PAUL HOMEWOOD
https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/the-seventh-carbon-budget/#publication-downloads
.
The Seventh Carbon Budget, covering the period 2038 to 2042, has been well covered by the media, so you are probably aware of the major recommendations. By 2040 we must:
- Cut GHG emissions by 75% from current levels
- Have three quarters of cars on the road electric
- Drive less
- Make half of homes have a heat pump, meaning effectively a total ban on gas boilers by 2035
- Reduce consumption of meat and dairy by a quarter.
- Put Potential limits on flying
.
.
And we are all supposed to do this while the rest of the world does nothing!
.
.
But the issue of costs has barely rated a mention in the pro-Net Zero media.
The BBC, for instance, merely repeats Emma Pinchbeck’s lies:
The costs of tackling climate change have become highly politicised in recent years.
The CCC estimates most of the expense will be borne by the private sector and calculates the savings from moving to more efficient technologies should outweigh costs by the early 2040s.
“We are crystal clear in this analysis, in this carbon budget, for the first time we start to see the economy making savings from this investment, and they make savings over and above what we would do if we stay dependent on fossil fuels,” Ms Pinchbeck told BBC News.
This should improve energy security and filter down to lower bills in the long term, the CCC argues, provided the government acts to make electricity cheaper.
It advises removing policy costs – funding for social and environmental schemes – from electricity bills. That would cut them by about 19% based on expected 2025 prices, the CCC says, making it more cost-effective for people to switch to electric vehicles or heat pumps.
These costs could instead sit on gas bills or general taxation.
“Regardless of what you think about climate change, what we are laying out today is a massive industrial revolution,” said Ms Pinchbeck.
“It will save the economy money by 2040, it saves people money on their energy bills, it saves people money on their driving costs, but all of that is underpinned by a cheaper electricity price.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70ekknr2rwo
According to the CCC, additional CAPEX and OPEX will amount to £319 billion by 2040. But after 2040, renewable costs will miraculously fall away, making us all better off to the tune of a couple of hundred billions.
Never mind the fact that half of us will be dead by then!
.
However all of the costings are based on two highly unrealistic assumptions:
Falling cost of renewable energy
The CCC have made assumptions about the cost of wind and solar power, which are not only unrealistic but are contradicted by current prices.
For offshore wind, for instance, their costings are based on a price of £51.12/MWh for this year, dropping to £37.60/MWh in 2030. (All based on 2023 prices). Yet the latest strike price already stands at £82/MWh, and there is every indication this will rise again this year.
Similarly with solar, which they assume is currently £46.00, and will drop to £34.42 by 2030. However AR6 prices stand at £69.
Based on current strike prices, CCC have understated their costs by approximately £16bn a year, using generation profiles for 2040. Over the full period to 2050, we are looking at something like £400 billion.
The comparison with the CCC’s fake costings with NESO’s figures is striking. In their Clean Power 2030 plan, NESO said we would need to spend £48 billion a year up to 2030 on electricity supply CAPEX. The CCC’s figure is just £18 billion for a similar increase in capacity.
.
EV Parity
The second big lie concerns the cost of buying EVs, which the CCC say will reach price parity with petrol cars between 2026 and 2028, and quickly become 10% cheaper:
We have heard the same nonsense for years, yet EVs still remain a good £10k dearer, and there has been no evidence of this gap shrinking in recent years.
Between now and 2040, the CCC calculate that car owners will be £6 billion better off because of “cheaper EVs”. In reality, at current price levels they will be £20 billion a year worse off.
Nobody knows what will happen after 2040, and for the CCC to claim they do shows this report is a sham. It is fair enough for them to build in risks and opportunities in their assessment – drivers “may” be better off if EV prices fall. But it is dishonest for them to publish a report where the central case is based on such flimsy, extremely unlikely and optimistic savings.
The EV and renewable energy scams together probably mean that they have understated the true cost of Net Zero by £700 billion. It does not give much confidence that their other costings will stand up to scrutiny.
It is abundantly clear that this Carbon Budget report was specifically written to deflect mounting criticism of Net Zero and the catastrophic effect it will have on the economy and people’s standard of living. And it has clearly been written to give Ed Miliband cover for his policies, indicating that the CCC are not “independent” at all.
It is much like a glossy brochure from a timeshare company, which fails to tell you the real cost of signing up, the fact that the advertised villas have not even been built yet and that you will probably discover it is double booked when you want it!
Tomorrow I’ll go into more detail on the technical stuff.
This article (The Seventh Carbon Budget) was created and published by Not a Lot of People Know That and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Paul Homewood
Featured image: energyvoice.com
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply