David Vance SubstackRead More
There was a pretty momentous decision made by the UK Supreme Court yesterday in respect of the UK’s future ability to heat and power itself. Naturally all the eco-zealots were delighted at this decision;
The Supreme Court has ruled a local council should have considered the full climate impact of burning oil from new wells – a landmark decision which could put future UK oil and gas projects in question. Under planning law the assumption has always been that only the impacts from constructing the wells and not the use of the final oil products should be considered. The case brought against Surrey County Council by Sarah Finch, on behalf of campaigners could threaten new UK fossil fuels projects.
We need to understand that UNLESS we maximise all “fossil fuel projects” we will create an energy vacuum that will literally put our lights out.
And THAT of course is the aim.
The Supreme Court did not rule that Surrey County Council should reject the proposal for new oil wells but that it should have considered the downstream emissions. But what are these “downstream emissions” and who are the Supreme Court to pontificate on them? I think this will create a complex legal spiders web that can then we deployed to tangle up any such future developments.
It’s worth highlighting that despite all the flannel about “clean green energy” at time of writing Solar, Wind and Hydro contribute around 18% of our needs and that varies so much from day to day. Solar sits at around 4%, Wind at 13% and Hydro around 1%. So we MUST have “fossil fuels” if we are to sustain our economy, heat our homes and create the energy GB needs. At time of writing, “Fossil Fuels” contribute 43% of the load to the Grid. It is reliable and constant. When the eco-loons talk about getting to “Net Zero” what they actually mean is to “de-carbonise” the Grid by 2035. This is dark ages thinking in EVERY sense of the word.
Views: 7
