Written by Roger Arthur

 

 

There are two templates. The first is the template for an initial letter to your MP, the second is a template for a reply should your MP actually answer – with the usual set text.

 

~~~   ***   ~~~ 

 

First letter:

 

Mr/Mrs/Ms………………….MP

House of Commons, London, SW1A OAA

Email: firstname.surname.mp@parliament.uk

 

Re: UK Energy Strategy

 

Dear (name)

The UK has already cut its hydrocarbon emissions by more than most other G7 countries – to around 43% of 1990 levels – with a ‘cleaner’ electricity mix based on gas instead of coal, plus renewables. Since 2004, our industrial electricity costs have increased by more than 160% and they are becoming increasingly un-competitive. The PM’s Electric Vehicle (EV) roll out programme over the next 9 years, is only going to make that worse.

EV charger ratings are typically 3.5kW or more and with 20 million EVs, the peak charger load could be 70,000MW, which alone exceeds current maximum demand (MD) on the National Grid. That assumes only one EV per household and that that all 33m vehicles are not replaced by EVs. To that must be added the load of electrically driven heat pumps, which replace gas fired boilers.

If the smart grid could spread the EV charger load more evenly over say 10 hours – and no one wants to use their EV in the evening – then the charger load might be reduced. But few if any, EV chargers are being provided with the in-built features needed to facilitate that.Since the total solar and wind capacity drops to little more than 1% of MD, on some winter days we would need something like 20 new 3,000MW power stations, plus transmission system upgrading.

Also, since over 50% (40% projected in 2030) of our energy comes from fossil fuelled power plants, the charging of EV batteries will cause CO2 emissions for many years to come, while we are confronted by an accelerating demand for the scarce materials needed to produce the batteries.

But, if as reported (see link below) the carbon footprint of an EV doesn’t break even with that of a petrol or diesel vehicle until it has travelled around 50,000 miles (compared with an average U.K. vehicle mileage of 10,000 miles) one has to ask, what cost/benefit analysis is the policy based on, when the UK is only responsible for around 1% of global hydrocarbon emissions, 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to H2O – not CO2 – and when atmospheric CO2 levels follow global temperature. Spending a £trillion or two of taxpayer’s money on this, is totally unjustified.

The total cost of this misguided evangelism will not only put more into fuel poverty, but it will drive more energy intensive businesses (and jobs) abroad to countries such as India and China, where they will cause more CO2 emissions than before.  So I urge you to do all that you can to stop this madness.

Yours sincerely

~~~   ***  ~~~ 

 

Second letter:

 

Mr/Mrs/Ms………………….MP

House of Commons, London, SW1A OAA

Email: firstname.surname.mp@parliament.uk

Re: Climate Change

 

Dear (name)

Many thanks for your letter dated ………………. Since wind generator output is variable, averaging less than 25%, new wind farms will have to be matched with expensive energy storage or standby power back up. No doubt you will want to determine how much that will cost.

Estimates of the cost of the net zero, range up to £3 trillion, or around £100,000 per household. Imagine the impact of that on your voters, as more are driven into fuel poverty, while energy intensive businesses relocate to countries such as India and China, where they will emit more CO2 than before. Then ask what benefits will accrue from the expenditure.

As seen from the first graph attached, there was a dramatic drop in human CO2 emissions in Lockdown – without a perceptible impact on atmospheric CO2 concentration – the average of which increases each year, varying cyclically over the year. Evidence shows that it follows global temperature, ie CO2 concentration lags temperature not the other way around.

Indeed, between 2000 and 2013 average atmospheric CO2 concentration rose at a faster rate than fossil fuel emissions. Also, as seen from the second graph attached, the use of fossil fuels accelerated between 1970 and 1990, but arctic air temperature fell, suggesting that solar radiation had more impact on that temperature, than did Hydrocarbon emissions.

So what caused Atmospheric CO2 concentrations to keep rising year on year? Could it be that chemical reactions (eg due to decomposition of trillions of tons of organic matter) increase with temperature? Add to that, an increase in water vapour, which accounts for around 95% of the greenhouse effect.

The six million dollar question is, if CO2 emissions caused by humans have such little effect on atmospheric concentrations, then why are we all expected to spend £trillions, for negligible benefit, when the UK is only responsible for around 1% of global CO2 emissions?

Indeed, since the UK Government is following the science on Covid, might we ask why it is not checking and double checking the science in relation to global warming – instead of following flawed predictions of temperature rise – as indicted in the third graph attached.

Prof Lindzen observed that “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libelled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. But surely we must continue to ask difficult questions?

Please confirm that you will check for yourself the relative impact of Hydrocarbon emissions on Atmospheric CO2 concentration and that you  will continue to ask searching questions. Many thanks.

Yours sincerely

Print Friendly, PDF & Email