MP paid £400,000 by green firms slams climate change peer... for hypocrisy exposed by the Mail

  • Tim Yeo has complained about Lord Deben's undisclosed green interests
  • Mr Yeo has been paid more than £400,000 by three green companies
  • Lord Deben is chairman of firm which connects windfarms to National Grid

Videoed: Former minister Tim Yeo was filmed appearing to boast that he had previously coached a paying client in private

Videoed: Former minister Tim Yeo was filmed appearing to boast that he had previously coached a paying client in private

A Tory MP has complained about a government global-warming adviser’s undisclosed green interests – despite the fact he himself is paid a fortune by eco-energy and transport firms.

Tim Yeo, chairman of the Energy and Climate Change select committee, has protested about Lord Deben remaining chairman of Veolia Water UK while also chairing the Committee on Climate Change, an independent body that advises the Government on the impact of climate change.

Mr Yeo’s critics will argue his protest smacks of hypocrisy as he has been paid more than £400,000 by three green companies since 2009.

Lord Deben, John Selwyn Gummer – who as Agriculture Minister in 1990 tried to persuade his daughter Cordelia to eat a hamburger during the BSE crisis – was required to undergo a ‘confirmation hearing’ before Yeo’s committee last September after being appointed chair of the Climate Change Committee.

At the time Lord Deben had stepped down from his job as chairman of Forewinds, a consortium set up to build a hugely subsidised windfarm, but he remained chairman of Veolia Water UK.

Asked at the hearing whether this could be a conflict of interest, Lord Deben said he had resigned  from all his energy business interests, adding: ‘If you look at what it [Veolia] does, it really has no connection at  all. And if I thought it even had a remote connection, I would make that change [resign].’

But, as this newspaper revealed in January, Veolia has a thriving eco business connecting windfarms to the National Grid.

Mr Yeo has set out his protest in a letter to Energy Secretary Mr Davey. He wrote: ‘The committee was given to understand that Veolia was not an energy company, and that Lord Deben would not retain links with energy companies .  .  . But, as is clear from Veolia’s website and annual report and accounts, the company has a significant role in the field of energy.’

Mr Yeo added: ‘The lack of clarity on this specific point has caused ongoing media criticism .  .  . the reassurances you have given are not sufficient to effectively address the perception of conflict of interest in the public domain.’

Mr Yeo has been paid £402,033.88 by three green companies since August 2009. He is paid many thousands more as a director of the Channel Tunnel Company.

The ‘Chunnel’ contains a cable whose purpose is to keep Britain’s lights on using French power if our own supply becomes inadequate following the shutdown of coal stations caused by green restrictions.

Lord Deben yesterday continued to insist he had ‘no dealings whatsoever’ with the Veolia division that dealt with energy. He added: ‘Since being made aware of this activity, I have ensured that I will never be involved, receive any papers, or participate in any way.’

Fresh Storm: As Agriculture Minister in 1990 Lord Deben, John Selwyn Gummer, tried to persuade his daughter Cordelia to eat a hamburger during the BSE crisis

Fresh Storm: As Agriculture Minister in 1990 Lord Deben, John Selwyn Gummer, tried to persuade his daughter Cordelia to eat a hamburger during the BSE crisis

How Energy Minister's attack on our reporter self-combusted - by saying: 'It's the science, stupid'

Energy and Climate Change secretary Ed Davey used a speech at the Met Office last week to mount an extraordinary and intemperate attack on newspapers such as this one, claiming we have published misleading 'destructive scepticism' and ignoring the science on global warming. Here our correspondent writes an open letter in reply: it is Mr Davey DAVID ROSE says, who is being less than straight with the facts.

Dear Ed

Last week you made a speech which sounded uncomfortably as if you wanted to shut this newspaper up. You said that journalists like me, who have raised serious questions about global warming and energy policy, were ‘selectively misreading the evidence’ and arguing that ‘we can relax and burn all the dirty fuel we want’.

You claimed that instead of publishing ‘the serious science’, we were propagating ‘destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism, born of vested interest.’

Worse still, in your eyes, we have suggested that your policies as Energy and Climate Change Secretary  are ‘hopelessly misguided’ because we oppose the vast increases in ‘renewable’ energy subsidies which you set out in your Energy Bill.

Outburst: Energy and Climate Change secretary Ed Davey used a speech at the Met Office to mount an extraordinary and intemperate attack on newspapers

Outburst: Energy and Climate Change secretary Ed Davey used a speech at the Met Office to mount an extraordinary and intemperate attack on newspapers

The Mail on Sunday was the only publication which you mentioned by name. So I hope you won’t mind when I point out that much of your speech was highly misleading.

It was a Grade-A example of how those in power have become entrenched and wilfully blind to new evidence – of how you seek to crush debate by attacking opponents by mischaracterising what we actually say.

According to you, we ‘reject outright that climate change is  a result of human activity’. You commented contemptuously: ‘It’s the science, stupid!’

After all, a recent survey found that 97 per cent of a sample of 12,000 climate science papers accept that human activity – increased carbon dioxide emissions – has contributed to global warming. How could we be so dumb as to ignore a consensus like that? You, you said, are ‘with the 97 per cent’.
Well, Mr Davey, so am I, as are almost all the climate sceptics and so-called ‘deniers’ I have ever spoken to. The point is: yes, human activity has warmed the planet, and will probably continue to do so. The far more difficult questions are how far and how fast is this likely to happen? And here the scientific consensus is heading in one direction – towards the view that the world is warming rather more slowly than was thought only a few years ago.

As this newspaper first reported in October, world temperatures have failed to show any statistically significant increase since 1997. According to you, this is a ‘false summit’, after which warming will again become rampant.

But surely you must also know that this unexpected ‘pause’ was not predicted by most climate computer models. Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Technical Institute testified at  a US Congressional hearing that it is likely to last for at least another ten years. If it does, climate alarmism – all your talk of a ‘massive gamble with the planet our children will inherit’ – is going to look, well, stupid.

Load of hot air: Professor Myles Allen, head of Oxford University¿s Climate Research Network, has said that billions are being wasted on measures including windfarms in Scotland

Load of hot air: Professor Myles Allen, head of Oxford University¿s Climate Research Network, has said that billions are being wasted on measures including windfarms in Scotland

Your mention of The Mail on Sunday came when you quoted an article two weeks ago by Professor Myles Allen, head of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network. Yes, Prof Allen did say that ‘almost everyone agrees’ that emissions have to come down. But he went on to add that we are wasting billions on policies – that’s your policies, Mr Davey – which will never achieve this end.
He says: ‘90 per cent of the measures adopted since the 1997 Kyoto agreement to cut global emissions are a waste of time and money – including windfarms in Scotland, carbon taxes and Byzantine carbon trading systems.’

In your speech, you implied that if we set ever more ambitious targets covering our own pitiful two per cent of world emissions, one day those much bigger economies will follow suit. Oh really? Right now, China and India have about 800 coal power stations being built or on order.

We need a proper debate about these issues, one which isn’t fuelled by alarmism and which appreciates that your opponents have valid viewpoints, too.

But all you have to offer is more of the same: bigger doses of policy prescriptions – taxes, subsidies and the futile quest for a binding global agreement – which have demonstrably failed.

There is a cost for this. Britain already has the highest inflation in energy prices in Europe (which actually means the world). Yet everything you are doing will increase this further.

Perhaps you think that if you maintain the scaremongering at  a shrill enough volume, you’ll get away with it. Maybe in the short term you will.

History, and the ballot box in 2015, may not be as kind.

Yours sincerely

David