In October 2008, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act requiring the UK government to ensure that by 2050 ‘the net UK carbon account’ was reduced to a level at least 80% lower than that of 1990. (‘carbon account’ refers to CO2 emissions and ‘other targeted greenhouse gas emissions’.) Only five MPs voted against it. Then in 2019, by secondary legislation and without serious debate, Parliament increased the 80% reduction requirement to 100% – thereby creating the Net Zero policy.i
Unfortunately, it’s a policy that’s unachievable, potentially disastrous and in any case pointless – and, importantly, that’s the case even if it’s accepted that human carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to a rise in global temperature.
1. It’s unachievable.
Many vehicles and machines (used for example in mining, mineral processing, agriculture, construction, heavy transportation, commercial shipping and aviation, the military and emergency services) and products (for example cement (and concrete), high-grade steel, plastics – all needed for the construction of renewables – fertiliser, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insecticides, insulation, tyres and asphalt) essential to life and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives; there are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. Our civilisation is based on fossil fuels; something that’s unlikely to change for a long time.ii
Wind is the most effective source of renewable electricity in the U.K., but: (i) the substantial costs of building the huge numbers of turbines needed for Net Zero, (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable non-fossil fuel grid by 2035 (2030 for Labour) – not least the need to cope with a vast increase in high voltage grid capacity and local distribution, (iii) the enormous scale of what’s involved (immense amounts of space and of increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials, such as so-called ‘rare earths’, required because, unlike fossil fuels, the ‘energy density’ of wind is so low), and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see 2 below), make it unlikely that the UK will be able to generate sufficient electricity for current needs let alone for the mandated EVs and heat pumps plus industry’s energy requirements and other demands such as huge data centres and the extraordinary growth of artificial intelligence (AI).iii
In any case, the UK doesn’t have nearly enough skilled technical managers, electrical, heating and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other tradespeople to do the multitude of tasks essential to achieve Net Zero – a problem worsened by political plans for massively increased house building.iv
‘Net Zero’ means that there has to be a balance between the amount of any greenhouse gas emissions produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. That there’s no detailed, costed (or indeed any) plan for such removal, undermines the credibility of the project.
2. It would be socially and economically disastrous.
Neither of the main political parties’ all-renewable energy projects includes a fully costed engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun; a problem that’s exacerbated by the pending retirement of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. Both parties are now talking of building new gas-fired power plants v – thereby undermining Net Zero – but they’ve not published any detail and it seems Labour intends to fit them with carbon capture and underground storage systems – again without a fully costed engineering plan. This issue is desperately important: without full back-up, electricity blackouts would be inevitable – ruining many businesses and causing dreadful problems for millions of people, including health consequences threatening everyone and in particular the poor and vulnerable.
Even more serious is the fact that, because there’s no coherent plan for the project’s delivery, little attention has been given to its overall cost. All that’s clear is that it would almost certainly be unaffordable: for example, a recent Office for Budget Responsibility projection of £1.4 trillion is probably too low vi – several trillion seems likely to be more accurate.vii The borrowing and taxes required for costs at this scale would destroy Britain’s credit standing and put an impossible burden onto millions of households and businesses.
Net Zero would have two other dire consequences:
(i) As China essentially controls the supply of key materials (for example, lithium, cobalt, aluminium, processed graphite and so-called rare earths) without which renewables cannot be manufactured, the UK would greatly increase its already damaging dependence on it, putting its energy and overall security at most serious risk.viii
(ii) The extensive mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables are already causing appalling environmental damage and dreadful human suffering throughout the world, affecting in particular fragile, unspoilt ecosystems and many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people; the continued pursuit of Net Zero would make all this far worse.ix
3. In any case it’s pointless.
For two reasons:
(i) It’s absurd to regard the closure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting plants in the UK and their ‘export’ mainly to SE Asian countries, commonly with poor environmental regulation and often powered by coal-fired electricity, as a positive step towards Net Zero. Yet efforts to ‘decarbonise’ the UK mean that’s what’s happening.
(ii) Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 75% of GHG emissions and home to 84% of humanity – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt (by international agreement) from or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security. As a result, global emissions are increasing (by 62% since 1990) and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. The UK is the source of less than 1% of global emissions – so any further emission reduction it may achieve cannot have any impact on the global position.x
In other words, the Net Zero policy means the UK is legally obliged to pursue an unachievable, disastrous and pointless policy – a policy that could result in Britain’s economic destruction.
Robin Guenier May 2024
Guenier is a retired, writer, speaker and business consultant. He was for twenty years chief executive of various high-tech companies, including the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency reporting to the UK Cabinet Office. He was Executive Director of Taskforce 2000, founder chair of the medical online research company, MedixGlobal and a regular contributor to TV and radio.
End notes:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/part/1/crossheading/the-target-for-2050
See Vaclav Smil’s important book, How the World Really Works: https://time.com/6175734/reliance-on-fossil-fuels/.
iii For a view of wind power’s many problems, see this: https://watt-logic.com/2023/06/14/wind-farm-costs/ This is also interesting: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/debunking-cheap-renewables-myth
iv A detailed Government report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65855506fc07f3000d8d46bd/Employer_skills_survey_2022_research_report.pdf
v https://news.sky.com/story/uk-should-build-new-gas-fired-power-capacity-to-use-as-backup-government-says-despite-green-targets-13092730
vi https://www.cityam.com/uk-fiscal-watchdog-puts-cost-of-reaching-net-zero-at-1-4trn/
vii In this presentation Michael Kelly, inaugural Prince Philip Professor of Technology at Cambridge and a Fellow of the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, shows how the costs of Net Zero would amount to several trillion pounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkImqOxMqvU
viii https://www.dw.com/en/the-eus-risky-dependency-on-critical-chinese-metals/a-61462687
ix There’s a wealth of data supporting this but arguably the most compelling and harrowing evidence is found in Siddharth Kara’s book Cobalt Red – about the horrors of cobalt mining in the Congo: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250284297/cobaltred
x This comprehensive analysis, based on an EU database, provides – re global greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions – detailed information by country from 1990 to 2022: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2023?vis=ghgtot#emissions_table
Climate Scepticism 
Desperate stuff? Or baby steps in the right direction? Too little too late?
“Tories pledge to ‘back drivers’ with new law”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgg2629xplo
LikeLike
Then again….
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn00xv0jl9zo
The Conservative Party, external said it was “embracing the opportunities of the green economy to create more well-paid jobs”.
It said it was providing funding for Sizewell C and “speeding up connections to new grid infrastructure”. The party said it was also supporting “more onshore and offshore wind” power and providing new funding to support green research and development.
The Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the government was still “completely committed” to the 2050 net zero target which his predecessor, Theresa May, made law back in 2019….
LikeLike
Well, well, well:
“Flynn attacks Labour’s North Sea energy plans”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c144x1wj0g0o
The SNP’s Westminster leader has attacked Labour’s North Sea energy plans and vowed his party was committed to a “just and sustainable” future oil and gas sector.
Stephen Flynn said Labour’s proposal for a time-limited windfall tax on fossil fuel companies would result in “100,000 job losses”.
LikeLike
Truly astonishing – is this what science has descended to?
“‘Disappointing and surprising’: Why isn’t this a climate election in the UK?”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/10/disappointing-and-surprising-why-isnt-this-a-climate-election-in-the-uk
More than 400 scientists write to political parties urging ambitious action or risk making Britain and the world ‘more dangerous and insecure’
After five years of record heat and record floods, one might assume British politicians would also pay record attention to the climate issue in the current election campaign....
In a sign of how worried the experts are, more than 400 scientists have signed a public letter to party leaders, urging them to adopt ambitious policies to prepare the country for the coming turmoil and to honour the UK’s international obligation to address the primary causes – the burning of gas, oil, coal and vegetation.
“It is very clear that a failure to tackle climate change with sufficient urgency and scale is making the UK and the rest of the world more dangerous and insecure,” notes the letter, whose signatories include former UK chief scientist Sir David King, former president of the Royal Meteorological Society Prof Joanna Haigh, and the creator of the “climate stripes” graphic, Prof Ed Hawkins.
The 408 scientists urge parties to promise five measures: a credible strategy to reach net zero by 2050, faster action to adapt the UK to now unavoidable climate impacts, leading by example internationally on “transitioning away from fossil fuels”, increasing climate funding for developing countries and respecting Climate Change Committee advice on North Sea oil and gas fields.
“Without such a pledge, we do not believe that your party deserves support in the forthcoming general election,” they write.
How many inaccurate or misleading statements are contained in that short snippet from the article? Quite a few.
LikeLike
“Starmer risks losing support for fighting climate change
Labour’s plan for ‘cheap renewables’ means more pain for squeezed households”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/09/starmer-risks-losing-support-for-fighting-climate-change/
…Central to the party’s plan are “cheap renewables” – with senior figures not only in Labour, but across all the main parties, repeatedly insisting that wind, solar and other renewable energy sources are far less expensive than other fuel sources.
But that’s not true.
Yes, once built, renewables have low running costs, so they should help lower energy bills in the long run. But, before that, the extremely high costs of building offshore wind farms and solar capacity must be paid for – and much of the cost of that, in the UK at least, come from steep network costs and subsidies routinely added to gas and electricity bills on top of wholesale energy costs....
...Wind power has surged to provide 29pc of electricity, with solar and hydro generating another 7pc between them. Throw in biomass energy, and renewables now account for 40pc of electricity generation, the same as coal little more than a decade ago.
That’s a significant shift, with the share of renewables in the UK’s energy mix now around the same as the European Union average.
But our end-user electricity prices are much higher. Households in Spain spent an average of around 21c€/kWh per kilowatt for electricity during the first quarter of this year, with their French counterparts paying just over 30c€/kWh. UK households shelled out considerably more – almost 40 c€/kWh, with similar differentials applying to UK-based companies too…
...Expensive energy helps explain why UK inflation peaked at 11.1pc back in late 2022, considerably higher than across the EU or in the US, with our cost of living crisis biting harder. High energy costs spread along supply chains and across the economy, pushing up the cost of everything else.
Sky-high utility and fuel bills are a big reason so many UK manufacturers struggle to maintain competitiveness, given the energy-intensive nature of what they do. Steep fuel and energy costs also explain why so many UK households continue to feel hard-pressed now, despite falling inflation and signs of economic recovery…
…There are two current problems which Labour shows no sign at all of understanding. The first is that because wind and solar power are intermittent – especially during winter when energy demand is high – and because we haven’t solved how to store renewable energy at a cost that makes sense, we need other sources to maintain baseload power during the gaps.
For the UK that means gas – and the huge expense of maintaining numerous gas-fired power stations on stand-by as back-up for renewables is a big reason we pay so much for our electricity.
The second mistake, which the Tories have also made, is to disregard the importance of the North Sea when it comes to energy security.
Oil and gas continues to meet no less than 75pc of the UK’s energy needs, once transport is included. And the North Sea provides around four fifths of the oil we use and just over half the gas.
Half of the UK’s 300 active oil/gas fields are due to close by 2030 – and the Tories’ 75pc windfall tax means many potential projects ensuring future supplies now aren’t financially viable.
Cheered on by environmental activists, Labour has promised an even more punitive tax on North Sea energy extraction – which, far from raising money as claimed, could destroy the entire industry. Rather than improving UK energy security, it would cause bills to spiral further and could even cause blackouts.….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
Good grief, the penny’s finally dropped at the Torygraph.
LikeLike
Oh dear
the ‘Success of Populist Insurgents in European Elections Could Spell Beginning of the End for Net Zero‘ according to Toby Young quoting the Telegraph in today’s Daily Sceptic: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/10/success-of-populist-insurgents-in-european-elections-could-spell-beginning-of-the-end-for-net-zero/
An extract:
What a shame. Never mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: Liam Halligan who wrote that article has always taken a reasonably sensible line on climate policy. But that doesn’t mean the penny has dropped at the overall Torygraph. And even Halligan has yet to realise that the whole absurd nonsense is pointless anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Shonky Reports from Wonky Wonks
Snake oil politicians peddling shonky reports from foolish policy wonks.”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/shonky-reports-from-wonky-wonks
Conclusions
Aurora is assuming costs for renewables that are a fraction of what we know apply in reality. They have also left out the costs of grid upgrades, BECCS, hydrogen storage and carbon capture. There are hundreds of billions of pounds missing from their analysis. The cost savings they claim are completely spurious.
It would not be surprising if the actual cost of delivering a Net Zero grid by 2030 is three times Aurora’s estimate once realistic costs are considered. The total consumer cost estimate from Aurora is clearly an untruth based on fantasy assumptions that bear no resemblance to reality.
It is not easy to be sympathetic to politicians, however, when they are fed shonky reports from thinktanks that purport to be the most influential in the country, it easy to see how they become caught up in Net Zero mania.
However, when Ed Miliband seeks to use the report to claim his Net Zero grid by 2030 will save money when such a shonky report clearly warns his plan is “likely to be out of reach”, then any sympathy that might have been due rapidly evaporates.
Our democracy is in real trouble when misleading and false claims are made to justify policy action when the reports those claims are based on are built on such dodgy assumptions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark: from the Graun article you quoted – “to address the primary causes – the burning of gas, oil, coal and vegetation.“
Does the reference to vegetation mean that the paper has finally realised the absurdity of subsidising biomass?
LikeLiked by 1 person
MikeH: the same thought occurred to me – what else could it mean?
LikeLike
Professor Gordon Hughes has just published on his ‘Cloud Wisdom’ Substack a most interesting article entitled ‘Labour’s energy promises – vision and reality’: https://cloudwisdom.substack.com/p/labours-energy-promises-vision-and
His opening paragraph:
It’s not clear why he’s dragged the lawyers in – but otherwise a good question. And his answer? Well, read the article – well worth it – but here’s his conclusion:
There was something that I found of personal interest. In the comments, Douglas Brodie (with whom some of us will be familiar) echoed Jaime’s line by saying how he found it frustrating that hardly anyone was willing to say that ‘man-made CO2 global warming is a political fiction based on corrupt science’. He noted for example how Andrew Montford had rejected his paper to that effect for publication on NZW. I responded with my standard comment that, as Net Zero could be completely refuted without reference to the science (as an example I provided a link to this thread) thereby avoiding the climate science orthodoxy minefield, that was the way to go. I was gratified when Gordon Hughes agreed.
LikeLike
The UK’s energy system may be squeezed from both sides if Andrew Montford is correct about the threat from Reform some 5 year from now. Renewables projects have an approximately 5 year planning period, and so any projects just entering that process may come to fruition just when Reform comes to power – which is a big risk to take just now if you are a potential renewables investor:- https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/political-risk-of-reform
And with Labour currently trying hard to frighten away fossil fuel companies from these shores, we may thus find ourselves between a cold place and a very cold place.
That off-ramp I keep looking for just keeps getting further and further away. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
‘...just when Reform comes to power‘
That’s a rather big assumption John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, I’ve left a comment at cloudwisdom.
LikeLike
Absolutely, Robin, which is why I used words such as “may” and “if” – Reform’s poll ratings (still only 13% on 9th June according to the BBC – see below) may melt away like snow in summer. Alternatively they may hold up or even grow once the current GE is over. Either way, if I were a potential investor in either UK renewables or UK fossil fuels, I suspect I would be in no rush to make my investment decision at the current time. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68079726
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
I thought it might be interesting to contact my local Reform candidate Charles Bunker sending him my ‘Case against Net Zero’ essay and asking for his views on climate policy. I got a lengthy and interesting reply reviewing when and how he got interested in the issue. Then he wrote this:
Hmm – not too bad. What do others think?
PS1: He hasn’t got much chance of success, but nonetheless – as I’m increasingly fed up with the Tories and haven’t the remotest wish to support Labour or LibDem – he might get my vote.
PS2: Re his point 6, it’s true I didn’t cite Michael Kelly’s GWPF paper (to avoid howls of anger from any activists to whom I might send the essay) but I did refer to a presentation Kelly gave on YouTube (see my endnote vii).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin, my immediate response is, “Wow!” And he knows what he is talking about. Surely he can’t be a politician – or not as we have known them. Very refreshing! Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Well, Reform aren’t my cup of tea, but that’s the most sense I’ve heard from a politician for a long time.
LikeLike
“Why greens were the biggest losers in the EU elections
The EU’s punishing climate policies are facing an almighty public backlash.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/06/11/why-greens-were-the-biggest-losers-in-the-eu-elections/
…At last week’s European elections, voters weren’t just turning against the green parties. They were rising up against the broader green agenda and the threat it poses to living standards and liberty. Long may the green-lash continue.
LikeLike
Robin: Excellent reply from the man from Reform.
No chance of Labour or LibDem getting in, given a massive swing away from the Tories?
I’m still in the anti-protest-vote party!
LikeLike
Richard: I think there’s every chance of Labour getting in – indeed I think it’s as close to certain as is possible. And which party is the anti-protest-vote party?
LikeLike
Oh dear, the reliably green FT is unhappy. From today’s edition:
Europe’s green backlash
Rightwing advances in EU parliament elections will lessen climate ambitions
LikeLike
Robin: Sorry not to be clear. I meant in your constituency, not nationally.
LikeLike
From the FT this morning:
Green activists are knocking on doors in the UK election campaign
New strategy by Greenpeace involves canvassing to establish global warming as leading electoral issue
Good plan. Maybe we should volunteer to help.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The WSJ has an interesting article by Steve Koonin, describing how the “climate crisis” will fade out:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-crisis-fades-out-5944bd44?st=2l84khcdn7ysjjc&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
It reminds me of the Lionel Shriver piece about manias and how interest wanes then moves on.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“How Jacinda Ardern Left New Zealand on the Brink of Blackouts – But Starmer Wants to Copy Her”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/12/how-jacinda-ardern-left-new-zealand-on-the-brink-of-blackouts-but-starmer-wants-to-copy-her/
Also at Paul Homewood’s website:
LikeLiked by 1 person
MikeH: Thanks for the pointer to the Koonin article. The WSJ was kind enough to let me through the paywall and I think it’s really excellent. Thought-provoking as to our future message, to avoid the worst damage, too.
LikeLike
From the Torygraph this morning:
Labour must drop ‘unviable’ net zero plans, warns GMB
Union claims Sir Keir Starmer’s clean power pledge will lead to ‘power cuts and blackouts’, in last attempt to influence party manifesto
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/12/labour-must-drop-unviable-net-zero-plans-warns-gmb/
An extract from a motion passed at the GMB’s annual congress this week:
True. But the Labour leadership isn’t listening – or, if it is, it doesn’t care.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A splendid note from the always excellent Francis Menton:
A Preview On Some Of The New York Impossibility
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-6-12-a-preview-on-some-of-the-new-york-energy-impossibility
An extract:
Worth reading in full – if only for its high amusement factor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comments about the launch of Labour’s manifesto have said little about its energy policy and, so far as I can see, nothing about the policy’s costs – a surprising omission, especially in the light of the party’s commitment not to raise corporation tax, income tax, national insurance or VAT. So I went to the document itself to see what it had to say. Here are a few extracts:
Were this programme possible – it isn’t – where would all the required funds come? See David Turver’s and Gordon Hughes’ recent reports for an idea of the horrendous costs that would be involved. Well, Labour seems to think they can leave it all to our ‘world-leading’ financial services. But that’s a solution from dreamland.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“green finance capital of the world”
Others will remain the original colour, meaning oblivion for the UK – or certainly ordinary people without any crony capitalist sinecure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…working people can never again be left vulnerable to dictators like Putin...”.
They weren’t really, but Labour will leave them vulnerable to dictators like Xi instead.
“…will ban fracking for good.“
I think perhaps Sir Keir should be reminded that Parliament is sovereign, and a future Parliament will be free to reverse any such ban. The fact that Labour can write like this in its manifesto is a worrying reflection of the fact that some people seem to think the CCA is written in tablets of stone.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Europe seems to be coming to its senses on Net Zero:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/16/world/europe/the-greens-are-dead-long-live-the-greens.html
Some highlights
For many voters, Green parties failed to show that their proposals were not just expensive, anti-growth policies that would hurt the poorest the most. And some view them as elitist urbanites who brush aside the costs of the transition to a less climate-harming way of life.
The poor showing for the Greens has triggered a chorus of lament that the European Union Green Deal — as the collection of policies the bloc has adopted to fight climate change and limit its own contribution to it is known — is dead.
Experts say that these concerns are unrealistic: Many of the policies that are meant to make an ambitious target for reducing carbon emissions possible are already law.
So why not change the law then?
“The radical Green Deal transformation raises tough questions about who will pay,” Mr. Tagliapietra said. “If those costs end up falling disproportionately on ordinary workers — let alone the poorest and most vulnerable communities — the transformation will worsen inequality and become socially and politically unviable,” he added. “That is not an option.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“The national grid has become the single biggest obstacle to the deployment of cheap, clean power generation and the electrification of industry. With grid connection dates not being offered until the late 2030s, important business and infrastructure investment is being stalled or lost overseas. Labour will work with industry to upgrade our national transmission infrastructure and rewire Britain.”
“rewire Britain.” !!! Wonder if they have anyone writing this guff that has a clue what is entailed.
It’s all make believe. As Robin has pointed out many times, even if they wanted to “rewire Britain.” we don’t have enough engineers to achieve the target/goal.
ps – had to google “make believe” to check I used the term correctly & got this –
to pretend or imagine:
Let’s make believe (that) we’re pirates.
Let the children make believe they’re film stars.
We can’t close our eyes and make believe that climate change doesn’t exist.
I tried to carry on with my life and make believe I didn’t have cancer.
They’ve just ignored the coup and are making believe that everything’s normal.
LikeLike
NZW has published another interesting note. By Harry Wilkinson its head of policy it’s entitled: Reform manifesto offers up the chance to vote against Net Zero.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/reform-manifesto-offers-the-chance-to-vote-against-net-zero
An extract:
I very much agree.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It seems very likely that Bim will soon be ousted by the Labour candidate Alistair Strathern, previously MP for mid-Bedfordshire (since last year when he was elected in a major Tory upset). Accordingly, I’ve just sent him my ‘Case Against Net Zero’ PDF asking for his views.
His Wlkipedia entry suggests he’s unlikely to be very supportive:
PPE Oxford.
Chair of Oxford University Labour Club.
Employed at the BoE on ‘climate risk insurance’.
At Waltham Forest Council ‘Cabinet Member for 15-Minute Neighbourhoods’.
PPS to Ed Miliband.
Taken part in Greenpeace protests dressed as a zombie.
Partner a political campaigner for Greenpeace.
Hmm .. I don’t think he and I have much in common. (Although I was a member of the OU Labour Club a long time ago).
LikeLike
Looking at that CV, that’s a no, then!
LikeLike