From the Daily Skeptic
by Ben Pyle
Another day, another green report. This time, in response to rising energy prices, a body calling itself the Energy Crisis Commission released a report. But the report attempts to address the difficulties faced by millions of individuals and businesses due to high energy prices by calling for “a clear strategy to transition away from fossil fuels, particularly natural gas,” which runs counter to a healthy economy. Well, guess what: that's because “The Committee” is just another bog-standard green-spotted front! Who would have thought?
“Energy experts back the Labor government's mission to deliver clean energy by 2030, a new report from the Energy Crisis Commission shows today,” Ed Milliband wrote on Twitter. Well, of course they do. Because when one visits the Commission’s website, one quickly discovers that “Energy and Climate Intelligence [ECIU] A secretariat is being provided to the committee. The ECIU is a well-connected but dysfunctional fake civil society organization funded entirely by the green charity the European Climate Foundation (ECF) and the neighboring Meliore Foundation.
I feel like I've written a lot about organizations that are funded entirely or mostly by ECF, and it often feels like it's repetitive. But this is because most organizations active in the UK climate sector are funded directly by the ECF, or by one of the ECF's half-dozen or so philanthropic foundations. The ECF's cash sources and recipients are not transparent, but it appears to be a green funding cycle – guardian Call it “dark money” – which creates distance between financial interests and corporate lobbying arms known as “civil society”. It is remarkable how many seemingly unique and “independent” organizations actually operate under the strategic guidance of, and share accommodation with, their funders. The ECIU and ECF are located at the same “SE1 1LB” address in the Virtual Services Office – their footprints as entities are as ethereal as their output.
These are not really organizations; They are ghosts conjured in some vague material form by the will of money and ideology to engage in their evil deeds before disappearing. Green groups (ECF grantees) have long campaigned for higher energy prices and have long sought to distort the public discussion about how and why prices are rising, despite false promises that renewable energy will be cheaper.
Therefore, the committee explained: “We believe that the crisis began in August/September 2021, when gas prices began to rise, but that the key turning point for record prices was February 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine.” When I I feel like I'm repeating myself when I point out that the committee's lazy analysis is wrong.
Energy traders told me well before the summer of 2021 that unusual price action pointed to very high prices ahead. By autumn 2021, European natural gas spot prices had reached nearly 100 euros/MWh, well above the historical average of about 18 euros. Immediately after the Russian invasion, prices spiked slightly to around €119, before soaring to €240 in the summer, when ECF-funded Carbon Brief (also at Mirage “SE1 1LB”) produced its “wind power nine times cheaper than natural gas” claim . That said, the most significant rise occurred just before the war. This is shown more clearly when looking at prices on a chart with a logarithmic axis, which shows relative growth better than a chart with a linear vertical axis. .
In the 22 months between May 2020, when demand collapsed, and February 2022, after Russia invaded Ukraine, EU gas prices rose by a staggering 2,753% – about 16% per month. Over the next five months, until the peak in August 2022, prices increased by a further 68%, which equates to approximately 11% per month. The evidence may also contradict the commission's assertion that the invasion actually caused natural gas prices to plummet. The opposite conclusion is reached simply by misreading a linear graph that appears to show a peak a few months after the invasion – after this therefore because of this fallacy. The more important features of the price signal preceded the event – although Russian supply cuts and post-invasion EU sanctions undoubtedly tightened supply and pushed prices up further.
Subsequently, prices fell sharply in the months to May 2023. The recovery included extraordinary money printing to finance the economic stagnation. Natural gas production capacity was slashed during this period, and the recovery put pressure on supply. Russia has largely been the scapegoat for the disastrous effects of the West’s failed climate and COVID-19 policies.
In my opinion, Green Spot paying Potemkin commissions to write sympathetic reports on rising energy prices is akin to drug cartels funding rehab centers. One only has to imagine how the Green Group would complain if it turned out to be a “committee” funded by gas companies and discovered that the solution to rising energy prices was greater investment in gas production. But the difference is that increasing natural gas production will at least narrow the gap between supply and demand, thereby lowering prices. Green Party performances often raise the issue of “stakeholders” bringing parts of the proposals into the public domain. But high prices benefit producers, while lower prices benefit consumers. Ironically, the Greens and the oil tycoons have common interests here.
So, who are these committee members who do not understand economics and claim to speak for the poor? Two members of the panel, former MPs David Laws and Dhara Vyas, are from UK energy companies – and the Climate Change Commission's new chief executive Emma Pinchbeck Pinchbeck recently resigned from the industry lobbying body. spot. Louise Hellem is the chief economist of the ardent Remainer and pro-blockade Confederation of British Industry. spot. Jim Watson, professor of energy policy at University College London, has played a number of roles advising parliaments, governments and intergovernmental bodies on energy security and emissions reduction. spot. The reports produced by these people are exactly what you would expect. But they are also joined by Gillian Cooper, executive director of partnerships and advocacy at Citizens Advice, and Adam Scorer, chief executive of National Energy Action (NEA), a “national charity dedicated to ending fuel poverty” joined their ranks. We want these organizations to put their clients’ interests ahead of noble agendas.
Apparently not. “We must simultaneously pursue the dual goals of clean heating and warm homes,” Schöhler said on “X.” Once again, this virtue signal arrives without proof that passes the test of basic arithmetic. The NEA has not commented on domestic energy prices that have tripled due to green policies, as well as foreign and Covid policies, despite being supported by numerous energy companies, charities and local and national governments.
The British establishment to which Citizens Advice and the NEA belong appears to be as adept at spawning ready-made conglomerate fronts as the ECF, who would naturally be more happy to occupy such positions than challenge the establishment they lead. As millions face cold temperatures and rising bills this winter, the “citizen advice” to the government is apparently to close more oil and gas fields and create more weather-dependent renewable energy without regard to reality .
“Successive governments have the opportunity to reduce the UK's reliance on fossil fuels and avoid some of the worst impacts,” the report said. “But this is a completely false green spot myth.” As a previous post explained, from a consumer perspective, retrofitting a home with insulation and other energy-saving measures that can significantly reduce energy use is simply not cost-effective. Even with today's high energy prices, they will never “pay for themselves” in any reasonable time frame. And there simply isn’t any technology that can deliver so-called “clean heat” to grid-scale consumers on a dark, windless day or week. The Commission's claims are based on fantasy.
What about the unfortunate consumers? He is trapped by the ghost establishment that represents the green ideological confusion of the British establishment rather than his own interests, while being fed a narrative that Russia is responsible for his plight. The UK may produce its own gas and export large quantities of it, an independent commission of energy experts is likely to point out. But a host of faux “civil society” organizations around Westminster have ruled this possibility unacceptable. A ghostly “committee” assembled by the group of ghosts adds color to the chorus. At some point, the public will discover for themselves that Britain’s energy and climate policies are far worse than any climate change, and that the British establishment is doing more harm to British interests than Russia. That experience can be very painful.
Relevant
