Thread by @DrSimEvans

A Tufton St guide to "honest debate" on net-zero

(aka how Civitas got embarrassingly wrong numbers into Sun, Mail, Times & Express)

1⃣Send to lobby journos, not specialists
2⃣Get Tufton St chums to write supportive comment
3⃣Trust editors to take crazy numbers at face value

🧵

A Tufton St guide to "honest debate" on net-zero (cont)

4⃣Pretend fossil-based tech is free
5⃣Ignore saving of buying less fossil fuel
6⃣Confuse MW & MWh so you can say wind costs £1,300,000/MWh (reality is £50-70/MWh)
7⃣Falsely assert gas power must close early & make up cost

A Tufton St guide to "honest debate" on net-zero (cont)

8⃣Quote a report saying EVs cld lose 114k jobs but ignore bit where it says EVs cld support 246k jobs
9⃣Assume clean tech costs never change
🔟Make us pay for green energy & insulation twice

A Tufton St guide to "honest debate" on net-zero (cont)

1⃣1⃣Make up a huge number for net-zero costs in farming, without evidence, because it's "not unreasonable to assume"
1⃣2⃣Make sure to ignore actual evidence of climate/gas costs driving food price inflation

A Tufton St guide to "honest debate" on net-zero (cont)

1⃣3⃣Falsely imply the CCC cost estimates assumed a 0.1% cost of capital (not true)
1⃣4⃣Add a blanket 5.25% finance cost to figures that often already include financing

I'll share receipts for everything I said above in a moment, but first here are the outlets that credulously gave space to the Tufton St claims, without checking they weren't mad

Spectator gave space to Ross Clark to promote the claims, altho amusingly he clearly suspects Civitas numbers are bonkers as he gives himself this get-out

"There is no reason to suppose Civitas’ figures will turn out to be right…But they are an impt contribution to a debate"

The Times did not think the report worthy of news coverage, but gave a comment slot to another Tufton St groupie, Tim Knox, to promote Civitas' work (Knox fails to mention his association with the report, which says it "would not [have] be[en] possible" without him)

The Express gives space to another Tufton St outfit, the Taxpayers Alliance, for yet more uncritical supportive coverage of the bonkers Civitas numbers

The Mail did at least publish a response from govt saying “We simply do not accept these figures. The report fails to recognise the financial savings from lower fuel costs and technological advances – such as offshore wind costs falling by 70% more than we projected in 2016.”

Now onto the receipts:

Report does not include OPEX savings in lower fossil fuel bills and it ignores the capital cost of fossil-based alternative technologies (gas boilers, gas power plants, combustion engine cars), effectively assuming they are free and never need replacing

Receipts

The report asserts that “147TWh of current capacity [sic]” will have to retire early, even though early retirement is explicitly ruled out in CCC pathways

The report then says, without citation or evidence, that this will cost £73bn, which appears to be based on 147/2

Receipts

The report asserts that heat pumps will cost £14k per house forever, even though some firms have already dramatically cut costs and are now offering to install the technology for as little as £5k, before grants

octopus.energy/press/octopus-…

Receipts

Paying twice:

The report includes an estimated cost to decarbonise the electricity system and then adds current subsidies for decarbonising the electricity system on top ("green levy"), assuming they continue at the same level forever (most are 15yr contracts)

Receipts

Paying twice:

The report includes a cost of £5k per household for insulation, for all 28m homes (5x28=140), then adds another cost to insulate social housing specifically, even though these are part of the 28m total

That's it from me, but before I go, please check out this amusing thread from Barney on how ludicrously badly excruciatingly wrong the Civitas report is

One more thing…

Of COURSE report author Ewen Stewart is a climate sceptic who wrote in 2021:

"Whether one believes in man-made climate change, or whether one believes that there has always been natural climatic variation, it remains a contested theory"

web.archive.org/web/2021110314…