18 July 2010 By Ann Robinson
This makes it an unfair tax and suggests that in its haste to drive forward climate change policies the previous government and those charged with taking forward its policies, such as energy industry regulator Ofgem, did not think it through.
At the moment there is no clarity on how these "taxes" are applied. If suppliers end up charging them as a flat fee, people consuming less energy will find themselves paying proportionately more.
The time to have this debate is now, because we are on the cusp of seeing these levies potentially rocket. Ernst & Young calculates that investment in Britain's energy supplies will cost more than £230 billion, potentially adding £548 to household energy bills over the next 15 years. /more
Green Energy Lobby Threatens To Pull The Plug On Green Projects
Robin Pagnament, The Times
One of the energy industry’s biggest shareholders has threatened to block all new investments in British renewables unless the Government increases the returns available to investors and gives greater certainty over its future policy.Neil Woodford, the head of investment at Invesco Perpetual — which holds more than £4.5 billion of shares in energy companies including National Grid, Centrica, United Utilities, SSE, Drax and International Power — fired a warning shot at coalition plans for a green energy revolution.
He accused officials of a fundamental lack of understanding of the challenges facing the sector. /more
My idea, pull all the subsidies and tax breaks for wind energy providers and make them pay carbon tax if such remains legal. If there are objections talk about how the lobbyists never ever speak in terms of useful delivered energy (~8% of capacity) but only in terms of max capacity, never include cost of providing 90%+ reserve energy, never mention that turbines cause coal and gas plants to use more energy due to ramping up and down (like town driving versus mway cruising), never mention that CO2 emissions reduction is at best zero, and progressing into deficit (increasing emissions) at most with 3% penetration.
7,500 UK Firms Face Fines Under CO2 Scheme: WSP
Some 7,500 British firms are expected to miss a September 30 deadline to register for the UK's new energy efficiency scheme, meaning they face fines of at least 5,000 pounds each ($7,644), an environmental consultancy said on Tuesday.
The mandatory Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRCEES), which began on April 1, forces businesses like banks, hotels, hospitals and schools to register with the Environment Agency and monitor energy usage.
According to the government, the scheme will help cut annually by 2020 UK greenhouse gas emissions by 4 million tonnes and corporate energy bills by 1 billion pounds.
But around 40 percent of the 20,000 companies affected are unaware of their obligations and will therefore miss the registration deadline, said WSP Environment & Energy, a division of WSP Group. (Reuters)
This could be interesting, businesses may unite and challenge the basis of the fine. The government can't present credible evidence that CO2 emissions are in any way harmful because there ain't none - zilch, zero. Yet there is evidence that emissions are beneficial and the benefits far outweigh any opined negatives.
The writing is on the wall
German Industry Profits May Be Reduced By UpTo 90% By CO2 Emissions Costs
Germany’s energy intensive industries may have their profits cut by as much as 87 percent by 2020 due to the costs of carbon emissions certificates, the Financial Times Deutschland said, citing a report from Goetzpartners Corporate Finance Ltd.
Carbon emissions may cost German companies more than 5 billion euros if the law and emissions levels stay unchanged, according to the report’s conservative estimates, the newspaper said. (GWPF)
EIA Says Climate Bill Cuts GDP $452 Billion By 2035
July 16 -- Proposed Senate legislation to limit greenhouse gases from power plants, refineries and factories would cut U.S. gross domestic product by $452 billion, or 0.2 percent, between 2013 and 2035, the Energy Information Administration said today.
A cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases “increases the cost of using energy, which cuts real economic output, reduces purchasing power, and lowers aggregate demand for goods and services,” the agency said in a report on legislation released May 12 by Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman.
The legislation, which aims to cut the greenhouse gases scientists have linked to global warming 17 percent from the 2005 level by 2020, would cost the average household $206 a year, the EIA said in the report. (Bloomberg)
What's a little more climate fraud? Climate change chief clueless on euro loan
MANILA, Philippines – Climate Change Commission vice chairman Heherson Alvarez said he was unaware of the disbursement of the 150-million euro (roughly P10.5-billion) French loan that was originally intended to enhance the Philippines’ capability to deal with climate change but was used instead to plug the yawning budget deficit.
Alvarez, a former senator, said he never received any information about the loan and he only learned of its existence on June 23 in a meeting with officials of the Agence Française de Développement (AFD), which facilitated the loan.
Alvarez was reacting to a report by The STAR on the Arroyo administration’s using up the entire AFD loan during the election season from February to May for plugging the budget deficit. (The Philippine Star)
Green Britain Faces Blackouts
19 July 2010 Sarah Westcott and Mark Reynolds,
BRITAIN faces years of blackouts and soaring electricity bills because of the drive toward green power, a leading energy expert warned last night.
A growing obsession with global warming and “renewable” sources threatens the stability of our supply.
Derek Birkett, a former Grid Control Engineer who has a lifetime’s experience in electricity supply throughout Britain, warned that the cost of the crisis could match that of the recent banking collapse.
And he claimed that renewable energy expectations were now nothing more than “dangerous illusions” which would hit consumers hard in the pocket. (Daily Express)
Phil Jones Approved Climategate Inquiry Papers
18 July 2010 Bishop Hill
Surprised? Nope.
--------------
The (Rothschild?) green investment bank scam was shelved and now we have son of GIB, Big Society Bank. Miliband was upset at the boondoggle being shelved (personal investment reasons?). I doubt the bankers were, as long as money from the public flows into accounts they control they don't give a toss about how. Why not use the gov't bank Northern Rock? Read about it here.
Thanks to junkscience.com and CCNet-GWPF
Motl advises: In this audio, Nick Griffin, the chairman of the U.K. nationalist BNP party, claims that the EU Parliament is planning to add Europe to "The International Environmental Law Court" (is it this one?) that may also try to punish climate realists for their being realists.
When Griffin asked whether the court would also go after climate skeptics, he didn't get a straight answer. But after some time, the answer was essentially Yes.
Well, there exist reasons why you may want to remain skeptical and cautious about the testimonies of the BNP chairman, not only because of his obsession with his nation and its language, among other things without a global importance. But he may be right, too.
I wonder whether those guys would actually be willing to prosecute e.g. the Czech president who may be among the first people to be "sued" by the green brown shirts. That would be a declaration of war against the Czech nation.
----------------------------------
The third reich empire cometh. Collaborators abound.
----------------------------------
http://clothcap.livejournal.com
http://clothcap2.livejournal.com
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/clothcap
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/clothcap2
http://co2didit.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment