The Times has reported this morning that:
Boris Johnson believes the West should be given a “climate change pass” to help wean the EU off Russian gas supplies as he faces mounting pressure over the government's 2050 net-zero target.
The Times has been told that Johnson wants the West, particularly the US and Canada, to ramp up its own production of gas to help remove the “massive leverage” Russia has over EU countries.
While retaining the government's target, Johnson is understood to believe that western countries should be able to increase gas production during the transition to nuclear and renewables.
In other words, he is using the war in Ukraine as a reason to delay tackling the climate crisis.
In a Times poll 70% of respondents think this is the right thing to do. Only 23% say that climate change cannot wait.
The madness of thinking that we can put off tackling climate change because of Putin's insanity puts Johnson in the same camp as Farage. Johnson becomes a Russian agent by default as a consequence, in effect arguing that Russia's economy, which is shored up by oil and gas, should continue to prosper as a result.
Worse, he reveals that standard climate change apologist's belief that 'any excuse for inaction will do' is something that this government will rely on, whilst guaranteeing mutually assured destruction as certainly as nuclear weapons could deliver that.
Climate change will not wait for war. Only an idiot could think otherwise.
The danger that Johnson represents becomes more obvious by the minute. When can we be rid of this man?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
But surely Johnson and the concept of long term is an oxymoron?
The objective for today is to survive today, and put another layer of grease on for tomorrow to evade the clutches of fate.
You can bet that our pension funds will be wheeling out the fiduciary duty card to justify continuing, and probably increasing, their investments in oil and gas and buying into the defence sector. Juicy short term returns from the war so far sod the future.
You are right…..
ESG is so yesterday
This is so depressing. And the irony of the UK government now worrying about Russian leverage after decades of allowing, and encouraging, the City of London to be used to wash Russian oligarchs’ money not to mention funding for the Tory party! How long before the Cambo project is back in development?
The plan to get to zero carbon by 2050 always had years of huge gas consumption ahead. ( I haven’t switched off my gas boiler yet and I doubt you have either?). Investing to get more of this future gas from non-Russian sources can be done in parallel with investing in renewables, so is not necessarily wrong.
The problem is that this takes place against a backdrop disinformation campaign which hopes to blame greening policies for the massive rise in energy prices. This is absolute nonsense as solar and wind power were already cheaper than fossil fuels, before the massive price spike caused ny Putin’s war. Price rises for oil and gas will only accelerate the switch to renewables and energy efficiency, provided we don’t allow fake narratives about the cost of renewables to spread. Perhaps energy suppliers should legally be required to publish the prices they are paying each quarter for energy split by different sources : solar, wind, nuclear, and gas?
Good idea
Yes a good idea, but.
Energy suppliers: if you mean the energy retailers – the organisations that supply you with gas & electricity the price they pay will be a combo of: hedging (they buy forward) , day-ahead and spot. Their mark-up between their buy & what they sell for is very roughly (Ofgem data) 3.5pence/kWh – & 16% of overall cost (pre-Sept 2021).
Energy generators: as I have previously posted – their costs are quite well know. Taking one example: gas generation using CCGTs – given todays gas price (£160/MWh) then you are looking at £360ish/MWh for elec. The problem is what is the elec mix that the suppliers are buying? wind (recently built or older stuff?), nuke? (cheapish), CCCGT? OCGT (ouch). As I have mentioned in previous posts – the problem is the use of the marginal pricing model – which prices in elec into the wholesale market at the very highest price. The solution is basket pricing – an average price reflective of real costs for each type of generation. I believe that you comment pointed in that direction.
There are a couple of logical fallacies in what passes for Mendacious Fatberg’s thinking (?).
Nat Gas/CH4 is priced globally. It sits at (everybody sitting?) @ Euro192/MWh. The run rate (Oct – mid-Feb) was Euro80/MWh.
Our assumptions until Putin started WW3 was a relaxation by mid-summer to maybe Euro40/MWh. ACER and CEER (euro energy regulators) hold similar view (pre-mid Feb).
The situation now is that we will be doing well to get to Euro100/MWh.
Right now I can make green-H2 from a wind turbine in the Uk @ Euro35/MWh. Most gas boiler manufacturers have a pure-H2 variant – right now. Right now a large (400MW) off-shore wind farm is being built with integrated electrolysers (North Sea) which will use an old gas pipe to send the H2 to shore. More will follow. Spain is gearing up to be a net exporter of H2 . It’s cost of production now, is Euro25/MWh. Its cost of production by 2025 will be sub-Euro10/MWh.
Mendacious Fat is going to offer CH4 @ Euro40/MWh? or maybe, given current events Euro80/MWh? (100??) and others will offer H2 at Euro10 to Euro35/MWh. Yes I can see how that would be a tough choice. For those that hold the view that renewables can’t be built quickly, the largest wind farm in the world (Hornsea 2 – 1.2GW) will be finished this year – it was built in one year flat. Key point: with organisation and will, we could throw renewables up like topsy.
Overlooked is the link between the Oil&gas mafiosi and the tory party (all bungs gratefully accepted). The Russians are not the only contributors to coffers, the O&G hooligans have been doing so for decades – hence the swing to gas.
I admit I found that hard to follow
“Boris Johnson believes the West should be given a “climate change pass” to help wean the EU off Russian gas supplies ”
By the time Mendo-Fat has got around to getting more gas – we could be on the way to green-H2 that will be cheaper than nat gas (which is priced on a global basis). The energy transition is part of addressing the “climate disaster” – with some political will we could transition “real-fast” & the end result(elec & H2) would not only be cheaper – but with a price that is locked in for decades. Weaning “the west off Russian gas (any gas!) means accelerating the energy transition. M-F proposes drilling for more gas. Pathetic.
Agreed
It’s absolutely galling to know that this is within our reach and yet the government won’t act! Caroline Lucas made very similar points on CH4 news last night about how quickly we could transition but for the political will to do so (aka tories being tories and lining their pockets at the expense of us all!)
I am surprised at the number of people who say they have always been with British Gas and have had no problems. Where have they been living?
Everyone should sign up to Octopus or Ecotricity.
This article in the Pensions Expert section of the FT illustrates the complete intellectual bankruptcy of our pension system, the advisors who advise pension trustees and the regulator (TPR) who oversees it. We need a paradigm shift to create a new pattern of behaviour which functions to secure the future, not undermine it.
https://www.pensions-expert.com/Investment/LGPS-Russian-exodus-under-way-as-TPR-tells-trustees-to-be-vigilant?xnpe_tifc=h.njbIYJbDENhFx8xdxpOypsafeWaeiWhFW5Rflcaj4NajPchoBlbfpgx.YcbdiArkodbIe.4DV7b.zJOFH7OIYT&utm_source=exponea&utm_campaign=Pensions%20Expert%20Daily%20Newsletter%207%20March%202022&utm_medium=email&fbclid=IwAR0VmObLDRkGrnpoCnoY7ajOqaEg1MZYpEsvlIdAKTkFYrcagAxOK2ZOl2U
The thing that I find most scary about our governments response to climate change is that I have yet to come across anything that looks like a serious plan for moving to a green, zero-emissions economy and the resources needed to achieve it.
Have they even attempted to predict what the UK economy will look like in twenty years time and the resulting UK electricity requirement, because it seems to me that if you have not even a reasonable estimate of future requirements then you are certainly never going to have an effective plan to achieve it.
Meanwhile, in this most difficult of times we have put up with the deceitful chuntering of a man who nobody would believe if he entered a room wet through and announced it was raining.
Recent reports o p[arliament suggest that there is no credible forecasti8ng in place
Britain led the way in emitting carbon dioxide at scale during the Industrial Revolution. Most of the above comments appear to assume that we can use more or less as much energy as at present but just rely on electricity generation (for electricity or hydrogen when there is surplus electricity to produce it).
This is outrageous.
Considering just one aspect of this, Bangladesh is particularly hit by floods caused hugely by western historical emissions and very little by those of Bangladeshis. I found some dated statistics (http://mecometer.com/topic/vehicles-per-thousand-people/ Vehicles per person – Best available in 2011]. I have selected a few comparisons for the number of vehicles per person in each country: Bangladesh 3, Ethiopia 3, India 18, Pakistan 20, Nigeria 31, China 70, Ukraine 186, Russia 271, UK 516, France 582, US 786.
The climate and ecological crises are more serious than all wars ever. The Paris goals were agreed to ON THE BASIS OF EQUITY. Respecting that COMMITMENT, western nations sould build no new vehichles whatever until the cliate has stabilised.
When the UK declared war in 1939, petrol rationing was declared on Day 1. In 1942, apart from military purposes and essential services, the UK petrol ration was reduced to ZERO.
As soon as the US joined the war, manufacture of vehicles for civilian use CEASED. It was not restored until the end of the war. The national speed limit there was held at 35 mph for the duration.
At the outbreak of war in 1914, all UK south coast towns were ordered to show no lights at night. The principle reason for action now is to limit the emission of carbon dioxide. There could be huge savings if, apart from imperatives of safety and security, no floodlights or other outdoor lighting was permitted. Photographs from the sky show extensive profligacy … the result of which (we know for sure) will make the lives of our children (and some of us) increasingly difficult.
So much could be done – some of which would result in, for example, fewer road deaths and less pollution from tyre dust and vehicle emissions. A good number of people would benefit from a less hectic pattern of living.
It seems to me that the time might be ripe for a campaign for emergency energy saving measures.
The question is who to kick it off?
Lots of organisations – Brake, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Stop the War, even One Nation Tories might be interested but who do you send the idea to?
Why aren’t they doing it?
https://weownit.org.uk/act-now/public-ownership-energy-petition
Don’t forget weownit.
Last month’s Curbing Excess report from CREDS (Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions) highlights the role of personal energy demand reduction in achieving net zero. Their report emphasises that it is fairest to target those whose energy consumption is highest – “They have the greatest scope for energy savings, compared to average or low consumption households, and their socio-economic characteristics suggest that they also have the capacity to invest to improve their energy efficiency……The wealthiest 10% is responsible for 25% of all transport emissions and for 41% of all flights from the UK…The top 20% of households by income are responsible for nearly 31% of all domestic energy consumption.””
https://www.creds.ac.uk/publications/curbing-excess-high-energy-consumption-and-the-fair-energy-transition/
If Brown’s interview on C4 news was bad, did you see that most reliable of crass news anchor’s Cathy Newmans’ interviews with Andrea Leadsom and then Caroline Lucas on the same show this evening?
It was appalling – she gave Leadsom carte blanche to argue that carbon neutral was over and even suggested that communities could negotiate with frackers to get a discount on their gas bills as their geological stability was washed away beneath them!! WTF!
And then when Lucas turns up, the first thing Newman said was to ask if she’d be tying herself to a ship carry gas from the USSR!!!
I’ve got to say that Lucas was amazing – she did not take the bait and kept on message to the point where Newman climbed down and stopped being a high carbon advocate.
But it was disgusting Richard – totally unbalanced to have a Leadsom saying anything is on the table to then attacking the one high profile Green MP to the point where I felt – well – if they privatise C4 sod the lot of them – because all we got in the commercial break was C4 latest insult to TV entertainment anyway. C4 are three quarters of the way finished anyway IMHO – just look at some of their programming – inane is what I’d call it.
I’m also struck by the latest in-phrase from Boris – Britain will ‘do its best’ to deal with refugees – yes we’ll do ‘our best’ within the hostile environment we’ve already created as well as the mental cages we’ve surrounded for ourselves with concerning money and Government debt – all self-imposed BTW. ‘Do our best’ means ‘ don’t expect too much’ – that’s what it means!
Apparently its going to be OK to bail out bankers when they get too greedy but not bail out the public and protect us from energy price increases as a result of sanctions nor some refugees who are refugees because of some behaviour he’s publicly said that we apparently deplore?
Is it just me or is that really everything is going down the plug hole at the moment?
It’s not just Johnson either – it’s like there is some sort of huge emergent death wish emerging across the planet as a result of this conflict – it advances the causes of so many bad actors you just have to wonder if it was designed that way.
See my blog this morning
2008 – Russia invades Georgia
2014 Russia annexes Crimea
2018- -Russia attempts assassination on UK soil of Sergei Skripal, His daughter and UK citizens are “collateral damage” – blatant and reckless chemical weapons attack in the UK.
So how do our esteemed pension funds, their advisors and the regulator (The Pensions Regulator) respond? …. well actually chaps there are lots of juicy investment returns to be made from Russia and your “fiduciary duty” is to act in the “best financial interests” of your beneficiaries.
F*** the victims of the Russian kleptocracy, all that matters is making money.
The scandal of this is being hidden behind the focus on oligarch’s “dirty money” – that is only half the story – the other dirty money is ours which was handed over to the responsibility of others who we were told could be trusted, Oh how we (and the people of Ukraine and Syria) have been betrayed.
And to top it all, at the end of the day “the beneficiaries” have lost all that invested money anyway.
And yet the pensions establishment demands that “fiduciary duty” to “act in the financial interest of the beneficiaries” should be the overriding guiding principle.
Jesus wept.
As you might have detected, i am incandescent with rage.
if we forget climate change for the sake of argument and focus on energy security, this doesn’t make any sense in any logic.
producing more oil & gas is not a short term solution. it wil probably take several years to come to come online. it won’t help the current crisis.
but it will undermine efforts to wean us off fossil fuels in the longer term. so it keeps us rooted in the fossil fuel energy insecurity that put us in this position to begin with.
the only answers to the questions of fossil fuel insecurity are ones that reduce our reliance on them. Not boosting production.
Precisely
Totally agree.
The current situation has exploded the myth that it’s OK to rely on Mad Bad Vlad and the Dessert Despots to meet our energy needs. We need a massive surge in investment in renewables.
And if this means MBV and the DDs suffer a bit of a blow in their wallets, all the better.
After all, what MBV is doing to Ukraine far less that what the DDs are doing to Yemen.