Green Energy Triples UK Fuel Prices, May Kill Thousands over Winter


While Prince Charles preaches the cant of Global Warming and admires the lifestyles of the poor in the Third World, the United Kingdom is headed deep into a well of frozen misery.

Green Energy has meant Electric Poverty as cheap and efficient sources of power and heat are traded for hideously expensive and inefficient solar and wind power that’s fine for those cashing in, but prices energy out of the range of many ordinary people.

The cost of gas to families has almost tripled, rising by 190 per cent, in just ten years, the Office for National Statistics said today. The cost of electricity has increased by 120 per cent in the same period, meaning it has more than doubled.

In the same period, the average price of all household goods, measured with the Consumer Price Index, has risen by just over 30 per cent.

What went wrong? Green Energy and Green Greed.

In March 2003 the Blair government published an Energy White Paper. In its Section 4.7 it says explicitly:

We have introduced a Renewables Obligation for England and Wales in April 2002. This will incentivise generators to supply progressively higher levels of renewable energy over time. The cost is met through higher prices to consumers. By 2010, it is estimated that this support and Climate Change Levy (CCL) exemption will be worth around £1 billion a year to the UK renewables industry.

The “Renewables” industry and its crony capitalist Green Energy tycoons cashed in while British families froze. 5 Million households in the UK now suffer from Energy Poverty.

National Energy Action, a so-called Fuel Poverty charity, but in actuality another Green Energy industry front, wrote,  “Future energy policy can only contribute to a socially just transition to a low carbon society if households experiencing fuel poverty are given the resources to reduce their energy demand.”

In the perverse reasoning of the Greenocrats, forcing poor households to freeze is socially just.

This is what the Green Nightmare really looks like.

The data show that the majority of households in fuel poverty in the UK contain “vulnerable” individuals, defined by the government as elderly, disabled, the long-term sick, or children. According to Age UK, the UK’s largest charity for older people, almost half the people living in fuel poverty were over 60. Michelle Mitchell, the charity director of Age UK, said: “Research shows many older people are forced to choose between eating and heating their homes, causing illness and in extreme cases, needless deaths.”

Forget Solent Green. Greenocrats are murdering the elderly in the name of their carbon fetish and their subsidized windmill profits. And the lunatics have the same insane solution

The UK government put together a white paper that proposes a plan that will guarantee a fixed price for electricity and include a carbon price floor effective in 2013 that will make it more costly to run coal and natural gas plants.

So in other words, they will set a fixed price for electricity while making the production of electricity much more expensive. How could this plan possibly fail?

Using the same economic logic, Venezuela is facing toilet paper shortages. But Cubans make do by using government propaganda papers as toilet papers. What will UK pensioners use to heat their homes? Burn Green Energy propaganda brochures?

  • Ed FDNYRetiree

    Is there anything the UK libs have done in the past 10 years that has done anything but cause a decline in their standard of living and brought the country closer to utter ruin?

    Perhaps I should ask the same question and substitute “the U.S.” for the UK…

  • Elizabeth Cape Cod

    When the freezing and desperate take to the streets with torches to burn down the city there will be heat.

  • herb benty

    There is nothing bad about Petroleum, it is a very efficient form of ENERGY that powers modern civilization.

  • Clare Spark

    The Brits have disavowed Darwin too. See “Darwin and the climate change debate: The Greens have it.”

  • A Z

    This is the same nonsense as the compact fluorescent bulbs.
    Much of the U.S. electrical production goes to lighting.

    “EIA estimates that in 2011, about 461 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity were used for lighting by the residential and commercial sectors. This was equal to about 17% of the total electricity consumed by both of these sectors and about 12% of total U.S. electricity consumption”

    It would ease the loads on power plants, if lighting was not so much of a load.

    The thing is that consumers always want to cut their bills. That is if they ever worked for a living or paid taxes. So consumers will automatically without prodding or beating, use energy efficient lighting.

    While your typical consumer will not perform a formal cost benefit analysis , when LEDs get cheap enough they will buy them. They just won’t buy them when they are bleeding edge expensive.

    Case in point, whenever I have a light that burns out I buy an LED and my spouse is all over me for the cost of a bulb. So yeah it hurts the pocket book.
    But I will buy an LED because I do not have to worry about special disposal of the d_mn compact fluorescent

    The liberals screwed up lighting, cars and now heating.

    The liberals should let the market take care of it.

  • JVR

    Underlying the green energy boondoggle are some hysteria about the UK’s energy supplies. While peak oil has fallen a bit out of favour, it does not mean that oil provinces do not experience this phenomenon: The UK peaked in 1999, and it has been downhill since

    The Blair government tried to ameliorate this by investing in green energy, which is a boondoggle (it would be far better to simply import Gas and Oil), hence the outcome today. Eventually this reduction in cheap easy oil and gas (fracking and shale oil/gas will eventually prove to be a hard and expensive resource), will have economic consequences, some which you describe above.

  • figment

    And just like in the US, the sheeple will scream that someone (gvt ) has to DO something …