Do humans contribute to climate change substantially?

[Diderot]

Bedazzled said:

turbobloke said:

Bedazzled said:

turbobloke said:

15% of electricity bills is quite reasonable as an estimate of artificial green cost increases for no valid purpose.

You can pluck numbers out of thin air if you wish...

Or I can take them via DECC which is quite different.

DECC Estimated impacts of energy and climate change policies on energy prices and bills here - "Based on Ofgem’s analysis, energy and climate change policies are estimated to represent 7% of the total household energy bill in 2009. DECC’s estimates of the breakdown of an average domestic gas and electricity bill in 2010, as noted in Chart 1, are broadly similar to Ofgem’s".



So that's (12+4)/2 = 8% green taxes, compared with 5-7% quoted by Ofgem and customer bills.

Bedazzled, you lot simply can't help yourselves can you? Whether its a hockey stick, a pie or a rainbowed coloured kettle, you always seem to overlook the obvious ... an averaging of estimated figures that are 2 years out of date.

[XCP]

I wish I'd never asked now. It seems there is very little consensus on how much MMGW is costing me.

[rovermorris999]

Let's not forget the other taxes that have been increased and painted green like VED and Air Passenger Duty.

Edited by rovermorris999 on Friday 28th December 12:07

[Gene Vincent]

XCP said:

I wish I'd never asked now. It seems there is very little consensus on how much MMGW is costing me.

Why?

It's a valid question, but the answered is obscured and masked out of easy view.

Perhaps the best way to look at it is on your pay slip you have tax deducted at 20 or so percent and you can quite accurately say that you pay only 20 or so percent tax, but both you and I know that NI is a subtle form of taxation as is VAT etc etc, so in the final account you actually pay 40 or so percent overall.

As a rule of thumb, the promoted government take that enters the public psyche will almost invariably be just about half the true take.

[Silver Smudger]

Bedazzled said:

When I looked at the figures I expected to see increasing wholesale energy costs driving prices but it isn't, the energy companies are becoming much less efficient and profit hungry; but people want to assume it's all down to green taxes.

Where does the spend on 'renewable' generation (ie building windmills etc) fit in to the cost? Some government spend from tax? Overheads to the energy suppliers before profit?

[turbobloke]

Bedazzled said:

Diderot said:

Bedazzled, you lot simply can't help yourselves can you? Whether its a hockey stick, a pie or a rainbowed coloured kettle, you always seem to overlook the obvious ... an averaging of estimated figures that are 2 years out of date.

They are not estimates, they are actuals. It's probably more correct to say 4% for gas and 8-12% for elecricity, but both reports quote similar annual bills for gas and electricity so the overall contribution is the average; or should I instead sum them to a bill which adds up to 200%, as per the skeptic shenanigans? Or perhaps just bandy about the higher figure for electricity to give the impression that's how much we pay overall.

They are estimates. Are you not aware of what officialdumb does to get the artificially low impact figures you cite for the cost of green idiocy that's killing people who can't afford to heat their homes?

DECC say that windymills and other pointless econonsense together add 18% to gas prices and 33% to electricity prices respectively for domestic consumers. That's way above the comedy figures you quote and double the amount I suggested.

What DECC and other climate/eco/green spin merchants then do is to use a computer model to assess the impact on bills yes indeed using a computer model. Pause for laughter.



They model the predicted impact of government green initiatives on reducing consumption, so the high price hikes get hidden behind nonsensical figures estimated for the impact on bills using, yes, models. Pause again for hilarity.



For example, the green deal. Modelling for that presumbly has the ZERO take up by November this year carefully programmed in. Another chortle break.



Green Deal In Tatters As Nobody Registers

Being well informed you surely knew all along about the mendacity and modelling behind the comedy numbers, but hang on a mo, if so then there was full brassneck factor at work in the catalogue of spin. Nice. Sing along everyone...

Then I saw the bills, now I'm a believer

[don4l]

XCP said:

I wish I'd never asked now. It seems there is very little consensus on how much MMGW is costing me.

After the recent price rises, a couple of the energy companies were interviewed on Radio 4. Their explanations for the rises were consistent.

3% due to basic costs (gas, oil, wages etc)
3% subsidies for renewables (wind farms)
3% for infrastructure investment.


What isn't immediately obvious is that the "infrastructure investment" is the cost of the new pylons from the existing grid to the new windfarms.

So, the recent rises would have only been 3% without all the AGW nonsense.


Next year, there will be more increases like this.

There are also going to be huge costs to all of us in terms of damage to industry and jobs. The UK's aluminium industry is now dead, and 40,000 jobs have been lost. As a Civitas report concluded last April:-
"The pressure on the industry is set to rise drastically in the next few years, mainly as a result of increased climate change regulation and a likely rapid rise in energy prices."

Linky


Most manufacturing industries are energy intensive, so there is a lot more of this to come.

Don
--

[chris watton]

Bedazzled said:

I don't think that's correct, see here - Ofgem approves £24B infrastructure upgrade over 8 years, adding £12 per year (1%) to the average domestic bill.

The Daily Fail attributed it all to windfarm pylons, but Ofgem says "The vast bulk of the money - around £15.5 bn - will go towards a combination of upgrading and renewing the high voltage electricity network across England and Wales, as well as the high pressure gas network throughout the UK. The rest of the money will go towards ensuring the gas networks remain safe, as well as seeing 80,000 homes connected to a gas network for the first time".

According to this the cost of the land transmission infrastructure for windfarms is £8.8B over 8 years (or a lot more to put it underground). So yes, there are some hidden costs but it's nothing like a 3% green infrastructure hike.

To me, the % is neither here nor there. The hard fact of the matter that this whole scheme was set up to reduce carbon output, based on what ‘scientists’ told them regarding climate change and global warming. But in fact it hasn’t warmed for years. The whole thing seems to be based on a lie, which Mother Nature is more than happy to expose, it seems.

There is still, after all of these years, no visible human sign that we are the cause, and yet we continue to fk up our future energy needs. As in the US, fracking has been bringing down the cost of fuel. I know, in fact I could bet my life that if and when the UK starts fracking, it will still cost the same as we have now, perhaps more, as I am stone cold sure the government will load all kinds of high taxes on it in the pitiful guise of ‘environmental taxes’
One Penny extra on out bills to subsidise wind farms, rich landlords and solar panels/companies is One Penny too much (unless you’re involved of course, in which case you’ll think it’s great)

It must be great to be you, you must earn more than enough for this not to bother you. Will this always be the case, though? You think it’s ‘Environmentalism’, when at best, it’s the worst form of capitalism – maximising profit on the promise of ‘combatting climate change’ – yet the ones doing the preaching are the true ‘nasty capitalists’, as they’re taking us all for a ride to maximise their own bank accounts and lifestyles. The word ‘sucker’ springs to mind.

I think 'Environmentalism' has been hijacked by some very nasty ultra right wing nutjobs.

[LostBMW]

Bedazzled said:

So that's (12+4)/2 = 8% green taxes, compared with 5-7% quoted by Ofgem and customer bills.

Since you are spinning numbers, where the hell do you get that calculation from?

[Diderot]

Bedazzled said:

Diderot said:

Bedazzled, you lot simply can't help yourselves can you? Whether its a hockey stick, a pie or a rainbowed coloured kettle, you always seem to overlook the obvious ... an averaging of estimated figures that are 2 years out of date.

They are not estimates, they are actuals. It's probably more correct to say 4% for gas and 8-12% for elecricity, but both reports quote similar annual bills for gas and electricity so the overall contribution is the average; or should I instead sum them to a bill which adds up to 200%, as per the skeptic shenanigans? Or perhaps just bandy about the higher figure for electricity to give the impression that's how much we pay overall.

Jesus wept man, can you not read? The title of the graph(ics) you posted and commented upon is: Chart 1: Estimated breakdown of an average annual domestic gas and electricity in 2010

Like I said, it's an estimate of an average that is 2 years out of date.

[Apache]

EDF: We'll raise bills 11% - but only 2% is due to energy costs!

Thank carbon emissions targets for the rest

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/26/edf_energy...

[Apache]

The 'big six' energy companies in the United Kingdom plan a new wind farm from scratch, apply for planning consent, build new wind farms without actually spending a single penny of their own money. The money for this extravagance comes from the 11% charge for 'government obligations' on every electricity bill throughout the UK. This amounts to Billions of pounds each year and the incumbent politicians say nothing. In fact, every politician in the UK are complicit in the biggest consumer crime in the UK ever.

http://nomoreturbines.webs.com/

[turbobloke]

All relevant data is a waste of time as faith is impervious to evidence.

The enormous and pointless cost of green lunacy is already laid out before everybody's eyes.

True Believers can see an invisible signal but not the enormous cost of political buy-in to junkscience and gigo, which is no more or less than expected.

[jurbie]

Bedazzled said:

or should I instead sum them to a bill which adds up to 200%, as per the skeptic shenanigans?

Actually it's grade E in GCSE maths shenanigans but I don't mind if you wish to mock my educational shortcomings. Regardless of my numeracy failings the fact remains that whatever the percentage that is being stolen from us, even if the worst nightmares of the warmists come true, loading up energy bills isn't going to to do a thing to save us from whatever they claim may happen. The only certainty is landowners, the renewbles industry, carbon traders and anyone else who fancied jumping aboard this particular subsidy gravy train will be getting rich off the back of everyone else. If you're good with that then I'm very happy for you but personally I'd prefer lower energy bills or at the very least an energy industry that is fit for purpose and won't leave us all sitting in the dark waiting for the wind to blow.

[turbobloke]

jurbie said:

Bedazzled said:

or should I instead sum them to a bill which adds up to 200%, as per the skeptic shenanigans?

Actually it's grade E in GCSE maths shenanigans but I don't mind if you wish to mock my educational shortcomings. Regardless of my numeracy failings the fact remains that whatever the percentage that is being stolen from us, even if the worst nightmares of the warmists come true, loading up energy bills isn't going to to do a thing to save us from whatever they claim may happen. The only certainty is landowners, the renewbles industry, carbon traders and anyone else who fancied jumping aboard this particular subsidy gravy train will be getting rich off the back of everyone else. If you're good with that then I'm very happy for you but personally I'd prefer lower energy bills or at the very least an energy industry that is fit for purpose and won't leave us all sitting in the dark waiting for the wind to blow.

Well said.

General comment - triumphalism and sarcasm from faithful 'useful idiots' is always misplaced and misguided.

[Gene Vincent]

Bedazzled said:

LostBMW said:

Bedazzled said:

So that's (12+4)/2 = 8% green taxes, compared with 5-7% quoted by Ofgem and customer bills.

Since you are spinning numbers, where the hell do you get that calculation from?

12% green tax on electricity
4% green tax on gas

£100 electricity bill => £12 green tax
£100 gas bill => £4 green tax
total bill = £200
total green tax = £16
£16/£200 = 8% green tax

My friend, how is electricity produced?

Gas, coal and nuclear fuel, that is how most is made and there are separate taxes within each structure that add 'invisibly' to the visible tax.

This is just a rather clumsy 'sleight of hand'.

[Gene Vincent]

Bedazzled said:

Gene Vincent said:

This is just a rather clumsy 'sleight of hand'.

How can excluding unknown invisible taxes be a sleight of hand? I'm just reminding folk how to add up.

jurbie said:

Actually it's grade E in GCSE maths shenanigans but I don't mind if you wish to mock my educational shortcomings. Regardless of my numeracy failings the fact remains that whatever the percentage that is being stolen from us, even if the worst nightmares of the warmists come true, loading up energy bills isn't going to to do a thing to save us from whatever they claim may happen. The only certainty is landowners, the renewbles industry, carbon traders and anyone else who fancied jumping aboard this particular subsidy gravy train will be getting rich off the back of everyone else. If you're good with that then I'm very happy for you but personally I'd prefer lower energy bills or at the very least an energy industry that is fit for purpose and won't leave us all sitting in the dark waiting for the wind to blow.

Water off a duck's back mate, in fact I think we should be investing in nuclear, not windmills. Climate scientists may have been premature initiating political action before the data is properly understood, but equally you're being suckered in by skeptics with crank science and spun numbers. The energy companies would love you to think it's all green taxes too, as their profits soar.

I'm all in favour of being hawkish about the science, but why is the political discussion not treated with the same rigour?

Not you old boy, the headline figures, they are a sleight of hand tactic.

[Globs]

Bedazzled said:

you're being suckered in by skeptics with crank science and spun numbers.

And yet you've never managed to argue against this 'crank' science have you?
As for spun numbers, well, we know what side has been busy making the past colder again and again!

[LostBMW]

Bedazzled said:

LostBMW said:

Bedazzled said:

So that's (12+4)/2 = 8% green taxes, compared with 5-7% quoted by Ofgem and customer bills.

Since you are spinning numbers, where the hell do you get that calculation from?

12% green tax on electricity
4% green tax on gas

£100 electricity bill => £12 green tax
£100 gas bill => £4 green tax
total bill = £200
total green tax = £16
£16/£200 = 8% green tax

Thought so - so we all use exactly the same amount of gas as electricity (money wise it seems, not even units in your scenario) do we? Of course we do...

You don't do interpolation for CRU by any chance?

[rovermorris999]

Argue all you like chaps. £1 on 'green' taxes is £1 too many if it goes on wind or solar. I'm happy to subsidise nuclear as at least it will produce the installed capacity 24/7.