Even those who are sceptical about global warming can probably see much to welcome in today's announcement by David Cameron and Greg Clark that the Conservatives plan to install smart meters in every UK home. The meters would be linked to the National Grid and would tell people when it would be cheaper to use electricity for, for example, recharging their electric car or for other electrical appliances that do not need peak time input.
Originally planned for announcement yesterday - but delayed by 24 hours because of the Heathrow decision - the smart meters plan would cost £1bn and is being described by David Cameron as the "internet for electricity".
Mr Cameron discussed his green plans during a successful live webcast a little while ago with The Independent's Geoffrey Lean. Watch it again via the bottom of this page.
On this morning's Today programme Greg Clark announced that every home would be entitled to a £6,500 energy efficiency voucher. This voucher could be used for loft and cavity wall insulations that would quickly pay for themselves. The householders would never write a cheque. The energy companies would have to make the up-front efficiency improvements and be paid back over time through energy bills. Dr Clark said that this was a great policy for difficult economic times as the home improvements would create jobs in the building trade and save households money - as well as helping Britain move towards a low carbon economy. Listen again to Greg here and visit conservatives.com for more information.
The energy efficiency vouchers are a very attractive policy. Bets on how long until Labour announces it (while accusing Conservatives of doing nothing)?
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 16, 2009 at 14:44
Oh dear, it sounds like Cameron has once again been blinded by the cubic zirconia glitter of technology!
Given the anarchic nature of the internet it is hardly an advert for such a proposal!
After all whats the point of knowing when its cheapest to use energy when the cost of energy keeps going up! All you are doing is paying last years peak rates this year.
What is needed are ways to reduce the real cost of energy and not these faux bells and whistles that will no doubt allow energy companies and government to spy on us remotely!
The energy voucher is more welcome but yet again I do not think it gets to the main problem of how to significantly reduce the demand for energy. Insulation on it's own can only do so much.......
Personally, I'd rather see them spend taxpayers money directly on providing alternative means of heating (such as geo-thermal heat exchange) that potentially can significantly reduce heating costs and on measures to reduce the usage of power for electrical goods by making suppliers consolidate the many devices we are tempted with.
I'm afraid that this announcement seems like tinkering around the edges.......
Posted by: John Leonard | January 16, 2009 at 15:38
Whaaat?
Are the energy companies going to be forced to insulate people's homes? Are they in the house insulation business now then? You might just as well make them hand over Reddybrek or woolly jumpers.
Bonkers Cameron-style socialist dirigisme that is really quite frightening as a principle. This bloke has failed before he's begun.
Not on your nelly Mr Green Welly. This is Britain, not East Germany.
Posted by: Henry Mayhew - ukipper | January 16, 2009 at 15:39
"a £6,500 energy efficiency voucher. This voucher could be used for loft and cavity wall insulations that would quickly pay for themselves. The householders would never write a cheque. The energy companies would have to make the up-front efficiency improvements and be paid back over time through energy bills."
Eh?
1) We're now insisting that the energy companies get into the house renovations business? No one ever heard of the division of labour and specialisation which are at the heart of wealth creation?
2) Err, we're saying that the energy companies have to make the improvements. Hmm. I can see a problem there. We're allowed to switch energy suppliers, aren't we? Good, so what is to stop anyone getting the work done then buggering off to another supplier?
3) So the energy companies are going to be paying for the work upfront, right, and they get that money back over time. Hmm. And there's lots of savings to be had from this, are there? Some of which will go to the energy companies for the money they've advanced, yes? To pay which the consumers will be writing a cheque to the energy supplier each month. And in what way does this mean that the consumer will never write a cheque for the work to be done? This is just getting the work done on hire purchase, that's all, and I've not noted that any other HP supplier doesn't get paid.
Posted by: Tim Worstall | January 16, 2009 at 15:53
"If this is the best the Conservatives can offer, then there truly is no hope for us. " (Ta, Richard N!)
Brown may hand him the election but this merely proves that he is a "Bear with little brain" (except Pooh was really quite intelligent in comparison)
The Tory party has a death wish it seems. They have an open goal and do something MAD like this.
Posted by: christina Speight | January 16, 2009 at 16:20
This has to be the most stupid speech yet, just several pages of waffle. In case he missed it, we are shortly to be short of generating capacity, that is the first priority. Wind turbines are not the answer, they need 100% backup. Then of course the economy is bust, where is the money to come from? I do not think the energy companies want to become money lenders, nor should they. Ah well, back to the stone age, who was it who nicknamed the green party the "death squads"!
Posted by: Derek W. Buxton | January 16, 2009 at 16:30
John Leonard - if you read the detailed announcement on conservatives.com, you will see that there are proposals relating to heat pumps and many other technologies.
Henry Mayhew/Tim Worstall - again, read the detailed announcement. No decision has yet been taken on whether the energy efficiency entitlement would be provided through energy companies, local authorities or some other mechanism. That will be a matter for consultation in the coming months.
And on Tim's points 2 and 3 - your energy bill includes a "network element" which goes to the local network operator and National Grid regardless of which energy company you are using. The capital recovery for the work would be tied to the network element so that the charge stays with the property regardless of any changes of occupier and/or energy supplier.
The point about "never writing a cheque" for the work is that the capital repayments the home owner would have to make would be less than the savings on their energy bill. So yes, the consumer does have to pay. But if my bill has fallen from, say, £75 a month to £55 a month, it won't feel like I'm paying anything even though I am actually paying £10 a month towards the cost of fitting insulation (before anyone attacks them, those figures were just conjured up by me out of thin air and are not intended to be accurate).
Posted by: Peter Harrison | January 16, 2009 at 16:36
Brown will win the next election.
Of that there is no doubt, after yesterday's anti-aviation fiasco, and today's loony greenery (yet again).
I knew Windmill Dave was not the sharpest tool in the box, but this behaviour, flying in the face of ALL the latest scientific data, is wilfully cretinous.
Posted by: Jim Carr | January 16, 2009 at 16:42
The naysayers are out in force today!
I have no idea why Christina considers this to be mad so I can't comment on that.
As for Derek Buxton, again, read the detailed proposals. There is a lot there about energy security, including proposals to clear the way for new nuclear power stations, increases in micro generation and at least 5,000MW of new coal fired plants.
Posted by: Peter Harrison | January 16, 2009 at 16:47
We really do need to reconsider the basics or the whole greenhouse gas scenario. Fortunately we have, in the House of Lords, Lord Monckton and Lord Lawson, two real experts on this subject. David Cameron needs to take time out to dicuss with them the whole thesis of Anthropogenic Glocal Warming. They really do know what they are talking about.
Posted by: Peter Turner | January 16, 2009 at 16:52
I actually think this is a good idea. It will increase energy efficiency,create jobs and presumably offset calls for an energy windfall tax which undoubtedly grow when the largely foreign owned energy companies announce sharply increased profits because the regulator is useless. It does all this without extra burden on the tax payer.
The fact that Richard North thinks it's a bad idea gives it extra merit in my opinion.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | January 16, 2009 at 17:25
The fact that Richard North thinks it's a bad idea gives it extra merit in my opinion.
Well, the fact that you think it is a good idea means it isn't.
Richard North could buy and sell you, Malcolm, when it comes to discussions about energy, the EU, "climate change", or indeed much else.
I have yet to see you make a sensible point on this website.
Posted by: Jim Carr | January 16, 2009 at 17:34
Funny you should say that Jim, whenever I see your posts as with the ones above they are full of vitriol and bile.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | January 16, 2009 at 17:41
I think he's mad, Peter Harrison at 1647, because in time of economic collapse he has nothing better to offer but a bundle of irrelevant greenery even if the ideas would work in themselves.
Has he forgotten we;re BROKE. Doesn't he know that 0,01% of the CO2 which we produce doesn't have the slightest effect and that the levels of CO2 follow not precede Global Warming of which there has been none this millennium so far. Indeed global temperatures are now lower than for a century . Doesn’t he KNOW ALL THIS or doesn’t he want to know?
Since we will go to perdition with this 'fiddling while Britain collapses' we might as well stick with Brown and go down feeling angry - instead of betrayed if this idiot Cameron gets in.
Posted by: christina Speight | January 16, 2009 at 17:45
These are good ideas but in themselves will not achieve a greener Britain. They must be accompanied by green taxes. It is only by taxing those who pollute the most will you get a cleaner, greener Britain.
I am afraid there are too many people on this site who have a complete intolerance of anyone who disagrees with them. My advice. Grow up!
Posted by: Jack Stone | January 16, 2009 at 17:48
Another prime example why any proper Conservative couldn't possibly vote for the
Party while Cameron is the leader. Our tradition is for less Government interference in people's private lives - not more and more of the 'Nanny knows best state'. With everything that the Brown Government can be attacked on, Cameron
pathetically proves again he's incapable of proper effective and strong opposition.
Posted by: JS | January 16, 2009 at 17:51
Yeah you're right Jack,you are, after all, so tolerant of Conservative ideas and ideals aren't you?
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | January 16, 2009 at 17:58
Anyone who thinks Co2/Carbon is a problem, should automatically be excluded from any talk about our energy needs.
Without Carbon no living thing would have been created and without Co2 no mammal would have food.
Only the brain dead, can rage against carbon, without realiseing how monumentally illogical, their arguement is.
Posted by: I love Co2 | January 16, 2009 at 18:04
I just don't get the strong reaction to this. I'm not a believer in action on climate change (I support the Copenhagen Consensus) but this seems a sensible thing to do anyway - cutting household bills and creating jobs.
Posted by: Tim Montgomerie | January 16, 2009 at 18:10
There are some things that he cannot change, apart from the climate, it takes a finite amount of energy to boil a given amount of water, so how pray, is he going to reduce that?
Reduce the carbon in the atmosphere, that should reduce plant growth nicely.
Every house will be draft free in case it loses energy, and where then does fresh air get in.
Tomorrow he will unveil his perpetual motion machine, ha bl**dy ha.
Posted by: Derek W. Buxton | January 16, 2009 at 18:11
As Harrison states "no decisions have yet been made... This is a matter for discussion"
Precisely! more discussions, no decisions!
This was clearly meant to be a green or "dont know" vote catching speech and is no substitute for a serious (and realistic) Conservative energy policy. Hopefully, if the comments on this blog are any indication, this will have done Cameron personally more harm than good and, with him, popularity obviously takes precedence over principle or policy.
Posted by: David Parker | January 16, 2009 at 18:13
A very disappinting announcement. Even so, I see no reason to lose confidence in David Cameron's overall leadership. A few other readers of this post, seem to think otherwise.
Posted by: Julian L Hawksworth | January 16, 2009 at 18:24
Tim said
"but this seems a sensible thing to do anyway - cutting household bills and creating jobs."
Agreed, but why wrap it up in Mellon mumbo jumbo, of which the AGW/Co2 arguement is not only flat out wrong, but will make a very serious financial situation, far worse.
Once you start pandering to their agenda, you are on a very slippery road, as one can never be Green enough, to satisfy their crazed thinking.
The only reason politicians love Greenery, is because it gives them a perfect excuse to tax us all to hell. The whole thing is just one great Tax scam, one we can no longer afford. A proper Tory would be exposeing it, not championing it.
Posted by: I love Co2 | January 16, 2009 at 18:39
Any jobs created, due to this initiative, would not last for very long. For creating worthwhile jobs, we will always need a healthy economy. There is simply no alternative.
In reality, attempts to create a "low carbon economy", would probably do more harm than good. Ordinary taxpayers are far from likely to welcome "green taxes", and the associated problems.
Posted by: Julian L Hawksworth | January 16, 2009 at 19:18
Read the EU Referendum website to understand the true worth of this policy.
Posted by: erica | January 16, 2009 at 19:30
Why this fetish about 'electric vehicles'. Unless you have masses of nuclear power or hydro or the like, it makes no sense to have electric vehicles since power stations are only about 30% efficient and then there are transmission losses. Much better to use efficient internal combustion engines.
Posted by: David | January 16, 2009 at 19:33
"Fortunately we have, in the House of Lords, Lord Monckton and Lord Lawson, two real experts on this subject."
Please spare us. There are very good arguments that all of the fuss about carbon dioxide is ovr blown - it is pushing up the average climate but not by much - but neither Mockton nor Lawson come anywhere near addressing the scientific issues, using mostly spurious arguments about mediaeval warming and ice ages (which are quite frankly irrelevant).
There are far more cogent arguments on the internet against the impact of CO2 that require little more than a smattering of physics and a dose of commonsense to ynderstand.
Posted by: Mark Williams | January 16, 2009 at 19:56
There are some good bits in the Cameron latest offering but the totally naive bits eclipse the good bits.
Electric cars create ozone so can't be good even if their real green cost looks comparable. Also electric cars are going to present fearful environmental problems when one has to scrap them and their short lived batteries.
Bio fuels are rubbish unless third generation. First gen biofuels are baely energy positive and deprive us of food growing area, second gen biofuels at least dont compete with prime food growing land but are also barely energy positive, Third generation bio fuels are really 20 years off on a large scale.
The latest aircraft do better miles per passenger gallon now, than trains. If trains start going faster than current yawn making Branson Pendelino speeds (slower than the HS 125s actually maintained in the 1970's and 80's then their fuel consumption will rise by the cube of the speed increase, whereas aircraft get more efficient up to about 525-550 m.p.h. Newer aircraft such as A380s and Boeing 787s are even more efficient but that is nothing compared with what Boeing and BAe BWBs are expected to attain, (see X48B flight reports - 3 engines being capable of doing the job of four present day equivalent engines, with less noise due to engine placing on the top of their broad wings and with shorter runway needs too).
Tidal power is much more of a starter than windy mills or wavy power machines- Cameron ought to know this from his B&Q windy mill on his Nottting Hill Chateau.
The trouble is that Cameron won't listen to anything he does not want to hear and he has no knowledge of physics or business or people. He is however a fair film actor of the Elstree mould and seldom fluffs his lines.
Posted by: John Prendergast | January 16, 2009 at 20:24
"Why this fetish about 'electric vehicles'. Unless you have masses of nuclear power or hydro or the like, it makes no sense to have electric vehicles since power stations are only about 30% efficient and then there are transmission losses. Much better to use efficient internal combustion engines."
Not so. ELectric engines are very efficient 85-90%efficient and allow kinetic energy to be recovered on braking.
Petrol car engines are a lot less efficient that power stations because they operate at lower temperatures and pressures than power stations (do Carnot cycles mean anything to you?), plus there are inefficiencies in transmission systems and alternators to drive. The petrol/diesel engine is also less efficient when it is operating at a lower speed than its optimum, which is not a problem for a constant speed engine in a power station, and the petrol engine keeps running (burning fuel) when the car is standing still whereas the electric car uses no energy (apart from playing the radio).
All in all electric cars are about twice as efficient as the best petrol of hybrid cars and they don't rely on fossil fuels, they can be powered by any electrical source.
Posted by: Mark Williams | January 16, 2009 at 20:45
"Any jobs created, due to this initiative, would not last for very long. For creating worthwhile jobs, we will always need a healthy economy. There is simply no alternative."
If the idea is to provide our own power from UK sources then there will be a significant number of jobs created to keep those fuel sources operative, funded in part by savings in the cost of fuel imports.
Posted by: Mark Williams | January 16, 2009 at 20:51
Mark Williams.
What electric cars?????
So far there are no serious electric cars and the few that do exist, take hours to charge and what happens if you live above the ground floor.
As of right now, we are soon to shut down a huge chunk of our generating capacity, tks to EU green based directives and yr only solution is unproven and unreliable so called sustainable sources.
This is all pure fantasy, none of it actually exists, as of now.
Posted by: i love Co2 | January 16, 2009 at 21:48
These are supposed to be election winning policies then are they?? I'm sure that all those unemployed ex Woolies, Zaavi and Barclays staff will be rushing to put an X in the Tory box on the back of this fatuous greenwashed nonsense.
Posted by: Mr Angry | January 16, 2009 at 21:56
Why doesn't Dave concentrate on achievables - like asking the Nation to put on an extra jumper? (which might go a long way towards regenerating sheep farming while he's at it).
Posted by: cassandra | January 16, 2009 at 23:01
I just don't get the strong reaction to this. I'm not a believer in action on climate change (I support the Copenhagen Consensus) but this seems a sensible thing to do anyway - cutting household bills and creating jobs.
Posted by: Tim Montgomerie | January 16, 2009 at 18:10
Yes I agree with you in some respects Tim. But I absolutely do not understand this smart meter business. I as an ex Labour member was completely turned off by the nanny state and left that party. Does everyone in government think that people are too stupid to figure out how to save money on their electric bills? I assure you people, real people with real struggles are very aware. *sigh* I am just kinda shocked by this and hope it will be explained fully and I also hope that these meters being installed will be on a voluntary basis of participation. Money could be spent in far better areas and I also by the way agree with Christina Speight in regards to co2. Honest post Christina and it needed to be said. I DO care about the environment, very much so and have done since before it became the fashionable way to think. I however do not understand this new religion of carbon footprint madness.
Posted by: meli | January 16, 2009 at 23:24
Indeed global temperatures are now lower than for a century.
Christina, you are simply wrong.
This graph covers the last century.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 16, 2009 at 23:37
This is all pure fantasy, none of it actually exists, as of now.
"I love CO2", like Christina, you are simply wrong.
Honda FCX Clarity.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 16, 2009 at 23:42
Mark - Red mist caused by have a mad leader itself caused slip on my part - Should be "Global temperatures have fallen more this decade than they rose in the last decade / And incidentally your NASA chart was withdrawn as inaccurate. (BTW what are the GREEN lines on it?)
And before you're too pleased why send a hydrogen car to prove that electric cars are a viable proposition?
Posted by: christina Speight | January 17, 2009 at 00:05
I really wanted to like these proposals. I was looking forward to them. Sadly, I don't think they are up to much.
I don't mind 'green' ideas as long as they are economically sensible. After all, even if you don't accept the green argument it doesn't hurt to go the green route where its cost-effective to do so. But...
The comment that said this is just "buying insulation on HP" is quite right. More debt, just when we don't need more debt.
Electric Cars may have some benefits, but they still require recharging, which stills needs electricity, which still comes mostly from Coal. At least it does at the moment.
Are the energy companies on board with loaning immense amounts of money to people in order to reduce the amount of energy they sell? Seems unlikely, but if they are, I suppose that was a pretty clever bit of negotiation.
Posted by: Steve Tierney | January 17, 2009 at 02:35
100 billion more going to the banks. The last thing I want is to be in debt to the electric company for 25 years. Instead I can do what I usually do, keep the heat turned down and put on an extra sweater, an extra pair of socks. I am really beginning to wonder if politicians live in the real world. And for the electric cars, who can afford one of those? I have no intentions of going into personal debt because of some guilt feelings about the environment. My carbon footprint is nearly to the target level already, and I don't see how I can get it lower unless I agree to stop breathing. Anyway no matter, I will vote Conservative still as I have little choice left.
Posted by: meli | January 17, 2009 at 02:50
Mr Angry writes:
These are supposed to be election winning policies then are they?? I'm sure that all those unemployed ex Woolies, Zaavi and Barclays staff will be rushing to put an X in the Tory box on the back of this fatuous greenwashed nonsense."
1. Don't be so condascending. Woolworths employees are just as able to see the benefits of insulating their homes.
2. The building trade has been hit very badly by the depression. Jobs for them in refitting peoples' homes should be welcomed.
Posted by: Felicity Mountjoy | January 17, 2009 at 03:49
More nonsense from Cameron. Most homes like mine are already insulated due to building regs requiring thick loft, cavity wall insulation and more recently thick polystyrene slab in the concrete floors. Some older homes, like my first house, don't have cavity walls.
When will Cameron realise that only an idiot would spend £1500 on an unsightly domestic wind turbine that is likely to be a net consumer of electricity due to the inverter being powered even when the wind doesn't blow - as it frequently doesn't? Solar panels are expensive and not cost effective in country not noted for sunshine.
'Economy of scale' makes a nonsense of micro-power generation.
Electric cars would put a further strain on the failing national grid and there isn't enough Lithium in the world to make the batteries. The hydrogen fuel cell looks to be the way forward.
Useless Wind farms need to be backed up by convention power when the wind doesn't blow.
Few would argue against the need to develop VIABLE alternatives to fossil fuels, but this plan is far from viable.
When will Cameron realise that the CO2 agenda is just a tool for attacking capitalism, modern life, mobility and for the purpose of wealth redistribution by Marxists masquerading as greens?
It was a very sad day when the Conservatives embraced Marxism - the day Cameron was elected leader was the day I resigned from the party and ended my 30 years of voting Tory.
The next government will need to repeal the ridiculous unilateral 'climate change bill' and disband the 'climate change committee' which is loaded with green alliance members and New Labour cronies - something that a proper opposition would have protested about.
Posted by: Paul Biggs | January 17, 2009 at 06:57
But I absolutely do not understand this smart meter business. I as an ex Labour member was completely turned off by the nanny state and left that party. Does everyone in government think that people are too stupid to figure out how to save money on their electric bills?
Its not a matter of too stupid. The electricty needs of a household are a commplex issue, and without data, even the most knowledgable of us can only do so much.
In addition, smart meters allow you to use electricty when it is cheaper, either automatically or just by informing you. This means that consumption and generation can become a little better aligned, cutting losses and making both consumer & producer better off.
Without a smart grid, any increase in use of alternatives is quite frankly a waste of time. Cameron is smart enough to understand that, whatever other media friendly rubbish he has to spout.
Posted by: Clean Future Energy | January 17, 2009 at 08:15
Right, when are we getting the next Cameron policy announcement? :)
One point that has not been made is that many of the electricity companies are foreign. Are they right-on enough to allow this appropriation of their funds to take place without a swift visit to the European courts?
Quite seriously I believe I would do a better job of writing Tory policy than the experts doing it at the moment. How does one go about becoming a Cameron Conservative? After all they will shortly be in power so it is a serious question. I don't think I could read Will Hutton's 'The State we're in' but I'm prepared to try something else.
What kind of passionate chants does one do? Is it all Floreat Etona! and Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, Out, Out, Out! or is there something fresher than that? I genuinely don't know and don't want to embarrass myself when I see David and George :(
Posted by: Henry Mayhew - Ukipper | January 17, 2009 at 08:32
"Henry Mayhew/Tim Worstall - again, read the detailed announcement. No decision has yet been taken on"
Ah, so you mean this is just a load of hot air then rather than a properly thought out policy?
Posted by: Tim Worstall | January 17, 2009 at 09:29
And incidentally your NASA chart was withdrawn as inaccurate. (BTW what are the GREEN lines on it?)
Christina, that NASA chart was updated on 13 Jan 2009. It's current data. Here's the background. The green bars show uncertainty estimates.
And before you're too pleased why send a hydrogen car to prove that electric cars are a viable proposition?
I am pleased, but only because I like people who can actually admit mistake. It makes for more meaningful debate where it's actually possible to change opinion.
I raised hydrogen cars because the hydrogen is produced from electricity and, when burned in a hydrogen car, provides electricity for its motor. In effect the hydrogen cell is a clean battery.
Hydrogen cars really are very exciting new technology – able to give us better utility than we get from petrol. They will be just as fast, just as quick to fill up, go just as far but also be beautifully quiet and very clean.
I look forward to the day that Africa prospers from a Sahara carpeted with solar panels, powering “refineries” that produce hydrogen from sea water. OK, probably not in my lifetime, but no reason why-not other than local politics. Perhaps we'll have to make do with carpeting the American and Australian deserts.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 17, 2009 at 10:20
I`m a late arrival here. Seems Mr. Cameron keeps coming up with ideas, some good, some bad. This latest one is just pathetic. Why doesn`t he say what he would do about our looming energy crisis and make us independent of Russia, the EU or anybody?
Deckchairs and the Titanic come to mind. No more windmills - PLEASE.
Posted by: Edward Huxley | January 17, 2009 at 11:49
All this hard work to produce this silly mouse. Cameron as prime minister? Is it all a practical joke?
Mark Fulford is busily carpeting the Sahara with solar panels. (I wonder how long before they all disappear on the back of a camel) . He wants Hydrogen cars to be recharged where? And what's going to make the electricity, I saw somewhere the transmission costs of Saharan electricity and the transmission losses. They make the idea ludicrous.
Oh and btw ALL temperature charts are bigus since in the last century the land measuring points have changed substantially moving from exposed places like airfields to town locations like universities. That is reasonably guessed as accounting for around 2 degrees increase!
We have coal - BURN IT! We have tides - USE THEM. But all these batty ideas - all to no purpose since the world is cooling and man-made CO2 is not causal - from Cameron are seriously deranged. Is Mark applying for a job at CCHQ ? - should be a shoo-in.
Posted by: christina Speight | January 17, 2009 at 11:57
The world has been cooling for the last three years. Many people are losing interest in "green" issues, and understandably so. Instead, our country needs to focus more, on both energy efficiency and energy security.
Posted by: Julian L Hawksworth | January 17, 2009 at 12:09
Instead, our country needs to focus more, on both energy efficiency and energy security.
Posted by: Julian L Hawksworth | January 17, 2009 at 12:09
absolutely.
Posted by: meli | January 17, 2009 at 12:17
More tosh from Cameron's Tories. Thank God I did not vote for him.
Posted by: bill | January 17, 2009 at 14:24
If anyone wanted proof of the total battiness of this crazy plan of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic look no further than the fron pagwe of this very blog! Here Ppolly Toynbee prasises it and if she likes it it must be crazy - -
"The Heathrow runway decision has just gifted David Cameron exactly what he needed. His wilting green oak tree is suddenly bursting with acorns as he trumpets his "environmental and energy" revolution, perfectly timed for Heathrow week. He wears the green halo, and nothing the government does between now and the election is likely to reclaim it." - Polly Toynbee in The Guardian
Posted by: christina Speight | January 17, 2009 at 14:58
He wants Hydrogen cars to be recharged where?
The dismal quality of your argument is almost beyond belief; as is the negativity. It can’t be good for your soul.
So far you’ve told us that:
global temperatures are now lower than for a century (wrong),
global temperatures have fallen more this decade than they rose in the last decade (wrong),
“your NASA chart was withdrawn as inaccurate” (wrong),
you understanding of this argument is so low that you don’t understand the link between hydrogen cells and electricity
ALL temperature charts are bogus (just laughable)
I foolishly gave you credit earlier for admitting one of your many errors on this thread. But please, can’t you do better than the incredible lameness of “is reasonably guessed” and “I saw somewhere”? If you tried supporting your arguments then you might become better informed on this subject.
Is Mark applying for a job at CCHQ ?
Christina, I can see that’s meant as an insult but I really don’t get it. What’s so wrong with a Conservative passionately agreeing with some of the arguments his party makes?
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 17, 2009 at 14:59
Mark Fulford - I made one error using 'century' instead of decade.
You, on the other hand, produced one ludicrous remark ' idea after another. Your hydrogen car which you hyped as a standard now available costs a fortune - in Southern California and the bottom has dropped out of that market with the low price of oil. It will not be anything but a dream in your eye. Recharging points - there aren't any! What fuel is to be used to produce the electricity so as to move the CO2 emissions to another part of the country?
Crazier stiil is the Sahara chimera!. You obviously haven't read the detailed costings of installation both of the solar panels and the enormously complex grid. The area is so far from the potential customers that the the loss of power in transmission makes the ultimate cost astronomical.
As to the temperatures you completely ignore the discoivery that the wehole statistical base for global warm ing has been vitiated by moving the thermometers into warmer locatiobns. Ah facts, what do facts matter.
You don't deal - nor does Cameron - with the central facts that (a) CO2 is only 0.01% man-made; and (b) it does not cause global warming. It is insignificant and even Al Gore's mendacious charts when examined closely show that CO2 rise FOLLOWS any warming. If anything it is a result not a cause.
I have all the proof of everything I have written here and can send my source material including the fact that all the Global Warming theories are predicated on ignoring the second law of Thermodynamics and m uch else besides. The greatest greenhouse gas by far is Water vapour .
All you seem to have read all government and IPCC falacious handouts.
Cameron like you has fallen for this rubbish. You ask "What’s so wrong with a Conservative passionately agreeing with some of the arguments his party makes?" When it's plainly deranged - quite a lot is wrong with agreeing. As for my remark about fitting in well with the denizens of CCHQ . - if the cap fits, wear it!
To think that people give money to the party to be squandered on a kind of South Sea bubble!
Posted by: christina Speight | January 17, 2009 at 16:01
Well said Christina - another establishment 'con' will eventually be outed!
Posted by: robert | January 17, 2009 at 18:30
I have paid to have my loft insulated and double glazed windows installed, can I claim a rebate from a Cameron Government?
I won't hold my breath!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Brown will win the next election.
Of that there is no doubt, after yesterday's anti-aviation fiasco, and today's loony greenery (yet again).
I knew Windmill Dave was not the sharpest tool in the box, but this behaviour, flying in the face of ALL the latest scientific data, is wilfully cretinous"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Possibly the best outcome for true Conservatism is a narrow Labour win with a 20 odd majority, just like Major in 1992. Cameron resigns in disgrace and Davis takes over. The Tory party kicks out Zac and Villiers and gets back its soul. A Labour Government with a small and ultimately unworkable majority can be tolerated if it leads to the greater good in the end.
Posted by: Steve Foley | January 17, 2009 at 18:36
When it's plainly deranged
Deranged, now there’s a word to conjure with.
If you think you've only got one "fact" wrong, you haven't been reading what I've been writing. And since you persist with this "CO2 is only 0.01% man-made" line, let me add it to your remarkable list of errors.
In 1750, CO2 concentration was 280ppm. Today it is around 380ppm. Since the industrial revolution, CO2 concentration has risen 30% -- yet, in Christina-land, that's nothing to do with us, guv.
I'm sorry, Christina, but when it's your word against NASA's (and the vast majority of the scientific community), "I have all the proof" doesn't quite cut the mustard.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 17, 2009 at 19:06
Well done Mark Fulford, a voice of sanity amongst the several deranged posters here.
It must be really tough to debate with celebrated scientists like Jim Carr, Steve Foley and Christina Speight who just know that man made climate change is a marxist hoax.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | January 17, 2009 at 19:13
Mark - Oh dear - like the Warmist fraternity you are just in denial when faced with facts.
So I can never pin you down because you just change the subject.
FACT Water vapour is responsible for the vast majority of earth’s heating.
Man made CO2 is not a significant Global Warming Factor at under 13 parts per million.
One is forced to conclude the vast majority of current IPCC scientists are untrustworthy because they are swayed by the IPCC’s Socialist agenda.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Manmade CO2 0.003
Natural CO2 0.047
Water vapour 0.95
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
FACT The IPCC report was written and agreed to by 140 scientists employed by official bodies wedded to the global warming ideas. MANY more did the research but they were excluded from the findings. I n consequence over 70,000 scientists signed the Vancouver protest and there has been a moire recent one - The Washington Protest - with similar numbers. They did not approve the way the research was distorted by ALWAYS using the worst option out of a range of options the scientists had offered.
FACT - CO2 has risen - if it has - BECAUSE the world is warmer than in the mini-ice age ! You warm a glass of champagne and see how quickly the bubbles go into the atmosphere..
NASA has made plenty of mistakes in this but unlike you they can admit it - as I did on my one slip of writing.
Don't you know anything ? - you with your failed hydrogen car idea, your crazy Saharan idea, and your failure to deal with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and your inability to answer the relocation of thermometers. as well as your know-it-all big-headedness.
You and Cameron are a pair - heaven help us all .
Posted by: christina Speight | January 17, 2009 at 21:42
Man made CO2 is not a significant Global Warming Factor at under 13 parts per million.
Christina, I despair.
Earlier you said "CO2 is only 0.01% man-made". Now you say 13 ppm is man-made.
I’m sure, with your supreme grasp of the subject, you can see that the two numbers are irreconcilably different. CO2 concentration is currently around 380ppm. 1% of that would be 3.8ppm manmade. 0.01% would be 0.038ppm. So where does 13 suddenly come from?
I wonder if, instead of “CO2 is only 0.01% man-made”, you meant “man-made CO2 is only 0.01% of the atmosphere” -- which would be absolutely correct. 100ppm (the increase over the last 150 years from 280 to 380ppm CO2) expressed as a percentage is 0.01%
I’m afraid I can’t be bothered to continue this pointless debate any further. I think just about everything you have said on this subject is both wrong and unsubstantiated. And at every turn you add new "FACTS": the IPCC scientists untrustworthy; 70,000 scientists protested (yes, 70,000!); the whole temperature dataset is rubbish. Notably you haven't produced a single reference. You claim that I can't admit error yet you haven't given me a single error to admit. The idea that you're going to be able to sensibly discuss the second law of thermodynamics is, in my opinion, unlikely.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 17, 2009 at 23:55
Mark - It is you that fails to answer a single poinmt i've made but merely sneer at them - what about you silly c`ar? What about the Sahara ? What about the 70k scientists who protested? What about the resignations from the IPCC scientists list ?
NONE of them can you answer - you just trot out government handouts all of which have been comprehensively debunked.
Your religion is a false god.
Posted by: christina Speight | January 18, 2009 at 00:02
It is you that fails to answer a single point
1. So I haven't answered "Indeed global temperatures are now lower than for a century"? (Wrong)
2. And I haven't answered "Indeed global temperatures are now lower than for a decade"? (Wrong, look at the graph)
3. And I haven't answered "your NASA chart was withdrawn as inaccurate"? (Wrong, it was published 13 Jan 2009.)
4. And I haven't answered your "why send a hydrogen car" line? (Because hydrogen cells = batteries)
5. And I haven't answered "CO2 is only 0.01% man-made"? (You are out by a factor of 3,000 on the accepted figures and a factor of 4 on your own numbers).
I have given you sources on every point, and every time you’ve simply rejected them as untrustworthy scientists. Just to be clear, you are rejecting NASA and NOAA (you know those Americans, renowned for their socialist views on climate change) and the Royal Society.
You, meanwhile, have pointed us at nothing. We have to take you on trust for every bit of “proof” you claim. Why don’t you point us at this list of 70,000 scientists? Failing that, a news report (surely it would have been reported) would be a start.
I’m stopping this now. This is a complete waste of my time.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | January 18, 2009 at 10:37
If Dave can offer 6.5K vouchers for energy efficiency paid via the energy companies, then why cannot he do the same for health and education? Let the money follow the child and/or patient and parents will spend it with the school and/or hospital/health carer that they choose. After all, parents and patients know best what they want and is best for them, don't they?
Posted by: Lola | January 18, 2009 at 19:23
Part of this announcement is reannounced (selling electric to the grid) and while the rest isnt atrocious in theory (though some I doubt), in practice some of this could be tricky to actually implement. I know this is just a Green Paper but it was also lacking in numbers re. cost, maths to show the numbers actually did add up. I dont see the working out, as it were.
Posted by: James Maskell | January 18, 2009 at 19:45
A greener, cleaner Great Britain. Also a more respectful National culture. I would like to see the end of spitting for a start off. “This voucher could be used for loft and cavity wall insulations that would quickly pay for themselves. The householders would never write a cheque.” Of course it would be far better if the people could afford the insulation themselves. This is however a welcome subsidy to the Building trade. Despite ourselves we could do with a National housing plan that doesn’t involve robbery. If we do not build social housing in some numbers we are either going to have to pay near worthless people a deal better, or liquidate a large part of the population. Maybe the latter option would appeal to some on the right, but to me it would be a betrayal of deep held beliefs. We are really going to have to raise our game a good deal if we hope to achieve the ONE Nation that we have always promised to deliver. There really will be no room for the old class system when we can achieve excellence for all of our people. Clearly we are people who care and who do not want to repeat the mistakes of our collective pasts. We are going to have to face up to realities. We have a truly massive population that must remain fed, watered and entertained. The temptation will be to blame the unemployed and that is exactly what Labour hope we will fall into. Obviously we need scapegoats but these can reside outside of the One Nation. So we are clear that there is an outside and an inside, which is the very definition of Nation. Of course we are not going to join Europe any more than is absolutely in our National interest. This down turn is absolutely needed, indeed it is over due. We have grown soft and flabby on a diet of dross, imported from outside of the Nation. We have supported the creation of billions of tons of worthless junk and we have been squeezed by greedy capitalist interested only in a quick buck. We have been betrayed and sold off by a weak willed socialist quango. In short we will have to rise above even our natural instinct to favour privatised solutions. We must rediscover the Nation before it is lost to brief mention in the history books.
Posted by: Ther Bishop Swine ( 2nd of 4 Rants) | January 18, 2009 at 20:08
Thank you The Bishop Swine for that post. I agree and that's the country I want to live in too.
I went away and read up on these smart meters and I think as long as there is proper legislation in place to protect the public in their homes (some of these things can be worked both ways and allow a person's thermostat to be turned down without their permission for instance) then I think they would be a good thing.
Posted by: meli | January 18, 2009 at 21:23