Can we rely on ANY GHG statistics?
Dec 4, 2018 at 8:42 AM | Mark Hodgson

No. It isn't just GHG statistics that are unreliable

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/03/wmo-reasoning-behind-two-sets-of-normals-a-k-a-two-periods-of-base-years-for-anomalies/

Mark
"These estimates are less robust than estimates for CO2 only, largely because of inherent uncertainties in their estimation. Therefore these statistics are currently classified as experimental statistics."

Should we not be applauding such honesty?

Earlier in this thread, Phil suggested that the CCA should be judged from 2009, rather than from 2008, since it received Royal Assent in 2009

End of November 2008, to be picky, but no matter. Globally, emissions are measured in a territorial manner, that is CO2 emitted in China is accounted for in China's budget, even if it comes from coal burned to make goods for export. The CCA is a UK act (with some devolved measures) and its provisions and targets applied solely to emissions within UK borders. Unless you know differently it was silent on 'imported' emissions. If you want to widen the debate to these, then fine, but the 2008/9 start date is not the right benchmark.

In a free market, companies will move their manufacturing to the cheapest location, whether this is due to cheaper labour or energy costs or tariffs (as Dishonest Don just discovered). I am not sure how any UK Act could have much effect on this, short of imposing a unilateral carbon tax on imports, for which I detect no political appetite.

The graphs in that report seem to show declining GHG emissions within the UK since 2008, but NOT if you include GHG emissions embedded in imports.

Seems incompatible with

The carbon footprint (measured by GHG emissions) peaked in 2007 at 1,042 mt CO2 equivalent. In 2015 it was 19 per cent lower than the 2007 peak (847 mt CO2 equivalent).

The carbon footprint includes imported emissions.

Embedded emissions from imports increased by 53 per cent from 1997 to 2007 when they reached a peak. In 2015 they were 420 mt CO2e which was 14 per cent lower than the peak.

I think the territorial measure is indeed flawed, if you want to measure progress, as it enables countries to evade strict accounting for all their emissions, but it is what we have. Even on this more challenging measure, the trend in emissions is a 19% decline since 2007.

Should we not be applauding such honesty?

Dec 4, 2018 at 9:57 AM | Supertroll

Yes! Justifications for the CCA are not based on facts

" .. short of imposing a unilateral carbon tax on imports, for which I detect no political appetite."
Dec 4, 2018 at 10:49 AM | Phil Clarke

Political appetites for any form of "Carbon Tax" have been suppressed in Paris. UK Politicians are a bit distracted at the moment, but Macron was a key enforcer of the EU BREXIT deal containing commitments to the Green Blob.

The irony is that Trump is the only person seeking to reduce China's industrial growth and coal burning. The CCA simply set the blueprint for coal burning to increase in parts of the world that could not be monitored or regulated.

Meanwhile, The Guardian misses fuel poverty and the CCA

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/04/excess-winter-deaths-in-england-and-wales-highest-since-1976/

Phil, what you actually wrote was "The CCA received Royal Assent at the end of November 2008, btw so perhaps 2009 would be a better starting point?". So by all means pick me up on the Royal Assent date, but it was you who suggested it should be judged on its effectiveness from the start of 2009, not me, though I do agree that is sensible. Now you say "but the 2008/9 start date is not the right benchmark." Please explain. If we're talking about the effectiveness of the CCA, then it seems to me that 2008 (or, more reasonably, 2009) is precisely the right benchmark.

Claiming GHG emission reductions from before the Act came into force on a discussion thread about the CCA is not legitimate, so far as I can see. On the contrary, if emissions were falling before the Act came into force, why did we need the Act?

I'm sorry, but I also think this is desperately weak, and a distraction technique:

"Globally, emissions are measured in a territorial manner, that is CO2 emitted in China is accounted for in China's budget, even if it comes from coal burned to make goods for export. The CCA is a UK act (with some devolved measures) and its provisions and targets applied solely to emissions within UK borders. Unless you know differently it was silent on 'imported' emissions."

The whole point of many of the criticisms made on this thread by me, gc, tomo et al, is precisely that the whole system of measuring GHG emissions is farcical. Yes, I believe the CCA is silent on imported emissions, and its targets apply solely to emissions within our borders. That is a major criticism of it, and gc and I have been pointing out that while we have (on official statistics under the Act) ostensibly been reducing our GHG emissions, the reality is that we are exporting manufacturing to places like China, and importing emissions (on which the Act is silent) with the goods we import rather than manufacture at home. Yet so far as the CCA is concerned, this is fine. As gc points out, in terms of global emissions, this might actually be increasing GHG emisisons overall, not reducing them - but the CCC and UK politicians can preen themselves on what a good job they're doing. A good job, that is, within the terms of the CCA, not in reality. You seem to regard this is widening the debate, but so far as I'm concerned, it IS the debate, one of the main points at issue.

Try this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/climate/outsourcing-carbon-emissions.html

"You’ve Heard of Outsourced Jobs, but Outsourced Pollution? It’s Real, and Tough to Tally Up"

"Over the past decade, both the United States and Europe have made major strides in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions at home. That trend is often held up as a sign of progress in the fight against climate change.

But those efforts look a lot less impressive once you take trade into account. Many wealthy countries have effectively “outsourced” a big chunk of their carbon pollution overseas, by importing more steel, cement and other goods from factories in China and other places, rather than producing it domestically.

Britain, for instance, slashed domestic emissions within its own borders by one-third between 1990 and 2015. But it has done so as energy-intensive industries have migrated abroad. If you included all the global emissions produced in the course of making things like the imported steel used in London’s skyscrapers and cars, then Britain’s total carbon footprint has actually increased slightly over that time.

“It’s a huge problem,” said Ali Hasanbeigi, a research scientist and chief executive of Global Efficiency Intelligence, an energy and environmental consulting firm. “If a country is meeting its climate goals by outsourcing emissions elsewhere, then we’re not making as much progress as we thought.”

Dr. Hasanbeigi is an author of a new report on the global carbon trade, which estimates that 25 percent of the world’s total emissions are now being outsourced in this manner. The report, written with the consulting firm KGM & Associates and ClimateWorks, calls this a “carbon loophole,” since countries rarely scrutinize the carbon footprint of the goods they import."

This is the link to the report referred to in that final paragraph:

https://buyclean.org/media/2016/12/The-Carbon-Loophole-in-Climate-Policy-Final.pdf

"THE CARBON LOOPHOLE IN CLIMATE POLICY
Quantifying the Embodied Carbon in Traded Products"

At last, something reasonably up to date - August 2018. It has lots on this whole subject, but includes this:

"In many countries, the magnitude of embodied emissions transfers is on par with that of their original Kyoto reduction
target. The United Kingdom and Poland are perhaps the most striking cases for how outsourcing emissions-intensive
production has helped countries meet their targets. Both countries report reductions that exceed their targets, however, once emissions embodied in their imports are included, they no longer achieve these targets."

And this:

"Given the discrepancy between Kyoto Protocol targets and actual consumption-based emissions, countries’ progress in meeting their Paris targets must be reconciled with their embodied emissions in the future. Otherwise, the trend of decreasing territorial emissions while increasing total carbon footprint is likely to continue."

It strikes me the whole thing is a bit of a charade - rather like pretending that cutting down forests in Carolina, turning them into wood chips and transporting them across the Atlantic to be burned at Drax involves emitting less CO2 than Drax burning coal mined just down the road.

Supertroll:

"Mark
"These estimates are less robust than estimates for CO2 only, largely because of inherent uncertainties in their estimation. Therefore these statistics are currently classified as experimental statistics."

Should we not be applauding such honesty?"

Yes, indeed we should. I'm not criticising the honesty, which is refreshing to encounter. My criticism is regarding the whole CO2 accounting exercise, which strikes me as generating a lot of numbers, which are eagerly seized on by campaigners, but which may be of dubious reliability.

Upthread we had

The critique of the CCA is that it has pushed poor people in the UK further into fuel poverty; it has damaged the competitiveness of what's left of British industry; and the much-vaunted claims of the UK leading the way with others following, are false

No mention there of the Act addressing the issue of 'outsourced' emissions, that is, developed countries shifting manufacturing emissions to countries where costs are lower. This could because the CCA was all about reducing domestic emissions, not the avoiding of exported emissions. Judged on its own ambitions, the Act so far has overachieved.

So I did a bit of digging on fuel poverty and discovered that it is lower now in every single country of the UK than when the Act was passed. Indeed in Northern Ireland

The 2016 House Condition Survey estimated that approximately 22% (160,000) of households in Northern Ireland were in fuel poverty. This represents a significant improvement in fuel poverty levels since 2011 when the figure was 42% (294,000).

Measures to reduce fuel poverty include: subsidies for home insulation, the Green Deal loans for home efficiency improvements, minimum standards for boiler efficiency (meaning that when a boiler reached the end of its life it was replaced by an efficient model, and a raft of payment schemes to the most vulnerable.

Critics argue the counterfactual: without the CCA, fuel poverty would be lower, but then how many of these countermeasures would have been enacted? The fact is, the claim that the CCA ' pushed poor people in the UK further into fuel poverty' is unproven, at best.

And now we have this

The whole point of many of the criticisms made on this thread by me, gc, tomo et al, is precisely that the whole system of measuring GHG emissions is farcical.

Well no, actually, Mark, far from being the 'whole point' this is the first time you mentioned that aspect of the argument. It is a legitimate point, but not one made previously and not one ever addressed by the Act.

And it fails. Even including outsourced production, UK emissions peaked in 2007.

"The fact is, the claim that the CCA ' pushed poor people in the UK further into fuel poverty' is unproven, at best."
Dec 4, 2018 at 10:05 PM | Phil Clarke

That statement is dishonest, at best. How is anyone supposed to pay for increased heating bills, particularly the poor?

How much has the average heating bill increased since the CCA was enacted? (Hint: its a negative increase)

Well I'm blowed. Thank you Phil. I live and learn - and am learning not to pontificate on subjects I don't know enough about. (No sarc intended - I'm serious).

It never occurred to me that the CCA would give the UK a free pass by not remotely concerning itself with our exporting of jobs and importing of CO2 and other GHG emissions from abroad, from those countries to which we export our jobs, manufacturing, and emissions production.

I've just had the regrettable task of actually troubling myself to glance through the whole wretched Act (shamefully on my part, for the first time). And I find that Phil is right, about this, at least. The nub, I think is here:

"29 UK emissions and removals of greenhouse gases

(1)In this Part—
(a)“UK emissions”, in relation to a greenhouse gas, means emissions of that gas from sources in the United Kingdom;
(b)“UK removals”, in relation to a greenhouse gas, means removals of that gas from the atmosphere due to land use, land-use change or forestry activities in the United Kingdom;
(c)the “net UK emissions” for a period, in relation to a greenhouse gas, means the amount of UK emissions of that gas for the period reduced by the amount for the period of UK removals of that gas.

(2)The amount of UK emissions and UK removals of a greenhouse gas for a period must be determined consistently with international carbon reporting practice."

And of course Phil is right again, that international carbon accounting practice (which is a bad joke, IMO) allows countries to ignore their responsibility for GHG emissions emitted elsewhere. That's why the major oil-producing countries can publish INDCs with a straight face basically saying that AGW and GHG emissions are nothing to do with them.

As astute readers will have gathered, I'm less concerned about GHG emissions than some others, such as Phil. But what I do earnestly believe is that the current system of CO2/GHG emission accounting is a bad joke, if the world is serious about reducing these emissions. When major western economies can simply send their CO2/GHG emissions to China and other less wealthy countries, for those (usually less environmentally friendly countries) to manufacture the west's goods, transport them half-way round the world (more emissions being released in the process) and the west can sit and say "Look, we've reduced our emissions", then the system is a farce.

Thanks Phil - again, no sarc intended. Maybe the CCA is a "success" in its own terms after all. But what wretched terms! Success in terms of leading the world, or helping to reduce global emissions - certainly not.

By the way, Phil on this thread has cited lots of evidence of the UK's growing GDP, and sat back and said, in effect, that the Act therefore cannot be said to have damaged the UK economy. It's difficult to disprove a statement like that, but the obvious comeback is that the economy might have grown more if the Act hadn't held it back. Who knows the truth of it? Almost impossible to prove either way. Compare and contrast the scare-mongering (led by the Bank of England and its oh-so-"green" Governor) about Brexit. The Bank's forecasts if we "crash out" of the EU without a deal are catastrophic-sounding, and are certainly reported that way by the BBC and much of the MSM, yet those forecasts actually show the UK economy continuing to grow, just less quickly than would (allegedly) be the case if we stay in the EU or if we leave with a deal.

Funny that the same Bank of England Governor and MSM don't seem interested in asking if the CCA has held back the UK economy like that, and if the economy might not have grown faster without it.

I find this all endlessly fascinating. It's why I enjoy sparring with Phil. If I pay attention I can always learn something.

"How much has the average heating bill increased since the CCA was enacted? (Hint: its a negative increase)
Dec 5, 2018 at 8:38 AM | Phil Clarke"

How much Taxpayer Funding have they already obtained to promote that?

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/conflicts-of-interest-at-the-committee-on-climate-change/

From that Climate Change Committee report on energy prices:

"Household bills in 2016 were below 2008 levels as higher prices resulting from low-carbon policies and network costs were more than offset by reductions in energy use".

Just to be clear, that's "higher prices resulting from low-carbon policies".

" Around £105 (9%) of the 2016 bill resulted from the shift towards a UK-based low-carbon electricity supply and support for energy efficiency improvements in homes."

"Gas and electricity use have been cut by 23% and 17% respectively since 2008, saving the average household £290 a year. "

"The bill impact of shifting to low-carbon electricity will continue to increase slowly, but is likely to be more than offset by continued improvements in energy efficiency ".

It seems to me that both elements of that quote involve speculating about the future and can be no more than informed guesswork.

"Meeting the fifth carbon budget, including sourcing 75% of UK generation from lowcarbon sources by 2030, will add around a further £85-120 to the annual bill (£95 in our central estimate). Added to the impact on current bills, this implies that lowcarbon policies will add £190-225 in total to the average annual bill in 2030 (£200 in our central estimate). This is consistent with the Committee’s previous assessments from 2012, 2014 and 2015, which estimated a total impact in 2030 of £155-215."

Seems a bit of a stretch to say that an impact of £190-£225 is consistent with previous assessments of "£155-215". The latter is considerably higher than the former.

Germane to our earlier discussion:

"Fuel poverty. If the insulation and low-carbon heat installations required to meet the carbon budgets can be successfully targeted at the fuel poor then around three-quarters can be lifted out of fuel poverty by 2030. However, meeting the Government’s goal of improving fuel poor homes to efficiency band C by 2030 would require roughly doubling the funding currently provided under the Energy Company Obligation."

Basically any improvements to fuel poverty rates are the results of policies taken to ameliorate the damage caused by higher prices rising from decarbonisation of our economy, and are not the result of decarbonising our economy - the opposite, in fact.

"Energy use varies significantly across businesses, as do energy prices and the impact of climate policies. For the most energy-intensive products, energy costs are a much larger proportion of total costs, but these firms are considered for compensations and exemptions from policy costs. Firm-level data is not available to make a full assessment of the overall impact".

Well, at least that's honest, but it does rather supprt the claim that energy-intensive industries have been damaged by the CCA.

"UK industrial gas prices are low by European standards but electricity prices are high. Differences in low-carbon policies cannot explain the difference in electricity prices, which stem primarily from higher wholesale and network costs. It is not clear why these costs are higher in the UK than in many comparable economies. This should be considered further in the review of business energy costs announced in the Government's consultation on the industrial strategy."

I would like much more effort here, and much more than a bald and unsubstantiated comment than "Differences in low-carbon policies cannot explain the difference in electricity prices...".

"The costs associated with low-carbon policies are expected to rise to about 0.5% of operating costs for the commercial sector, 1.0% for manufacturing and 1.6% for energy-intensive sectors by 2030. Total energy costs will depend on future fossil fuel prices. Current central estimates suggest total costs could rise to 1.3%, 3.3% and 5.9% of operating costs respectively."

"Electrically-heated homes are on average smaller (e.g. urban flats) and therefore face lower energy bills. However, low-carbon policies make up a higher proportion of their bills: 18% rather than 9%. This is set to increase to 2030."

I should have thought these would also be among the poorest households.

I am particularly exercised by the drive away from gas, given these references in the section dealing with fuel poverty:

"The statistics imply that households off the gas grid are particularly vulnerable...".

"Households that use fuels other than gas for their central heating are more likely to be fuel poor (21% of households using solid fuel are fuel poor, 17% of oil heated households and 16% of electrically heated households compared to 10% of gas heated households)."

I also find this interesting:

"Analysis conducted for us by the Centre for Sustainable Energy (CSE) in 2014 assessed the potential impact of low-carbon policy on fuel poverty across the UK to 2030. This analysis used both fuel poverty definitions."

"In an illustrative scenario with costs passed onto energy bills, but no efficiency improvements, there was a predicted increase in fuel poverty from 2.9 million in 2013 to 3.1 million in 2030 under the LIHC definition and 5.6 million to 8 million under the 10% definition. The average fuel poverty gap (the amount needed to meet the fuel poverty threshold) was estimated to increase from £640 to £870 under the LIHC definition. Households particularly affected would be those with electric heating (many of which live in urban flats or rural areas) and those who are high energy users."

It seems to me that in plain English, what this means is that without expensive and extensive measures to deal with fuel poverty, the numbers in fuel poverty would increase significantly as a result of the cost of decarbonsing the economy, in terms of the costs added to domestic fuel bills.

Basically any improvements to fuel poverty rates are the results of policies taken to ameliorate the damage caused by higher prices rising from decarbonisation of our economy, and are not the result of decarbonising our economy - the opposite, in fact.

I am not sure it is always that easy to disentangle the two. The Government noted that nearly half of households with an energy efficiency (EPC) rating of E were in fuel poverty compared to just 5% of households in Band C, so it made moving households up the bands a priority, with financial help for insulation, boilers etc. When a property becomes more efficient, it uses less energy and so less carbon, and simultaneously saves the householder money spent on fuel, by definition reducing fuel poverty.

From <http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/2727355?currentPage=6>

It seems to me that in plain English, what this means is that without expensive and extensive measures to deal with fuel poverty, the numbers in fuel poverty would increase significantly as a result of the cost of decarbonsing the economy, in terms of the costs added to domestic fuel bills

200,000 households (out of 27 million) more, around £20 per month on the average debt. One more is one too many, though.

But this is the worst of worst case scenarios. It assumes no further increases in insulation or efficiency, which is utterly implausible (you might even say 'alarmist'). In fact just insulating a loft and cavity wall can save up to £470/year, and far from being 'expensive', pays for itself in a few years. Financial help is available under the Energy Company Obligation.

By the way the CCA obliges the Government to consider fuel poverty when making energy policy, and in this report the much-hated Climate Change Committee was crystal clear that we need to be doing more:

In a case where insulation and low-carbon heat measures included in our scenarios are targeted towards LIHC fuel poor homes in each year of the scenario, fuel poverty levels (on the LIHC definition) are estimated to be significantly reduced:

- Some 2.1 million (74%) of the 2.9 million fuel poor in 2013 would be lifted out of fuel poverty by 2030. ‒ Around one quarter (26%) of the 2013 fuel poor would still be in fuel poverty in 2030.

- ‒ Around 0.4 million households move from being non-fuel poor in 2013 to being in fuel poverty in 2030. Successful targeting of measures is not easy (e.g. due to data availability, people moving in and out of fuel poverty, and households not always being willing or able to respond to offers), but could greatly help least-cost achievement of fuel poverty and carbon reduction targets:

[...] The main policy currently in place to deliver efficiency improvements to fuel poor households (as well as other households) in Great Britain is the Energy Company Obligation (ECO). The Government has announced its intention to focus this more on fuel poverty in the future and has set out plans for the transitional period to September 2018. ECO funding has been reduced in recent years to £0.6bn for Great Britain which we expect to be inadequate to cover the energy efficiency improvements needed to move English fuel-poor households to a Band C by 2030. Our research suggests at least £1.2bn annual capital costs would be needed to meet this target.

Surprisingly (to me, at least) there is room for some agreement between Phil and me on this thread. But I would point out that even the apparently obvious solutions that we should all be able to agree on (e.g. this from Phil earlier - " In fact just insulating a loft and cavity wall can save up to £470/year, and far from being 'expensive', pays for itself in a few years. Financial help is available under the Energy Company Obligation") are not always themselves without problems. E.g. this:

"Cavity wall insulation 'a scandal', Arfon MP claims"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-39602540

"Inappropriate cavity wall insulation in homes has become "a scandal", a Welsh MP has said.

Arfon MP Hywel Williams claimed millions of homes had the insulation installed by successive government-backed schemes which has led to damp, mould and condensation.

He called on the UK government to take responsibility for the "dreadful mess".

The UK government said it was committed to ensuring consumers are protected.

The Welsh Government said it has been working with partners, including the UK government, to address the issues and improve the system.

The insulation is meant to make homes warmer and more energy efficient but if installed incorrectly, or in unsuitable properties, it can lead to damp.

Driving rain is also a problem, especially in Wales.

Mother-of-three Anna Phillips from Barry, Vale of Glamorgan, started having problems in her three bedroom home seven years ago after buying the property in 2004.

Cavity wall insulation had been installed by the previous owners.

Ms Phillips said damp started coming through in 2010 and the insulation was removed early last year after she contacted the industry-funded guarantee organisation Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency (CIGA).

"It was soaking wet, absolutely drenched. It took them two days to take it all out due to how poor it was," she said.

The mental health support worker said heating bills were higher as the mould and damp had affected the whole house and she believed it had impacted on her family's health.

Speaking about her three children - aged 11, nine and four - she added: "They're poorly all the time, two suffer with eczema, their chests, they're continuously coughing, it's freezing.

"You can have the heating on all day in this house and you don't feel it, you really don't".

Last year, a report by the construction research organisation BRE concluded there should be a nationwide survey of the problem in Wales.

According to the investigation, about 900,000 homes have been built with cavity walls.

Mr Williams will be debating the issue in Westminster on Wednesday and said he was currently dealing with 60 cases in his constituency.

He has called on the UK government to find out exactly how many people have been affected, rectify failed installations and provide proper compensation.

"The scheme was pushed as a free scheme with the backing of the government which would save people £250 per year or so in their heating costs and clearly older, people with disabilities and poor people actually took advantage of it because of the obvious hard sell," he said."

Wherever there is "free" Government money or handouts to be found, there will almost always be some very disreputable characters keen to get their hands on that money. I wonder if the cost of this sort of mess has been taken into account in any of the CCC's reports?

And then there's the very expensive scandal of RHI and smart meters, neither of which, I suspect, would have happened without the CCA:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/sep/17/ofgem-made-my-life-hell-whistleblowers-say-they-were-threatened-by-regulator

"Ofgem exploited national security law to silence us, whistleblowers claim"

"Both men worked for Ofgem in entirely different areas of the business and were regarded as qualified experts in their respected fields.

One was Greg Pytel, an economist with oversight of the rollout of the £10.9bn smart meter programme, which is due to be completed in 2020.

Smart meters are electronic devices for homes and businesses that measure the use of electricity and gas. They are designed to make billing easier and to help energy companies manage the supply of electricity more efficiently.

The second whistleblower, who has asked to remain anonymous, worked on the renewable heat incentive (RHI), which offers financial rewards to promote the use of new technologies such as green boilers.

The scheme, which started in 2011, has been controversial – and could eventually cost taxpayers £23bn. Both projects are key to the government’s stated aim of making the UK a low-carbon economy."

Do any CCC reports dwell at any length on these issues, I wonder?

And today, hot of the press, timed to be released for COP 24 in Katowice, we have this:

"Cars and coal help drive 'strong' CO2 rise in 2018
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, Katowice"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46447459

"A booming global market for cars has helped drive CO2 emissions to an all-time high in 2018, say researchers.

The main factor in the near 3% rise has been coal use in China, driven by government efforts to boost a flagging economy.

But emissions from cars, truck and planes using fossil fuels continue to rise in all parts of the world

Renewables have also grown this year, but are not keeping pace with the CO2 rise.

The research, carried out by the Global Carbon Project (GCP), says that this year's "strong" rise is projected to be 2.7%.

That's much bigger than 2017's 1.6%. This will worry scientists as they had seen CO2 emissions relatively flat for the three years before."

Well, if the CCA shows us to be leading the world, I'm not sure the world is following.

"Well, if the CCA shows us to be leading the world, I'm not sure the world is following.
Dec 5, 2018 at 7:08 PM | Mark Hodgson"

The French have decided not to follow the UK's example.

I am all for the conservation of fuel/energy. Unfortunately, too many insulation schemes have benefitted the installer, not the home occupier.

Rationing energy by increasing the price is always going to punish the poorest and most vulnerable first

"By the way the CCA obliges the Government to consider fuel poverty when making energy policy, and in this report the much-hated Climate Change Committee was crystal clear that we need to be doing more:
Dec 5, 2018 at 4:53 PM | Phil Clarke"

Do they provide an estimated cost to Taxpayers to do "more"?

The British have shown remarkable tolerance towards the CCA, but the French can now blame their problems on the English Disease of petty shopkeepers.

https://www.politico.eu/article/france-fuel-tax-retreat-dismays-cop24-climate-change-summit/
The suspension of a fuel tax increase ‘sends a very bad signal,’ warn campaigners.

By PAOLA TAMMA AND KALINA OROSCHAKOFF 12/4/18, 8:13 PM CET Updated 12/6/18, 8:25 AM CET
KATOWICE, Poland — France’s sudden U-turn over an unpopular fuel tax in the face of violent anti-government protests sent shivers through the COP24 climate summit.

That's because the sight of one of Europe's most climate ambitious countries beating a hasty retreat over a proposal that would have hiked gasoline tax by 4 cents, or just under 3 percent, highlighted the difficulty of imposing any economic pain in the name of tackling climate change. The tax proposal sparked weeks of riots that devastated Paris, blocked highways across the country and left four people dead.

Do they provide an estimated cost to Taxpayers to do "more"?

£1.2bn as noted above, to meet efficiency targets. To put that in context, the National Audit Office estimates that the MOD's policy of selling its residential properties to a private company and leasing it back cost the taxpayer £4.2bn.

Phil Clarke, if it is only £1.2bn then why aren't Green Bankers lending the cash?

Douglas just posted a link at unthreaded:

"NEA slams record number of excess winter deaths last winter as predictable, preventable and shameful"

http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/national-energy-action/article/nea-slams-record-number-of-excess-winter-deaths-last-winter

Of course, the NEA is a campaigning organisation, and just like many "green" campaigning organisations, that should be borne in mind when reading its press releases. But what follows does give pause for thought when considering all those Government and CCC claims of falling fuel poverty:

"New figures from the Office of National Statistics today show that the number of excess winter deaths exceeded 50,000 the highest on record since the winter of 1975/76. Over 15,000 of these deaths will be relatable directly to a cold home. The vast majority will have multiple hospital and GP visits behind them. The figures also worryingly show a doubling in the number of male deaths under 65.

Adam Scorer, Chief Executive of NEA commented:

“Today’s excess winter death figures should be a huge shock to the system. The cost in human suffering and lost lives is a tragedy. The cost to the NHS is significant and largely avoidable.

Predictable, preventable and shameful. We seem to have accepted excess winter deaths to be as much a part of winter as darker evenings.”

On top of these preventable deaths we know that many millions more people will have suffered the preventable health impacts of living in a cold and damp home, as well as resorting to harmful coping strategies.

New evidence provided by frontline workers to NEA, has revealed the top 10 unsafe fuel poverty coping strategies being used to survive winter. The regular use of older, dangerous or un-serviced heating appliances is common place, despite being potentially fatal or leading to heightened risks for nearby neighbours as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning or in extreme situations, fires and explosions. The charity says many more people are going to bed early to keep warm and using candles to save on electricity. People struggling to heat their homes are also spending their days in heated spaces such as libraries, cafes or even A&E to avoid the cold.

The figures demonstrate the need for urgent action and come as NEA launches the Warm and Safe Homes (WASH) campaign, which aims to raise awareness of the annual devastation that cold homes wreak on the most vulnerable in our society and focus on what more needs to be done to end fuel poverty and ‘preventable’ excess winter deaths and ill health."

And then we have this (and it isn't even particularly cold yet, in the early stages of winter):

"Britain’s oldest coal plants called on to avoid running out of power as cold sets in"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/12/04/britains-oldest-coal-plants-called-avoid-running-power-cold/

"Britain's oldest coal-fired power plants prepared to fire up their hoppers for a price of almost £1,000 per megawatt-hour on Tuesday to avert a power shortfall as temperatures across the country plunge and wind power wanes.

The cold snap ignited the winter’s first warning that Britain would run out of electricity unless idling coal plants ramp up to help meet demand for power.

National Grid said on Monday evening that there was a 100pc probability that the lights would go out within 24 hours unless an extra 2GW of power capacity agreed to help meet demand.

The first negative supply forecast of the season spurred the operators of Britain’s oldest plants to offer their power at prices well above..."

Then it's paywalled.

But something isn't working very well.

Well, they've probably got a lot of the black stuff lying around ready to burn ...

Renewables’ share of electricity generation was a record 31.7 per cent in 2018 Q2 as generation from solar photovoltaics increased to set a new record for solar generation. Renewables share of generation has been increasing whilst fossil fuel generation has been decreasing, with coal falling to a new record low in 2018 Q2 [...] Of electricity generated in the second quarter of 2018, gas accounted for 42.0 per cent, whilst coal accounted for a record low of only 1.6 per cent

UK Energy Statistics.