Jeremy Pocklington, the permanent secretary at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, told the public accounts committee last December that 75pc of the money to fund carbon capture would come from levies on consumer and business energy bills and the rest from taxes.
And, of course, they’re already shrieking for more money:
A green technology project pioneered by Ed Miliband faces collapse without an additional £4bn in funding, industry chiefs have warned.
Sigh.
I’ve lost count but is that £26,000,000,000? At this rate Rachel’s black hole will rival Sir Kier’s.
Allegedly…
“A green technology project pioneered by Ed Miliband” = scam
“75pc of the money to fund carbon capture would come from levies on consumer and business energy bills and the rest from taxes.”
So, 100% from taxes then?
Oh it’s a tax all right but 75% goes in a different column so it doesn’t get listed as part of the tax proportion of GDP. It probably counts as growth.
I may have told the story before (wot, me?) but decades ago there was lots of new research money around for Carbon Capture. “Sounds just like your sort of thing” said a colleague. “Nope”, said I, “it’s a transparent scam.”
One of my colleagues was less fastidious though and did pretty well out of it.
Undergraduate fluid mechanics?
O level physics is all you need to know that it’s all nonsense.
Getting 0.04% of the air out of the air while leaving the other 99.96% unaffected? Simples!
Why do these Rolls Royce brains in Whitehall go along with this shit?
I think it’s got something to do with basalt. The basalt reacts with CO2 to form a carbonate rock. I suspect though you need a humongous surface area on the rock to get anything like a practical removal rate, and then of course the oceans will just outgas a bit to replace that which has just become carbonate.
I thought Mad Ed understood some physics – he has an A level. That obviously went out the window when he got Climate Religion.
I would love to see him removed from his job but he seems to have top cover from TTK and inexplicably he seems to top the popularity league amongst Labourites according to Guido last week.
@ Tractor Gent
Ed Miliband got a ‘B’ in Physics at the age of 19, I got an ‘A’ aged 17 – and the grade inflation in the interim means that his ‘B’ is roughly equivalent to the ‘C’ I got in Maths at 16. If he retook ‘A’ levels at 19, he was probably being “crammed” for the exams and could have quickly forgotten everything when he switched to PPE. [Incidentally, one of my college friends switched courses twice and ended getting a PPE degree on the back of just one year’s study (yes, he was quite bright but Einstein couldn’t have got a maths degree in one year).]
As I’ve pointed out before (sorry, not sorry) Mad Ed did physics, maths and further maths at A-level (AAB), so certainly knows enough to realise that Net Zero (even if you believe it’s necessary) is inconsistent with keeping the lights on. Many of his colleagues are either too dim, or educated only in the arts, so can reasonably say “We didn’t know, we just trusted the scientists”, but Milibrain doesn’t have that excuse.
“Einstein couldn’t have got a maths degree in one year” Quite right: Einstein admitted he was no mathematician and sought help when he needed it.
“Our” drive to Net Zero is virtually irrelevant to Global Warming while China which generates more than 30% of the world’s CO2 emissions is building more coal-fired power stations. Latest published data showed China’s *increase* in CO2 emissions in that single year was more than twice the UK’s *total* emissions.
For avoidance of doubt China’s emissions are over 60% higher on a per capita basis than the UK’s, so it’s not just due its larger size. And they are four times as much as India which has a larger population.
Of course we should seek to reduce our CO2 but 99% of the effort should be in getting China to reduce its emissions.
OK dearieme – could *you* have got a maths degree in one year? I am pretty I could not have, not even a third.
“Of course we should seek to reduce our CO2”
Why? Of course we should seek to reduce our pollution, but the photosynthesis fuel and plant fertiliser is not a pollutant. Coal smoke is, in a big way.