A ‘green’ power station subsidised with taxpayers’ money is Britain’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gas, according to new research. The Daily Mail has more.
Drax in Yorkshire burns wood pellets, which are treated as a ‘renewable’ fuel and the site has attracted more than £800 million of taxpayer subsidies.
But analysis shows that the burning of wood for power – known as biomass – has been the cause of more carbon dioxide emissions than coal since 2019.
Drax burns millions of tonnes of wood to provide around 12% of the UK’s total electric power, generating 15.6 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide emissions each year, which cause the planet to heat up by trapping heat around the Earth – the greenhouse effect.
The power station is also one of the top five emitters in Europe of toxic air pollution particles known as PM10.
Currently accounting rules allow Drax to be treated as ‘carbon neutral’.
It is argued that emissions from burning wood are offset by the growth of new trees to replace those harvested for burning – although trees burnt may have taken 40-100 years to reach maturity.
This assumption, shared by the EU and UK Government makes it eligible for significant public subsidy.
But scientific opinion is changing, and wood burning is increasingly seen as making climate change worse. The European Academies Science Advisory Council states that using woody biomass for power “is not effective in mitigating climate change and may even increase the risk of dangerous climate change”.
The research from pressure group Ember also shows emissions from burning wood now far exceed those from burning coal. Wood burning is now the second largest contributor to the power sector’s CO2 emissions overall after fossil gas.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Andrew Neil says the cost of the Government’s ‘net zero’ policy is finally hitting home. The Daily Mail has more.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
How could this happen? It’s almost as though stupid policies enacted on the basis of dogma rather than reason, and justified by modelling “science”, are even more likely to lead to counterproductive unintended consequences than routine government incompetence and corruption.
But surely that can’t be true, can it?
These wood burning power stations perfectly sum up the absurdities of the eco movement.
And yet the arse holes were all running round a couple of years ago trying to ban people burning wood in log burners! You really could’nt make it up!
I don’t think they’ve given up. If you want a wood burner, best get one installed quickly, because it seems to me the totalitarian writing is on the wall for a ban on new installations, as a first step towards an outright blanket ban.
They’re banning blankets? Are there no depths to which this evil government will sink?
And we’re going to need them when the heating goes off…
“They’re banning blankets?”
Shh! You’ll start a panic buying frenzy. And I’m off out to get mine this afternoon…
“Are there no depths to which this evil government will [not] sink?”
I don’t think I really need to answer that question here…
Yep – forgot the ‘not’ in attempt to be witty! And yes, question rhetorical!
Wonderful!
Wood burners are a problem especially if we start seeing exponential rises in energy prices. People will start chopping down trees!
So, just to get this straight – you’d prefer people to suffer in the cold than see some trees chopped down?
I suppose we could round up Green voters and activists and force them to operate treadmills to warm the houses of the poor through the winter…
I wonder if they might yield more joules of energy if they were put in the wood burners? Would solve two problems at once, but might be a bit controversial…
Note for the sensitive.
This was a joke.
Next you’ll be suggesting we eat their children…
Eeew! No we can stick to the more useful parents as a fuel source.
The kids can then grow up to want a motorbike or car or…
Further Note for the sensitive.
That was another joke – Green Voters and Activists should not be placed in wood burners……
The will ban them and move everyone to electricity only as that means easier co trol for whomever is supplying it
Let’s also mention that those wood pellets are shipped 3000 miles from Maryland, USA to get there.
Anyhow, CO2 is not a major problem, we are at historically low levels of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere when measured in geological timescales.
It speaks volumes that we never see any governments’ Energy Return on Investment (EROI) analyses for any of these ‘green’ renewable energy sources! They are anything but ‘green’! I believe it’s a saying from the Middle Ages: ‘Only a fool builds a windmill when he could build a water mill’! Now, if engineers were permitted to develop water-powered generators (including tidal sources), the EROI would make for healthy reading. However, we are living in a post-truth era in which virtual-signalling trumps reality.
Interesting – so what is the current claim for the chief greenhouse gas?
And the first mass extinction was caused by rising oxygen levels.
Interesting!
Go to https://www.beautyandthebeastlytruth.com/ and have a read, and or download the PDF then make your own mind up. Clearly and lucidly expressed covers the key topics most of us take for granted.
Just read this report. It is excellent, thank you for the link. Concise and factual & should be mandatory reading in every classroom in the land!
Perhaps we should recommend it to Boris and friends, they do like a bit of mandatory this and mandatory that. But yes I couldn’t agree more.
On a long enough scale, burning coal, gas and oil is also “renewable”, as biomass is sequestered underground. This sounds trite, but when we’re talking a hundred years to “renew” wood pellets, it becomes fair to ask “But aren’t we in an urgent climate catastrophe? I thought we (always) only have 10 years to save the planet? Why are we burning now and promising to replant later?”
It’s all a scam, of course. Atmospheric plant food levels remain critically low. We should be aiming to replenish the biosphere to over 1000ppm, not a paltry 400 that retards plant growth, let alone suicidally levels approaching 200.
> On a long enough scale, burning coal, gas and oil is also “renewable”
that’s not true,no new coal can be produced due to the emergence of lignin in wood which prevent production of new coal. no new coal has been created in 300m years,
https://elkvalleycoal.com/was-all-coal-made-at-the-same-time/
Thanks, that’s a very interesting article. It’s a shame that you didn’t read it, or didn’t understand it, before talking such utter rot (pun intended) about what it actually says.
Given the site that you are on, perhaps you could re-read it, and post a correction.
The article says, ‘While the coal-forming process is still happening today….’
Indeed it does. Our colleague here seems to have read no further than the clickbait title, which is phrased as a question, without bothering to discover that the answer is actually “No, all coal was not formed at the same time”.
Even the claim “due to the emergence of lignin in wood” is gibberish, and not at all what the article claims.
the coal forming process ceased 300m years ago when lignin arose. There can be no more forming.
Not quite sure how all the trees, that formed the coal 300 Million+ years ago – that you refer to – ever managed to live at all when, without lignin, their cells walls wouldn’t have been formed.
Voodoo magic perhaps?
Edit – Oh no silly me! There were no humans then of course…
Utterly irrelevant even if it were true (which it isn’t).
Why should we be concerned that coal cannot be replenished within our lifetime? Coal will last for hundreds of years if we burn it at curent rates, and the greenies don’t want us not to burn it so that we leave it available for future generations to burn.
On the other hand, making electric vehicles, quite apart from using vastly more fossil fuel to produce in the first place compared to conventional vehicles, use a whole host of minerals that are not renewable and will be exhausted very rapidly.
I can quite imagine that generations later this century will resent our using up of available rare earths and cobalt etc to build electric vehicles, leaving little or none for them. I very much doubt, were we to go on burning coal for centuries, that people in three hundred years will be resentful that available coal was running short.
Although I disagree with ewloe on a lot, I think he’s correct on this.
He isn’t.
This is true. Drax used to burn coal that was extracted just a few miles away, and now burns wood transported here by ship (think of all that bunker fuel), much of it from the West coast of the USA and Canada.
The ‘green’ argument that burning wood is OK because it is ‘carbon neutral’, simply putting back the carbon that was sequestered during the life of the tree holds just as well for coal, which is from trees that sequestered CO2 during their lifetimes. It matters not whether the tree grew fifty years ago or aeons ago: burning coal or wood is simply putting back into the atmosphere what was once taken out.
And thus, properly considered, burning coal is a ‘carbon neutral’ as burning wood. But if liberating CO2 is what bothers people (and it doesn’t bother me) then cutting down living trees to burn (in Drax) instead of burning long dead ones (e.g. coal) is far worse because it stops the trees from sequestering any more CO2, and from liberating oxygen.
The climate change narrative is an absolute scam. It has been the prelude, a warm up for the COVID scam, showing how academics, governments, media and pressure groups can hoodwink the world to accept great harms without any proper rational basis. Those who have stood against it have been persecuted, and it is a narrative built on lies and furthered by propaganda.
Mike Hulme, founding director of the Tyndall Centre, and former Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia (UEA), who prepared climate scenarios and reports for the UK Government, the European Commission, UNEP, UNDP, WWF-International and the IPCC (thankfully since a signatory to the Great Barrington Declaration) was quite open over a decade ago:
Spot on, chap. And viewed through an anti-colonial lens, we’re actually denuding areas of their local biomass in order to burn it here. I doubt that we’re shipping the ash back to British Columbia, are we?
‘I doubt that we’re shipping the ash back to British Columbia, are we?’
Please don’t give them ideas!
Well, of course, Thatcher’s destruction of the coal industry was one of the monumental follies of the times, along with the disastrous power given to big finance that is now seeing its apotheosis. It would have been much better to have worked on cleaning up emissions – although, whether biomass burning is necessarily any worse is a moot point. I’ve always seen atomic energy as one part of the solution – although that’s a bit late now.
Undoubtedly anthropogenic environmental impacts are a major issue, whether you go along with extremes of climate change panic (and its use by some as a power game), or stick your head in the sand over environmental problems – the general evidence of which is easy to see, and have become more obvious in my lifetime.
I don’t pretend to easy answers, and I do, for instance, think that a rush to electric transport is unrealistic and has massive downsides environmentally; but neither do I think that the pure negativity of sticking fingers in ears and singing is going to cut the mustard.
Ah, but let’s not forget that Wilson’s government closed down more (far more) pits than Thatcher’s! This has been a disastrous long-term policy of both Labour and the Tories. Neither of which is now fit for purpose.
Your whataboutery has some merit in this case, but it was the 1980s that saw the war against the industry, and the foreshadowing of the militant policing we are seeing now (I saw it at close hand).
If it has merit it isn’t whataboutery…
If anything, changing the subject to the ethics of Thatcher’s and subsequent governments’ policing practices is whataboutery.
Ooooo! A touchy fan?
It’s a very relevant simple historical reminder of the fate of indigenous carbon fuels that led to the importation of same, and introduced perverse economic incentives into the argument at an early stage.
‘Whataboutery’, btw, is a simple diversion of argument by citing a largely irrelevant parallel – like the TSG saying ‘What about the Chinese police?’
People have got used to extraordinary standards of heat in their homes. I am used to knocking on a front door on a cold day, and seeing it opened by someone in skimpy clothing. Empty rooms are routinely heated. Daily showers, sometimes twice daily, are the norm. It’s all taken for granted.
The quantity of lights in a room has soared in my life time. New LED technology? Let’s have ten times the number of bulbs in a room then.
I guess that’s all about to change, for pensioners and the poor especially, this winter.
How many bathrooms do Meg n Harry have again?
You’re right. But unpicking all that consumer response is a monumental task, even with the will to do it. And most of us are guilty in some way.
“Well, of course, Thatcher’s destruction of the coal industry was one of the monumental follies of the times”
Clearly not for those who recognised the huge C20th problem of trade union abuse of power and especially the mounting abuse of the undue power of the mineworkers’ union through the C20th. Had that power not been so drastically and openly abused, mines would both have remained more competitive and also not have been generally viewed as a source of harm for the nation.
Obviously you don’t agree with that, because that abuse was used to further causes that you were happy to see furthered by any means available. but your partisan blindness was not shared by those outside your political grouping, and ultimately that side lost the contest.
So yes, we can agree that the loss of the mines was a loss to the nation. But it was a loss akin to amputating a cancerous limb. You can legitimately question whether the surgery was overly drastic, but not that treatment was necessary.
With hindsight it now seems clear that the coalmining industry would have been as completely destroyed anyway within a couple of decades, even if Thatcher had never existed, by the climate zealots.
“Undoubtedly anthropogenic environmental impacts are a major issue, whether you go along with extremes of climate change panic (and its use by some as a power game), or stick your head in the sand over environmental problems – the general evidence of which is easy to see, and have become more obvious in my lifetime.
I don’t pretend to easy answers, and I do, for instance, think that a rush to electric transport is unrealistic and has massive downsides environmentally; but neither do I think that the pure negativity of sticking fingers in ears and singing is going to cut the mustard.”
This is the equivalent of the “moderate” covid panickers insisting that, even if the more extreme panickers over-reacted, “clearly” there was a serious pandemic that required some drastic action.
In fact the claims for a serious global warming problem are based, as was covid panicking, almost entirely on modelling bullshit.
Caring for the environment, like basic health precautions, are certainly things people are entitled to view as important, and entitled to take as seriously as they like for themselves,and to try to persuade others to share their views on. It’s when they start to impose their views on others by force and lies, and to silence dissent, that the problems arise.
Sorry to have offended your narrow religion of denial. The bone-headed and simplistic linking of Covid to the complex arguments around anthropogenic environmental change confuses the adoption and exploitation of a ’cause’ with the reality of a problem.
It is a key factor in weaponising Covid, giving ‘the Narrative’ evidence of bug-eyed conspiracy fanaticism. I come up against it all the time. You may as well just work for 77th Brigade.
I put forward a pretty balanced argument – although the reference to the patent stupidity of Thatcher was, I agree, a bit partisan (and I guessed would reel in some fish). It was, however, historically factual, even if it offended your subservient notion of ‘liberty’ as long as the workers don’t exercise it.
But that apart, it was interesting how a fairly neutral assessment of the environmental issues brought you, blinking, out of your ideological burrow, with an assessment of unions taking prior place.
Only the doltish would confuse the facts about Covid with the evidence on detrimental environmental change (note – I’m not fixating on the notion of climate change). The first is totally fictional, the latter indisputable to any objective observer – although that doesn’t presuppose any particular solution.
“Sorry to have offended your narrow religion of denial. The bone-headed and simplistic linking of Covid to the complex arguments around anthropogenic environmental change.”
The connection is direct and obvious, and it lies in the abuse of “modelling” being at the base, as well as methodological features such as demonisation and suppression of dissent, as I pointed out.
Sorry if that doesn’t suit your ideological needs.
“confuses the adoption and exploitation of a ’cause’ with the reality of a problem”
The significant difference here is your personal dissent from the covid panic cause and adherence to the climate panic cause. For you, one is a “cause” and the other is a “problem”, but for the irreligious both are “causes”, and notably similar in attitudes and methodology.
“You may as well just work for 77th Brigade.”
Of course. Anyone saying things you really dislike must obviously “work for 77th”. But you making aggressively divisive assertions that even you admit are partisan, is just “reeling in some fish”.
Hypocrite.
“I put forward a pretty balanced argument“
No more than I did in response. But you don’t cope well with disagreement on these topics, as we have seen here time and time again.
You are obsessed by one aspect of the debate – climate change. I’m not. Wider environmental issues such as I’m highlighting don’t depend on ‘modelling’. Simple observation provides the evidence, and it’s startling – from atmospheric pollution to major changes in aspects of the ecological balance in historically short timescales.
And just a correction for those, like you, who are a bit slow on the uptake :
“Anyone saying things you really dislike must obviously “work for 77th””
Misses the point entirely. It’s not about what I ‘disagree’ with. It’s that wild, generalized speculation about universal Blofeld-type inclusive conspiracies undermines/confuses the clear refutation of the undeniably false narrative of Covid when it gets mixed in. That’s not speculation – again, its observation from months of arguing the case.
… and the unblinkered reader would note that I clearly avoided ‘ideological‘ pronouncements on the essential issues relating to self-evident environmental problems in favour of a few undogmatic observations.
You seem to be a pot that doesn’t even need a kettle.
Why did you even bring up “climate change” then?
If you slap us in the face with it, expect a reaction.
Surely, you’re not that dim.The rationale is pretty clear.
… and who’s objecting to a reaction? and ‘slap us in the face’ – How touchingly sensitive! Do you want an echo chamber of preconceptions or a debate?
You’re objecting to the reaction, petal.
You seem curiously unaware of the things that you’ve actually written. Perhaps you feel that someone else is responsible for them?
“You are obsessed by one aspect of the debate – climate change. “
Exactly as we both are “obsessed” with the covid panic debate. And rightly so, because panic responses to both climate change and covid supposed emergencies are driving catastrophic and totalitarian regime, cultural and social initiatives that are coercively imposed on everyone, regardless of agreement or dissent.
Anyone who is not “obsessed” with both these issues is not paying due attention, and the price of liberty is eternal – obsessive, in fact – vigilence.
“Misses the point entirely. It’s not about what I ‘disagree’ with. “
Absolutely untrue. We’ve seen here (and I’ve repeatedly pointed specific examples out in the past) time and again that you are perfectly happy to see or to introduce intentionally provocative and divisive issues (such as your personal bitterness relating to defeat in a political issue three to four decades ago), provided that they push positions you agree with. And indeed there’s nothing wrong with introducing issues of those kinds into a discussion forum as broad as this one. The problem is your constant attempts to tell other people doing the same thing that they should not be doing so, usually in very personally abusive terms.
It is precisely about what you disagree with and wish nobody would be able to say.
Conflating two entirely unrelated issues is a cad’s trick, chap.
I agree passionately that pollution and denudation through over-exploitation are very bad things. I would quite cheerfully execute litterers, whether individual or industrial, by summary gunshot to the face.
However, this has nothing to do with “climate change”. Restoring desperately needed plant food to the biosphere is an entirely good act, for all life on earth. Giving any credence at all to the deranged delusion that critically low levels of CO2 are either desirable or necessary is Thanos levels of evil.
Please be better than that.
I suggest that you read more carefully. I’m not the one banging on about ‘climate change’ – you should note that I used a much wider term.
Chap.
I would suggest that “Conflating two entirely unrelated issues” is a mainly sin of those who continually bang on about climate change in the middle of items about Covid. I was addressing an item about power generation in relation to the environment.
And yet, you chose to bring it up, and are now eschewing responsibility for doing so.
How very liberal of you.
CO2 isn’t that a gaseous fertiliser, that makes plant grow?
I watched the Yorkshire Farm the other night and it was winter and they were having problems with snow. I thought that snow was a thing of the past!
I’ve noticed that modern people react to changes in the weather as if that’s abnormal. Drizzle is now storm conditions; sleet is a blizzard.
It’s suffciently a thing of the past that the German Greens (and likewise-minded imbeciles) are somewhat successfully selling still fairly light snowfall in winter (for early 1980s standards) as “extreme weather due to man-made climate change” to the under-forties.
“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”
The same delusional thinking underpins the move to E10 petrol.
I daresay a fair few ‘green’ cars have had their batteries recharged from Drax generated electricity.
Great piece by Andrew Neil. Absolutely spot on. Shame he’s no longer in a position to grill politicians on these issues.
Andrew Niel is right to say:All governments, have a duty to tackle climate change, which is real and potentially dangerous on so many fronts.
How many people have died as a result of climate change? How many do you think will die?
How many people have died and will die of poverty or economic crises caused by climate change policies?
This planet is cooling as the current interglacial progresses. Temperatures have risen since the LIA, but are lower than previous warm periods.
Cold weather kills more that hot. The only “dangerous” climate change will be the onset of the next glaciation.
The aim for net zero is stupidity on steroids.
FFS.
Ok if the Globalists get their way how will our carbon emissions be when 6 billion people die or cannot procreate? Think of all the breathing we will save.
Never mind that plant vegetation and productivity has increased as carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere.
NEVER EVER ARGUE with these climate cultists on their own terms.
The pandemic was a hoax, climate catastrophe is a hoax.
Start from that premise and you won’t get bogged down critiquing biomass.
Cannot disagree with a word you’re saying; the two ‘crises’ certainly seem to be cut from the same (bullshit) cloth.
I bought some DRAX shares for my pension fund a few years ago when I heard what they were doing. Below is the plot of their performance. It really dosn’t matter where the fuel comes from, the result is still CO2, but the firm argues that, since the fuel is newly grown wood, it can be renewed, and hence is renewable.For some reasons, stupid politicians throw money at it if it is renewable. There’s another one, near Ely that mostly burns straw.
By rights, in my view biomass should not be classed as good for the environment, as are
Solar energy,Wind energy,Hydro energy,Tidal energy and Geothermal energy.
Those things really do reduce CO2,biomass does not.
The guys making a fortune out of this are the environmental lawyers who have learned how to exploit the flexibility of terms like “Renewable”, “Recycling” etc.. My local council claims that it “Recycles” a high proportion of the domestic waste that it collects, but I know that this does not necessarily imply that it’s all capable of being re-used, which is what their publicity leads the general public to believe.
There isn’t an estate, large farm, boutique hotel etc in the land without a biomass burner. All part of the £12 billion per year subsidies plus they all get to parade their noble credentials. The deplorables like us get shafted with the bill. Authorised organised crime, nothing else
But CO2 is not a pollutant – and it does not drive climate change.
Why on earth would you class returning desperately needed CO2 to the biosphere as a bad thing?
to delay the rise of sea level.
Spot the fallacy.
One can only associate atmospheric CO2 with sea level rise through a series of falsifiable premises.
Why do you want to reduce Co2?
There we have it.
The real reason you wouldn’t want anyone to suggest that Drax was actually now more of a polluter is it might bugger up the value of part of your pension fund in the future.
Nuff said!
I enquired of the Government when the Drax scam first started how they calculated the emissions. I was given a link to an emissions calculator which showed that they were around 50% of those from burning coal. It turned out that the 50% represented emissions from harvesting, processing and transporting the woodchips alone, and, as commented here, smokestack emissions weren’t counted as the forests regrow. So the actual emissions performance is around 150% of generating power from coal. Words failed me then and still do now.
Oh the irony
Bring back frakking, and to the environmentalists I would say two things.
First, is it greener to burn our own local gas or to liquefy it and ship it here half way round the world? We are still going to be burning gas and it will still generate plant food.
Second, why are you OK with a massive difference in allowed seismic activity for geo-thermal heating projects (in Cornwall) and frakking elsewhere? The allowable level for geo-thermal is, I believe, about forty times higher for geo-thermal.
I’ve just walked through a ‘Climate Action’ fair in the town centre. It was unintentionally hilarious. About eight stalls, manned by middle-class handwringing Guardian readers who share an inability to grasp the concepts of institutional capture or thermodynamics. Typically the guys were wearing brightly coloured shirts, with a jaunty necktie, three quarter length trousers and sandals and selling unappealing wares all prefixed with the word ‘eco’. For children there was bubble blowing, meaning I had to stand awkwardly while my daughter took advantage for longer than was desired. If empty gestures could alter global temperatures, they would have saved several coastal regions.
The sad thing is that I spent my younger years identifying as an environmentalist; it’s such a shame to see the movement captured like this, by the very people these well-meaning twits would denounce if they were capable of critical thought or seeing beyond their own desire to be virtuous. My ecolatte was balls as well. Sigh.
Yep it’s the modern replacement for an irreligious society which has put its faith in a politically and financially motivated class of pseudosciencentists and modellers. That is its new pantheon with Saint Greta soon to be worn around their necks.
its appalling and embarrassing, but most if all it is dangerous as there will be real world consequences for the eco(nomic) catastrophe these zealots are bringing upon us.
Power plants burning wood that release CO2.
Solar panels that never generate back the energy it cost to make them.
Electric vehicles that are more toxic and energy expensive per mile than combustion engine vehicles – and require mains charging which still comes from fossil fuels.
The green energy movement is a joke.
Anybody who lives close to other people owning a fireplace is fully aware how much stink their merry wood burning generates.
You will befriend us once this takes hold
Nothing like the smell of a wood burning fireplace, us humans enjoy that sort of thing.
And to rub salt in the wound, it looks like the UK will have a high pressure weather system with little wind power over the next week or so.
I saw some stats from an impartial source on the raw materials that go into producing “green” energy. It didn’t offer a comparison but there sure is a huge amount of digging stuff out of the ground and processing that takes place. I’m talking hundreds of thousands of tonnes of metals for a Gigawatt of “green” energy.
We need to see end to end emissions and energy consumption.
Ah, they’d better shut down Drax as well then, and have even more blackouts/shutdown of industry in Winter.
Fossil fuels = dead trees. Mustn’t touch those.
Forests = live trees. Let’s cut and burn for fuel.
“Green” is now a synonym for “stupid”.
Fossil fuel = 300million years to create , finite and never coming back
trees growing to cut = 50 years, plant as many as will fit and keep planting
you might want to rethink your last line.
The point is not whether it’s “coming back” (or rather, on what timescale it is coming back), which is basically irrelevant unless you are trying to preserve it for some future need.
The point is that carbon released into the atmosphere – if you believe that’s a problem – is the same whether it’s released from burning fossil fuel or trees.
Sorry. But if you believe in man made ‘climate change’ then you are already beyond saving and should probably do everyone else a favour and live a hermit life in some remote part of earth
Good to see some facts and truth about the cost/benefit ratio of the Green Lunacy.
But since it is effectively a religion (including the “original sin” of the industrial revolution and the penance we must therefore do) to the Eco Loons, including ‘er indoors at No.10, don’t expect it to have any effect.
It didn’t need the brains of an archbishop to work THAT one out, did it?
Wood was given a by 20-odd years ago because the metropolitan elite and the green welly brigade wanted their trendy log burners so the rules were bent to accommodate them. They even claimed it was environmentally friendly! Anyone with half a brain knew it made no sense. Another example of ‘we’re all in it together’ – not!