Number Crunching

So, in order to meet another of those EU targets which we cannot avoid (because we\’ve already sold our freedom down the river) we\’re going to have to spend an awful lot of money.

Britain could invest more than £100bn in renewable energy over the next decade and still fail to meet an EU target on clean technology, the government\’s own renewables advisers have warned.

The Renewables Advisory Board (RAB), made up of senior figures from across the industry, says the best the UK could realistically hope for is to generate 14% of its energy from sustainable sources by 2020. The EU has set Britain a target of 15% renewable energy generation by then.

There\’s no particular point in having such a 15% target, nor in having one by any specific year. Climate change is indeed a problem but it\’s neither an immediate one nor a catastrophic one.

What we really want is a target to get non carbon technologies below the costs of carbon emitting ones: but that\’s an engineering and technology problem, rather less amenable to bureaucrats sitting in meetings.

For that is how the target was set. A few federasts decide that as the EU has responsibility for the environment thus they must be seen to do something. So they set a target. Doesn\’t matter whether it\’s possible or not, it\’s just and righteous that the Continent should spend money on the whims of those in power. And it is some money: that £100 billion is £1,700 per head (ish).

And, um, no, it\’s not a total cost: that\’s the extra cost.

Robin Webster, of Friends of the Earth, said: "The government must deliver a strong green energy strategy instead of trying to wriggle out of EU renewable energy targets. Next week\’s renewable energy consultation must set out a blueprint for a greener future.

"Britain\’s abundant wind and wave power could create a new industry worth millions of pounds and thousands of jobs, cut carbon dioxide emissions and wean us off our increasingly expensive fossil fuel dependency."

Robin laddie, your solution is that £1,700 per person more expensive that the "increasingly expensive fossil fuel".

It would be interesting to see what the reaction would be if that had to be actually raised in taxes, transparently, wouldn\’t it? A resounding "Fuck Off!" I would think, which of course is why those who would spend others\’ money on their own desires prefer to change the regulations and thus tax opaquely.

And one more thing Robin? As I\’ve had occasion to mention to your boss, Tony Juniper recently, the creation of jobs is a cost of such schemes. Yes, a cost, not a benefit.

1 thought on “Number Crunching”

  1. “Climate change is indeed a problem but it’s neither an immediate one nor a catastrophic one.”

    Energy security, on the other hand…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *