A key element of my case for abandoning Net Zero is that globally CO2 emissions are increasing because over 70% are sourced from non-Western countries that don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security. Therefore, I argue, it makes absolutely no sense for Britain (the source of less than 1% of emissions) to pursue this unachievable and disastrous policy.
But – say supporters of the policy – my argument ignores the fact Britain has a unique part to play: we’re widely seen as a climate change leader and, for there to be any hope of global emission reduction, it’s essential that we set an example – do we really want to be responsible for the failure of this desperately important global policy? It’s a view that’s exemplified by this extract from the Chair’s Forward to the recently published ‘Mission zero: Independent review of net zero’:
The UK’s leadership on tackling climate change has not only delivered real change at home … it has led to a global transformation in how countries and companies now view the importance of taking action on net zero.
The first thing to say about this is that the evidence plainly shows that our so-called ‘leadership’ is meaningless. In 1990, the UK emitted 0.6 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 and, for example, China and India 2.4 Gt and 0.6 Gt respectively. By 2021, the UK figure was 0.3 Gt – i.e. a 50% reduction. That would seem to be a compelling lead. But did China and India follow suit? No, far from it: their 2021 figures were 12.5 Gt and 2.6 Gt – i.e. 421% and 333% increases.
The reality is that the idea that non-Western countries are waiting for leadership from the us betrays an embarrassing, outdated, neo-colonial frame of mind. After more than two hundred years of what’s widely seen as condescending, arrogant and often rapacious exploitation by the West, countries such as China, India, Iran, South Korea and Indonesia understandably have little interest in following a Western lead and are confident that they’re quite capable of deciding for themselves and going their own way. One perspective might be that the idea of Western leadership really boils down to old white men (politicians and scientists) in the West telling people of colour in the non-Western world (comprising 84% of humanity and all its poorest people) what they should be doing. Unsurprisingly, the latter are unimpressed.
Climate Scepticism 
There is an argument to be made that once-great countries who are losing their economic and military dominion upon the world stage often seek to compensate by assuming a moral leadership. Climate change provided Sweden with an ideal subject for such a gameplay in the 1960s and now the UK is trying the same trick. It’s just political vanity and denial working hand in hand. Truly, no one is impressed and our noble sacrifice will be in vain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do wonder whether our glorious leaders (of pretty much all parties, it seems) really believe the world leadership argument. After all, anyone looking at global reality might realise that most of the rest of the world isn’t too keen to follow our leadership as we hurtle over the cliff edge.
My worry is that, for our politicians, the global leadership argument gives them a marvellous excuse to strut about on the world stage – they seem to like nothing better. It will take quite a lot to dissuade them from strutting.
However, I want to thank Robin for so clearly articulating an irony that has long struck me – the arguably racist and neo-colonialist mindset implicit within the assumption that it is for us clever people in the developed world to explain, cajole and lead those poor souls in developing countries who don’t understand the issues as well as us, so that they follow us down the righteous path to enlightenment (sarc). I find it truly bizarre that “progressives” don’t see it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So every year for the last 30 years, China has been increasing CO2 emissions by an amount greater than the total of current UK emissions. yet somehow, we’re the ones who have to quicken the pace of our death march towards the unattainable ‘net zero’.
LikeLike
I would say that just about sums it all up.
LikeLike
I have just tried to read the mission zero paper mentioned. I lost the will to live after the introduction.they boast of 1800 replys and meeting 1000 (yes, one thousand) people, Am I correct in my recolection that the uk has a population of fifty seven million people? (roughly).
Maybe I’m missing something.
LikeLike
The difference may be that the leaders who genuinely survive on the will of their people will never commit to national suicide, whereas leaders who treat their people with genuine contempt prefer to please international institutions, media & twitterers, and will cheerfully travel down long dark roads with unknown and risky destinations for the people they supposedly represent. It seems obvious to this observer that making life better for its people is not in the centre of UK politics. In the UK we seem to have ended up with a technocratic uniparty who care little for us, and triangulate about the meanest of distinctions, leaving us with no way to change anything.
There seems no prospect for a left-field or right-field entrance to upset this applecart.
To murder a quote from Orwell: Those who “abjure” carbon dioxide can only do so because others are emitting carbon dioxide on their behalf.
Countries with a degree of self interest might look on our enthusiasm with a different sort of enthusiasm, looking on a donation to Gaia as a donation to themselves. That would be entirely rational and to the benefit of their people and the security of their decision makers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
lorde, I discussed it a bit here: https://cliscep.com/2023/01/14/the-independent-net-zero-review/
The snark quotes don’t appear in the URL.
LikeLike
Lordelate, I think you can add about ten million people to that number.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My math. was never great!
LikeLike
I’m always struck by how the morally righteous from the plummy classes always assume that it is they who are at the centre of everything.
You see this working in developing countries. There’s a certain type, working for international NGOs or some UN mission, who breeze in (perhaps for the first time in such and such particular country) with the latest morally correct dictum, which the locals need to adopt by the end of the workshop session. But all the while contrasting themselves with the terrible colonialists. The Chinese for one have a word for them : baizuo. It’s the smug knowledge that they are fundamentally right about everything that gets me.
LikeLike
I searched for “what is climate leadership” and clicked straight to the tenth page, where I found climateleadershiptraining.co.uk. Here, we may take…
Where we will…
I can’t wait. How much is it?
Not at all bad for 7 hours of contact time.
LikeLike
Thanks for that Chinese word, ianalexs. I’ll be keeping an eye out for it from now on.
*
Can anything be more baizuo than Oxfam’s recently published Inclusive Language Guide?
https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/inclusive-language-guide-621487/
The wokely authoritarian leadership language guide/toolkit is crammed with so much baizuo crap that a comment couldn’t encapsulate its awfulness, so I won’t try. Read the thing. It’s bonkers.
*
The Oxfam toolkit mentions climate change a few times (eg, its entry on ‘Climate gender justice’, which says that women are victims-but-not-victims of climate change because, although they are victims, they ‘have a crucial role to play in climate solutions’, so we shouldn’t call them victims, even though they are victims, etc) and…
Quelle surprise! Its author is a very committed globetrotter.
Helen Wishart blogs as ‘Vegan Wander Woman’. She travels the world sampling vegan cuisine. Countries visited in the last few years include Indonesia (Bali, obvz), India, Thailand, Peru, USA, Namibia, Iceland, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Ecuador, Botswana and Zambia.
From her Oxfam toolkit: Climate Gender Justice ‘recognizes that women have a crucial role to play in climate solutions, mitigation and adaptation because of their lived experiences and knowledge.’
Right. That old ‘lived experience’ crap again. Travel the world eating noodles. That’s the ticket. That’ll teach the colonialist patriarchy a thing or two about… noodles or something.
LikeLike
At best, a lot of training now is either box ticking because of legal requirements or window dressing or benefits the provider hansomely.. Much of the traing I have done in recent years fits into these catogories and the rest has been as useful as a chocolate teapot. Although at least you could eat that once cooled.
LikeLike
Well, it looks as though the ultra-“green” EU isn’t following the UK’s “lead”, so it’s probably time to give up on the pretence that we can influence the rest of the world:
“EU ministers to approve vehicle emissions law after deal with Germany
Berlin secures concessions over future use of e-fuels after going back on agreement struck last year”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/27/eu-ministers-to-approve-vehicle-emissions-law-after-deal-with-germany
Meanwhile, in Berlin….
https://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/article237969697/volksentscheid-berlin-2023-klimaneutral-ergebnis-hochrechnung.html
LikeLike
Mark, also this: “EU’s energy summit ends in division over Net Zero”
Madame Destructo.
https://unherd.com/thepost/eus-energy-summit-ends-in-division-over-net-zero/
LikeLiked by 1 person
This was something I also wanted to clip out as it is germane to the head post:
“International moral pressure.” Are we feeling it, guys?
LikeLiked by 1 person
By the way, please also read the comments under the UnHerd article. There are a lot of sceptics out there, plus a die-hard Skeptical Science linker.
LikeLike
By the way, something came through from the dim mists of time when I was thinking about the UK’s climate leadership. It was this (first folio via Project Gutenberg with uncorrected canonical errors):
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Italy looks to slow green transition drive to shield local firms”
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/italy-looks-slow-green-transition-drive-shield-local-firms-2023-03-27/
Looks like the UK “leadership” is failing in a rather big way!
LikeLike
“UK scientists urge Rishi Sunak to halt new oil and gas developments
Call comes on eve of revised net zero strategy that allows drilling in North Sea and boosts ‘unproven’ carbon capture”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/29/uk-scientists-rishi-sunak-oil-and-gas-developments-climate-crisis
The part of the report on the letter that caught my eye is this:
Presumably they don’t believe in evidence-based decision-making, then>
LikeLike
‘the UK once again demonstrates international leadership‘
It would be interesting to know when they think the UK last demonstrated international leadership. The reality of course is that it has never done so. I suspect they know this and simply see this assertion as another way of exerting pressure.
LikeLike
Robin, I refer you to the forward to the Skidmore “independent” “review” of Net Zero:
It may be delusional, but it’s what they believe. In this world, announcing an unattainable target counts as leadership and is absurdly badged as an achievement in itself. Cnut could have tried it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking of neo-colonialism:
“Green energy ‘profiting on back of Congo miners'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science_and_environment
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
Thanks for drawing our attention to this important subject. I strongly recommend Siddharth Kara’s book ‘Cobalt Red: How the Blood of the Congo Powers Our Lives’ (available from Amazon on Kindle for £10.44). I’ve just read it – it’s harrowing and disturbing. Here’s an extract:
It’s one of many reasons why I regard Net Zero as disastrous.
I think the only – and essential – solution would be for any business that imports products that incorporate Congo-sourced cobalt (that’s almost any product with a rechargeable battery – e.g. laptops, smart phones and most importantly EVs) to ensure they are paying their suppliers enough to enable them to maintain proper regulation and inspection of mines and to ensure that ‘artisanal’ miners are adequately paid and work for reasonable hours in safe conditions and without the employment child labour. All this would substantially increase the price of EVs – enough perhaps to even threaten the realisation of Net Zero. But there’s a complication: as most cobalt mining in the Congo is controlled by China, this ‘solution’ would in practice be hard to implement.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well said Robin.
LikeLike
Robin,
While I agree 100% with the sentiment, you are right that a solution such as you propose would be tough to implement.
There is the obvious example of the production of polysilicon for PV panels. China dominates this even more than cobalt. A very large proportion of world output comes from the Uighar region employing slave labour. This is ignored in the drive for renewable energy.
There are other sources of cobalt which were the main suppliers until the DRC started ramping up output 20 – 30 years ago, presumably driven by the demand for Li-Ion batteries. Then China moved in early in the 2000s and pushed things along even faster.
LikeLike
Mike,
I think China’s use of Uighar forced labour for the production of polysilicon may, as you suggest, be an even more serious problem than the exploitation of child labour in the Congo. And I very much doubt if there’s any possibility of persuading the Chinese to change their ways. But, in view for example of the huge fuss activists make about how we benefitted from slavery two hundred years ago, surely action is essential? Yet the only feasible solution must be to cease buying solar panels incorporating the subject polysilicon and get them from elsewhere. I think that might be possible – but it would almost certainly mean far more expensive panels. Another threat to the viability of Net Zero.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This piece nicely inter-mingles the role of China with the issue of neo-colonialism and the madness of net zero policies in the developed world:
“China’s loans to Africa worry World Bank President David Malpass”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65140363
LikeLike
“‘Green colonialism’: Indigenous world leaders warn over west’s climate strategy
UN summit in New York hears how resources needed for sustainable energy threaten Indigenous land and people”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/23/un-indigenous-peoples-forum-climate-strategy-warning
LikeLike
“Why Africa is turning its back on the eco-obsessed West
The developing world needs rapid growth, not lectures on sustainability.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/06/04/why-africa-is-turning-its-back-on-the-eco-obsessed-west/
LikeLike
Mark, thanks for the link. one comment stands out for me –
“Nigerian vice-president Yemi Osinbajo has noted: ‘No country in the world has been able to industrialise using renewable energy.’
the rest is a good read for UK Net Zero Planners.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It does seem that the rest of the world isn’t looking for leadership from the UK. As for the argument that we in the UK need to lead in order to induce others to follow, that argument is rather undermined by this:
“Climate change: How is my country doing on tackling it?”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65754296
In the article the BBC provides an interactive chart, based on the work of Climate Action Tracker, and you can use it to see how a number of large economies are performing (current policies) -v- their pledges and -v- “needed to limit temperature rise to 1.5C”. The latter metric looks rather arbitrary to me on an individual country basis, since it seems to me that although it may conceivably be possible to come up with a level of global CO2 emissions that might achieve such an aim, attributing fractions of those emissions permitted to individual countries must be loaded with subjective assessments.
Be that as it may, the tracker tool is quite interesting. For instance it shows that pretty much only the UK is complying with its promise to jump off an economic cliff. The US and the EU are languidly following, but not complying so well with their promises to commit economic suicide. Countries such as China are broadly complying with their promises, but then that’s not difficult, given that the promised to keep growing their emissions until 2030. And many other countries made promises that (according to the tracker) don’t do what they need to do to comply with the mythical 1.5C goal, and despite their inadequacy, aren’t remotely complying with their inadequate promises.
So why do we in the UK keep beating ourselves up, and why are our leaders so determined that we must self-flagellate more than any other country? And why do they use the singularly inappropriate metaphor about winning races to net zero? No other entrants in the “race” seem keen to leave the starting line.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Given the Climate Action Tracker tool, and what it reveals, mentioned in my comment above, this is rather strange:
“Climate Change Committee says UK no longer a world leader”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66032607
Deben has it all wrong, of course. We have done, and continue to do more, than any other country to destroy our economy in the name of saving the planet. And who says we, in fine neo-colonialist fashion, have to be the ones asking Africa not to develop oil? Isn’t that their decision, based on their assessment of the threat from climate change -v- the benefits of economic development to be gained from exploiting fossil fuels? Isn’t that a matter for the international community? Why should we continue to be latter-day imperialists?
And if we aren’t leading the world, who is? We aren’t told. That’s because it certainly isn’t the USA, the EU, and definitely not China or India! This whole puff piece is about politics and religion, not facts.
LikeLike
As I said when commenting on that recent TC article (and in my header piece here) the problem with UK ‘leadership’ is that ‘it really boils down to old white men (politicians and scientists) in the West telling people of colour in the non-Western world (comprising 84% of humanity and all its poorest people) what they should be doing. Unsurprisingly, the latter are unimpressed.’
LikeLike
I find this article terrifying, but for different reasons to those which seem to appal the Guardian:
“Foreign Office cannot say how many climate officials it has
Exclusive: Former envoy raises concerns over possible ‘deliberate defunding of climate diplomacy under Sunak government’”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/15/foreign-office-climate-officials-defunding-policy-sunak
LikeLike
“”Green Colonialism” is real and must be stopped.”
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/green-colonialism-is-real-and-must
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very interesting to see this from Robert Malone Mark. Spot on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought this was a well argued and very reasonable article from Malone, but Malone Derangement Syndrome appears to be a thing:
https://substack.com/@paulcudenec/note/c-20963964
I can highly recommend Paul’s Winter Oak website, but this seems well off target.
LikeLike
“The UK’s Net Zero zealotry is harming the world’s poor
So much of our foreign aid is being used to keep the developing world down.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/08/06/the-uks-net-zero-zealotry-is-harming-the-worlds-poor/
LikeLike
“Kenya’s African climate summit not ‘hijacked by West’”
17.23 today here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science_and_environment
LikeLike
We point out the neo-colonial nature of developed countries insisting that the developing world ditches fossil fuels against its wishes, since such policies slow down development. The Guardian responds with this:
“Rich countries ‘trap’ poor nations into relying on fossil fuels
Campaigners criticise ‘new form of colonialism’, where countries in the global south are forced to invest in fossil fuel projects to repay debts”
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/aug/21/rich-countries-trap-poor-nations-into-relying-on-fossil-fuels
The report referred to can be found here:
Click to access Debt-Fossil-Fuel-Trap-Report_2023.pdf
It’s worth looking at which individuals and organisations assisted in putting the report together. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and all that.
I’ll leave you to read it an see what you think.
LikeLike
“Narendra Modi: Don’t lecture us on climate change
The Indian prime minister is preparing to host the G20 in Delhi”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/narendra-modi-india-g20-climate-change-sbs29gb8q
LikeLike
“The new ‘scramble for Africa’: how a UAE sheikh quietly made carbon deals for forests bigger than UK
Agreements have been struck with African states home to crucial biodiversity hotspots, for land representing billions of dollars in potential carbon offsetting revenue”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/30/the-new-scramble-for-africa-how-a-uae-sheikh-quietly-made-carbon-deals-for-forests-bigger-than-uk
LikeLike
“Nelson Mandela’s granddaughter slams “climate apartheid” by rich nations”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-67606344
In principle I agree with her, but I suspect we’re talking about different things…:
LikeLike
“Defund the United Nations’ climate police
Do-gooders oppress poor and working-class families and people of color”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/dec/19/defund-united-nations-climate-police/
LikeLike
“Lancet Report Reveals Devastating Impact of Climate Policies on Public Health in Developing Countries”
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/12/20/lancet-report-reveals-devastating-impact-of-climate-policies-on-public-health-in-developing-countries/
The article concludes thus:
LikeLike
A must-read essay HERE by the always excellent Rupert Darwall. As a taster here are three extracts:
And his concluding paragraph:
Two notes:
Darwall’s link to the CCA regulatory-impact assessment doesn’t work. HERE ’s the correct link.
Darwall has a much longer and usefully detailed article on the same topic HERE . It’s titled ‘The Folly of Climate Leadership – Net zero and Britain’s DISASTROUS ENERGY POLICIES’ – hence my decision to post this under the ‘Leadership?’ heading.
LikeLiked by 3 people
A useful summary of much that’s wrong:
“The Folly Of Climate Leadership”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2024/01/29/the-folly-of-climate-leadership/
LikeLike
Mark & Robin – thanks for the links, I notice the Forbes article quotes Rupert Darwall at length.
liked this partial quote from the Forbes article –
“The Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) are the two key government agencies that act as watchdogs for policy coherence and cost-benefit analysis of key policy proposals. Mr. Darwall, who is not one to mince words, states baldly that “they share responsibility for propagating fantasy economics on the likely costs and consequences of net zero.” Darwall describes in detail how U.K. politicians and their expert advisors in the Treasury and the OBR effectively sold “green snake oil” to their voters. In a “travesty of policy analysis”, these agencies were effectively “selling voters a fairy tale of green growth”
LikeLike
Thanks for this Mark. The report by Rupert Darwall to which the author refers (I referred above to his much shorter article on the same subject) – The Folly of Climate Leadership Net zero and Britain’s DISASTROUS ENERGY POLICIES – can be found HERE .
An extract from the Overview:
It’s a long report – 75 pages including Endnotes – but worth a detailed review. Darwall concludes his report with two recommendations:
1. A future British government should amend the Climate Change Act to remove the statutory duty on the government to ensure that the UK’s net greenhouse gas emissions fall by a prescribed amount (currently 100 percent) by a particular year (currently 2050).
2. Full disclosure is needed so that politicians, opinion-formers, and the public have dependable data on the true costs of wind and solar. Such a requirement will be strongly resisted by the climate lobby, as it doesn’t want the public to see the true costs of renewable energy and its atrocious value for the money.
(The above are extracts from the recommendations.)
LikeLiked by 3 people
I worked my way through Rupert Darwall’s report over Christmas. I recommend it heartily. It’s just a pity that the politicians and others responsible for the massive deception and reallocation of resources are unlikely to read it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Wind resistance: can Colombia overcome opposition to get its green energy plan back on track?”
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/apr/05/new-colonialism-colombia-green-energy-windfarms-resistance-indigenous-wayuu
Oh dear, what a conflict of emotions for the Guardian!
“In the state of La Guajira, ambitious plans to transition to renewables are beset by bureaucratic delays and anger from many local Indigenous people, who see it as ‘new colonialism’“
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some people never learn…
“Labour will take global lead on climate action, Ed Miliband vows
Exclusive: shadow energy security secretary promises to fill ‘vacuum’ left by Rishi Sunak’s U-turn on net zero”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/01/labour-will-take-global-lead-on-climate-action-ed-miliband-vows
Miliband says his party would put climate front and centre of its plans in government, promising to reverse the ban on onshore wind in the immediate days after parliament returns after the election.
He said it was also a chance to fundamentally change course on climate and to make that case on the world stage.
“We have taken the manifesto position we have because we think it is the right thing now,” he said in an interview with the Guardian. “But it is also right that we fill the vacuum of leadership on this issue.
“We now have a government that is explicitly going along with the climate delayers. We have to change course as a country and as a world. And this election is an opportunity for us to change course.”
Miliband is to become one of the most influential figures in the expected next Labour government and one of very few with direct cabinet experience. He said that climate was the front line in the battle against the populist right across the world.
“If we win, we will seize the moment,” he said. “There is not a minute to waste in the drive for 2030 clean power and in the drive for climate action. The world is off track, Britain is off track and we intend to change that direction.”
There is a growing awareness within Labour of the scale of the party’s task internationally in the coming years, with the potential loss of progressive allies on climate issues in governments such as France, Canada and the US.
I despair. The developing world (including China) has no interest in climate change mitigation. Just as much of the developed world, including most obviously the USA if Trump becomes POTUS again, is also turning its back on it, Miliband thinks the UK, responsible for less than 0.9% of global emissions annually, can change the world. The hubris is almost unbearable.
LikeLike
From Ben Pile’s recent substack piece, mentioned by Robin on another thread:
https://netzeroscandal.substack.com/p/reasons-to-be-cheerful
The international context is an extremely important to the UK climate agenda. When he was last member of the government, and with the climate change brief, Ed Miliband believed that the UK contingent to the COP 15 meeting in Copenhagen would impress the world with the newly-minted Climate Change Act — the first “legally binding” climate legislation in the world, boasted its authors and lobbyists. But China blocked a deal, complained Miliband, after the meeting collapsed into a bitter farce.
The dying years of the last Labour administration saw MPs almost unanimously support unilateral decarbonisation in the expectation that the rest of the world would follow. It has not. More recent UNFCC deals and the British interpretation of the Paris Agreement are similarly ignored. And according to the carbon bean counters at Climate Action Tracker, not even the UK’s climate policies are sufficient to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degrees target — and no country is on track to meet their Paris Agreement obligations.
So if the next UK government were to increase its climate ambitions, it cannot expect the rest of the world to reciprocate its unilateral decarbonisation. The UK has led the world in increasing the tensions with the countries that the last Labour government blamed for the failure of climate negotiations. The same climate agenda seems to be tearing Europe apart, and opening the door to the “far right” climate change “deniers” in member states. The world is repolarising. And a global Net Zero deal looks significantly less likely than a third world war, which may be functionally equivalent.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The same question keeps popping up. Is Ed mad or is he bad or just plain thick? He must know that the rest of the world is not following, and will not follow, our insane pursuit of Net Zero and a 100% carbon free Grid in an absurdly short period of just 6 years. So why does he insist that we will be ‘climate leaders’? What can possibly explain his irrational behaviour in the face of facts? If he pursues his ideological ambition, success will not reward his efforts, but he will cause immense damage to the country in the process – economically, socially AND environmentally. If evil is defined not by motivation but purely by actions, then Ed and the party which he represents are evil.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This Ed Miliband? [For posterity, front page of Guardian, 2.vii.2024.]
LikeLike
Our best (only?) hope is that it will all go wrong very quickly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s my impression that many folk accept – unthinkingly – that our climate actions can make a difference to our own weather. As we all know, the media never miss a chance to link local weather events to “climate change”, reinforcing the impression that we can influence said events.
As well as challenging the “science” and highlighting the massive impracticalities of Net Zero, another key message should be that, whatever we do on this small island, it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever to our weather.
LikeLiked by 2 people
On Miliband’s motives one thing is clear to me: we wants Labour to win power with the largest majority possible. By making such extreme statements so close to election day he wants to drive people who were never going to vote Labour to vote for the party which has the most sensible manifesto on Net Zero. Because that will increase the Labour majority, because of FPTP, past voting patterns and the like. A massive bonus would be if the Lib Dems become the official party of opposition.
What would Labour do with such unprecendented power? That’s a story for another day. A day that I hope we won’t have to confront. But there’s all the motive Ed needs.
LikeLike
Richard,
Do I take it you think Miliband is effectively encouraging people to vote for Reform because that will hurt the Tories and help Labour? I don’t buy it myself. Sadly, far from thinking he is capable of being so Machiavellian, I fear the truth is that he actually believes the rubbish he spouts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wouldn’t say “encouraging” but deliberately seeking to provoke people who would never vote Labour to vote Reform.
I don’t think he and all of the Labour front-bench, and their key advisers, are rivals of Machiavelli on this. It’s so obvious.
But (and this is the key point) if I’m right it doesn’t mean Miliband doesn’t believe the rubbish he spouts. He could well be an ideologue who is also a schemer when it comes to electoral advantage.
Whereas he thinks “deniers” who are against Net Zero are ideologues who cannot think practically. Exactly how we think about him.
LikeLike
Starmer today , channelling his inner Ed Miliband:
He says we are “over reliant on the international market” and it’s one of the reasons people have paid “such high prices in energy”.
This is why, Starmer adds, Labour wants to set up Great British Energy, which he says will “lower bills” as well as provide more independence and security.
I despair .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – partial quote from your above comment –
“Miliband is to become one of the most influential figures in the expected next Labour government and one of very few with direct cabinet experience. He said that climate was the front line in the battle against the populist right across the world.
“If we win, we will seize the moment,” he said. “There is not a minute to waste in the drive for 2030 clean power and in the drive for climate action. The world is off track, Britain is off track and we intend to change that direction.””
OMG – if those statements are true, the man is so wedded to his ongoing “climate mission” that facts/reality are irrelevant.
I despair for the UK people also.
LikeLike
“Labour will take global lead on climate action, Ed Miliband vows”
I had always thought that the notion of British exceptionalism was the preserve of the political right wing. Now the Left is at it in spades. There is a real arrogance to Miliband’s assertions. From a Canadian perspective I believe that the rest of the world does not care what the UK does on climate change. Despite the fact that under Trudeau we currently have a left leaning government that is notionally a “climate ally” there is no way that Canada will stop exploiting its oil and gas resources. It’s actually rather sad that the UK is heading for economic disaster with its Net Zero obsession.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In contrast to the front-bench doubling down on climate/energy gobbledegook, Starmer has been attempting to backtrack on extreme transgenderism, including trying to engineer a meeting with past Labour donor JK Rowling. Because in this area he knows that Labour has been losing votes. It doesn’t matter where they go, any such losses help the Tories.
Do Starmer’s modified statements, just before an election, reflect a deep change of mind on the subject? Lots of gender critical women say no. On that, in my terms, they are being both realistic about Labour and practical in their use of their vote. Here’s a male of the species:
I agree about what many of us benighted citizens will feel a year out. But I’m far from sure how long it will take for what we call reality (ie the needless suffering of many) to change the minds of Starmer, Miliband and co on energy policy, transgenderism or anything else.
LikeLike
Richard: I suggest that reality doesn’t always or necessarily mean the needless suffering of many. It can (and I hope may) mean being confronted by an insuperable obstacle (e.g. hopelessly inadequate funds, lack of skilled workers or a necessary programme (e.g. a reengineered Grid) taking far longer than assumed) that means Starmer has no option but to abandon his renewable programme before it’s caused much needless suffering.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, for me the key question is, “Will Starmer/Miliband/Reeves invest pronto (but perhaps very quietly) in the 30 to 50GW of CCGT that the grid needs?” or will they dither in order to prioritise renewables? Even if they dither and then hit the buffers with renewables, there will be the off-ramp of the CCGT plant to fall back on, albeit with lots of egg on faces – not a pretty sight, especially as grid reliability may be seriously affected before the new CCGT comes on stream.
I’m keeping my seat belt buckled up until well after the GE landing tomorrow. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This extract…
… prompts me to recommend this amusing – and I think perceptive – article in the Daily Sceptic: How Will Starmer Unite the Unruly, Acrimonious Left?
An extract:
I’m sure that’s essentially true. But how might it affect Miliband’s mad plans?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I fear it won’t affect Miliband’s plans at all, Robin. Whatever else they disagree about (and I am sure they disagree about a lot), the incoming Labour MPs will all be just as much in favour of the deranged energy policy proposed by Miliband as were most of the MPs who have departed from Westminster. It is a collective insanity. I am reminded of the South Sea Bubble.
Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
LikeLike
Mark: you wait – I suspect there’ll be those who will say he’s not moving quickly enough, those who will oppose his support for nuclear power, those who will be utterly opposed to new CCGT units for back-up, those who will oppose CCS … and probably more.
LikeLike
We can live in hope!
LikeLike
Any other option?
LikeLike
Die in despair.
LikeLike
Edmund Burke snapped this morning in Bristol. For three reasons
Still great advice. For all of us.
Second, his foresight about how the French Revolution would turn out. Almost alone among the pundits of the time. Because such things are so hard to predict. “People’s Front of Judea and Judaean People’s Front” was Monty Python make-believe (during UK peacefulness) about a time of ruthless Roman Empire hegemony, let’s remember.
We have no idea, unless we’re as in tune with reality as Burke.
Third, he’s considered by many the father of modern Conservatism. Though he was always a Whig not a Tory. If we’re in the Keir Hardey/Ramsay MacDonald 1900 startup position in a FPTP system, with 45 years to wait before any real power, it seems worth looking back further.
LikeLike
Although it contains nothing that’s new to any of us here this article this article in Spiked is a good summary of what’s about to hit us:
Labour’s green delusions could be its undoing
Accelerating Net Zero will hike energy bills, smother the economy and spark an almighty backlash.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/07/03/labours-green-delusions-could-be-its-undoing/
Its conclusion:
All this is obvious. The remarkable thing is that no politician – not even Farage – has given these simple and damning realities any prominence during the election campaign.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It depends on the size of Commons majority Starmer has and how ruthless he is in putting down dissent. And in putting down street violence, as and when it occurs. With no hint of ‘two tier policing’? I doubt it.
One point of mentioning the French revolutionary period is there were of course many sects, murderously disagreeing with each other as they competed for power. Was that simply amusing for onlookers? I think not. Did rationality ensue in a timely way? Hardly.
Anyway, the size of Commons majority is a key unknown.
LikeLike
It also depends on how Labour MPs whose dissent Starmer tries to put down react against that putting down.
LikeLike
Yes, Robin, and then the PM’s counter-reaction. How much power does a supermajority confer? I still hope for something far less than that, having just watched Peter Hitchens confer agency on each of us, not the malign instrument of opinion polls (thanks Jit).
LikeLike
Richard: we’ll see soon enough.
PS: I wasn’t aware that Peter Hitchens had the authority to confer agency on anyone. And, in any case, it’s a bit late now.
LikeLike
Yet another article underlining how unfortunate it’s been that the realities of Net Zero have hardly been discussed in the election campaign: Farage bursts the green bubble – Nigel Farage is right about the unrestrained pursuit of Net Zero.
Its conclusion:
And I think (and certainly hope) that that could happen quite soon. But it’s most unfortunate that all these articles are appearing so late in the day.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Robin,
Even commentators like Fraser Myers are confused when it comes to analysing Miliband’s Net Zero plans. Myers ends up contradicting himself. On the one hand he says:
The implications are “clear and undeniable”. This means that Miliband and Starmer must be aware of the ruinous consequences of their Net Zero acceleration policies.
But then Fraser bizarrely says:
They are not deluded, or oblivious of the impacts. The impacts are “clear and undeniable” as Fraser admits. This necessarily implies that, for whatever reason they are planning to accelerate the implementation of Net Zero, malign intent must feature significantly in their plans. They are knowingly setting the UK on a crash course of deindustrialisation, energy rationing, social debilitation, environmental degradation, curtailment of freedoms and increasing poverty. How far they will get with this enterprise before reality kicks in and public anger becomes uncontainable is the million dollar question. Fraser gets it right by identifying the real delusion which lies at the heart of Labour’s plans for Net Zero; the belief that they can convince the public to go along with it – no doubt buoyed by the extraordinary success of the state sponsored Covid scare campaign. They’re in for a shock I suspect:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/07/03/labours-green-delusions-could-be-its-undoing/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: ‘clear and undeniable’ to you, me and Fraser Myers. But not it seems to Starmer and Miliband, caught up in their mad little green ‘climate emergency’ echo chamber – that knows nothing of the realities of the outside world where they assume the public shares their determination to pursue these policies.
LikeLike
No, sorry Robin, I don’t buy that; it’s just too implausible to assume that Starmer and Miliband are not aware of the economic, social and environmental impacts of their Net Zero policies.
LikeLike
What Myers says is that these people are deluded. And deluded people can easily fail to understand the likely consequences of their actions. And that’s especially so when they’re sure those actions are for the best: we face a climate emergency – they believe – and tackling that was never going to be easy.
As Myers says their ‘delusions are about to have a very painful collision with reality‘. I agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s difficult isn’t it? By any objective standard, Starmer and Miliband are reasonably intelligent, yet we see (or think we see) that the policies they are about to inflict on the UK will be ruinous. That being the case, it seems logical to assume that they must be mad or bad, since they aren’t stupid.
The problem with that analysis is that the ruinous policies they claim will do us good are endorsed by most of the establishment and countless “experts”. Thus Starmer and Miliband can justifiably claim to be acting in the country’s best interests.
Perhaps the bigger and more important question is why the establishment and experts are so set in their belief that stupid policies are the best way forward. In some cases I am prepared to consider that financial self-interest may be a factor. In other cases it may simply be that (as my nonagenarian Cumbrian father-in-law would put it) some people are so clever, they’re thick.
There may be some malign actors, but I suspect the main reason why clever people are behaving stupidly is a combination of Groupthink and an arrogant belief (which they would no doubt accuse us of) that anyone who disagrees with them must be stupid, ill-educated, financially motivated (“Big Oil”) or evil.
At the root of it all, I suspect, is an appalling level of Groupthink at universities, which now tells students what to think, rather than teaching them how to think. It sends them out into the world to proselytise, convinced of their intellectual superiority, when regrettably these days that could often be the opposite of the truth. The communications I receive from Oxford university and my old college there worry me greatly. Things have changed out of all recognition, and certainly for the worse, since I was there forty years ago.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin, what Myers also says is:
[Labour] . . . . is proposing to hike the cost of living, to limit economic development and to curb our personal freedoms. It doesn’t say so explicitly, of course. But these are the clear and undeniable implications of its plan to accelerate Net Zero.
I was pointing out the contradictions in that article. You have just focussed on Myers’ assertion that Miliband and Starmer are deluded (which is a highly implausible assumption) and pointed out that you agree with him, thus attempting to bolster your argument of zero culpability!
LikeLike
Mark, I don’t think it is difficult. Most countries have not adopted such an aggressive Net Zero policy. Their economies are booming with the use of cheap, abundant fossil fuels. Miliband and Starmer are aware of this. They are aware that the UK is not a ‘leader’ in climate policy because very few countries are following us. Net Zero is unilateral economic disarmament, immiseration and deindustrialisation. There will be no climate benefits, only national harms. Groupthink, delusion, stupidity cannot explain the behaviour of our politicians given the certainty of the knowledge that Net Zero has no benefits, nationally or globally, and comes only with immense harms to us as a nation.
LikeLike
Jaime: I believe there’s little point in our continuing this exchange. As I’ve said before, there’s no possibility of your persuading me that Starmer and Miliband know full well that their policies will ruin Britain and that they’re pursuing them with that precise intention.
In my view, the problem is that they, like so many others in powerful positions in this country and elsewhere in the West, are simply deluded and believe these policies, painful though they may be, are necessary if we’re to deal with a most serious climate emergency.
PS to the above (added a few minutes later): fortunately in the EU (and to some extent the US) a lot of people are beginning to see the harm these ‘elite’ policies can do and are rebelling against them. It hasn’t happened yet in the UK. But I’m sure it will.
LikeLike
On the one hand, regarding the climate crisis slogan, “To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science.” ~ Richard Lindzen, top climate scientist. https://www.azquotes.com/author/30824-Richard_Lindzen
On the other hand, I have just finished Philip W. Gray’s book, “Totalitarianism, the basics” which ends with a chapter on the future of totalitarianism (Tm) in which he discusses technology and Tm, the mainstreaming of Tm ideology, and technocratic Tm. The chapter includes reference to “nudging”, polarisation, consensus and its associated ‘experts’ who are more properly called ‘credentialed’ because their expertise is about the consensus rather than anything to do with the world external to their bubble.
Further to Richard’s photo (2.31pm yesterday) of the statue of Burke in Bristol let me note that Gray finishes thus, “At its foundations, totalitarianism is based on fiction, and falsity is fundamentally weaker than truth … Totalitarianism has its victories here and there, but in the end, Truth wins.” Or as Ayn Rand expressed it, we cannot forever escape the consequences of ignoring reality. In haste, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John C: thank you for this. I particularly applaud your final paragraph.
LikeLike
Robin, I know I’m not going to convince you to change your opinions but I feel I am obliged to pint out the inconsistencies inherent in those opinions. For example, first you say:
But then you change tack slightly and say:
Like Myers, you are contradicting yourself. First you insist that they are unaware of the painful consequences, then you imply that they are aware of the painful consequences, but that they are necessary, because of the settled science climate emergency! The source of their delusion in your first statement is apparently an ignorance of the harmful consequences, but in your second statement it is the belief that they are necessary, despite being harmful.
The far more plausible and simple argument to be made is that they are fully aware of the painful consequences of attempting to implement Net Zero and that they are fully aware of the impossibility of achieving Net Zero on their stated timescale, and finally that they are aware of the pointlessness of achieving or attempting to achieve Net Zero, even on its own terms, assuming the existence of a carbon dioxide induced climate emergency. Add those up and what do you get? Malignancy. You have said nothing to convince me that this is not a more plausible argument.
But I’ll shut up (for) now!
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘But I’ll shut up (for) now!‘
Well said Jaime.
LikeLike
One for my friend Mark Hodgson, from Peter North
— https://x.com/fuddaily/status/1808501576731857405
LikeLiked by 2 people
One of my heroes, Douglas Murray, has an amusing and wise article in the current Spectator: The Tories have only themselves to blame.
I thought some here might like this bit:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Was sure somebody above posted a link to – Labour will take global lead on climate action, Ed Miliband vows | Climate crisis | The Guardian but can’t find the comment.
Only comment I would make is the article pic, did they stage that photo so he looks like a 2 faced tw*t.
Think the rest has already been covered.
LikeLike
Good luck.
[I hope that was ad-libbed, because if several people got together and wrote it, I’m not impressed.]
LikeLike
A once first-world country beggared by its political class?
The following comment made by John Gray in The New Statesman of 5th June this year resonated with me on the day when Labour has won a landslide of seats but with much the same share of the vote as last time:-
“… not even a Labour majority as humongous as that posited in a recent YouGov poll will secure stable government. When that becomes clear, voters will abandon Britain’s derelict party system. Only if electoral reform takes place can dealing with a society headed for penury become politically possible. Or the ruins of a once first-world country beggared by its political class will go on rotting away.” Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Guardian this morning:
‘Keir Starmer take note’: UK’s green transition must start now, say experts
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/05/keir-starmer-green-transition-must-start-now-say-experts
I don’t think I’ve read quite so much nonsense in one article before.
LikeLike
Nobody voted for the ‘Green transition’. The share of the vote for Labour has been static since the last GE and Starmer’s share of the vote was a pathetic 33.8%. Most people voted to get rid of the Tories, who were pushing the ‘Green transition’ hard anyway. Labour got in by default. Net Zero is about as far removed from democratic legitimacy as you can get.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s worse even than that. Early reports suggest that turnout was less than 60%, which means that fewer than one person in five voted for accelerated net zero madness (not strictly true, given the votes for Greens, Lib Dems et al).
LikeLiked by 1 person
what we need now is a fan and some s**t.
LikeLike
Lorde Late,
We got plenty of s**t, just no fan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No good ordering a fan from China, you would get the oriental manual variety which would no use whatsoever for s**t
LikeLike
“Why Nigerians are praying for the success of a new oil refinery”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck5g99z18r6o
A prayer was held a few months ago in Kano, a very religious city in northern Nigeria.
It was organised to pray for the success of a huge new Nigerian oil refinery that next month is due to start producing petrol for the first time.
Praying for such an industrial facility might seem incongruous, but many Nigerians are hopeful that the Dangote Petroleum Refinery will lead to both a big increase in the availability of petrol, and a subsequent drop in prices.
The $19bn (£15bn) refinery, based along the coast from Nigeria’s commercial hub Lagos, in the south of the country, is the size of almost 4,000 football pitches.
Its construction began back in 2016, and it started production of diesel and an aviation fuel in January of this year. Petrol is now set to follow.
The hope is that the facility will end Nigeria’s dependence on imports of these fuels.
While Nigeria is Africa’s largest producer of crude oil, and the world’s 15th biggest, none of its existing government-owned refineries are operational.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
And in other news, Labour will close down the gas and oil fields which supply the Grangemouth oil refinery, close down the refinery itself and convert the facility into a fuel import hub instead, restricting supplies of petrol and diesel to Scotland and Northern England. The Church of England is praying for the success of Net Zero in order to prevent fossil fuel powered climate breakdown.
https://x.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1460288920206389252
https://x.com/StevenEdginton/status/1815034139864694999
LikeLiked by 3 people
Mark – from your comment & link –
“For decades Nigerians enjoyed subsidised petrol prices. But last year incoming President Bola Tinubu stopped the subsidies, saying that they were no longer affordable. This led to prices surging by as much as four-fold.”
“While Nigeria is Africa’s largest producer of crude oil, and the world’s 15th biggest, none of its existing government-owned refineries are operational.” I wondered why that might be?
Best link I found from 2020 – NigeriaCAXS_2020.pdf (eia.gov)
With this partial quote from the “Refining and refined oil products” section.
“The country has three major crude oil refineries (Port Harcourt I and II, Warri, and
Kaduna) and has a total crude oil distillation capacity of 423,750 b/d, according to the Oil
& Gas Journal.15 All three refineries are run by the state-owned national oil company (NOC), NNPC. These refineries persistently operate at far lower than full capacity
because of operational failures, fires, and sabotage, mainly on the crude oil pipelines
feeding the refineries. NNPC has begun rehabilitation work at its refineries, and the
NNPC’s latest reports indicate that the refineries have been shuttered. The rehabilitation
work is expected to be completed by 2022, although how much throughput the refineries
will have after rehabilitation is unclear. NNPC stated in April 2020 that it will no longer
run the refineries after rehabilitation and is reportedly seeking a private sector company
to manage operations at the refineries.”
Wonder how many “football pitches” that makes standing idle?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime – thanks for the links – this image & text stood out for me.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEP9BzeXoAIT66J?format=jpg&name=large
LikeLike
PS – oops, notice it refers to the 2021 COP, so maybe an old photo/text?
LikeLike
“David Lammy arrives in India for trade talks”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce98l84mrmqo
…The visit is being billed as an attempt to reset Britain’s relationship with the country and the Global South.
Mr Lammy has called India “an indispensable partner” in the government’s efforts to grow the economy and tackle climate change.…”
Good luck with that!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I still comment on The Conversation occasionally. Usually unremarkable. But this one was more interesting: https://theconversation.com/canada-must-continue-cutting-emissions-regardless-of-the-actions-of-other-polluters-236295. As you see, the author, Richard Sandbrook, is quite senior: Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Toronto. Having noted that he was willing to respond to comments (unusual for TC authors), I decided to post one. This was followed by a lively exchange – although his comments were IMHO on the whole surprisingly weak and often repetitive.
LikeLike
A very poor article in The Conversation, IMO. It’s interesting that the author didn’t mention the UK at all, save to repeat the misleading statement beloved of the Guardian, viz:
To make matters worse, five developed countries, including the U.S., U.K., Canada, Norway and Australia, are expanding their oil, gas and coal production…
As I pointed out at the time, the grant of increasing numbers of exploration licences for small reserves isn’t the same thing as increasing production. UK production is falling.
UK politicians and climate campaigners seem to think that we are critical to solving the climate crisis [sic]. It seems that the view from Canada is that the UK is largely irrelevant (which, indeed, we are).
But well done for giving the eminent professor an uncomfortable time, which in my opinion he thoroughly deserves.
LikeLike
“The Ethics of Decarbonisation for the Poor“
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2024/10/Ugursal-NetZero-Developing-World-.pdf
Western governments are increasingly demanding that poor and developing countries should switch to renewable energy in order to achieve Net Zero economies. Pressure is exerted through numerous mechanisms, including trade barriers, which directly affect the already struggling population and economy of these countries.
The paper reveals that forcing developing countries to repeat the costly mistakes of Western decarbonisation policies threatens the wellbeing and livelihoods of billions of people around the world.
The author of the report, Canadian professor Ismet Ugursal, said:
“The poor in the developing and developed world urgently need access to more and cheaper energy to improve their standard of living. To reduce and eradicate poverty, economic growth and increased energy use are necessary, not optional.”
In most developed countries, governments provide grants and subsidies for renewable energy which is uneconomic and unsustainable without billions in handouts. Since poor households can rarely afford these they cannot benefit, although perversely it is their taxes and subsidies that have to pay for renewable energy.
Professor Ugursal said:
“Objectives such as Net Zero and degrowth are therefore not credible. They are misguided follies, which will be discarded sooner rather than later, as the harms they cause to everyone, but especially the very poor, become clear. At this point in technological advancement, the only light at the end of the tunnel seems to be increased utilisation of nuclear energy.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
A good article Mark. But there’s surely no need to wait until the end of the tunnel – why not use coal and/or gas now?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Delusional stuff from the Guardian again. Who do they think the UK is leading if no other countries are following us?
“The Guardian view on Trump’s planet-wrecking plans: the UK government’s resolve will be tested
The new president’s disruptive policies will challenge Sir Keir Starmer’s green goals. But with strong leadership he could enhance Britain’s global influence”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/08/the-guardian-view-on-trumps-planet-wrecking-plans-the-uk-governments-resolve-will-be-tested
...Mr Trump’s plan to give the US an advantage in world trade through tariffs will complicate Labour’s goals of greening the economy, producing zero-carbon electricity, and cutting energy prices. The worst move Sir Keir could make would be to listen to rightwing voices arguing that if other nations are dropping green commitments, so should Britain. That would be a serious misstep, as leadership on climate not only reduces Britain’s carbon emissions but builds strategic alliances around the globe.
Mr Trump’s trade war threatens to disrupt supply chains, hike costs, jeopardise Britain’s green transition and stall its growth. His push for higher Nato defence spending could, in the UK, divert public funds from environmental initiatives. But this misses the point: Britain’s growth will be turbocharged by embracing green energy, leveraging its strengths in areas like offshore wind. Plus, most voters see a green shift as a path to lower energy costs and a stronger economy – a cause Sir Keir would be smart to champion.
The prime minister should double down on the plans of his energy secretary, Ed Miliband, rather than waver in the face of Trumpian pressure that prioritises short-term gains over a cleaner future.…
When did editorial writers abandon logic?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did Guardian leader writers ever embrace logic (re the climate issue)? And see my link in the COP29 thread to a Ben Pile article: ‘Will President Trump Kill Net Zero?‘ .
LikeLike
I posted this on the COP29 thread:
“COP29 Will Be Haunted by the Ghost of the President Yet-to-Come”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/11/11/cop29-will-be-haunted-by-the-ghost-of-the-president-yet-to-come/
But it’s worth mentioning here for this paragraph:
…But there is a more serious and darker side to the climate giving game – the suggestion that it’s a form of climate colonialism. In a recent essay in Watt Up With That?, Charles Rotter noted that global financial institutions and wealthy nations dictate energy policy that prioritises carbon reduction over human development. Across Africa, electricity blackouts are common. The region’s most populous country, Nigeria, is repeatedly plunged into darkness. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have curtailed funding for oil and gas projects, while the European Investment Bank has banned support for hydrocarbon projects. Hopefully, help in providing reliable energy to developing countries for electricity, clean water and sanitation may be on its way from the U.S. Under pressure from the Biden administration, American development agencies are reported to have halted backing for overseas hydrocarbon projects. This is likely to change. As Rotter notes, forcing developing nations to rely on unreliable and expensive renewables means that wealthier countries maintain their industrial advantage….
LikeLiked by 1 person
“‘Levels are dropping’: drought saps Zambia and Zimbabwe of hydropower”
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/nov/11/levels-are-dropping-drought-saps-zambia-and-zimbabwe-of-hydropower
The solution?
…There was an agreement, though, that more diverse power sources were needed – and that this was a lesson that should have been learned from droughts in 2015 and 2019. New coal and solar plants are now being built in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Zambia’s government also wants to add hydroelectric dams to rivers in its wetter north-west.
Jito Kayumba, a special adviser to Zambia’s president, said: “This is not particularly good news for promoters of sustainability and matters of climate, but we are doubling down on coal … because we do have an abundance of coal.
“[Coal] will still represent a minor piece of our energy mix. We still want to enhance more renewable sources of electricity. But we also realise that we do need energy security.”…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – maybe I missed it, or it was never reported on UK MSM news before, but it seems more developing nations are pushing back on the “enforced” on them green revolution some in the developed countries think they need to “follow”.
LikeLike
dfh – see this: https://www.cfact.org/2023/12/29/was-cop-28-climate-imperialisms-last-gasp/. The closing paragraph:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin – from your link dated December 29th, 2023 –
“After 500 years of exploiting Africa’s resources and doing little, if anything, to bring prosperity or even electricity to Africa’s billions, the West now seeks to bully Africans into abandoning a major source of continental wealth – and drive them deeper into debt to install ineffective wind farms and solar arrays. Only Africa (and a few other scattered poor nations) would suffer, as China and India have long since told their would-be superiors to pound sand.
The Institute for Energy Research notes that while nations “officially” agreed to reduce global fossil fuel consumption, oil, gas, and coal still account for about 80 percent of the world’s energy, with production of each hitting new records as world energy demand grows. Even the stodgy British, who proudly abandoned coal years ago, approved a new coal mine shortly after realizing the Russian oil might not be so readily available as an alternative.”
Think they got the UK “new coal mine” a bit wrong. Coking coal as I recall, but it has now been blocked AFAIK.
LikeLike
Describing Miliband as delusional doesn’t begin to cover the combination of naivety and hubris in show in this article. He is being played for a fool, IMO:
“The global battle against the climate crisis needs China. I’m visiting Beijing, and that’s what I’ll tell them”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/14/climate-crisis-china-beijing-ed-miliband
…People often ask me why the UK should act on the climate crisis when we account for just 1% of current global emissions. But the fact that we contribute just 1% of emissions isn’t an excuse to shrink from the global stage. It is an instruction for Britain to use our influence to build a global coalition to drive the action the world needs. It is only our domestic ambition, renewed by this government after years of failure by the last government, that gives us the credibility to compel others to act. This is about protecting the British people now and for generations to come….
…Over the next few days, I will be meeting my Chinese counterparts to discuss how all countries can rise to the climate challenge. We will launch a formal climate dialogue, inviting Chinese ministers to London later this year and for the first time institutionalising climate-change talks between both countries moving forward.
We will also sign a refreshed UK-China Clean Energy Partnership, updating our approach to engaging on these issues for the first time in a decade. This is about learning lessons from each other about how we decarbonise, from carbon capture to hydrogen. At all times there will be a strict national security test to any collaboration.
My visit speaks to a wider truth: on climate, as on so much else, we can only fight for our national interest by being engaged on the international stage. As the prime minister showed when he led the world at Cop29 last winter, we must work together with other countries if we want to keep our people safe. Britain’s farmers, pensioners and future generations deserve nothing less. That is the message I will deliver in Beijing.
I have little doubt they will be left bemused, amused and utterly unmoved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Embarrasing really isn’t it.
LikeLiked by 1 person