From my Twitter account, this morning:
It's only a theory.
But I think it's a good one.
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:
Read more about me
If you like what I do please support me on Ko-fi using credit or debit card or PayPal
Tax Research UK Blog is written by Richard Murphy unless otherwise stated and published by Tax Research LLP under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Design by Andy Moyle
In an R4 interview today one of her ministers mentioned investing in gas, oil and fracking about a dozen times as being absolutely desperately vital to get out of this crisis, and only in the sign-off mentioned ….’ and nuclear, and renewables’…
You couldn’t make this up – as Caroline Lucas said ‘fossil fools’, but the interviewer took it in his stride as if this wasnt climate- denying bonkers.
The Opposition needs to harp on about these oil-funded government no. 10 advisers – it would be open no. 10 to deny if they cared to but they cant.
Andrew if you are on Twitter, Dave Vetter @davidrvetter has a thread quoting Prof Stuart Haszeldine, school of GeoSciences University Edinburgh re UK being no good for fracking/onshore gas production. Might cheer you up?
I agree, a good theory. Also, I wonder how her former employment at Shell and the oil industry donations to the Conservative party are influencing thinking.
I suspect you are correct, they are masquerading as a charity to promote fossil fuels and are funded by dark money, which they seek to hide the source of.
“It’s only a theory.”
DeSmog will show you it’s not, complete with a map of connections. There are too many to list, but start with BP, Koch, Mercer, and anyone and everyone connected with Vote Leave.
https://www.desmog.com/55-tufton-street/
This is almost certainly true. Possibly they are also genuine climate change deniers. Almost certainly they also know that many Tory voters are climate change deniers or, at least, want to keep their petrol cars and holidays abroad. This emphasis on fossil fuels shores up the Tory vote nicely.
“Disclosing of funding”.
Will you be publishing a list of all those who have paid you via that ‘donate’ button on this page?
No, unless they donate more than £1,000
That is a generally accepted policy as being fair and reasonable
No one has donated more than £500
Oh look at Paul Mansfield!
What a surprise question!!
now here’s a coincidence
Truss’ biggest donation comes from the wife of a former BP executive
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-campaign-donor-bp-b2162606.html
Ah yes! A brown envelope sweetener.
https://leftfootforward.org/2022/09/wife-of-former-bp-exec-donated-100k-to-liz-truss-leadership-campaign/?mc_cid=ea94ed9634&mc_eid=14dabf978e
First I have to say that as one who has been interested in the history and philosophy of science and science in general for over half a century, I find the expression “just a theory” very irritating. There is no generally accepted definition of the notion of a scientific theory but many would accept something like “a well attested scientific model that is confirmed to be empirically adequate to some domain of application.” In other word a theory is about as good as you get.
Having got that off my chest I find your claim extremely plausible. Until organisations like the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Taxpayers Alliance are transparent about their funding, and if they are as disinterested as they present themselves to be, there is no reason why they should not be transparent, your suspicions seem well founded.
This ‘a windfall tax will deter investment’ is nonsense too – granting a tax relief for sums invested has been the main Government tool for encouraging investment (often not that well-targeted!) and could be used with more precision very easily – investment in renewables could be given 150% credit against Windfall Profits in calculating the tax, carbon fuels investment 50% and nuclear (controversial and slow to implement) say 100%. ‘Big oil’ are simply badly run businesses if they are failing to future proof their business by moving from a finite resource to renewables – that they seem not to be simply betray the disastrous short-termish of financial markets, which actually harm well run businesses directly (by institutional shareholders demand levels of dividends based on a share price which the actual company has in most cases never received any of!) befopre harming the rest of society.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/09/08/solar-power-helped-the-eu-avoid-29-billion-in-gas-imports-this-summer
Can’t imagine Rees-Mogg or Truss being interested in this.
Meanwhile in Saturdays FT:
“Scientists discover how air pollution causes lung cancer”
“Ninety-nine per cent of the world’s population lives in areas which exceed annual World Health Organization limits for PM2.5. We have known about the link between pollution and lung cancer for a long time, and we now have a possible explanation for it,” Mok said. “As consumption of fossil fuels goes hand in hand with pollution and carbon emissions, we have a strong mandate for tackling these issues — for both environmental and health reasons.”
https://archive.ph/sfVDo