1. It’s unachievable. Many vehicles and machines (used for example in agriculture, heavy transportation, emergencies, commercial shipping, aviation, the military, mining and construction) and products (for example concrete, steel, plastics, fertiliser, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, paints, adhesives, tyres and asphalt) essential to our lives and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives; there are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. Then (a) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a reliable net zero grid by 2035 (2030 for a Labour government) – not least the need for a huge increase in grid capacity – and (b) the vast scale of what’s involved (immense amounts of space and increasingly expensive material are required because the ‘energy density’ of wind and sun is so low) make it unlikely that the UK will be able to generate sufficient renewable electricity for current needs let alone the mandated electric vehicles and heat pumps. In any case, the UK doesn’t have enough technical managers, engineers, electricians, plumbers, mechanics and other tradespeople (probably about a million) to do the many tasks that would be essential to achieve net zero.

2. It would be socially and economically disastrous. That’s especially so because the Government’s all-renewable energy project doesn’t include a fully costed (or indeed any) engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun – meaning electricity blackouts that would cause damaging problems for millions of people, including serious health consequences affecting in particular the poor and vulnerable, and tip the UK’s economy even deeper into decline, further blighting our already weakened industries. Moreover: (a) as China essentially controls the supply of key materials (in particular so-called rare earths) needed for renewables, the UK would increase its already dangerous dependence on it, putting its energy and overall security at serious risk; and (b) the vast mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables are already causing appalling environmental damage and dreadful human suffering, 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.

3. Above all, it’s pointless. Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 75% of CO2 emissions and home to 84% of humanity – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt 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 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 pursue this unachievable and disastrous policy.

27 Comments

  2. No disrespect to Robin, but all this should be obvious to anybody with a GCSE in a STEM subject who also has access to a calculator. The question is: why isn’t it equally obvious to our lords and masters?

    Like

  3. 4. Unnecessary – the evidence propping up the claim that there is a climate “crisis” is at best speculative, and mainly non-existent.

    Like

  4. Chris, it should be obvious, of course. The problem is that it seems to be beyond most of our political leaders all over the developed world. The beauty of Robin’s article is that it spells it out with great clarity and is a relatively short read, so that even those with short attention spans among our elites ought to be able to focus on it long enough to understand the point. Let’s hope Robin’s MP reads it, and better still, draws attention to it among some of his fellow MPs.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I’m sure some of you will have seen the letter that Paul Homewood drafted on Not A Lot of People … to be circulated to all MPs and Paliamentary Committees pointing out that Offshore Wind has NOT provided the dramatically lower prices that the UK public has repeatedly been promised — indeed the offshore wind farms have instead been reaping the very high prices from the regular auction process. I assume it has been circulated, but have seen no response from official sources. I forwarded it to John Lamont MP together with pointing out that just in our small corner of the Scottish Borders we now face 6 current wind farm applications, To be fair Lamont is always polite and helpful and in turn forwarded the Homewood email and my comments to Graham Stuart, Minister for Net Zero. No response so far — and I dont doubt it will be the usual brush off when it comes. So assuming that happens then maybe my riposte will be Robin’s article. However, the momentum behind the current policy, and the vast sums involved (I think around £16bn a year now) mean that the vested interests, and commercial pressures on politicians, will take some stopping. Not being pessimistic you understand….

    Like

  6. In a sane world Chris it should be largely (not entirely) obvious to anyone of reasonable intelligence and an interest in current political issues – no need for either a GCSE in a STEM subject or access to a calculator. I for example am a lawyer without any scientific training and didn’t have to use a calculator when writing the article. So why isn’t it obvious to ‘our lords and masters’? An important question – and one that in my view needs time and space for a considered answer.

    Like

  8. It’s entrenched in PC thinking now – they will never back away until London/pick your nearest city, goes dark & riots begin.

    Like

  9. Rioting, as Cardiff shows, can be explained in multiple ways and future events that are primarily motivated by plus-zero effects will be explained away using other, less-relevant, causes. I don’t expect the current trend of attributing almost anything negative to climate chaos to change much and future riots will be attributed thereto.

    Like

  10. Alan, this is a point that makes me far less optimistic than I was a few years ago.

    The disease is mild, and the medicine is toxic. But any worsening symptoms will be ascribed to the disease, and the only available remedy will be more of the toxic medicine.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. The West seems to have come to an extraordinary point in its history where politicians are telling the population that they must pay for the destruction of the economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy. For how long are people going to put up with this madness?

    Like

  13. Robin,
    You pose the most pertinent question, “For how long are people going to put up with this madness?”

    However, what options do any of us have (even in those countries that consider themselves to be democracies) given that most of the major political parties are, at least currently, fully aligned with the Net Zero self-destructive agenda? Consensus on energy policy is everywhere amongst the political elites; a sort of uni-party has evolved in which only various shades of opinion are allowed.

    Personally I have tried writing to my MP, senior government ministers, royalty, media organisations, think-tanks, environmental organisations, parliamentary committees, and even the spouse of a recent PM (as I suspect it was she who decided green/energy policy in No. 10). Rarely have I even had a reply – the exception being from the late Queen. In short, although I have tried to speak truth to power, the system totally ignores messages it does not want to hear.

    The above suggests that only grass-roots political action is likely to head-off the West’s dive into the green/energy abyss. So what form would such action take? For example, would it be a new political party, or would it be a single issue activist group? And who would initiate such action given that the media like to demonise anybody who is outside the current group-think?

    Unless our readers have some good answers to the above, I fear we in the West will be heading towards some very difficult times that, as you point out, are both entirely avoidable and entirely unnecessary.

    Regards,
    John.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. The comments here are revealing: they reveal the frustration and the incredulousness of anyone who still has their frontal lobes working at the sheer insanity and illogicality of the political quest to achieve net zero in western developed economies. So is Green madness a cult? Is it a money-making scam? Is it an organised, deliberate, malign attack upon western fossil fuel powered economies? The answer is YES to all of those questions and therein is where the problem lies. We are unable to discern the complex array of connections which exist between those competing interests and we are unable to quantify with any certainty their relative contributions. You can’t effectively address a problem, or hope to solve it, if you cannot precisely define it. The Green madness resists all attempts at trying to qualify and quantify its madness. So what to do? We attack it from different angles and nothing seems to work. We point out the insane costs of these measures and get nowhere. We point out the technical infeasibilities inherent in the ‘transition’ to clean energy and get nowhere. We challenge the science upon which it is all based (the necessity) and get nowhere. It does seem hopeless. But I refuse to give up hope. We’ve just got keep at them, with ALL guns blazing and using ALL weapons we have at our disposal.

    Churchill said:

    “Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.

    Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the hard may be; for without victory there is no survival.”

    Without this victory there is indeed no survival. h/t to Ron Clutz for drawing my attention to this American Greatness article:

    “For over 50 years, with increasing frequency, corrupted, careerist scientists have produced biased studies that, amplified by agenda-driven corporate and political special interests, constitute a “consensus” that is supposedly “beyond debate.” We are in a “climate crisis.” To cope with this climate emergency, all measures are justifiable.

    This is overblown, one-sided, distorted, and manipulative propaganda. It is the language of authoritarians and corporatists bent on achieving even more centralized political power and economic wealth. It is a scam, perhaps the most audacious, all-encompassing fraud in human history. It is a scam that explicitly targets and crushes the middle class in developed nations and the entire aspiring populations in developing nations, at the same time as its messaging is designed to secure their fervent acquiescence.

    What is actually beyond debate is not that we are in a climate crisis but that if we don’t stop destroying our conventional energy economy, we are going to be in a civilizational crisis.

    Energy is the foundation of everything—prosperity, freedom, upward mobility, national wealth, individual economic independence, functional water and transportation infrastructure, commercial-scale agriculture, mining, and industry. Without energy, it all goes dark. And “renewables” are not even remotely capable of replacing oil, gas, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric power. It’s impossible.”

    Edward Ring is also of the opinion that we must challenge them robustly on the “science” – and he does:

    “But to cope with the apocalyptic messaging of climate catastrophists, it isn’t enough to debunk the potential of renewables. It is also necessary to challenge the underlying climate “science.” The biased, corrupt, unceasing avalanche of expert “studies” serving up paid-for ideas to special interests that use them as bludgeons to beat into the desired shape every relevant public policy and popular narrative. So here goes.”

    The Corruption of Climate Science

    If we give these bastards even an eighth of an inch, they will take a mile, that is for sure. We’ve just got to keep at them. They seem to be retreating from the Twitter front line, so that’s good.

    Climate Activist Scientists Get all Verklempt Their Echo Chamber No Longer Exists on Twitter, Throw Tantrums and Leave

    In related/unrelated news, Professor Sucharit Bhakdi has been acquitted of all charges levied at him by the corrupt German government. He was right there at the start, opposing the narrative. He never gave up. They tried to take him down. He prevailed. Science and free speech prevailed, even though they did – and still do – studiously ignore the science.

    https://worldcouncilforhealth.substack.com/p/why-prof-bhakdis-court-ruling-will

    Liked by 3 people

  15. Pithy and to the point. Sorry, I tend to tune out when I hear “net zero”, so I’d missed it that the UK intends to achieve that target within 7 years. You’ve got 84 months to have 44 million people, at home, office, and industry all hooked up to a whole new energy system. I did catch that interview of the little tinned-soup girl, Phoebe Plummy, interviewed by Jacob Rees-Mogg. She really is truly hysterical. And yet, somehow she and her ilk are at the helm. It doesn’t get more bonkers than this, does it?

    Like

  16. Ianalexs,

    The UK’s legislation mandates net zero by 2050 (Scotland by 2045, because their nationalist politicians are even madder, and always have to trump Westminster, except when they’re blaming it).

    However, 2030 seems to be a line in the sand from many policies associated with net zero, such as the banning of the sale of new ICE vehicles by then.

    Like

  17. Jaime:

    That is arguably the most powerful anti-green comment I’ve seen on this website – or perhaps anywhere. As you know, I disagree with you about tactics but nonetheless I wholly agree with you that we’ve got to keep at them. I also thought John Cullen’s recent comment was excellent and I hope to post a response to him later today – probably with a cross-reference to your comment.

    Thanks – Robin

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Mark, I was going off Robin’s remark about a “reliable net-zero grid” by 2035 — although now I realised I’d jumped the gun by assuming Labour’s 2030 target would be the really operative deadline. 2050 is not so bad, that’s about three generations of politicians from now — really will they still be banging on about their grandfather’s (supposed) crisis? Phoebe incidentally will then be almost 50 years old, and possibly by then discovered that the world was deeper and more complex than anticipated.

    Like

  19. ianalexs and Mark:

    I understand that current government policy is as set out here:

    A landmark commitment to decarbonise the UK’s electricity system by 2035, was confirmed this week by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Business and Energy Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng…

    Source:https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-unveiled-to-decarbonise-uk-power-system-by-2035. I’m unaware of any change to that.

    That’s what I was referring to.

    PS: here’s Labour’s policy:

    Deliver one hundred percent clean power by 2030.

    Source: https://labour.org.uk/issue/clean-energy-by-2030/

    Liked by 1 person

  20. I was aware of Labour’s mad proposals – indeed, I have written about them. I missed the fact that the only difference regarding the current government’s insanity is a timescale of five years. Mea culpa.

    Like

  21. John Cullen:

    You ask what options are available to us to combat the Net Zero lunacy. Well, Jaime has noted, as you have, how every possibility – although not outright revolution – seems to have been tried. And all have failed. She says, and I agree, that we must not abandon hope and must keep at them. But are we missing something – is there another approach that might work? I agree with you that a new political party isn’t going to cut it. An outright revolution? I don’t think so: that would only work with mass support and there’s no hope of that. So no, I don’t think there’s another approach.

    But I think I’m probably more hopeful than either you or Jaime. And that’s because I believe that simple practicalities are going to sink the whole thing – not perhaps before some serious and possibly irreversible damage is done, but well before we face catastrophe.

    So what convinces me of that? Well, I think the vast majority of people (voters) haven’t so far been too bothered about the issue. They’ve got far more important things to worry about: making sufficient money to keep a roof over their heads, feed their families and try to get a little fun out of life. But there are signs already that Net Zero policies – for example those that are destabilising energy costs and ruling out new ICE vehicles and established domestic heating systems – are beginning to have an impact on all this. And all this is going to get progressively worse and, as it does, the issue will at last begin to loom large, making people increasingly angry with the politicians (i.e. all politicians) who have allowed it to happen. And then I think we’ll see (except for a handful of diehard fanatics) politicians – many of whom have tried to ignore the good sense communicated to them by people such as you, Jaime and me – trying to quietly back away from the issue altogether. There are signs of this happening in Germany, France, Italy and The Netherlands, and I think it will happen here.

    But there’s something else – something that may well kick in even before the above dissatisfaction becomes widespread. It’s this: it’s becoming clear that the Grid cannot cope with many more renewable projects and, in any case, we don’t have nearly enough skilled people to carry out the myriad of tasks needed for Net Zero implementation. Then there are all sorts of other practical obstacles: shortage of materials, increasing costs of key components, business concerns and opposition, etc. I’m sure you can add more to that list. But my point is that I’m sure these obstacles are going to stop Net Zero dead in its tracks. And to do so relatively soon.

    Robin

    Liked by 3 people

  22. Robin, it will be interesting to see how the 100% clean power pipe dream works out, because it seems that the limit of renewables grid penetration beyond which it becomes technically difficult, if not impossible to incorporate more renewables, is about 50%. In the UK, on windy days, we already see 50% generation from renewables during brief periods. With extra capacity being built and connected, this 50% penetration will become more or less constant, except in times of very little wind, but when it does get very windy, if the wind installations connected are not turned off, grid penetration will go way beyond 50%, perhaps even approaching 100% and then major problems can be expected to occur. Of course, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if extra capacity is constantly built and connected but the turbines quietly turned off whenever penetration threatens to exceed 50%. That way the government can boast about all the extra capacity, telling us we’ve achieved the ‘100% clean power’ target, but conveniently forget to tell us that we can never actually use that 100% because the grid could not cope. Most consumers will be none the wiser, except that we’ll be paying for this con trick, of course.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Jaime:

    I’m no expert – far from it – but I think that more than 50% renewables is a problem because, when those renewables generate only say 10% of electricity, there aren’t enough conventional plants to make up for what’s missing. And you have power cuts. Anyway, if you’ve still got operative gas plants out there how can that be described as a decarbonised electricity system? And another huge problem is that far more electricity will have to be generated than is the case today to power all those EVs and heat pumps.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Jaime: “The Green madness resists all attempts at trying to qualify and quantify its madness.”

    I very much hope this isn’t true. At least, I have a book coming out soon which does this, inclusive of many measurements that obsolete the existing literature regarding the nature of attitudes to climate change, and a complete explanation of where all the ‘madness’ comes from. I believe my case to be robust, but of course it must survive critique; however, because the conclusions will seriously ruffle rafts of folks and not just from climate orthodoxy, I’m expecting more cannon-fire than critique 0:

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Cancel

Connecting to %s

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