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 GuenierMarch 2023


  1. 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.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Could easily replace Britain with Western Europe or even by the whole Western World in this essay.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. 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


  4. 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.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. 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.


  6. 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”

    Behind a paywall, unfortunately, but Net Zero Watch’s daily email tells me this much:

    Industry and consumers aren’t going to be able to cope with the deadlines.

    Across the Channel, the green automotive dream has collided with realpolitik. Germany and Italy have decided to oppose an EU scheme to ban the internal combustion engine by 2035, seeking an exemption for cars that run on synthetic fuels. Porsche, owned by Volkswagen, wants to keep using engines in its 911 models. Ferrari, owned by the Agnelli family, has refused to say when it might stop using them in its supercars. A vote due to take place in Brussels last week has been delayed indefinitely.

    Almost everywhere you look, green policies are being reviewed as cheques written in the boom years become more expensive to cash amid war in Ukraine and an economic downturn. Climate campaigners scowled last month when BP diluted plans for a 40 per cent cut in oil and gas production by 2030. But its shares bounced and have stayed high.

    Almost everywhere, that is, except in Westminster. Ministers are still wedded to ambitious net-zero targets set in the bombastic first-album phase of Boris Johnson’s premiership, when Britain was about to host Cop26. They commit us to banning the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030, outlawing the renting of buildings below a certain energy performance threshold, ending the installation of new gas boilers by 2035, and decarbonising all electricity.

    At least, they do for now. Because I predict that most of these cliff-edges will be pushed back or fudged to within an inch of losing their meaning.

    In a curious mix of statism and libertarianism, ministers issued stark cut-off dates, then largely left it to the market to meet them. It isn’t working: the car industry is drifting offshore; swathes of property will become obsolete; new heating devices probably won’t be ready to replace gas ones; and an absence of baseload generation means renewables won’t completely edge out gas in the electricity system.

    Industry and consumers aren’t going to be able to cope with the deadlines. Jaguar Land Rover, the UK car industry’s biggest employer, has warned that even a proposed interim 2024 step requiring manufacturers’ sales to be 22 per cent electric might be too much. JLR has only one all-electric model, the Jaguar I-Pace, and faces having to buy carbon credits from the likes of Tesla or pay fines if it can’t hit the target. It has said it might scale back its UK presence as a result.

    As we’re on JLR, let’s start with cars. Electrification needs huge investment, the retooling of factories and the building of battery facilities. The Automotive Transformation Fund, at £850 million, is a fraction of what other governments have thrown at the issue. It awarded funds to Britishvolt in the northeast (the money never changed hands). Having gone bust, Britishvolt is being revived by an Australian buyer, which has indicated interest in making batteries for storage and defence. JLR’s owner, Tata, is predictably now seeking £500 million to base the gigafactory it needs in Somerset, not Spain. Nissan, the UK’s other car giant, uses one built by China’s Envision.

    “Rules of origin”, under the 2020 Brexit deal, stating that most of a car’s battery pack will have to be made in the UK or EU by 2027 for tariff-free sales, may now be postponed.

    Ford has cut its R&D team in Essex, and the electric van start-up Arrival has left for subsidies in the US. Drivers, put off perhaps by patchy charging facilities and teething problems with the cars, have cooled their love affair with EVs. Sales of pure battery-powered models fell by 1.2 percentage points to 13.5 per cent of the market year-on-year last month. Sales of petrol models rose by 2.8 percentage points to 43.4 per cent.

    On real estate, from next month it will be illegal to let buildings with an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of less than E. Under yet-to-be-confirmed plans, that will tighten to C by 2027 and B by 2030. EPC ratings are flawed tools that don’t properly capture a building’s energy usage, and smarter tenants and landlords are already insisting on the highest environmental standards.

    But agents estimate that, as things stand, by 2030 about 80 per cent of all commercial real estate — offices, retail centres etc— will be unlettable. That will have huge implications for owners in capital value destruction and refurbishment costs.


  7. Abandoning net zero would have immediate practical advantages. It would lift the terrifying threat of extensive electricity blackouts

    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.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. JIT:

    ‘Openly discarding the hallowed destination will need a political earthquake.’

    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.


  9. 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.


  10. 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”–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.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.