Booker\’s misunderstandings, like his commentary in general, are not original – in this case they come second-hand from the former Ukip press officer-turned-blogger Tim Worstall, whose complaint on the Adam Smith Institute blog is entitled \”Perhaps Decc would like to do their sums again\”.
Worstall\’s problem is that he \”can\’t find the price assumptions they make\” about the future costs of fossil fuels. He laments: \”I\’m afraid I can\’t find it, just can\’t find it at all.\” He therefore conspiracy theorises that \”the calculation isn\’t presented to us\” because \”we might find that renewables aren\’t really an option that anyone would go for.\”
Whoops. Worstall\’s conspiracy evaporates when one discovers that he has simply not clicked on the correct link on the Decc website.
So, we go through the links that Mark proides us with and we get to here:
Forecasts of fossil fuel prices:
Explanation of our working assumption:
You will note that that last is not in fact a link. They do not explain their assumptions about the future price of gas. The thing we\’re intrested in, of course, as we want to know what they think of shale gas.
I think I win that one, no|?