Fuel poverty - by Richard... Monday, December 28, 2009

Fuel poverty - by Richard... Monday, December 28, 2009

Characteristic of the many subjects reported by the media these days is the fundamental dishonesty with which they are treated. To add to the EU, climate change and sundry other issues, we can now also add "fuel poverty".

This, The Independent plays big today, reporting that more than seven million households struggle to pay their fuel bills, almost double the official estimate.

The report is gleaned from an opinion poll for the National Housing Federation, which tells us that two-thirds of people in "fuel poverty" said they heated their homes less than would like because they could not afford the high prices of gas and electricity. The nearest they get to real heat is a colour picture in a pretend fireplace – the ultimate energy-saving device.

But, in this paper's book, the villains are the energy companies which are failing to pass on falls in wholesale costs. Thus, it declares, the research adds to pressure on ministers to take action against energy suppliers to bring down bills and increase social support for vulnerable households to ensure they can stay healthy in the cold.

Of course, nothing is mentioned about the hidden subsidy to windfarms (the ROCs), the cost of purchasing carbon credits from the government and the "top-ups" through the CDM system, the climate change levy and the spiralling costs of industry "carbon" reduction schemes, both "voluntary" and compulsory.

Not only are these costs never mentioned, they have never been estimated properly and they are certainly not identified. Therefore, average consumers have no idea what they are paying for – and the media certainly is not going to tell them.

Then there is the financial drag of our wholly inadequate energy policy, blighted by unrealistic climate change requirements. And, of course, the reason why we are paying so much at the moment is that it happens to be rather cold. Thus, in order to "stop the planet heating up" seven million people are having stay cold.

Would that they knew it, many of those shivering in their poorly heated houses would hugely enjoy the irony of their having to freeze to save the planet. However, "dying for your planet" does not have quite the same ring about it as "dying for your country", although Dr Pachauri, ensconced in his multi-million dollar home in Delhi, would undoubtedly approve.

CLIMATE CHANGE – NEW THREAD

Print ready

Consistently wrong - by Richard... Sunday, December 27, 2009

"Global warming to hit Pyrenees resorts," screamed the headline on 18 April 2008. This was a study from Spain's CSIC scientific research agency, which breathlessly declared that ski resorts in the Pyrenees between Spain and France could be badly affected by climate change this century as the warmer weather melts the snows.

Temperatures in the mountain range will increase by between 2.8 and 4.0°C between 2070 and 2100, said one of the "experts" behind the study, Juan Ignacio Lopez Moreno. "Because of global warming, the ski season will begin later and the spring thaw will come up to a month earlier," he said. "What is snow today will be rain tomorrow."


By late November, however, a slightly different headline had replaced the doomsaying. "Incredible Snowfall Continues In The Pyrenees," it proclaimed, reporting that top snow depths had now reached two metres (nearly seven feet) on upper slopes at Panticosa with "most resorts now reaching 150cm (five feet) on upper slopes at least."

"There has been two days of continuous snowfall bringing from 30 to 80 cm (12 - 32 inches) of fresh powder in the Pyrenees and the Cantabrian mountains of Northern Spain," said Skiinf's regional manager for the area, Prof Dr Raúl Revuelta Carbajo.

For the Spanish Environment Ministry, though, such inconvenient facts troubled it not. By 25 February 2009 it was happily reporting: "Glaciers in the Spanish Pyrenees Melting Fast" and "Further loss of ice could be catastrophic."

The Pyrenees had lost more than 90 percent of their ice during the 20th Century, and if the current global warming trend continued, the remaining 10 percent of ice could disappear within a couple of decades, said Miguel Frances, coordinator of a new study.

Yes, "last year there was a lot of snow," admitted Frances. "This stabilized the glaciers but they did not grow." He then confidently asserted: "We need 20 winters like this one, which is a one-off."


But so much for the "one-off". By 15 December, the headline read: "Spain Hit By 'Siberian Effect'." Spain was in the grip of extreme weather conditions with temperatures of -10°C, snowstorms, and dangerously icy roads in what was being called the "Siberian Effect". Wind, snow and ice had arrived in Spain on the Sunday night and by Monday temperatures had dropped below freezing. Monday 14 December was officially the coldest night of the year.

Ski resorts were amongst those to experience the coldest temperatures. Snow fell at just 400 metres. The roads surrounding the areas had been closed.

And how many more "one-offs" do you think we need before the warmists are a laughing stock?

CLIMATE CHANGE – NEW THREAD