On Wednesday, for some reason or other, lunch was late. The 1 o’clock news had finished, and I found myself watching live coverage of the energy infrastructure debate in the House of Commons. Naturally I only saw as much of the debate as it took to eat a sandwich, but I was so disturbed by what I had heard in that brief time that I resolved to dig out the text of the debate on Hansard.
Just to see how stupid our elected representatives in Parliament are. How stupid are they? Quite stupid, as it turns out. Not bovine. There is a glimmer there of some sort of intelligence, but a large felty green blanket has been thrown over it. This enables our MPs to argue for national suicide while rationalising it as a good thing for all concerned.
The debate was opened by Stephen Crabb (C), who said some sensible things about the need for new nuclear. Now, Clisceppers know well that whatever new nuclear is produced, it will be less than it should have been. This is particularly galling since, yes it is expensive, but it is the only viable way of powering an electricity grid in a modern civilisation if one’s principal preoccupation is getting rid of all those “carbon” emissions.
Up rose Caroline Lucas (G) to intervene.
Did any of the witnesses [at Crabb’s Welsh Affairs Committee] point out the eye-wateringly high cost of new nuclear, as well as how painfully slow the process will be, given the amount of time it will take for it to be up and running? With the best will in the world, it is unlikely that there will be a new big nuclear power station until the early 2030s. Given the Government’s own target to decarbonise the electricity supply by 2035, nuclear will be unable to play much of a part in helping us to achieve that.
We all know that greens, capitalised or not, will oppose nuclear come what may. They can then use the painfully slow development process as an argument against it. A bit like puncturing my car tyre and then telling me that using it is not viable because it’s too slow. Crabb’s reply, in part:
On the cost of nuclear, yes, those points were made to the Committee. We made sure that we had an evidence session to hear from Friends of the Earth and others who are opposed to nuclear per se. We heard their strong arguments about their belief in an energy system entirely comprising of renewable and power storage technology in the future, but we also heard strong evidence that the technology for that does not yet exist. We have to stay in the real world, so nuclear, which has been tried and tested over the long term as a provider of cheap and reliable power, is an important part of our future energy mix, in conjunction with other energy sources.
Moments later, up pops Wera Hobhouse (LD), of whom more will be reported later.
Particularly on estimates day, are we really “putting our heads in the sand” when that technology is simply the most expensive? In considering Government expenditure, should we not be looking for a technology that produces clean energy and is the least expensive, not the most expensive?
Whatever else we think of wind power, it is cheap in terms of marginal costs when the wind is blowing. What does it cost when the wind isn’t blowing? Crabb:
The evidence we considered took in the entire life cycle of a nuclear power station. Looking at the energy produced over 30, 40, 50 or more years shows that they give us a secure, reliable base load of affordable energy production. People who oppose nuclear per se will not be persuaded on cost or on the efficiency of the technology; they will not be persuaded at all.
At this point Andrew Bridgen (Reclaim) got his first word in, stating that small modular reactors as offered by Rolls-Royce are tantalisingly within reach. Crabb notes the money already sent to RR and burnt by them, while acknowledging the potential of the technology. Having been fairly sensible so far, Crabb begins to lose the plot, extolling the alleged virtues of floating offshore wind. My suspicion is that he would not be so enthusiastic about it if there was not a bottomless pit of Other People’s Money to fund it. This sceptic’s instinct is that floating wind will have crippling maintenance costs as a thick coat of icing on the cake of its crippling development costs. On the plus side it might be quite productive, as wind goes. On the negative side there are still our feathered friends, who never get a mention in energy debates featuring the virtues of Aeolian power (including here).
Angus Brendan MacNeill (Ind) spoke next, and gave some statistics without pointing out the reason for them. He speaks of an engineering skills gap, when:
Recently, I met representatives from the National Grid, who told me that by 2030 they hope to do five times the amount of work that has been done in the past 30 years.
I wonder why they think they need to do, in 7 years, the work of the previous 30? Clisceppers need no explanation here.
Touching on the supply chain, I think since the Bronze Age about 700 million tonnes of copper have been mined, and in the next 30 years, some people say, the same amount will have to be mined as has been mined in the last 5,000 years.
Why would that be? Are we regressing to the Bronze Age?
It has been said to me, in my new role chairing the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, that perhaps Ofgem needs a statutory duty for net zero. That might free up Ofgem’s hands to do a number of things, because it often feels quite constrained in its remit from Government.
Its remit – as widely understood at any rate – was to be a consumer champion. It has done a poor job at that. Now MacNeill reports – without explicitly endorsing their view – that he has had representations that Ofgem should become Net Zero champion instead.
We can see the evidence in recent months that the climate is oscillating unusually—we know it is.
Sure.
There is an opportunity here to really move for hydrogen, and some estimates suggest there could be 1.5 million jobs in hydrogen. It is a big sector; it needs to be given time and space and a Government commitment. People within energy are telling me they are concerned that those commitments might be weakening.
There could be 1.5 million jobs in shovelling horse apples too. But I would not base our future on it. MacNeill then winds up by extolling the virtues of smart meters for demand management (= energy rationing).
Up next, Nicola Richards (C).
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I take this opportunity to thank the Department for its work throughout the year. During that time it has introduced our flagship energy bills support scheme, which gave every household £400 off their energy bills at a time when the price of energy had increased massively. That was not the only cost of living measure that the Department spearheaded; further to that scheme, the Government also put in place the energy price guarantee to cap household energy bills at £3,000.
Make everything expensive, then give us a discount, and pat yourselves on the back? Clap. Richards notes that standing charges are too high, without noting some of the socialised costs that are added to them. Then we step over the border of Realityville into La-La Land.
Households will be limiting their energy usage for a variety of reasons. While lower-usage households usually have a lower income, many households are also cutting their usage to reduce their household emissions.
LOL.
Richards notes that energy costs are too high for businesses. Naturally government policy does not get the blame for this. I won’t excerpt any more of Richards’s speech, but will summarise it as delusional. She looks forwards to lower bills for her constituents at the close. I can assure her that, on our current trajectory, there is no hope of that, unless our future involves banging rocks together and making unintelligible grunting vocalisations – at that stage, the crippling bill landing on the doormat might not hold such a threat, not least because we won’t be able to read.
Next up, Emma Hardy (L), with a focus on carbon capture and storage. Few things are more likely to get me shouting at the TV, or muttering bitterly into my tea, than blithe statements about carbon capture and storage by people who, if there was any sense in the world, would be different people saying the exact opposite.
If we accept that we cannot all cheer for one individual football team, and that there is a need for many different energy producers on the pitch, we have to deal with carbon capture and storage to meet our net zero targets and decarbonise in the way we need to.
The apparently left-field reference to football teams harkens back to a comment in Crabb’s opening speech, so it is not as out of place as it seems in this excerpt. Naturally my riposte to this would be “Our net zero targets are self-imposed. Any expensive policies that flow from them are choices, not obligations.”
Hardy wants the government to approve CCUS projects on the Humber, which means sending Other People’s Money. I didn’t really follow the nuance, but it seemed as if manufacturers were chomping at the bit to build factories there, if only there was some way to get rid of that pesky CO2. There is. You vent it to the atmosphere. CCUS projects are going to be an enormous cost sink, and unless everyone is doing it, cannot be viable. You could impose a global carbon tax, and if it was high enough, CCUS would become viable. But that relies on our international friends taking the same approach. Will they?
France, Germany, Hungary and Norway are all moving ahead. Those international companies are making decisions now. Those in the Humber face the real possibility of carbon capture and storage infrastructure not being in place in time, in which case they will have to cease operations. These companies will then begin to move to countries where carbon capture and storage is available. Those looking for a place to invest and meet their targets will not choose the UK. Once we miss this opportunity, they are gone forever. For example, the companies are already signing 20-year contracts with Norway.
…
The good news is that, if the Government give certainty to these industries—if they meet them and provide them with the security and certainty that they need to invest—77,000 new jobs could be created in the Humber, and an industry worth £30 billion in taxable revenue could be there by 2050. That will happen only if the Government provide certainty to investors and move quickly and decisively to get all the UK’s carbon capture and storage capability on-stream ahead of our competitors. This is a one-off opportunity and the Government are dangerously close to blowing it.
This is something else that I don’t understand. Often we hear that the UK is going to be left behind in one Net Zero race or another. But that does not make sense. What actually is the advantage in being the first to build a viable CCUS? I don’t see one. If it works elsewhere, just copy it, and that way you can do it more cheaply.
Next, Virgina Crosbie (C) on new nuclear (she’s pro) and infrastructure. Then Wera Hobhouse (LD) returns to the fray.
It has been an interesting debate so far, but there is no doubt that the pace at which we are getting to net zero is too slow. The recent report from the Climate Change Committee is very clear: it describes the Government’s efforts to scale up climate action as “worryingly slow”. The committee has lost confidence that the UK will reach its targets for cutting carbon emissions. That is an unacceptable dereliction of duty, and I worry that it is becoming increasingly normal to accept that we will not meet our climate change target of limiting the rise in temperatures to 1.5°C by 2050. Let us remind ourselves why that target is very important: if we do not stay within the 1.5°C limit, the permafrost will melt, releasing huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. That would be irreversible—no amount of human effort would be able to stop it.
At this point Andrew Bridgen tries to intervene, but is rebuffed. Says Hobhouse:
Let us not make the 2050 target something that we cannot reach. We must reach it—it is an absolute necessity that we do. I will not give way to people who will not follow the science, and who deny that evidence.
Bridgen was probably coming in to say that nothing the UK can do alone will have the slightest effect on the climate. But we’ll never know, because Hobhouse will not give way to “people who will not follow the science.” Hobhouse shows how delusional mainstream thinking is a minute later:
At times like this, we need more Government, not less. The prevailing laissez-faire attitude of hoping for the market to settle all our net zero challenges is no longer fit for purpose. The CCC has said that we could have mitigated the energy crisis if the Government had rapidly deployed onshore wind and solar power—here lies the hypocrisy. On the one hand, the Government say that they do not want to interfere with the market; on the other, they actively limit the onshore wind and solar industries. The de facto ban on onshore wind and a framework that does not create enough incentives for the solar industry have meant that people in the UK have paid far higher prices for the energy crisis than would otherwise have been necessary.
I will leave it to the reader to identify the several problems in this paragraph. Having refused to give way to science-denier Bridgen, Hobhouse now gives way to polymath Lucas, who says:
The hon. Member is making a powerful case, and I thank her for it. The Secretary of State told me yesterday that ending new North sea oil and gas licences is, in his words, “bonkers policy”. Does the hon. Member agree that what is really bonkers is a Government subsidising oil and gas companies to drill more of the very thing that is destroying our planet, and handing billions in subsidies to the fossil fuel companies in the middle of a cost of living crisis?
“Destroying the planet” might be overselling the power of carbon dioxide. Just a tad. Hobhouse concurs with Lucas:
I could not agree more. This is about creating level playing fields—at least for the renewable sector versus the oil and gas industry—but we do not even have that.
The US Inflation Reduction Act and the EU’s Net-Zero Industry Act will be transformative, and will incentivise huge investment in new renewable technologies and crucial net zero infrastructure.
On Hobhouse’s planet, wind and solar are not subsidised, and oil and gas are not taxed. If only we had a mildly sceptical voice in the Commons who could put her right?
BRIDGEN: Will the hon. Lady give way, please?
HOBHOUSE: I have already said that I will not give way, and I stick to what I have said.
Take that, science-denier! Hobhouse again, after extolling the billions our friends in the US and EU are splurging on green subsidies:
The UK’s budget for net zero does not come close to matching the ambition of our partners: we need to spend now to save money in the future. The country’s finances are already straining under the weight of Conservative Government incompetence, and the London School of Economics predicts that UK banks and insurers will end up shouldering nearly £340 billion-worth of climate-related losses by 2050 unless action is taken to curb rising temperatures and sea levels.
…
The climate crisis cannot wait. Penny-pinching now will lose us fortunes in the future: Government investment and the right Government policies and frameworks are needed to meet the climate change challenge.
Of course, spending money on wind and solar would not save us from climate impacts. Even if we could power our country solely on these generators, we would be relying on the rest of the world following us, even accepting as given that such a project would reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to “save the world.” In other words the source of our energy does not and will never make a difference to any climate impacts. What it will do is give us some sort of moral leadership, but I think most people prefer money.
Next up, Sir Paul Beresford (C) who extols the virtues of fusion power, which are virtues indeed, were fusion power to exist at a relevant scale. Beresford talks warmly about Oxford’s Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, at which point Bridgen tries to intervene again.
BRIDGEN: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
BERESFORD: Sorry, but the hon. Gentleman came late to the debate, and I am just about to finish.
Attentive readers might have noticed Bridgen successfully intervening in the first speech of the day. I cannot criticise Beresford here, because Bridgen might have punctuated his later fruitless attempts to intervene by leaving the chamber and re-entering it.
Alex Cunningham (L) rises to talk more about CCUS, but notes in passing the destruction of industry in Teesside:
At Billingham in my constituency, we currently have the Mitsubishi Cassel works working towards final closure, with the loss of several hundred jobs. CF Fertilisers has ceased the production of ammonia just down the road, although I remain hopeful that at least that will restart if energy costs come down. For the record, that is the only remaining ammonia plant in the country, and CCUS would help ensure long-term production.
CCUS would add to the costs of the ammonia plant. We need ammonia because we need to eat, and to eat we need to farm intensively, and to do that we need fertilisers, and for that we need ammonia. The fact that such obvious needs have been put to the back of the queue by our Net Zero fantasies is madness. Cunningham later approvingly quotes the Skidmore review of Net Zero with this asinine comment:
“It is essential that the UK acts quickly and decisively. There is a new global race to maximise the growth potential from net zero at a time of wider geopolitical uncertainty. We are now at a crunch point where the UK could get left behind.”
Skipping a couple of contributions we come to Selaine Saxby (C) who waxes lyrical about the potential for floating wind farms off the South West shore with this frankly ludicrous comment:
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea, I strongly support the Government’s target of having 5 GW of floating offshore wind by 2030, and I am delighted that the Celtic sea has been identified as a key development opportunity to complement existing deployment in the North sea for the simple reason that the wind blows the other way round there. We need to develop both areas to optimise wind energy production.
Here, the wind blows the other way, enabling the giant rubber bands that generate the leccy to be wound up. Next, Andrew Bridgen is called. Does he say anything sensible?
This estimates debate is extremely important, especially considering how lively the debate is in the field of climate science—not reflected in the Chamber today. Given the effects on a population already struggling with energy bills; the growing public awareness of doom-mongers with their deadlines that never actually come to pass; the extreme sacrifices being forced on us all, which may be futile in the face of China, Russia and India continuing to increase their use of fossil fuels enormously, it appears that the Government are taking one side of a scientific argument and, once again, declaring it to be an unchallengeable fact.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who is no longer in her place, is clearly a champion of wind and solar technology. There is a place for those technologies, but the question I wanted to ask her, though she refused my intervention—perhaps the Minister will help her out when summing up—is that on those long, cold winter nights when the wind does not blow, if we rely on solar and wind power, what will keep our houses warm and industry running?
The fact is that the UK accounts for less than 1% of global emissions. On that basis, we are voluntarily rejecting entire established industries that have been proven to work to keep us warm, fed and sheltered. We are asked to reject those for the fantasies of Just Stop Oil protesters and Leonardo DiCaprio-esque climate scientists. We are asked to reject those for technologies that either do not yet exist or have not been proven at scale. The Government cannot prove many of the concepts we have heard about. I seem to remember that for the last 40 years, fusion reactors have always been 20 years away. If I asked the Minister, I think we would find that they are still 20 years away today.
We are asked to reject technologies for those that do not even exist and are not proven at scale. Not only can the Government not explain exactly what technologies we will use, but they cannot give an accurate estimate of what it will cost. According to some estimates, the drive to net zero could cost £1 trillion, or even £3 trillion. If that is on the lower side, £1,000 billion will be slammed on the overdraft of the generations to follow us. I am not sure they will thank us. As with all failed experiments, the only certainty is that when the bill comes in, the people will have to pay.
…
Esteemed colleagues in both Houses have pointed out the current plan is wasteful, damaging and may be ill-thought-out. The only thing certain is that, if we carry on down the legally binding route of net zero that the Government have set for us, our people will become poorer, colder and less free. It is another prime example of, “We know what’s best, we’re going to tell you, and you’re going to get on with it.” People are getting sick of that level of governance.
Thanks, Mr. Bridgen. If only we had another 325 MPs with a similar view.
In the interests of brevity I will draw a veil over the rest of the debate. Suffice it to say that an objective observer would not be reassured about the country’s future. Still, you know what they say. You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
The sceptics’ dying words:
We told you so.
Notes
Read the entire debate, if you are of mighty constitution.
You can watch Bridgen’s contribution here.
Featured image
Andrew Bridgen begins his speech in a “well-attended” (according to Stephen Crabb in his closing statement) Commons chamber.
Climate Scepticism 
Led by Donkeys.
I suppose we will all need one soon enough ( a donkey, to get around on).
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Leonardo Di Caprio-esque climate scientists”. Love it!
Here is the context of MacNeil’s ‘oscillating climate’ remark.
“Ofgem really needs to be looked at because, while the Government often talk about market forces, the biggest force in the market is most often the Government. They have a huge role to play, especially in energy and in guiding Ofgem and changing Ofgem’s remit to bring all those things into play. I spoke to the Energy Networks Association yesterday, which told me that time is not on our side for much of this work. We can see the evidence in recent months that the climate is oscillating unusually —we know it is. If we are going to get things done, we need to get rid of the grit that is often in the ointment.”
So, Ofgem needs to become a self-declared champion for Net Zero rather than a failing champion for consumers because . . . . . ‘unusual oscillating climate’ means time is running out. I can’t even begin to analyse this insanity. But if you want ‘oscillating climate’, look no further than the historical record of British weather which can be found neatly summarised by year, month, even day, right here:
https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20130428154718/http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/histclimat.htm
There’s enough ‘unusual oscillations’ in there to give MacNeil nightmares for the rest of his parliamentary days and well into cushy, generous tax-payer funded retirement. Where was Ofgem in the 1540s, 1680s and 1740s, eh? Just when we needed them to champion net zero dung and wood burning!
LikeLike
Jit,
Thanks both for the article, and for reading the transcript of the debate, so that I didn’t have to. Unfortunately, you helpfully provided a link, so I did read the transcript. I regret doing so. What a truly awful debate. What spectacular levels of self-deception. Such delusions. And then I watched the Bridgen clip. I wonder if the Chamber was pretty much deserted throughout. or whether they walked out en masse as a protest against somebody talking sense?
LikeLike
Sometimes I get this overwhelming urge to re-enact Cromwell’s speech to the Rump Parliament, you know, the one that goes:
“For God’s sake go and go now”
LikeLike
Yes, Bill, very apt:
LikeLike
Jit: a later and very relevant quote from Ayn Rand – this time showing how she believes the consequences of ignoring reality can read across to an entire society:
That’s precisely where our ‘majority gang’ is heading. (Note how she uses the word ‘evade’, not ‘avoid’.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
You didn’t just read Hansard so I didn’t have to (I haven’t and I won’t, in the case of this debate anyway, unlike Mark). You interleaved your quotes with gems like this:
There are so many comments one might make just on this short passage. The thing is, the untruths of alarmism and of Net Zero are all so tightly glued together. The first sentence showing just one ridiculous example. The claim that Bridgen is a science-denier is also outrageous. He’s imperfect, like all of us, just way better than anyone you mentioned on the Commons backbenches on this occasion. And that the billions being splurged on green subsidies in the US and EU is a Good Thing is also delusional. But all these egregious untruths are stuck together, a bit like that Fatberg that was stuck in the River Fleet in 2017. The stinking sewer that gives Fleet Street its name. But I digress.
There are three positives here. Bridgen was allowed to speak at some length before the end. The system is not yet so broken that that wouldn’t happen. Hitler and Stalin would not have allowed it. We’re not at that stage yet. Second, the debate was begun by someone from the governing party who said some sensible things as well as some stupid ones. And third, the UK no longer being in the clutches of the EU means we’re not automatically chainganged into those wasteful and harmful billions.
Cold comfort, I hear you explete. But it’s all I’ve got.
Thank you for such an excellent report.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Richard,
By and large I agree with you. However, as for the benefits of leaving the EU, this seems to be an example of UK politicians vying to outdo the EU in stupidity. Given the hostility of coal-burning eastern European nations (such as Poland) to the EU’s plans, and given the dawning realisation that the EU’s paymaster (Germany) could see a vital part of its economy (car manufacturing) ruined by “green” policies, net zero and the like, the EU may yet pull itself back from the brink. Meanwhile UK policy-makers continue to hurtle towards the cliff edge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of the idiocies on display in this debate perhaps the worst was the disconnect between the Big Idea and the means available to achieve it. We all know what the goal is, but the solution – excepting traditional nuclear for a moment, much hated by the mint greens – is, and I overuse the word, delusional. We heard MPs wax lyrical about floating wind, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and even nuclear fusion. Nothing on this future menu has ever been cooked yet. Meanwhile we insist on cutting out the things that do work, even to the extent of gleefully blowing them up. [With apologies for mangled metaphors.]
It’s like an airline progressively smashing up all its planes while promising shareholders to transform the future of air travel with an intercontinental shuttle fired by a giant solar-powered railgun, on which millions have so far been squandered but only a 1/32 scale plastic model exists to show for it. (Although I imagine the interior decor of the shuttle has been comprehensively worked out.)
Regarding Bridgen, one presumes that he will no longer be an MP in 18 months, so the mildly sceptical presence in the Commons will probably be null.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read articles such as this, then the discussions that follow. By and large I agree and begin to fashion what might be my contribution. But then I hesitate and begin to think about why those members of Parliament all more or less followed the same script ; a script that, almost universally is opposed by Clisceppers. (This explains why many of us call them names.) Thinking more deeply I realise that we are all dealing with little more than our opinions. The reason Cliscep doesn’t approve of the Parliamentary procedures is that our opinions differ from those of most speaking in Parliament. We may protest, arguing that our opinions are backed by science. Guess what? our opponents argue exactly the same, but their science is different from ours and is supported by a majority. This reveals a horrendous truth, that our opinions constitute a tiny, tiny minority with which the majority disagree (or are indifferent about and follow the loudest). Reading Cliscep is essential for me to retain my opinions and maintain their credibility.
LikeLike
Mark: I stand by what I said but not by what you think I said!
I did not say that we, the UK, or even just England and Wales, will do better than the EU vis-a-vis alarmist-driven energy policies. Just that we have the freedom to do so, in a way Poland, say, doesn’t. Whether we actually do better will depend on the delusions Jit describes greatly dissipating. For that we need some inspired campaigning at the next general election and its successors. From somewhere.
People pressure from those suffering cost-of-living shocks needs to be met by brilliant explanations of how Net Zero has greatly added to these problems. But you know that bit already.
Jit:
I have done no research on how he is regarded within his constituency. Has his joining the Reclaim Party helped his chances? I’ve no idea on that either. We shall see.
LikeLike
Alan,
Which group of people whose opinions are based on science and data are trying to censor and silence the other group of people whose opinions are informed by science and data, rather than debating them? That should be a reasonable guide, or at least a very good starting point, in judging whose opinions are worthy of special consideration, or not, as the case may be.
LikeLike
Andrew Bridgen claims, from his email responses, that 99% of the public are behind him [6 min]. He also claims, quite significantly I feel, that 75-80% of the 4000 non-MPs who work in Parliament ‘know what’s going on and know it’s a cover up’ [1 min 50]. If this is true, and we have no reason to doubt that it is not, his chances of being (fairly) re-elected as an MP for his constituency look good.
LikeLike
Jaime if you belong to a group whose interpretation of “their” science involves dire consequences for everybody if ignored, then you need to oppose the views of your opponents (ie us). This is what those we characterise as alarmist are doing. They believe (perhaps erroneously) that the views of those they call deniers are not only wrong but dangerously wrong. Unfortunately, I foresee the strong possibility that our opinions will eventually be suppressed, perhaps vigorously.
LikeLike
‘Our’ opinions, as ‘science deniers’, are increasingly in tune with the public mood Alan. I’m sure they will try to vigorously suppress us, but I suspect that may be a dangerous and desperate tactic on their part:
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/as-greens-double-down-on-their-politically
LikeLike
Believe that if you will Jaime but I find it difficult to correctly evaluate public opinion in my own country let alone that within other countries. Repeatedly I am shocked by the alarmist views expressed by people I previously respected as expressing logically thought out opinions, only to find they are now saying things that are alarmist.
Every now and then I have difficulty accommodating new information that seemingly supports the alarmist cause. I suppose I’m in the midst of one of those episodes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Alan,
>”Thinking more deeply I realise that we are all dealing with little more than our opinions. The reason Cliscep doesn’t approve of the Parliamentary procedures is that our opinions differ from those of most speaking in Parliament. We may protest, arguing that our opinions are backed by science. Guess what? our opponents argue exactly the same, but their science is different from ours and is supported by a majority.”
The reason why virtually all our policy makers are 100% committed to the lunacy of Net Zero is because way back in 2013 the IPCC was making categorical statements such as this opening statement in AR5, WG1, The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy Makers:
“’Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis’ presents clear and robust conclusions in a global assessment of climate change science—not the least of which is that the science now shows with 95 percent certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
Click to access WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf
The reason why we Clisceppers are less impressed than your average, innumerate policy maker is because we know such a statement to be an example of a transposed conditional (i.e. stating the probability of the data given the hypothesis as though it were the probability of the hypothesis given the data). What the IPCC should have said is that model results suggest a 95% certainty that the observed warming could not have been observed without a dominant contribution from man. This can only be turned into the statement actually made by the IPCC by knowing the à priori probability that the models are reliable. And, of course, they don’t actually know that probability.
Transposed conditionals are pernicious and have led to people receiving unnecessary medical treatment and (in the guise of the prosecutor’s fallacy) losing their liberty and reputation. Now we see the whole world falling for the IPCC’s transposed conditional and thereby being led to hell in a handcart. Was the IPCC’s statement misinformation or disinformation? It hardly matters now.
For a full account of this statistical chicanery from the IPCC, see:
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/climate-change-by-flawed-numbers
LikeLiked by 3 people
Just to clarify, the only way that the IPCC’s transposed conditional could be true would be if the models were known to be 100% reliable. This is known by the IPCC to be untrue, and so I ask once more, is the IPCC’s attribution statement misinformation or disinformation, and does it matter anymore? We who do not transpose our conditionals are the science deniers for failing to do so.
LikeLike
Alan / Jaime / John:
I believe that by focusing on the science (‘our opinions are backed by science’) you’re missing a real and current opportunity to water down (and eventually get rid of) Net Zero): you may be right, but it’s not going to get you anywhere in the real world – a world where the key players, the people who have the power to actually change these absurd policies, will dismiss you as ‘deniers’ however cogent your arguments.
I believe it’s critically important to come to terms with this because – as I just indicated – I think we’re looking at a real and current opportunity to persuade many of these people to make that change. The opportunity arises because the Net Zero policy is going horribly wrong. It’s barely got started yet it’s already obvious that it’s neither affordable nor achievable. For example: businesses that have agreed to install major wind projects are finding the costs are far greater than expected; reengineering the National Grid to accommodate renewables is proving extremely difficult and hugely expensive – with new projects having to wait for 10-15 years to get connected – and the thousands of planned new pylons are unsurprisingly most unpopular; ordinary people heartily dislike London’s ULEZ scheme and proposed ’15 minute cities’; and far fewer people than expected are interested in buying EVs or installing heat pumps. Unsurprisingly, given huge and continuing increases in the cost of living, polls show that – although people may agree with the orthodox view of the science and even support ‘climate action’ – they’re strongly opposed to paying for it. And, to cap it all, there’s a real possibility of blackouts this winter.
All this represents a real opportunity – not for Net Zero to be cancelled (that would be expecting too much at present) – but for the Tory party, facing oblivion at next year’s General Election, to win widespread popular approval by deferring their current climate priorities on the basis that there’s no point in our acting more urgently than other major economies. It’s hard to see how Labour could counter that – except perhaps by moderating their own policies. Mad people like Caroline Lucas and Wera Hobhouse will of course never moderate their views – but are unimportant.
Stop trying to debate the science. Find ways of getting the message to Tory MPs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John. I do not disagree but I do wonder why, if your argument is so secure, why it is not acceptable to the overwhelming majority. This, in slightly different formats, has always been my problem. How is it that many with impressive knowledge or argumentation fail to see or appreciate the data or logic used by us sceptics. This commonly morphs into “could it be that we are wrong”? In the absence of my own detailed knowledge of the argumentation, this means that my judgements are really opinions and I rely upon the judgements of others whom I respect and throw aside the opinions of others (= more opinions).
LikeLike
Robin,
>”Stop trying to debate the science. Find ways of getting the message to Tory MPs.”
I am not trying to debate the science. When it comes to a transposed conditional there is no debate to be had. There is lots that MPs need to be made aware of and if you think that a basic error, possibly deliberately made by the IPCC, is something that should be overlooked, then you are as culpable as the IPCC in my mind for making it impossible for the MPs to seek a different path. That said, I have already accepted that my chances of educating the policy makers on matters of statistics are about as good as yours are in persuading them that their net zero plans are foolhardy, i.e. non-existent.
At the end of the day, fear of losing a seat will be the only thing that matters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin I have real sympathy for your views but as someone who has pursued scientific goals all my working life it underpins most of my opinions. My concerns have always been why , if I am persuaded to accept some scientific conclusions, why do more scientists, some I judge cleverer than myself, not accept what I do?
I don’t necessarily agree with your approach (but then what do I know?). It could be misconstrued as an approach meaning “it’s just too difficult or expensive”. It should not persuade anyone convinced that continuing to emit carbon dioxide is dangerous.
LikeLike
John: I agree my trying to persuade the policy makers that their net zero plans are foolhardy is unlikely to succeed. However I do think it’s possible to persuade them that their plans are going hopelessly wrong and that, by ameliorating them, they could well win over a large number of voters. As you say fear of losing a seat will be the only thing that matters.
LikeLike
Alan,
I fully share your bemusement. But when it comes to counterintuitive statistical theory there is a long history of hugely intelligent people getting it wrong. I think the issue here is that we too readily accept that the climate scientists are the experts and the rest of us are in no position to challenge their proclamations. But in matters of statistics and uncertainty analysis I’m afraid that they are far from being the experts.
LikeLike
Alan: I think you’ve missed my point. I’m not saying ‘it’s just too difficult or expensive’. What I’m saying is that a huge – and increasing – number of ordinary voters just don’t like it. And that I believe could well persuade a politician, even one who strongly believes that continuing to emit carbon dioxide is dangerous, – and especially one facing oblivion at the upcoming election – to moderate the impact of this unpopular policy.
LikeLike
Robin,
So we agree more than we disagree. The trick is to persuade them that the electorate are not as convinced as the policy makers appear to be assuming. Our disagreement seems to be with regard to what may or may not contribute to such persuasion. Still, I remain pessimistic no matter what realities are brought to their attention.
LikeLike
John:
‘The trick is to persuade them that the electorate are not as convinced as the policy makers appear to be assuming.‘
I think it’s simpler than that: what we have to do is demonstrate to them that a huge number of ordinary voters are not willing to put up with the cost and inconvenience of the net zero policy.
LikeLike
Robin,
Yes, I think I meant to say that by implication. However, I wonder what ‘not putting up with it’ is supposed to look like in this day and age. Is it voting for the other guy? That doesn’t seem to be a credible threat. Should the silent majority be taking a leaf out of the XR strategy book?
LikeLike
What it means is that there’s a huge pool of voters out there who may well be ready to support them if these unpopular policies are modified.
LikeLike
Robin,
If that is so then we need to convince them that such support is there to be exploited and that they need that support. I’m not sure what would convince them of that, other than a new party being formed which attracts a lot of support. I’m not so sure the Conservatives are the ones to transform themselves into that party. But here’s hoping 🙂
LikeLike
Robin,
Thank you for your comment about trying to influence MPs and MSPs that Net Zero is a disaster both economically and politically. I presented two papers yesterday to our MP and a local MSP pointing this out. One was the press release from the Renewables Industry this week demanding vastly increased subsidies, the other was the text of Pylon The Agony from here…. they both took them, with a very brief explanation from myself, and looked somewhat silenced. they clearly both knew most of the contents.
this was after my main demarche which was to tell them in no uncertain terms that our locality here in the Borders is under huge pressure from s36 applications, and local communities and individuals are not being properly heard — as the recent debate at Holyrood agreed should be the case. All parties parroted that line. We will see — but at least I tried. And judging by the reaction it might be getting through….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
I agree with John. Pointing out the demonstrable flaw in the IPCC’s attribution statement – which forms one of the pillars, if not the very foundation of climate mitigation policy – is not ‘debating the science’, it is exposing a fundamental and glaring weakness of ‘the science’ as presented and summarised in the IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policy Makers, which is almost all politicians read of ‘the science’, if indeed they bother doing that. It’s simply wrong: you CANNOT say that “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.” You can’t. It is not scientific. Renowned physicist Pierre Darriulat pointed this out to Parliament in 2013. Professor Fenton has recently demonstrated in detail how erroneous it is. Such sleeping dogs cannot be left to lie.
By all means, try to turn Conservative politicians from the madness, by pointing out the madness and appealing to their sense of electoral self-preservation – and best of luck with that – but glaring weaknesses in the ‘science’ must also be robustly challenged.
Also, challenging MPs to defer “current climate priorities on the basis that there’s no point in our acting more urgently than other major economies” and on the basis that they might lose their seats at the coming election due to the unpopularity of Green policies is not the only way to appeal to them.
There is another way: pointing out the extremely damaging environmental impacts of such policies, which the public will surely soon become aware of. In the US for instance, the land use difference between fossil fuels and renewables is stark:
“Most people mistakenly presume fracking has an enormous land footprint. But the Bloomberg NEF analysis shows that all U.S. oil and gas drilling, fracking, and sand mining operations impact only 3 million of the 81 million acres (<4%).
Adding the acreage containing coal mining, transport and waste storage operations plus fossil-fuel power plants brings the total for fossil fuels to around 3.75 million acres. By comparison, wind and solar facilities cover over 7 million U.S. acres.
According to US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data, oil, coal, and natural gas provide ~78% of US primary energy consumption from those 3.75 million acres. Wind and solar provide ~5% of U.S. primary energy using about twice the total land area. Put differently, in the U.S., oil, coal and natural gas provide over 15 times the useful energy on about half the footprint compared to wind and solar."
"A forced transition that purports to achieve carbon-free energy in the next 30 years without causing serious environmental consequences is, at best an illogical ideal and, at worst a dangerous, Eco-Statist utopian lie. And it clearly isn’t a “win” for the planet’s flora and fauna."
Net Zero is literally a recipe for 'saving the planet' by destroying the environment!
https://envmental.substack.com/p/saving-the-planet-to-death
LikeLike
Politicians have to vote on many issues upon which they are not well versed. Consequently they follow the party line or make decisions based upon expert advice. When it comes to Climate Change and opinions about what causes it, who are the most numerous and strident? Who are they likely to follow?
LikeLike
John W:
Most interesting John – I’m impressed. It sounds to me to be evidence that your’s is an approach that can get through.
LikeLike
I’ve been out all day, walking in the Eden valley, making the most of a pleasant summer’s day, before the weather turns autumnal tomorrow, so I’m just catching up. Thank you one and all for an interesting discussion.
I do think we need a new Not Zero (or Not My Zero?) Party to talk some common sense on this issue. I know Reclaim and Reform and UKIP all to a greater or lesser extent advocate ditching net zero, but traditional Labour Party voters, and even Conservative voters who aren’t at the right-wing end of that party, are unlikely to vote for any of them. The fact that Keir Starmer is flip-flopping and is clearly nervous about the unpopularity of net zero and its implications, must mean that there is a substantial chance of middle of the road and Labour supporters voting for a common sense, non-right wing, Not Zero Party. If only I was younger and had more money, I might give it a go. Is there nobody out there who can get the ball rolling? I’m sure it would be like a snowball – once it started rolling, it would get bigger and bigger in no time.
LikeLike
Jaime: everything you say may well be true. But you know I’m don’t agree with it as a way of turning this around. I’m not interested in pointing out the madness to MPs but quite simply in demonstrating to them that there’s a huge pool of voters out there who may well be ready to support them if these unpopular policies are modified. That’s all. I’m sorry but I’m quite sure that your approach will get nowhere.
LikeLike
Alan,
One of the things I have learned is that experts so often get it wrong. Some things are too recent and too emotive to get a proper handle on, but it seems fairly obvious to me that we were badly let down by the experts over covid, for instance. That will only become apparent, one way or the other, in due course, however.
Where I do think the expertise of experts counts for little or nothing, is when they come up against a completely new situation. In that scenario, their accrued learning, knowledge and wisdom possibly counts for no more than the gut feelings of the layperson. Covid is probably one such area, and I suggest that the climate, and the nature of its changing, is another. Not least in both cases because what really matters isn’t simply the science, but the implications of the policy choices suggested by the experts. The experts aren’t experts when it comes to policy choices, and the views of any member of the electorate are probably every bit as valid when it comes to such matters.
It’s arguable that the Bank of England’s MPC pumping loads of QE into the economy, and preserving ultra-low interest rates for years and years is now coming back to bite us in the form of intractable inflation. It may well be that the financial experts got it badly wrong. If so, it may be because their accumulated expertise was confounded by a situation they hadn’t encountered before.
I’m currently reading Lloyd George’s War Memoirs (First World War) and although they do, of course, contain a lot of self-justification and efforts to present himself in the best possible light (which almost inevitably involves presenting others in a less than flattering light) one thing that leaps out is how the “experts” at the head of the UK army and navy got so many things completely and utterly wrong. The navy heads, for instance, bitterly opposed the introduction of the convoy system, because they were convinced it wouldn’t work, despite the fact that they had no better ideas and the U-boats were wreaking havoc on allied mercantile shipping that was vital to the UK’s survival. The politicians, aided by younger, junior, naval officers insisted on convoys being introduced, and they worked very well indeed. The experts were proved to have been wrong. They were living in the past. They were confounded by a situation they hadn’t encountered before.
When experts seem to get it wrong as often as they get it right, I think we are all justified in being sceptical about their views, however forcefully expressed, and however strong the apparent expert consensus.
LikeLike
Mark,
I don’t want to rain on your parade but don’t forget that there is legislation in the pipeline that will put an end to all climate disinformation online, whether it be me pointing out the IPCC’s statistical gaffes or Robin pointing to the public opposition, or you pointing out the environmental damage or Jit pointing out the nonsense spoken in Parliament. The first challenge the new party will have will be to somehow re-establish free speech on the internet, without the benefit of using the internet.
LikeLike
Mark: that sounds like a wonderful way to spend the day. I’m envious.
I like your idea of starting a new sensible ‘Not Zero’ party, but I don’t think there’s any realistic chance of it happening. We have to live with what we’ve got. And, as the Tories (a) are currently in power and (b) extremely vulnerable in view of next year’s election, I think they are a prime target. Hence my proposal that we highlight how NZ policies are becoming increasingly unpopular with voters and that therefore softening the impact of those policies on ordinary people is likely to be very welcome.
You mention Starmer’s nervousness about how common sense, non-right wing erstwhile supporters might be put off the Labour’s NZ policies. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Labour were to seize the initiative and reduce their impact of their policies on such supporters, thereby bypassing the Tories on this very issue?
LikeLike
John,
We’d better get our views out there, then, while we still can!
Today in the Daily Sceptic, cause for hope?
“Labour Faces Dilemma in By-Election as Ulez Expansion Threatens Local Businesses and Working People”
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/09/labour-faces-dilemma-in-by-election-as-ulez-expansion-threatens-local-businesses-and-working-people/
and
“Clash of Priorities in Labour Party Reveals Deep Divide on Climate Change and Jobs”
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/09/clash-of-priorities-in-labour-party-reveals-deep-divide-on-climate-change-and-jobs/
LikeLike
Robin: “Wouldn’t it be ironic if Labour were to seize the initiative and reduce their impact of their policies on such supporters, thereby bypassing the Tories on this very issue?”
You read my mind. 🙂
LikeLike
John: I don’t think there’s anything in the planned legislation that would prevent anyone from stating that a climate (or any) policy is unpopular.
LikeLike
Oh yes there is. You can’t just say it is unpopular without explaining the basis for the unpopularity, and as soon as you do so you will either fall within its remit or you will simply be pointing towards an opportunity to better educate the masses.
LikeLike
Robin,
The Institute for Strategic Dialogue has got your number. You are just the new breed of deniers who engage in delaying tactics. The ISD is quite confident, however, that there is much that can be done to deal with your sort. Don’t think that warnings of popular dissention will save you.
LikeLike
John:
‘You can’t just say it is unpopular without explaining the basis for the unpopularity‘
True. And see my comments above: it’s unpopular principally because people who are already struggling with an already increased cost of living just cannot afford it. Polls show that they may support ‘climate action’ but they don’t want to pay for it. They’re not interested in buying EVs or installing heat pumps They’re fed up with ULEZ and ’15 minute cities’. They don’t want hundreds of new pylons. And so on. It’s for these reasons that NZ is unpopular.
LikeLike
John:
I’m not remotely interested in what the Institute for Strategic Dialogue might think. I’m simply interested in demonstrating to nervous and vulnerable Tory MPs that there’s a huge pool of voters out there who might be more likely to support them if they softened the impact of their NZ policies.
LikeLike
Robin,
Net zero will financially affect us all? Misinformation.
EVs are unpopular and impracticable? Misinformation.
Heat pumps won’t work for most people? Misinformation.
Fifteen minute cities are all about curbing climate change? Misinformation.
Pylons are ugly and no one wants them? Misinformation.
And so on? All misinformation.
And you should worry about the ISD because they are a powerful body that has done a great deal already to get governments and IT companies to stop you pushing your misinformation online — and I doubt that they have finished yet. Journalist may be our last hope but I wouldn’t bet my shirt on it.
LikeLike
I should add that reality will of course finally overturn the censorship but it will probably be too late to constitute a triumph.
LikeLike
John:
‘misinformation’
Sending such reports to an MP is unaffected by the Online Safety Bill.
‘you should worry about the ISD’
I don’t.
LikeLike
Robin,
>”Sending such reports to an MP is unaffected by the Online Safety Bill.”
Of course, but the expectation that they will be well-received will. When even the assertion that net zero plans do not enjoy overwhelming public support is deemed dangerous misinformation if it were to appear online, you have to wonder how an MP is likely to respond to a direct appeal to the same effect. Until his or her inbox fills with complaints from the public, I think it is safe to say the average MP will be reluctant to sympathise.
>”I don’t.”
I get that, but the likes of the ISD should not be dismissed so readily. It is they who are filling our MPs’ heads with tales of ‘discourse of delay’, and I’m afraid your message, sound though it is, falls into that category.
Both Jaime and I have already said that we wish you well in your efforts. It makes perfect sense to pursue your strategy. All I want to do is express my lack of optimism, much as you have done so regarding our continued promotion of weaknesses within the scientific argument. The main difference is that you have gone so far as to suggest that our efforts are getting in the way of the anti-net zero campaign and so should stop. But that is not going to happen. Doing so would encourage the likes of the ISD to concentrate upon the ‘discourse of delay’, and their campaigning is proving effective. Yes, we can be dismissed as deniers, but so can you be dismissed as a delayer. They have a ‘D’ word for every occasion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John:
‘ that net zero plans do not enjoy overwhelming public support is deemed dangerous misinformation’
Evidence?
‘ filling MP’s heads with tales of ‘discourse of delay’’
Easily overcome by filling their (Tory) heads with facts that point to possible salvation next year.
LikeLike
>”Evidence?”
I’m surprised you are making such a demand. There are plenty of reports indicating that public support is strong. Take this one, for example:
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/uk-public-still-broadly-supports-most-net-zero-policies
Given that the above will be taken as reliable information, any attempt at contradiction will be deemed misinformation. And since it will be misinformation used to try and turn the heads of MPs trying to save the planet, it will be considered dangerous. Are you really demanding that I back up this reasoning with evidence?
>”Easily overcome by filling their (Tory) heads with facts that point to possible salvation next year.”
Of course, by ‘facts’ you mean dangerous misinformation. If you are hoping for a democratic way out of this mess, then you need to remember that democracy is a numbers game. Your facts will matter less than that hoped-for burgeoning inbox.
I hope you appreciate that I am just playing devil’s advocate here. I say all power to your efforts.
I think I’ve done my bit for negativity now, and I’ll withdraw gracefully. Thanks for the debate.
LikeLike
‘There are plenty of reports indicating that public support is strong.’
There are – and they’re mostly accurate. But that’s not evidence that saying otherwise is ‘deemed dangerous misinformation’.
‘ by ‘facts’ you mean dangerous misinformation’
No, don’t – I mean objective facts.
Time to move on. A most interesting discussion – thanks.
LikeLike
Robin, perhaps we might resume our 9th July discussion where I suggested that your approach to M.P.s could be misconstrued as saying ‘it’s just too difficult or expensive’. What I said was that MP.s and others could say this, as well as agreeing with you that a huge and increasing number of ordinary voters just don’t like it. Of course one of the main reasons it would be difficult and expensive to carry out net zero would be the opposition of those who argue that it will be too difficult or expensive.
LikeLike
Alan: I’m currently drafting a note for my MP. I’ll do my best to ensure that it’s not misconstrued.
However its unavoidably true that net zero is proving to be both difficult and expensive. That and other practical problems such as the availability of materials and space for renewables, public reluctance to buy EVs and install heat pumps, huge delays in getting new renewable projects connected to the Grid, public objection to new pylons, the serious shortage of people with the skills required by the project, voters’ objection to paying for climate action, worries about increasing reliance on China and the continuing need for fossil fuels for a host of day-to-day applications and products are all looking increasingly likely to bring net zero to a premature end despite politicians’ intentions..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
“Stop trying to debate the science. Find ways of getting the message to Tory MPs.”
When you’re being bludgeoned over the head with ‘the science’ daily, in support of the insane net zero mitigation policies being rolled out by government, it’s quite natural to interrogate that ‘science’, especially when it is so obviously, transparently, fake. Your statement was made in good faith obviously, with the best of intentions, but nevertheless it amounts to a strongly worded suggestion of self-censorship. Given the bad faith actual censorship of climate change scepticism online and the moves towards more aggressive censorship of so called ‘climate denial’, your good faith suggestion is perhaps not timely. As John has pointed out, we both wish you well in your efforts to trigger some shred of self-awareness and sanity in Tory MPs in the hope that they will dilute the Net Zero madness prior to the forthcoming general election. I am not optimistic that you will succeed but I certainly wouldn’t presume to tell you to stop what you’re doing on that basis. From my own personal perspective, I CANNOT stop myself from questioning bad science. It’s what I do, regardless of whether others deem it to be a waste of time, or even counter-productive. Privately owned media companies in thrall to the government who try to censor me only make me even more determined to get my message out. A government which tries to force me to stop is going to have to throw me in prison or worse. Please therefore don’t tell me to stop what I do, even if you absolutely think it is for the ultimate benefit of us all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime,
I agree with your last comment, apart from the prison bit. I’m far too pretty for prison 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, I prefer ‘flawed’ to ‘fake’. I think the fakery lies in the misrepresentation of the science as settled. There is a lot that is settled but not enough to justify the timescales set for net zero.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some of it is mere exaggeration John, or misrepresentation, some of it is flawed, some misinformation, some disinformation, some outright lies and fakery. They’ll chuck anything out there in the hope of getting their message across.
LikeLike
Here’s something that I think epitomises the challenge I (and we) face. My MP just now posted his weekly update on what he’s doing for his constituents. It included a link to this article. Largely meaningless nonsense – and maybe the last paragraph contains a hint that he might be sympathetic to my message.
LikeLike
Robin,
It comes in the midst of the media driven smash and grab raid on the nation’s brain cells which manifests in the daily campaign telling us to ‘Be afraid, be very afraid of . . . . . SUMMER!’
Bim is just gently sweeping up those which were scattered on the floor during the last week of frenzied national brainwashing and dutifully depositing them in the Commons recycling bin.
LikeLike
Robin, thanks for posting that link. I’m not convinced that the final paragraph is grounds for optimism, I’m afraid.
LikeLike
Jaime,
Yes, it’s a mess, isn’t it? The important thing is to keep an open mind, in the best traditions of the empirical sceptic. The most important thing I think I have learnt in life is not to put any limitations upon the extent to which falsehood can become enshrined, nor indeed the ease with which it can happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark:
I said ‘maybe … a hint’. And I stand by that: I know him and he’s not going to say openly what he really thinks. For example, when he wanted to snd me a note of support (re my ‘no point’ comment), he did so by means of a hand written snail mail letter.
LikeLike
I’ve observed for some time the debate as to whether we should attack the net zero policies, or whether we should attack the science, and have felt guilty for not having a firm view either way, feeling a little bit as though I am the weak person who agrees with the last argument I read.
However, as the general election begins to loom on the horizon, I think the best tactic between now and then is to focus on the increasing desperation of Tory MPs facing electoral wipe-out, and to try to persuade them of the futility, stupidity and unpopularity of net zero. Thereafter, if all politicians remain as wedded to net zero as they seem to be now, then attacking the science would seem to make more sense.
LikeLike
In order that getting prospective Tory MPs re-elected or elected by suggesting that they focus upon modifying laws related to net zero will not work IMHO. For it to work will require the undermining of arguments that support net zero. iMHO this would fracture the Tories into those supporting net zero come what may from those newly convinced that net zero should be opposed because of its feasibility or cost. Fractured parties do not win elections and all MPs know this.
LikeLike
Alan, you may well be right. There are certainly a surprising number of “green” Tory MPs. But then again, the prospect of losing one’s seat at the election does concentrate one’s mind.
The more intriguing prospect (for those of us who have no particular desire for the Tories to do well) is that touched on yesterday by Robin, the faint hope that Starmer may yet see sense and ditch net zero, with a view to guaranteeing that he wins back the red wall. Far fetched, probably, but not impossible. I live in hope.
LikeLike
The only modification I propose Alan is that, although Britain should maintain its emission reduction policy, it will pursue that policy no more radically than other major economies. Given the prospect of annihilation next year, it’s a modification that’s unlikely to split the party.
LikeLike
Regarding the next general election, it’s written off as far as I’m concerned. My middle estimate is of 6.5 more years on this track before there is any hope of change.
LikeLike
This is interesting: a global company being launched by Renault and the Chinese carmaker Geely to develop low-emission petrol, diesel and hybrid engines is to have its headquarters in the UK. Getting firmly behind this and coupling it with a deferral of the absurd and increasingly unpopular ICE ban could be a real opportunity for the Tories to outflank Labour. Unless Starmer and Rachel Reeves get there first.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed Robin. A quicker link to the source article, from the business pages of the BBC, bless ’em, is
New Renault-Geely engine firm to have headquarters in UK
But your point is a key one. I firmly believe the Tories do want to outflank Labour in this area. And vice versa. But who in the shadow cabinet has spoken about Net Zero as Kemi Badenoch did during the leadership election? Was she banished into outer darkness as a result? Quite the reverse.
And it is decisions like this one – backing Renault-Greely and backing out (very gently) of the ICE ban – that could begin to establish the fabled ‘clear blue water’ between the two parties.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Matthew Lynn in the Spectator today (via archive.today):
I did like the “King Charles should be clearing his diary to make sure he is available for the opening ceremony” there. Is the wind gradually changing direction?
LikeLiked by 2 people
In reply to Jaime Jessop, 9 Jul 23 11:04 am, wrt to Andrew Bridgen’s chances of being re-elected now that he is badged Reclaim, I’m less optimistic.
The constituency-based electoral system that we evolved is not designed for a political system where sovereignty (executive power) resides in one house (the Commons) and wielded by whichever party commands a majority, but for a system where sovereignty resides with the Crown, advised by Lords and Commons. For that system, it’s fine: a constituency’s electors vote for the man they believe will best defend and promote their constituency’s interests in the Commons; but with the Crown reduced to a talking head and the Lords to an echo-chamber, a constituency’s electors will often be forced to ignore a talented local man in favour of a Party faithful parachuted in, because those electors prefer executive power in Party X’s hands rather than Y’s. And so the difficulty faced by independents and new parties, the latter’s difficulties aggravated if the new party cannot even field a candidate in a majority of constituencies, guaranteeing their inability to wield sovereign power.
Mainstream parties have been displaced—Labour displaced the former Liberal Party, and more recently the DUP in Ulster displaced the UUP and in Scotland the SNP displaced Labour, at least for the nonce (in both senses of word); but it’s difficult and uncommon. I suspect that just as ‘there is a great deal of ruin in a nation’, so there is a great deal of ruin left in the Conservative Party before they will be welcomely displaced; a situation not helped by the (what-passes-for-) Right’s tendency to splinter faster and wider than an L2 fragmentation grenade (what are we up to now? Reclaim, Heritage, For Britain, Patriotic Alternative, British Democrats, UKIP, Reform—any more to add to this week’s list?).
LikeLiked by 1 person
In reply to Mark Hodgson, 9 Jul 23 7:29 pm, I’d put little store by Lloyd George’s War Memoirs: self-serving and scurrilous, he waited until the primary targets of his character-assassination were safely dead; the words of a corrupt degenerate, the Boris Johnson of his day; who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with his premature surrender to the IRA (astonishing Michael Collins who declared: ‘You had us dead beat. We could not have lasted another three weeks. When we were told of the offer of a truce we were astounded. We thought you must have gone mad.’); who introduced salaries for MPs in 1911 (having managed perfectly well without for 646 years—longer, if counting Parliament’s antecedents, the Saxon Witan and Moot) and is thus responsible for our sorry collection of careerist MPs whose talents extend no further than ability to fill out expense claims.
His removing five divisions from the Western Front to shore up the Italians prevented the Battle of Cambrai (20 November–7 December 1917) from achieving greater success as it left no reserves to capitalise on its initial success. He ignored intelligence predicting a major German offensive in Spring 1918, the Ludendorff offensive or Kaiserschlacht duly starting on 21 March; and refused to send available reinforcements to France (then lied to Parliament when challenged on this, and when Maj. Gen. Frederick Maurice exposed his lie, he sacked him). In his War Memoirs he wrote that it ‘is inescapable that Germany and her allies were in fact defeated in the field’—uh, yeah… no thanks to you, you f***er.
Absolutely one of the worst MPs to disgrace Parliament’s green benches, even taking into account our modern lot amongst whom he would be very much at home.
The generals only fought the war the politicians landed them in—but typical of politicians to blame everyone but themselves for the catastrophe they were largely responsible for. And while the politicians in 1918 were planning for war lasting into 1920, the much and unjustly maligned Haig was advocating an early peace—and an honourable one, writing: ‘We must not forget that it is in our interest … to have Germany a prosperous, not an impoverished country. Furthermore we ought not to make Germany our enemy for many years to come.’ (Terraine, 479)
For a better view of the First World War (the land war at least) I recommend:
• Badsey, Stephen. “False Memory: what we ‘know’ about WW1.” YouTube, uploaded by The Western Front Association, 12 April 2015, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziGow3CLalo
• Corrigan, Gordon. Mud, Blood and Poppycock: Britain and the First World War. Cassell, 2003.
• Corrigan, Gordon. Douglas Haig: Defeat Into Victory. Endeavour Press, 2015.
• Philpott, William. Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice of the Somme. Abacus, 2009.
• Reid, Walter. Douglas Haig: Architect of Victory. Birlinn, 2006.
• Sheffield, Gary. Forgotten Victory. The First World War: Myths and Realities. Headline, 2001.
• Sheffield, Gary. “Douglas Haig—The ‘Accidental Victor’ of WW1?” YouTube, uploaded by The Western Front Association, 13 January 2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3jRcdQMkWc
• Sheffield, Gary. “Victorious Donkeys? British Generals and Generalship of the First World War Reconsidered.” University of Oxford Podcasts, 4 February 2014, http://www.podcasts.ox.ac.uk/victorious-donkeys-british-generals-and-generalship-first-world-war-reconsidered
• Sheffield, Gary. “How The West Won World War I.” YouTube, uploaded by the Mershon Center, 28 August 2017, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6o_UcchTlM
• Sheffield, Gary. “The Battle of the Somme reassessed.” YouTube, uploaded by The Western Front Association, 26 March 2019, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxS9GhiQ6kI
• Snow, Dan. (2014) “10 big myths about World War One debunked.” BBC. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836
• Terraine, John. Douglas Haig: The Educated Soldier. 1963. Cassell, 2005.
• Terraine, John. (1991) “British Military Leadership in the First World War.” The Western Front Association. Retrieved from http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/world-war-i-articles/british-military-leadership-in-the-first-world-war-by-john-terraine/
wrt the Admiralty’s objections to convoys, the problem was not that ‘they were living in the past’, England having used convoys to protect commerce since the 13th Century (fans of Patrick O’Brian will have read of Aubrey escorting such convoys in the Napoleonic wars), and using them from 1914 to protect military transport. If anything, the opposite is true, Richard Hough writing ‘the fact that the U-boat was only a raider in another guise was lost in the smoke screen of new weaponry. A glance back in history and a cold hard look by an intelligent Staff Committee would have led to the simplest solution much earlier than it was reached.’ (The Great War at Sea. 1983. Birlinn, 2000. 305.)
Mistaken in not convoying commerce they surely were but there was more to it than Blimpish stick-in-the-muds ‘living in the past’ having to be rescued by politicians and assorted Young Turks—e.g. 57 year old Adm. Reginald Tupper’s 1916 proposal to start convoying was rejected by 48 year old Director of Operations Rear Adm. Thomas Jackson.
This is a reasonable introductory article on topic: Greig, I.T. (1984). “The Convoy System and the Two Battles of the Atlantic (1914–18 and 1939–45).” Military History Journal, 6(4). Retrieved from http://www.samilitaryhistory.org/vol064ig.html For further detail, both of the background to convoys and what a lying POS Lloyd George is, see Chapter 36 of Robert K. Massie’s Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea (Ballantine, 2003).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scotched Earth,
Thank you for your comments, and apologies for the fact that WordPress put them on hold before I found them and released them – it seems to be unhappy (especially with first time commenters) with comments with lots of links.
Lloyd George is perhaps a marmite character. Corrupt, certainly. Greedy, yes. A philanderer, undoubtedly. But he was a human dynamo of immense energy, and I have little doubt that without his work at the Ministry of Munitions, and without his having replaced a drifting coalition government under the “leadership” of “Squiffy” Asquith, the First World War would have been lost.
It wasn’t lost on me that Lord Grey had died just before LG’s memoirs were published, memoirs which contained numerous attacks on him.
Still, the point I was using his memoirs to illustrate, namely that we can’t always rely on the expertise of experts, (especially when they are faced with new circumstances for which their experience gives them little advantage over non-experts), holds good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Mark for checking the mod queue. For some reason I no longer receive an email inviting me to “Please moderate…” if a new comment is trapped. So, but for your diligence, Scotched’s information-dense comments might never have seen the light of day.
Regarding Renault-Geely and the UK factories: this is a curious situation & I don’t know what to make of it. Internal combustion engines are still to be banned by 2035 in the UK, even if hooked up to a substantial battery. The EU has backed away from a ban on engines running on synthetic fuels, but we haven’t. [Which stills leaves fuel cells.] My brief search did not find coverage in the Guardian, which probably means that it is good news overall.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I find it hard to believe that Renault-Geely would go ahead with plans for an IC/hybrid engine development centre and factory if they haven’t been given a very strong steer from government that the present UK bans (2030 for IC engines, 2035 for IC/hybrids) are to be rescinded, or at the very least put back substantially, or modified such that synthetic fuels will be allowed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul, that was my thought as well, but it didn’t seem to make sense regarding the imminent-ish election and the attitude of the opposition.
LikeLike
Jit:
‘it didn’t seem to make sense regarding the imminent-ish election and the attitude of the opposition.’
Why not? It would make a lot of sense if – as I suspect – the Tory leadership is thinking of outflanking Labour re the increasingly unpopular net zero policy (a policy that’s going horribly wrong) and, as Richard put it establishing ‘clear blue water’ between the two parties. The dream outcome (unlikely but not impossible) would be if Labour, worried about that possibility, were to start a bidding war about who could do most to soften the impact of net zero on ordinary voters.
LikeLike
Maybe that dream outcome is not as unlikely as I thought. The current Spectator has an article about how the green-sceptic GMB union (particularly close to shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves) has supplanted Unite as an influence in Labour. An extract:
Extraordinary – it begins to look as though the Labour leadership may be about to start outflanking the Tories on this issue.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I wonder how many times we have to be conned by the LibLabCon UK Uniparty prior to elections before we wake up to the fact that there is no ‘opposition’ to government in the UK, there is no give and take or room for manoeuvre on Net Zero ‘policy’ because Net Zero is not policy, it is UK LAW. All they are doing is moving the deckchairs around on HMS Titanic UK, pretending to be different, more responsive to the electorate, when in reality they couldn’t give a s*** for the electorate. The aim is to sink UK plc and Net Zero is the managed decline (increasingly mismanaged it must be said) Trojan Horse which will achieve that. If Labour, LibDems or Conservatives were serious about reeling in Net Zero madness, the very first thing they would do is repeal Theresa May’s Net Zero 2050 statutory instrument. None of them will. They don’t even mention the Climate Change Act, which is the source of ALL this Green nonsense. So, every time the government moves to water down its net zero commitments, it will be taken to court by very well funded Green activists and forced to back down (oh what a shame, at least we tried, they will say) because the government is legally bound to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2050. Whether Labour or the Conservatives get in at the next election, the result will be the same: full speed ahead to economic and social destruction of the UK.
LikeLike
In 1929 Lloyd George gave a speech in Brynmawr that was transmitted by radio to fifteen other towns, including Bristol, where it crackled out of speakers in what was then called Colston Hall.* During the speech he sneered at extreme weather events, broccoli, ‘push-bicycles’ and ‘enterprising n*ggers’.
Lloyd George was rightly lambasted for his use of the N word, as he would be today, but today he would also be criticised for joking about extreme weather, being disrespectful to bicycles and broccoli and having his speech broadcast in a building named after a slave trader.
Get in the sea, Lloyd George!
===
*It’s now called Bristol Beacon. I wonder how long that will last. Earlier this year Welsh functionaries turned their backs on the English name for Parc Cenedlaethol Bannau Brycheiniog partly because beacons are naughty carbon-emitters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: The “LibLabCon UK Uniparty” has a general election coming up. Robin is pointing to some good news about Labout vis-a-vis Net Zero, possibly backing up Paul Dennis’s point about Renault-Geely having gotten a strong steer. From both parties? The Tories would be mindful of how to respond. There is real competition here. It’s far from perfect (as the story of Lloyd George and much of history shows) but it’s the democracy we’ve got. Uniparty should be retired as a term for the duration?
LikeLike
No apology necessary, Mark H.—your blog, you’ve no obligation to publish others’ ramblings; and I’m used enough to the vagaries of IT h/w and s/w not to worry if replies are delayed or disappear (as the old line goes, ‘To err is human, but to really f*** things up takes a computer’).
It was unfair of me to ignore your main point to seize on something allowing me to exercise my particular hobby-horse, that of trying to counter the oddly-mainstream narrative portraying everything Britain has ever done as unmitigatedly bad (I’m just waiting for a throwaway line about Heer superiority—‘Clearly the MG42 was the best MG of the war’—Well, ackchyually…).
I agree with your main premise about the fallibility of experts; as the Marquis of Salisbury wrote in 1877: ‘No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require to have their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.’
And Winston protested to H.G. Wells: ‘Nothing would be more fatal than for the Government of States to get in the hands of experts. Expert knowledge is limited knowledge, and the unlimited ignorance of the plain man who knows where it hurts is a safer guide than any rigorous direction of a specialized character. Why should you assume that all except doctors, engineers, etc., are drones or worse?’
Ann Coulter also had a good take on subject:
‘
’
(Coulter, A. (2020, March 25). How Do We Flatten The Curve On Panic? https://anncoulter.com/2020/03/25/how-do-we-flatten-the-curve-on-panic/ )
If an issue is important enough, we should certainly seek guidancefrom experts but neither blindly follow nor reject them; check their track records; seek alternative viewpoints within the same field and experts from related fields, along with the views of anyone else involved—a sampling of those, say, who will implement proposed measures or use proposed product, and those on the receiving end too, etc. As holistic an approach as possible, weighing all views and points as best as human fallibility allows. And always aware that experts can sometimes be completely wrong. As one example, the Boulton Paul Defiant—the 1939 wunderwaffe turreted fighter: designed by experts, to Air Ministry experts’ specifications, built by experts, flown by experts; and it was a death trap, withdrawn from daylight ops less than 9 months after going operational. (Of course, other experts came up with the Supermarine Spitfire and de Havilland Mosquito.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scotched Earth,
Thanks for your generous understanding. And still I have to apologise, as it took me even longer to find and dig out your latest comment, again trapped by WordPress for some unfathomable reason.
LikeLike
On how democracy does and often doesn’t work, the latest Fauci covid origin revelations prompted this useful response.
(On what has been revealed Matt Ridley is rightly furious
)
So how do UK politicians get messages out to ordinary voters on a highly necessary and humane retreat from Net Zero without getting into the explaining trap? It’s not a trivial one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There may (or may not) be cause for optimism regarding the direction of travel of our political leaders regarding Net Zero, but it seems that a lot of MPs are still fully signed up to the cult:
“Rishi Sunak must stick to £11.6bn climate commitment, say MPs
Tories, including former net zero tsar, among signatories to letter urging PM not to let down developing countries”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/14/rishi-sunak-must-stick-to-116bn-climate-commitment-say-mps
LikeLiked by 1 person
Richard – thanks for that “Fauci covid origin revelations” link & from there I followed a link to Matt Ridley post dated “Published on: April 18, 2023”
https://www.mattridley.co.uk/blog/the-uk-is-blinding-itself-to-the-truth-about-covids-origins/
partial quote from Matt –
“Despite the best efforts of a small group of western virologists who funded or collaborated with that Wuhan laboratory to shut down the debate in the west and label a lab leak a conspiracy theory, the matter will not go away. Yet the British science establishment and the British government, normally so ready to boast of our reputation as a biomedical research hub second only to the United States, has done literally nothing to contribute to this debate. I cannot think of a single significant contribution from our universities and institutes, except the strange role that the Wellcome Trust played in convening a meeting in February 2020 that effectively agreed to mislead the public about the plausibility of a lab leak.”
LikeLiked by 1 person