Ed Miliband is taking us for fools
Questions have emerged regarding the independence of a crucial Net Zero report that supports the government’s ambitious clean energy targets for 2030. The report, published by the National Energy System Operator (NESO), has come under scrutiny after investigations revealed potential conflicts of interest in its governance structure.
The NATIONAL ENERGY SYSTEM OPERATOR LIMITED (NESO) Company number 11014226 report endorses plans requiring radical action to achieve clean power targets by 2030, including controversial measures that would fundamentally reshape Britain’s energy infrastructure. The proposed changes include a doubling of onshore wind farms, a tripling of offshore wind facilities and onshore solar sites, a five-fold increase in battery storage capacity, extended operational periods for nuclear plants, and the construction of new carbon capture facilities.
The scale of these proposed changes has raised concerns about both the financial implications and the impact on Britain’s countryside. The implementation would require significant reforms to planning laws and substantial taxpayer funding, alongside public acceptance of what is being portrayed as an urgent climate emergency requiring immediate action.
Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, championed the report’s findings, describing it as “conclusive proof” that the government’s clean energy superpower mission represents the right choice for the country. He emphasised the benefits of replacing Britain’s dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets with domestically controlled clean power.
However, investigations into NESO’s corporate structure have revealed that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero—Miliband himself—is listed on Companies House as the person with “significant control” over the organisation. The company’s registered address is the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, raising questions about the true independence of the report’s findings.
NESO’s website acknowledges that while the Secretary of State holds the shares and retains ultimate responsibility, with the government maintaining ownership, they claim there is no operational control from the government. The organisation states there exists “a clear separation between the government’s role in setting National policy and their influence as a majority shareholder.”
Critics argue that this arrangement creates an inherent conflict of interest, suggesting that employees might be reluctant to produce findings that contradict the views of their ultimate authority. The report’s timing and its perfect alignment with ministerial objectives have further fuelled scepticism about its independence.
Defenders of the report point to the credibility of the independent scientists involved, arguing that these professionals would not compromise their integrity. They also cite public support for climate action, with polling suggesting 69% of people express concern about climate change, and 61% support Net Zero initiatives.
The controversy speaks to broader debates about energy policy in the United Kingdom. Critics highlight that the UK already faces some of the highest energy costs in the developed world, with significant implications for economic development, business investment, and household budgets. They argue that the focus should be on reducing energy costs rather than pursuing ambitious environmental targets.
The practical implementation of the proposed measures has also drawn criticism. Technical experts have raised concerns about the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of renewable energy solutions. For instance, wind energy requires backup capacity due to intermittent generation, effectively necessitating 200% capacity to ensure reliable power supply. Similarly, ground source heat pump installations for individual properties can cost upwards of £20,000, with recovery periods extending to 60-80 years, making them impractical for many homeowners.
Nuclear power has emerged as a potential alternative, with advocates arguing it represents a more efficient and cleaner form of energy generation. However, this too faces its own set of challenges and opposition from various stakeholders.
As the debate continues, calls grow for greater transparency regarding the relationship between government departments and their supposedly independent advisory bodies. The controversy highlights the delicate balance between pursuing environmental goals and maintaining public trust in the decision-making process that shapes Britain’s energy future.
Miliband is lying to us
He owns the company that he is referencing to for data to support his personal war against our way of life, leading us towards bankruptcy, in order to keep his globalist paymasters happy.
For him to be using a report from a company that he owns, to justify his reckless plans is not only immoral, it is illegal. There is absolutely no way that this notion of the Great British Energy company can make sense, it will cost hundreds of billions of pounds, we are losing farmland at an alarming rate and this is before they begin to pass yet more laws, restricting our freedom in the name of their net-zero madness.
We must stand against this blatant deception!