An exchange of letters with Chris Huhne

I blogged on March 21st about the Climate Conference in Saint Ives, Cambs, organised by Philip Foster. The Rev. Foster has had a correspondence with Chris Huhne, and I should like to share it with you (abbreviated so as not to test your patience!).

Dear Minister,

Thank you for your letter ref: INV2011/04004/JB. In reply I quote your text and my comments.

“This Government is committed to making the urgent decisions needed on energy and climate change.”

Where is the urgency? There is no scientific evidence that the climate is varying beyond natural parameters. Computer models are not science.

The problem with being in government is that you live in an echo chamber or in a feed-back loop. Your experts merely echo what they think you want to hear — that‘s how they earn their salaries (or get their research grants) — they know they‘d lose their jobs if they told you the truth.

“The Prime Minister has publicly stated that he wants to make this the greenest government ever.”

That may amuse him, but the trouble is it isn‘t at all amusing for those descending ever more rapidly into fuel poverty, or dying of hypothermia during the increasingly cold winters, as they fear to use energy because of its increasing cost.  Cheap reliable energy is the bedrock of a civilised society: your policies will ensure our civilisation will disintegrate.

“Climate change is the biggest challenge we face, and the time we have to address it is short.”


“But it also represents a real opportunity to drive forward innovation, job creation and competitiveness, supporting the UK economy while playing our full part in tackling global climate change.”

FACT: every “green” job created is paid for by the loss of 3.7 real jobs. As even you may have noticed the idea of a “Green Investment Bank” has had to be dropped as to introduce it would cause the UK‘s international credit rating to drop like a stone (it is already pretty shaky)

Lastly, when the lights start going out — which, unless the Climate Bill is repealed, they will do — and energy bills double or treble, the people of this country will express their opinion of your energy policies by removing you from government — remember Heath, remember the Winter of Discontent.  As the old saying goes – you ain‘t seen nothin‘ yet!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to An exchange of letters with Chris Huhne

  1. As events in London heat up, it is clear that the ‘climate’ is changing fast. Will the government have the energy to address these challenges? Time may be short.
    Possibly the solution might be job creation, competitiveness,supporting the UK economy, and innovation. To provide real opportunities.
    The PM should publicly state, that he wishes to make this the greatest government ever.
    …..Urgent decisions are required.

  2. It is when you look at the claims made in defence of so-called “climate change” policies, that they always fall apart quite easily. In this post, the comments in response to Chris Huhne’s claims are simply and clearly pointing out the realities – regarding the huge costs and pointlessness of “climate change” policies and beliefs. What we cannot doubt, is the genuine need to repeal the Climate Bill – before irreparable harm is brought to this country. Readers of this blog, who have not already done so – are also strongly urged to sign Roger Helmer’s petition to repeal The Climate Change Act!

  3. John E. Forbat says:

    While I agree with your arguments regarding the lack of real evidence about man made climate change and have some scepticism abou ‘green jobs’, please give me details supporting :
    ‘FACT: every “green” job created is paid for by the loss of 3.7 real jobs.’

  4. Axel says:

    Yes, I can sympathise with the Good Reverend Foster. In Scotland, “World Beating Climate Capital of the Green Energy Bonanza”, the windmills proved to be useless during the entire month of December 2010. In the following discussion which can be heard on The Fraudulent Climate Website, the Radio Show Host struggles to understand the arguments put forward by the Green Mummers, and they contradict their own contentions, with sometimes hilarious results.

    Scotland at Ten – Climate Debate – BBC Radio

    Click the name “Axel” to find the show on the main index page of the website, and hoards more of related and arcane video and audio recordings.

  5. Jonathan Ward says:

    “Your experts merely echo what they think you want to hear — that‘s how they earn their salaries (or get their research grants) — they know they‘d lose their jobs if they told you the truth.”

    That statement is hugely insulting to a large number of scientists. It’s strange how people like to cite academia on one hand, and use the benefits and findings of its research, but in one field that crosses multiple disciplines, denigrate it and make gross simplifications and widespread accusations.

    As for the Greenest Government and so forth – why is it that still the entire focus on this very large area seems to be related entirely to renewable energy and windfarms?

    I’m trying to set up a scheme to tackle fuel poverty in rural areas through basic insulation upgrading, small behavioural changes and improving energy efficiency. This is the basic step before looking to see whether there are suitable on-site energy sources (which may just be to heat water or create natural aspiration heating systems). In the East Midlands, and through work I have encountered a number of people in local government, who work hard to to reduce carbon emissions and costs whilst reducing fuel poverty and dependence upon high cost energy sources.

    I will not accept that being more sustainable can be so simplistically distilled into two subjects of climate change and renewable energy.

    Again in the East Midlands, I know of a number of organisations looking at more environmentally friendly transport modes, and innovative approaches to public transport. These projects and ideas reduce fossil fuel dependence, increase social mobility as many people do not have cars or cannot afford to use them, and through this also achieve savings for their organisations and users, as well as reducing environmental impacts.

    Is it not possible for commentators to separate their views on other ‘environmental’ areas and actually support some very good work that helps us all and not just pour scorn on anything that sounds ‘green’?

    The issues of surrounding government investment in renewables and the CC Act 2008 are important to discuss, but shouldn’t detract from very important work being undertaken by many leading corporations, councils, communities and charities.

    On the costs issues, there was a written answer from the government last July in the house of Lords to a question on the the costs of meeting the targets in the act. The final para of the answer concludes (see :
    “The Climate Change Act impact assessment estimates the total resource costs of meeting the 80 per cent target at between £14.7 billion and £18.3 billion per year. This excludes short-term transition costs, such as changes that might occur in the short or medium term as the economy adjusts to changes in energy policy. These costs are outweighed by the estimated annual benefits of the Act, which are estimated at between £20.7 billion and £46.2 billion.”

    If you look around the internet, at industry bodies, thinktanks, academia, media and so on, you will find people either side of the line, because it involves forecasting in scientific, political and economic arenas…all of which is notoriously difficult, but must be attempted at the very least.

    The bill itself will no doubt evolve over time, and was a very ambitious piece of legislation. It may be the nuclear new-build can take advantage of its low-carbon status through this bill ultimately.

    On the topic of nuclear power, there is an interesting summary of where we are at in the UK at . In terms of energy security, a decision would have to be made ASAP due to the planning, construction and testing timelines. On top of that, unless the government creates a risk insurance/trading vehicle it’s goign to be hard to attract sufficient finance for capitalisation. The costs during plant operation are relatively low (and here a basic carbon price in the electricity market would actually help more nuclear be built, as it has often lost out to hydro-carbon prices in the past, especially when the NDF require a fund to be put aside annually for waste and decommissioning).

    There are some interesting assessments by Deloitte on this: .

    The other problem is subsidies. The nuclear industry still has vast subsidies into waste and research in the UK and EU, as well as in insurance. If the government pursues the no subsidy route at present it may well have to be rather creative.

    • I have absolutely no problem with energy conservation and insulation. It’s plain common sense. I have double glazing all round at home, and deep lagging in the loft. This is good for economy, and comfort, and (on a national scale) energy security and balance of payments. I just don’t try to pretend that I’m saving the planet!

  6. editor says:

    I have to agree with Roger. I am in the process of buying a small bungalow with two acres of Lincolnshire land. I am tempted to have a heat source pump to heat the house – not because its environmentally friendly, but because it will pay for itself and will inevitably be cheaper than oil.

    I would look into solar power – not to save the planet, because of the return you could possibly get (though I suspect I have missed the boat on that.

    I find it totally perplexing that Clegg has also some out against nuclear in the wake of what has happened in Japan. So whats the alternative? Renewables won’t do it and are we seriously saying we are going to put all our energy eggs into the basket of one dictator or another to provide us oil or gas?

  7. Basically, even issues which the green lobby are correct about – are little more than making a virture out of commonsense. As Roger has pointed out (see above), it’s simply a matter of good sense to conserve energy and avoid wasted expenditure. The “climate alarmists” must also accept, that so-called “renewables” could be very destructive for our world’s economy. Indeed, some of the damage has already been done. Only sources of alternative energy which are cost-effective, sustainable and reliable should be utilised. Governments must stop applying so-called “green” policies which weaken long-term energy security, destroy jobs and place pressure upon nations which cannot afford them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s