No, it's not Brexit. And no, it's not because there aren't enough wind turbines.
They are both simple questions of logistics, the experts with solutions to which are (or were) in great abundance in this country, but which Westminster would sooner spit on than take advice from.
MPs would rather hear from teenage truants who did not graduate from primary education than they would hear from the septuagenarians and octogenarians that designed, built and managed the Grid and its generators about what they did, why and how, and how essential it is.
They would rather hear from -- and appoint -- actual anarchists who stood against road building than hear from people who can explain the importance of mobility to basic human welfare, and for meaningful human life.
They would rather take advice from degenerate upper class morons about how society must be urgently and completely reorganised than they would ask the voter for consent for their agenda.
That is why some shelves are empty, some forecourts are short of petrol, and domestic energy prices are spiralling out of control.
We urgently need fewer Grands Projets and much more pragmatic, practical, democratic policymaking from much more sober, humble and grounded MPs.
MPs may dream about Grands Projets when they get the basics right.
But they are the obstacles to affordable, abundant and reliable energy, the security of supply to shops and the management of civil infrastructure.
That is not a CV which proves competence to deliver #NetZero.
And the same can be said for the Civil Service, "civil society" and a great part of academia.
They have proven themselves unequal to the tasks they claim only they can deliver.
If these problems are not addressed in short order, then there is a risk that we will loose the expertise and skills of the generations that were capable of building infrastructure.
We need those people much more than we need the armies of policy wonks and academics.
We *clearly* need people who can do things, build things and run things. We need delivery drivers and O&G engineers.
We do not need sustainability consultants, NetZero wonks, and pointless green "research" organisations.
It could ALL be done by people without a humanities doctorate between them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Instead of depending on the market", says the eco-moron, "let's organise society around the weather! That will solve the problems we have with changes in the market!"
It's a very special, dangerous kind of idiot that we need to kick out of public life.
The Times wants you to believe that the story here is a spiv, not a form of politics that created the opportunities for armies of spivs -- a form of politics that The Times has supported.
Although *I* should have been watching more closely (although I was not working in the field at the time), the first I realised of this was when I switched to a new energy retailer. I got a good deal and though no more of it until they started doubling my monthly DD payments.
My account was significantly in credit -- £hundreds. But the retailer (Toto) refused to refund or reduce the payments. They said it was because I had missed a payment, and that the fact that I was in credit made no difference.
But it was institutional science & global agencies that had salivated over the possibility of pandemic, year after year.
It was 'Science' which vacillated, failed to acknowledge its errors, retreated to the precautionary principle, and departed from principles of Enlightenment.
The version of "Science" advanced by Roberts is not value-free investigation of the material world, of transparent, open debate, free of hierarchy and the corrupting influence of power and politics, 'on the word of no one'.
It is might-is-right.
It is scholasticism.
It could have been otherwise. The precautionary principle could have been ruled out. The resources of society could have been used to protect the vulnerable, rather than to police all of society. Academics could have allowed debate between themselves.
The green blob has stood against the consumers' interests at every turn of energy policy for two decades, and the government has conceded to them to the fullest extent possible. This disingenuous piece attempts to re-write/erase that history.
Governments have shut down coal-fired power stations, cancelled nuclear plans, close strategic storage, and committed £billions per year to endless failed green schemes.
The result is that prices have risen, the grid is less stable and the consumer more poorly served.
Shame on @ConHome for letting such blob-funded junk propaganda onto its pages. Shame on the @Conservatives for allowing MPs to be involved in such shameless, blob-funded activism against the public.
The UK government's approach to new energy infrastructure is to buy it when the price is highest.
They would probably need to build one or more a year between now and the time this plant will be operational to cope with the new demand on the grid from EVs and boiler bans.
Hinkley Point C was rightly dubbed 'the most expensive power station in the world'. But it didn't bother the coalition government or Ed Davey much. Because who cares, right?
The price was high because the bidders knew the government was desperate.
Vapid poseurs, they have had nothing to offer but to depart from representing their publics, to instead champion the green cause, which the voter expressed no interest in.
Air pollution is to local government what climate change is to national government. These issues excuse administrators from the duties they were appointed to execute, but are not equal to. So they preoccupy themselves with higher goals: stopping traffic, rather than enabling it.
In the case of Khan, the opportunity to champion air quality was given to him by billionaire Chris Hohn, who spent £millions turning climate change into a local issue -- air quality -- thus enabling the Mayor to have something to say.