RICHARD ELDRED

Ed Miliband’s Net Zero crusade is driving wedges within Labour and raising fears of power cuts that could leave the Government in the dark – literally and politically – says Dan Hodges in the Mail. Here’s an excerpt:

Ed Miliband’s colleagues fear he could be about to turn the lights out on the Government. Literally. ‘The problem is that Ed’s just ploughing on with his Net Zero agenda,’ a worried minister told me. ‘He’s not looking at the wider politics. And Keir isn’t able to control him. If Britain starts to have power cuts, it’ll be game over for us.’

And Miliband’s colleagues don’t think the Government can afford many more of them.

Miliband’s green zealotry was again on display last week after it was reported he was preparing to challenge Rachel Reeves’s – belated – growth strategy. The embattled Chancellor found herself ambushed as the Energy Secretary led the charge against her plan to give the go-ahead to a third runway at Heathrow.

Though he insisted he had no plans to resign over the issue, Eco Ed’s opposition is well documented. In 2018, he voted against the proposals, declaring: “We owe it to future generations not just to have good environmental principles but to act on them. That is why I will be voting against the third runway at Heathrow.”

His principles have obviously become a little more flexible since taking office. But several colleagues are becoming increasingly alarmed at the influence he is having within the Starmer administration.

“Before the Election, Keir basically did a deal with Ed,” another minister revealed to me. “He said, ‘Look, I don’t want you to have too much of a public profile because it’ll remind people too much of the past. But I’m going to give you Energy, and you can have free rein to do what needs to be done.’”

The problem is that Miliband is now exercising that freedom with a vengeance. And as he ploughs ahead with his cherished Net Zero agenda, some analysts are starting to question whether the National Grid can keep up.

Two weeks ago, the National Energy System Operator (NESO) – the body responsible for the operation of the electricity system – was forced to issue an Electricity Margin Notice, essentially warning that the U.K.’s demand for power was coming dangerously close to exceeding supply. Although NESO claimed there was never a serious risk of power cuts, respected energy consultant Kathryn Porter revealed the “near miss” represented the tightest day in the energy market since 2011. …

Last week, the Unite trade union announced it was ramping up its ‘No Ban Without A Plan’ oil and gas campaign. According to General Secretary Sharon Graham: “Labour needs to reverse its irresponsible policy banning all new oil and gas licences irrespective of the impact on jobs.” …

There is no doubt his passion for protecting the environment is real. But if his strategy fails – or can only be delivered by hammering the jobs and livelihoods of working people – Net Zero will become as politically toxic as the Poll Tax or university tuition fees.

I asked one of Miliband’s colleagues if he thought he understood how high the stakes were. He shrugged.

“You have to understand, there are two Eds. Actually, there are three. There’s Ed the former New Labour adviser, who is well aware of the necessity of public support. There’s Ed the former party leader, who thinks he now has the chance to reshape politics. And there’s Ed the minister, who sees himself as the new Greta Thunberg. The question is which one will come out on top.”

Worth reading in full.

Via The Daily Sceptic

Miliband’s £22bn carbon capture spree is a waste of money, warns Octopus boss

Greg Jackson questions rationale of Energy Secretary’s policies amid concerns over consumer benefits

Ed Miliband’s £22bn investment in carbon capture is a waste of money and would be better spent on renewables, the boss of Octopus Energy has said.

Greg Jackson has criticised the Energy Secretary’s spending spree amid concerns over how well the technology will work and to what extent it will benefit households.

He said: “Some of the stuff we’re doing on climate or in energy at the moment is the equivalent of trying to defend the abacus industry once calculators had been invented.

“I don’t think there are any examples in the power sector globally of cost-effective carbon capture and storage.

“We’d be better off spending any money that we’re putting into that on building out more renewable generation in more locations.”

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) and burying it permanently deep underground.

Over time, the technology could be a game-changer by allowing fossil fuel producers to produce natural gas without creating emissions.

Mr Miliband announced his £22bn carbon capture spending blitz late last year, bankrolling a string of projects as part of his plan for clean power.

The cost of these levies is to be added to household energy bills.

However, Mr Jackson said it was competition rather than subsidies that should be driving the UK’s energy transition.

He said: “When Amazon happened we didn’t subsidise Argos – they had to compete.

“Generally, when technology changes come along, the best value for consumers, for citizens, comes about when we allow that competition, rather than trying to subsidise the old stuff.”

Mr Miliband has sought to justify the investment by claiming it will make Britain a global leader in carbon capture, which can also be used to turn natural gas into hydrogen.

However, Mr Jackson claims hydrogen generated from carbon capture is a waste of money and a way for oil and gas giants to maintain their grip on the energy sector.

In comments first made during an appearance on the Lessons in Leadership podcast for Woburn Partners consultancy firm, and repeated to The Telegraph, he said: “Oil and gas companies love hydrogen because it is molecules that travel down pipes and get stored in tanks.

“But the reality is, everywhere in the world that’s been ploughing into hydrogen has discovered that it’s incredibly expensive. It’s the leakiest molecule in the universe.

“But the oil and gas companies lobby fiercely for it because it’s a way of maintaining their gas industry. The tragedy of it is that if they really believe that they should pay for it themselves. Instead, they somehow convince governments around the world to pay.”

Mr Jackson’s comments have fuelled anger across the carbon capture sector, with criticism led by the Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA).

The trade body pointed to reports from the Government’s watchdog, the Climate Change Committee, which estimates that the UK needs to capture and store 50m tonnes of CO2 a year by 2035 to stay on track with emission reduction targets.

The Telegraph: continue reading