He hints at an issue that is, I think, real. Governments are relying on market pressure to bring quoted companies to account for their carbon reduction programmes. But if private equity, in particular, sees an opportunity in this to buy dirty assets and exploit them by not seeking mitigation at all whilst hiding the fact because they are private companies the whole process of transitioning to a net-zero carbon society could be undermined.

There is already some evidence of what might be called ‘carbon hiding’ in some energy-based activities. I think that this could get much worse if there is a short term profit to be made by abusing rules and regulators do not anticipate this.

There is, of course, a way around this problem. It is to require that all large companies – whoever they are owned by – report their carbon plans whether they are quoted or not.

Even within his own terms of reference that’s not the way to do it. Have a carbon tax so that emissions are in all prices. Then no one can not report them, can they?

10 thoughts on “Err, no”

  1. They can ignore the entire pan of trendy greenfreak cockrot and hire enough muscle to back down any govt goons sticking their hooters in.

    Start with a good hiding for Johnson and Cressida Dick. And whatever cunt is supposed to be running the security services.

  2. My observation of private equity is that it is as corporately woke as any other big business and so will be doubling down on the green nonsense. All the pensions and endowments which invest in PE funds demand it. There may well be value in buying cut-priced dirty steelworks but the simple fact is that institutional investors would prefer lower returns with virtue-signalling. After all, it’s not their money.

  3. Saw a YouTube video summarising 50 years of “the world is going to end in 10 years’ time” eco crap.

    It’s amazing that it all sounds the same. Scientists agree, 5-10 year window to act, doom otherwise, cities flooded, islands disappearing, ice melting.

    And you know that with each prediction, if you’d have sounded cynical at the time you’d have been dismissed as a luddite.

  4. “the whole process of transitioning to a net-zero carbon society could be undermined.”

    No need for that… The first real winter with brown/blackouts and other assorted unpleasantness on the road to “net-zero” will undermine any aspirations of the Greenies with brutal efficiency.
    With possibly a healthy dose of torches and pitchforks.

    Really no need to go through the effort of undermining the insanity, it’ll blow up all on its own.

  5. A good way of “hiding carbon” of course is to close operations in countries that fetishize this infantilized insanity and open them instead in those countries that don’t.

    Isn’t this the intention?

  6. Bloke in North Dorset

    “the whole process of transitioning to a net-zero carbon society could should be undermined.”

    That looks better.

  7. Meanwhile, the test plant for this process (great article, poor headline) connected to the grid for the first time on Monday. That’s a huge step, showing not only that the plant works but that it is sufficiently well advanced to meet grid frequency etc requirements. Even if you don’t particularly want to reduce CO₂ emissions, a plant running at CCGT (without and CO₂ capture) efficiency that also provides nicely separated N₂, CO₂ and trace gasses as a bonus has got to be a Good Thing. If it is as flexible in output as a CCGT plant then these and nuclear are all you need. And I would be willing to bet that new sources of more or less free CO₂ will encourage people to find ways of using it; carbon nanotube manufacture or CO₂ curing of concrete are both potential uses.

    There’s a 300MWe plant being built on Teesside, due to open in 2025, at the old ICI site in Wilton. They descibe it as being part of a carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) site.

  8. @TomJ
    – It doesn’t run on CO2, as the headline states, but on natural gas.

    – It runs on “only 80% the atmoshperic pressure of Venus” in its power cycle..
    That’s 300 bar (4350 psi for the metrically challenged) in its circulation cycle, and up to ten times
    that at its business end..

    – Supercritical CO2 is, like any fluid containing a lot of “hidden” kinetic energy, very much not “safe” in any definition.

    Triumph of eningeering and nifty/impressive and all that, but I seriously wonder how much necessary “overengineering” is going to be left out when the design is handed out to contractors at scale, and when the first on will blow up.

  9. I did say it’s a poor headline. And there’s no need to traduce the author of the article by insinuating “only” into the quote, as if they were trying to play that down. Or its intended audience by implying they wouldn’t understand a high percentage of Venusian atmospheric pressure is very high pressure.

Leave a Reply

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