“There are 3 Kinds of Lies: Lies, Damned lies, and Statistics.” (Mark Twain)

Categories of Lies

The dictionary definition of a lie is, ‘to say or write something that is not?true?in?order?to?deceive?someone.’

Mark Twain in his usual imitable way neatly phrased the categories of lies. It is as true today, as it was when he first said it.

The problem now is that searching for the absolute truth is difficult when there are powerful magnified voices, sometimes aided by a mass media and digital communications, for the absolute truth to surface and see the light of day.

What about those white lies. Everybody lies, or should I say be economical with the truth. Sometimes absolute truths can be very uncomfortable, cruel and hurtful; therefore we use the power of our language, for laudable reasons, to minimise bad feelings with our brothers and sisters.

The motive is not to deceive, the motive is charitable and made in good faith. There is no real harm done, we accept this as an acceptable social norm in our society.??

The Delusional Lie

Mark Twain spoke in terms of three dimensions, I am about to add a fourth. The delusional lie.

I define a delusional lie as, ‘to say or write something that is not?true?in?order?to promote a misrepresentation of the absolute truth taken in a broader context, based on unproven assertions, posing real harm or existential threats to people.’

The motivation for delusional lies may not necessarily be deliberate. Often it arises from gross ignorance, poor cognitive abilities, nurtured by a convenient outcome.

The most dangerous types are those perpetrated by political activists who know their mantra is only partially true. The convenient outcome being self-aggrandisement and personal reward that overrides all other considerations.

When they appear on your radar scan you can readily recognise the characteristics, egoism, self-interest, virtue signalling, a mantra mentality and worst of all gaslighting of other opinions. When you witness these factors be very cautious and careful, double check your due diligence before taking any action.

What is the greatest delusional lie or deceit that springs into your mind?

The pages of history are littered with them and in my long exotic business career I have experienced many, for the sake of my own sanity and mental well-being fortunately as a victim.

There is a global delusional lie today, right under everyone’s noses. It is one of such magnitude there is a real risk it becomes an existential threat to humanity.

Climate Change and Zero-Carbon

It is a strategic aim by many nations to achieve zero-carbon in order to control climate change.?

This is the greatest delusional lie in the history of mankind, since the flat-earthers brigade.

‘The United Nations decreed, and nations passed in Paris into international law, that every nation will be zero-carbon free by 2050.’

Circulating amongst the corridor of powers in the western democratic capitals is a belief that controlling the increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will reduce temperature changes to no greater than 2,0°C by 2050 based on pre-Industrial times. This is said to avoid a global cataclysmic disaster.

The extremists call for the end of fossil fuels by 2030 on which the world depends for 84% of its total energy, but then there has always been the nut jobs around to confuse matters.

One of the other unsubstantiated mantras decrees cars must be electrified by 2035, despite diesel cars being, in reality, greener. Where is the logic and rationale for that?

Why must we be beholden to the Chinese who control 90% of the world’s source of rare earth minerals required for the battery technology??

Let the technology advance, the power point infrastructure put in place and the market will decide whether it is worth a candle, sorry a solar panel.

The gross magnitude of the front-end investment and unaffordable operating costs to individuals and business are pushed aside in the demonic pursuit of the aim. There is no to be found validation of the practicality of the costs and benefits for an execution plan implemented in a tight timeframe.

Straightaway you can recognise the signs of an impending delusional lie. A preliminary cursory crosscheck tells us we need to be very careful and to look much deeper before committing 100’s of trillions of dollars.

The Ambiguities

There is no substantive global acceptance of the challenge; the atmosphere has no passport control. The 195 countries that have ratified the 2015 Paris Agreement give the right value signalling, but the main polluters abstained by gross inaction, notably countries of China, India, Russia and the nations of the continents of Africa and South America, who are all working counter to the global directional aim.

It is curious why a temperature increase target was taken when the obvious strategic one to choose is the profound question of what do we do when the fossil fuels run out?

Oil and Gas reserves are forecast to run out in about 50 years and coal within 125 years. It is how do we execute the transition away from these fossil energy sources that is so vital.

If you ask very basic questions of the climate change activists you get a blank response, such as what is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, what strategies are we adopting to meet the aims of a National Energy Policy and what considerations have been given to the other factors governing climate change.

Ask leaders on national energy policy what does the Stephan Boltzmann heat exchange formula predict as CO2concentrations rise and they wouldn’t have a clue what you are talking about.

Most troubling is the science we do know doesn’t match the current debate.

Climate science is fiendishly complicated incorporating many scientific and academic disciplines. There are massive gaps in our knowledge and understanding. International experts are struggling to untangle natural variability from human influence. The scientific debate is out of kilter with the public’s understanding.

For lay people to comprehend the challenges requires an undue reliance on our leaders. The communication is complicated by our leader’s lack of a scientific background and our limitations as Donald Rumsfeld expressed,

“There are known knowns, things we know that we know; and there are known unknowns, things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns, things we do not know we don't know.”

One must also bear in mind that there is a natural law called in science Entropy as applied in the second law of thermodynamics, that is for scientist to explain, not me. It states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time.?This concept helps explain why certain processes are irreversible and why systems naturally evolve towards a state of maximum entropy or disorder.

Having said this, there is no denying there is global warming and CO2 is a major contributory factor of which mankind’s activities are playing an important role.

The UN’s IPCC sixth updated assessment (AR) published in 2023 revised its projections downwards stating that the temperature increase trend lies between 2,5°C and 4,0°C.

Undoubtedly, there are continuous enormous pressures building that drive the increase in the wrong direction.

Of the global population of 8,0bn, 6,5bn are energy poor. The developing nations are not going to sacrifice access to cheap and abundant fossil fuels they need to drive their economies forwards and catch up with the rest of us. For example, India has around 70 cars per thousand people whereas the USA has over 900 per thousand. That implies a lot of electric cars that the average Indian consumer cannot afford.

The pace of energy consumption is accelerating. Electrical power generation in the UK alone has risen since 1950 from around 50,000 Tw/hr to over 120,000 Tw/hr.

So far only the negative effects have been considered.

If CO2 concentration went the other way to around 150 ppm then all life on earth would be extinguished, that is a real existential threat. Perhaps we are building a safety margin just in case?

CO2 gas is not poisonous, on the contrary it is an essential feedstock for all life. The earth has gained by a 15% increase in vegetation, i.e. to allow more food crops. Water retention has improved also as a result.

Fast developing economies and growing population rising from 8bn to a peak of 11bn means is an important factor to consider. Access to cheap, abundant, accessible energy is not just vital, but imperative for the well-being of humanity.

Global warming reduces smoke deaths running at the rate of 2m a year, the more people are less exposed to campfires the better.

Most concerning of all there is no definitive energy policy allowing the evaluation of the capital transition costs and what each personal and business customer can expect in terms of increased energy costs over say future 5-year periods.

Lots of briefs and policy statements but nothing the lay person can comprehend.

I have heard the new UK Energy Minister talks of ￡300 per annum reduction in consumer household energy bills through renewables but I suspect this is based on optimistic renewable generation costs and ignores costs of base load back up and the missing additional transmission costs.

The Climate Science Fundamentals

It is all very confusing but what do the scientists say?

?

The fundamental aspect the scientist are grappling with is the warming effect of the sun and the finely tuned heat exchange mechanisms on earth.?

?

The emitter of all our energy, the sun a wonder of nuclear fusion, is not a constant source of our energy input. There is much we do not know how the nuclear physics and chemistry works in the sun, never mind how it might evolve.

?

We have measured the solar cycles. The solar cycle is an?approximately 11-year?cycle experienced. During the solar cycle, the Sun's stormy behaviour builds to a maximum, and its magnetic field reverses. Then, the Sun settles back down to a minimum before another cycle begins, 22 years in all.

?

We can observe and measure it but still don’t know why this happens, nor why there are superhighways of plasma called sparkles transcending the surface at supersonic speeds. A Japanese satellite probe is seeking to get as near to the sun’s surface as possible for us to understand better its behaviour.

?

Not all the sun’s energy is absorbed by the earth, 30% is reflected into space and 70% absorbed.

?

CO2, despite the minute quantities (0,04%) in the total atmospheric mix does act as a powerful insulator, but as the concentrations increase more energy is radiated out into space to a point, once the concentrations become twice the pre-industrial level the insulation effect starts to peter out.

?

The effect has been quantified and is codified in a physical law called the?? Stephan-Boltzmann formula. The Stefan-Boltzmann formula is based on irrefutable physical science.

?

The global temperature increase in the first century of the Industrial Revolution since 1850 to 1950 was 1.35°C, from 13,60°C to 14,95°C. The level of CO2 concentrations during that period only moved marginally from 280ppm to 300ppm.

It is forecast that a nearly doubling of CO2 to 550ppm will, however, increase global temperatures to 15.10°C by 2050, i.e. 1,5°C. It is difficult to explain why the correlation in the modelling assumes a greater acceleration in temperature increases since 1950.? There may be other factors, but we can have recourse to a proven law of physics.

According to the Stefan Boltzmann’s heat radiation formula, a doubling of CO2 concentrations would only give rise to 0,7°C because of heat escaping into space, i.e. there is a negative kickback. This would suggest a temperature rise from CO2 to 14,3°C from 1850, 50% lower than modelled projections!

We do not have to rest our analysis here, as discussed later observational measurements over a much longer period gives us an additional perspective on the effect of CO2 concentrations on global temperature with some very surprising results as reported later.

All reviews of the scientific papers demonstrate that we do not have sufficient knowledge and understanding of climate change. The best we can do is use rigorously what we have and recognise the limitations of sets of assumptions and various models.

Whilst the focus will be on CO2 for this article it is important to recognise there are other identifiable variables that interact to make our climate what it is.

Other Factors

The other factors that bear on climate change are the cycles and behaviour of the sun, the earth’s orbital pattern and rotation, formation or decrease in polar ice caps, oceans and their currents, cloud formation, volcanoes, intensive farming, population growth, industrial processes and transport systems etc., etc.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0,04% (417ppms). The minute level of concentration can be misleading as its insulation properties are greater than the concentrations would suggest. But it should also be noted that a doubling would have the effect of petering out the insulation properties to virtually no change. Methane gas has also a powerful effect beyond what its concentrations might suggest.

The History of CO2 on Earth

The present level of atmospheric CO2?concentration is almost certainly unprecedented in the past million years, during which time modern humans evolved and societies developed.

?

The atmospheric CO2?concentration was however higher in Earth’s more distant past (many millions of years ago), at which time paleoclimatic and geological data indicate that temperatures and sea levels were also higher than they are today.

?

Observational Data from ice cores have been used to reconstruct Antarctic temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 800,000 years. Temperature is based on measurements of the isotopic content of water in the Dome C ice core. CO2 is measured in air trapped in ice and is a composite of the Dome C and Vostok ice core.

?

The current CO2 concentration (blue dots) is from atmospheric measurements. The cyclical pattern of temperature variations constitutes the ice age/ interglacial cycles. During these cycles, changes in CO2 concentrations (in blue) track closely with changes in temperature (in orange).

?

As the record shows, the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is unprecedented within the past 800,000 years. Atmospheric CO2 concentration surpassed 400 ppm in 2016, and the average concentration in 2019 was more than 411 ppm.

?

Measurements of air in ice cores show that for the past 800,000 years up until the 20th century, the atmospheric CO2?concentration stayed within the range 170 to 300 parts per million (ppm), making the recent rapid rise to more than 400 ppm over 200 years particularly remarkable.

?

During the glacial cycles of the past 800,000 years both CO2?and methane have acted as important amplifiers of the climate changes triggered by variations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun.

?

As Earth warmed from the last ice age, temperature and CO2?started to rise at approximately the same time and continued to rise in tandem from about 18,000 to 11,000 years ago. Changes in ocean temperature, circulation, chemistry, and biology caused CO2?to be released to the atmosphere, which combined with other feedback to push Earth into an even warmer state.

?

For earlier geological times, CO2?concentrations and temperatures have been inferred from less direct methods. Those suggest that the concentration of CO2?last approached 400 ppm about 3 to 5 million years ago, a period when global average surface temperature is estimated to have been about 2 to 3.5°C higher than in the pre-industrial period.

At 50 million years ago, CO2?may have reached 1000 ppm, and global average temperature was probably about 10°C warmer than today. Under those conditions, Earth had little ice, and sea level was at least 60 metres higher than current levels.

The problem we have is that if you use definitive science the cause of CO2 concentrations on temperature do not give these levels of changes, it must be other factors.

If there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, their insulation effect of preventing heat escaping from earth was removed, the temperature would fall, within about a degree or so, by about 33°C. That is a definitive scientific calculation we can do.

?

We can physically measure the insulation effect of concentrations of CO2 in terms of the parts per million (ppm) and the temperature variation.

?

If you draw a graph of concentrations and temperature effect, as you would expect, the greater the concentration the greater the insulation effect but when you reached beyond a certain level, the effect will reduce and virtually peter out. Taking the analogy of blacking out glass panes to stop the sun rays getting through, any additional coats of paint would have a lesser effect.

?

Graphs show that between zero and 400 ppm, where we are now, there is a strong effect, but it begins to tail off until you get to 1,000 ppm when it virtually ceases and only increases very marginally. It should be noted that below 150 ppm plant life would not exist as CO2 is a vital feedstock for plant growth.

?

50 million years ago the concentrations were at 1,000 ppm and beyond that even higher to over 2,000ppm to the dawn of the earth. Incidentally ice ages preceded changes in CO2!

?

Why are We so Definitive in our Judgments?

?

Climate change science is a fiendishly complex area, involving a high level of multi-science disciplines that no one body has full command and understanding.

?

We can't even explain why there is a twenty-two-year solar cycle, it just happens, one of those known unknowns Donald Rumsfeld referred to.

?

The behaviour of heat exchange mechanics are barely comprehended.

?

Politicians or other commentators, like Grant Shapps, who assert the destruction of the planet through greenhouse gases, are promulgating the greatest delusion of mankind since it was thought the world was flat. The problem here though is, if we act on it, we will destroy ourselves by our own ignorant actions.

?

Progressive Plans Today

?

After a century of debate and intensive research, international conferences, what plan has the UK have in place to make the transition away from fossil fuels, certainly before they run out.

?

What are the power generation systems to be used, how is to be distributed, what is the investment, what is the cost to businesses and individuals and its phasing, what measures can we take to be more efficient in energy usage, how can we extend the availability of fossil fuels, what technologies do we need, and so and so on.

?

The question for all of us is, have we the right strategies in place and are we actually taking the actions needed right now?

?

I haven’t heard reported in a lucid logical way any answers to these basic questions or government policy and briefing papers that would put my mind at rest.

?

Conclusion – The Way Forward

?

Bin the carbon zero philosophy.

?

Instead concentrate on a 50-Year Viable Transition Plan that everyone can buy into and let the scientists lead us down the right path.

?

We might then have a real chance make practical and affordable progress and leave the delusionists to think of another route for their whacky ideas.

?

We can use all the US$ 100tr’s of dosh directed towards a better constructive approach that could deliver abundant, cheap and sustainable energy for ever.

?

Addendum

?

To aid understanding I have included a potted history of the climate debate and some random factors that may add to a better understanding of many of the dynamics at play.

?

Looking Back and a Personal Perspective

?

It is instructive when developing strategies to look back and take a personal perspective as to why we arrived at the position we have so we can learn important lessons.

?

Germination of the Climate Change Debate.

When did the debate on climate change start?

Most people would think it is a relatively new phenomenon. The debate has been going on for over a century.

In?1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth's atmosphere to global warming.

The debate came to the foreground when various UN bodies started taking an active role. In 2013 a study was undertaken by the UN of 4,000 peer-reviewed papers published since 1990 and concluded that 97% of the scientists agree explicitly or implicitly that global warming is human caused. This was to be followed by the 2015 Paris Agreement that made it a legal requirement that global warming be limited to 1,5°C increase since pre-industrial times.

The UN Secretary General opined in 2018 the following:

None of the world’s challenges loom as large as climate change, the United Nations chief told a major climate action summit on Tuesday, reiterating his belief that global warming poses an “existential threat” to humanity.

In 2023 he reiterated the theme:

“We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator.” Greenhouse gas emissions keep growing. Global temperatures keep rising. And our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible.

He later added in 2024:

Coal, oil and gas corporations are the “godfathers of climate chaos” who had distorted the truth and deceived the public for decades. Just as tobacco advertising was banned because of the threat to health, the same should now apply to fossil fuels.

The seeds of a Delusional Lie appear to have been sown.

The argument has moved from climate change being caused through human activity to alighting on the horse of CO2 concentrations to apoplectic results. The gas and oil industries which have powered the industrial revolution and raised for the first time the well-being of mankind in recorded history are demonised.

My interest in the UK’s Energy Policy started when I was part of a delegation to see the Minister of Energy in 1985 to ascertain the policy over the coalfields. There wasn’t one, nor a national energy policy either. When later renewable energy initiatives were gaining ground, I took an interest in what the energy policy was to be in the 2020’s.

I could readily accept that a global population rise from around 1bn at the start of the industrial revolution to 8bn today and expected to level off by the end of the century to 11bn could have a profound effect on climate change. The mechanisation of industrial processes, intensive farming methods and meteoric growth in transport were bound to be major human factors on climate.

But the signs of a Delusional Lie concerned me so I did a couple of cursory checks on whether CO2, the man-made factor, would cause the feared temperature increases.

I came unstuck straightaway.

It should also be noted that temperature increases are not linear, they are geometric. The rate of increase declines as temperature and concentrations rise. It is analogous to painting over a skylight, a double coat doesn’t mean you have twice the rate of protection from the sun’s rays.

What did the 234 scientific group reporting under the auspices of the IPCC say. They concluded there was no evidence they were able to unearth in all the paper they reviewed that suggested climate change was an existential threat. Apparently, the UN Secretary General expressed his opinion before their report was finalised!

For non-scientist it must be born in mind that science is not based on majority opinion, but empirical evidence verified by independent scrutiny of your peers.

For a non-scientist but having had experience of working with these eminent people, further research and review of existing knowledge is required to get a better grasp of the factors at play.

What became very evident is how fiendishly complicated climate science is and the ability to measure with any accuracy the various interactions. There are huge gaps in our knowledge but some interesting factors that are known and play into the main scheme of effects.

Why are we demonising the energy industries and curtailing local exploitation of coal and gas? We need to protect our reserves until there is a proper plan to replace fossil fuels over a 50-year timespan.

?

Random Facts and Information

?

Just some random facts point to inconclusive directional pointers.

?

The contribution to the UK economy by the energy industries peaked in 1982 at 10.4%. In 2021, the contribution by the energy industries to the UK economy was 2.5%.

?

Despite its significant fall in 1986, oil and gas extraction has been the major energy contributor to the UK economy (with its value dependent both on production and the price of oil and gas).

?

However, since 2014, except for 2018, electricity has become the major energy contributor. Of the energy total in 2021 electricity (including renewables) accounted for 51%, oil and gas extraction accounted for 23%, and gas accounted for 17%.

?

Domestic production of primary fuels, when expressed in terms of their energy content, fell by 14% in 2021 compared to 2020, to the lowest level in the series commencing from 1970. Growth in renewable sources (bioenergy & waste) was offset by reduced fossil fuel and nuclear output, due to delayed North Sea maintenance activities caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and numerous outages at UK nuclear power stations.

?

Wind, solar and hydro output fell due to less favourable weather conditions, whilst coal production fell to a record low level in 2021.

?

Primary oil (crude oil and Natural Gas Liquids) accounted for 42% of total production, natural gas 29%, primary electricity (consisting of nuclear, wind, solar and hydro) 16%, bioenergy and waste 12%, while coal accounted for the remaining 1%.

?

Domestic production of oil and gas has since been on a general decline, however production levels increased since 2014 until the falls in 2019 and 2020, as new oil fields have opened, combined with the growth in output from bioenergy and waste and the increased capacity of wind and solar technologies.

?

Domestic energy generation is now 64% lower than its peak in 1999. Since 2000, oil and gas production levels have fallen by 68% and 71% respectively.

?

So, we are making substantial progress of sorts, so why the inordinate panic and rush?

?

In the 1970’s the UK was a net importer of energy. Following development of oil and gas production in the North Sea, the UK became a net exporter of energy in 1981.

Output fell back in the late 1980’s following the Piper Alpha disaster, with the UK regaining a position as a net exporter in the mid 1990’s.

North Sea production peaked in 1999, and the UK returned to being an energy importer in 2004.

In 2013 imports of petroleum products exceeded exports following the closure of the Coryton refinery; the UK is now a net importer of all main fuel types, although in 2020 became a net exporter of primary oils for the first time since 2004, as well as remaining a net exporter of some petroleum products such as petrol and fuel oil.

In 2021, 38% of energy used in the UK was imported, up sharply from the 2020 level and at the highest level since 2015.

Since 1999, when UK energy production peaked, there has been a sharp rise in imports. Over this period imports doubled, reaching a peak in 2013, since when they have fallen before rising again in 2017 and 2018, and then falling back in 2019 and 2020.

Where is the sustainability in all that?

The supply of nuclear fell by 7.6% due to numerous outages at UK power stations during 2021.

Energy supply from wind fell by 14% in 2021, with capacity up by 5.3% but wind speeds 1.2 knots lower than in 2020. Five named storms affected the UK during 2021, including Storm Arwen in November 2021.

Total greenhouse gas emissions were 47.3% lower than they were in 1990.

Between 1980 and 2004, a surplus in trade led to oil contributing more than ￡93 billion to the UK balance of payments. The largest surplus of ￡8 billion in 1985 reflected high crude oil production and prices.

Now we keep the oil in the ground we can ill afford to let happen.

Between 2005 and 2017 the cumulative deficit amounted to ￡65.8 billion.

Oil production in 2021 is 70 per cent lower than the 1999 peak and was down 17 per cent on the previous year. From the turn of the century production consistently decreased until 2014, from which point it remained relatively stable. Production then decreased in 2020 and 2021 the result of restrictions in place.

The share of generation from renewables decreased from 43.2 per cent in 2020 to 39.7 per cent in 2021. This was still the second highest share of renewable generation recorded and came as less favourable weather conditions in 2021 decreased generation from wind, solar and hydro generators.

At the same time, generation from nuclear continued its long-term downward trend, with its share decreasing from 16.1 per cent to 14.9 per cent. Fossil fuel generation shares increased in 2021 to account for the lower renewable and nuclear generation. There was a substantial increase for gas, up from 35.7 per cent to 39.8 per cent.

Over the last five years industrial gas prices, in real terms, have increased by 37% and electricity prices have increased by 31%, Ouch!

In real terms the price of petrol was 15% higher and diesel was 13% higher in 2021 compared to 2020. In 2021 taxes and duty accounted for 61% of the retail price of unleaded and 60% of the price of diesel.

Achieving a balance between these three objectives of security, affordability, and decarbonisation, is sometimes referred to as the energy ‘trilemma’.

The energy policy of successive Governments has been designed in line with the “energy trilemma” to: ? decarbonise electricity generation; ? ensure energy security; and ? minimise the cost of electricity to consumers.

The trilemma is not unique to the UK: the energy policies of countries around the world have been assessed based on how well they are meeting this trilemma. This triangulation is being admitted in some quarters as now being lost.

Although the UK produces electricity and gas domestically, the production does not cover all of the UK’s energy consumption, so the UK is also a net importer of energy (electricity, gas and oil).

In 2018, the UK imported 5.4% of its electricity and 40.7% of its gas. The UK has electricity interconnectors (undersea cables) with several European countries, and gas pipelines from Norway, the Netherlands, and Belgium, and imports Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) from countries such as Qatar.

On electricity security GB’s electricity system has delivered secure supplies to date. The government is committed to moving away from coal and increasing the share of renewables in electricity generation.

The UK’s oil supply chain continues to deliver security of supply and is expected to continue to function well, with sufficient capacity to meet demand, as well as respond to supply shocks.

The UK is well placed in the global oil markets (crude and product), trading extensively in all oil types and with significant import and export infrastructure at coastal locations able to source fuels from around the globe, notably from the Amsterdam Rotterdam-Antwerp oil hub.

Oil is a key fuel in the UK’s energy mix, meeting nearly half of consumer demand in 2019 according to the Government’s Digest of UK Energy Statistics. The majority of this is used for transport including road fuels and for air travel, and oil met 96% of energy used in the transport sector in 2019. As with gas, the decline in domestic production has meant the UK has been a net importer of oil since the early 2000s. How would the transport sector work in 2030 if there were no fossil fuels?

In addition to international efforts to combat climate change, the UK has domestic legislation and policies in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Climate Change Act 2008 established long term statutory targets for the UK to achieve an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 against a 1990 baseline. In 2019, the target was changed.

Between 1990 and 2019, Government provisional estimates show total UK greenhouse gas emissions fell by 45.2%. The first and second carbon budgets were outperformed, and the Government predicts that the third will also be outperformed. This means the UK emitted less that what was permissible under the budget.

However, the Government’s predictions also project shortfalls against the fourth and fifth carbon budgets. This means it is currently projected that the UK will not have reduced emissions enough to meet these budgets.

The 2020 report said that although progress had been made, there remained a “policy deficit”: Net Zero has been adopted as a key goal of the Government and the Prime Minister is chairing a Cabinet Committee to deliver it.

Affordability Energy bills for both domestic and industrial consumers comprise various costs including wholesale, network, social and environmental (with exemptions) and other direct costs, as well as VAT and supplier profits.

Wholesale costs have historically been the single largest component of bills and fluctuate with local and global energy costs. Other costs, such as the costs of transporting electricity and gas through networks, are regulated by Ofgem as the network operators are monopolies.

The energy market is competitive, and customers are supposed to switch to get better tariffs. However, the Government has introduced policies to protect the affordability of both domestic and some industrial bills. For the domestic market, price caps on the cost per unit of energy are currently in force.

These protect certain customers, who are either on the most expensive tariffs, or who have prepayment meters meaning they have fewer options for switching, from overcharging. The Government also intends those other interventions, such as the smart meter roll out, will help make the market more competitive.

For certain energy intensive industries there are exemptions from, or compensation available for, some of the social and environmental costs on energy bills.

These costs are the result of the fact that several energy policies, such as to support fuel poor homes or renewable generation, are paid for by a levy on consumer bills rather than through taxation.

Some industries, such as steel, chemicals, engineering, and brick making require the use of lots of energy. Due to concerns that social and environmental levies were having a financial impact on these industries, the Government has introduced support packages for eligible industries.

In a speech in November 2018, the then Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Greg Clark, said “Cheap power is now the policy conundrum known as “the trilemma” is I think coming to an end: Here is the present, we have all been hoping for, Cheap power is now green power.” Really?

Instead, Mr Clark proposed four principles that he said, “Can be good guides to strategy in these transformative times for the power sector.” Inter alia:

1. the market principle – we must wherever possible use market mechanisms that take full advantage of innovation and competition

2. the insurance principle – given intrinsic uncertainty about the future, government must be prepared to intervene to provide insurance and preserve optionality

3. the agility principle – energy regulation must be agile and responsive.

The Capacity Market:

A mechanism to secure capacity to cover any potential shortfall in supply during peak periods, by paying for the guarantee that a generation source could be called upon to supply power as and when required. Alternatively, a consumer can be paid to adjust their usage of power (demand-side response) to allow grid operators to manage demand as well as supply.