Grant Shapps, the New Energy Secretary in Rishi Sunak's freshly minted Net Zero Department (which could more honestly be titled The Ministry of alternative Realities, is facing a backlash from his own party over plans for a hydrogen levy to be added onto household bills.
The extra green levy, which under Government plans would be added onto energy bills from 2025 to fund the production of low-carbon hydrogen, has been met with anger amid concerns households will be paying for energy that they never use.
It would be the first piece of legislation passed by Rishi Sunak's New Energy Department, but Mr Shapps has been warned that the levy, which critics have branded as another tax, would stoke inflation, going against one of the Prime Minister's five key priorities announced last month.
Former Business Secretary Jacob Rees Mogg said he tried to block the levies when he was the minister in charge of the bill under Liz Truss.
"Let's not beat around the bush, these levies are taxes and tax is already too high," he told the Telegraph. "Putting more taxes will make the UK more inefficient.
“Energy is already expensive enough," he added. "The Government should try to help people get cheaper energy, not more expensive energy. There is no justification for further levies on bills."
Rees Mogg is showing some common sense but Net Zero is one of the great sacred cows of mordern politics in the liberal democracies. It is highly unusual for a member of any established political party to step away from the narrative that unless we stop using efficient and reliable energy sources to generate electricity and produce the heat needed to cook our food, heat our homes and fuel industry and commerce we are all going to die because of a very slight increase in the level of a trace atmospheric gas which will cause a trivial increase in the global mean temperature. It's all bollocks of course.
A report published by Lancet recently reminded the world that around five million people die every year on account of climate extremes.
Of those deaths, 4.5 million are caused by cold compared to five hundred thousand attributed to heat. In our time on this planet, an interglacial between ice ages, it is always the cold that is far more of a deadly threat to human life – ten or 20 times as deadly.
And yet still the priests of the new religion of climate fear preach that we must cool the world.
You’ve probably heard that 97 per cent of scientists are agreed that humans are the cause of climate change. It comes from research carried out in 2013.
Do you know how that team obtained that number?
They gathered nearly 12,000 scientific papers dealing with global climate change. They didn’t read the papers – heavens no, that would have been proper research – instead they looked at just the summary paragraphs on the front covers.
On that basis they grouped them into four piles. 3,896 papers agreed humans were to blame for climate change; 7,930 took no position either way; 78 rejected the idea of it being humanity’s fault and 40 were uncertain altogether.
That initial pass gave a figure of just 32 percent blaming humans for climate change. Obviously, that wasn’t nearly scary enough. So then came the gross and clumsy cheat: the 7,930 papers that took no position on whether humans are to blame were removed from the final analysis.
With them gone, the figure of 32 percent went up to 97 per cent. And the likes of Obama and Al Gore have been quoting it ever since.
.. this is the kind of deliberate tampering with evidence that underpins the Net Zero madness that is being pursued by the zealots running our countries, or rather ruining our countries.
Hydrogen has two big problems which turn any project into a dead whale exercise.
The first is that pure hydrogen doesn’t exist – it’s both everywhere and nowhere. We must generate all the hydrogen we can then use, and this requires a lot of energy. This is fine when the output of the process is something very valuable to us, such as fertiliser. But less so when the output of the process must compete with much cheaper commodities, as it must in an energy market.
Secondly, hydrogen’s intrinsic physical properties create a whole range of unique problems. It’s a tiny atom that easily escapes confinement. Keeping it captive for storage is expensive, and moving it around safely even more so, because in liquid form it must be very cold.
Hydrogen advocates tend to shrug off these issues – solving them will be someone else’s problem, they reckon. Individually, none of these factors make hydrogen as an energy carrier or storer impossible, but the whale-like properties are becoming harder to ignore.
To replace gas boilers with hydrogen boilers requires thousands of miles of new, much thicker, high-pressure pipes. Last year, Lord Martin Callanan, the energy minister, candidly described the plans to replace our gas boilers with hydrogen boilers “as pretty much impossible”
Politicians also think they are riding a popular wave with net zero and all the 'save the planet' bollocks when in fact all they are doing is widening the poor/rich divide.
The reasoning is that the more expensive something is the less we will use but it just means the poor who are often those with families and elderly don’t keep warm when they need to or make that choice of heating or eating.
Government must stop using the price of energy as a control mechanism to reduce CO2 emissions.
We already use less total energy than during the 1980’s, government would be better mandating that imports from high CO2 producing nations are subject to carbon taxes and investment made in commonwealth nations to make the tat we get from China from low CO2 energy sources.But instead they have made us dependent for manufactured goods on China and India, the two biggest producers of CO2 emissions on the planet.
MORE Net Zero Posts