Another day, another green report. This time, in response to rising energy prices, a report has been published by something calling itself the Energy Crisis Commission. But the report flies in the face of sound economics when it tries to address the hardships faced by millions of individuals and businesses due to shy-high energy prices by calling for “a clear strategy for shifting away from fossil fuels, particularly gas”. Well, guess what: that’s because the “Commission” is just another bog-standard Green Blob front! Who could have guessed?
“A new report out today from the Energy Crisis Commission shows energy experts are backing the Labour Government’s mission for Clean Power by 2030”, tweeted Ed Milliband. Well, of course they do. For when one visits the Commission’s website, it is soon revealed that, “The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit [ECIU] is providing the secretariat for the Commission.” The ECIU is a well-connected but dysfunctional fake civil society organisation, which is wholly funded by green philanthropic outfits the European Climate Foundation (ECF) and the adjacent Meliore Foundation.
I feel that I write a lot about organisations that are wholly or mostly funded by the ECF, and it often feels that this is repetitive. But that is because most organisations active in the climate domain in the U.K. are funded by the ECF directly, or by one of the half dozen or so of the ECF’s grantor philanthropic foundations. The ECF is opaque about its sources of cash and its grantees, but it appears to be a green money-go-round – the Guardian would call it “dark money” – that puts distance between financial interests and corporate lobbying outfits styled as “civil society organisations”. What is remarkable is how many organisations that are seemingly distinct and “independent” are in fact operated under the strategic direction of their funders, whom they share accommodation with. The ECIU and the ECF are at the same “SE1 1LB” address of a virtual serviced offices – their footprints as entities being as vaporous as their output.
These aren’t real organisations; they are ghosts summoned by the will of money and ideology in some nebulous physical form to do their malign work before fading away. Green organisations – ECF grantees – have long campaigned for higher energy prices, and long attempted to distort the public discussion about how and why prices are going up, despite their false promises that renewables will be cheaper.
And so it is that the commission explains: “We consider this crisis to have started in August/September 2021, when gas prices started to rise, however the key tipping point for record prices was in February 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine.” And I feel I am repeating myself, again, when I point out that the commission’s lazy analysis is false.
Energy traders had told me long before the Summer of 2021 that unusual price movements were signalling very high future prices. By Autumn 2021, European natural gas spot prices had reached nearly €100/MWh, way above the historical average of about €18. The immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion prompted a small spike to about €119, followed by a summer spike up to €240, which is when the ECF-funded Carbon Brief (also located at the phantom “SE1 1LB”) produced its “wind power is nine times cheaper than gas” claim. That is to say that the most significant rise occurs before the outbreak of war. This is shown more clearly when prices are viewed on a chart with a logarithmic axis, which better shows relative growth than a chart with a linear vertical axis.
In the 22 months between the slump in demand in May 2020, to the month following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, EU natural gas prices rose a staggering 2,753% – approximately 16% per month. Over the next five months to the August 2022 peak, the price rose a further 68%, at approximately equivalent to 11% per month. The evidence might just as well be made to show the converse of the commission’s claim: that the invasion in fact caused gas prices to collapse. The opposite conclusion is only obtained by misreading the linear chart, which appears to show a peak in the months following the invasion – a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The far more significant features of the price signal occurred before the event – though Russian reduction of supply and EU sanctions following the invasion undoubtedly tightened supply and pushed prices up further.
The price then fell precipitously over the months to May 2023. Speculation may have driven some of this volatility, but the biggest elephant in the room causing the big splash of high prices in 2022 was lockdowns, or more precisely recovery from lockdowns, including the extraordinary money-printing that had financed economic torpor. Gas production capacity had been slashed during this period, and recovery put pressures on supplies. Russia is largely a scapegoat for the catastrophic impact of Western climate and Covid policy failures.
A Green Blob outfit paying Potemkin commissions to write sympathetic reports about the problem of energy price rises strikes me as analogous to a drug cartel financing rehab centres. One only need to imagine the complaints from the Green Blob if it had turned out to be a “commission” funded by gas companies which found that the solution to energy price rises was to invest more in gas production. But the difference is that increasing gas production would at least close the gap between supply and demand, and therefore lower price. Histrionics from greens typically frame the problem of “interested parties” putting partial advice into the public sphere. But high prices benefit producers, whereas lower prices serve consumers. Ironically, greens and oil tycoons share interests here.
So, who are these commissioners who lack any grasp of basic economics, claiming to speak for the poor? Two of the panel, former MP David Laws and Dhara Vyas, hail from Energy U.K. – the industry lobbying outfit that the new Chief Executive of the Climate Change Committee, Emma Pinchbeck has recently slithered from. Blob. Louise Hellem is Chief Economist at the Remain-fanatic, pro-lockdown Confederation of British Industry. Blob. Professor of Energy Policy at UCL, Jim Watson boasts many roles in advising Parliament, governments and intergovernmental agencies on energy security and emissions reduction among other things. Blob. These people have produced precisely the report you would expect them to. But they were joined by Gillian Cooper, Executive Director of Partnerships and Advocacy at Citizens Advice, and Adam Scorer, Chief Executive at National Energy Action (NEA), the “national charity working to end fuel poverty”. These are organisations who we would expect to put the interests of their clients before lofty agendas.
Not so, apparently. “We must pursue the twin aims of clean heat and warm homes in lockstep,” said Scorer on X. And once again, this virtue signalling arrives with no evidence of having been tested by basic arithmetic. Despite NEA being supported by countless energy companies, charities and local and national governments, U.K. domestic energy prices have tripled thanks to green policies – and foreign and Covid policies, too – without comment from NEA.
It would seem that the British Establishment, of which Citizens Advice and NEA are a part, is as good as the ECF at spawning off-the-shelf blob-fronts, populated by individuals who are naturally happier occupying such positions than challenging the Establishment they are part of. Millions of people are facing cold and rising bills this winter, and the “Citizens Advice” to Government is apparently to close down more oil and gas fields and create more weather-dependent renewables without regard for reality.
“Successive governments had the chance to lower the U.K.’s dependence on fossil fuels and avoid some of the worst of these impacts,” says the report. But that is simply false Green Blob mythology. As has been explained in previous posts, retrofitting houses with insulation and other energy efficiency measures capable of significantly reducing energy usage are simply not cost-effective from the consumer’s point of view. Even at today’s high energy prices, they would never “pay for themselves” in any reasonable time frame. And there are simply no technologies that could provide so-called “clean heat” to consumers at grid scale in the event of a dark and windless day or week. The commission is basing its claims on fantasies.
And what of the hapless consumer? He is ensnared by the phantom institutions that represent the green ideology-addled British Establishment rather than his own interests while being fed the story of that Russia is to blame for his predicament. The U.K. could be producing its own gas and exporting plenty too, and an independent commission of energy experts could be pointing this out. But that possibility has been ruled inadmissible by the flood of phantom ‘civil society’ organisations that surround Westminster. The phantom “Commission”, convened by that swarm of spectres, adds to the chorus. At some point the public is going to discover for itself that U.K. energy and climate policy is far worse than any climate change, and that its interests have been harmed more by the British establishment than by Russia. That experience is likely to be very painful.
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.
One certain way to reduce heating costs is to reduce the volume of rooms, especially by eliminating unused space, for example by lowering ceilings.
I achieved a distinct improvement in comfort levels upstairs by boxing in a large void in my stairwell which had always been a pain to decorate, requiring scaffolding to access it.
The rising heat from downstairs is now directed to the landing and into adjacent rooms.
I am appalled at the trend – promoted by such as Kevin McCloud – for vast open plan, high-ceilinged living spaces
My house has roughly 8 foot high ceilings. At six feet tall, I can touch the ceiling when I stretch my arms. I wouldn’t want the ceilings any lower. In many cases, putting doors on staircases and blocking them in at the sides would help. It would be architecturally impossible where I live, though, so effectively the hall, stairs and landing is one giant room.
It is clearly not an issue with 8ft ceilings, but there are many pre-war houses that would benefit.
Why? What real problem will this solve?
It also leads to and increases mould in many cases. Especially in houses not made for modern insulation, like your average Victorian terraces, which are also completely unsuitable for heat pumps.
But as we learned with Covid, one cannot argue with cult members.
Indeed. Also, you have to be very careful what type of insulation is put in: if you have the wrong type and there’s a problem, it’s a case of ‘Do you want us to tear down your outer wall or inner wall?’
We actually had the guys out to do the insulation on our house a few years ago – they’d brought the kit with them and were ready to go – and they said it was impossible to do, because of the house’s design and the way our house extensions had been built 30-40 years ago. Some other people came out a few years later. The same thing happened. The guy in charge was walking back and forth on his mobile phone to his head office, saying ‘You mean there’s really no way we can do this?!’
I think that is true. The house I was born in was a Victorian terrace with just a coal fire. We didn’t open windows because of the cold but we had ventilation because of the air flow due to the fire. As it was “improved” with double glazing, gas fires and a supposed damp proof course the dampness got worse. Poor quality houses all sealed become damp, and we saw the consequences with the recent death of a young boy.
Jevons Paradox in a nutshell.
We need to drop all the Grade II, etc. listing rubbish. A lot of those houses have single glazed wooden frame windows which are very expensive to replace. Let those homeowners put proper uPVC double glazed windows in, maybe in future a solution which pleases the heritage bureaucrats can be found. Of course sealing up such a building may then create a damp problem but I wouldn’t be surprised if using a dehumidifier still led to a net decrease in energy usage.
The solution is to get rid of the climate change loonies and Net Zero so we can return to abundant, cheap energy.
Hands up those who remember one coal fire to heat the house and ice on the inside of bedroom windows in the winter
FYI here are some recent costs of running an air source heat pump.
I live in a pretty rented 2 bed cottage (2 generous rooms downstairs, bathroom, kitchen) that is probably 150 years old in East Yorkshire. The owner installed an air source heat pump 10+ years ago replacing oil (the village doesn’t have mains gas). They put in (correctly) overlarge radiators and some uPVC windows at the back and upstairs at the back and front leaving 2 huge sash single glazed windows at the front overlooking the village. It has a decent log burner which I light every night and is essential to get one room really warm!
Here is what my smart meter tells me were the electric costs over last 6 weeks running the house at 14 degrees during the day (I find the office warmer), hot water for one person (me) and a fridge, freezer and router 24/7. I use the washing machine and dishwasher if I need to during the night as I am on a variable rate. The heating isn’t on at night:
w/c 21st Nov: £21.19
w/c 28th Nov: £44.15
w/c 5th Dec: £64.58
w/c 12th Dec: £82.09
w/c 19th Dec: £22.17 (away – heat pump turned off from 22nd to 27th)
w/c 26th Dec: £40.65.
I have nothing to compare it with so I genuinely don’t know what other bills look like but I have to say the pump really struggled during the cold snap – 3 days it didn’t go above freezing – the pump is noisy and the radiators are never quite hot enough however much I turn up the thermostat.
I am building a new house and am not installing one.
Extra insulation must reduce heat loss and reduce the amount of heating required if all other factors remain the same, so if records show this doesn’t happen other factors must be changing. Trying to make houses airtight is an error without provision of ventilation. Human occupation causes considerable amounts of water vapour, so ventilation is required to deal with it. Many recently constructed commercial properties use heat recovery ventilation systems in conjuction with otherwise sealed buildings to provide at least minimum statutary ventilation levels based on intended occupation, but these usually use electricity to heat the incoming air when insufficient heat is recovered. I’m not sure how genuinely efficient these systems are, but there are claims by the manufacturers of them, which may be biased to show performance when incoming air temperatures are relatively high. It is obvious as with increased heat pump installations that when its cold they will demand grid electricity. In addition with the drive to more and more electric cars and the need to charge them more frequently in cold weather we are setting things up for electricity grid demand that even with massive investment will not be met. The whole crazy net zero agenda needs to be properly evaluated and realistic targets set which will mean continued use of fossil fuels which are the most efficient generators of energy. This should be coupled with proper data based science about the effects of Human introduced CO2 rather than the ridiculous data biased models deliberately using distorted data targeted to show future disaster which will not happen. To put things in perspective, currently CO2 is about 420 parts per million in our atmosphere which means our atmosphere is 0.042% CO2 and in historic times has been much higher. Without CO2 which is required for plant growth we would not survive and the increase in CO2 has improved crop yields which in some poorer countries has reduced starvation.
The Net Zero fanatics are at it again. The Telegraph reports today that the Conservative chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee wants the motorway speed limit cut to 64 mph to prevent climate change. A few years ago the Conservatives were campaigning to raise it to 80 mph. It’s a good job that in future that will not allow ordinary people to afford personal transport, so at least we won’t have the frustration of driving slowly along empty roads behind the great and the good in their £80K Teslas.
As with all things GREEN there is a smidgeon of the truth elevated into a planetary emergency for which no evidence exists. It is all pronouncements, statements of certainty where there is none and all spouted by technocrats trying to control the world and it’s resources with climate as the excuse, and then the compliant media filling the people’s heads with “crisis” and “emergency” to such an extent that some people are so thoroughly brainwashed that they glue themselves to buildings and lay down in the road clamouring for their own impoverishment.
To demonstrate the Government’s lack of joined up thinking (or more likely they don’t believe their own propaganda), in response to Chris’ observation “To make a substantial difference, all the doors and windows in often leaky U.K. houses need to be made airtight” it’s worth highlighting that from 15th June 2022 the majority of replacement windows and doors must be fitted with trickle vents! https://www.fensa.org.uk/building-regulations-homeowners