The UK’s biggest climate problem is that most major non-Western countries – the source of over 70% of CO2 emissions and home to 84% of humanity – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority, focusing instead on economic development, poverty elimination and energy security. As a result, global emissions are increasing and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future whatever the UK (the source of less than 1% of global emissions) may or may not do. It therefore makes absolutely no sense for Britain to continue its pursuit of the unachievable and disastrous net zero policy. The neo-colonial suggestion that we should be leading the world or setting an example is simply embarrassing.
Britain needs a fresh start. We need to establish an optimum course in a world where we’re rapidly losing influence, where greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise and where our trying to prevent that from happening is futile. Instead therefore we should abandon net zero and similar policies – necessitating the repeal or radical amendment of the 2008 Climate Change Act – and come to terms with international political reality by: (a) prioritising a strong and growing economy, underpinned by reliable, affordable energy; (b) encouraging research into the development of technologies for delivering practicable, reliable, inexpensive low emission energy; and (c) focusing on long-term adaptation to whatever climate change may occur.
Abandoning net zero would have immediate practical advantages. It would lift the terrifying threat of extensive electricity blackouts – a threat to thousands of businesses and in particular to the well-being of hundreds of thousands of people, especially the poor and vulnerable. It would mean getting rid of many – hopefully most – green levies and subsidies. It would enable people and businesses to continue with the increasingly efficient and clean internal combustion engine, saving the vast sums needed to power electric vehicles and to build a nation-wide charging network. It would mean millions of households and businesses could retain their current gas heating appliances. It would mean we could continue to rely on the commercial aviation and shipping businesses that underpin international trade and on the many other machines and products essential to our lives and well-being that require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives. It would mean reducing many ‘green’ pressures on industry and commerce – keeping costs down and encouraging productivity and employment. It would ensure that we didn’t further increase our already dangerous dependence on China.
A concluding thought. All the above advantages of abandoning net zero are clear and obvious. And the disadvantages? There are none. Even if we face a ‘climate emergency’ – I suspect we don’t, but if we do – Britain’s pursuit of net zero cannot help us avoid it. Yet both our major parties are committed to this disastrous and pointless policy. If one of them were to recognise that and abandon the policy, explaining plainly and carefully why it’s doing so, I believe it would halt the relentless advance of the vast, wealthy and self-righteous climate establishment. And seriously damage the other party.
Robin Guenier – March 2023
Climate Scepticism 
Brilliant to see Robin on Cliscep, thanks Scepticus!
LikeLiked by 3 people
A good essay on a good start to actual climate justice: bringing the climate catastrophist hypesters and grifters to account for the damage they have caused.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Could easily replace Britain with Western Europe or even by the whole Western World in this essay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I rather think – in fact I am absolutely certain – that circumstances will overtake the AGW hoaxers in the not too distant future.
The ~60 year cycle of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is well into its negative phase, as can be observed from the sources of unbiased temperature records (recollect that when it turned positive around 1980 the dire climate prognosticators such as Stephen Schneider* smoothly segued from dire warnings of an imminent ice age to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) and it appears that Solar Cycle 25 is in fact stronger than predicted.
I consider the climate to be currently cooling, with a distinct possibility that it might cool by a sufficient amount to create a real climate problem!
*Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
LikeLike
I tend to ramble on too much when writing articles. What a pleasure it is to read such a concise and pithy case so clearly expressed. Every politician and policy-maker should read it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
But which major political party might even contemplate such a course? At the moment they are all urging “forward, forward”. Much as I would like to see such a thing happen, I am not exactly expecting it I’m afraid. The current pressure is for the UK to find a way to emulate Biden’s IRA — what a misnomer that is! Still, ,perhaps if a few more US banks collapse there might be the equivalent of a cold bucket of water thrown liberally around.
LikeLike
heriotjohn,
I’m inclined to agree, but some people hold out hope, for instance:
“My prediction: ministers will slam the brakes on 2030 green targets”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/my-prediction-ministers-will-slam-the-brakes-on-2030-green-targets-k59g0bphf
Behind a paywall, unfortunately, but Net Zero Watch’s daily email tells me this much:
LikeLike
It would also lift a great weight from the country’s back. The boost to productivity, wealth and freedom would be immediate, large, and lasting. It’s a pity no-one in the corridors of power dares think the unthinkable. I really don’t see us changing course until something terrible happens that climate change policy cannot be absolved of causing, no matter how much wriggling and spin is tried. They will try to gaslight us – having had success with such tactics so far – but eventually, inevitably, there is only so much **** that ordinary folk will put up with.
It won’t be these Tories, nor the next Labour lot who reverse course – not by choice at least. Openly discarding the hallowed destination will need a political earthquake.
Mark, I take your point about growing signs of reluctance. That is only natural when you are being marched towards a cliff edge. The question is whether those standing behind you will push harder.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JIT:
I fear you’re right. But there seems to be some backing away from what may be increasingly seen as a rather embarrassing subject. For example, Sunak’s ‘five priorities’ didn’t include net zero and, although Hunt’s Budget refers to further encouragement for nuclear energy and CCS it’s hardly a central issue. Moreover, it’s reported that the Bank of England is downgrading its climate programmes so as focus on its main remit: the UK’s financial stability. And of course Biden has just approved a massive oil project in Alaska.
LikeLike
Robin, I will admit that they are in a tough spot and are going to find it very hard to wriggle out of it. In that regard signs of “shadow manoeuvres” – whether simply not overtly bowing to Gaia or prioritising something that goes the “wrong way” are perhaps the best we can hope for. One can only imagine what fury will come when, for example, some hapless minister finally has to announce that the 2030 ban on ICE vehicles is being rescinded.
LikeLike
This is interesting:
“The methane hydrate extraction market is projected to reach 66,901.8 thousand cubic meter by 2025, growing at a CAGR of 6.3% from 2021 to 2025”
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-methane-hydrate-extraction-market-is-projected-to-reach-66-901-8-thousand-cubic-meter-by-2025–growing-at-a-cagr-of-6-3-from-2021-to-2025–300950582.html#:~:text=Methane%20hydrate%20is%20formed%20under,escapes%2C%20which%20can%20be%20risky.
Especially when taking into account that one method of extracting the methane is by replacing it in situ with CO2, thus producing useful fossil fuel without upsetting the Greenies.
LikeLike