased by nearly two thirds or 64 per cent to ā‚¬3.7 billion while exports from Republic to Northern Ireland rose by 48 per cent to ā‚¬3.3 billion.”

    With a fourth question, “Is this not “diversion of trade” as mentioned in Article 16 of the Irish protocol?”

    But also with a fifth question, “As the goods coming into Northern Ireland from Great Britain are not being checked as intended by the protocol …

    https://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2022/01/14/putting-things-right/#comment-1291647

    … how much of the extra goods worth ā‚¬1.2 billion now crossing into the Republic are contraband goods, such as British sausages, and have the Irish authorities lodged any complaints about that?”

    While my sixth, and for the present final, question is “Why has the UK government always allowed this Irish nonsense to go unchallenged, when it should have been publicly exposed for the nonsense it is?”.

  36. Mickey Taking
    January 17, 2022

    and now for something completely different.
    BBC website.
    A pesticide which can harm bees has been approved for use in 2022.
    Emergency use of a product containing the chemical thiamethoxam has been authorised in England because of a virus which affects sugar beets. The decision came despite expert advisers finding pollution from the pesticide would damage river life, and requirements for use had not been met.
    But Environment Secretary George Eustice said product use would be “limited and controlled”.
    In 2018, an almost total ban was put in by the EU and UK because of the serious damage the chemical could cause to bees.
    Charities and campaign groups are angry at the chemical now being approved for use.

    1. Mickey Taking
      January 18, 2022

      designed to further damage our ability to produce food on these shores, reliant on imports?

  37. X-Tory
    January 17, 2022

    Sir John, your Tweet about the BBC is absolutely right, but the problem is that when we talk about perception and opinion you will always have those who claim the opposite. On the radio this morning I heard the usual idiocy about the BBC ‘being called right-wing by the Left and left-wing by the Right, so they must be in the middle and are unfairly criticised’. That’s why I would always focus on FACTS. And the killer fact that the BBC cannot rebut and have never been able to defend is the fact that although more people voted for Leave than Remain, every single Question Time programme has had more Remainers on it than Leavers. Here is the ‘smoking gun’, the PROOF that the BBC is not just biased, but does NOT represent the British people. You should try quizzing the BBC about this next time you get the chance!

    This line of analysis can be pursued further. The BBC should be asked to vet the political opinions of ALL their staff, looking at their social media posts (Twitter, Facebook, etc) over the last few years. How many support Brexit? How many are opposed to ‘net zero’? How many believe immigration levels have been too high? Political vetting of BBC employees is a MUST.

  38. paul
    January 17, 2022

    The only person’s who can change the energy policy are lord goldsmith and lord deben to which boris is great friends with. They are changing the policy now from top down to bottom up and are now parachuting people into local government in all areas to start the bottom up process in your local area’s, no coal burning or wood at home, only electric or gas mix with the big H, will be allowed, most backbenchers and lords and other already bought into the big H and are waiting for large sacle production to start, even mr farage is a big investor in the big H. You should read the Ecologist which is run by zac for insight,and read The great reset and other thing on the net, to see where you will end up by reading what billionaire are writing about, not all billionaire’s are the same but they all like the ideal in the way the chinese control their population. Reading national newspapers is a waste of time, owned by billionaires. Voting, only vote for people who are independent and have no affiliation to a party, not that they are any good but it take away votes from main party who are all involed in what going on. People in the west are thick, like when mr cameron run a add on TV with sledge and dogs for global warming and changed the con party logo to a green tree and all that the party has done since and you say you have never voted for climite change or global warming, i can only say, you have selective memories of what goes on or maybe it the national newspaper you read, once said you you deserve everything you have coming to you and more, well you are now getting it and do not any change coming any of you at next election. Petrol Ā£2 plus a lite, think on that thickos.

  39. paul
    January 17, 2022

    The site, The sociable, is a good insight into what going on, read, a timelineof the great reset along with other post’s on site.

  40. hefner
    January 17, 2022

    How interesting that the ā€˜Independent Assessment of UK Climate Riskā€™ ready since June 2021 is now put in front of Parliament at the time the PM might have some difficulties. Dead cat or red herring?

    And contrary to what had been said on this blog the Met Office was only involved in the technical part, together with the Univ.Exeter.
    All the bluster from Richard1 above about ā€˜right wing militias taking over the UKā€™ supposedly written in a Met Office report is simply wrong.

    Dear Richard1, have you ever thought of trying to find the original document instead of reporting what your favourite website/tabloid is writing.

    theccc.org.uk, ā€˜Independent Assessment of UK Climate Riskā€™, June 2021.

    1. rose
      January 18, 2022

      The dead cat is “Partygate”, utterly trivial and nit picking, and arising from anonymous leaks of two years ago. Why now?

      1. Mickey Taking
        January 18, 2022

        To demonstrate that this Government needs new leadership? Its record has got so bad it cannot be saved.
        Find somebody to address the litany of mistakes.

        1. rose
          January 18, 2022

          It is indeed a litany but leadership contests are like shaking a kaleidoscope. The result can’t be controlled by anyone.

    2. dixie
      January 19, 2022

      As someone with a background in science and engineering I have a hard time with a committee with more non-STEM people (lawyers, politicans) than STEM dabbling in this area – and even then one of the scientists is a specialist in behavioural science.
      But looking at their executive summary and their “priority risks for urgent further action” I question the whole basis of the report – their priorities are;
      1. Risks to the viability and diversity of terrestrial and freshwater habitats and species from multiple hazards
      2. Risks to soil health from increased flooding and drought
      3. Risks to natural carbon stores and sequestration from multiple hazards leading to increased emissions
      4. Risks to crops, livestock and commercial trees from multiple hazards
      5. Risks to supply of food, goods and vital services due to climate-related collapse of supply chains and distribution networks
      6. Risks to people and the economy from climate-related failure of the power system
      7. Risks to human health, wellbeing and productivity from increased exposure to heat in homes and other buildings
      8. Multiple risks to the UK from climate change impacts overseas

      Food, People and human health should be the top priorities, not the last!
      These people are seriously unhinged and it was not worth wasting even more of my time going further.

  41. paul
    January 17, 2022

    As we see this pandemic subside, a new one will kickk off by year end with lockdowns for a new VIRUS which will come out of the blue and process will repeat itself. The last VIRUS was releast at the world military games which took place in China bewteen sept/ oct 2019.

    1. Original Richard
      January 17, 2022

      paul : “As we see this pandemic subside, a new one will kickk off by year end with lockdowns for a new VIRUS which will come out of the blue and process will repeat itself.”

      The XXIV Olympic Winter Games, 4-20 Feb 2022 in Beijing?

      1. dixie
        January 18, 2022

        It would appear the winter games have been cancelled owing to increased Omicron infection and spread in China.

  42. Fedupsoutherner
    January 17, 2022

    Andrew Bridgen on GB NEWS this evening. What a breath of fresh air. Honest and straight talking. We need more of him.

    1. rose
      January 18, 2022

      Except that when he explained the background to why he has been targeted in the Times, he still clung to his assertion against Mr Paterson, which made it sound as if he is driven more by his constituents being misinformed by the media, than his own good judgement. The fact is, Spartans get smeared. K Stone has gone after at least two thirds of them. Yet by their very nature, considering the sacrifices they have made, and the inducements they have refused (which he alluded to), they are the least likely MPs to be venal.

  43. turboterrier
    January 17, 2022

    SG
    No matter how many of your turbines are actually generating power, there will be other fossil fuel generators operating, just ticking over to ensure when the wind drops or chan.ges they can be ramped up quickly to prevent outage. But most politicians and green zealots choose to ignore this important fact.

  44. Sakara Gold
    January 18, 2022

    The outcome of Scotlandā€™s latest offshore wind leasing auction has been announced, with 17 projects approved for an eventual generating capacity of 25GW. Out of a total 74 applications, Crown Estate Scotland chose the best 17. The largest project was from Scottish Power Renewables and would generate 3,000MW, followed closely by one from BPā€™s Alternative Energy Investments.

    This auction will secure at least Ā£1bn in UK supply chain investment for every 1GW of capacity proposed. It will also generate around Ā£700m in revenue for the Scottish Government and represent the worldā€™s first commercial-scale opportunity for floating offshore wind.

    In November, it was confirmed that a hydrogen storage plant would be built at the UKā€™s largest onshore windfarm near Glasgow, after the UK government approved a Ā£9.4m grant. It will allow energy from the plant to be stored in the form of ā€œgreenā€ hydrogen

    1. Peter2
      January 18, 2022

      Sadly the capacity figures you quote are the maximum possible output not the year average figure which is considerably less.

  45. LJONES
    January 18, 2022

    ”… shortage of wind on some days…”
    Well! What a surprise! Who would have thought it?

Comments are closed.