Sunday, 26 June 2022


  Here is a recent article looking at the latest attempts to measure it using satellites: Sentinel-6: New International Sea Level Satellite – Watts Up With That? 

There are two related measures of sea level, the absolute sea level, which is the increase in the sea level in an absolute reference frame, and relative sea level, which is the increase in sea level recorded by tide gauges. The first measure is a rather abstract computation, far from being reliable, and is preferred by activists and politicians for no scientific reason.

 For local and global problems it is better to use local tide gauge data. Proper coastal management should be based on proved measurements of sea level. Tide gauges provide the most reliable measurements, and best data to assess the rate of change. We show as the naïve averaging of all the tide gauges included in the PSMSL surveys show “relative” rates of rise about +1.04 mm/year (570 tide gauges of any length). If we consider only 100 tide gauges with more than 80 years of recording the rise is only +0.25 mm/year. 

This naïve averaging has been stable and shows that the sea levels are slowly rising but not accelerating. We also show as the additional information provided by GPS and satellite altimetry is of very little help. Computations of “absolute” sea levels suffer from inaccuracies with errors larger than the estimated trends. 

The GPS is more reliable than satellite altimetry, but the accuracy of the estimation of the vertical velocity at GPS domes is still well above ±1 mm/year and the relative motion of tide gauges vs. GPS domes is mostly unassessed. The satellite altimetry returns a noisy signal so that a +3.2 mm/year trend is only achieved by arbitrary “corrections”. 

We conclude that if the sea levels are only oscillating about constant trends everywhere as suggested by the tide gauges, then the effects of climate change are negligible, and the local patterns may be used for local coastal planning without any need of purely speculative global trends based on emission scenarios. 

Ocean and coastal management should acknowledge all these facts. As the relative rates of rises are stable worldwide, coastal protection should be introduced only where the rate of rise of sea levels as determined from historical data show a tangible short term threat. 

As the first signs the sea levels will rise catastrophically within few years are nowhere to be seen, people should start really thinking about the warnings not to demolish everything for a case nobody knows will indeed happen.

For further reading on this topic, try this link:

The surprising news from scientists about rising sea levels! – Watts Up With That?

And: links to additional resources

Tuesday, 21 June 2022


 On the subject of getting to net zero CO2 emissions by 2050

Lord Lilley     

My Lords, noble Lords may recall the debate we had in February 2020 on Absolute Zero, the report produced by the Cambridge University engineering department and other universities in this country. It had almost the universal approval of this House. The central thesis of that report was that we cannot rely on

“new or breakthrough technologies … they won’t be operating at scale within thirty years.”

We have to rely on existing technologies and reducing demand. But the IEA road map assumes that what it calls “technologies under development” but not yet in the market will provide almost half the emissions savings by 2050. The main innovation opportunities it identifies to produce these savings are what it calls

“advanced batteries, hydrogen electrolysers, and direct air capture and storage.”

I simply ask noble Lords participating in this debate or reading it in Hansard whether that is remotely credible. Clearly, the practical people in the Cambridge University engineering department do not believe it is. I am prepared to believe that the occasional pig might fly, but the IEA report assumes a whole farmyard of pigs will take to the air. That seems a little unlikely.

It is worth looking at how rapidly—or not—new technologies have been deployed in our pursuit of reducing carbon emissions over the last couple of decades. After 20 years of effort, low-carbon technologies provide just 21% of this country’s total primary energy. That is little more than double the 9.4% that they provided in 2000, almost all of which was from old-fashioned bioenergy. It is that which has produced most of the savings in the subsequent 20 years; it provides 8.8% of our energy now.

The somewhat newer but scarcely novel technologies that have contributed to our progress over that period are wind and solar. Wind has been around since the Middle Ages and solar has been around for quite a long time. Although they have developed over the last 20 years, together they provide just 4.7% of our primary energy in this country. That has taken 20 years to come about.

The IEA also makes heroic assumptions about deploying existing technologies. For example, it says that, from 2025, throughout the world, including this country, no new gas boilers should be installed. I ask participants in the debate whether they believe that should be the case. Should we ban the introduction of new gas boilers from 2025? Presumably they are to be replaced by either heat pumps or direct electricity. We know the problems with heat pumps. They are available and I wanted to install one in my flat, but I was advised by my architect and builder that, unless I was insane, I should not do so. If they are not yet available or cheap, and the costs of insulation and changing radiators are not viable, we will have to do it by direct electricity. Electricity costs four times as much as gas to provide the same amount of therms. Is that what supporters of this report want to see? If not, where are they going to conjure up heat for our households from, once they are no longer allowed to replace their gas boilers?

The IEA also says there should be no new oil or gas fields developed from now. The approach that we and most countries have adopted, in trying to move towards net zero, has been the sensible one of reducing demand, not supply: phasing out demand for fossil fuels by providing alternatives, not forbidding the supply of fossil fuels. That is the sensible thing to do. If, in spelling out how we are going to reduce demand, oil companies none the less go ahead and develop fields that subsequently prove surplus to requirements, they will be left with stranded assets. That is their fault; I am not going to shed any tears for them. If, on the contrary, we stop them developing enough oil and gas to meet our schedule of reduced demand, there will be a shortage. We are seeing it now as a result of the war in Ukraine. Oil has gone up by 60% to 70% and gas has gone up by 130% of what it was before Covid. That is hard and tough for consumers, but it makes wonderful profits for suppliers. Is that what those who advocate this approach of cutting back on supply, rather than on demand, want?

The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked us to spell out our credentials. I spell out mine. I studied science at Cambridge. Of course, I do not deny the science of global warming; it is about as robust as any science I know, although it is not as alarming as some would have us believe. There is double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere; the direct effect is to raise the temperature of the world by 1% and then knock-on effects will significantly increase that. I accept that.

Likewise, the noble Baroness asked whether we had any vested interests. I twice worked for an oil company and, long before that, studied energy and was an energy analyst in the City. I used to upset the oil companies by advocating that we, in this country, stopped giving them free assets in the North Sea. I published something 

called North Sea Giveaway that prompted the Government of the day—this was before I was in Parliament—to introduce auctions to siphon off some of the profits the oil companies were making. That may be why none of them has ever asked me to go on its board.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asserted that there is no benefit from developing new fields, or supplies of oil and gas, in the North Sea or, by extension, shale gas on land. There is; there is a direct reduction in the amount of emissions you would have for a given consumption of gas and oil. Instead of having to liquefy the gas in Qatar, ship it across the ocean and regasify it here, with the creation of emissions at those three stages, you would provide it locally, with reduced emissions. If people are sincere about wanting to reduce emissions, rather than simply wanting to punish oil companies and stop them going about their business, they would welcome domestic production for those reasons.

I hope that the House looks at this report with a critical eye and finds either that my analysis of it is incorrect and that it is full of realistic proposals, rather than flying pigs—if so, I hope someone will tell me what they are—or that it looks at a better solution to reach net zero by 2050 than what is laid out in this report.

You can read the whole debate here: Global Energy Sector - Hansard - UK Parliament

Saturday, 18 June 2022


Below is an interesting link which looks at a range of factors which contribute to the highly complex subject of sea level. The fear of a large rise is one of the most powerful threats made by the climate change lobby, but is it credible that sea level could rise by 1 meter or more by 2100?

 Sea Level Rise; A Major Non-Existent Threat Exploited by Alarmists and Politicians – Watts Up With That?

Traditionally, sea level was measured by taking the average of tide gauge readings, however, since 1992 it is done by satellite. All the discussion is about an increase in the mean or average height of the sea, but only fractional increases. They were talking about millimeter increases when that type of precision wasn’t possible with tide gauges and even the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellites claim,

“Measured sea levels with unprecedented accuracy to better than 5 cm.”

It’s important to note that this estimate is with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm. This is important because the IPCC claim, “For the period 1993 to 2003, the rate of sea level rise is estimated from observations with satellite altimetry as 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr-1.” But what are they actually measuring? It is the average variation of sea level relative to an imaginary line called the reference ellipsoid. Potential for error exists in determining the ellipsoid, the height of the satellite, in the actual measurements, and in the changes going on in the ocean and on the land. Frankly, it is useless to even talk about millimeter changes. There are so many inputs, and so many adjustments that the final results claimed are unjustified. As Carl Wunsch said,

“It remains possible that the data base is insufficient to compute mean sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming–as disappointing as this conclusion may be.”

 He adds,

“Useful estimation of the global averages is extremely difficult given the realities of space/time sampling and model approximations. Systematic errors are likely to dominate most estimates of global average change: published values and error bars should be used very cautiously.”

Claims don’t fit the reality.

Everything was done by the IPCC to attribute the increase to global warming especially through increased sea temperature. They claimed that about 25 percent of sea level rise of the last 50 years was due to thermal expansion with that rising to 50 percent for the last decade. As with everything they do, the IPCC start with the assumption that their estimates of global warming are accurate and therefore their extrapolation of perceived trend going forward of increased sea level is also accurate. The arrogance of attributing 50 percent of the increased sea level to thermal expansion is done with a computer model that eliminates almost all the variables that cause temperature change, and the result is then applied to computer models that leave out most of the causes of sea level change.

This article is also well worth reading: Why We Must “Quit Worrying About Uncertainty in Sea Level Projections” – Watts Up With That?

The graph below shows some of the alarming projections which are being taken seriously by officials who are then using them to frighten the public. Here is a report including all the scary scenarios: Nearly 200,000 homes and businesses in England at risk of being lost to sea level rise by 2050s | Daily Mail Online

On the other hand, why are Al Gore and Barack Obama buying beachfront properties for millions of dollars if they really believe these projections? Or why are they building new airports in the Maldives? - New airport opens in the Maldives | TTR Weekly


Projected sea level rise through 2100 AD.
Meanwhile back in the real world below are several graphs of sea level rise around the UK as measured by tide gauges. There is no sign, so far, of any dramatic rise. [you can click on the image to enlarge it]

                                                      Portsmouth Sea Level Plot      

                                                          Devonport Sea Level Plot

                                                          Lowestoft Sea Level Plot

North Shields Sea Level Plot

Wednesday, 15 June 2022


Take a look at the bias towards climate alarm from the BBC. Exaggeration and lies used to promote a one-sided propaganda campaign.

 Institutional Alarmism: The BBC’s Disastrous Climate Complaints (

Tuesday, 14 June 2022


 Sometimes it's useful to take a step back and look at the bigger picture in order to fully appreciate the scale of what it means to get to net zero CO2 emissions. We are constantly being told that we must all do our bit towards this great goal in order to save the planet. To find all the big statistics on this, one place to look is <a href=Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021 – Analysis - IEA>here</a> on the International Energy Agency (IEA) website. This organisation is, of course, committed to phasing out fossil fuels, even though it was founded to ensure security of oil supplies to member nations in times of crisis.

Here is an interesting statistic for 2020:

306.32 Mt of CO2 was produced by the UK  for energy. The whole world produced 40 Gt of CO2. So using those figures we can calculate the % of world energy related emissions from the UK. (Energy includes that used for electricity, heating, transport, industry.)

306.32x10^6x100 divided by 40x 10^9 = 0.77% 

So we can see that our emissions have fallen well below the 1% of world emissions which is often quoted. However 306.32 Mt is still a very large amount, when you consider that all the simple ways of reducing it have already been implemented. 

An example of a scheme to reduce emissions is the new waste strategy being proposed by the New Forest District Council. The proposed changes are calculated to save 1037 tonnes of CO2 per annum, which to many people would sound impressive. But, set against the UK annual emissions, it can be calculated as:

1037x100 divided by 306320000%, which is  0.0003%

This puts the true scale of the reductions required to reach zero. Of course net zero means that some emissions will still be allowed, but these figures do not even include emissions due to agriculture   

Sunday, 12 June 2022


 Take a look at the press release below by all these local government mayors. What extraordinary hubris by these people to claim that they can achieve net zero, some in as little as 8 years time. I just wonder what they actually mean by net zero. Of course they know it won't happen and they have the excuse right there where they say they "need to be backed by new powers and more resources". They don't say how much "more resources" they need, but it's a certainty that it will be far more than any government will give them. All sound and fury signifying nothing. Take a look at the list of net zero dates given for each council - all complete guesswork. 

07 Jun 2022

Metro Mayors and leaders from across the UK tell Government they are ready to lead country to net zero carbon

Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham has joined other metro mayors and leaders from across the UK to ask for greater powers and funding so they can lead the country to net zero carbon in a way that’s fair for everyone.

At the Decarbonisation Summit event at the Science and Industry Museum in Manchester on 7 June 2022, eight English metro mayors – including Mr Burnham -and the leader of Glasgow City Council, released the following joint statement:

Metro mayors and leaders across the UK are ready to lead the country to net zero carbon, but need to be backed by Government with new powers and more resources.

We have each developed detailed plans for our regions to accelerate the drive to net zero carbon – in most areas by at least a decade ahead of the Government’s 2050 national target.

We know that we can play a crucial role in getting the whole of the UK to net zero carbon, creating a ripple across the country. By freeing the city regions up, we will be able to establish the skill base, new technologies and experience to lay the path for the rest of UK to succeed. 

This is much more than getting to net zero carbon, however. What we’re setting out to achieve is a greener future, but also a fairer one.

We all have plans to do this. For instance, as we work to decarbonise, many of us will also look to reduce fares for public transport or keep them affordable – with a joint commitment to ensure they remain as low as possible.

We are all developing plans to decarbonise homes through a retrofitting programme – which can also help to reduce people’s energy bills and create good jobs.

We are ready to grasp the opportunities that the transition to zero carbon offers to our economies, but we need more regional powers to develop and maintain the skills we need to fill the jobs we create.

We will share best practice and research with each other and together explore opportunities around innovation, joining our regions up to create a country-wide impact. However, we need the Government to work with us on this.

We are asking for greater regional powers over issues like skills and a funding package that matches our ambitions so we can drive the whole country to net zero carbon. This is a golden opportunity for the Government to work with us to decarbonise the country and level it up at the same time.

Issued on behalf of:

  • Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham
  • Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Dr Nik Johnson
  • Mayor of Liverpool City Region, Steve Rotheram
  • Mayor of North of Tyne, Jamie Driscoll
  • Mayor of South Yorkshire, Oliver Coppard
  • Mayor of West of England, Dan Norris
  • Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin
  • Leader of Glasgow City Council, Susan Aitken
  • Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan


Zero carbon target

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough


Greater Manchester


Liverpool City Region


Greater London


North of Tyne


South Yorkshire


West of England


West Yorkshire




Saturday, 11 June 2022


 Read this report: Advanced Ultra-Supercritical Technology | GE Steam Power

When you look at the latest technology you can see why so many new coal plants are being built across the world. Whether the UK or Europe, or even the Western world choose to deprive themselves of cheap reliable energy, it will not stop India, China and many developing nations in Africa continuing to use coal. While we choose expensive less reliable electricity, they will choose coal.

Wednesday, 8 June 2022


Here is a link to an interesting test: The Global Warming Test ( See if you can equal my score of 10. It is on a very interesting website - well worth reading.

Monday, 6 June 2022


 Here's a new invention to collect the methane which cows emit when they belch: Climate madness: British startup releases masks for cows ( When you look at the cost of it, I can't see many farmers using it unless forced to do so, and if that were to happen it would drive up the cost of milk and beef. So what are the chances of this being a common sight in our fields?

Friday, 3 June 2022


 Funny that there has been no mention of this on our TV news bulletins or even on the weather forecasts. Here is a link: Weather Books Rewritten Across South America As Antarctic Blast Intensifies; + Australia Smashed By Heavy Snows And All-Time Record-Breaking Lows - Electroverse

Omission of any reporting of this should make us all suspicious, particularly when they so prominently feature anything to do with excessive hot or dry weather, floods or hurricanes. Of course none of these extreme weather events is evidence of any climate change, as such extremes always have occurred and always will. However the news is a means of pushing a particular message,  that we face a "climate emergency". Anything which reminds us that it is simply variable weather is not helpful to such propaganda and so is left out.

Monday, 30 May 2022


Have look and see the large numbers of qualified people signing this.

 World Climate Declaration - Clintel

When you look at the mainstream TV broadcasts you could easily believe that no serious scientists disagree with the hypothesis that CO2 is causing a climate "emergency".  

Friday, 27 May 2022


The writer of this piece explains why he thinks so. 

The green agenda’s role in global inflation - The Conservative Woman 

The author, Ben Pile, has a video at the link where he goes into more detail. There is no doubt that a number of very rich people seem to have funded much of the pressure groups working to get fossil fuels banned. Their activities have resulted in the price of fossil fuels to rise, quite apart from the Ukraine war. On top of that the Bank of England has printed money to deal with the Covid crisis causing inflation. 

Ben Pile asserts that there is a deliberate attempt by government to raise the price of fossil fuels. If so, I doubt that they would have wanted to go this far, but the trouble with tinkering with the economy is that things can get out of control and now that seems to have happened. 

If the government does not get the price of fuel and energy to an affordable level they will be in deep trouble. Renewable energy is certainly not the answer, as it is both expensive and unreliable, so they must face the fact that unless they can build nuclear power stations fast (which they can't), they will have to make fossil fuels affordable, or face defeat in the next election.

Thursday, 26 May 2022


 Has anyone told Mr Putin?

Here is the latest report: Climate Change: MPs say building demolitions must be reduced - BBC News 

What will they come up with next? I wonder if this conflicts with the government's policy to build hundreds of thousands of new houses all over the country?

Monday, 16 May 2022


 Is it any wonder that people are confused about global warming when the BBC puts out false  information? See here: Insiders say Justin Rowlatt is more 'campaigner' than reporter | Daily Mail Online 

Last week, it was reported that the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) had upheld complaints about two claims made in the  BBC's Panorama programme on November 3 last year by reporter Justin Rowlatt.

First, it wasn't true that the death toll from natural disasters is rising. In fact, the opposite is true.

According to, the number of deaths globally from natural disasters has tumbled each decade for the past century, apart from a small blip in the 2000s, from an average of 524,000 a year in the 1920s to just 45,000 in the 2010s — despite a booming global population.

The ECU also ruled that Rowlatt's claim that southern Madagascar was 'on the brink of the world's first climate-induced famine' was incorrect, as other factors were involved.

Thursday, 12 May 2022


 Yes, the good news is that "the warming trend of the last 40 years is weakening”, says German expert.

No Tricks Zone, 11 May 2022
By Professor Fritz Vahrenholt
During the energy crisis that has become visible in Germany and Europe over the past few months, things have gotten quieter about the supposedly imminent climate emergency. On the one hand, energy prices and security of supply have pushed the climate issue into the background. On the other hand, a weakening of the warming trend of the last 40 years is apparent.

The temperature curve of the satellite-based measurements of the University of Alabama UAH has been oscillating between -0.2 and 0.4 degrees for 20 years and seems to have remained stable since 2015, as shown in the next graph in the enlargement.

(Source: woodfortrees). The mean value is drawn in green- it shows a slightly decreasing trend since 2015. Why hasn’t this been reported?
What are the reasons for this stagnation?
CO2 concentrations in the air have continued to rise unabated. It is true that global annual CO2 emissions have been more or less constant for some years now, at 40 billion tons of CO2. Slightly more than half is absorbed by the oceans and plants, so that currently each year the equivalent of about 2.5 ppm CO2 is added to the air concentration. In 2015, there were 401 ppm of CO2 in the air; in 2021, there were 416 ppm. At this rate, by the way, we would never reach the IPCC’s scary scenarios of 800 to 1000 ppm in 2100.

No, the lack of warming must have other reason

What has been the amount of natural warming in the last 30 years?
And how big is the natural cooling in the next 30 years?
A change in global temperature can also happen naturally. We know that clouds have decreased by about 2% after the turn of the millennium, and that for the last ten years cloud cover has been stable at a low level. Second, there are oceanic temperature cycles such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation AMO, which increased sharply from 1980 to the beginning of this millennium (by 0.5 degrees, after all), has remained at maximum since then, and is now weakening slightly again (see next graph).

The United States Weather and Oceanographic Administration, NOAA, writes that the AMO can amplify anthropogenic warming in the warm phase and make it disappear in the cold phase. According to NOAA, the AMO is a naturally occurring change in North Atlantic temperatures that has occurred for at least 1000 years with alternating warm and cold phases of 20-40 years. Add to this the weakening solar radiation since 2008, and further significant warming beyond 1.5 degrees is unlikely in the next 30 years.
Sea ice melt has stalled
The stagnant trend of temperatures that has been observed for several years can also be seen in the halted decline in Arctic sea ice extent reported by the European Copernicus program in March (see next graph)

This is actually good news.

Wouldn’t it be time for climate researchers to bring these trends to the attention of politicians and the public? After all, politicians are currently readjusting the priorities of energy supply. While until last year’s price explosion and the aftermath of the Ukraine war it was apparently taken for granted that climate impacts would be the sole determining factor for energy policy, we are all now being made aware of the importance of security of supply and price trends.
However, German policymakers are still reacting inadequately. They believe they can solve the problem of self-generated energy shortages due to the double phase-out of coal and nuclear energy by simply building more wind farms and solar plants. It must always be remembered that in 2021 the share of wind and solar energy was just over 5% of primary energy supply (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, renewables). Even in a good windy year, it would not be much more than 6%.
Politicians do not have the necessary courage to repeal the coal phase-out law, to stop the nuclear phase-out, to lift the natural gas fracking ban and the ban on CO2 capture at coal-fired power plants. Not yet.

Gas-fired power plants like the one in Leipzig are still being built to replace coal-fired power plants with domestic lignite. Industry is already further ahead. Volkswagen has postponed the conversion of two of its own coal-fired power plants into gas-fired power plants indefinitely. This statement by CEO Diess was not widely reported in Germany, but it was abroad.
The U.S. government is also repositioning itself. John Kerry, the U.S. government’s climate envoy, for whom the 1.5-degree target was previously the sole political guideline, is now putting things into perspective and, in view of skyrocketing energy prices, saying that 1.8 degrees should be quite sufficient as a target. China, India and Southeast Asia, whose growth path is threatened by the price explosion, are practicing a renaissance of coal production.
That’s where we should listen when Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg says: “It’s unrealistic to bring global emissions to zero by 2050… a 2.5 degree world is still better than a 3.5 degree world.”
Let us reassure Mr. Marotzke: a 2.5 degree world will not be achieved in this century because natural variations in climate dampen anthropogenic warming. Had this been adequately accounted for in climate models, we would all have been spared much public panic and flawed policy decisions.
With best wishes
Fritz Vahrenholt
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt is a member of the GWPF's Board of Trustees.

Wednesday, 4 May 2022


 I stumbled across this: The Regenerators - Lessons age 7 to 11 - BBC Bitesize while browsing the BBC website. It looks like one-sided brain-washing to me. On the bright side I can't see the majority of seven to eleven year old's finding this material all that interesting.

As for the video on 'Talking about climate change' with Adam - all I can say is, he would not convince anyone who could think for themselves! 

Five to seven year old's are supposed to understand this: Why is our climate changing? - KS1 - BBC Bitesize - The Regenerators - BBC Bitesize It seems to me that they have completely lost the plot with this simplified nonsense. Notice they state that the 'planet' has warmed by 1 degree C, whereas it is only the atmosphere near the surface. Of course no 5 to 7 year old would question this. 

Tuesday, 3 May 2022



Delaying tactics by wind industry will cost consumers hundreds of £millions

Press Release

Boris Johnson's promise to reduce consumer electricity prices “in tatters”




London, 3 May - According to a new analysis, consumers could be hundreds of million pounds worse off due to wind companies' delaying tactics in delivering electricity at fixed prices.
Ministers have promised that a new generation of “low-cost” renewable generators will get bills down, and there are several gigawatts of offshore windfarms, either under construction, or newly completed, in the North Sea. These have all agreed to sell power to the grid at low fixed prices under the government’s “Contracts for Difference” (CfD) scheme.
But since the start of the energy price crisis, newly completed windfarms are delaying taking up their CfDs, most probably because they can earn much higher prices in the open market. Moray East, a huge windfarm off the Scottish coast, recently reached full operational capacity, but then announced that it was delaying taking up its CfD until 2023. As a result, consumers will potentially have to pay this one windfarm an extra half a billion pounds in its first 12 months of operations.
In fact, since energy prices soared last autumn, no new renewables capacity has been added to the CfD scheme, and every renewables generator that was supposed to take up a contract in 2022 has now delayed until next year. There is nothing to stop them putting the date back further after that.
There is no suggestion that anyone is doing anything illegal. CfD contracts allow a great deal of flexibility on start dates, with delays of up to three years possible. The contracts are extraordinarily generous to developers, with all of the risk taken by consumers and none by the windfarms themselves.
“The Government has a chicken and egg problem”, says Net Zero Watch’s Andrew Montford.
“They say that low-bidding CfD windfarms will lower consumer prices, but no windfarm will take up its CfD with market prices so high. The Government’s energy strategy is in tatters”.

Craig Mackinlay MP, the chair of the parliamentary Net Zero Scrutiny Group, said:

"The false promise of cheap renewable energy is in tatters with ineptly agreed heads they win, tails we lose contracts littering UK energy strategy.
"If energy prices are low, CfDs mean consumers pay out to artificially increase energy prices; when energy prices are high these companies hold back to permanently fix high prices for themselves.
"It’s a shameful racket that households are paying for all in the name of the Net Zero con-trick."

Steve Baker MP said: 
"Pleading for fair play is an admission of massive regulatory failure. We urgently need sensible energy policy based on free market prices, profit and loss, not the present failing tangle of state intervention. Public welfare depends upon it."


Andrew Montford