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.
Climate Scepticism 
Spot on , the strive for Net Zero is utter stupidity
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
4. Unnecessary – the evidence propping up the claim that there is a climate “crisis” is at best speculative, and mainly non-existent.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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….
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Ed Hoskins has been in touch with me to describe this article as an excellent summary, and to offer this link to his own website, which hammers home some of the points made in more detail (should any MP be sufficiently interested to visit our humble home with a view to seeing the world differently):
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/a-comparative-costing-model-for-power-generation-technologies/
LikeLike
It’s entrenched in PC thinking now – they will never back away until London/pick your nearest city, goes dark & riots begin.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not just the UK:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/05/24/the-eu-is-deepening-the-energy-crisis/
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 3 people
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.”
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.
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
LikeLiked by 3 people
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLike
ianalexs and Mark:
I understand that current government policy is as set out here:
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:
Source: https://labour.org.uk/issue/clean-energy-by-2030/
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLiked by 3 people
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good speech to the GWPF by Lord Frost:
https://www.thegwpf.org/lord-frost-delivers-the-2023-annual-gwpf-lecture/?mc_cid=da293b3b7e&mc_eid=66c7ca370e
It’s a bit one-dimensional, focusing mainly on electricity, but it doesn’t hold back in pointing out the contradictions and falsehoods in present policy.
LikeLiked by 3 people
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:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Andy,
Please keep us posted regarding your book.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, I certainly will 🙂
LikeLike
Jaime:
I think you’ll like this: https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/05/net-zero-politicians-liars-scoundrels-and-morons/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin,
“I’m not sure how to make this any clearer: stop voting for liars, scoundrels, and morons.”
Effectively, this now translates to ‘stop voting’. This is why I have argued for years that there should be an official ‘None Of The Above’ (NOTA) choice on every ballot paper, signifying voter discontent at the entire list of political candidates presented. NOTA votes should be counted in all elections to gauge voter opposition to the limited choice presented to them at elections and, if NOTA votes (none of the above liars, scoundrels and morons) are significant, the election should be declared null and void and re-run with a wider choice of candidates.
LikeLike
Everyone,
Why don’t you vote for the UK Conspiracy Movement?
Oh no, I forgot.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mike, yes it was good – but as you note, it almost seemed as if it had overlooked the relatively minor role that electricity plays in the energy mix at the moment. “Gas to nuclear” is a theory, but any responsive supply from nuclear relies on untested technology. In fact Net Zero seems impossible to me absent a reversion to 1750-style civilisation – a civilisation, we note, that could just about feed a tenth of today’s population.
It can be argued that fossil fuels will run out, so Net Zero is inevitable anyway – but that ignores the fact that as supply dwindles, the switch to other technologies will arise “organically.” We may all end up in EVs, but that doesn’t mean that petrol vehicles should be banned. [I still have hopes for synfuel, since although very wasteful in energy, it offers freedom that EVs don’t.]
Regarding the sceptic’s electoral conundrum, it is easy to allow gloom to descend when faced with a choice of four candidates, all of whom support national suicide in the name of seeking virtue. This stitch up, together with the on-going gaslighting to which we are subject, has the potential to lock in a decade of decline. But this may end up being a non-sophist version of Zeno’s Arrow: this time the closer to the target we get, the slower we will inevitably go.
And yet I sometimes think that the only viable tactic is not to try to slow Net Zero, but instead to try to force it through more rapidly. My reasoning is that the faster we go, the sooner we turn must around, and that there may yet be salvageable infrastructure left that would otherwise end up being destroyed.
There are rational things we can demand. There is no justification for blowing up power stations until we are absolutely sure we no longer need them. Not that we are absolutely sure we don’t want them – which is what has led to demonstrative vandalism in recent years. It should not be the case that our Net Zero paraphernalia can be constructed under weaker employment or environmental standards than would be the case if we mined the materials, refined them, and built it ourselves. Green indulgences should be banned: if you want to claim to be a Net Zero company, that means that your operations emit zero carbon dioxide. That is all it can ever mean. It does not mean that you paid a shady guy for some pieces of paper, each representing a thousand tonnes of CO2 abated.
We can also demand that (and this relates to the idea of speeding up Net Zero so that it whirls off to destruction) public policy squares with the stated aims. Thus when activists take the government to court to try to halt infrastructure “incompatible with Net Zero obligations” we should maybe cheer. For too long governments local and national have tried to bet on red and black at the same time. They want to be Net Zero, but they want to expand airports, or build roads, or build housing estates where every house has a driveway and the only way anyone can reach them is by car. Nothing adds up. Everything is in tension. They want to build more solar collectors on prime farmland, or build housing estates on them, while at the same time worrying about food security. [The point here is not to prevent the new runways, but to force the government to understand the incoherence of its position, and move in the rational direction.]
Let’s all have a carbon dioxide ration. I would love that. Rigorously enforced, it would kill Net Zero stone dead, for the elite would not permit themselves to be bound by it. Perhaps it could be a winning Labour policy? (Again: no indulgences. No certificates. No bartering.)
Ultimately Net Zero will falter only when the young turn against it. It is ironic that its main cheerleaders are also its chief victims, for they are bound to lose the freedoms we knew. They seem blissfully unaware that they are building their own prison. Will support for Net Zero always be a badge of honour, or will it one day become a badge of shame?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Labour: ‘new licences for oil and gas in the North Sea… undermine our energy security’.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/28/labour-confirms-plans-to-block-all-new-north-sea-oil-and-gas-projects
LikeLike
Vinny, thanks for drawing it to our attention. Surely it represents one of the most asinine statements possible.
LikeLike
The Daily Sceptic is going for it today:
“Why Should I Spend £40,000 Making My House More Energy Efficient, Given It Will Take 25 Years to Earn That Back in Savings on My Energy Bills?”
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/05/28/why-should-i-spend-40000-making-my-house-more-energy-efficient-given-it-will-take-25-years-to-earn-that-back-in-savings-on-my-energy-bills/
and
“Deliberately Exaggerating the Risks of Climate Change is Undermining Public Trust in Science and Destroying Young People’s Mental Health”
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/05/28/deliberately-exaggerating-the-risks-of-climate-change-is-undermining-public-trust-in-science-and-destroying-young-peoples-mental-health/
and
“Starmer Will Block All New North Sea Oil and Gas Developments”
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/05/28/starmer-will-block-all-new-north-sea-oil-and-gas-developments/
LikeLike
Mark, that second article at the Daily Sceptic highlights the ‘research’ by Paul Williams linking increased turbulence to climate change. As far back as 2016, Paul Matthews was criticising his claims that transatlantic airplane flights were taking longer because of climate change and I later pointed out the flaws in his claim that aircraft take-offs were being affected by increased headwinds because of climate change. He has always reacted badly to criticism, calling his detractors ‘haters’. Climate scientists complaining about being challenged on their BS is nothing new; they’re just getting challenged even more nowadays by an increasingly sceptical and disgruntled public. I expect Paul will be hitting back by claiming that Chris Morrison at the Daily Sceptic is also a ‘hater’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That should be ‘weaker headwinds’.
LikeLike
Jit; I share your sentiments. As Robin says, NZ is utterly impractical and the sooner that is brought into the open, the better. For the moment the politicos, if they have any awareness, are happy to turn a Nelsonian eye to the issues.
The time horizon for running out of fossil fuels is way beyond that for NZ so not really an issue, imho. Whenever Peak Oil is mentioned, I like to point out that we know exactly where to find 3 – 4 times more oil than has been consumed since the dawn of the industry. At the moment we can only recover 20, 30, 40% of the oil we find. If/when scarcity really bites I wouldn’t bet against folk finding ways to boost those recovery figures.
Synfuels, aiui, are a non-starter for anything more than “green-standing” by F1, etc.. They rely on direct air capture which is ruinously inefficient and expensive, combined with green hydrogen which is another chimaera in the desert of green aspirations.
Those canny Germans mothballed their coal plants instead of blowing them up like the Aussies and ourselves. I read that they have re-commissioned 20 plants since the gas tap was closed.
We can but hope that more and more folk will wake up to the damage we are inflicting on ourselves – especially the young, as you say. This speech is encouraging in that such a political heavyweight has chosen to voice his concerns. Perhaps we will see the sudden emergence of a new party with stopping NZ and other climate idiocies as its core manifesto, like the farmers’ movement in Holland.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Keir Starmer has become the Just Stop Oil candidate
Another good article by Ross Clark: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-has-become-the-just-stop-oil-candidate/.
He concludes with this:
I hope that’s true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s grim. Voters have the choice between the fake ‘Conservative’ Party’s slightly slower road to Net Zero Hell or Starmer’s Labour-lite six lane highway to de-industrialisation and impoverishment of the UK. Andrew Bridgen recently joined Reclaim. We haven’t heard a peep out of them since then as far as I’m aware. They need to be making big noises about a merger with the other Net Zero opposition parties (well, the Heritage Party; I think that might be it!) so at least voters might have SOME credible opposition party to vote for at the next election (probably less than a year away) who don’t want to destroy the nation in order to save us all from an imaginary climate crisis. Good grief, the prospect of an eco-socialist Labour government led by and comprised entirely of ministerial morons is truly terrifying.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Is there any possibility of getting voters to see through this nation destroying madness? This is a most serious and urgent matter, so surely there must be. But for the life of me I can’t see what it might be.
LikeLike
Robin,
I think it’s the greatest issue facing us as a country, far more serious than the imaginary climate crisis. Its implications are profound. I cannot think of another time when all “serious” politicians thought it was vitally important to jump off a cliff and when, instead of challenging the madness, most of the MSM eggs them on.
Lies are repeated endlessly with impunity, fact-checkers ignore the lies while tilting at windmills. The dark ages beckon.
I shouldn’t feel like this on a lovely bank holiday Monday (at last!), but I despair of our opinion -formers.
LikeLike
Well said Mark. It’s surely unprecedented that the leader of an opposition party that’s likely to take power within a year announces a policy that would ruin the country yet hardly anyone in the mainstream media seems to be particularly interested in commenting on it.
LikeLike
Mark (3pm yesterday), it’s bonkers for anyone to say such stuff but when it come from a spokesman for a major political party… Up is down, east is west, wrong is right.
Earlier this year, a British energy analyst argued (at yet another dead-billionaire-funded US eco-NGO’s website) that new North Sea licenses would undermine the UK’s energy security because drilling more wells would delay the creation of more offshore wind farms, this being because new oil and gas would have to share a limited port infrastructure etc with new offshore wind. Perhaps the unnamed Labour Party spokesman copied that bloke’s views and didn’t think that more port infrastructure could be a good thing.
URL:ieefa.org/resources/new-north-sea-exploration-licenses-pose-threat-uks-future-energy-security
LikeLike
The signs are ominous, especially in the US. The Biden regime is attempting not just to raise the debt ceiling, but to eliminate it until 2025, basically allowing the federal administration to print any amount of money it pleases in order to address whatever ‘crisis’ it feels needs to be addressed. In other words, this will give government the facility to write a blank cheque to achieve the unachievable Net Zero energy transition, thereby bankrupting the nation by 2025, probably before the election in late 2024. Net Zero is then not a realistic attempt to address a ‘problem’, it is a trojan horse to destroy America. The same might easily be said of the UK, Germany, Australia, Canada and other western industrialised nations. Too much like a conspiracy theory? It’s the only thing that really makes sense of the current madness and the coordinated rush to destruction which we are seeing. Cult like insanity and vested corporate interests might explain some of what we are seeing, but they are insufficient on their own to explain the extreme push towards the destruction of the west – by western politicians themselves.
LikeLike
Here’s what Ed Miliband said about Labour’s ‘Just Stop Oil’ policy during the recent Energy Bill debate (the Member for Kingswood is the Tory Chris Skidmore):
LikeLike
The Spectator has an article today entitled ‘Starmer’s economic promises would spell disaster for the UK’. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/starmers-economic-promises-would-spell-disaster-for-the-uk/
I posted this comment:
It went straight to the top. And has stayed there.
LikeLike
Robin,
That’s terrifying. The IEA poses as an authoritative body, but the reality is that it is a lobby group. Admittedly one that does interesting work, but it has no standing at all.
So Parliament now can’t now “defy” a lobby group, according to Miliband? My slough of despond just deepened.
LikeLike
The Conversation has just published two articles that allow comments: HERE and HERE. I’ve obliged. But so far no one has responded to me. Anyone care to join in?
LikeLike
Sorry Robin but I scan-read the migration article and decided that commenting would be a complete waste of time as it would be arguing with folk who believe, truly and deeply. That makes them impervious to facts, logic and practicalities, as exemplified by the reponse which ended: “For those who ask ‘but what can be done?’ there’s always solutions to problems, it just takes resources and commitment.”
LikeLike
So a sitting Conservative MP has joined the board of Net Zero Watch:
“Andrea Jenkyns said:
“Westminster has been gripped by groupthink on climate and energy for far too long. I’m looking forward to spreading the word that there are more rational approaches to these issues.””
I view this as a hopeful straw in the wind of changing sentiment, together with Lord Frost’s GWPF speech.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I disagree Mike (re that TC article). I think it’s important that we show these people that there is another position on these issues. Remember – these academics rarely, if ever, hear a dissenting opinion. They should.
BTW I’ve replied to Dave, the resources and commitment man.
LikeLike
Mike: re Andrea Jenkyns, I agree.
LikeLike
Robin,
I’m afraid I flunked adding a comment. I greatly admire your commitment, unfailing politeness, and persistence, as you know, but when confronted by the comments under the first of those articles, I really don’t know how you manage to persevere:
Dave Hamilton: “For those who ask ‘but what can be done?’ there’s always solutions to problems, it just takes resources and commitment.”
Robin Guenier: “OK – so what are the resources needed to persuade the non-Western countries – the source of over 75% of CO2 emissions – that don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security to reverse that position? And who do you think might have the ‘commitment’ to deploy those resources? And why haven’t they done so already?”
Dave Hamilton: “That’s where the commitment comes in.”
It’s no fault of yours, Robin – far from it – but that’s not a conversation. At one level it cheers me to know that those we try to debate with and disagree with can’t begin to answer our questions. At another level, it’s rather worrying that this is the best that the Conversation has to offer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark,
And at yet another level, it is worrying that this the best that the Conversation needs to offer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would need psychological counselling if I spent any amount of time trying to argue with readers and ‘expert’ authors at the Conversation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: I have some sympathy with this. But I persevere because TC can provide rare opportunities to confront believers. There are not many such opportunities. I see it as analogous to guerrilla warfare. Of course it’s largely at a fairly lowly level – but not always. And this morning the second article to which I provided a link got rather more interesting when the article’s author (Marta Moreno Ibáñez) replied to my comment. Have a look.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And this morning I had a real success: a letter in this week’s printed version of the Spectator.
Here it is:
Thomas Hale is a professor at the Blavatnic School of Government, University of Oxford. He has a distinguished CV and, interestingly, co-leads the Net Zero Tracker.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, all she did is avoid answering the question by saying it was outside of her field of expertise and not relevant to the post, which is ridiculous. I would have challenged her on her claims that earth’s energy is out of balance, because it cannot be measured directly. She implies that it can be measured directly and pulls the ‘trust me, I’m an expert’ card whilst doing so:
“As an expert in atmospheric science, I aim to shed light on Earth’s energy imbalance and its consequences for humankind.
If the difference between the incoming energy – solar radiation – and outgoing energy – the sum of the solar radiation reflected by the Earth and the radiation emitted by the Earth – is not equal to zero, as is the case currently, we refer to this as Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI).”
The reality is somewhat different:
“It is not (yet) possible to measure EEI directly, although changes measured from satellites are believed to be reliable, albeit biased. The only practical way to estimate net EEI is through an inventory of the changes in energy.
2. Assessing EEI
In our assessment of the EEI, the focus is on the well observed period from 2005 to 2019 (see section 3). The EEI is about 460 TW or globally 0.90 ± 0.15 W m−2 (Trenberth 2022). This can be compared with the net ASR and OLR of about 240 W m−2 as an estimate of the flow-through energy. Consequently, the EEI is very small and cannot be directly discerned or measured.”
The ‘imbalance’ they are ESTIMATING via an error-fraught inventory of earth’s heat storage systems is TINY compared to the overall fluxes. Energy imbalance CANNOT be measured directly at the top of the atmosphere.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5295/ac6f74
I would challenge her on this, but it probably would be a waste of time.
LikeLike
Jaime:
I think my reply made it pretty clear that I thought her comment was ridiculous.
But otherwise your explanation is way beyond my understanding. So why not challenge her? It might be interesting.
LikeLike
I may comment tomorrow Robin, but I think it’s probably pointless. Amusingly, I misread this:
“Marta Moreno Ibáñez has received an excellence scholarship from the Trottier Family Foundation.”
. . . . . . as Trotter Family Foundation. Being awarded an excellence scholarship from Del Boy and Rodney seems more appropriate somehow!
LikeLike
Robin,
Here’s grist to the mill of those (us!) who argue that the UK’s net zero policies are pointless given international indifference (of course you have to read beyond the headline and the Guardian’s naive optimism that Turkmenistan is interested in doing something about it. They might say they will if the USA is stupid enough to pay them huge amounts of money, I suppose):
“US deal could plug Turkmenistan’s colossal methane emissions
The central Asian country has the worst rate of climate-heating ‘super-emitter’ events in the world”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/02/us-deal-turkmenistan-colossal-methane-emissions
LikeLike
I’ve now added a comment to the Con article:
https://theconversation.com/earths-energy-budget-is-not-in-balance-should-we-be-concerned-204729
LikeLike
It was polite, factual, detailed . . . . and it has been immediately removed! That is the very last time I ever try to comment at the Con. Their censorship systems are even more aggressive than I imagined. I wish I had copied the comment before it was removed.
LikeLike
TC email me the text of other comments on articles where I’ve commented. So I’ve got the full test of your comment. Here it is (it’s quite long):
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re a life-saver Robin! Thank you. I’ll be writing this up on my Substack blog, making at least some people aware of the ridiculous and extremely aggressive censorship policy at the Con.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t see any reason to delete that comment, unless it is to prevent the readers from exposure to an alternative view. Someone call Arif Ahmed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark,
On methane emissions from Turkmenistan, a few weeks ago Net Zero Watch posted an article by Dr Whitehouse claiming that shutting off such leaks would be a quick and easy way to reduce global warming significantly:
https://www.netzerowatch.com/prioritise-methane-to-tackle-ghg-emissions/
The article also repeats the claim that methane is 80 times more potent than CO2.
(Nothing to support the ludicrous Guardian claim “Methane emissions cause 25% of global heating today”)
This surprised me as it contradicted various articles and posts I have read over the years. So I emailed Dr Whitehouse on May 14th:
“I have just read your article of May 10th on methane which rather surprised me as I had formed the impression that claims about the effects of methane on global warming had been overblown. Now I am wondering whether the counter-arguments were wrong or misguided.
As an interested layperson with a science background (long ago!), I have read a number of articles on sites like Watts Up With That which discounted the effect of methane.
The main argument is that methane’s absorption bands are heavily overlapped by those of water vapour which, being present in far greater concentrations, leaves very little radiation for methane to absorb. So, while methane may have 80 times the potency of CO2 in dry laboratory conditions, in the real world its potency is far lower.
I have also read that methane’s half-life is often exaggerated and, recently, that its decomposition at altitude produces cloud-forming ice crystals which have a cooling effect.
It would be very interesting to read your views on these counter-arguments as they are not mentioned in the article.”
I have not received a reply, nor has any further comment been added to the article.
So I am left wondering whether my understanding of the impact of methane is flawed: comments welcome!
PS; apologies for side-tracking this thread but I couldn’t find one relating to methane.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Done.
https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/protecting-the-climate-crisis-narrative
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime:
On your Substack blog you said this:
I suggest that’s rather unfair (to TC and especially to me). Here’s an extract from my comment (not deleted) on the TC article to which you refer:
Don’t you regard that as ‘dissent or robust challenge’?
LikeLike
Jaime:
You might be interested to see comments by jim peden and myself on that TC thread: https://theconversation.com/earths-energy-budget-is-not-in-balance-should-we-be-concerned-204729#comment_2915321.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
Perhaps I should have rephrased it somewhat differently as it is obvious that it does not spit out all dissent or robust challenges to the narrative. Having said that though, Marta’s unwillingness to engage with your argument, claiming it is off topic and outside her area of expertise, is also an example of avoidance tactics re. debating dissenters. How much high quality debate do you get from authors at the Conversation when you make your points about the irrationality of Net Zero policies? Very occasionally, often, most of the time?
LikeLike
I see you’re still awaiting a response to your last comment. I would suggest that you are now being ‘critically ignored’ by the author because you obviously know what you are talking about and have the facts and figures to back up your argument. Your comment hasn’t been deleted but the author is not engaging.
LikeLike
Well, Marta may yet reply – although I don’t really expect her to do so. We’ll see.
I have had some interesting exchanges on TC with influential people. But not very often. However, the key point in my view is that my comments are allowed to stand and therefore others will read them and some may at least recognise that there is another evidence-backed position. A small success to be sure – but a lot better than nothing.
You may note that Jim Peden and I are trying to start a campaign to get TC to change its ways. I don’t suppose we’ll get anywhere, but it will be interesting to see if we get a response.
LikeLike
It strikes me as strange that the comments made by Robin Guenier and Jim Peder have been allowed at the Conversation, while Jaime’s has been disappeared.
I incline to Jaime’s view regarding the Conversation. Its very name is an exercise in irony. Its articles read like an academics’ version of the Guardian, with no articles appearing unless they support the prevailing groupthink. Authors don’t seem to want to engage with those commenters who question the narrative. In this case the author has made only a single response, which in my view was hopelessly inadequate.
No doubt some would say that Cliscep is guilty of groupthink, but we don’t call ourselves the Conversation, and authors here will generally engage with commenters.
As I have said before, I admire Robin’s persistence and polite patience at the Conversation, and I hope it achieves something, but it’s not for me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
looked at TC after above poster comments & got hit with this –
“War in Ukraine, democracy in retreat.
Governments bungling their response to the climate crisis. The soaring cost of living, the death of the queen, and a rotating cast of prime ministers – 2022 has been an eventful year. Our editors have delved into the depth and breadth of expertise found among university researchers to bring you insightful analysis you won’t find elsewhere, on these topics and more besides. Help us keep going.
Jo Adetunji Editor
donate now”
so they want donations from joe public, but not your comments, unless you pay for the Privilege.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My most recent post on that TC article:
The response? Comments are closed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What are they afraid of? It seems to me that they are intellectual cowards who are particularly scared of being challenged on ‘The Science’. I might pick another article to test my hypothesis some time. But I’m not going to sweat about it. I guessed from the start that I would be wasting my time. The Conversation are not interested in debate.
LikeLike
TC has in the past shown some interest in debate. I’ll see if I can dig out an example or two. Not now – I’m at a dreadful 90th birthday party with a ‘singer’.
When I challenged them a year ago about the paucity of articles allowing comments and about how they cut off comments (as in the current case) after three days, I was told they had no choice as their limited funding didn’t allow enough moderators. Hmm …
LikeLike
Robin,
Of course we at Cliscep have no funding at all. We manage to find the time to monitor our own articles (and those of the others) by way of informal moderation. We also patrol spam to bin the porn and adverts and the rest of it, while releasing from spam prison those comments which shouldn’t have been put there by WordPress. I don’t understand why authors at the Conversation write some climate drivel piece, then apparently aren’t interested in having a conversation about it. Funding shouldn’t come into that question (NB I know that you’re not defending them).
LikeLiked by 1 person
TC must have a rolling “Donate Now” appeal from Jo.
latest is –
“Over 1,000 experts have already written for us this year
Our only agenda is to rebuild trust and give you rigorous evidence to inform your views. We’re not here to preach or divide. Our mission is to share facts and expert insight as widely as possible. Help us keep going, and join the 2,800 readers who have already supported our work this year.”
& “Our experts are on hand to help analyse the news. They trust us – but we need your support”
Jo Adetunji Editor
LikeLiked by 1 person
Marta refers to the “Earth heat inventory” – https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/1675/2023/
had a quick look, to long a paper for me to read & comment on & above my pay grade.
LikeLiked by 1 person
dfh,
The overwhelming majority (about 89%) of ‘excess heat’ accumulates in the oceans. The oceans are heated by incident short wave solar radiation, which has nothing whatsoever to do with a ‘Greenhouse gas effect’ preventing heat escaping into space. Notwithstanding that, OHC can only be REASONABLY accurately estimated from 2006 onwards and that estimate is pretty suspect, when you have about 4000 Argo floats, measuring water temperature to 100ths of a degree, diving down only to 2000m maximum, supposedly sampling the entire surface of the global oceans. Note in Fig. 3 of that paper that the deep ocean and near surface trends in OHC for 1960-2020 are very much subdued in comparison to the more modern (2006-2020) trends. Only in the much wider 0-2000m range (which INCLUDES the near surface and deep ocean) do the 1960-2020 estimates come anywhere near the modern trends, which seems odd to me. I’m guessing that some statistical jiggery-pokery has come into play here. My best guess is that the modern accumulation measured in OHC is real and due mainly to increases in solar radiation, which comes down to multi-decadal natural variability. Of course, I would have liked to have made these points to the ‘expert’ author, but she deleted my first comment and now comments are closed. So much for ‘rebuilding trust, sharing facts and expert insight’!
LikeLike
Jaime: “What are they afraid of?”
Cultural retribution, for engaging with the deniers, ne’re-do-wells, shills and despicables. Mostly, this will be subconscious, inculcated by belief. And in a forum where cultural narrative dominates (which won’t include all science-orientated forums, but maybe does include more generic contributors at the Conversation) your comments are much more likely to be disappeared, because they directly challenge the cultural narrative of catastrophe; however nicely phrased your offerings advertise that you have ‘denier’ written on your forehead. However, comments such as Robin’s below does not challenge the main narrative, because it still implies that there is a climate crisis to solve. And not only that, but phrases such as ‘vast global emissions that are increasing year-by-year’ are emotively (not rationally) in tune with this narrative (albeit I’m sure that wasn’t the intent). Additionally, some ‘more acceptable’ criticism of this type gives the impression of a genuinely balanced conversation, which is potentially pretty useful to the culture, as long as it doesn’t lead too far. It’s much easier to understand what is happening if one realises that the decisions are due mainly to emotive bias and not to rationality.
“Individual action (walking, biking etc.) in Canada (the source of only 0.5 Gt) cannot make the slightest appreciable difference to vast global emissions that are increasing year-by-year. Surely Marta it’s seriously misleading to suggest to people that, by taking the actions to which you refer, they can somehow ‘solve the climate crisis’?”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime:
This morning I emailed Michael Parker (Director of Operations, The Conversation UK) advising him inter alia that I thought the deletion of your comment made a mockery of the underlying philosophy of The Conversation. I asked him to investigate and, if possible, to reopen the thread including your comment. Here’s his reply:
So at least your comment has now been published.
Robin
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you Robin. That’s a result at least. Spam bot error . . . . . hmmm. Jim Peden also promised to take the matter further, so I’ll advise him that comments close automatically and my comment has been restored. I’ll keep a closer eye on the Con now and comment early on any science posts to see if their spam bot malfunctions once again!
LikeLike
Andy, you say:
No, it doesn’t – I imply no such thing. As I explain HERE, I’m agnostic about climate science. And as a non-scientist I believe I can make a useful contribution by pointing out to believers that their plans (e.g. Net Zero) make no sense – even if their understanding of the ‘science’ is correct. And that’s because, whereas their plans are usually based on the need to reduce emissions (for example Marta’s comments in the subject article), I’ve yet to come across a case where I’m unable to show that they cannot possibly achieve that.
That’s a powerful argument as I can deploy it without the huge obstacle of being dismissed as a denier, thereby giving my opponents the perfect excuse for ignoring the practicalities. Indeed, I feel that being genuinely agnostic about the science may even be an advantage in the fight to stop absurd and disastrous climate policies. And that objective is surely the overriding priority?
LikeLike
Robin, I did not imply that what I said about your quoted statement has anything to do with what you actually think about climate change. Yet nevertheless, to those who are emotively committed to catastrophism, it will certainly be subconsciously perceived as acknowledging climate catastrophe, because it does not explicitly contradict this concept.
“That’s a powerful argument as I can deploy it without the huge obstacle of being dismissed as a denier.”
Which is precisely why it works to prevent you being dismissed as a denier.
I make no comment about whether that’s good, bad, or indifferent, except to say that generally speaking, engagement is generally better than no engagement.
Nor in respect of the physical science am I a climate sceptic either, in the sense that I do not know enough about it to mount any serious objection, and concentrate instead on what I do know, i.e. culture, and that the catastrophe narrative is most definitely a cultural phenomenon, which has long since become lost any connection with science, whether mainstream or sceptical.
LikeLike
Andy:
I agree.
LikeLike
Robin, thanks for your Successful efforts re Jaime’s comment & posting response from Michael Parker.
from his response we learn “where comments are opened, they close automatically after three days”. so not much time to have a Conversation with the author or other commentators who all have busy lives.
the reason given –
“I appreciate that you as do many of our readers enjoy the back and forth in the comment threads; the decision regards the current policy was not one taken lightly, but on balance the time and resources required to keep comment threads pleasant and legal was not seen as sustainable and so an alternative approach was required.”
no wonder “TC must have a rolling “Donate Now” appeal from Jo.”
but you have to wonder, why you would donate to a site with above policy?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Climate change: Wales falling behind on targets – report”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65818671
“To give a sense of the scale of the challenge, a 39% cut in emissions based on pre-pandemic levels is needed over the next five years to get back on track.”
It’s all utter madness, and as Robin says, it’s unachievable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
‘Objection! We changed the name of the Brecon Beacons!’
“Brecon Beacons National Park to be renamed in response to climate change
The name change is part of the park’s new management plan in response to the climate and biodiversity emergency.
The plan in based around five key aims which include reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the park by 2035 and ensuring clean and safe water environments by 2030.”
https://news.sky.com/story/brecon-beacons-national-park-makes-bannau-brycheiniog-its-only-official-name-in-rebrand-12851934
LikeLike
Jaime,
I had assumed you were joking. But no. They actually did change the name to tackle climate change!
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is the connection between the name change and climate change? I’ve read through the article several times, fighting incomprehension and indifference in equal measure and still haven’t become any wiser. Why is the name Brecon Beacons to be avoided or is it just that flaming beacons emit loads and loads of CO2?
LikeLike
Jaime,
Having visited the Brecon Beacons last year for the first time, I noticed the name change. I have no problem with them preferring the traditional Welsh name, but the reason for the name change was crazy, IMO. Still, it’s all the rage, it seems.
LikeLike
Alan, yes, I think that was at least part of the stated reasons at the time.
LikeLike
Alan, yes, they changed it from Brecon Beacons to ‘unpronounceable’ because the famed flaming beacons emitted loads of planet destroying CO2, so the logic appears to be, if they change the name, everyone can blissfully be in denial about the CO2 emitted from the beacons – which presumably is still contributing to climate change. In today’s counterfactual, post normal, woke world, denying the past, especially by renaming places, is as good as changing the past and, if not exactly erasing the past, at least serves to correct ‘bad’ history and steer us towards a brighter carbon-free future via the all-powerful act of signalling virtue. It’s the best that the woke virtue signalling climate worriers can do without a TARDIS I guess.
LikeLike
Jaime,
I think you may be overthinking it. The rebranding is a very expensive undertaking and, as with anything, linking to climate change improves one’s chances of securing funding. What surprises me is that they didn’t pull the same stunt when rebranding Snowdonia. Now that climate change has rendered snow a thing of the past, surely a name change was only a matter of time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Odd that, since there is no evidence that the heights were ever used to support signal flares, and they are located fairly distant from any shoreline.
LikeLike
Jaime:
If I may butt in on all these comments about the renaming of the Brecon Beacons (a place I know quite well) I have an observation for you. When I beat my ‘usual drum’ about three reasons (unachievable, disastrous and pointless) why net-zero and similar policies are absurd, I’m often told that I’m missing a fourth: GHG emissions are not a problem anyway. I’m even criticised for, by omission, implying that they are. My defence is that I’m agnostic about the science and therefore unable to form a valid opinion.
I believe that many sceptics feel let down by anyone who confirms that GHG emissions are indeed a problem. But what’s their view when someone they respect, especially a scientist, holds that view? Doesn’t that complicate their position?
My thoughts on this were prompted by this excellent article by Roger Pielke Jr. Three extracts:
I can’t help feeling that I’d have been in trouble if I’d said anything like this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, yes the rebranding is an expensive process and thus linking it with climate change means they can probably secure extra funding, but then this introduces the possibility that the rebranding (desired by the powers that be) had nothing to do with climate change. So what was it all about? Welsh language supremacists exerting their influence?
Robin, I respect Pielke Jr’s views that climate change is a real problem and that it has the POTENTIAL for serious harms, but I find his position oddly contradictory and poorly evidenced to be honest. He makes definitive statements about the ‘crucial’ need for mitigation policy but he doesn’t seem to ever back up those statements with hard evidence and, in contrast, his criticisms of the use of RCP8.5 and the unjustified focus on extreme weather damages and fatalities, very much tend to downplay the necessity of ‘urgently’ reducing emissions. I can’t square his circle: how does ‘non urgent’ translate to ‘crucially important’?
LikeLike
Net Zero is caught in four pincers, three of which you have identified. The fourth is “unnecessary.” That does not mean that CO2 emissions are not or will never be harmful. Reducing them to zero has no logical basis.
You are right that admitting that human-caused climate change is real is difficult for some. As I have often said, this seems to be obvious; the key question is not if it’s happening, but how harmful it will be. I long ago – after a regulation stint as an alarmist – came to the conclusion that human-caused climate change is mild, gradual, and not very frightening compared to a lot of other problems faced by humanity and the natural world.
But no-one would object to Net Zero solely on the basis that it is not necessary; if it came with no downsides, what would be the point of opposing it? But as you note, its downsides are severe enough to make it an untenable policy.
However, there is a problem in opposing it purely in those terms. This is because, if you believe that apocalypse is nigh, you are likely to accept any proposed mitigation, no matter how useless/costly/damaging. The ineffectiveness/cost/collateral damage of that mitigation is not sufficient to deter Net Zero zealots who believe in the end of the world. For this reason it is important to try to find out just how severe climate change is likely to be. If we are headed for catastrophe, there is no hope of opposing Net Zero, even if it will not ward off that catastrophe. I believe we are not headed for catastrophe, even with business as usual, and base that on what I hope is solid ground. It’s a case worth making, and the data support it, I think.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just read a news item about a young woman (Jennifer Newall) who has given up her PhD on melting glaciers despite travelling to Antarctica (at what cost and responsible for how much emitted CO2?) because of eco-anxiety (although it does not appear as if the anxiety and the jolly to Antarctica are related). I didn’t finish reading this article because I realised that what young Jennifer was now doing to assuage her concerns was directed at increasing my anxiety about future energy supply and she is increasing my concerns.
LikeLike
The Spectator published an article this afternoon entitled ‘Britain faces plenty of economic pain – even if it dodges a recession’. I posted this comment:
So far it has the most upticks – as usually happens when I post something on these lines.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’ve been a keen supporter of the CPRE (The Countryside Charity) for a long time. But I’ve just received from them a leaflet asking for money and headed ‘Will you help shift solar power policy to protect our countryside?’ The opening paragraphs:
It answers its question by stating that the ‘power we need’ can be obtained from ‘our buildings and developed spaces’ – not the precious countryside.
Details of the CPRE’s campaign can be accessed here: https://www.cpre.org.uk/news/rooftops-can-provide-over-half-our-solar-energy-targets-report-shows/
Oh dear. So the CPRE is telling its members and the public inter alia that (a) we (the UK) can solve the problem (b) that more solar panels are the solution and (c) that solar panels are extraordinarily cheap. I intend to reply, but there’s so much wrong with it that it’s hard to know where to start.
Suggestions?
LikeLike
So that’s RSPB, National Trust, and now CPRE all claiming that climate change is the problem and that destroying the UK countryside and wildlife can solve it?
I’ll get back to you tomorrow on ideas regarding a letter to CPRE. At the moment I’m completely with you in thinking that “there’s so much wrong with it that it’s hard to know where to start.”
LikeLike
I don’t much feel like being fair to them, but the CPRE are at least trying to find a way of introducing a lot of new solar panels without impacting the countryside and wildlife.
LikeLike
Robin,
I might agree that the CPRE is doing what it can to avoid solar panels having an impact on the countryside, but I’m afraid they’re just as bad as all the rest of these organisations:
“Renewable energy”
https://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-care-about/climate-change-and-energy/renewable-energy/
That links to three further articles, one of which:
https://www.cpre.org.uk/explainer/solar-energy-the-countryside/
says:
Also this:
https://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-care-about/climate-change-and-energy/renewable-energy/community-energy-visioning-showcasing-renewables-done-well/
They have drunk deeply at the well of climate hysteria. I’m afraid nothing you say in a letter or email to them will make the slightest difference, though if you want to try I wish you well.
LikeLike
As Paul H says, THIS (by Dr Capell Aris) is an excellent summary of why we are heading for an energy disaster.
LikeLike
I think Mark that you’re right that contacting the CPRE would almost certainly be a waste of time. The very best one might expect them to say is that, given that they’re in no position to halt Government plans to install many more solar panels, the most they can do is to try to minimise the impact on the countryside.
LikeLike
Jim Steele has done a deep dive into paleo history and how the concentrations of CO2 have interacted with climate.
https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2023/06/co2-starvation-and-plate-tectonics.html
He does point out that CO2 concentrations of 1000 ppm, support maximum photosynthesis productivity.
So… Maybe we should start talking about the benefits of 1k nett carbon.
LikeLike
Maybe we should Bill. But the overriding priority now is to do something to stop the disastrous net-zero policy. How might we do that? Well, find ways of communicating the message of my subject article.
LikeLike
Sorry, but I think that just talking is futile. There is no one close to the government with the political clout to take on the ‘green’ vested interests and win.
Here is a trivial example of the way Westminster works from Dom Cumming’s recent substack:
LikeLike
Mark – re the CPRE, I sent a note of my concerns to Paul Homewood. This morning he posted an article about it HERE . Two interesting comments: (1) a link (from ‘incywincysales’) to this CPRE ARTICLE and (2) an assurance by Phillip Bratby, a trustee of Devon CPRE, that their members are opposed to the position of National CPRE.
LikeLike
I daresay Dom Cummings is right Bill – several years ago I was CEO of a government agency reporting to the Permanent Secretary in the Cabinet Office, so have some experience of such matters. But I suspect that politicians’ (although obviously not civil servants’) attitudes might be ripe for radical change in the current run-up to a general election – an election where the Labour Party, despite current backtracking, seems likely to major on the ‘fight against climate change’. The Tories must be looking for a stick to beat them with. This might be it.
You say ‘just talking is futile’. Maybe so, but what do you propose instead? Don’t forget you started this exchange by saying that maybe ‘we should start talking about the benefits of 1k nett carbon’.
LikeLike
Robin,
Yes, I spotted that, but it’s certainly worth mentioning here, and it’s good to see the debate going on at Paul’s place.
LikeLike
A good letter in the Torygraph this morning:
LikeLiked by 1 person
CPRE – Campaign for the Politicisation of Renewable Energy
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime – re the CPRE
An old and good friend is chair of my local CPRE. I thought he might be a way of getting my views on the current solar panel campaign into the hands of the lefty, wokey CPRE CEO Roger Mortlake. So I sent him the attached note, asking him to pass it on to Mortlake:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime: I received an interesting reply from my CPRE friend. A couple of days ago he attended a ‘CPRE Assembly’ where branch chairs meet with the national body to try to achieve a common CPRE view on key matters. He stated his concern at how National CPRE was taking political positions without consultation – in particular re climate change. Other representatives strongly supported him. Subsequently he emailed his local Trustee colleagues for their views. So far they agree with him. When he has a consensus he’ll write to Mortlake attaching my note, copying me in.
So far, so good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: the Chair of my local CPRE has just emailed CPRE CEO, Roger Mortlock. Having welcomed him to the charity, he went on to disagree with him about CPRE National’s declared support for Labour’s policy of ceasing development of the UK’s own oil and gas resources – setting out sound reasons for that disagreement and noting that other branch representatives at the recent CPRE Assembly (30 May) and some of his Trustee colleagues strongly support that position. He asked whether a charity such as CPRE should openly support a controversial policy statement by one particular political party. Surely, he said, it would make sense and , indeed be more democratic, to consult with the branches before determining major policy statements. Arising from that, he attached the note re solar panels I posted above. Interesting.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Those sound like very positive developments Robin. Well done to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Jaime. Via NALOPKT I referred Phillip Bratby (Trustee of Devon CPRE – see above) to this mini-thread. He’s passing the link to his colleagues. Small steps to be sure – but worthwhile I think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin; wrt small steps, Net Zero Watch has this post about the govt dropping one of its NZ ideas – a supplement on bills to fund hydrogen for domestic heating:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/FMfcgzGsnBhjdwSBddVzqpddKnCMzFDw
It closes with:
“Craig Mackinlay MP, chairman of the parliamentary Net Zero Scrutiny Group, said:
“The cancellation of the proposed £118 Hydrogen Tax on household energy bills is hugely welcome and I hope is the start of a common sense journey for the government on energy policy. When the laudable ambition of Net Zero hits the reality of cost and significant changes to the way we live, the public are understandably turned off as they look at low uptake of the ‘plan’ globally and their ongoing growth on the back of cheap traditional energy.
History is littered with failed and costly government projects. I forecast that many of the wasteful Net Zero plans based on unreliable, fringe technologies will be historically judged in the same way.”
It strikes me that Mr Mackinlay would be receptive to copies of your various submissions and comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mackinlay misspelt ‘laughable’ as ‘laudable’, methinks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I fear not Jaime. Criticism of the objective is not permitted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: I’ve done a brief web search and, so far as I can see, Mackinlay’s position is not to criticise Net Zero per se, but simply to point out that it’s hopelessly unaffordable. And even that gets him into trouble with constituents and commentators who believe he’s refusing to face up to the reality that emissions have to be cut or we’re all doomed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a sad and bizarre state of affairs when one of the most prominent Parliamentary critics of the policies relating to net zero feels obliged to describe it as a laudable objective.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To me Mackinlay’s comments are mildly encouraging. He cannot launch a full frontal attack on these ludicrous policies: he would be cancelled. So he pays lip service while chipping away at the costs and impracticalities. There’s a touch of “Yes, Minister” about it.
LikeLike
It comes down to the unchallengeable virtue signalling of New Normal environmentalism. Greenhouse gas emissions = climate breakdown, ergo eliminating those emissions must, per se, be unquestionably ‘good’. Anyone who thinks differently must be ‘bad’, evil, destructive. We can argue a little, very little, over how best to get there, but we absolutely MUST get there – because PHYSICS, because inevitable global catastrophe. It’s a perversion of reality, a demand that we think in terms of certainty when in fact the ‘scientific’ case for GHG-induced Thermageddon is very uncertain. A demand that we adopt a one dimensional moral position, but where in fact the supposed moral certitude for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions evaporates when the measures are subjected to even a rudimentary cost-benefit analysis.
LikeLike
Mikehig: the problem with ‘chipping away at the costs’ is that Mackinlay leaves himself open to the response from those whom Jaime describes as New Normal environmentalists (i.e. essentially all Net Zero supporters – i.e. almost anyone in any position of authority) that cutting emissions is so desperately important that cost simply doesn’t matter.
Jaime, you observe that New Normal environmentalism says: ‘We can argue a little, very little, over how best to get there [the elimination of GHG’s], but we absolutely MUST get there …’. I think you’re right. And that’s why I’m sure the best strategy is to demonstrate – as we can quite easily – that the Net Zero policy cannot possibly eliminate GHGs; indeed it would probably not reduce them at all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here you are, a blog about energy:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2023/06/energy-destinies-part-1-power-needs-and-sources-balancing-barrels.html
Pay particular attention to the ‘ERoEI’ section where the graphic shows that solar panels, and unbuffered wind, are always going to be an energy sink. That is they take more energy to produce, install and maintain than they output over their working lives.
LikeLike
Problem is Bill that I can’t see a website called ‘Naked Capitalism’ having much appeal to Jaime’s New Normal environmentalists.
LikeLike
I’ve just received a copy of CPRE CEO Roger Mortlake’s reply to my friend – a reply to his email that enclosed my note on solar panels (see above). Here’s the relevant part of the reply:
Not much there then. I wonder how many regional Chairs were included in the wide consultation.
LikeLike
Sounds like a fudge to me, Robin. The regional chairs need to keep pushing back.
LikeLike
Robin; I agree with your approach but, for someone like Mackinlay, any sort of challenge to the NZ belief is a sure-fire way to being cancelled. So pushing back against the demands and deadlines on the grounds of cost is, imho, his best approach. Labour’s recent u-turn on their green spending pledge will strengthen the case. The more time that can be bought, the more chance of folk coming to see how impossible and ineffective the whole NZ idea is.
Also, as time passes, other countries might hit the wall of reality ahead of us or slow down/relapse on their NZ schemes. Macron’s recent call for the EU to pause further green regulation is a straw in the wind. If other countries start backing off, it will be easier for our govt to ease back.
LikeLike
But Mike why would an MP be ‘cancelled’ for demonstrating from simple facts, and without the slightest challenge to the NZ belief, that NZ wouldn’t cut emissions? And what would ‘cancelled’ mean in the context of the HoC?
LikeLike
“And what would ‘cancelled’ mean in the context of the HoC?”
I don’t know. Ask Andrew Bridgen.
LikeLike
Ah I knew someone would mention Andrew Bridgen. But I think there’s a difference: Bridgen criticised the essence of a key Government policy (the validity of vaccines), whereas Mackinlay wouldn’t be criticising Net Zero per se (i.e. the need to cut emissions) but pointing out that it simply wouldn’t cut emissions.
LikeLike
Robin; in a sane world no-one should be cancelled for pointing out some simple facts. But…..
In my view anyone who appears to challenge the orthodoxy, no matter how rational and factual his arguments, would be seen as a denier/heretic/subversive/etc. The emphasis should be on “appears”.
As for the fate of this challenger, the faithful would play the man, not the ball. My guess is he would be eased away from any committees and positions of influence. His career prospects would be curtailed. Further, anything he said would be dismissed as coming from a denier, etc. His UKIP background would not help his case.
So, in my view, he is likely to achieve more by highlighting the cost and practicality issues. It is good news that there is anyone in political life who is prepared to put there head above the parapet. Apparently the Net Zero Scrutiny Group has about 20 members which is a start.
LikeLike
First he has said that NZ is ‘laudable’ (much to Jaime’s dismay). A sound position according to the faithful – so they could hardly call him a denier. And what I’m suggesting is that he sticks to practicality. See my subject article – it’s exclusively about practicability.
And, in any case, it’s about time one or two MPs were brave enough to call out this nonsense. To refrain because they’re frightened of losing influence is pathetic.
LikeLike
Robin,
I only mentioned Bridgen because you asked what cancellation would look like.
LikeLike
Thanks John – it was helpful.
LikeLike
Robin,
Just to elaborate. In answer to the question, ‘what would cancellation look like in the HoC’, the answer is: Ugly, very, very ugly.
Here is world renowned statistician, Penny Mordaunt calling Bridgen the first cuckoo of spring:
https://www.politico.eu/article/first-cuckoo-of-spring-penny-mordaunt-mp-kicked-tories-over-covid-vaccine/
Apparently, “Mordaunt urged Bridgen to ‘make use of’ more ‘reliable, honest’ sources in carrying out his research.”
So presumably she is questioning the reliability and honesty of Professor Norman Fenton, who actually is a world renowned statistician.
I’ll stop now because I am going off topic.
LikeLike
Thanks again John.
Now I’d like to elaborate. I’m quite sure there are MPs who understand that Net Zero is a totally absurd and seriously dangerous policy. After all, right at the beginning of this thread, Chris Miller admonished me for stating the obvious. Yet it seems that no one – no one – is willing to plainly state the clear reality: a reality that means the nation, along with their constituents, is heading for a most unpleasant future. When the Climate Change Act was passed in 2008, there were four brave dissenters. Now there would seem to be none. Or more likely none who have the guts to express an obvious truth. Did this happen in the 1930s? Er… no. What’s happened to today’s MPs?
LikeLiked by 1 person
An interesting read from Sir Dieter Helm this week.
I particularly liked this bit (though even he doesn’t explicitly say that targets for 2030 or 2035 are stupid/reckless or whatever):
“Net zero electricity: the UK 2035 target”
https://dieterhelm.co.uk/publications/net-zero-electricity-the-uk-2035-target/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Meanwhile, the reality:
“Energy saving to return to prevent winter blackouts”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65915346
What’s the reason? Well, according to the BBC and National Grid ESO “…the Ukraine war posed “risks and uncertainties” to gas supplies across Europe and the UK.”
That’s why we have to be dependent on foreign supplies of gas and not have any more of our own, obviously. That way we enhance our energy security – apparently.
LikeLike
Mark: many thanks for the reference to Dieter Helm’s paper . It’s long, clearly written (a few typos) and rewards careful study. Helm’s very clever: apparently supportive of government policy, he subtly damns it. I urge everyone to read it and see what they think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve read the (remarkable) Dieter Helm paper again. I was wrong: he is utterly damning of government policy. An extract from the Conclusion:
But before that he’s made it clear (a) that he doesn’t expect much, if any, change to the ‘current path’ and (b) that he doesn’t believe consumers and taxpayers (i.e. voters) at all likely to accept the substantial pain that would be necessary – he describes it as ‘politically infeasible’ . Nor does he think more Government intervention likely.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime (in particular)): I’ve started a heated exchange at TCW ( HERE ) about my belief that the way to tackle Net Zero is to ignore argument about the science.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s not the way I would choose to go about challenging the ‘necessity’ argument for Net Zero. David Wright makes some good points, but some of them are too vague, or unsubstantiated. Which does leave him open to dismissal as a crank and a ‘climate denier’. For instance, there have been plenty of repeatable experiments which demonstrate – in the lab – the long wave absorption and re-radiation properties of carbon dioxide. There have been very few robust experiments which demonstrate conclusively ‘in the wild’ the same effect at scale, i.e. that the accumulation of CO2 enhances downwelling long wave radiation. He would have been well advised to have been more cautious and more precise in his approach to challenging the fundamental science.
LikeLike
Jaime: why not go to TCW and tell David your view?
LikeLike
I could do that Robin, but it wouldn’t achieve much and it would look like nit-picking when most of what the author says is spot on, just rather too sweeping generalised for my particular liking.
LikeLike
OK – but my argument that disputing the science gets nowhere has caused a big kerfuffle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sure it has Robin. I’m not the only one who thinks that challenging the science is still vitally important and if the extraordinary sensitivity displayed by those who are being challenged is anything to go by, they do too!
LikeLike
Yes, it seems that most TCW readers agree with you and I’m the one in the minority. Nonetheless I think I’ve got it right and that it’s precisely because almost everyone who disputes the Net Zero policy seems determined to include a criticism of the science that we’re not getting anywhere.
LikeLike
It’s not just the UK, but also Switzerland. Even more pointless there, given that Swiss CO2 emissions are back to levels last seen around the end of the 19th century, and currently represent around 0.1% of global emissions:
https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/switzerland
“Switzerland referendum: Voters back carbon cuts as glaciers melt”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65946888
The disappointing thing is that in a country that uses referendums for almost everything, only 42% turned out to vote on such an important topic. With 59.1% saying “yes”, that’s around one quarter of the population actually stirring themselves to vote in favour. It’ll be expensive too:
So, close to £2.5Bn for a country with a population of well under 9 million. By my calculation, that’s close to £28,000 per capita, to make no measurable difference to climate change.
LikeLike
South Africa has lots of problems, including with its energy system. It largely uses coal, which isn’t the problem, rather the problem is, inter alia, its age and lack of investment:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-65671718
Even I can’t blame it on renewables, but given that unpredictable, expensive and unreliable renewables might well lead to power shortages (in the UK the National Grid is already planning to control demand – translation = rations energy – next winter, because margins are known to be tight. Surely then someone in a position of authority should take note of what it’s like to live in a relatively modern, developed and westernised (certainly the most such on the African continent) country that faces regular power cuts:
“South African taps run dry after power shortages”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-65933882
This isn’t new there, either. See this BBC article from last year:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-62053991
LikeLike
If you want to win/hang on to seats in the “Red Wall” at the next general election, banning coal mines (and associated jobs) doesn’t seem like the best strategy. Perhaps Government Ministers are slowly cottoning on?
“Ministers to block plans to ban new coal mines”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65950291
On the other hand, some Tory MPs seem determined to everything possible to guarantee that they lose the next general election:
LikeLike
Professor Piers Forster has just been appointed interim Chair of the Climate Change Committee. He’s celebrated by publishing an article in The Conversation titled ‘I’m one of the UK’s official climate change advisers – our new report says the country is no longer a world leader‘. It’s HERE
Comments are allowed and Piers is eagerly joining in. I’ve posted multiple criticisms of Piers’ views – largely using extracts from my header article here. So far, all have been allowed to remain.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It doesn’t appear that Forster has addressed any of your sensible, rational arguments yet Robin. From his responses elsewhere, he immediately comes across as a pie-in-the-sky idealist who is not concerned with facts and practicalities, yet freely admits that Britain has benefited hugely from the use of fossil fuels in the past, but now thinks as a ‘world leader’ we should be encouraging underdeveloped nations not to do as we did and instead embrace the ‘Green dream’. He’s just another idiot puppet I’m afraid, no doubt chosen because he has the veneer of ‘scientific respectability’.
LikeLike
He still hasn’t. It’s interesting to compare this with an exchange I had with him in 2020: LINK . He responded then – at first … but eventually ran away. It’s frightening that this person is in charge of the committee that advises the government on climate change.
LikeLike
Jaime: it’s encouraging that I’m not the only commentator criticising Forster’s views. A sign of the times?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The general public are growing weary of these climate zealots Robin and many are questioning their reason, methods and motivation. The government is going to have a hard time censoring them all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime: true. It’s particularly interesting that, until quite recently, TC commentators mainly toed the party line. Yet it seems that at least 50% of commentators here are critics.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the link, Robin. I took a look. Yes, he did rather run away, didn’t he? Logic, reason and facts don’t seem to be appreciated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve now looked at the more recent article too. The most that can be said is that Robin ‘s comments have been allowed to stand. The author of the article certainly hasn’t tried to answer them.
I am alarmed that someone who apparently can’t answer Robin’s pointed but simple and basic objections has such an important role in driving UK energy policy. Equally worrying is the thought that he gets no pushback from the MSM who are happy to serve as his mouthpiece. More worryingly, he is presumably facing no difficult (or even easy) questions from politicians.
It doesn’t look good.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime: pleased to see that you’ve joined my dispute with the tiresome Clive Neil.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It seems Clive doesn’t want to party Robin. Maybe three’s a crowd.
LikeLike
You spoke too soon Jaime – groan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well Jaime, as you will probably have noticed, comments have now closed. And for what it’s worth, our comments were not deleted and we got the last word. But what was important was that this was an essentially unique opportunity to address one of the UK’s key Net Zero advocates. It was interesting that, although he seemed keen to engage with commentators who supported his position, he showed no inclination to answer critics (arguably the majority of commentators). What should we make of this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
Forgive me for intruding on your question to Jaime. What I think it signifies is someone who lives in an echo chamber of groupthink, who isn’t used to being asked difficult (though eminently sensible) questions, who isn’t used to having his views challenged, and who has no answers to the difficult questions. This speaks volumes as to the uselessness of the processes (or lack of them) underpinning the UK’s energy policy and the rush to net zero. Everyone involved has simply signed up to it. Nobody has said “yes, but…” and certainly nobody has dared to suggest that it might not be a brilliant idea. The intellectual underpinning of net zero is seriously flawed, but nobody wants to talk about it, think about it, or acknowledge it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Mark, I think that’s a good analysis. But in particular it speaks volumes as to the uselessness of today’s politicians. In my short time reporting to the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office (and de jure to the Minister), ministers and senior civil servants regarded difficult or awkward questions as key tools to be used to get to the truth of an important issue or proposal. And that applied even when they were in broad agreement with that issue. If you’re right – and I suspect you are – it’s extraordinary that net zero, a policy that must inevitably have significant social and economic impact on Britain, has not been subject to the most vigorous questioning and examination.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: our old pals at The Conversation have just published an article titled ‘The world needs hundreds of thousands more offshore wind turbines – where will they all go?‘ It can be found HERE . Comments are permitted.
It’s quite interesting as the authors have used the UK as their case study and have found that meeting net zero would mean offshore turbines requiring an area exceeding 100,000 sq. km – 90% of which would be in deep water. Taken together with current stories about the costs of wind power – not least the unexpected costs to maintenance – and the difficulties of updating the power network to cope with renewables, it would seem to show that wind power is unviable. For example, the authors say that their ‘study suggests that the huge expansion of offshore wind farms required to meet net zero targets may be achievable’ [my emphases] and that the project will require ‘improved technology’.
Worth a comment?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve decided that I really can’t be bothered with that TC article. What I’ve been doing instead is drafting a letter to my MP, Bim Afolami – who’s weekly newsletters are beginning to indicate concern about the upcoming by elections (especially I suspect in neighbouring mid-Bedfordshire). I intend to send my letter as an attachment to a short email. But first I’d welcome comments. Not about the entire letter – it’s 800 words long with footnotes – but re my conclusion.
Here’s the opening paragraph:
I then proceed to review current issues: major problems with wind projects / difficulties with reengineering the National Grid and local power distribution / dislike of ULEZ and ’15 minute cities’ / numerous obstacles to the adoption of EVs / and likewise re heat pumps.
Have I missed anything?
My concluding paragraphs:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very good, Robin. I don’t think you’ve missed anything of importance, and as you’re writing to an MP, it’s important to keep it short and pithy so as not to lose his attention. The only thing extra that you might mention is the recent lobbying by Renewable UK for “reform” to the CfD Allocation Rounds, i.e. their demands that they need more money. It’s yet more real-world evidence (to add to the scrutiny of their published accounts by the likes of Andrew Montford) confirming that renewables, with all their faults (unreliability, unpredictability, damage to the environment, etc) are also expensive.
LikeLike
Robin, since in your last comment you mentioned ULEZ, here’s an interesting development, suggesting (confirming?) that the reality of all the net zero stuff is actually politically very tricky indeed:
“Uxbridge by-election: Keir Starmer won’t say whether he backs ULEZ expansion”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66124191
Aye, there’s the rub.
LikeLike
Thanks for both observations Mark. Although they could be useful I don’t think I’ll add anything to my text which I fear is already quite long enough: there are 500 words between the two extracts I cited above – with 13 supporting endnotes. The point I’m trying to illustrate is that current Tory policy is becoming increasingly unpopular with what I term ‘ordinary’ voters – i.e. not the hitherto Labour supporting elite. I’m anxious not to overdo it. Funnily enough I think it’s just possible that Labour might yet outflank the Tories on the very point I’m making: Rachel Reeves U-turn on the £28bn a year ‘green prosperity plan’ and Starmer’s views on ULEZ may only be the beginning. Miliband won’t like it … but does Starmer care?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
only other factor I would add is, UK will still needs oil & gas for many years to come – not a very good link, but at short notice – https://savebritain.org/4414-2/
LikeLike
PS to Mark: I have inserted a brief reference to the RenewableUK demand. Thanks.
Thanks also to Dougie.
LikeLike
“Extreme weather ‘biggest threat’ to UK heritage”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67432755
Is it just a coincidence that this alarmist piece of work has been released just before COP28?
LikeLike
Mark,
The National Deception. This woke, left wing, cultural Marxist, lying ‘charity’ should not be in charge of administering and managing our architectural and natural heritage. They are totally unfit for purpose.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/05/27/the-woke-drift-of-the-national-trust/
LikeLike