Imperial Party forum

thomas davison

Eco-tastrophe! How MPs in the pay of subsidised eco-firms set insane new carbon targets that send your bills sky-rocketing... and drag us to a new Dark Age

MP Tim Yeo was paid �135,970 last year by three 'green' companies
He has moved an amendment to the Energy Bill that would set a crippling target for the amount of carbon dioxide by generating power in 2030

By David Rose

PUBLISHED: 00:16, 24 February 2013 | UPDATED: 00:24, 24 February 2013

Like all MPs Tim Yeo is paid �65,000 but three 'green' companies also paid the Conservative MP for South Suffolk �135,970 in last year alone

Pay packet: Like all MPs Tim Yeo is paid �65,000 but three 'green' companies also paid the Conservative MP for South Suffolk �135,970 in last year alone

Like all MPs, Tim Yeo is paid �65,000 a year. But he never has to make do with just that. Last year alone, three �green� companies paid the Conservative MP for South Suffolk �135,970.

For this, he usually did just a few hours� work a month. Yet he may be the firms� most valuable asset, as Mr Yeo is chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, and so plays a key role in shaping the green economy in which his sometime employers � AFC Energy, Eco City Vehicles and TMO Renewables � operate.

And he may be about to perform his most valuable service yet.

Mr Yeo has moved an extraordinary amendment to the Energy Bill that would set a crippling and binding target for the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by generating power in 2030. It would transform the electricity industry and bring huge benefits to the business sector, which has so generously rewarded Mr Yeo.

For the rest of us, however, the effects will be very different. It will cause already high energy bills to soar further and could lead to more power cuts. The effect on business is likely to be even more dramatic.

Yet despite the considerable drawbacks, the amendment is likely to be passed into law. Following intense campaigning by an alliance of dozens of green pressure groups and renewable-energy firms, the move has won the support of Labour, many backbench Liberal Democrats and some Tories, which may be enough to push it through Parliament.

�Even without the amendment, the long-term consequences of the Bill will be horrible,� said Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University, one of Britain�s leading experts on energy economics. He issued a strong warning the �surreal� amendment could spell the end of British industry. �It�s a recipe for deindustrialisation,� he said.

Prof Hughes thinks the choice is stark: �Either we get rid of this obsession, or we give away our future to the rest of the world. The question is whether we�re serious about our economic future or not.�

But for supporters of the amendment, cutting Britain�s carbon dioxide production is more vital.

Q: WHAT'S THE BILL'S PROBLEM?

A: 'Aggressive' aims

The Lib Dems love low-carbon energy. This helps explain to why the Bill will double the number of onshore wind farms by 2020, while subsidies for offshore farms will rise 16-fold.

On paper, the amendment looks innocuous: it merely requires the Government to set a target to reduce the carbon dioxide emitted by the power sector by 2030 and to take advice from the Committee on Climate Change, the official body chaired by Lord Deben, the former Tory Minister John Selwyn Gummer.

But the level repeatedly recommended by that committee is that just 50g of carbon dioxide (CO2) should be emitted per kilowatt hour of electricity generated. The number may be meaningless to the lay person, until you realise that currently that figure is between 450 and 500g, meaning a cut of 90 per cent.

Even a member of Lord Deben�s committee, Professor Sam Fankhauser, believes this is an �unbelievably aggressive target�. Yet supporters of the amendment, including Labour MP Barry Gardiner, who tabled it with Mr Yeo, claim this will promote growth.
Mr Yeo has moved an extraordinary amendment to the Energy Bill that would set a crippling and binding target for the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by generating power in 2030

Transform industry: Mr Yeo has moved an extraordinary amendment to the Energy Bill that would set a crippling and binding target for the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by generating power in 2030

Q: HOW WILL IT AFFECT ME?

A: In the pocket, of course

The Government admits that the Energy Bill, even without the amendment, will add about �100 a year to household bills � on top of the approximately �100 already being paid in subsidies for renewables.

But the real economic cost is likely to be much higher.

First, the Government could be hostage to its own policy. Already the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is wrangling with French energy giant EDF over two planned nuclear power plants, which emit no carbon. EDF wants the Government to agree to pay �100 per megawatt hour for their output for at least 40 years � well over double the market price � before it will start to build them. If EDF gets its way, this will heap yet further charges on to consumers.

Then there are the indirect costs. Steel giant TATA has already said it may pull out of Britain because of high energy prices and other firms seem certain to follow.

There is also a question of the reliability of low-carbon electricity.

Prof Hughes said the amendment would give multinational companies more reason not to invest in British factories as its effects become felt.

�If you were thinking of building a new car plant, you could get to 2018 or so and find yourself either having your power cut off because of the shortfall in generating capacity, or paying through the nose for your power,� he said. �Firms are not going to run those risks.�

The absence of economic growth caused a downgrading of Britain�s AAA credit rating on Friday and critics of the Bill say that continuing to increase energy prices to levels far higher than our competitors�, while failing to guarantee supplies, is a sure way to prolong the slump indefinitely.

Q: IS THE FUTURE BRIGHT?

A: Dark Ages, more like

The targets assume that carbon emissions can be slashed through new technology, but this is far from certain. For example, a 2011 report from the committee now chaired by Lord Deben assumes �carbon-capture and storage� � ways to prevent CO2 being emitted from coal-fired power stations � will be a reality by 2030, something many experts doubt.

The report also assumes that fresh nuclear power stations will be coming on stream, although EDF�s new designs, now being tested at sites in France and Finland, have hit problems which have massively increased their cost.
wind 2.jpg

Other potential renewable sources that could meet our energy needs � tide, wave and geothermal power � are, the report admits, �highly uncertain�.

The tough target for CO2 reduction would even mean that existing technology which would cut carbon emission will soon be rendered economically obsolete, so it is unlikely to be used widely.

The pending closure of coal-fired power stations means that Britain will soon face large-scale winter power cuts, according to the head of the energy watchdog Ofgem, Alistair Buchanan.

�Combined cycle� gas power stations are the easiest and fastest way to plug that gap and produce just 37 per cent of the CO2 emitted by coal plants.

But resorting to gas would still leave emissions a long way short of the 90 per cent recommended by Deben, so they would have to be wound down as 2030 approaches.

�You would have to transition gas out,� said Prof Fankhauser of the London School of Economics. �New plants will run less often.�

To put it plainly, instead of producing electricity 24 hours a day, the plant would be reduced to producing part-time back-up power when the wind farms lay idle. That makes investing in gas power less attractive, even though shale gas extracted by underground �fracking� is a promising, cheap source of power. In America, energy produced this way has already revitalised moribund industries by slashing costs.
The pending closure of coal-firesd power stations means that Britain will soon face large-scale winter power cuts, according to the head of the energy watchdog Ofgem, Alistair Buchanan

Tough target: The pending closure of coal-fired power stations means that Britain will soon face large-scale winter power cuts, according to the head of the energy watchdog Ofgem, Alistair Buchanan

It has yet to be proved whether this would be the case in Britain too, but the industry is confident.

�There is a hell of a lot of this stuff in the ground � and none of the technology needed to extract it is new,� said Ken Cronin from the UK Onshore Operators Group, which represents would-be frackers and those already extracting gas from coal beds.

Another gas industry source was more scathing. �If we�re not careful, we could end up with very expensive nuclear power and windmills that don�t work,� he said. �That would have a major impact on the economy and on people�s ability to heat and light their homes.�

Q: SO WHY ARE MINISTERS SO KEEN?

A: Personal interests

Given all the economic and technological uncertainty over this issue, the politicians� zeal for such drastic CO2 cuts seems illogical.

One reason why they are so keen on change may be because they spend so much time with green lobbyists. The panel shows the dramatic difference between how eco-campaigners were treated compared with traditional energy companies when it comes to access to Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) Ministers.

Environmental groups, such as Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth, and renewable-energy firms were invited to meetings with the Secretary of State � first Chris Huhne then Ed Davey � no fewer than 23 times in the two years from the 2010 Election until last June.

Yet the big fossil fuel firms, BP and Shell, and the Oil And Gas Trade Association, saw him just 11 times.

Cuadrilla � the company still trying to get approval to start �fracking� for the vast reserves of natural gas that lie beneath Lancashire � did not meet Huhne or Davey at all. It had to make do with a single meeting with DECC�s most junior Minister, the parliamentary under secretary Jonathan Marland.

No doubt MPs� enthusiasm for low-carbon power stems from belief, but it also happens to suit the business interests of former Ministers who have become green advisers.

Tim Yeo repeatedly failed to respond to The Mail on Sunday�s requests for comment � but he is not the only politician so involved in the green industry.

In December, The Mail on Sunday disclosed that Lord Deben, as well as being chairman of the climate committee, chairs Veolia Water UK, a �500 million company that does business connecting wind farms to the National Grid. This, he said, is not a conflict of interest. A Veolia sister company supplies water systems to half the UK�s nuclear power stations, a business worth many millions.

Yesterday, Lord Deben said he was not aware of this.

Meanwhile, the Tory Charles Hendry, who was sacked as DECC�s Minister for Energy last year, has just been appointed chairman of Forewinds, which is to build the world�s largest offshore wind farm on Dogger Bank in the North Sea. The person he replaced? Lord Deben, who stepped down when he joined the climate change committee.
Chris Huhne
Ed Davey

Environmental gruops, such as Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth, and renewable-energy firm were invited to meetings with the Secretary of State - first Chris Huhne (left) then Ed Davey (right) - no fewer than 23 times in the two years from the 2010 Election until last June

Yesterday, Prof Fankhauser confirmed he was also a paid director of Vivid Economics, a consultancy that this month produced a report on CO2 and aviation. This was paid for by WWF UK � the charity most people will associate with conserving wild animals � which also happens to be co-ordinating the campaign for the Energy Bill amendment.

Yet Prof Fankhauser said: �I see no conflict between giving official advice and receiving an income from the green economy.� He added he did not work on the WWF�s report.

Q: WHAT ARE OTHER COUNTRIES DOING?

A: Not a lot...

While Britain prepares these economically damaging policies, the world�s biggest players such as China, India and America, show no sign of agreeing legally-binding targets. Meanwhile, the supposedly settled climate science about global warming and man-made effects on it is looking far less certain, as our panel, below, explains.

Nonetheless, President Obama has spoken of his concern about global warming, but America is still doing the very opposite of what greens want for Britain � providing more gas-powered electricity.

None of this seems to bother the amendment�s formal supporters, which now include groups as diverse as the TUC, Christian Aid, Oxfam, the Quaker, Baptist and Methodist churches, green groups and numerous renewable energy companies.

MPs should �seize this unique opportunity to commit to have a near carbon-free power sector� they said in a joint letter last week.

�We represent different parts of society but are united in the belief that a low-carbon power sector is essential to secure the future wellbeing of our economy, our environment and future generations.�

Britain produces only two per cent of the world�s CO2, making any efforts to reduce it a drop in the ocean on the global scale.

Is that worth sacrificing our economic base for? Prof Hughes thinks not. �All we�d be doing is exporting our emissions anyway,� he said. �Along with our industry.�
EXPLODING THE MYTHS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE

MYTH The world is continually getting warmer.
TRUTH Official Met Office data shows no statistically significant global temperature rise since January 1997. The fact was confirmed last week by Raj Pachauri, chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Many scientists say this means forecasts of how much warmer the world will be by 2100 must be revised downwards. Pachauri disagreed: for him to be convinced, the �pause� would have to last 30 years.

MYTH Global warming is already causing extreme weather.
TRUTH If anything, weather has become less, not more extreme in the past 50 years. Professor Roger Pielke Jr of Colorado University � no climate sceptic � last week said that the past seven years had been the longest period ever recorded without a Category 3 or stronger hurricane hitting America, and that drought has decreased since the mid-20th Century. The IPCC admits there is no evidence that global warming has caused more storms in the tropics.

MYTH If we don�t take swift, drastic action to cut CO2 emissions, the world will soon become uninhabitable
TRUTH The �pause� in rising temperatures, along with new research into the decline in the sun�s output and other natural factors, is leading many scientists to lower estimates of how fast carbon dioxide warms the world. Until now, the IPCC has suggested that doubling CO2 causes a worrying increase of 3.5C, but many experts say it is about 1.7C. The computer models still say the world will be at least 2C warmer by the end of the century, but they failed to predict the pause.

MYTH We�ve got to do our bit, even if it hurts. If we cut emissions, the rest of the world will follow.
TRUTH The fiasco of the 2009 UN climate conference in Copenhagen proved that China, India, Brazil and other fast-growing nations are simply not prepared to make any binding commitments to reduce their emissions. However, by cutting our own ever more deeply, all we do is increase the already rocketing price of our energy and so drive jobs abroad � while making almost no difference to world CO2 levels.

MYTH The faster we cut carbon in our power generation, the more prosperous we will be.
TRUTH We face declining energy capacity, while the Government targets on 2030 emissions would mean few firms will be willing to invest in the one proven type of power source � gas � that can fill the gap relatively cheaply. Instead of �green growth�, we face years of impoverished stagnation, while industry flees Britain and our sky-high energy prices.

MYTH The Arctic is going to be ice-free in summer in a few years.
TRUTH Although last summer saw a return to the relatively low levels of ice seen in 2007, the growth of Arctic winter ice this year is the fastest on record. Canadian archaeologists have been finding evidence the ice cover shrank to half its current extent during a warm period 7,000 years ago � but never vanished entirely.

There has never been to my knowledge a bigger scam than the so called "green" issue, OTHER THAN THE PONZI SCHEME THEY CALL STATE PENSIONS.
If the ecomentalists were sincere, they would back Nuclear power using Thorium as green energy is inefficient and vastly expensive. Wind turbines slaughter the soft lung tissue animals on the ground, where is the outcry?. They catch fire, are useless in high wind or no wind. Wave farms are useless most of the time. Carbon taxes do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, merely new departments are needed to move money and credits around. Own up, the ONLY benefactors will be well connected politicians and business people. Ask Obama and his EPA. Solyndra ring a bell? You and I will pay for it through the nose while those in the know make you pay millions for their retirement funds.