Contributed by Peter Gill © 2019. In the public interest on energy issues.
Dec. 21, 2018
Louise Kingham, CEO of the Energy Institute
There are three fundamental reasons why it is at best unwise to base energy policy on the notion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW, now called climate change). These are:
1. Each of the six main hypotheses that make up the overall AGW hypotheses are wrongly based, faulted or exaggerated
2. In spite of all IPCC’s efforts there is no evidence that the world as a whole and the main emitters of so-called greenhouse gases will go along with the UK’s virtue signalling via our Climate Change Act.
3. There are a number of unforeseen consequences of energy and climate policy actions of which I shall only mention half a dozen of many:
a. Increasing fuel poverty (more than 50,000 excess deaths in England and Wales last winter). It is noteworthy that the Fuel Poverty Act matured in 2016 but with no trace of media reporting or any reaction from interested parties like EI. A lot of this is a consequence of increased energy costs which despite the BBC propaganda has little or nothing to do with excess profiteering by the generation industry.
b. Wrong thinking on biomass and particularly the use of wood pellets to replace coal and the use of what would have otherwise been foodstuff to generate alcohol to partly substitute for gasoline for transport fuels.
c. The earlier encouragement of a switch to diesel following Gordon Brown being advised by David King that diesels do more miles per CO2 emissions than petrol driven cars.
d. Concentration on insulation to reduce the carbon footprint of buildings without due consideration of health and safety problems.
e. The many obvious consequences of the notions that we can go for all electric cars and phase out natural gas supplies to homes by 2050.
f. The real threat of brown outs and blackouts in the near future until we abandon damaging and self-inflicted harmful energy policies.
When I first became involved in what is now the Energy Institute it was called the Institute of Fuel. I ghost wrote a number of papers for Derek Ezra who later became chairman of NCB. By the end of the 1960s we had economically attractive solutions to all coal’s downsides and I am talking about SOX, NOX and particulates not of course CO2 which is of no consequence in a warming world (for whatever reason) unless of course God stops Henry’s Law applying. Now I see the hierarchy of institutions like and including the EI are in bed with politicians who have no knowledge of science and go along with a number of agendas without question or challenge. No doubt this will be very good for those wishing gongs (English graduate Bryony Worthington who drafted the Climate Change Act quickly became a Baroness).
The present situation is worse for someone like myself with a degree in physics, a committed environmentalist since being a teenager, someone who has studied meteorology since learning to fly in the early 1960s and who has been studying climate mechanisms for circa twenty years. My voice can no longer be heard above the one-track message put out by almost all of the media and the institutions which share the BBC’s stance that a podium should not be given to anyone who has a different message than one that supports the AGW agendas.
As Chair of the Institute of Physics Energy Group and later as Chair of the London and Home Counties Branch of the Energy Institute I always tried to get a number of speakers to cover the various facets of controversial topics. This was because my education ensured an attitude that progress is dependent on scepticism and challenge not everyone saying yes.
The direction of EI particularly as represented in Energy World is very clear, and in my view very wrong. In consequence it is no time for me to resign my fellowship and leave EI before it becomes the Renewable Energy Institute that it so desires. I have therefore cancelled the Direct Debit that is usually called upon to pay for my membership each year.
Finally, I will offer some predictions:
· The general public will eventually become aware that their electricity and other energy related costs are not increasing because of excess profiteering by the energy and other companies but instead as a direct or indirect result of faulted energy policies
· Brownouts and blackouts will become inevitable in the not too distant future unless energy policies are changed quite radically
Peter Gill – Short bio: Ex research physicist with additional qualifications in engineering, metallurgy and mathematics. Lifelong environmentalist. Was a member of the World Wildlife Fund (circa 30 years) and Greenpeace (circa 5 years) but no longer for some time. Ex Editorial Board Member of the journal Energy & Environment. Held a number of Chairmanships in Institute of Physics (IOP) and Energy Institute (EI) including the IOP Energy Group. Have had an interest in meteorology since joining the University RAF Air Squadron in the early 1960s. Interest in climate change mechanisms since around 1980/90. Has worked as an engineering and management consultant in over 40 countries worldwide.
Some useful reference material. Reading list of “Books that tell a different story” :