Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Redmayne Bentley Stockbrokers Logo
Sponsored by
Yorkshire’s Oldest and Award-Winning Stockbroker
Share Dealing and Investment Management Services
 
 
Saturday, 6th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Bernard Ingham: Why on earth do we put up with this green extortion?



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

MY text this week is taken from Corinthians I: "Behold, I shew you a mystery."

In the election for London's Mayor, the Greens got just over three per cent of the vote. Leaving aside such misguided places as Norwich, where the Green Party gained three seats, they struggled elsewhere to poll anywhere near that.

In my native Ca
lderdale, with its strong "Green" lobby, they managed only just over one per cent – less than the BNP, English Democrats and Independents, the other small groups that fought the election there.

Yet Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Nationalists dance slavishly to the Green tune.

To hear him talk, the dear, departed Ken Livingstone was as Green as grass. Gordon Brown would carpet Britain, onshore and offshore, with wind "farms". David Cameron sails under the "Vote Blue, Go Green" banner. The Liberal Democrats are mostly eco-nuts. And the European Union goes berserk at the very mention of carbon dioxide.

Which brings me to the mystery. What ails them? Have they lost their powers of reason?

I ask because their pre-occupation with combating something that may or may not exist – that is, man-made global warming – is responsible for part of the growing burden of costs with which every household is now saddled. How much this energy/environmental burden contributed to Gordon Brown's Merrie May Day – otherwise known as Black Thursday – is far from clear, partly because consumers are unaware of what they are paying.

If they knew, all our politicians would belatedly bring some cost/benefit analysis to their environmentalism. It has been distressingly absent so far. Would the Prime Minister have had solar panels and Cameron a wind turbine installed on their houses had they known they would never get their money back on the "investment"?

There are good and bad "buys", but they don't come much worse than waiting for decades, even half a century, for any return on your capital. It doesn't say much for their business acumen.

Belatedly, Labour MPs are pressing Gordon Brown to ditch some of his so-called green taxes since their environmentalism is only as strong as the economy or their political skins. So, how much is the Government forcing us to shell out to try to make them appear greenly virtuous?

There's the rub. Governments are not in the habit of dishing
out research grants to academics to show how stupidly they use our money, so all I can offer you are pointers.

Let's forget the so-called climate change levy (CCL), which has as marginal an effect on domestic consumers' bills as it does on CO2 reduction. Instead, the real damage is done by Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) designed to encourage the development of wind, wave, tidal, solar and other "renewable" forms of electricity. These are as idiotically conceived as the CCL, since nuclear and large-scale hydro-electricity, which emit next to no greenhouse gases, are excluded from both.

ROCs latterly have provided a 100 per cent subsidy substantially to wind power – so far the only major renewable source of electricity – and earlier this year, the Business Department forecast they would cost £23bn by 2020, or, nearly £1,000 per household. And for that we would optimistically get only 14 per cent of our electricity – and then only when the wind was blowing.

Unfortunately, that figure was out of date when it was calculated because Tony Blair had signed up to a battily impractical EU requirement to produce 20 per cent of our energy – and not just electricity – by 2020 from renewables.

If we are to offset the massive use of oil and gas for transport and domestic heating with renewables, we shall, as things stand, have to generate up to 45 per cent of our power with wind. So that will treble the eventual cost to £3,000 per household – without providing a reliable power supply.

Ofgem, the energy regulator, says that eight per cent – or £80 – of the current average current gas and electricity bill can be attributed to environmental charges and this is only going to rise with the billions required to link remote and largely useless wind farms to the grid.

This is not to mention more generally the costs of the carbon trading and offsetting rackets, the Treasury's punitive tax revenue from petrol and
diesel, Gordon Brown's new "green levy" doubling car tax revenue to £4bn while, on the Treasury's own admission, reducing carbon emissions by less than one per cent, and taxes on rubbish.

Why do we put up with this "green" extortion to so little purpose? That's the real mystery.



The full article contains 779 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 May 2008 8:48 AM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Yorkshire
 
Prev
1
Next
1

SustainableNik,

Leeds 09/05/2008 10:15:41
Bernard has highlighted the main issue with 'green' politics today. It appears that they are using 'green' issues to get as much money out of us as possible. This should not be seen as the 'green' agenda. This should be seen as the Government finding more ways to tax us. If it wasn't the climate-change levy, it would be something else.

But this is the main problem. There are millions of people all over the world suffering from the effects of climate change right now. Look at Burma, the floods after Hurricane Katrina and in this country in the summer, the tsunami and the widespread droughts across Africa, Asia and India. These natural disasters are unprecedented, and have never occurred with such frequency or ferocity in recorded history.

Whether climate change is man-made or not should be irrelevant. 3000 of the worlds leading scientists say climate change is caused by human activity. Therefore, we should try to cut this activity. If those 3000 scientists turn out to be wrong, we have lost nothing by doing all we can. Whereas this Government seems content to tell us we have to do our bit, and then do nothing themselves.

Therein lies the rub. This government, and most other governments around the world are only considering their short-term political careers. When all our government can do is look for more ways to get us to open our purse-strings, under the pretence of a 'green' agenda, no wonder there are so many enviro-sceptics in the world today. Please consider the future and do what you can. After all, we only have one planet between us.
2

Akhenaten,

Hull, UK 09/05/2008 13:08:07
In 1903 the disparate Russian socialist movement was taken over by a few committed dictatorial zealots, under the leadership of Lenin. In 1917 20,000 of these same zealots- the Bolsheviks - took over a 300 years old empire of 160 millions, and proceeded to enslave it.
I fear that, for the Greens, the year is now 1900. Some now call for the end of the Enlightenment- the end of Freedom and Democracy ,in order to subject humanity to the yoke of Climate control, on behalf of
Mother Nature ( What Chutzpah,this!). These calls will grow more strident- desperate even, if, as at present, the Climate refuses to "deliver" catastrophic warming as predicted. Dissident voices after all have to be suppressed for the Revolution to prevail.
Watch the Greens; they contain the seeds of one of History's Great tyrannies. If their as yet un-named "Lenin" arises and has his day, the tyranny may well be global, and terminal to human(e) civilisation of any kind. Mother Earth however will bowl on
regardless of us.
Bernard Ingham is right to point to the mystery of the Green Spell, but History shows precedents a plenty. We have been warned....
3

Stu62,

Leeds 09/05/2008 14:43:06
Sorry I have to disagree with you SustainableNik the current rate of hurricanes and cyclones is not unprecedented. In fact last year was an unusually quiet year for hurricane, also nearly 40 years ago in 1970 half a million people died in a cyclone in Bangladesh. And similar cyclones have been known since records began.

The reason that the death toll was so high in 1970 and so high now in Burma is because of the poverty of the regions that are hit. And thats why I can't agree with you again when you say it is "caused by human activity. Therefore, we should try to cut this activity."

It is the human activity of building strong homes and strong economies and (democracies - unlike Burma) that create wealth and saves lives. Whereas it is the insidious kind of anti-developmental "Carbon-trading" and money grubbing taxes that supress development and will lead to us being more vulnerable to the vagaries of the weather.
4

AndyL,

Leeds 09/05/2008 21:40:52
SustainableNik, 3000 of the worlds leading scientists? Where are these people? They don't exist other than in the minds and spin of politicians and enviro-mentalists.

There are 19,000 scientists that disagree with the man made global warming argument (see http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm)

But consensus or not the science behind the global warming alarmism is flawed even according to the IPCC lead authors

“There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any affect whatsoever on the climate,” Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained.

“All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails,” Gray, who wrote the book “The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “Climate Change 2001,” said.

“It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics,” he added.
(see : http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/925)

Not reported though in the UK. Which illustrates the true man made global warming is only in the man made propaganda surrounding the global warming hypothesis.

Latest computer models along with accurate satellite data - that is in addition to those computer models used to show beyond doubt that global warming is man made now show that actually over the last 30 years global temperatures have stabilised even though CO2 has continued to increase - indicating no correlation with CO2 increase causing temperature increase.

This global warming scaremongery has always been a scam I am just pleased that people are waking up to the fact.
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.