From Climate Scepticism

By Mark Hodgson

And it isn’t just farm waste

Another day, another Guardian article pushing net zero, by virtue of yet another report specifically commissioned by a charity for just that purpose. Today’s headline is “Biomethane not viable for widespread use in UK home heating, report finds – Gas derived from farm waste can meet only 18% of current gas demand by 2050, despite claims of fossil fuel lobbyists, study finds”.

Personally I am quite happy with my gas boiler, and am not particularly interested in replacing natural gas with biomethane. My current set-up works nicely, and my new gas boiler is efficient. I just want to be left alone, without pressure to replace my current perfectly satisfactory home heating arrangements, whether by replacing natural gas with methane, or by ripping out my new gas boiler and replacing it with an electric heat pump.

What, then, is this latest report , and why am I bothered about it? It runs to 59 pages, and has been prepared by Regen at the behest of the MCS Foundation.

Regen

According to its website:

Regen provides independent, evidence-led insight and advice in support of our mission to transform the UK’s energy system for a net zero future. We focus on analysing the systemic challenges of decarbonising power, heat and transport. We know that a transformation of this scale will require engaging the whole of society in a just transition.

No surprises there, then. But who (or what) are they? It takes a little bit of work (but not much) to find out. Regen’s website has a little note tucked away at its foot, saying that Regen is “a trading name of RegenSW” and its company number (04554636) is supplied. Wikipedia tells us that “Regen is a not-for-profit organisation which promotes renewable energy and energy efficiency across the UK.” It also says that it was funded by the South West of England Regional Development Agency, until that agency was abolished in March 2012. Since then, funding has come from subscription-based membership and partner organisations, advisory work, and grant funding. Its most recent accounts are made up to the year ended 31^st March 2024, but they are small companies accounts, and they tell us very little. (As a small company, its financial statements include this: “…the income statement has been omitted from the filing copy of the financial statements…”.). Certainly we learn nothing about its sources of funding, and we don’t know who is paying it grant money. We do learn that it now employs 40 people rather than the 37 it employed in the previous year.

There is nothing wrong with such short-form accounts – they comply fully with the legislation. Fortunately, its website is considerably more forthcoming (and furthermore it is rather swish). Its Membership Directory can be found here, and it lists a significant number of organisations. In urging local authorities to become a Regen member, it says:

Our members help us to be a strong, informed and independent force for change. Together we’re transforming the UK’s energy system for a zero-carbon future, driving change in policy [my emphasis] and regulation to remove the key barriers facing the transition.

We have finally got to the point. This is what annoys me. Lobby group after lobby group, vested interest after vested interest seeking to influence policy, seeking to double down on net zero, regardless of what the public wants. Its basic membership fee of £1,200+VAT (or “core” membership, as Regen describes it), is “for those organisations at the heart of the energy system who want to stay informed, connected and influential” [my emphasis]. The basic enhanced package (£1,350 + VAT) offers “…exclusive access to storage-specific insights, events and advocacy” [my emphasis]. The irony isn’t lost on me that another recent Guardian article includes this in its headline: “Labour must fight rightwing billionaires undermining net zero, says Ed Miliband”.

The MCS Foundation

The Report was written by Regen staff, but it was commissioned by the MCS Foundation. In the introduction to the report, it claims this about itself:

The MCS Foundation drives positive change to decarbonise homes, heat and energy. It commissions robust, independent research that informs and shapes better decision making to drive a carbon-free future for all UK homes.

“Independent” strikes me as a much-abused word when it comes to lobbying for net zero. I refer readers to Jit’s piece in January 2023 pointing out how Chris Skidmore’s “independent” review of net zero was anything but independent, since it was carried out by a net zero cheer-leader. Regen’s report strikes me as being “independent” in the way that Mr Skidmore’s review for the then Tory government was independent – i.e. it isn’t.

The MCS Foundation is the operating name of the MCS Charitable Foundation, a UK registered charity. I think there’s a strong argument that organisations like this shouldn’t enjoy charitable status at the expense of the UK taxpayer. I had a go at this subject in Big Green Charity. There is even a section of the website devoted to campaigns. Should charities enjoy tax perks to enable them to engage in “policy and advocacy work” with regard to net zero issues, as The MCS Foundation does? Some would say so, but I don’t think it’s appropriate.

The “about” section of the website says this:

In the face of today’s climate emergency, we know that a carbon free future for UK homes is vital – for our communities, our country and our planet. This is a future where everyone has access to reliable and affordable renewable energy in homes that are warm and efficient. Making this happen as quickly as possible drives all our work.

We were founded to oversee the MCS standards scheme which certifies the quality of renewable energy across UK homes….

I wondered what sort of official status the MCS standards scheme enjoys and also who founded the MCS Foundation to oversee it. Is this realistically an appropriate role for a charity? Well, according to its most recent accounts it seems the then Labour Government thought so:

The Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) plays an important part in the growth of the installation of renewables in homes and small businesses. It was set up by the Government in 2008 to certify buildings-scale renewable electricity and heat products and installers, to provide assurance to consumers about the quality and standard of their installation. The Government transferred the assets comprising MCS, as well as the MCS Fund (the historical profits from the operation of the Scheme) to the MCS Charitable Foundation on 25 April 2018. [More on this below].

The Charity Commission enables us to learn more about the MCS Foundation here. It has 76 employees, of whom seven earn £60,000-£70,000 per annum; three earn £80,000-£90,000; one earns £120,000-£130,000; and one earns £130,000-£140,000 per annum. Charities, it seems, are now a lucrative business providing some with a lucrative income.

I didn’t previously know this:

The Foundation and the Service Company executive teams continued to develop during the year, reflecting the growing ambitions of the Group and the increasing income levels. In July 2024, the previous CEO of the Foundation resigned after being elected MP for Waveney Valley…

And who is the newly-elected MP for Waveney Valley? It’s Adrian Ramsay, the Green Party MP who was deputy leader of the Green Party from 2008 to 2012 and co-leader of the party between 2021 and 2025. The world of net zero is full of connections and links, it seems. It can also enjoy more financial benefits from the taxpayer than just privileged tax status. Although the Foundation’s ongoing income seems to be almost entirely generated by its trading subsidiary, it did enjoy a healthy bonus from the UK taxpayer under the last Tory government:

The significant sum received from The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) in the year ended 31 March 2019 (£6,649,610) was intended to fund the Foundation to deliver its charitable objects over a number of years.

Conclusion

As always, everything we see here is lawful and above-board, and sufficiently transparent that a little digging on my part has enabled me to convey the information set out above. Almost certainly everyone involved with the report which triggered my interest, and with the two organisations involved with it, are decent people who mean well.

My concern is that charitable status now embraces activities that I do not believe should be charitable. Charities now often receive generous taxpayer funding (as well as beneficial tax status) and their senior executives often enjoy substantial salaries. Governments even expect them to perform roles which arguably should be the government’s responsibility, and charities commission reports to support their lobbying activities.

I haven’t commented on the contents of the report written by Regen at the behest of the MCS Foundation because I’m not really that interested in its rather predictable contents. Rather, I’m interested in what the act of commissioning the report reveals. Ed Miliband may rail against rightwing billionaires who he claims are undermining net zero, but I rail against charities and others who in my view are potentially undermining democracy by using government funding and charitable status to lobby for overtly political ends that are increasingly opposed by the British people.