It's worth noting that Net Zero Watch is a lobbying group, one that actively promotes climate change denial and is backed by the fossil fuel industry and made up of mainly conservative party cronies - party donors, current and past MP's, Lords, Dames. Despite their recent name change (bad press, I assume) making them sound innocuous enou…
It's worth noting that Net Zero Watch is a lobbying group, one that actively promotes climate change denial and is backed by the fossil fuel industry and made up of mainly conservative party cronies - party donors, current and past MP's, Lords, Dames. Despite their recent name change (bad press, I assume) making them sound innocuous enough, it's an organisation designed to allow it's members to funnel information into the climate debate without being held personally accountable and without scrutiny. This is the same group that helped kick off the infamous "climategate" palaver, where they unsuccessfully tried to demonstrate that scientists were lying to us. At least in recent years they have put playing scientist on the backburner, turning to attacking renewable energy subsidies and government policies. Seemingly they are unaware of the gargantuan subsidies the UK Govt continue to give the fossil fuel industry, or else surely they would take issue with these too?
They are NOT a lobbying group. They are an NGO just like the thousands that promote Climate Change Fear Porn AND anti-nuclear activism. So the people who DON'T want our economies destroyed by the Net Zero Carbon Trading SCAM and the Wind/Solar/Batteries/Hydrogen giant scam-of-the-century aren't entitled to an NGO? Who is going to speak for the interests of the people? Whereas the Climate Change Alarmist pro-corruption groups have $billions/yr in corporate/$billionaire/$trillionaire funding.
So quit the smear jobs, they put out excellent, accurate analysis of the absolute insanity of these renewable energy scam projects. And the subsidies the fossil fuel industry on a per twh produced are trivial compared to wind/solar subsidies. Most of those so-called subsidies are tax incentives that just reduce the amount of tax revenue they supply. The big difference is fossil fuel, nuclear & hydro supply useful energy to society, whereas wind & solar do not. They are a total waste of capital. And make climate change MORE LIKELY than not. Those are just the facts.
"Net Zero Watch is funded by private donations. In order to make clear its complete independence we do not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company."
This does not prevent energy money from getting to them. It sure doesn't prevent it from getting to the pro-wind groups. They use all kinds of sneaky ways to hide the cash that is donated. Including Foundations of Foundations.
And just a point to make - the fossil fuel companies themselves are the biggest funders of the energy transition. When you talk about "Climate Change Alarmist pro-corruption groups", fossil fuel corporations are in that group. That's not a smear. And calling a lobby group a lobby group isn't a smear either.
Fine, than you can equally well call Greenpeace, WWF, NRDC, RMI, FOE, Sierra Club, EDF, WISE, hundreds of others Lobby Groups as well. They both do the same thing, except on opposite sides of the fence. And big difference those groups get many $billions/yr in funding vs groups that don't promote Alarmism get $millions/yr in funding. I bet Net Zero Watch gets funding that WWF, Greenpeace would call lunch money. And oddly enough a lot of Big Oil $billionaire funding goes to the Alarmist groups rather than the rational energy policy groups.
I would say you're right, considering NZW is a British lobbyist group that aims to lobby the British government and British political circles. WWF / Green Peace are global organisations after all. I didn't realise calling a lobby group a lobby group was contentious.
Subsidies to wind and solar are tens to scores of times higher than subsidies to fossil fuels on a per energy produced basis.
In the USA coal/oil/gas all get about $.60 per MWHr equivalent of energy produced.
Wind gets $30 - $70 per MWHr and Solar gets $40 - $90 per MWHr.
Your whining about subsidies has no basis in reality, unless you also whine about the massively disproportionate subsidies wind and solar get for producing almost nothing of use.
I suppose anyone can win the "who gets more subsidies" argument if they pick and choose the way its measured to support their argument. Let's not get into tax breaks..
My numbers are from the US EIA, which has, so far, been a pretty reliable reporter of current information. Their future projections are questionable, but they seem to hew close to reality with their current statistics.
I see no "information funneling" here but rather a challenge to what has become a set of assumptions that are not to be disputed in polite circles. They may or may not be a lobby group but I've found it's all too easy to call someone a fossil fuel lobbyist only because they challenge the net-zero/cheap renewables narrative. By that token, I'm a fossil fuel lobbyist, too, which in reality I am not.
It's worth noting that Net Zero Watch is a lobbying group, one that actively promotes climate change denial and is backed by the fossil fuel industry and made up of mainly conservative party cronies - party donors, current and past MP's, Lords, Dames. Despite their recent name change (bad press, I assume) making them sound innocuous enough, it's an organisation designed to allow it's members to funnel information into the climate debate without being held personally accountable and without scrutiny. This is the same group that helped kick off the infamous "climategate" palaver, where they unsuccessfully tried to demonstrate that scientists were lying to us. At least in recent years they have put playing scientist on the backburner, turning to attacking renewable energy subsidies and government policies. Seemingly they are unaware of the gargantuan subsidies the UK Govt continue to give the fossil fuel industry, or else surely they would take issue with these too?
They are NOT a lobbying group. They are an NGO just like the thousands that promote Climate Change Fear Porn AND anti-nuclear activism. So the people who DON'T want our economies destroyed by the Net Zero Carbon Trading SCAM and the Wind/Solar/Batteries/Hydrogen giant scam-of-the-century aren't entitled to an NGO? Who is going to speak for the interests of the people? Whereas the Climate Change Alarmist pro-corruption groups have $billions/yr in corporate/$billionaire/$trillionaire funding.
So quit the smear jobs, they put out excellent, accurate analysis of the absolute insanity of these renewable energy scam projects. And the subsidies the fossil fuel industry on a per twh produced are trivial compared to wind/solar subsidies. Most of those so-called subsidies are tax incentives that just reduce the amount of tax revenue they supply. The big difference is fossil fuel, nuclear & hydro supply useful energy to society, whereas wind & solar do not. They are a total waste of capital. And make climate change MORE LIKELY than not. Those are just the facts.
They are a self described lobby group. Sorry.
From their website:
"Net Zero Watch is funded by private donations. In order to make clear its complete independence we do not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company."
This does not prevent energy money from getting to them. It sure doesn't prevent it from getting to the pro-wind groups. They use all kinds of sneaky ways to hide the cash that is donated. Including Foundations of Foundations.
And just a point to make - the fossil fuel companies themselves are the biggest funders of the energy transition. When you talk about "Climate Change Alarmist pro-corruption groups", fossil fuel corporations are in that group. That's not a smear. And calling a lobby group a lobby group isn't a smear either.
Fine, than you can equally well call Greenpeace, WWF, NRDC, RMI, FOE, Sierra Club, EDF, WISE, hundreds of others Lobby Groups as well. They both do the same thing, except on opposite sides of the fence. And big difference those groups get many $billions/yr in funding vs groups that don't promote Alarmism get $millions/yr in funding. I bet Net Zero Watch gets funding that WWF, Greenpeace would call lunch money. And oddly enough a lot of Big Oil $billionaire funding goes to the Alarmist groups rather than the rational energy policy groups.
I would say you're right, considering NZW is a British lobbyist group that aims to lobby the British government and British political circles. WWF / Green Peace are global organisations after all. I didn't realise calling a lobby group a lobby group was contentious.
Subsidies to wind and solar are tens to scores of times higher than subsidies to fossil fuels on a per energy produced basis.
In the USA coal/oil/gas all get about $.60 per MWHr equivalent of energy produced.
Wind gets $30 - $70 per MWHr and Solar gets $40 - $90 per MWHr.
Your whining about subsidies has no basis in reality, unless you also whine about the massively disproportionate subsidies wind and solar get for producing almost nothing of use.
I suppose anyone can win the "who gets more subsidies" argument if they pick and choose the way its measured to support their argument. Let's not get into tax breaks..
My numbers are from the US EIA, which has, so far, been a pretty reliable reporter of current information. Their future projections are questionable, but they seem to hew close to reality with their current statistics.
Exactly!
I see no "information funneling" here but rather a challenge to what has become a set of assumptions that are not to be disputed in polite circles. They may or may not be a lobby group but I've found it's all too easy to call someone a fossil fuel lobbyist only because they challenge the net-zero/cheap renewables narrative. By that token, I'm a fossil fuel lobbyist, too, which in reality I am not.