As some Cliscep readers know, I’ve been planning over recent weeks to send a note to my MP, Bim Afolami, proposing a new climate change policy for the Tory party. Well, I’ve completed a draft of that note and set it out below. I’ve decided to do this before I send it to him so as to get what I hope might be useful criticisms, comments and/or suggestions.
Dear Bim,
I appreciate that you have little sympathy with my views on Net Zero. But, as you must have noticed, the project is going horribly wrong – possibly to the extent that it’s no longer affordable or workable. Moreover, because it’s increasingly unpopular, it’s looks as though it might be becoming politically toxic.
Some examples of current problems:
1. Businesses that have agreed to install major wind projects are finding that the costs of so doing are proving far greater than expected – mainly because of growing material and finance costs – and are threatening that, unless they get greatly increased subsidies, they may leave the UK. In addition, the costs of maintaining wind turbines are proving to be seriously expensive. Moreover, these costs do not cover backup power generation when the wind is not blowing hard enough, or blowing too hard – essential if we’re to avoid disastrous blackouts. Nor does it include the cost of building and running transmission lines from remote wind farms to places where people actually live (see note 2 below). I suggest these difficulties are an indication that wind power is not – and probably never will be – the cheap form of energy we were promised and therefore is not a route to achieving Net Zero.
2. Another emerging problem is the extreme difficulty of reengineering the National Grid to accommodate renewable energy; a result is that new projects are being delayed by as much as fifteen years. We’re told the ‘solution’ is the installation of hundreds of miles of high voltage cable requiring thousands of new pylons throughout the country. There’s little doubt that, as well as hugely expensive, this would be most unpopular. And that’s not all: local power distribution will also have to be reengineered to handle the needs of electric vehicles and electric heating. All this would be both disruptive and costly – hardy likely to appeal to already burdened householders and taxpayers.
3. Local climate initiatives such as London’s ULEZ scheme and various ’15 minute cities’ are heartily disliked by many ‘ordinary’ and particularly poorer people who want to get on with their lives and run their businesses without having to deal with such annoying inconvenience.
4. Ordinary people – and especially working class people – are getting increasingly annoyed by the actions of Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion and the like. And, as their real motives become apparent, that dislike is likely to escalate. Yet the Labour Party seems strangely ambivalent about them and, to the dismay of Scottish oil workers, has even said it would follow Just Stop Oil’s demand by banning all new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea.
5. It’s becoming evident that plans for replacing conventionally powered vehicles with electric vehicles were a mistake: they’re too expensive, their range is a worry – made worse by a serious shortage of charging points and the fact that people without private driveways cannot conveniently charge such cars at home (another attack on ordinary and poorer people). And their second hand values are dreadful. Moreover, as well as all this, they’re a threat to the UK car industry.
6. Likewise, it’s becoming clear that the planned transition from gas boilers to heat pumps is a poor idea. Few people are interested: not only are they more expensive but, if they’re to work effectively, many (possibly most) properties require better insulation, larger radiators and pipework – all this costs a lot of money. Quite simply, most people cannot afford it. It’s no surprise that the country’s falling far behind the government’s installation target.
Yet, despite these problems and despite the fact that people are already facing huge increases in the cost of living and are strongly opposed to paying for climate action, it’s remarkable that so many politicians still support the Net Zero policy.
Is there a solution? Well, as you know, I consider Net Zero unachievable, potentially disastrous and, in any case, pointless; I believe it would be in Britain’s best interest to abandon it and adopt a new policy that takes full account of practical reality and especially of international political reality. But I have come to accept that none of Britain’s main political parties – including yours – is likely to agree. Nonetheless, I think there is a solution that accepts the need to eliminate emissions yet overcomes most of the problems to which I refer above. But in particular it’s a solution that would be welcomed by taxpayers, homeowners, motorists and ordinary voters throughout the country and therefore, as Labour seems to be especially committed to Net Zero, it also provides an important opportunity for the Conservative Party, facing the prospect of severe defeat at next year’s General Election, to establish popular ‘clear blue water’ between itself and Labour.
Here’s my suggestion: the Conservative Party should announce that, although it accepts that emissions have to be reduced, it’s also aware that most of the world is continuing to use fossil fuels – still over 80% of global primary energy – and that current UK policies are unpopular and hurting people who are struggling with the cost of living. Therefore the Party’s policy from hereon will be that, although Britain should aim to reduce its emissions, it will do so no more radically than other major economies – in particular China, the USA, India, Russia, Japan and Germany.
Your opponents will say that this policy ignores the fact that Britain is seen as a climate change leader and must continue to set an example. But the evidence shows that other countries do not follow our lead: for example, in 1990, the UK emitted 0.6 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 and China and India 2.4 Gt and 0.6 Gt respectively. By 2021, the UK figure was 0.3 Gt – a 50% reduction. Yet China’s and India’s 2021 figures were 12.5 Gt and 2.6 Gt – 421% and 333% increases. No, the ‘leadership’ argument betrays an outdated, neo-colonial frame of mind. Emerging economies are not interested in following a Western lead and are confident that they’re capable of deciding for themselves and going their own way. It’s quite extraordinary that, of all people, the left are in effect arguing that old white men (politicians and scientists) in the West should be telling people of colour in the non-Western world (comprising 84% of humanity and all its poorest people) what they should be doing.
Best wishes
Robin Guenier, July 2023
Obviously, I’ve no idea whether this will have any impact; perhaps he won’t even bother to read it. But I’m hopeful that it might – as some of us have been discussing in comments on Jit’s article ‘The Green Green Green Benches of Home’, there are some signs that the Tory and interestingly the Labour leaderships are considering the possibility of softening the impact of net zero. It would be most satisfactory if this note were to contribute to a bidding war between the parties in the run-up to next year’s general election. But maybe that’s being over ambitious.
Robin
Climate Scepticism 
Robin, a minor stylistic point to start the conversation. You wrote, “… although Britain should aim to reduce its emissions, it will do so no more radically than other major economies … “. I entirely missed the word “no” upon my first reading and so I would place this word in bold as it is central to your argument.
Also, the letter is, perhaps, a little long for an MP with a large number of letters each day to get through. Thus, should your key message be summarised at the start i.e. clear distinction between Tories and Labour to provide an election-winning policy for you, my MP. MPs usually want to retain their seats come the next general election.
Well done and best wishes – I hope you have more luck with your MP than I have had with mine over the years.
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Robin,
A very elegant and true letter. Net zero is unachievable and unnecessary; there is no climate crisis. The science is clear. We are the only country left in the mad and destructive dash to Net-Zero. No-one cares a hoot what Britain does. We mainly derided as idiots. Views are gradually changing but very slowly. I write as an old-fashioned Conservativehe but the only sensible party on these issues is the Reform Party.
I would be happy to continue this discussion by email or telephone.
All best wishes, John Dewey
[Edit: contact details removed – Jit]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
You have (perhaps inevitably if you are to “get through” to your MP) compromised on the truly logical position for any sensible MP to take. However, the net zero culture seems to run so deep in Westminster that abandoning it is just too big an ask; I think you offer your MP what he might regard as a “respectable” and popular position to adopt.
I fear your hard work and applied logic will get nowhere with him, but we can live in hope. Well done for trying!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You may be right Mark but it’s interesting that the leader of today’s Torygraph could almost have been written by someone who had read my proposed note. An extract:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin,
A “review of the net zero target” would necessarily mean repealing the 2019 statutory instrument amendment to CCA 2008 which commits the UK by law to achieving net zero by 2050. As I’ve said, this is the ONLY way that Net Zero policies can be watered down, because any attempt to do so, by any present or future government, without first amending the law, will be challenged successfully in court by Green activists. Nobody is mentioning this very salient fact. Perhaps if you get a reply from Bim, he will acknowledge that, though I doubt it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime:
Of course you’re right: if either the 2050 or 100% requirements are to be changed, the CCA 2008 would have to be amended – just as it was in 2019. Note: my proposal says nothing about making either such change – the reference to a review was made by the DT not me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Furthermore Robin, the 2050 target will have to be repealed BEFORE the forthcoming election, whilst the Conservatives still have a majority and thus a good chance of voting it out in Parliament, if that is the political will of the party. If Labour get in (and they almost certainly will if the Tories do nothing to prove to the British that they will reverse these disastrous policies and stymie the country’s economic decline) then a Labour majority will ensure that net zero 2050 remains UK law for the foreseeable future, with predictably catastrophic consequences for the country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps so Jaime, but a reduction of the 100% requirement to something more practical would not require repeal of the 2050 target.
As I suggest in my draft note, ‘it looks as though it (net zero) might be becoming politically toxic’ and there are indications that Labour as well as the Tories may be beginning to recognise this – see my 13 July post about Rachel Reeves and the GMB union on ‘The Green Green Green Benches of Home’. With each party worried about being outflanked by the other, substantial change might not be as difficult as you think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Please sign my petition (Repeal the Climate Change Act at Petitions.gov.uk)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, Dieter Helm takes an approach that sidesteps politically correct rejections. Thus he poses Energy Policy this way:
Energy policy is not rocket science. It is about achieving core objectives – security of supply and decarbonisation – and achieving them at the lowest cost. Neither will be met by purely private markets, since the former is a public good and carbon is an externality not properly integrated in competitive markets. Furthermore, energy is a primary good for citizens: not to have energy deprives people and businesses from access to the wider economy and to society. It is a core USO: a Universal Service Obligation. That is why energy cannot be treated like any other commodity, as some of the architects of the “privatisation, liberalisation and competition” paradigm believed. Citizens are more than just consumers.
Of course, many of us here challenge the proof for decarbonizing, but politicians have painted themselves in the corner on this issue. Meanwhile the public has bought into the fear mongering, so the Ins (and even the Outs) have to “do something”
Helm’s paper is insightful and explains in plain language about the difficulties and also provides some prescriptions:
Click to access Energy-policy-30.03.2022.pdf
My synopsis is
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whoops, it seems the Helm link is broken. Try this one:
https://dieterhelm.co.uk/download/energy-policy-30-03-2022/
LikeLike
Ron,
Thanks for your synopsis. An excellent summary, and one that Robin’s MP (indeed, all MPs) should read.
LikeLike
‘[Edit: contact details removed – Jit]‘ (Re John Dewey’s post)
Thanks Jit. I’ve replied to John by email – Mark sent me his address.
LikeLike
Ron:
‘ Meanwhile the public has bought into the fear mongering, so the Ins (and even the Outs) have to “do something”’
Perhaps they have, but it seems their view now is ‘do something – so long as I don’t have to pay for it’. And, although that gives politicians, particularly in the run-up to an election, even less scope for action, it may possibly give them a way of out of that painted-in corner.
LikeLike
Over at Edgar, I found this pie chart. I would like to know who among our international friends should be lecturing the UK on its carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore, exactly what will be achieved when the UK’s <0.9% of global CO2 emissions are cut? Tis better surely for every country to reduce by 0.9% than asking a country representing 0.9% to vanish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Addendum. If you go to Edgar and scroll down to the pie chart, you can also display it as CO2 emissions per capita. On that metric the global average in 2021 was 4.67 t CO2/person. The value for the UK was 4.95 t CO2. There is reason to suppose when the 2022 figures are available that they will show the UK is very close to dipping down to the global average.
LikeLike
Jit: I too am a great fan of the Edgar database. Although that pie chart puts things splendidly into perspective, I prefer the table HERE because it shows the change in emissions per country over time. It also has a per capita option, showing that over 35 so-called developing countries have greater per capita emissions than the UK – yet we’re supposed to be paying them reparations. You’ll see I referenced Edgar in my proposed note to Bim.
I agree the 2022 figures (available in September) are likely to show the UK is very close to dipping down to the global average.
LikeLike
I’m afraid the UK’s aggressive unilateral push to net zero and talk of climate reparations has nothing whatsoever to do with present GHG emissions or even future emissions; it’s all about paying due penance for historic emissions and it’s not so much Britain ‘setting’ a good example to the rest of the world, but a case of once Great Britain being made an ‘example of’. This really is how these eco-Communists think. Don’t expect them to be open to rational arguments.
LikeLike
Jaime:
‘Don’t expect them (eco-Communists) to be open to rational arguments.’
True. But fortunately politicians (even those with eco-Communistic tendencies) facing the prospect of a General Election start paying attention to what ordinary voters think. And it’s becoming clearer by the day that paying for net zero is nowhere near the top of their priority list.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As has always been the case Robin, elections are about the ONLY time when politicians start paying attention to what ordinary voters think. Then once they get in, they immediately stop paying attention and renege on many of their promises made prior to voting. This will be especially easy as regards Net Zero policies because even if they do make the token effort to fulfil their promises, they will be forced to back down by the courts. Methinks it’s going to take nothing less than riots in the streets, mass protests and mass non-compliance to force politicians into a retreat. But by the time we get to that stage, much damage will already have been done.
LikeLike
jit, this chart of GHG emissions from UN is also informative.
LikeLike
Jaime:
Robin’s already responded but here’s another cut at this important point.
First, the CCA committing “the UK by law to achieving net zero by 2050” is and has always been a nonsense. We’re nowhere near achieving it and we won’t achieve it. Will the government in 2050 allow itself to be sent to prison? I think not. Moving to nuclear in a big way for electricity generation and to provide the power for synthetic diesel production and the like would of course get us closer.
But on the clever way Robin is slicing the political salami I don’t think it matters as much as you think. Backing off Net Zero in the now, for electoral purposes, will no doubt lead at some point in the future to court challenges, as you say. And with each instance of those challenges being successful the public’s eyes will be opened further. And not all will be successful. Is my guess.
So, Robin’s way is the right way to go. But you know I thought that anyway!
LikeLike
Jaime (missed this one before I posted my last):
And people will be suffering even more from the terrible effects. That’s the irresistible force. I don’t think this will prove to be an immovable object
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime:
‘they will be forced to back down by the courts’
As I’ve already pointed out, that’s far from necessarily the case. And, if politicians continue the process (that’s already started) of watering down their plans and then put revised plans into their manifestos, it’ll be hard for them to back-track – even if they want to. And that’s unlikely in view of the reality that many (most?) of their plans are already going horribly wrong: few politicians are interested in being associated with patent failure.
LikeLike
Richard, I am cautiously optimistic that people power will eventually put a stop to Net Zero madness.
“First, the CCA committing “the UK by law to achieving net zero by 2050” is and has always been a nonsense. We’re nowhere near achieving it and we won’t achieve it.”
It was never a realistic prospect and I think they knew this right from the start. But the getting there was not important, it was the attempting to get there which was all important and how long they could keep up the pretence of attempting to get there in order to achieve their actual aims, which have nothing whatsoever to do with ‘saving the planet’ or even reducing carbon emissions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime:
‘ I am cautiously optimistic that people power will eventually put a stop to Net Zero madness.’
So am I. But I’m almost completely sure that what’s going to scupper it, and do so quite soon, is its serious impracticality – just look at the six numbered paragraphs in my draft note to Bim. As I say, it’s already going hopelessly wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, a long, cold, blackout winter of discontent will certainly help, though it’s not really something one should wish for.
LikeLike
Jaime: “cautiously optimistic” sounds good. I’m tempted to comment on who exactly ‘they’ are in what follows. I won’t for now. (Sadly, I think some MPs *didn’t* realise that NZ (or 80% thereof) was not a realistic prospect “right from the start”. But your later ‘they’ I take anyway as not coterminous with those brains on our green green benches.)
Robin: Sorry for not giving feedback on your draft letter, which was the main purpose of this post. If I have anything I’ll supply it by end of Sunday.
LikeLike
jit, I really must lodge a formal protest here.
Emissions per capita is a very unfair and unrealistic metric. Looking at the top 20 nations producing CO2, China is far and away the most and 29% of world total, yet they rank #11 on per capita (lots of people), while Canada ranks #1 (not a lot of people). What Canada has is a lot of territory and frigid weather.
So a better metric is emissions per M Sq. Km. On that basis, Canada is #18 out of 20, a far fairer result. So what if UK is #14 on per capita emissions (a lot of people) but #4 on emissions per M Sq Km (not a lot of territory–unless you add back the empire, India would be a big help).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yesterday evening Spiked published an excellent article by Ralph Schoellhammer, an assistant professor in economics and political science at Webster University Vienna, titled ‘The human cost of net-zero’. It’s very relevant to the discussion on this thread and can be found HERE.
LikeLike
I see that Mark has already referred to Schoellhammer’s article in The True Cost Of Net Zero thread. No matter – it’s worth a second reference. I have one problem with it. Schoellhammer says ‘None of this is to say that an energy transition is impossible. A target of Net Zero by 2050 could well be met‘. Yet his own observations demonstrate that that’s almost certainly not so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another remarkable graph which very starkly illustrates the inadequacies of solar and wind power compared to nuclear and fossil fuels, in terms of EROEI
“EROEI is the ratio of useful energy out over the energy invested to get it.”
The blue bars are the ‘raw’ data, the yellow bars adjusted for the inherent intermittency of renewables. The difference between conventional energy sources and renewables is staggering.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/why-eroei-matters
LikeLike
Robin, if you haven’t yet sent your note to Bim, I definitely suggest you link to the above article by David Turver:
“I find it very worrying that the “experts” don’t know what they don’t know about EROEI and its impact on society. National Grid ESO are recommending and planning for an energy scarce system with inherently low EROEI that is teetering on the edge of the energy cliff. This risks destruction of society as we know it. It is even more troubling that the overall system EROEI is bailed out by the relatively small share allocated to nuclear power that they seem to view as an inconvenience in their overall plan. At best this is an example of institutionalised unconscious incompetence. If a low EROEI system is a conscious choice, then it is bordering on criminal negligence.”
We are going BACKWARDS!
LikeLike
It’s good stuff Jaime, but not really relevant to my intention. I want to communicate a simple message: the net zero policy is going horribly wrong, voters don’t like it and there’s an election looming – as Labour is even more committed than you are, a policy adjustment would be a great opportunity to outflank them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: I should add that my underlying intention is to get the ball rolling towards a total unravelling of the mad net zero policy
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Robin,
Another stylistic point. You start by writing, “I appreciate that you have little sympathy with my views on Net Zero.” I think this is a very negative introduction and almost invites Bim to continue his rejection of your views as set out in the rest of your letter.
Perhaps it is better to start in a more inclusive frame. For example, “Here is something that I hope we can agree on since, as you must have noticed, the Net Zero project is going horribly wrong … ”
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m still grappling with that nasty piece of advice about campaigning “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.” How to escape that trap with so many aspects of Net Zero? I trust Robin’s judgment a lot on this, as a barrister on getting the ball rolling in a way that won’t need complex explanations on the campaign trail. But I will take a more detailed look at the letter by the end of today.
LikeLike
Thanks John – another helpful observation.
LikeLike
Although this has been another interesting thread (thank you all), I’m slightly disappointed to have had only a few responses to my request for ‘useful criticisms, comments and/or suggestions’ regarding my proposed note. I plan to contact Bim within the next few days so if anyone has a comment on my text, it would be helpful if I could see it soon.
LikeLike
Robin, I haven’t replied because I thought your letter to Bim Afolami didn’t need any significant change. John Cullen made some excellent stylistic suggestions that might encourage deeper consideration of your message.
In my view the upcoming general election represents the best opportunity to challenge Net Zero and may well be the lens that focuses the minds of standing Conservative candidates. All of us on this side of the debate should be contacting our MP’s with a similar letter and engage them in an ongoing dialogue. It will take a critical mass of MP’s to force a rethink. I don’t think we will make the case on the basis of what we perceive as the flawed science of climate change. That ship left port a long time ago. The majority of MP’s, the great majority of whom have little or no understanding of science, let alone the physics and chemistry of climate change, or the geological history of Earth’s climate, are convinced of the ‘doomsday’ prognostications. They are not equipped to debate science and will always resort to a consensus viewpoint.
That should not stop us debating science, and challenging current ideas – difficult thought that is for a number of reasons, none of them related to science. Ultimately, despite these difficulties, I believe the science argument will only be won in the peer reviewed literature, despite its flawed nature and over many years. Overturning the ‘CO2 control knob’ paradigm will not be easy but emerging data and recent publications are beginning to pose a significant challenge and being noticed and considered. It’s rather like the saying if the only tool one has is a hammer then everything else looks like a nail. CO2 is the current hammer! Now, though we are becoming increasingly aware of other processes, many external to the Earth system, that may be important such as cosmic ray flux and the formation of condensation nucleii seeding clouds with consequent effects on planetary albedo etc. Such ideas are beginning to inform our understanding of Earth’s climate on geological timescales and its apparent cyclicity within well constrained upper and lower bounds – no tipping points – at least not for the past 550 Ma. They are also placing limits on the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 doubling with estimates right at the very lowest limits suggested by the IPCC and consistent with other estimates based on recent and historic observations. As fellow geologist John Dewey says, there is no climate crisis.
All very exciting and interesting but I wouldn’t expect my MP to be able to debate any of this. The upcoming general election represents a very real opportunity to challenge Net Zero on the well founded economic and societal impacts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
What Paul Dennis said.
I similarly made no additional suggestions because I thought your first draft was excellent, though I also think it would be improved by John Cullen’s excellent suggestions.
Of course you could add to the letter – there are so many issues associated with net zero – but in a case such as this, too much information might well be counterproductive.
LikeLike
Perhaps a suggestion to make a straw poll about his constituent’s views – to confirm (or otherwise) their views on the matter.
LikeLike
Paul,
“I don’t think we will make the case on the basis of what we perceive as the flawed science of climate change. That ship left port a long time ago. The majority of MP’s, the great majority of whom have little or no understanding of science, let alone the physics and chemistry of climate change, or the geological history of Earth’s climate, are convinced of the ‘doomsday’ prognostications. They are not equipped to debate science and will always resort to a consensus viewpoint.”
You may be right, but the challenges to the basic science keep coming and they are coming from highly respected scientists. Their voices are increasingly being heard, despite the censorship, despite the din of the chattering press. John Clauser was a joint recipient for the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022. He knows a thing or two about physics and he argues that IPCC climate science greatly underestimates the role of negative cloud feedbacks. It would be good if he did publish in the peer-reviewed literature, but we know for certain that journals are rejecting papers which run counter to the accepted narrative. Even so, what he has to say should be intelligible to even the dimmest of politicians:
“Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience. In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists.”
“In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s expanding population, especially given an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science,” he said.
https://gript.ie/nobel-laureate-climate-science-has-metastasized-into-massive-shock-journalistic-pseudoscience/
We sceptics have been arguing for years that ‘climate change’ is largely shock-journalistic pseudoscience, presented as genuine science often in complicity with ‘climate scientists’ themselves. So whilst it is the case that perhaps the best way to get through to politicians is to appeal to their political survival instincts by pointing out the increasing absurdity, impracticality, and rapidly growing unpopularity of climate mitigation policies, it is also the case that the backlash against the fundamental science is growing alongside the awareness of disastrous Net Zero plans – and it IS the science which will deliver the final coup de grace to the climate cult.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime,
I don’t disagree with many of the points you raise. I write as someone with skin in the game – I was investigated with regard to climategate in 2009, outed as a climate change sceptic (I’m not – rather a climate crisis sceptic), had a front page smear article published by the Guardian, journalists doorstepping at my house and FOIA requests for copies of all my email correspondence! Yes there is gatekeeping ongoing at some journals but it is still possible to get science published witness the 2022 Shaviv, Svensmark and Veizer paper on the Phanerozoic Climate published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. There are interesting and relevant papers being published in journals such as the Journal of Geophysical Research, Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta and my own palaeoclimate research is still being published in quality peer reviewed journals. Though I’ve not done a survey I sense more and more articles taking a more robust, and sceptical approach to the science.
I welcome the interventions of ‘big name’ scientists such as John Clauser, Will Happer, John Dewey, Claude Allegre et al. However, you and I know their views are being censored by the mainstream media, popular science journals (Scientific American, New Scientist etc.) such that their views become marginalised and hidden from the man in the street. Yes, we are all aware of their writings and views because we follow many of the blogs that report such views but in essence it is a form of preaching to the choir. Thus, I maintain that the science will only be corrected by being challenged in the peer review literature through thorough, robust experiment design, data collection and reporting. In that way science will be corrected. If it can, as you, say deliver the coup de grace to the climate cult. That is another question. Many adherents appear to have a quasi-religious belief in a doomsday. It is very difficult to convince such people that what they believe is a fiction.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Paul,
Roger Pielke writes about a deeply troubling case of outright censorship during the peer review process, by scientists in collusion with the MSM. The pertinent questions to ask are: (a) How widespread is this practice? and, (b) Is it getting worse?
“To be clear, there is absolutely no allegation of research fraud or misconduct here, just simple disagreement. Instead of countering arguments and evidence via the peer reviewed literature, activist scientists teamed up with activist journalists to pressure a publisher – Springer Nature, perhaps the world’s most important scientific publisher – to retract a paper. Sadly, the pressure campaign worked.
The abuse of the peer review process documented here is remarkable and stands as a warning that climate science is as deeply politicized as ever with scientists willing to exert influence on the publication process both out in the open and behind the scenes.”
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/think-of-the-implications-of-publishing
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime,
That is a particularly egregious example of gatekeeping and failure of the peer review process with pressure being placed on the managing editor at Springer Nature and the editor of the journal. It is interesting to see that the complaints of Mann et al. were only made after the paper on trends in extreme weather began to secure traction in some sectors of the MSM. Of course the editors should have had more cojones and stood up to being bullied by a cabal. As Roger Pielke points out both editors had originally suggested the right course of action by inviting those with criticisms to write a comment that would in turn be reviewed, and published with the opportunity of the original authors to respond in kind. The fact that the complainants did not respond positively to this suggestion tells me they don’t want to engage in debate. The reader is left to make up their own mind why!
I suspect such flagrant examples of gatekeeping can, and are to be found in climate change journals – though interestingly this one was in a physics journal. The key factor being the fact the paper was receiving wider public attention. I think it might also be more prevalent when considering studies of recent and historic climate change where the primary climate data is instrumental, and recorded weather observations. When dealing with the geological time scale the interpretation of the rock record and the measurement science involved (stable isotopes, trace element and organic geochemistry amongst others) does not lend itself to overt direct challenge to the current paradigm, particularly in the MSM and, as a debate that includes the wider public. Were it to then perhaps there might be more examples of overt gatekeeping. Having said this, I wonder if papers in the geological literature that purportedly support CO2 as the control knob for global climate get an easier ride through review.
I also know that the publication in Nature of the paper by Veizer, Gooderis and Francois – Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon in 2000 had a serious impact on his ability to secure research grants etc. Veizer was at the time, and possibly still is, the most widely cited Canadian Earth Scientist. It is this early work by Veizer and colleagues that set the foundation for subsequent studies of the impact of cosmic rays and the role of the solar systems passage through the spiral arms of the galaxy on the global climate. I don’t know, but suspect that attempts at securing funding from, for example the NSF or NERC, to directly address this question would be difficult. As would any study that seriously posed a challenge to the CO2 paradigm.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you Paul, Mark, Alan and Jaime. I agree about John Cullen’s suggestions and will make some suitable amendments – although I don’t intend to make the note any shorter. Although I’m most interested to read (Paul and Jaime) your views on ‘the flawed science of climate change’, I’ll stick with my approach of focusing on the widespread failures of current policies and their increasing unpopularity. It seems you both agree that this is the right tactic for now – and especially so with an election looming.
Alan: there are various reasons why I’m not so keen on a straw poll – not least the fact that polls depend so much on the questions asked.
Obviously I very much support the idea of such a note being sent to all MPs. I include Labour MPs in that – although of course in that case my draft would have to be substantially amended.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve read the paper now Paul. It is highly significant that it was gaining attention, then the Guardian decided to try and debunk it, then Friederike Otto (of World Weather Attribution), Michael Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf weighed in, basically because it strongly rejects the notion of a ‘climate crisis’ posited on an increase in frequency and severity of various types of extreme weather, particularly droughts and floods, but also storms. This ideological framing of a climate emergency forms THE main thrust of ‘climate crisis’ propaganda at the moment, so therefore it was targeted ruthlessly for retraction by climate activist scientists in collusion with the climate activist press – successfully alas.
LikeLike
I see it was Sky News Australia which probably signed the death warrant for this paper by (horror!) reporting on it. I wrote about it here.
https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/its-official-the-climate-crisis-does
I hope this retraction generates a LOT more publicity for the study and plenty of negative publicity for climate activist ‘scientists’.
LikeLike
pauldennis2014 – all power to your elbow, thanks.
LikeLike
Jaime,
It’s interesting that whilst it is reported that the Alimonti et al. paper has been retracted by Springer Nature it is still available to download on the EPJP website with the note:
“30 September 2022: Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions reported in this manuscript are currently under dispute. The journal is investigating the issue.”
I’ll check the site regularly to see if, and when it is retracted, or perhaps not!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That struck me as somewhat odd Paul. I just presume they haven’t got around to retracting it yet.
LikeLike
‘Electric Vehicles for Everyone? The Impossible Dream’
Another excellent report by Mark P. Mills.
An extract:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, I agree that this is an excellent report and goes alongside others that document the many issues – technical, resource, emissions, societal etc. that is implied by government fiat to end the sale of ICE vehicles. Government ministers, opposition, MP’s and civil servants cannot be unaware of these and the developing crisis that is Net Zero yet they still persist in insisting that we follow this reckless path. Why?
LikeLiked by 1 person
In answer to Paul’s question: To destroy Western civilisation. Net Zero is not just madness, it is malice. This is not a conspiracy theory anymore; it is a fact backed up by hard evidence.
LikeLike
Jaime: do you really think that all Government ministers and shadow ministers, all MPs and all civil servants are intent on destroying Western civilisation? I’m sorry but I just don’t believe it. I’d be interested to see your ‘hard evidence’.
My answer to Paul’s question is that most of them were, and continue to be, captured by the very persuasive green activists and, as a result, have for some time believed (a) that substantial emission reduction is essential and (b) that Britain has an obligation to provide leadership and to set an example. Moreover, they’ve persuaded themselves that the climate issue represents an important opportunity for UK industry to develop new and innovative ‘green’ technologies. And, in any case, evidence has indicated to them that voters are also convinced that ‘climate action’ is necessary – and for politicians that’s what matters.
There are two other reasons: (1) they fear that the consequence of holding a contrary view would mean they were categorised as ‘deniers’ with career destroying consequences and (2) they’d find it extremely embarrassing to have to admit to having been responsible for having set the country on what’s beginning to look (to them) like a ruinous course.
Yes, I agree that many of them must be becoming aware of these technical problems and the developing crisis. And I suspect many of them are beginning to feel distinctly uncomfortable about it – but not yet to the extent of overturning the points I’ve made above. My proposed note to Bim is written because of this: that’s why it focuses on the widespread failures of current policies and on their increasing unpopularity. I’m sure the upcoming election makes this the right time to be pushing the substantial evidence for this to all MPs.
LikeLike
Thank you Jaime and Robin for your respective thoughts as to why we are in the present situation. My own analysis largely converges with Robin’s. I wrote earlier that the great majority of MP’s don’t have the scientific and technical knowledge to debate the science of global warming, or understand the technology and engineering challenges posed by Net Zero. It was David Turvey, on his substack who described how a senior energy analyst had not heard of, let alone understood the concept of EROEI. Why should we expect MP’s to, even though they could and should make themselves aware of and have an understanding of all the information that is available.
The argument posed by the greens and backed up by models is persuasive to many people, public and the governing class alike. Every survey published, though we know how limited they can be, suggests that a majority are concerned by global warming but they are not prepared to face the costs being imposed. It is in this niche that real opportunity lies in convincing MP’s that they are wrong in their prescription and that an alternative route to ultimately de-carbonising energy supplies is possible over very much extended time horizons. This gives an off-ramp for MP’s to still work towards an energy transition but one which is market led and not subsidy driven. That way we may end up with nuclear energy rather than intermittent and unreliable solar and wind.
The energy transitions as proposed will be ruinously expensive, achieve little in the short term and will impact voters through demand management, blackouts and brownouts. Though one doesn’t want to wish such a situation, it may well be beneficial if they were to start this autumn and winter and help focus the minds of government and the electorate.
I don’t hold out much hope. Government is obsessed with vanity projects. One only has to look at the HS2 debacle and the refusal to backdown. The challenge in forcing a retreat on Net Zero is of another scale altogether. I agree with Robin that the upcoming general election is, perhaps, our best opportunity of forcing a rethink, at least by the Conservative Party.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
‘Catastrophic’ man-made climate change is demonstrably a scientific fraud. The ‘climate crisis’ is non-existent. This scientific fraud is being used as the justification for a global economic and social reset. The significant harms involved in achieving this reset are known and have been known for many years – they threaten the very fabric of Western civilisation as we know it – yet the policies are pursued regardless, because the goal is political and ideological, not environmental. The madness is part and parcel of the malice. It’s doubtful whether all MPs are fully cognisant of the plan to reset the global economy and financial system via climate change mitigation policies, but it’s equally plausible that many of them are. It is inconceivable that many are not now aware of the impossibility of achieving Net Zero 2050, and the total pointlessness (in terms of mitigating global climate change) of unilateral Net Zero, yet they doggedly insist to their constituents that this is for the benefit of us all and for the planet.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/18/ending-climate-change-end-capitalism
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/01/04/the-green-new-deal-is-a-trojan-horse-for-socialism/
IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report Summary for Policy Makers:
“C.5 Prioritising equity, climate justice, social justice, inclusion and just transition processes can enable adaptation and ambitious mitigation actions and climate resilient development. Adaptation outcomes are enhanced by increased support to regions and people with the highest vulnerability to climatic hazards. Integrating climate adaptation into social protection programs improves resilience. Many options are available for reducing emission-intensive consumption, including through behavioural and lifestyle changes, with co-benefits for societal well-being. (high confidence) {4.4, 4.5}
C.5.1 Equity remains a central element in the UN climate regime, notwithstanding shifts in differentiation between states over time and challenges in assessing fair shares. Ambitious mitigation pathways imply large and sometimes disruptive changes in economic structure, with significant distributional consequences, within and between countries. Distributional consequences within and between countries include shifting of income and employment during the transition from high- to low-emissions activities. (high confidence) {4.4}
C.5.2 Adaptation and mitigation actions, that prioritise equity, social justice, climate justice, rights-based approaches, and inclusivity, lead to more sustainable outcomes, reduce trade-offs, support transformative change and advance climate resilient development. Redistributive policies across sectors and regions that shield the poor and vulnerable, social safety nets, equity, inclusion and just transitions, at all scales can enable deeper societal ambitions and resolve tradeoffs with sustainable development goals. Attention to equity and broad and meaningful participation of all relevant actors in decision making at all scales can build social trust which builds on equitable sharing of benefits and burdens of mitigation that deepen and widen support for transformative changes. (high confidence) {4.4}”
LikeLike
Paul,
David Turvey says this:
“I find it very worrying that the “experts” don’t know what they don’t know about EROEI and its impact on society. National Grid ESO are recommending and planning for an energy scarce system with inherently low EROEI that is teetering on the edge of the energy cliff. This risks destruction of society as we know it. It is even more troubling that the overall system EROEI is bailed out by the relatively small share allocated to nuclear power that they seem to view as an inconvenience in their overall plan. At best this is an example of institutionalised unconscious incompetence. If a low EROEI system is a conscious choice, then it is bordering on criminal negligence.
If there are any policymakers reading this, it is clear that a significant intervention needs to be made at National Grid ESO before they lead us over the energy cliff to economic and social disaster. In fact, I would encourage readers to contact their local MP, send them this article and ask how they are going to influence Government to ensure that physics triumphs over ignorant dogma.”
I may be misinterpreting him, but this suggests to me that he is a little incredulous in attributing what is happening entirely to “institutionalised unconscious incompetence”. He is not shy of entertaining the possibility that the introduction of an energy scarce system which “risks the destruction of society as we know it” is deliberate.
LikeLike
As always, I am watching the discussion between Robin and Jaime with great interest. I don’t think your views have to be regarded as mutually exclusive. If represented on a Venn diagram, I think there would be considerable overlap.
I think Jaime is correct that the UN/IPCC cabal is intent on imposing structural change on global societies. Policies associated with climate change mitigation are a vehicle by which they hope to achieve this. One can agree or disagree with the programme. My problems with it are its undemocratic nature (nobody votes for the UN high-ups or the IPCC), and the fact that however well-intentioned the policies (and I do think they are well-intentioned) they are often dangerous and counter-productive.
I think Robin is right inasmuch as most MPs aren’t – certainly not knowingly – part of some global conspiracy. Rather, they simply think they have signed up to a sensible and just set of policies that are universally approved of and societally beneficial. It’s just that they are wrong (180 degrees wrong), and if we can show them why they are wrong, then we must try to do so before it’s too late.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime,
Wow, they said all of that in the IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report Summary for Policy Makers with ‘high confidence’?
But what was the confidence interval?
Point being: Stating political opinions with ‘high confidence’ as if they have been scientifically measured is meaningless.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime, I think David Turvey is presenting one of two options – one being institutionalised unconscious incompetence, the other criminal negligence. I’m not sure if he is incredulous or not, but at least he is entertaining the idea of criminality and anti-democratic process. Whatever the situation, I agree with you that this is an important contribution and one that I have forwarded to my MP. As a former government science minister I hope he reads and takes onboard the implications of Turvey’s analysis.
I also find myself agreeing with Mark’s suggestion that there is considerable overlap between your views and those of Robin. I, perhaps sit in that area of intersection Mark points to. Like you, as a scientist I’m concerned that we debate and argue the science, and hope to contribute more. As a realist I know that this will not occur on a timescale that allows us to avoid the looming disaster of Net Zero.
Robin’s approach is pragmatic, does not have the necessity of overturning the current beliefs of MP with regard to anthropogenic climate change, though perhaps they have to suspend belief in a climate crisis, and buys time to robustly critique the science and move towards a robust understanding of the climate.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Greta Goblin’s message to the peasant farmers and fishermen who don’t like the EU Nature Restoration legislation:
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/07/18/greta-thunberg-gives-finger-to-opponents-of-new-eu-environmental-legislation/
LikeLike
Jaime – thanks for that link to Roger Pielke post & from there to the paper in question.
had a quick read of the the paper & noticed under “2.4 Floods and droughts”
“It may be interesting to recall the results obtained in the historical context for the European area, where various paleo-hydrological studies show that the alluvial events frequency in Europe was significantly lower during the warm phases (e.g. Roman optimum and medieval optimum) than during the cold ones (e.g. Little Ice Age) as attested, for example, by Wirth et al. [48] who worked on Central Alps data. This evidence is supported also by the article signed by a large group of historical climatologists, including the Italians Bertolin and Camuffo [49], where the following statement is reported «recent changes in the variability of flood frequencies are not exceptional if compared to the flood frequency of the past 500 years and show no overall trend similar to the widely cited “hockey-stick” trend for temperatures.”
wonder if Mann starts his day by typing in “hockey-stick”.
ps – sorry if O/T Robin
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Robin,
I have been ducking in and out of this conversation and so offer my apologies is the following has been said by a commentator above …
I wonder if your final sentence should be changed. Currently it says, “It’s quite extraordinary that, of all people, the left are in effect arguing that old white men (politicians and scientists) in the West should be telling people of colour in the non-Western world (comprising 84% of humanity and all its poorest people) what they should be doing.” This is a comment, albeit a correct one, about the Left – but Bim is not of that persuasion and so we need to speak to him more directly.
I therefore wonder if you should finish in a slightly different manner, perhaps by trying to get the Conservatives to introduce a pause in our rush towards Net Zero. After all, when the facts change, we change our opinions without shame or, one hopes, without recrimination from others.
This change might be effected by taking a leaf out of the medical world’s deontology (as illustrated by the Covid-19 débâcle):-
1. First do no harm.
The Climate Change Act and Net Zero were introduced at a time when it was thought that their goals could be achieved with small changes and at small cost. It is now clear that these two assumptions were completely erroneous.
2. Informed consent.
The British people as voters, tax payers, energy bill payers, employees of struggling companies etc. have not given their explicit consent to policies which are rapidly leading us, in a utterly futile gesture, down the road to ruin.
It is therefore time to pause and take stock.
The argument above also has the merit of changing the focus of your argument from a broad but significant policy change (of possibly long time horizon) to include an immediate policy goal.
In haste,
John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A couple of days ago, responding to Paul, I gave several reasons why I thought politicians and civil servants, who cannot be unaware of the many and developing problems of Net Zero, nonetheless continue to follow this reckless path. THIS ARTICLE indicates another. An extract:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, I think we all have personal experience of this. After the climategate emails were released in 2009, I refused to sign the letter sent round by climate scientists condemning the release, and also wrote to my then HoD saying we needed much more transparency and open access to data. I also had a front page article about my refusal and thoughts about climate change in the Guardian. At several conferences afterwards I was approached in private by quite a few colleagues at other institutes, some academic, others working in the profession in support of my stance, though none themself had spoken out.
I will add though, that Alan Kendall, a colleague of mine at the time did speak out and I hope I offered as much support to Alan as he did to me. I will also say that other colleagues, despite very different views to mine were also were very supportive, as was my HoD.
I wonder if, 14 years on in this present age of cancelling, it has become increasingly difficult to stand alone and voice ones opinions and thoughts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Colin Wilson wrote a book in the 1950s called The Outsider. It has been in print ever since and has sold millions of copies. I read it when I was a teenager. Wilson’s book popularised the IDEA of the Outsider, even though (quite obviously!) it didn’t set a social trend. Outsiders often (though not always) are the first to question groupthink and the prevailing narrative and they most often resist the imposition of authority. With the advent of the internet, what has happened is that a loose online COMMUNITY of Outsiders has formed (Marianna Spring at the BBC would it a ‘conspiracy movement’) and it is that community which the censorship industrial complex is now targeting ruthlessly because they know it presents a very real existential threat to the continuance of their power and control over the masses via the illusion of ‘expert authority’ and majority blind obedience to authority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madness ( and timidity) of crowds…
https://www.allposters.com/-sp/Wait-a-minute-We-re-lemurs-Lemurs-New-Yorker-Cartoon-Posters_i9170187_.htm
LikeLike
Paul. Oh those heady Climategate days at UEA ! I also recall those letters sent around for us all to sign (and which I also refused), storming out of a staff meeting where our HoS ranted on about the “unholy “ people questioning the release of pro-climate change material. I don’t know about you but I much enjoyed being silently supported by many of my colleagues (including your good self).
To me it seems so very long ago.
LikeLike
Alan, heady days indeed and, like you, it all seems a long time ago now. I remember that meeting and very importantly Keith Briffa’s response and words of strong support for those with a different view of things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Job done – I’ve sent it. I made a few changes:
The opening paragraph reads as follows:
The six paragraphs of ‘examples’ are unchanged, except for a changed link (to THIS) in the first. The concluding paragraphs read as follows:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
I am sure you’ll keep us posted if and when you receive a reply.
LikeLike
Bim, and other Tory MPs, take note:
“Big defeats for Tories but party holds on to Uxbridge”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66264317
LikeLike
Well, the Labour Party and even the Guardian have recognised the part that Khan’s planned ULEZ extension played in the Tories successfully defending one out of three seats in yesterday’s by-elections:
“UK byelection results: Labour routs Tories in Selby and Ainsty but falls short in Uxbridge”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/21/uk-byelection-results-labour-tories-selby-ainsty-uxbridge
There’s also this:
LikeLike
Yes Mark, the results of yesterday’s by-elections could be most helpful – with my note coming at the best possible time. Overall, the Tories did badly (at Selby in particular), supporting my comment to Bim that they’re facing ‘the prospect of severe defeat at next year’s General Election’; he, I think, is particularly vulnerable. But the fact that they just held on to Uxbridge could be very relevant with most commentators putting that down to the Ulez policy. There’s every reason to expect that attitude to apply to the wider Net Zero policy as its impact on the public becomes increasingly severe as we approach the General Election.
Of course, as the Guardian indicates, the Labour leadership, already debating how much focus they should give to the environment, will be aware of this. So now, I suggest, is the time to alert all MPs to the danger (to them) of this wretched policy – although I’m sure the LibDems are a lost cause. Maybe Labour and the Tories will start a ‘downplay Net Zero’ bidding war!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do hope that the Tories get the right message from Uxbridge. I, as a former asthmatic boy in London, see every reason to support some form of ULEZ. However it should not be blindly imposed. People need to be persuaded of the benefits, new polluting vehicles should be banned and those still driving them should be helped change. Yes it would cost more and take longer but everyone should be made aware of the benefits. Asthmatics in particular would be beneficiaries.
LikeLike
Alan,
Fair points, of course. The political takeaway from this, which politicians would be wise to note, is that policies which cost and inconvenience the public are very unpopular. All the opinion polls in the world, asking vague fluffy questions in isolation count for nothing when dealing with the hard reality of life, which is that voters don’t want to be made poorer, nor do they want their lives to be diminished. The Uxbridge bye-election result suggests as much very clearly, I suggest. The Tories are massively unpopular (as evidenced by the two other results from yesterday), yet still they retained the Uxbridge seat. Net zero policies could be crucial at the next general election.
LikeLike
I think a perfect storm may be brewing as:
(a) the public become acutely aware of the economic and social harms which Net Zero is inflicting upon them and will inflict, with increasing severity, in the near future
(b) the real environmental harms of ‘sustainable, renewable energy’ become apparent, especially in places like beautiful Scotland where they felled 16 million trees to put up ugly wind turbines and dead whales keep washing up on beaches
(c) the absurd and increasingly desperate campaign to weaponise extreme weather, especially the bog standard British summer, in order to scare people into accepting Net Zero, inevitably begins to fall apart
The first two one might categorise as ‘mitigation delaying’ or ‘mitigation denial’.
The last issue clearly comes under ‘climate science denial’.
Net Zero is under threat from all three. It’s a toss up IMO as to which draws first blood.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I also think there is saloon going to be another factor in play. Vattenfall have just made the decision to stop development of their North Sea Boreas wind farm and are also considering doing the same for their Vanguard project. They cite a 40% rise in costs (materials, funding etc.) such that the project is not viable at the CfD prices they agreed to when bidding. I suspect this is a shameless bid to securing a renegotiation of the CfD contracts with government and ever more subsidies. Grift of the highest order! The governments response is going to be very interesting and may be an early clue as to how they will approach Net Zero over the coming year and election. I suggest that in the immediate aftermath of yesterdays by-election results we all write to our MP’s as Robin has pushing the point that Net Zero is an inexpensive and destructive irrelevance given that (i) there is not a climate crisis, and (ii) any reduction in the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions is lost in the noise of ever increasing emissions from countries such as China and India.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Paul: obviously I agree that we should all be writing to our MPs. But please don’t argue that there is not a climate crisis. That would provide the perfect excuse for many of them to accuse you of being a denier – and get you bogged down in yet another endless debate about ‘the science’. My position – that Net Zero is unachievable, potentially disastrous and pointless – is valid even if there is a climate crisis. But my message for Bim is even simpler: the policy is going horribly wrong, voters don’t like it and there’s an election looming – therefore a policy adjustment could be hugely advantageous. That’s all that’s needed.
LikeLike
Of course there is a climate crisis. Event Roy Spencer has written about it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/07/yes-virginia-there-is-a-climate-crisis/
LikeLike
Another good piece by Ross Clark HERE. An extract:
I suggest that Paul and Jaime in particular note the second paragraph.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin, I agree whole heartedly with Ross Clark’s last paragraph. I didn’t say that we should reject carbon-reducing policies. In fact I’m a strong supporter of nuclear as a low carbon, high EROEI energy source, with new technologies able to load follow. My last contribution was clumsily worded in the sense that I am 100% in agreement with your approach and that an approach to an MP which suggests there is no climate crisis will inevitably end up in the waste paper bin. However, that does not mean that I think there is a climate crisis. Quite the reverse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Paul – well said.
LikeLike
Yet another interesting article (Government Told to Scrap Unaffordable Green Policies After By-Election Ulez Revolt) this time in the Daily Sceptic. It’s almost beginning to look as though my note to Bim wasn’t really necessary. An extract:
LikeLike
Robin,
I think many commentators are getting overly worked up about the Uxbridge result and reading into it more significance than it deserves. Firstly, it was not a net zero policy, it was supposedly about pollution reduction, but really it is just part of the long running war on the motorist and the temptation by politicians of all parties to view motorists as a convenient cash cow. Turnout was less than 50% and the margin of victory was narrow. This is hardly a robust rejection of aggressive carbon reduction policies, it’s more a case of fed up motorists expressing their discontent via the ballot box at being unfairly taxed yet again. We should be far more concerned that a spoilt woke University brat who thinks Germaine Greer is a vile bigot and ‘abhorrent transphobe’ for expressing her view that men are not women managed to completely overturn a large Conservative majority in a ‘safe’ Tory seat. No doubt Keir the Younger also thinks that Net Zero opponents are ‘delayers’ and/or ‘science deniers’ too. The benefits of a left wing liberal Oxford education. He’ll be in government soon.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-trouble-with-keir-mather/
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Torygraph is certainly getting itself worked up. As Jaime says, whether or not that is justified is a moot point. However, as a newspaper of influence within Tory circles, this is at least interesting:
“Tory MPs urge Rishi Sunak to ‘return to Conservative policies’
Calls for party to deliver on manifesto pledges after it loses two by-elections to Labour and Lib Dems on big swings”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/21/tories-rishi-sunak-conservative-policies-by-election-losses/
And:
“Voters rejected Ulez – and it could spell the end of Net Zero policies
Labour and Tories will be asking whether Britons are willing to vote for short-term financial pain for long-term climate benefit”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/21/ulez-backlash-could-kill-net-zero-policies-labour-tories/
And:
“It’s Ulez now, but heat pumps are the next electoral disaster
The Uxbridge revolt against Sadiq Khan’s green madness has set out a blueprint for a Conservative resurgence”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/21/its-ulez-now-but-heat-pumps-are-the-next-electoral-disaster/
And:
“This must be the end of Rishi Sunak’s green obsession
If you threaten people’s livelihoods and what they regard as fundamental rights to mobility and self-reliance, they will get rid of you”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/21/uxbridge-should-mark-the-end-of-rishi-sunaks-green-obsessio/
And (from the FT):
“Relying on wedge issues like Ulez won’t save Tories from wipeout
Blue win in Boris Johnson’s former seat shows climate campaign faces an uphill climb”
https://www.ft.com/content/2290aad6-748a-4675-a43c-715c95957cc6
Of course, the Guardian’s take is completely different:
“Rishi Sunak urged to stick with net zero pledges after Ulez role in Uxbridge win
Green Tories say byelection issue irrelevant to general election as others call for end to ‘unpopular’ environmental policies”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/21/rishi-sunak-conservatives-net-zero-ulez-uxbridge-south-ruislip-byelection
LikeLike
You’ve unearthed a lot of interesting newspaper material Mark – well done. Let me make one thing clear: I’m not interested in whether or not the Tories or Labour do well in the coming election. What interests me is that the absurd Net Zero policy should at least be watered down. That last comment from the FT (very much a climate activist paper) is particularly telling – ‘for all British voters say they care about green politics, they will reject measures that impose a personal cost‘. That I believe is the critical issue and one I think the leaders of both parties will have noted. I don’t agree with Jaime that the Uxbridge result was ‘just part of a long running war on the motorist’. Yes, the winning margin was narrow but it was widely expected that the Tories would lose heavily. And there’s much more ‘green’ stuff to come: growing energy bills, the countryside scarred by thousands of new pylons and wind turbines, ’15 minute cities’, thoroughly unpopular electric vehicle and heat pump mandates … etc. Both parties’ leaders may well be thinking that a policy change could be hugely advantageous. But of course, as the Guardian notes re the Tories, both parties have MPs who wouldn’t like this one bit – Labour’s new member is probably a prime example. It’s going to get most interesting.
LikeLike
Robin – “I’m not interested in whether or not the Tories or Labour do well in the coming election. What interests me is that the absurd Net Zero policy should at least be watered down.”
That is exactly my position. Although I was once a Labour activist, I couldn’t support the current shower any more than I could support the Tories (or the Lib Dems or the Greens). I have no brief for any of them. I just want the madness to stop!
LikeLike
“As Labour loses Uxbridge over Ulez, what now for the party’s green policies?
Fiona Harvey
Environment editor
Insiders allege the Tories fought a ‘dirty tricks’ campaign to secure the west London seat, and some fear Starmer will pull back on climate crisis measures to win the culture war”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/22/as-labour-loses-uxbridge-over-ulez-what-now-for-the-partys-green-policies
A vaguely interesting ramble round the subject, ending with the inevitable conclusion. However, a couple of interesting points appear in the final paragraph:
I suspect that’s true.
I suspect that isn’t true, and it’s the people of alarm who are misleading themselves about what the public think – or at least, about what the public will think when confronted by the financial and other realities that will hit them as the net zero project unfolds.
LikeLike
Well spotted Mark. Tom Burke (founder of the green think-tank E3G) is probably very influential within Labour. As I said yesterday, both parties have MPs who wouldn’t like this (a possible watering down of Net Zero) one bit – Labour’s new member is probably a prime example. It’s going to get most interesting.
LikeLike
Hello Robin,
Now that, post Uxbridge by-election, all parties are talking about the effect of Net Zero policies on their popularity (or otherwise) with the voters it may be time to introduce said politicians to the EROEI concept which was so well introduced by Jaime above (16th July at 8.02am). But let’s keep it simple because, as was also pointed out above, if we are explaining then we are not cutting through:-
1. Green energy in the form of wind and solar power is not sustainable because it uses huge amounts of energy compared to, say, reliable fossil fuels. So green energy is not green in the environmentally-friendly sense; but it is green in the sense of utter naivety. Do politicians wish to seem naïve?
2. Green energy reduces the reliability and stability of our electricity grid and risks plunging us into electricity blackouts.
3. Green energy in the form of wind and solar is monstrously expensive and thereby makes everything more expensive and thus makes the economy uncompetitive internationally. This a feature (and not a fault!) of falling off the EROEI cliff back towards the Dark Ages (see Jaime at 16th July at 8.20am above).
4. In short, everything about green energy in the form of wind and solar is lose, lose, lose for ordinary people … but the rent-seekers, who are able to enjoy the green subsidies that these pseudo-green investments harvest, are laughing all the way to their (green) bank.
As an electrical engineer who worked on More Electric Technology for much of my professional life, it pained me to write the text above because most of these consequences of Going Pseudo-Green were predictable – and indeed were predicted – long ago. However, politicians did not want to hear the warnings, so enthralled are they by the hollow assurances of the highly effective green lobby. Will the politicians listen now? Let’s hope so. And let us remember that this in not just a UK problem; it affects most of the Western world i.e. what we used to call the “free world”, a term that rings rather hollow with me these days, I’m afraid.
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 4 people
A first-rate post John – thank you. I think the politicians are more likely to listen now than at any time since the inception of these nonsensical policies. But that doesn’t mean they will. What’s required is that people like you – with appropriate background and experience – come forward and communicate to them the simple facts that you have stated so clearly here. But how might that happen? Might the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) or the IET (Institution of Engineering and Technology) be able to help? Or have they – like so many such bodies – been taken over by wokeists?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Mr. Kerry had hoped to persuade China to start reducing its carbon emissions on a faster timeline and to quickly phase out its heavy use of coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel. While the United States generates 14 percent of global carbon emissions, China is responsible for 31 percent and its pollution is increasing every year. China has said it would hit peak emissions before 2030 and stop adding carbon to the atmosphere by 2060.
.Mr. Xi, who did not meet with Mr. Kerry during the envoy’s visit this week, said that China will follow its own timetable regarding emissions reductions. “The pathway and means for reaching this goal, and the tempo and intensity, should be and must be determined by ourselves, and never under the sway of others,” he said in a speech Wednesday according to the official People’s Daily.”
China – responsible now for almost a third of global GHG emissions – has its very own representative concentration pathway – RXiP8.5!
Meanwhile, the UK contributes 0.9% and is on a pathway to net zero hell.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Front page headline in today’s Torygraph:
‘PM urged by Cabinet to abandon eco policy‘
And its first leader is headed:
‘The anti-green revolt is the Tories’ big chance‘ An extract:
The full text of one of the Telegraph’s articles I put up over on Jit’s thread. Great to see some of the leader as well.
I didn’t spend long on Twitter this morning but it was interesting to see various people complaining about Tory Net Zero commitment being ‘on the slide’ as Robin puts it. John Grace is, as I’m sure many know, the parliamentary sketch-writer for The Guardian. So of course I was trying to help, with real empathy, with the Labour response here …
Now I don’t like anyone using ‘climate change denier’ – I hate it as much as I did in 2007. And the ‘ what could go wrong’ was I assume meant to imply that a relatively mild adjustment to UK Net Zero policy will lead within weeks to global incineration. So I thought I’d dial the emotion down. What could go wrong for Labour is that they could lose votes and seats that they would otherwise win. And you know what, I really do feel that pain. 😉
LikeLike
Hello Robin,
Since retirement I have slowly reduced my involvement such that I no longer have any involvement with the IET and the IEEE. Besides, at no time did I hold an executive position with those organisations and so could not (and cannot) speak about their official attitudes to wokism and its ill-considered policy fallout in the energy and climate domains.
However, I have observed that many professional organisations that have no professional interest in climate/energy have, nevertheless, issued climate/energy policies; I find this bizarre, but it reflects the extent to which irrational group-think has penetrated so many of the institutions of the Western world. Of particular concern to me is the penetration of the media and the political parties to the extent that, from my perspective here in the UK, the media is very largely (but, fortunately, not entirely) of one voice and, until the Uxbridge by-election last Thursday, the political parties were too.
It will be very interesting to see whether the current political discussion on these matters dies away or whether a real difference starts to emerge between the parties that will allow the cosy political consensus on climate/energy to be challenged. If the latter occurs then it may be possible for those of us with relevant technical expertise (as opposed to political/woke expertise) to join the debate; at present we are cancelled/censored or otherwise de-platformed, presumably because our arguments will all too easily destroy the “UK’s world-leading cost-free Net Zero’ policy” narrative.
[Although this is not a party-political blog site I should say in closing that I suspect it is those parties of the (former) Left that will have the greatest problems adjusting to the new (to them) reality. I say this because it seems to me that the Left, which was formed largely in the 19th century to protect the rights of ordinary people, has been “flipped” to supporting policies which are about Climate Justice etc. and thus, on the surface, appear to be supportive of the working man and woman. However, as reality has revealed, these policies are hugely costly to ordinary people in the West and, in actual fact, these policies favour rent-seekers and other well-connected better-off firms and individuals. In short, the slogan, “We’re saving the planet!” is in truth an abbreviated form of, “We’re saving the planet for rich people!” It is going to shock the Left to its core once this reality starts to dawn on them … assuming my analysis is broadly correct that is.
Anyway, however it reappears, I greatly look forward to the re-emergence of a proper multi-party debate on energy/climate issues. These matters are too important for a uni-party consensus to hold sway; the public needs and deserves some real choices to vote upon – and the sooner the better! Democracy demands it.
Especially since the UK, as the producer of about 1% of the world’s CO2 emissions, is essentially irrelevant at the global level. All this futile CO2-reduction posturing in the UK is “all pain for no gain”, especially for the natural constituency of the parties of the (former) Left.]
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 4 people
An extract from John Cullen’s excellent note this morning:
‘Will the politicians listen now? Let’s hope so. And let us remember that this in not just a UK problem; it affects most of the Western world…‘
Perhaps John would like the final comment of Charles Moore’s article in today’s Telegraph when he said that Mr Sunak
‘should be the first leader in the Western world to say boo to the net-zero goose.‘
LikeLiked by 1 person
John Cullen,
I would have liked that comment twice if I could!
LikeLike
John, you say – ‘I greatly look forward to the re-emergence of a proper multi-party debate on energy/climate issues‘. So do I – especially if it makes it possible for you and other people with technical expertise such as yours to get involved in the debate.
LikeLike
Hello Robin,
Although I am not a religious person, I say “Amen” to your comment.
Regards,
John.
LikeLike
Well, well – I’ve had a reply from Bim:
His first paragraph is essentially correct and reflects my view. But it’s not something I said in my note which he obviously hasn’t read – as is evidenced by his second paragraph which is completely unrelated to my message that Net Zero is going hopelessly wrong and becoming increasingly unpopular and that this provides an opportunity for his party to differentiate itself from Labour. And his comment that ‘Offshore wind is the cheapest energy that you can create‘ shows that he’s living in dreamland.
If that view is typical of the Tory party they’re a hopelessly lost cause.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yeah, I think the Amens have been brought to sad ending there.
The fact there is Cabinet-level debate of Net Zero is the important thing.
There will be mushy compromise there too no doubt – but I think some people like Kemi have a much better grasp of the issues than Bim.
LikeLike
Robin, the first paragraph of Bim’s reply shows some real promise. The second is completely divorced from reality and Bim is resorting to a consensus point of view rather than investigating the details himself. The assertion that offshore wind is the cheapest form of energy is one for the fairies. Perhaps a short note as John Cullen suggested about EROEI and offshore wind is in order.
Overall, though, a positive step forward. Bim Alofami must be cognisant of the debate raging in the press and the labour party right now.
LikeLiked by 2 people
‘m guessing that the Uxbridge result has the Guardian/Observer rather worried:
“Dropping green pledges would be ‘political suicide’, Sunak and Starmer warned
Science and business leaders say lurch away from climate agenda after byelections would be deeply unpopular with voters and damage UK’s reputation”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/22/green-pledges-sunak-starmer-byelections
It’s worth noting who is apparently afraid/concerned that this might come to pass. By and large people who make money from it and/or are emotionally (and/or financially) invested in it. The idea that watering down of climate policies would be deeply unpopular with voters represents an Alice Through the Looking Glass World view. It demonstrates a desire that the world is as they would like it to be rather than as it actually is. The Tories are going to be annihilated at the next general election unless they do something pretty dramatic. They have nothing to lose. Political suicide for them would be not changing things pretty dramatically. On the other hand, nervous though Keir Starmer undoubtedly and understandably is, I think his changing tack would represent a bigger risk, given the professed views of many current Labour Party supporters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh yes, Uxbridge definitely has the Guardian/Observer rattled. Here’s the editorial from tomorrow’s Observer (already up on the website):
“The Observer view on how the climate crisis should not be used as a political football”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/22/observer-view-climate-crisis-must-not-be-used-political-tool
Whatever happened to belief in robust debate and offering the electorate a meaningful choice?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Robin,
To misquote Corinthians I at chapter 13, “When I was a child I wrote like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. Now I am an MP, I still read only short texts and respond with well honed group-think.”
Clearly, as feared, Bim “sees in a mirror dimly” and will process only small pieces of information. Hence, it is probably a good time to disabuse Bim as to the cheapness of off-shore and other renewable energies. So, if you are up to the challenge, Robin, you might consider taking a deep breath and sending Bim a copy of the EROEI graph with the shortest of short explanations … with an invitation to meet up and talk him through the graph.
Speed the plough!
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Mark: these Guardian stories are likely to make life very difficult for Starmer. Probably less so for Sunak.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: Apologies that I didn’t notice your comment yesterday about the 25-year-old “spoilt woke University brat who thinks Germaine Greer is a vile bigot and ‘abhorrent transphobe’” who duly won the Selby by-election for Labour. Indeed, I hadn’t read Brendan O’Neill’s brilliant and disturbing piece about the younger Keir. I had no idea of his views. But neither am I surprised.
Why did I notice just now? Because I did a search for ‘wok’ on this web page. And why would I do that? Because I had noticed Robin and John Cullen using the term. And I was made uneasy by their use of it. (But not yours. My rampant argumentativeness has limits!)
I think we should separate climate alarmism from wokeism. There is some correlation, to be sure (argumentative people tend to oppose both), but the causation is for me murky. They are different.
Sunak and the Tories have so far taken a stronger line on wokeism than on Net Zero, since Uxbridge, in my view. We’ll have to see how both prongs pan out in real changes to policy. On what woke is, I found this Twitter exchange amusing as well as thought-provoking. No mention of Net Zero from Matt Goodwin to start with – because 70% surely aren’t saying they’re against it in the highly misleading polls. The low-hanging fruit electorally is in the woke area, especially the madness of gender ideology.
And I’ve always liked Kathy Burke as a comedian. Ah well.
An influential leftie comedian Stateside there, followed by what I think is a pretty good question from the woke apologist in the UK.
Net Zero isn’t mentioned and one can view ULEZ as only tangentially related to it, as Alan has argued. I don’t argue that though! It’s part of the package and we should continue the great work Robin has done in identifying plausible policy changes and how to put them to our MPs.
Anyway, I’m not the language police! I’m not that woke!
LikeLiked by 1 person
John and Paul:
Bim’s first point about it being ‘senseless for the UK to reduce its fossil fuel usage when India/China are not doing the same‘ is something I first put to him about 3 years ago but which he was cautious about discussing after he was appointed to some junior governmental positions and then became chair of the cross-party Parliamentary Renewable & Sustainable Energy Group. I very much agree with it – indeed it’s been my principal argument re climate policy for many years. But, far from it being my ‘core point’, I didn’t even mention it in my recent Note. Nonetheless I think I can chalk it up as a victory.
As for his ridiculous comment about offshore wind being so cheap, I rather doubt if (despite being educated at Eton and Oxford) he’d understand the EROEI graph. What I think I’ll do is simply reiterate the first of the numbered paragraphs of my Note. Here it is:
What do you think?
LikeLike
I said a few hours ago “Sunak and the Tories have so far taken a stronger line on wokeism than on Net Zero, since Uxbridge, in my view.” I retract that! The Sunday Telegraph’s lead story is Michael Gove warns against net zero ‘religious crusade’, backed up by the lengthy Michael Gove interview: ‘Seeing Starmer with Blair is like watching a bad tribute act’. Iain Duncan Smith also writes Uxbridge by-election shows why Conservatives must stand against net zero. Phew. On the wokeism front there is EHRC ‘witch-hunt’ suspended again as Kemi Badenoch steps in. That shows the thoroughly nasty tactics of the trans lobby within the civil service – trying to destroy someone of integrity who is daring to disagree with them.
The Tories have their work cut out in many areas but there are more clues this morning.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, I’d be inclined to keep it simple.
To give your MP the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he is too busy to read carefully prepared letters in detail or with much care. It seems to be the case that he didn’t pay careful attention to the contents of yours. That being the case, plugging a short and simple – but hugely important – message is probably the way to go.
LikeLike
Robin, I would keep any reply brief, addressing directly the statement that offshore wind is the cheapest form of energy. Your note does that. You might want to add the concrete example of Vattenfall putting their Boreas project on hold because it is now no longer economic at the CfD price they entered their bid.
It is a separate matter as to why Vattenfall weren’t aware of the increasingly hostile financial and supply chain situation when they made their bid. A cynic might say they always intended to hold the government hostage such that they could re-negotiate the CfD level.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, everyone understands the ‘more bang for your buck’ argument. That’s exactly what EROEI is. It is a direct comparison of the energy necessarily required in order to exploit a source of energy. Nothing in life is free; you have to EXPEND energy to GET energy and hopefully the gamble pays off and you get more energy in return. With fossil fuels and particularly nuclear, you get a LOT of energy in return versus the energy you have to invest. In the case of intermittent renewables, the return on your investment is truly pathetic; hardly worth the effort, like running up a down escalator; you get to the top eventually, but decide you could have got there much more effectively by using the stairs (fossil fuels) or even better, using the UP escalator (nuclear energy).
So where does the ‘buck’ come in? Energy invested = money invested. You have to spend money to use energy to exploit any particular SOURCE of energy. You have to construct a nuclear facility, which involves time, effort, materials and lots of pounds or dollars. But that investment is definitely worth it. Likewise, you have to build North Sea oil rigs and power them to extract gas. That investment is worth it. Not so the case with renewables. The reason is that renewables are MUCH less energy dense than nuclear or fossil fuels. The energy contained in a lump of coal or a gram of pure Uranium is MUCH more than the useful energy contained in a cubic metre of moving air. So even if Bim argues that they are ‘cheap’ (they’re not), the fact is, they are not economically viable. This is shown clearly in the following graph where biomass, German solar and wind fall below the economic threshold. Surely a Conservative politician should understand that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Richard Drake,
As far as I can tell “wokeism” as an IDEOLOGY is a concept that is still evolving and has yet to settle into a fixed set of values that people of all persuasions understand (even if they do not agree with the sentiments expressed by those values).
However, “wokeism” also seems to be a BEHAVIOUR that licences all sorts of very aggressive intolerant behaviour that will brook no counter arguments; it is as though “the woke” see themselves, via their IDEOLOGY, as uniquely privileged to decide what may and what may not happen in society. And it is this totalitarian BEHAVIOUR that I find most disturbing – their ideas (in as much as they are a coherent set of concepts) I can deal with; their intolerant totalitarian BEHAVIOUR not so much …
The example you quote of Kathy Burke is a case in point. Her language is aggressively coarse and her mind is, apparently, totally closed. Is she a victim of “woke” propaganda I ask myself. But propaganda is another topic for another thread I expect, so I will not lead us O/T at this time.
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Robin,
Yes, keep it short and thus MP-friendly. Perhaps write in bullet point format for easy digestibility. I think the aim should be, provided this suits you, to try and engage him with a series of short, punchy letter/e-mails such that he comes to trust your knowledge in this subject area. “Little and often” is the way I learnt as a child (and also as an adult).
If you do not wish to use the EROEI graph immediately then you could still deliver related key messages that a Conservative should easily understand e.g. (i) the free market has been rigged with huge subsidies to favour hugely expensive renewables, (ii) that many of the costs associated with renewables have been “externalised” by throwing them on to consumers and energy bill payers and, most importantly, on to the fossil-fuel generators that provide the security that the grid needs when the wind ain’t blowing and the sun ain’t shining. In short, the current market set-up is NOT the Conservative way, and it is NOT the way to get re-elected.
And if you get to meet him in person then you will, perhaps, have the opportunity to explain both the EROIE graph and its consequences to him.
With all best wishes,
John.
LikeLike
Kathy Burke is ‘a working class hero who swears a lot’ and was born in London. Her first professional acting role was in Scrubbers, where she professes to have got her public persona from. She despises the ‘privileged’ classes – particularly Tories. She seems to have confused championing ‘woke’ with championing the cause of the downtrodden working classes though. Nothing could be further from the truth. ‘Woke’ is an invention of the privileged elite. She’s grasped hold of that poisoned chalice and drunk so heavily from it that she’s now pissed as a newt and unable to realise her error. Interestingly, her only genuinely woke tweet where she actually managed not to swear, was when she paid tribute to Paul O’Grady aka Lily Savage. I can definitely agree with her on this:
LikeLike
Hello Jaime,
Thank you for your enlightening comments on Kathy Burke of whom you wrote, “She seems to have confused championing ‘woke’ with championing the cause of the downtrodden working classes though. Nothing could be further from the truth. ‘Woke’ is an invention of the privileged elite. She’s grasped hold of that poisoned chalice and drunk so heavily from it that she’s now pissed as a newt and unable to realise her error.”
Your comment as to Burke’s error chimes well with my earlier comment on this thread [2.01pm yesterday] as to the (former) Left having been “flipped” or gulled into supporting the Green Agenda/Net Zero which, although fine in principle, is in practice inimical to its original aim of supporting ordinary people. How could this “flipping” have occurred? It is as though nobody in authority has checked via a robust cost-benefit analysis that dismantling and replacing a 250 year old fossil-fuelled society could be safely achieved – and was worth achieving. For ordinary people, but not for rent-seekers, this must count among the Western world’s most disastrous post-Enlightenment policy failures – and largely self-inflicted to boot! This points to serious systemic problems with the Western world’s democratic processes. Or have I misunderstood and everything in the garden is rosy? Are the Emperor’s new clothes fine and dandy after all?
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You’re right John; the bigger ruse has been convincing the traditional left and the working classes to support the hobby horses of an elite privileged few under the guise of ‘social justice’, equality, equity, climate justice or whatever. Johnson’s Tories tricked the Red Wall into voting for them at the last election by promising to #GetBrexitDone. The poor sods didn’t notice that Johnson was promising at the same time to stop that nasty CO2 “tea cosy” in the sky above us from roasting us alive by harvesting the energy from “sea breezes” around the UK! Trilateral Commission member Keir Starmer and his band of climate obsessed wokeling MPs will probably convince the Red Wall to vote for them this time, by pretending that they still support and uphold traditional working class British values. It’s depressing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John thanks. It is the totalitarian tendency to ‘woke’ that is the main concern, I agree.
LikeLike
Hello Robin,
Here are a couple of easy facts that Bim might be interested in:-
It is often mentioned that renewable energy is unreliable. What is less mentioned, however, is that it is very diffuse or of low energy density. For example, while coal, gas and nuclear can each deliver about 1000 watts of reliable electricity for every square meter of ground, wind farms manage (very roughly) an unreliable 2 watts per square meter of land or sea [Ref. 1]. Thus there is an approximate ratio of 500 to 1 against wind-turbine renewables which they compensate for by having a huge amount of structural material supporting a huge number of turbine-generators per windfarm. No wonder electricity from wind farms is so expensive!
If Bim counters that the wind is free, you can say that wind (like solar energy) is like the NHS i.e. free-at-the-point-of-delivery but nowhere else.
Now I’m being a bit reckless … but if you think you could interest Bim in some reading matter then there is a free on-line version of David MacKay’s wonderful Ref. 2 that he could try. Although slightly dated, the book has the virtue that it is written to be accessible to non-experts. Thus the early chapters are straight forward and yet deal with the key numbers/parameters on such current topics as solar power and off-shore wind. The more demanding physics and maths on these and many other topics are relegated to the technical chapters towards the end of the book.
In his book MacKay makes the plea, more often honoured in the breach, that our energy “policies include a plan that adds up!” Unfortunately, the Western world is currently far from respecting MacKay’s wish.
References.
1. J. Andrews & N. Jelley, “Energy Science”, 3rd ed., Oxford, 2017, especially at pages 16, 262, 264 and 276.
2. David J.C. MacKay, “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air”, UIT, Cambridge, 2009, especially page 203.
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, Mp’s and certainly civil servants in the appropriate departments should be well aware of, and read David MacKay’s book. Between 2009 and 2014 he was Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Though with the very turning carousel of government ministers at various departments it’s perhaps no surprise that they feign ignorance of any technical matters related to energy generation and distribution.
LikeLike
Most people just think wind turbines produce more power as wind speeds get faster, and that’s that, but this only happens within a fairly narrow range of wind speeds. Turbines don’t produce ANY power below a certain wind speed and they only produce their rated power (maximum capacity) at a certain optimum wind speed. Power output varies as the cube of the wind speed, which is great when wind speed is increasing (up to the optimum wind speed), but it means power output falls dramatically when wind speeds drop. Beyond the optimum wind speed, the power output of the turbine starts to decline slightly until it cuts off completely at a maximum wind speed (when the turbine stops working). It’s hard to imagine how mad you have to be to build thousands and thousands of these things far out to sea and in wild places on land, in a country where the weather is notoriously unreliable and unpredictable, and expect them to reliably power an advanced industrialised economy! Any politician educated at Oxford or Cambridge, in whatever subject, should surely be able to appreciate this very simple power curve, or am I expecting too much from our glorious leaders?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks to everyone for all your helpful and interesting suggestions about how I might reply to Bim. I was very tempted to send him a copy the remarkable EROEI graph that Jaime provided but decided that, if he was to understand that, I’d also have to send him a link to the David Turver article. However, as I thought he’d be most unlikely to read that, I decided it would be best to go for the simple bullet point approach.
Here’s the text of my email:
Perhaps there’ll be an opportunity to send him the EROEI graph (and maybe other suggested material) later.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jaime Jessop said:
“You’re right John; the bigger ruse has been convincing the traditional left and the working classes to support the hobby horses of an elite privileged few under the guise of ‘social justice’, equality, equity, climate justice or whatever.”
But Jaime, the left has always been the home of middle-class do-gooders who know exactly what’s ‘best’ for other people.
LikeLike
Bim’s agreement with me that ‘it’s senseless for the UK to reduce its fossil fuel usage when major developing countries are not doing likewise’ is remarkable. Think about it: if that became government policy it would mean that all emission reduction measures would have to stop for a very long time. Unless, that is, being Tories they thought it quite OK to do something senseless.
LikeLike
I do so hope that the pro-Tory, bashing Left posts that have become common in recent days fade or disappear. Criticise individual policies or statements made by the different parties on climate or energy matters because they are fair game, but some posts seem to be just political attacks particularly upon the Left.
Like Mark commented some days ago, all parties can be (and possibly should be) strongly criticised. If I wanted to read political bias, however, I would read either the Guardian or Telegraph (and I do).
LikeLike
An interesting piece by Patrick O’Flynn in the Spectator – one might think he has read Robin’s note to Bim:
“Going soft on Net Zero could save Rishi Sunak”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/going-soft-on-net-zero-could-save-rishi-sunak/
LikeLike
You may be right Bill. I don’t know anything about the history of the Left, so can’t argue with you, but I did assume that there were at least a few genuine working class heroes in the early days. Not so many when Lennon wrote this:
“There’s room at the top they are telling you still,
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
If you want to be like the folks on the hill.
A working class hero is something to be.”
LikeLike
As we’re getting a bit political, a few thoughts. For once I don’t entirely agree with Bill Bedford. I don’t think that “the left has always been the home of middle-class do-gooders who know exactly what’s ‘best’ for other people”. Certainly it’s harboured a few of them among its number from time to time, but there have been plenty of genuine working class people represented there too. I do agree, though, that there has been a disturbing tendency – one that has seen me part company with the Labour Party and many who claim to be left-wing and progressive (but who, in my opinion, are anything but) – to abandon the needs, hopes and aspirations of the working class and the poor (not always the same people) in favour of an identitarian and climate-obsessed agenda that is based firmly in the ranks of the upper middle classes. This tendency is nowhere better exemplified than at the Guardian, with which I have now also largely parted company after being a regular subscriber for many years.
I share Alan’s desire that here we should focus our fire equally on all (regardless of their political leanings) whose statements on “climate or energy matters [render them] fair game”. In fairness, although fire has been directed here recently at a few individuals for their political views, I think the comments on this thread have done quite a good job of avoiding undue political partisanship. Long may that continue.
LikeLike
More evidence of just how alarmed the Guardian/Observer set are about the fall-out from Uxbridge:
“As Greece burns, we see the existential climate crisis dragged into shoddy UK party politics. That can’t happen
A terrible lesson is being taken from the Uxbridge vote. Labour must stick to its green agenda, and decent Tories must raise a voice”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/23/greece-climate-crisis-uk-party-politics-uxbridge-labour-tories
While nobody stands ready at the Guardian to raise a voice for poor people and the disadvantaged who have to pay for all this posturing on the world stage which – in reality – will make no measurable difference to the global climate. As for urging “decent” Tories to raise a voice, I see nothing at all decent about campaigning to make people poorer and their lives worse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
You wrote, “I do agree, though, that there has been a disturbing tendency – one that has seen me part company with the Labour Party and many who claim to be left-wing and progressive (but who, in my opinion, are anything but) – to abandon the needs, hopes and aspirations of the working class and the poor (not always the same people) in favour of an identitarian and climate-obsessed agenda that is based firmly in the ranks of the upper middle classes. This tendency is nowhere better exemplified than at the Guardian …”
In your next post you wrote, “While nobody stands ready at the Guardian to raise a voice for poor people and the disadvantaged who have to pay for all this posturing on the world stage which – in reality – will make no measurable difference to the global climate.”
Could we add to the list that you have started with your mentions of the Guardian and the Observer? I don’t want them to take all the glory for abandoning ordinary people in favour of their elitist views. Would not the BBC and Channel 4 be other major UK media outlets that are fully signed up to the same climate-obsessed etc. agenda? But it’s late at night so am I just feeling a bit over critical?
Regards,
John.
LikeLike
John C,
Yes, by all means add the BBC and Channel 4; also ITV, and (in the UK, but certainly not in Australia, where it suffers from the opposite problem) Sky News.
I don’t particularly like GB News, but I feel its presence is important to provide an alternative view on this and other topics, though what I’d really like is for most (preferably all) parts of the mainstream media to be be balanced in its reporting.
LikeLike
Jaime Jessop said:
“You may be right Bill. I don’t know anything about the history of the Left”
You could go back to the French Revolution when the bourgeois revolutionaries prevented the sans-culottes from any say in decision-making. Much the same dynamic was evident in the Russian Revolution.
LikeLike
Bill, certainly true, but although they are important examples, they are just that – examples. In early to mid 20th century UK left wing politics, quite a few representatives of the working class achieved positions of influence. I don’t see that happening today, however.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I wonder what this Net Zero, eco-fundamentalism should be called in the spectrum of political ideas. Clearly it is not Left-wing in the traditional sense of supportive of ordinary people. And many who consider themselves of the political or economic Right would object to these rent-seeking, market distorting policies and so we should not term them Right-wing.
Since these policies are so destructive from so many Left and Right perspectives, we probably need a new label for them. Since they put a blight on so many people’s lives and futures, I want to call them Blight-wing. It does not sound very nice – but then they are not very nice policies.
BLIGHT-WING. What do you think?
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s not the whole of the left Bill. What about the Tolpuddle Martyrs? Basically a Wesleyan class meeting. The influence of “Love Theism” as I heard Clark Pinnock call John Wesley’s radical theology within a day or two of my 40th birthday in 1997. A beautiful phrase for George Loveless and friends and a deep input into the UK trades union movement, as Roy Hattersley has celebrated.
On the revolutionary left I’d recommend James Billington’s Fire in the Minds of Men to Jaime or anyone else. A work of gigantic scholarship that shows the key influence of what he calls Illuminism on the French Revolution, through to Marx, through to the small-cell ‘fascisti’ of the Carbonari in Italy, through to Lenin. And Lenin, champion of the proletariat, never once visited a working-class area of any city he lived in until 1917, according to Paul Johnson. And certainly not after!
Illuminism somehow cleverly gets round the more extreme conspiracism centred on ‘The Illuminati’ which remains so current today. Nationalism, socialism, communism … illuminism. It was part of the picture – but kept very secret and pioneering the hierarchical small-cell structure Lenin and Trotsky were so familiar with.
Which is all to say that Bill has a point but the picture is, as always, complex.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, Blighty is an old slang term for Great Britain. It’s certainly rather apt now with our idyllic rural landscapes being increasingly blighted by Blight wing policies!
LikeLike
Here’s something else that should perhaps be drawn to Bim’s attention. The cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) has just published a devastating report on how China is engaged in a ‘whole-of-state’ assault on the UK. It warns for example that China has ‘aggressively’ targeted our energy sector. Yet China essentially controls the supply of key materials (in particular so-called rare earths) needed for renewables. Surely therefore it’s most unwise for Britain to even consider further reliance on such products, thereby putting our all-important energy security at most serious risk?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, Robin, absolutely. My father and mother joined up “for the duration” in 1939. And I attended a military-style school from age 12 to 16. So, although I followed a civilian career, I always try to be aware of the military implications of things like energy infrastructure.
While on-shore wind turbines are a point of weakness because of their unreliability and large waste of energy and materials as implied by the EROEI parameter, off-shore wind turbines are even worse in this regard … plus they are, I suspect, extremely vulnerable to sabotage being far from land. Furthermore there are so many of them; I don’t see how they, collectively, can be adequately defended. The sabotage of the Nordstream pipeline may be a related case in point.
The Conservatives are traditionally strong on defence matters and so this should have stirred them up long ago. Why didn’t it, I wonder.
I don’t have a copy of Mao’s “Little Red Book”, but I do have a copy of Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” and it seems appropriate to end with a quote from the latter:-
“Ultimate excellence lies
not in winning every battle
But in defeating the enemy
without ever fighting.
The highest form of warfare
is to attack strategy itself.”
We in the West have been so obsessed with blight-wing politics that we have utterly forgotten some of the basics of nationhood e.g. protect and defend. We have been (and remain) very silly billies.
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello Jaime,
Thank you for the Blighty reminder – I had completely forgotten that meaning, and so blight-wing is particularly suitable for the UK’s Net Zero situation.
What I am looking for is a short, snappy term that trips off the tongue and yet summarises the Net Zero etc. concept; a word which can be picked up by the mainstream media (and ordinary people too) to epitomise all that is wrong with those policies. The word should be slightly negative in implication without being downright rude. Thus while I rather like the term Nut Zero, it is too rude, I think, to be adopted at this stage; blight-wing might be better …
But I’m always listening for even better suggestions, everybody. Anyway, I think I will explore some political web sites (which are usually outside my comfort zone) and see how “blight-wing” sinks/flies.
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps cracks are appearing?
“Rishi Sunak signals he could abandon green policies that cost consumers
Conservative rightwingers push PM to create dividing line with Labour on environment after narrow byelection win in Uxbridge”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/24/rishi-sunak-suggests-delay-or-abandon-green-net-zero-pledges
A couple of thoughts:
1. Pretty much most net zero policies “unnecessarily give people more hassle and more costs in their lives”, so if he made that statement seriously, he really should be looking at ditching the lot. I don’t think he will, though he may try to kick the can down the road, in the full knowledge that in 2050 when we fail to achieve the legally binding net zero commitment, someone else will have to deal with that.
2. However, as Jaime points out, and as the Guardian has reported (above), unless the Climate Change Act is repealed, or at least amended to reduce its scope, timing, proportion of emissions reductions required etc, then “environmental” groups will bring legal challenge after legal challenge if policies are amended so as to render the currently legally binding target less achievable. And unless the Act is repealed or amended, it seems to me that such challenges have decent prospects of success. If Sunak is serious, he’s going to have to – at a minimum – amend the CCA.
LikeLike
I intend to take note of John Cullen’s observation that Bim is likely to ‘process only small pieces of information’. He’s made the huge concession that it’s ‘senseless for the UK to reduce its fossil fuel usage when major developing countries are not doing likewise’ and I hope I’ve disabused him of the idea that offshore wind is inexpensive. Next I’ll draw his attention to the ISC’s devastating report on China. After that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Guardian is definitely worried, as the string of articles about the Tories possibly watering down their climate policies reveals. Here’s the latest, which in my opinion is ridiculously over the top and which bears little relation to reality:
“Pyromaniac Rish! torches climate policy while Europe burns”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/24/pyromaniac-rish-torches-climate-policy-while-europe-burns
As for this – “…by doing too little we risk making no discernible difference to climate collapse…”, perhaps the author could tell me what discernible difference it will make to the world’s climate if the UK goes net zero by 2030, 2040, 2050 or never? The answer in all four cases is the same – none.
Do you have to see the world through climate-obsessed glasses to work for the Guardian?
LikeLiked by 1 person
John C: I really like blight-wing. Quite a few reasons. Rhymes with right-wing and we all know that right-wing means evil. The left-wing at the very least mean well and must never be judged harshly for terrible results. So it is subversively pejorative just as rhyming slang. But then blight. Takes me straight back to the genuine tragedy of the Irish potato famine. Gulp. That is powerful.
LikeLike
Robin – regarding the next subject for the Bim conversation – what about the upcoming ban on ICE cars, which has little going for it.
Few would object to banning harmful things but the evidence that EVs are better for the environment than ICEs is equivocal to say the least, requiring a lot of mileage before breakeven on CO2. Then we have the materials dependence problem. Then we have the problem that because they are easier to make than ICEs, EVs will be made in China unless we put up import walls. I suppose as important as those points is that for an efficient economy you have to build the things that people want to buy, not ban the things they want to buy.
Mark, that block of text you quote reinforces to me that some folk are not interested in rational debate. There are some very emotional people out there banging their keyboards and getting paid for it. Rish! – is that a reference to Jeb! ?
LikeLike
The Guardian onslaught continues. Worried? Oh yes, they’re worried. Dear me, the public might be given a choice about net zero. And we can’t trust them, can we? Look what happened when they were given a vote regarding Brexit…
“The Tories have laid a ‘cut the green crap’ trap for Keir Starmer. He must not fall for it
Polly Toynbee”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/25/tories-cut-green-trap-keir-starmer-policies-bills-labour
LikeLike
An update on the Alimonti et al paper on extreme events published in the European Journal of Physics Plus, about which we had a discussion over a week ago. It is still available on the EJPJ web site and I assume has not yet been retracted.
I wonder if the adverse publicity of Roger Pielke’s substance has stayed the hand of the editors and journal. I do hope so.
Incidentally, I have been in communication with Professor Alimonti and he doesn’t know what the situation is, other than being told it has been retracted.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark, the essential message of Polly’s article is interesting: she’s saying that Labour must understand that they’d easily win a battle with a Tory party that foolishly adopted anti-green policies. An extract:
But, if she – and the Guardian – really believed that, they’d welcome the possibility of such a move by the Tories. But they obviously don’t. I wonder why.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Robin,
You wrote, ” I hope I’ve disabused him of the idea that offshore wind is inexpensive” and ask what is next.
While I think Jit’s suggestion regarding the ban on ICE cars is very sound, I would want to check first that he really, really, really has been disabused as to the cheapness of off-shore wind. I say this because I suspect MPs in general are (small ‘c’) conservative in their thinking; they will stick with the heard mentality as long as it seems safe to do so. So perhaps you could ask, in the spirit of the Precautionary Principle, “What is Plan B in the event that wind power is too expensive and unreliable or militarily vulnerable?”
Or try, “Have you seen professor Gordon Hughes’s forensic analysis, based on registered accounts, of the huge costs of wind farms which is available at the Renewable Energy Foundation web site http://www.ref.org.uk ?” And follow up with, “Have you seen the reckoning, the financial crash, that professor Hughes shows is coming if we continue down the wind energy black hole – or what if we fall off the EROEI cliff due to over reliance on wind energy.”
The aim should be that any future mention of off-shore wind turbines puts the fear of God into him – even if he dare not mention this quite yet to his fellow MPs. Leave him with the feeling that he is ahead of the curve on this issue, but that he needs to move deftly and effectively if he wants to avoid the blame for the catastrophe that more wind energy implies.
Then move on to the ban on ICEs which has already done so much to damage the West’s car industries.
In short, given Bim’s short attention span (as witnessed by his partial reading of your note), don’t definitively abandon a topic and move to the next until you are sure he fully understands the first message – little and often in other words. And deal with the topics in order of damage to the economy i.e. electrical grid/energy first, ICEs second, etc.
Sprinkle your discourse with alarming words such as crash, catastrophe, and black hole so that he is in no doubt as to the import of what you are discussing and what he in parliament is deciding on our behalf.
Bonne continuation. Speed the plough!
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a noticeable omission in Toynbee’s argument, it seems. No-one, but no-one, even the most dyed-in-the-wool denialist, would oppose green measures unless they had an attendant cost for freedom, wealth, or the environment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Now Gove has U-turned on this U-turn: https://order-order.com/2023/07/25/gove-insists-new-petrol-car-ban-will-come-into-effect-from-2030/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, you can’t trust the Tories and you particularly cannot trust a single word which issues from the lips of that slippery snake Gove.
LikeLike
Hello Jaime,
I wonder whether we can trust the word of ANY politician given that, it seems, much of our policy is decided by vested interests (represented so effectively by the lobbying industry) behind the scenes. It is often (but not always) as though parliament has become simply a rubber stamping organisation. The CCA and Net Zero come quickly to mind, especially when these policies sounded so wholesome and cost-free when first dangled before MPs in parliament – what wasn’t to like? Well, now we know the answers to that! And, fortunately, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the answers too. And, if Ms Toynbee’s article (thank you, Robin) is anything to judge by, so are the strategic thinkers in the Labour Party and their friends in the mainstream media. Interesting but challenging times for everybody, I suspect.
If we can bring the true financial and strategic costs of “green” renewables before politicians of all persuasions then we might start to head the ship of state away from the EROEI cliff – make that a waterfall and not a cliff. Let’s end the pseudo-green blight.
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 3 people
John, my apologies if I gave the impression that Tory politicians were less trustworthy than others. Of course, this is not so; all politicians are equally devious and mendacious. It’s just that Conservatives, having had the opportunity to unequivocally and demonstrably lie and twist facts more often as a result of being in government for over a decade, are more in the line of fire at the moment. Ten years of Labour and Tory lies probably will be a distant memory of halcyon days gone by. Having said that, Gove IS a particularly unpleasant, slippery, slimey character.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin
You could point out to your MP that Net Carbon Zero is unlawful and in the absence of a viable plan for its implementation will remain unlawful.
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/just-stop-stupidity
BTW, Could it be true that the CCC is still pursuing tidal generation even after the Swansea Bay debacle.
LikeLike
Robin argues that we should steer clear of the science when approaching politicians about Net Zero. But right now we have a prime example of ‘the Science’ being used to deliberately manipulate politicians, in particular those British politicians who might be considering going soft on Net Zero:
The new analysis by the World Weather Attribution group used peer-reviewed methods to quantify the impact of the climate crisis on the recent heatwaves. They used weather data up to 18 July and computer models to compare today’s climate, with 1.2C of global heating, with the cooler climate of the late 1800s.
The study found the heatwaves in Europe and the US were, as an absolute minimum, made 950 and 4,400 times more likely by global heating – making it virtually certain that they were the result of human-caused emissions. In China, the heatwave was made 50 times more likely.
In today’s hotter climate, these heatwaves are expected about every five years in China, every 10 years in Europe and 15 years in the US, but will happen ever more frequently as emissions continue to rise. The growing El Niño, a natural climate phenomenon, probably added a little heat to the heatwaves, the scientists said, but global heating from burning fossil fuels was the main reason for their severity.
Gareth Redmond-King, at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit in the UK, said: “As we keep burning fossil fuels, we fuel ever worse climate impacts. It won’t stop until we cut emissions to net zero. Politicians who attempt to delay [climate] measures are locking in more of these extremes.”
Helen Clarkson, CEO of the Climate Group, which works with 500 multinational companies, said: “The UK government rowing back on green policies is both astonishing, at a time when the impacts of climate change are getting worse, and economically irresponsible. Previous moves to scrap green policies [on home insulation] added at least £2.5bn to the UK’s energy bills during the cost of living crisis.”
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jul/25/deadly-global-heatwaves-undeniably-result-of-climate-crisis-scientists-attribution
Could it get more blatant? They have rushed out a ‘super rapid analysis’ of several heatwaves around the world and they are using this as a cudgel to convince British politicians that if they row back on net zero policies, then effectively they will be condemning people to suffer and DIE in ever more frequent and severe heatwaves. This is propaganda gone mad, but it’s rooted in the abuse of SCIENCE.
LikeLike
“Tories’ Net Zero flip-flopping is unsustainable”
https://www.netzerowatch.com/tories-net-zero-flip-flopping-is-unsustainable/
I love the no doubt intended irony in the use of the word “unsustainable”.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, the Guardian is seriously, seriously worried that the political consensus might be about to shatter. How dangerous it will be for them if voters are actually given a choice at the next election:
“Labour urged to work with Tories to counter ‘ignorant’ climate policy attacks
Tory former minister and chair of Climate Change Committee condemns ‘absolutely unacceptable’ attacks on Labour stance”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/25/labour-urged-to-work-with-tories-to-counter-ignorant-climate-policy-attacks
He’s another one – unelected in the House of Lords, unelected in the Climate Change Committee – who doesn’t seem too keen on the public being given a choice, in other words, doesn’t seem too keen on a functioning democracy.
LikeLike
Net Zero Watch’s latest press release entitled Tories’ Net Zero flip-flopping is unsustainable seems fair.
LikeLike
Ross Clark has another interesting article in the Spectator today. Entitled ‘Sunak will have to water down net zero sooner or later‘ the article argues that it’s going to be hard to avoid deferring the ban on petrol and diesel cars and on and the requirement that people must fit heat pumps. But he makes an interesting point:
I won’t repeat my view about amending (or repealing) the net zero legislation, but this – for me – raises an interesting conundrum: what happens if either party continues with net zero policies but, despite their best efforts, finds it impossible to implement them because of practical obstacles? This seems to me to be a very likely situation in view of the huge costs of installing and maintaining wind turbines, the serious delays in reengineering the grid (nationally and locally) to accommodate renewable energy and not least the massive shortage of technical management and tradespeople with relevant skills and the resulting impossibility of implementing EV and heat pump mandates. How would a legal commitment be treated in these circumstances? I’d be interested in particular to hear Mark’s view.
LikeLike
Jaime, you say ‘Robin argues that we should steer clear of the science when approaching politicians about Net Zero.‘ And he continues to do so.
LikeLike
What will you do though Robin if Bim responds to you at some point by claiming that watering down Net Zero risks ever increasing and ever more severe extreme hot weather, just like we’ve seen in Europe and elsewhere around the world recently?
LikeLike
Jaime: I don’t think there’s any likelihood of his saying that – it’s not his style. But if he did, I’d point out that, as the UK emits less than 1% of global emissions (something with which he agrees), watering net zero down couldn’t possibly have any such effect.
LikeLike
Robin: I would say that AND I would tell him that he’s parroting pseudoscientific nonsense and I would link to sources explaining exactly WHY he is parroting pseudoscientific nonsense. I say hit them with everything we’ve got, but obviously we’re never going to agree on that point.
LikeLike
No Jaime we’re not. Whatever would be the point in insulting him by accusing him (however justifiably) of ‘parroting pseudoscientific nonsense’ just when he’s beginning to move in the right direction? I don’t have any intention of ‘hitting’ him – gentle persuasion is far more likely to get somewhere.
LikeLike
This is why I don’t get involved with politics or bother trying to communicate with politicians Robin. I wish you the best of luck in your efforts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
Thanks for requesting my views, and apologies for supplying them so tardily. I was up a hill yesterday evening, while it wasn’t raining (albeit it was rather cool).
I suspect that Sunak will slow down the rush to net zero, all the while understanding that in doing so he will make it increasingly unlikely that the UK can hit its absurd 2050 net zero target, but he will not (this side of a general election anyway) take any ,measures to amend or repeal the CCA, for fear that would be electorally unpopular, or at least that it might give Labour a stick with which to beat him. The alternative, that you postulate, is that at least one major party will press ahead full steam ahead with attempts to reach net zero by 2050, but will not make sufficient progress, despite best efforts to do so. In either case, what happens, regarding the political failure?
Nothing, in terms of breaching the Act, I suspect. That’s the problem with passing virtue-signalling laws that make a legal commitment that might be neither sensible nor achievable. No politician will be fined or jailed over it. However, as the date approaches, and the impending failure to achieve the target becomes increasingly obvious, I suspect the Courts will be clogged with cases against the Government brought by extremist environmental groups demanding that the Courts order the government to do whatever is necessary in order to comply with the Act. How the Courts respond at that stage will be very interesting. If they do make the requested orders against the government, that’s the point when the whole net zero nonsense will come crashing down, as the public will surely rise up (even if only via the ballot box, rather than via revolution) against what at that stage will be urgent and severe measures having a devastatingly bad impact on their lives.
LikeLike
And still the Guardian doubles down. They are really very worried indeed:
“Ditching green policies may not be the vote winner Sunak expects
Pippa Crerar
Political editor
The perception ‘red wall’ voters don’t care about the climate crisis is not backed up by evidence”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/25/ditching-green-policies-may-not-be-the-vote-winner-sunak-expects
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark on the CCA:
Of course not. And saying you’re going to extend it beyond 2050 or water it down in some other way will lose you votes now.
And it’s the same reasoning, I would suggest, for Gove saying, on behalf of Sunak, that the ICE ban is fixed for 2030. That’s way after the next election. Why lose votes over it now, though you know it’s unsustainable? Those who approve of a more radical change will probably vote for you anyway.
(There’s lots of cynicism here. Gove on behalf of Sunak. The hard man, slightly softer man play. The cynical calculation of both – and of the whole cabinet. It can make any lesser man, in the corridors of power sense, cynical too. But I prefer the term realistic.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin/Jaime,
Finding the right point of balance in the spectrum from ‘outright rudeness’ through ‘challenging’ to ‘gentle persuasion’ to ‘bland’ to ‘obsequious’ is a very difficult one and is case dependent. Robin, you know Bim best as the one in contact with him and so I hope you are able to find the right tone – in my view that would be one that is both polite and challenging. And I hope this thread has provided you with sufficient challenging ammunition. Do you need more such arguments?
Good luck!
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 3 people
There’s an interesting piece from the Australian Spectator which talks about how sceptics should deal with warmists. here part of the intro:
Worth reading the whole piece
LikeLiked by 1 person
John: I agree – there’s nothing wrong with being both polite and challenging. And I’m not adverse to being challenging. What I’m opposed to is raising issues about ‘the science’ when, as with the dangerous nonsense of net zero, an irrefutable argument is possible without so doing.
LikeLike
Bill: see my similar approach HERE.
LikeLike
Bill/Robin: See my explanation of why I am an Avertable Climate Disaster Sceptic.
(As well as being a Climate Disaster Sceptic. But even if I wasn’t a CDS I’d be an ACDS.)
That’s from Bishop Hill in March 2013.
LikeLike
PS to Bill: I think this article also by Mark Imisides is even better. As I said at the time, it’s the article that inspired my Cliscep article (to which I referred above). It makes the case I’ve been making for years – and on this site for the past few months. I find it hard to understand why anyone who describes themselves as a sceptic doesn’t eagerly seize and run with it.
An extract that’s very relevant to the discussion we’ve been having here:
LikeLike
Robin,
Mark Imisides comes across as somewhat contradictory in that article. Firstly he argues that you only have to disprove one of the following points and the whole global warming house of cards comes tumbling down:
/ The world is warming.
/ We are causing it.
/ It’s a bad thing.
/ We can do something about it.
“Here’s where we have to decide which of these points we want to contest. Remember, you only have to falsify one of them for the whole thing to collapse like a house of cards.”
The world is warming so that leaves the last three. So he states categorically that if it can be demonstrated that we are not causing the warming, then this will in itself be sufficient to derail the global warming cult. I disagree. We need to keep chipping away at all three in order to maintain the best chance of taking down this extraordinarily pervasive cult. That means we don’t exclude any of them.
But then he effectively says that it is impossible for anyone who hasn’t got an intimate understanding of all the complex physical processes which determine climate change to prosecute the second argument.
“As for arguments about whether we are causing the warming, this is even more problematic. The various contributions to global temperatures are extremely complex, involving a deep understanding of atmospheric physics and thermodynamics. With a PhD in Chemistry, this is much closer to my area of expertise than Joe Public, but I am very quickly out of my depth. I recognise most of the terms and concepts involved, but know just enough to know how little I know.
Sadly, many people on both sides of the debate don’t understand how little they know, nor how complex the subject of atmospheric physics is, and it is nothing short of comical seeing two people debating about a subject of which both of them are blissfully ignorant.”
I doubt that ANYBODY has an intimate, in depth knowledge of all the complex processes involved in climate variability and their shimmering web of interactions, even the so called ‘experts,’ which is sufficient to fully appreciate the causes of climate change. So effectively, the man-made global warming hypothesis, according to Imisides, is unfalsifiable! This is clearly absurd and it it not how science works. Science progresses via the accumulation of evidence and evidence has accumulated to date such that we can now state with confidence that ‘catastrophic’ global warming is not happening and is unlikely to happen in the coming decades and centuries. (That’s why the GW cult has switched to focussing on bad weather, by the way). Imisides even says that the case for CAGW collapsed 20 years ago:
“How is it that despite the scientific case for a climate apocalypse comprehensively collapsing some 20 years ago, we have seen a 16-year-old girl (at the time) being invited to address the United Nations, weeping children marching in our streets, and a federal election outcome in which this issue dominated the political landscape?”
So why didn’t the house of cards collapse with it? Imisides assures us that it should have. Two reasons: the scientific case for climate apocalypse did not ‘comprehensively collapse’ 20 years ago unfortunately and the global warming hypothesis morphed into a quasi-religious cult which became highly resistant to scientific argumentation.
Imisides contradicts himself again in his enthusiastic support of Konstantin Kisin’s simple argumentation:
“Konstantin Kisin’s talk, and in particular the way it was received, fill me with hope that I haven’t had in years. It fills me with hope that if the case is prosecuted wisely, the climate change colossus can be brought to a grinding halt, politicians will unashamedly take on energy security as a political mantra, and the notion of climate change will at last be exposed as the unscientific, anti-human, regressive, apocalyptic cult that it is.”
Just taking on board what Kisin states and using his argument to influence others will bring ‘the climate change colossus to a grinding halt’ supposedly. I think that’s overly optimistic and I also don’t see how the colossus can be ‘exposed as unscientific’ if virtually nobody is capable of understanding the science, even Chemistry PhDs like Imisides!
LikeLike
Jaime:
‘Mark Imisides comes across as somewhat contradictory …‘
Not so – as I argue HERE. An extract:
LikeLike
Hello Robin/Jaime,
Since much of the Net Zero/Climate Change narrative is, as far as I can tell, driven by lobbying and rent-seeking (in a variant of the Iron Triangle studied in political science [Ref. 1]) I doubt that any amount of science debunking (even at PhD level) will dislodge it. This suggests that the argument should be directed elsewhere e.g. damage to the electricity grid from current renewables, damage to people’s wealth from current renewables (and from government-imposed targets), huge damage to the economy from current renewables, and damage to MPs re-election hopes from current renewables. How much damage can this misallocation of resources yet achieve?
Reference (that rings so true in Britain today even though the spelling is American!)
1. “A particularly powerful type of rent-seeking coalition, long studied in political science, is termed “the iron triangle,” because of the strength of the collaborative relationships among a triad of actors: politicians who seek campaign contributions, votes and reelection; government bureaucrats who aspire to expand fiefdoms and budgets; and private sector interest groups who seek special privileges in the form of political access, favorable legislation, subsidies, protection of monopoly positions, and lucrative government contracts. The iron triangle is impenetrable because it functions as a highly efficient, three-cornered, rent-seeking machine.
Nowhere (except perhaps in health care) do third-best politics sink first-best and second-best economic considerations as deeply as in the realm of energy policy.”
Lee H. Endress, section 3.4.2 “Public Policy: Prosustainability or Not?”, page 58, in Arsenio M. Balisacan et al., ‘Sustainable Economic Development’, Academic Press, 2015.
This quote from Endress indicates both the depth of the hole British (and Western) politics is in, and the likely difficulty we will have re-establishing effective democratic processes and institutions.
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 4 people
In his article to which I referred yesterday Ross Clark cited an interesting IPSOS poll from last November. It can be found HERE. It’s headed ‘UK public still broadly supports most net zero policies’. But does it? Scroll down to how people view the impact of specific policies on their personal financial impact and it’s clear that that support is in practical terms meaningless. As it’s eight months since the poll was conducted I suspect that’s a reality that’s even more firmly established today – as is evidenced by the Uxbridge result. The Tories would have to be even more foolish than usual to ignore that.
LikeLike
Robin,
“‘Mark Imisides comes across as somewhat contradictory …‘
Not so – as I argue HERE. An extract:”
Your statement and the linked article – based on Imisides’ 4 bullet points – do not demonstrate that Imisides’ entire Spectator article and the arguments phrased therein is not inconsistent. I quoted directly from that article to demonstrate to you that his arguments were inconsistent and at times contradictory. So in that respect I personally would be somewhat cautious in adopting his advice to concentrate only on point 4 when trying to attack climate change mitigation policies.
John,
“Since much of the Net Zero/Climate Change narrative is, as far as I can tell, driven by lobbying and rent-seeking (in a variant of the Iron Triangle studied in political science [Ref. 1]) I doubt that any amount of science debunking (even at PhD level) will dislodge it.”
I am not suggesting that we do this. What I am suggesting is that we attack from all angles: points 2, 3 and 4 in Robin’s article. They are not necessarily always mutually exclusive and they certainly do not, in my opinion, destructively interfere with one another. In view of the extraordinarily pernicious and pervasive nature of the climate crisis cult, I would suggest that our best chance of dislodging its death grip on public life is to ‘hit it with everything we’ve got’. Robin profoundly disagrees with me on this point.
LikeLike
It depends who “we” are. The contribution of CO2 concentration to current warming – I’d suggest >50% as a SWAG – could be switched off if “we” are the world and if the world is dedicated to an abrupt leap back into the Dark Ages. It’s not that “we” can’t do anything about it, but that the side effects of the medicine will kill the patient before the disease does. But the world *could* reduce CO2 concentration in the atmosphere if it thought it was worthwhile. An alien in orbit would form the opinion that all the blather about climate change is for show, because talk is cheap, and when it comes to doing something, most countries make the calculation that doing nothing is the better option.
The argument that we can’t do anything stands on the assumption that “we” are the UK and most other countries are going to go their own sweet way.
This does not affect the necessity argument.
LikeLike
Jaime, you say:
‘ What I am suggesting is that we attack from all angles: points 2, 3 and 4 in Robin’s article. They are not necessarily always mutually exclusive and they certainly do not, in my opinion, destructively interfere with one another.’
Yes, points 2 and 3 are neither mutually exclusive nor do they destructively interfere with each other. However, the reason for ignoring them is that sceptics have utilised them for over 20 years and, because of endless ‘my expert vs. your expert’ argument, have failed to get anywhere – i.e. experience shows that deploying them is futile. In contrast, point 3 is based, not on disputed scientific evidence, but on easily verifiable fact.
LikeLike
Mark, the BBC/Met Office are also really worried. Top headline this morning: ‘Climate change: Last year’s UK heatwave ‘a sign of things to come’ – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66304220.
LikeLike
Robin,
“However, the reason for ignoring them is that sceptics have utilised them for over 20 years and, because of endless ‘my expert vs. your expert’ argument, have failed to get anywhere – i.e. experience shows that deploying them is futile.”
What you do not appear to appreciate is that the ‘science’ landscape has completely changed and they are desperately pushing a happening ‘climate crisis’ as evidenced by all sorts of bad (and fine!) weather now. Their desperation is palpable and the ‘science’ they are citing in justification of the new ‘climate emergency’ narrative is a lot more vulnerable to attack than was the model-based Thermageddon predictions at some distant point in the future. So it should be attacked, along with other methods of attacking Net Zero. Unfortunately, the science community has been rather slow to respond on this, perhaps precisely because they feel exactly as you do, that attacking the science is pointless and has not worked thus far. But this is a mistake. Cliff Mass is one of the few scientists refuting the extreme weather climate change attribution narrative. Many more should be joining him.
LikeLike
“One of the elements that might have led to a very hot year in 2022 and may explain the current wetter summer are changes in the jet stream, the fast moving winds that carry weather systems across the Atlantic to the UK.
In recent years the jet stream has shown a tendency to get stuck, meaning that weather patterns can persist or become “blocked” in place for weeks. There is a school of thought that a warming climate is causing this change.
“I think the jury is out, but there is definitely some science showing that we are getting these much more persistent, static kind of weather patterns, similar to what we’ve got at the moment with the heat waves,” said Prof Bentley.”
God, these people are SO predictable.
LikeLike
Jaime, I assume your quote is from this:
“Climate change: Last year’s UK heatwave ‘a sign of things to come'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66304220
They have to talk about last year’s heat wave, and keep maintaining the hype, because we Brits are getting tired of this summer being cool and wet (so they can’t really talk about this year’s, at least not in the UK).
LikeLike
Sorry, Robin was already there before me too. Yes, top story at the BBC. The people of alarm know that all they have to do is push a quote or a new “study”, send a press release to the BBC< and they're pretty much guaranteed top billing.
LikeLike
Mark,
The state of the climate report is new, but the 40C hot days study was published in 2020.
“Looking forward, under a medium emissions scenario, there’s a 1 in 15 chance that the UK would hit 40C in any one year by the end of the century.”
I wrote about that Met Office study here. Written before the summer of 2022, it said the probability of the UK exceeding 40C was then about once in every 100 to 300 years. Then two years later we got 40.3C at Coningsby!
https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/psy-op-wars-the-british-are-being
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Robin,
You wrote of Bim on 22nd July at 8.49pm, “… I rather doubt if (despite being educated at Eton and Oxford) he’d understand the EROEI graph.” If you are correct then this is most concerning since, despite having received the cream of British education, he is all at sea in matters scientific. So what can be done? He is clearly a person of considerable talent having succeeded in the candidate selection and electoral processes. What are the points of entry to his mind? What will get past his apparent short attention span (which is probably a necessary skill for an MP who deals with many, many communications each day).
Do we need to simplify our arguments, perhaps by couching them in terms that he is familiar with? For example, if he is a horse racing man, we could say current renewables are like handicapping a horse with a lot of extra weights. Or if he is interested in motor sport then we could say the renewables are like the oil lubrication system or the wheel bearings being contaminated with sand. [I quite like analogies that speak of contamination; they seem so appropriate in so may ways.] Do we know what Bim’s interests are?
Alternatively, would a different mode of communication be more effective? Letter, e-mail or Tweet etc. What have you been using to date, Robin? Whatever it is, it certainly has the virtue that it produced a swift reply.
Regards,
John.
LikeLike
John: I communicate with Bim by email – although I have done so face-to-face, by telephone and by letter (from him) in the past. In my most recent email (see my post here on 23 July at 3.09PM) I followed your suggestion by using bullet points.
LikeLike
Mark, it seems the FT is also worried. I cannot access it but this morning they have an article headed ‘Ducking green agenda would be disastrous for Tories’ It begins: ‘Leaders win elections by running on their successes, not on issues that divide party members …‘.
LikeLike
The Spectator has an article today entitled ‘How Labour won back Britain’s millionaires‘
It’s message is that these donors like the fact that Starmer is a realist who ‘misses no opportunity to make the point that realism, not revolution, is the path to power.‘
I posted a comment that, having referred to the above, continued:
So far it’s garnered the most upticks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The BBC’s getting desperate today. Its current top headline: ‘‘Global boiling’ here says UN chief, as July set to be warmest ever’.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-66323843
LikeLike
Guterres: ‘How dare you! The world is on fire. You have stolen my retirement!’
All we need now is for someone to make the death metal version of the Guterres speech.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My response to another Ross Clark article (how does he do it – he’s almost as active as Mark?), this time on Guterres’ speech:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wait. What? In the ‘global boiling era’ when heatwaves in China are 50 times more likely now because of man-made CO2, the BBC tells us about ancient Chinese skywells in traditional buildings built 1368-1911 with the specific purpose of keeping the inside cool. Surely not! Heatwaves only happen today and besides, 1350-1850 was the Little Ice Age, when the world was much cooler than it is now. Why would the Chinese have been designing houses with natural air conditioning? They’re beautiful buildings though. I want one. Better than your average ‘eco-home’.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230712-how-ancient-skywells-are-keeping-chinese-homes-cool
LikeLike
Jaime, that’s a good find.
I find all history to be fascinating, but Chinese history is particularly so. I need to read more about it, but what I’ve read to date makes it abundantly clear that it has on many occasions suffered from crushing heat, droughts and floods. It’s impossible to know whether it was worse in the past than now, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
By the way, the BBC proudly tells us that “The emissions from travel it took to report this story were 0kg CO2. The digital emissions from this story are an estimated 1.2g to 3.6g CO2 per page view.” If that’s so important, I wonder why they omitted to tell us how much CO2 was emitted in sending Justin Rowlatt to Spain to tell us that it was hot there, or how much was emitted in sending Welsh-language reporters to Rhodes when they already had a reporter there?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yesterday I said that the FT was getting worried. It seems it’s very worried. This morning it has an article headed ‘Everyone loses if net zero becomes the new partisan divide’. It begins, ‘Cross-party support for green policies provided one of Britain’s few recent success stories, but this progress is now under threat...’
LikeLike
Robin,
Thanks for drawing that to our attention. It’s a deeply worrying statement about the FT. Cross-party consensus on a controversial, expensive and damaging policy cannot in my book be described as a success story – on the contrary, the denial of democracy that it entails is the opposite of a success story. It’s a disgrace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Robin,
Unless I missed it (in which case sorry from me) please could you give an up-date on where you feel we stand in answer to your question “Where/what next?” following Bim’s reply to your note?
Have you have enough of the right sort of ideas from us? If not, please could you give a hint as to which direction you want to set off in now? Or, perhaps, we have reached that all too common military position of “Hurry up and wait”, especially given all the recent furore and panic in the press?
Regards,
John.
LikeLike
I’ve never been a fan of Tony Blair, but this comment of his is certainly welcome and will put yet more pressure on both Starmer and Sunak.
LikeLike
Hello Everybody,
Net Zero Watch today drew my attention to a speech that former prime minister Tony Blair made on 18th July and which was reported by Andrew Marr in The New Statesman.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/tony-blairs-climate-pragmatism-is-a-welcome-intervention/
Blair is quoted as saying, “Don’t ask us to do a huge amount when frankly whatever we do in Britain is not really going to impact climate change.”
While I agree with NZW I feel that Blair’s intervention is well over a decade too late since, if I recall correctly, he was instrumental in setting us on the current renewables road to perdition. Is this therefore the slightest hint of a sinner repenting, I wonder.
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This may be another interesting development:
“Rishi Sunak: Banning things not right approach to net zero”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66335627
Of course, taken literally, Mr Sunak and Ms Mordaunt are really suggesting that they don’t believe in net zero, since their statements are logically inconsistent with it. Let’s hope that’s the real message, anyway.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks John for asking where I might go next in my dealings with Bim.
Well, on 24th July (2:04 PM), I said that the recent ISC report on China’s ‘assault’ on the UK should perhaps be drawn to Bim’s attention, suggesting that, in view of China’s control of the supply of key materials needed for renewables, it would be most unwise for Britain to place further reliance on such products and thereby put our all-important energy security at most serious risk. That I think is where I’ll go next. And thereafter? Probably the lack of a proper engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun – arguably the greatest weakness in the Tories’ net zero plan.
Your view?
Robin
PS: as an ex-soldier I like the ‘hurry up and wait’ philosophy.
LikeLike
Mark:
Quite right. There again, no party’s statements are logically consistent with net zero, because it is completely unachieveable. But this line from Sunak and Mordaunt is indeed encouraging. It should be taken (with a unknown dose of salt) together with Gove having said that ICE vehicles will indeed be banned in 2030. But I see Gove taking one for the team there, as someone who didn’t expect to be at cabinet level again until Sunak changed his mind. The Tories don’t want to lose green-influenced votes over something that is only meant to happen (and they know won’t) way after the next election. So it was agreed that Gove would say the thing unpopular with thinking sceptics like us (a small but growing minorty), so the way was clear for others, especially the PM, to say something which will, if carried through, create that fabled ‘clear blue water’ with a larger group of voters – and even perhaps some hope for the country.
Being so cynical when so much is at stake for the country and the energy poor? Yep.
Thanks for alerting me to this Mark, as I’ve not been following what is laughably called the climate news today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And still the Guardian is determined to ensure that politicians don’t dare ditch “climate” policies, by repeating ad nauseam that they’ll regret it if they do. Good grief, they’re giving so much “helpful” advice to Rishi Sunak, one would almost think the Guardian wants him to win the next general election.
Anyway, here’s an idea – if the Guardian is so convinced that voters are behind net zero, then (as I think Robin said earlier) what does it matter? Let’s put it to the test, shall we? Let’s give them a choice.
“‘I realise how serious it is’: voters in England support action on climate crisis
Focus group for the Guardian made up of Chipping Barnet and Don Valley residents backs net zero policies”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/29/i-realise-how-serious-it-is-voters-in-england-support-action-on-climate-crisis
For all the verbiage in that article, the cost of living crisis is top of voters’ concerns. The reality is that policies that make said crisis worse aren’t popular.
LikeLike
Mark: I think the Guardian’s objective is to shore up the Miliband faction in the Labour party and ensure that Starmer is unable to join what could otherwise become a bidding war with the Tories to downgrade the net-zero policy. And the pressure on the Tories to do just that seems likely to be intensified by this week’s Spectator leader – headed ‘The political battle for net zero is only just beginning’, it concludes:
LikeLiked by 2 people
My (‘usual drum’) comment on the above Speccie article is by far the most popular (says he modestly):
LikeLiked by 1 person
Someone responded to my Speccie comment (above) by saying this:
He’s right!
LikeLike
Blair was interviewed by Andrew Marr in the New Statesman. Here’s the relevant part of Marr’s article:
LikeLike
I can’t stand Tony Blair. So much to dislike, most obviously WMD propaganda and the Iraq war. Still, it’s interesting to see the nature of his intervention. Is he trying to put pressure on Starmer to change Labour’s policies ahead of the next general election? Or is he doing Starmer’s bidding and softening up the Labour party membership ahead of Starmer making some policy changes?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with your evaluation of Tony Blair. So I hesitate to say this – but I think he’s simply stating his genuine view. After all, it is quite obvious that cutting our emissions would barely make any difference to the global total.
LikeLike
Robin,
You might be correct in your assumption, but don’t you think the timing is significant? If so, this is what he’s up against:
“The cost of living crisis can only be beaten by tackling the climate crisis
Ed Miliband”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/29/the-cost-of-living-crisis-can-only-be-beaten-by-tackling-the-climate-crisis
I do struggle with someone who can write this:
But then again, Mr Miliband enthusiastically parroted the (incorrect) claim that wind energy was 9 x cheaper than gas, so I’m not surprised….
LikeLike
Blair is advocating the ‘greening’ of the City of London. The capital is the world’s biggest net exporter of financial services. He reckons that we could have more impact in this area than cutting our emissions to net zero. he’s probably right. But what does his suggestion mean in practice?
“If not obsessing over emissions, what does Sir Tony think the UK should be focusing on?
Instead, he suggests Britain should play to its economic strengths: finance.
“The number one issue today – and this is where Britain could play a part – is how do you finance the energy transition?” he asked.
“Because, basically, the developed world’s emissions are going down, but the developing world’s are going up. These countries have got to grow, so how do you finance the transition? Secondly, how do you accelerate the technology?”
All I know is that you can never trust Blair just to be innocently airing an honest opinion.
LikeLike
“Nature groups prepared to ‘mobilise’ 20m members over UK climate policy
Organisations including RSPB, National Trust and RSPCA urge prime minister to honour green promises”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/29/nature-groups-prepared-to-mobilise-members-over-uk-climate-policy
Translation. We don’t believe that the British people have the right to a choice regarding these policies. Democracy must be limited to what we think is acceptable.
LikeLike
I’ve never disliked Tony Blair and I supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003. (Did I ever say that on Cliscep before? I had worked with Kurdish torture victims of Saddam in 1990s and very much wanted to see regime change. Fair enough. But, with the benefit of hindsight, the war was a mistake.)
Today’s Labour party is able to change, as evidenced by Starmer finally admitting that a woman is an adult human female. Geoff Chambers has just liked this tweet of mine about the media implications of that:
Poor old Guardian. They’ve got so much humble pie on their plate when net zero is added to this. All in service to Labour winning the next election.
Robin: Excellent Speccie comment, as always. I agree that Blair is being sincere and, furthermore, thinking straight about net zero. At last. There’s no point bothering with the terrible faults of the past if someone is saying the right thing now. And he’s right that technology is, or at least may be, key. Like a new superconductor tech, for example.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Richard, interesting comment.
Of course all right-thinking people have and had sympathy with the people of Iraq, especially the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. Of course regime change was something that was in principle desirable, though I don’t actually think you needed hindsight to realise that having a plan as to the aftermath before invading would have been a good idea.
More than that, though, I remain convinced that we were taken to war on a lie, and I will never forgive that. I also oppose the idea that it’s up to us in the UK to feel free to intervene wherever in the world we feel that we can see that there are bad things going on that need to be stopped. We don’t have the right to do that, certainly not without the backing of an unequivocal and unambiguous UN resolution, but in any event I profoundly disapprove of the UK being the policeman of the world, and imposing our views – by force if necessary – on other sovereign nations. Personally, I don’t know how Blair has the nerve to pontificate about anything.
Having got that off my chest, I’ll shut up, as I’m in danger of leading this thread seriously off topic. Apologies, Robin.
LikeLike
This is probably as good a description of Blair as you will find anywhere:
“Many of Blair’s basic moves as Prime Minister were anti-democratic: taking functions from the state and handing them through contracts to unelected ‘public-private partnerships’, which were actually birthed under another kind of Caesar, a Hayekian Caesar, Margaret Thatcher. But Blair went a lot further than Thatcher and did not stop there. Many ‘Blair Specials’ included: the ‘independent body’, new institutions for ‘regulatory oversight’, Quangos, and new power structures that ambiguously ran parallel to long-established ‘castles’. These were all hallmarks of Blairism. Blair-not-in-government meanwhile (in other words ‘Dark Lord’ Blair), essentially continued to do this by setting up an entire network of NGOs and lobbying for supra-national and international quasi-governmental globalist bodies that seek to influence policy and which place themselves presumptuously ‘above power’ which is to say above the legally elected governments of Western and even non-Western nations. In the popular imagination this is ‘The WEF’ but it is much bigger than that. We know all this. Much of what Blair does is profoundly undemocratic, even anti-democratic, but yet it’s still recognisably both liberal and Schmittian.
It is a cliché to call Blair a Messianic figure, but in this crucial respect it is true: for Blair the future is already mapped out, already has a technological and progressive shape, it is foreseen, it has, in effect, already happened. The only question allowed to enter his discourse then is: how do we manage it and shape its course? The answer is always – and I mean always – to follow the plan that Blair and his team have already outlined. All deviations from Blair’s plan carry ‘risks’, all steps towards Blair’s plan represent ‘the solution’. Whether the topic is the NHS, AI, climate change, vaccines for pandemics, or Britain’s role in the international order, all possibilities and avenues lead directly to a Blair plan. But these plans all have something in common: they start from the assumption, never questioned and never allowed-to-be-question, that the changes for which Blair is preparing are happening, are destined to happen, are inevitable. The logic is always circular: we do not have a choice but to prepare for this future because this is the future that is happening.
In fact, the apparent insanity of Blair – and truly I do think it is insane – is in a long line of similarly insane Schmittian leaders down the annals of European history from Gregory VII to Adolf Hitler. The lethal combination of universalising and totalising married to political skill is at the heart of what Oswald Spengler called ‘Faustian Man’. And Blair is the inheritor of this, he is truly Faustian and that should be truly terrifying.”
https://forbiddentexts.substack.com/p/the-paradox-of-tony-blair-the-schmittian
LikeLike
Mark – about 7pm on Millipede: his argument is incoherent, as usual. If the leccy cars are better products, there is no need to ban the opposition. No-one banned Blackberrys.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the kind comment Richard. Re Blair, when he says that ‘one year’s rise in China’s emissions would outscore the whole of Britain’s emissions for a year’ he’s stating a simple verifiable fact – so there’s no reason to believe he’s not being honest when he downplays the importance of Britain cutting its emissions. And this is to my mind the most important point – see my Speccie comment. And that’s why I was so pleased when Bim’s reply included this:
As I’ve said before, if that became government policy, net-zero would effectively be dead. We may even be getting there: after Blair’s intervention, it could even become quite widely understood that, in view of the reality of global politics, net-zero is essentially pointless. An extraordinary development.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Robin: There is something not strictly logical in Bim’s reply, in that your latest letter to him didn’t bang your ‘usual drum’ but he banged it back to you! And I think that means that he has listened to your earlier messages more than he admitted or perhaps even realised. Now there’s questioning of net zero in the air he locates your most powerful argument – possibly without reading the latest!
This speaks both of real progress and our inability to predict which way any individual is going to move.
LikeLike
Mark: I held back in giving you and others the full benefit of all my opinions in 2003 and my reflections, and indeed bitter regret, since. I’m not convinced that Bush or Blair lied. But it’s clear to me now that they should have concentrated on striking a peace deal with the Taliban instead, who were in a very weak position in 2003. The return to some kind of sanity on transgenderism in the last 24 hours tells me much is possible at this moment, perhaps more than in any election runup in many years. Net zero is on a different trajectory but is in the mix, as Blair’s comments show.
LikeLike
Richard,
You are not the only intelligent person I know who supported the Iraq war at the time.
I see the same western arrogance on display in the attitude that thinks we have the right to send troops in to Iraq (or wherever) and which says we have to lead the world on emissions reduction and climate change. Just who the hell do our politicians think they are?
LikeLike
I see we have this from Sunak now:
“Sunak orders review of low traffic neighbourhoods in pro-motorist message”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66351785
LikeLike
This is a very good summary of the current state of climate ‘science’, climate change reporting and climate change mitigation from David Turver. He thinks the whole edifice is collapsing in real time, not just the lie of mitigation but the lie of runaway global warming and the lie of a ‘climate crisis’ as evidenced by extreme weather. He concludes:
“Even if the doomsayers are right that we are about to see some sort of climate breakdown, it is clear that the preferred strategy of mitigation is the wrong one. Adaptation is much the better strategy because it will produce benefits even if we pursue that strategy unilaterally and even if the climate change we are seeing is largely natural. Mitigation will probably never work and certainly will not work while developing countries continue to expand coal and gas-fired power plants and increase their CO2 emissions.
This perhaps explains why the climate catastrophists and subsidy harvesters are stepping up the propaganda to try and generate popular hysteria and demand for action. But when even someone like Tony Blair acknowledges the futility of unilateral efforts, the Net Zero edifice must be close to collapse.”
Perhaps Bim should start reading Eigenvalues.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/pillars-supporting-net-zero-crumbling
LikeLike
Thanks Jaime: a first rate comment by Turver.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes Richard, it’s interesting that, in replying to my email, Bim should focus on an issue I didn’t even mention. However that it was something he and I had discussed before, culminating in August 2020 with him sending me a hand-written letter (through the post – I suppose to avoid it it being on the record) in which he said this:
‘You make some fair points in your latest email on climate change. Frankly your points are extremely persuasive.’ [Then a lot of guff about European leadership and how the financial sector can help developing countries cut their emissions.] ‘However, the fundamental point you make is very sound. Unless we can persuade the international community to take similar action to the UK, it is basically pointless’
Then he went quiet on the issue after getting some junior governmental positions and being appointed chair of an all-party environment committee. And now I get this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime,
Thanks for the link to David Turver’s piece. Definitely worth a read.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin: Bim’s non-sequitur is indicative of the political wind changing. He has got the most important point. Well done!
LikeLike
Hello Jaime,
Thank you very much for this link which resonated rather too well with me as it highlighted the all-too-real (but, I hope, temporary) Spenglerian decline of the West:-
https://forbiddentexts.substack.com/p/the-paradox-of-tony-blair-the-schmittian
With its references to “birthing” and “messianic figures” it reminded me of this quote from Aneurin Bevan [Ref. 1]:-
“Fascism is not a new social order in the strict sense of the term. It is the future refusing to be born.”
It seems to me that much of what we have seen over the last two or three decades is the re-emergence of an authoritarianism which, increasingly, will brook no opposition. Totalitarian simplicities cannot win arguments on their merits and so opposing voices must be suppressed. Hence, for me, it is no surprise we have seen the rise of aggressive “woke” behaviours which cancel, de-platform and censor the deplorables of non-woke.
Perhaps, then, the other link you made, i.e. to Turver (https://davidturver.substack.com/p/pillars-supporting-net-zero-crumbling), records the first significant sign that the whole edifice is beginning to crumble (or “fail to be born”) under the weight of its own internal contradictions. I can only hope so.
Reference
1. “50 Political Ideas”, Ben Dupré, Quercus, 2011, Ideologies – fascism, page 99.
Regards,
John.
[P.S. Robin, I am still considering both the “Where/what now?” question that you posed and your proposed response to it. But, given the current state of flux, the doctrine of “Hurry up and wait” is surely a good one for the immediate future.]
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime:
“It is a cliché to call Blair a Messianic figure, but in this crucial respect it is true…”
What an irony, if a significant blow to climate catastrophism, a crash Net Zero salvation, and the prophets of doom, was struck by a competing Messiah. Well, it has been said that his ego knows no bounds!
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, you tied that together very nicely, thank you. I will only add the following:
“And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”
https://poets.org/poem/second-coming
Perhaps, after all the slouching is done, WB Yeats’ rough beast will yet fail to be born.
Andy, an irony indeed!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: Good point. WB Yeats doesn’t mention the feet of clay of the original beast. Daniel 2:29-49
LikeLike
It’s quite interesting to compare my my first Cliscep article with David Turver’s penultimate paragraph:
LikeLike
Robin,
Great minds think alike. 🙂
LikeLike
Still the Guardian/Observer desperately tries to push back the rolling wave of reality:
“Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer should take courage from Joe Biden – green energy for all is the only way forward
Joss Garman
It’s time to ignore the scaremongers urging voters to put their faith in more oil and gas”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/30/rishi-sunak-and-keir-starmer-should-take-courage-from-joe-biden-green-energy-for-all-is-the-only-way-forward
There is an element of reality:
And there’s some language with which I take serious issue, because I believe it to profoundly inaccurate:
LikeLike
The Speccie has another Ross Clark article today entitled ‘The triumph of oil’. I posted this comment:
I’ll no doubt be accused of blowing my own trumpet as well as beating my usual drum if I note that it’s got by far the most up-votes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, Joss Garland is merely parroting a list of Net Zero Enthusiast talking points. He exhibits a profound depth of logical incoherence in your short excerpts, which leads me to believe he has not thought about the topic before writing about it.
If wind and solar are so cheap, why would anyone oppose them? Why would people support gas? The phrase “America’s climate transition” avoids the mention that America’s per capita CO2 emissions are more than double (nearly triple) ours. “Are we actually going to clean up our economy… who’s going to pay for it?” But the author claims that the clean power is cheaper. So rather than pay for it, we would receive a dividend from it. And so on.
Meanwhile, I’ll bet that the EV mandate will end up getting postponed. I’d further suggest that it would be postponed tomorrow but for the political capital that has been expended defending it thus far. But it will become as unpopular as a certain famous short-lived tax was. And it is obvious to me that if Sunak cancelled the EV mandate and dared Labour to reinstate it in their manifesto, that the Tories would win the next election if they did. Perhaps I’m no judge of the public mood. But I think I’m right on this one.
Robin, perhaps you should drop a link to your posts here (or simply a mention that you occasionally blog on Cliscep.com), to bring them to a wider audience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit: I’m sorry but I won’t be able to provide that link to Cliscep. Here’s why: although I was involved in discussions that led to the foundation of Cliscep, I said from the outset that I would not get involved with the blog. My reason was that I spent a lot of time putting my point of view to often hostile activists who commonly tried hard to categorise me as a ‘denier’ (e.g. by digging back to find disobliging comments that I might once have made). My response was to say that I was a climate agnostic – which incidentally is still my position. Being involved with Cliscep could have been taken as all the proof they needed. However I’m finding that alarmist networks such as The Conversation are far less hostile these days so I’m very happy to be involved now. Nonetheless I’m still unwilling to advertise my connection with this outstanding site.
LikeLike
Phew! Good job I left you guys when I did! Your reputation would definitely be in the pan had I stayed!
LikeLike
Sad – but understandable in the Present climate.
LikeLike
Jaime – tatter’s sounds better, just saying:-)
LikeLike
What will the Tories do next?
“Priti Patel: We must pause all net zero targets
Former home secretary criticises ‘corrosive culture’ of pursuing time-limited goals, saying voters are being ‘left behind’”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/30/priti-patel-urges-government-pause-net-zero-targets-climate/
Behind a paywall, unfortunately.
LikeLike
Is there a retreat to common sense on these issues? Another Torygraph article, sadly behind a paywall again:
“Climate adviser says 2030 could be too soon for petrol vehicle ban
Chris Stark, the chief executive of the climate change committee, tells MPs ‘we have not seen yet move to a cheap electric car’”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/29/climate-adviser-2030-could-be-too-soon-petrol-car-ban/
Depending on what exactly he said and how exactly he said it, this might give politicians of all stripes the room they feel they need to enable them to move on the issue of the ban of new ICEs from 2030.
LikeLike
Re Patel article – paywall removed: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2023%2F07%2F30%2Fpriti-patel-urges-government-pause-net-zero-targets-climate%2F
LikeLiked by 1 person
Re Stark article – paywall removed: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2023%2F07%2F29%2Fclimate-adviser-2030-could-be-too-soon-petrol-car-ban%2F
LikeLiked by 1 person
An amusing/serious article in the Torygraph: Britain is a world leader in net zero fantasies and delusions While we obsess over heat pumps and old cars, other countries are polluting like there’s no tomorrow
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2023%2F07%2F30%2Fbritain-is-a-world-leader-in-net-zero-fantasies%2F
LikeLike
A good article, Robin. It’s a shame it went so very badly wrong at the end.
LikeLike
“We need to help developing nations transition to cleaner fuels and to withstand the effects of climate-change processes that are now beyond prevention and will get worse. Politicians must be upfront. To maintain our way of life, our very civilisation, we need to transfer a significant amount of wealth from the rich nations to the poor.”
Just what Tone was saying. The previous wealth redistribution scheme – net zero – has been sussed. Brits now realise it is totally pointless and will just make life unbearably miserable for us whilst the rest of the world carries on regardless, allegedly ‘polluting’ the atmosphere with life-enhancing natural carbon dioxide. So now they’re going for direct wealth transfer – theft of taxpayers’ money basically – via the City of London. We all know it won’t end up in the hands of the poorest living in Third World countries, it will be used to enrich companies pushing ‘Green solutions’ to a mythical Climate Armageddon on poor Africans, Asians and Latinos.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: exactly – the Torygraph article was an amusing version of the Tone’s remarks. PS: although I’m not yet so sure that Brits realise that net zero is pointless, I think we’re getting there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
More evidence that the FT is worried: ‘Rishi Sunak downplays green policies to court middle England’
… ‘Premier seeks to portray himself as ‘on the side of motorists’ but risks enraging environmentalists…’
Oh dear – poor environmentalists.
LikeLike
Enraged (environ)mentalist:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin – Can anybody pinpoint when/how this UK net zero reality/futility started.
my best guess is loss of gas from Russia + UK wind expansion with no grid planning.
LikeLike
Sherelle Jacobs, for whom I have a lot of respect, has a remarkable piece in the Torygraph this morning headed ‘Starmer is about to be humiliated by the global retreat from net zero Tories aren’t just playing politics. The geopolitical ground is shifting beneath the eco fanatics’ feet’. She says:
Having reviewed what’s happening in Germany, France and Sweden, Tony Blair’s intervention, EVs, the ban on gas boilers, the Ukraine war, coal, the impact of the post-Covid cost of living crisis on people’s willingness to pay for net zero, how big companies are backing away ‘feel-good’ policies, she says this:
Her conclusion:
LikeLike
Dougie – I think Sherelle Jacobs (see my post just now) has the answer: ‘Eight years ago, it burst into our lives, a rapturous crusade of ambitious legislation, geopolitical grandstanding and share-boosting green PR. ‘
LikeLike
John: It’s interesting that Jacobs believes that the emerging recognition that China is a strategic enemy is the key issue. It would seem to confirm that this should be the subject of my next note to Bim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
That Sherelle Jacobs analysis is spot-on. Let’s hope she’s right.
LikeLike
Given that Sunak is now justifying (not that he needs to, IMO) his licensing of oil and gas drilling in the North Sea, energy security would seem a very useful subject when next you tackle Bim, and mentioning the China problem(s) is a good way of going about that.
LikeLike
“Gallium and germanium: What China’s new move in microchip war means for world”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66118831
LikeLike
YouGov have just conducted (25th – 26th July) a most interesting survey for The Times. The key finding is this: 55% of all respondents said that ‘Policies to reduce carbon emissions should only be introduced if they do not result in additional costs for ordinary people‘ best reflected their view (another 5% thought policies to reduce emissions should not be introduced at all). That’s an extraordinary finding. If it’s an accurate reflection of public opinion (and I suspect it is) it means the implementation of net zero would be extremely difficult – probably impossible.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry everyone I made a hopeless mess of the above and had to amend it twice. And still the link didn’t work. The survey can (I hope) be found here: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/li3arml6jo/TheTimes_NetZero_230726.pdf.
LikeLike
And the FT may be changing its tune: ‘The beginning of the end of Britain’s net zero consensus
It took hold in a world of low inflation and national confidence that is long gone…‘
LikeLike
Robin,
You wrote, “It’s interesting that Jacobs believes that the emerging recognition that China is a strategic enemy is the key issue. It would seem to confirm that this should be the subject of my next note to Bim.” While I sympathise with this idea I wish to urge a little caution …
I can imagine that you have convinced Bim in your correspondence (i.e. in an essentially 1-to-1 interaction) that renewables are hopelessly expensive and unreliable. However, as a relatively inexperienced politician
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bim_Afolami) I can imagine that when working on the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Renewable and Sustainable Energy or PRASAG (https://www.praseg.org.uk/) Bim could be somewhat of “a candle in the wind” given that the committee’s “work is supported by leaders and organisations across the renewable & sustainable energy industry and civil society”.
We also know that Bim tends to skim read letters that are sent to him.
Thus I think your next message needs to include, firstly, a short text reinforcing the renewables-are-very-expensive idea (despite what his colleagues on the PRASAG may say). Perhaps this note below from Net Zero Watch would be pertinent since it is short and has references for in-depth further analysis should he be so minded – it will at least give him ammunition to challenge the industry propaganda that the committee, by its very nature, will be overwhelmed with.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/wind-industry-blackmails-the-uk-more-subsidies/
The third point in the NZW note, namely “The [wind] industry’s current cost difficulties are neither unforeseen nor unpredicted but have been obvious to careful observers for over a decade” is, to me, particularly damning, especially as no end to the costs issue is realistically in sight.
The second message should be, as you suggest, a warning that China is a strategic challenge in so many ways, one of which is its control of many of the materials/supply chains used in the electrical generators of wind turbines (and, indeed, of EVs). In other words, current wind turbines are NOT the way to proceed for a cost-effective, reliable and strategically robust UK electrical infrastructure.
If you feel that two ideas is one too many for your follow-up note then I would recommend reinforcing “the costliness of renewables” argument since that is where Bim is most influential as chair of the PRASAG.
In haste,
John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t spell – PRASEG and not PRASAG. Sorry!
John.
LikeLike
Robin – thanks for that Sherelle Jacobs Telegraph link, interesting read & agree with her.
ps – just for fun I hit Telegraph link offered on that webpage –
https://12ft.io/proxy?ref=&q=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/01/rishi-sunak-baffling-fashion-menswear-guy-cost-votes/
partial quote – “Menswear influencer critiques cut of the Prime Minister’s trousers and suggests ‘ill-fitting suits’ can be a political liability”
think I’m Gonna hide under the covers (naked) until this madness blows over.
LikeLike
Robin,
If you wanted a short, easy-to-read critique of wind energy costs for Bim then the first section of this recent article by Paul Homewood might suit you:-
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-climate-scaremongers-wind-farm-operators-start-backing-out-as-they-get-cold-feet-about-costs/
The other sections of the article are useful too as they set out some of the other tactics used by key alarmists.
Regards,
John.
LikeLike
A good article in yesterday’s Torygraph.
LikeLike
Yes John I agree about Paul H’s piece in TCW. Nonetheless I expect I’ll focus on China. I’m very busy at present so may have to leave it for a few days.
LikeLike
Robin – thanks for that Torygraph link –
“But the pendulum has swung too far away from majoritarian rule, and too much power handed to social engineers. Today, the problem doesn’t lie with the public, which is largely tolerant and liberal-conservative, but with the elites, who have become authoritarian and anti-democratic, captured by wokery and a dislike of material aspiration.
What we call populism, in the current British context, is really the majority trying to reassert itself. Voters are developing a new form of class consciousness; “motorists” are becoming a political force. The Ulez fiasco is acting as a gateway, normalising opposition to other excesses.
The message to politicians is clear: start listening to the voters again, or else Britain will soon face a popular uprising orders of magnitude greater – and more unpredictable – than Brexit.”
maybe at bit over optimistic, but I think the mood of Joe Public is changing as net zero reality affects them.
LikeLike
Charles Moore has an excellent article in the Torygraph this morning about the BBC and climate. His concluding paragraphs:
LikeLiked by 1 person
But the FT is as worried as ever: ‘The UK must not abandon the evidence on climate goals – This is not the time to depart from the determination of successive governments to meet net zero goals…’
LikeLike
David Turver has an excellent article in the Torygraph today, with a more detailed version HERE.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems my friend Bim may be slowly shifting his position. In February he put his name to THIS (along with such worthies as Caroline Lucas and Barry Gardiner). Then six months later he published THIS. In particular his comment that ‘Making people poorer cannot be the way forward; if we do so, we risk alienating a large section of the public’ seems to reflect the findings of recent opinion research.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
Very good news that David Turver is getting published in the mainstream media.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“How to fix the energy crisis
Ontario has abandoned its disastrous green experiment – and is already reaping rewards.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/08/08/how-to-fix-the-energy-crisis/
LikeLike
Thanks Mark – that’s interesting. But, although the Ontario example is instructive, I doubt if it’s relevant here. And that’s because essentially all our politicians like to flaunt their ‘climate-fighting credentials’. Are there any who would be ready to radically change tack and actually oppose their erstwhile colleagues? I doubt it. Bim is an interesting example: he may have shifted his position (see my post above) but he’s very careful to ensure he hasn’t moved too far from the Tory leadership’s position. In other words, if we’re intent on getting rid of net zero, we’ve got to find a way of persuading the Tory (or Labour) leadership to radically change its position. Or listen to Jaime and start a popular revolution.
LikeLike
This important Siemens Press Release (‘Serious ramp-up challenges in the wind business overshadow excellent performance in conventional energy business’) could be relevant to my Bim Afolami campaign.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin – also covered at – https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/08/08/how-faulty-wind-turbines-threaten-to-bring-down-a-german-industrial-powerhouse/
no worries though it’s only facing –
“Siemens warned on Monday that it was facing a €4.5bn (£3.9bn) loss this year as a result of issues within its wind turbine division.” small change I suppose.
LikeLike
The FT is very very worried: ‘Climate politics has entered a new phase – The risks of ignoring the green energy transition have never been so acute…’
LikeLike
“Fact: the climate disaster death rate has *declined* by 98% over the last century, even as carbon emissions have risen. The average person is 50X less likely to die of a climate-related cause than in 1920. Why? Fossil fuels. An inconvenient truth for the climate cult.”
That’s a quote on X from Vivek Ramaswamy, one of the candidates for the Republican nomination for President.
Might be worth flagging this and other such quotes to Bim to show him that there’s a rising tide of opinion against climate alarm, etc..
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Speccie has this morning published an excellent article entitled: ‘Why aren’t we more afraid of China?. An extract:
My comment currently has the most upvotes:
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Do Britons Support Net Zero?”
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/08/09/do-britons-support-net-zero/
LikeLike
Thanks Mark. The reality is that Britons only support net zero at the most superficial level. Poll after poll shows clearly that, as soon as voters are asked to consider the impact of the policy on their personal finances, that support disappears. And that’s true of Labour as well as Tory voters. It’s a devastating finding: without strong public support, politicians will find it almost impossible to implement net zero. Another way of looking at it is that it means that almost every constituency is potentially an Uxbridge. I wonder how many politicians realise this?
LikeLike
A mad announcement by Grant Shapps: No global security without net zero, Grant Shapps warns Tories – Britain announces plans for major international summit on energy security in spring 2024.
An extract:
LikeLike
So, according to Shapps, ‘weather patterns’ are the result of man-made greenhouse gas emissions and the elimination of those greenhouse gas emissions, largely emanating from the use of fossil fuels, even by minor ‘polluter’ countries acting unilaterally in the face of greatly increasing emissions from major ‘polluters’, will ensure global security by preventing those ‘weather patterns’ so that people will not be forced to emigrate! He’s a complete fruitcake isn’t he, or he’s having a laugh at our expense, or he’s being paid handsomely to promote an insane solution to an insane non problem.
LikeLike
I think he (Shapps) is simply an incompetent who’s accepted fashionable dogma. Just possibly that fashion may be waning.
LikeLike
Jaime, Rob,
If you are not already familiar with it, you might want to read the government’s strategy document: “Integrated Review Refresh 2023: Responding to a more contested and volatile world”.
In particular, there is the so-called pillar 3 of government strategy: “Address vulnerabilities through resilience”, in which it is stated:
“The first priority area in addressing the UK’s vulnerabilities is energy security. We will ensure that the UK’s energy supply is less exposed to manipulation by hostile actors and volatility in global markets. This requires a two-pronged approach: maximising sources of supply in the immediate term, while accelerating the transition to clean energy and net zero – the most effective route to both energy security and our climate goals. The 2022 British Energy Security Strategy (BESS) sets out a long-term path to secure affordable, clean, energy, with increased investment in offshore wind, low-carbon hydrogen, a clear pipeline of new nuclear power projects, and new advanced technologies. The establishment of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will drive forward this work, and the upcoming Energy Security Plan and Net Zero Growth Plan will provide further detail on the action the UK will take to deliver energy security in line with our commitments to low-cost decarbonisation.”
The fantasy runs deeper than anything Shapps has dreamt up.
Click to access 11857435_NS_IR_Refresh_2023_Supply_AllPages_Revision_7_WEB_PDF.pdf
LikeLiked by 3 people
P.S. Grant Shapps knows a great deal about risk and resilience. He was the minister who fully defended the safety of Smart Motorways, right up to the moment when he fully didn’t.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A must-read article by Alister Heath in today’s Torygraph: The public still isn’t being told the full, horrifying truth about the net zero permanent revolution A restrictive architecture of carbon budgets and climate committees is killing democratic choice
An extract:
Sooner or later (probably sooner) we’re likely to get to the situation that Mark and I have discussed where, whatever the politicians may wish and pressure groups demand, it’s simply impossible to meet a legally-defined deadline – because for example there aren’t enough skilled people or the windfarms aren’t being built because they’re too expensive. What happens then?
Heath concludes:
He’s right – about both scrapping the CCA and the lack of democratic legitimacy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks John. The idea that ‘accelerating the transition to clean energy and net zero‘ will assure our security is a totally absurd but widely believed nonsense. (Nuclear could help – but how soon can we expect to see that?) How do we get people to face the reality that dependence on renewables means dependence on an increasingly hostile China?
LikeLike
John,
“We will ensure that the UK’s energy supply is less exposed to manipulation by hostile actors . . . . . ”
They’re doing this by exposing our energy supply to hostile actors (i.e. ‘Green’ energy companies whose only motivation is to maximise profits by robbing taxpayers and bill payers to subsidise inefficient, expensive, intermittent wind and solar) who in turn expose us by proxy to other hostile actors like China via the supply chain. Brilliant tactics on the part of our clueless government.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob, Jaime,
Yes indeed. Also in the Integrated Review Refresh 2023, you will find the following masterclass in irony and self-delusion from the pen of our very own Prime Minister:
“China poses an epoch-defining challenge to the type of international order we want to see, both in terms of security and values – and so our approach must evolve. We will work with our partners to engage with Beijing on issues such as climate change. But where there are attempts by the Chinese Communist Party to coerce or create dependencies, we will work closely with others to push back against them. And we are taking new action to protect ourselves, our democracy and our economy at home.”
LikeLike
John C, John R, Jaime – I have a dilemma. I think it’s about time I sent my next note to Bim. But I think it’s best to have just one subject. I’ve got four candidates: (1) public opinion – how apparent support for net zero is seriously superficial: when voters consider its impact on their finances, support disappears; (2) energy security – the widespread view that a move to all-renewable electricity would make us more secure is false: in reality, it would make us dependent on an increasingly hostile China; (3) wind energy costs – more wind power (apart from nuclear the only conceivable route towards fossil-free electricity) is looking increasingly expensive and impracticable; and (4) back up – the UK’s all-renewable energy project doesn’t include a fully costed (or indeed any) engineering plan for 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 and yet more ruin for industry.
Which is it to be?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The truth is Tory voters are onboard for net zero. What’s really worrying them is how we get there
Sam Hall
The case for environmental action is clear, but there are fears about personal freedom and who will bear the financial burden”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/10/tory-voters-net-zero-environmental-action
Yeah, right.
LikeLike
Robin,
It depends, I think, on whether you think Bim is more likely to be concerned about the next election or about the implications for our country. If the former, go with option one, if the latter it narrows it down to options 2-4.
LikeLike
Robin – thanks for that Shapps link “No global security without net zero, Grant Shapps warns Tories”
“Asked whether Beijing would be invited, Shapps did not rule out the possibility, replying: “I want the energy security conference to be inclusive in nature. We haven’t got to the detail of invitations at this stage.”
so maybe not “global” China + Russia is a large part of the globe.
you have to laugh at “We haven’t got to the detail of invitations at this stage.” pure virtue signalling guff.
LikeLike
Robin,
I my opinion options 3 and 4 (wind energy costs and back-up technologies) are sub-sets of option 2 (energy security). Option 1 (public opinion) is fickle, in large part because it has been misled by so many bad actors for so many years. Thus I am inclined to think that the public will come round quite quickly if they can be shown a reliable, cost-effective strategy which will not cost them an arm and two legs.
Thus the only option is option 2 (ENERGY SECURITY). It addresses our country’s greatest and gravest strategic need and, in time, will be very popular with the public i.e. the calm after the storm of pseudo-green unreliables/ruinables. This option should thus appeal to Bim at this time … and in the run up to the next general election.
[We may, however, already be well behind the curve if this article from WUWT is correct:-
I have not had time to read the article but it seems to auger very badly for the West if I have got the gist of it.]
In haste,
John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A few years ago I had the luck and privilege to sit next to Richard Lindzen over a coffee and biscuit. He’s an admirable man – quiet, unassuming and, despite his learning, not in the remotest sense didactic. So it’s no surprise that I was impressed by this enjoyable and authoritative interview.
LikeLike
I would suggest you “come clean” and reproduce the content of yesterday’s post, giving Bim the full extent of your concerns. Then expand on the choice you have chosen. This gives Bim an opportunity to enquire about one or more of the other topics that might interest or concern him more.
LikeLike
Rob,
The Integrated Refresh Review 2023 makes it clear that net zero is seen as an essential strategy for ensuring energy security, so even if your MP can be persuaded that it will not tackle climate change, he would still see it as essential. I think that idea has to be challenged and that is why I would favour playing the China dependence card. Ask him how his electorate would respond to seeing him support a policy that hands over the UK’s independence to China.
LikeLike
Greenpeace is unhappy
LikeLike
Greenpiss will go down in history as failing the whales, failing the environment and failing their original core principles. Ask Patrick Moore.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But Jaime, how is that possible? According to the Guardian, ‘Greenpeace is the world’s highest profile environmental NGO‘.
Hard to believe now, but until 2008 I used to contribute to Greenpeace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John C,
Biden is being pushed (or waiting to jump) to officially declare a ‘climate emergency’ which will give him a raft of emergency powers enabling him to bypass Congress – just as happened with the Covid pandemic. The UN is chomping at the bit to declare a ‘climate emergency’ and probably hopes the majority of countries will fall into line. America is probably key to achieving their aims (at least here in the West). I suspect that if the unusual spike in ocean temperatures and lower tropospheric temperatures (as revealed by UAH in July) continues into August, then Biden may make his move, which would be very bad news for Americans and probably very bad news for Western nations in general. The Hunga Tonga eruption in Jan 22 is looking like a very likely culprit for this sudden increase in warmth plus the disruption of general circulation patterns, which is why many climate alarmists are trying to downplay its influence at the moment and instead blame man-made global emissions of greenhouse gases.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Jaime,
This link below from The Manhattan Contrarian suggests that, even with a largely compliant press and a flaky justice system, the Bidens cannot put off their days of reckoning for too much longer … unless they can, for example, pull an emergency – any emergency – out of the hat. This suggests that they will have to jump sooner rather than later. And if the UN is ready to jump too then so much the better for the Bidens. Everyone will be a winner amongst the elites, but perhaps the prizes for the ordinary people of the West will be somewhat less than generous.
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2023-8-3-the-bidens-stone-cold-crooked-7-how-is-it-even-possible-to-keep-spinning-this
Regards,
John.
LikeLike
John C, John R, Jaime, Mark:
Thanks for your thoughts about my next Note to Bim dilemma. In reality, it’s not so serious as I plan, from time to time, to send him a series of notes – and each of my proposed subjects may well be covered. However, noting the comments of both Johns, I think I’ll start with the hugely important and widely misunderstood issue of energy security. I’ll copy my note here when it’s been sent. R
LikeLiked by 1 person
Methinks they doth protest too much:
“Rishi Sunak ‘will rue his green group attacks come election time’
Academics – and polls – say majority of voters back action on climate change and will punish Tories for ‘weak tactic’”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/13/rishi-sunak-will-rue-his-green-group-attacks-come-election-time
Given the Guardian and Observer’s intense dislike for, and regular campaigning against, the Tories, why would they offer (and left-wing academics) advice to help them avoid electoral difficulties? The reality, to my mind, is that they know that net zero is now a vote loser, and opposition to it is a vote-winner. That’s why they’re anxious not to allow the electorate a vote on the issue, by seeking to ensure that Uniparty politics continues to prevail on the issue.
LikeLike
Yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph published a leading article entitled ‘Britain isn’t being told the truth about net zero – Both Labour and the Tories’ room for manoeuvre on green policy is exceptionally limited.’
It was of course referring to the 2008 Climate Change Act and subsequent regulation. As the article said:
It concluded:
Yes, but how might Britain change? Does anyone think there’s any prospect of the Parliamentary majority for the radical change that would be necessary?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The whole environmental debate has become detached from reality.”
Er, no. There never was any debate as regards climate change and what to do about it, and the diagnosed ‘problem’ and its proposed ‘solution’ were detached from reality right from the word go. This is the problem we now face – reality is catching up with us fast but most politicians and a worrying section of the public are still inhabiting a fantasy. I don’t see any prospect of a soft landing.
LikeLike
The problem we face Jaime is that, while any prospect of our politicians changing course is almost certainly non-existent (even if a few wish to do so), the Uxbridge by-election indicates that most ordinary people – i.e. the voters – will be unwilling to put up with the huge changes that are in the pipeline. Is a resolution possible? It seems unlikely.
And there’s another – quite separate – problem. It may be impossible to implement the imminent changes anyway. Does anyone think that a Labour administration would be able to ensure that by 2030 all our electricity will be generated by so-called ‘clean’ power?
Interesting times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A hard landing ahead Robin. The Net Zero Dumbo Jumbo has lost its undercarriage in mid flight.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I earlier asked if anyone thought that a Labour administration would be able to ensure that by 2030 all our electricity will be generated by so-called ‘clean’ power. I didn’t expect an answer. But I had a look at Labour’s ‘Make Britain a Clean Energy Superpower’ briefing to see what they had in mind.
The plan, we’re told, is that, as well as quadrupling offshore wind, tripling solar power, doubling onshore wind capacity and extending the lifetime of existing nuclear plants, they will:
This back-up proposal seems to me to be particularly absurd: CCS, hydrogen …? But I’m a technical ignoramus. Am I wrong?
PS: it seems to me that the ‘strategic reserve of gas power stations’ would be in regular – near constant – use. Hardly appropriate for a Clean Energy Superpower.
LikeLike
No Robin, it’s not you, it’s them.
LikeLike
I’ve at last sent my energy security post to Bim. Here’s what I said:
“Energy security
A recurring claim for Net Zero is that inter alia it will ensure Britain’s energy security. Labour’s ‘Make Britain a Clean Energy Superpower’ briefing for example says that its plans will ‘deliver energy security for our country’ and that their proposed rollout of renewables will ‘increase our energy security, weaning us off our reliance on fossil fuels and dictators like Putin’. Likewise, the recently published government report – ‘Integrated Review Refresh 2023: Responding to a more contested and volatile world’ – under pillar 3 (p 45), says this:
But is Net Zero the solution? I believe not – a view derived from concerns about China. See for example the Prime Minister’s comment in the Forward to the above report:
It’s a concern that’s strongly supported by the recent (13 July 2023) cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on China (https://isc.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/ISC-China.pdf). Stressing that the country is engaged in a ‘whole-of-state’ assault on the UK, it warns for example that China has ‘aggressively’ targeted our energy sector.
Yet China essentially controls the global supply of key materials (in particular so-called rare earths) without which renewables can neither be built nor operate. In view of this, surely it would be most unwise for Britain to even consider further reliance on renewables – a reliance that would put our all-important energy security at most serious risk? Would it really be a good plan to wean ourselves off reliance on Putin only to put ourselves in thrall to Xi?”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Re the above note to Bim, thanks for the comments – especially from John C and John R. I’ll report back here about any response I might get.
LikeLike
Hello Robin,
I would like to make a slightly oblique comment, although I hope it may be relevant to your further conversations with Bim.
I have just finished reading prof. Matthew Goodwin’s, “Values, Voice and Virtue – The New British Politics”, Penguin, 2023, about 190 pages plus notes and index, £10.99. The preface is dated November 2022 and so it is pretty up to date, even touching on the Sunak government.
While the book deals primarily with British politics (and especially the fragmentation of the Labour Party into a dominant, university graduate elite and a traditional but disaffected working-class fraction) it also deals with the Conservative Party and indeed with the wider malaise in Western politics. For the breadth of its compass alone I would therefore thoroughly recommend this book to contributors here and, of course, through your good offices, to Bim.
Much of the book deals with the way current political elites have failed (and continue to fail) to connect adequately with the electorate, except perhaps briefly. Goodwin concludes (page 188) that, “All three of the revolts that reshaped British politics over the last decade – the rise of populism, Brexit and the post-Brexit realignment of the Conservative Party – were supposed to bring the rulers and the ruled closer together. But, in the end, they have done no such thing. Much like a decade ago, a large swathe of the electorate appear disgruntled and disillusioned with a new elite that does not reflect their values, represent their voice, or treat them with the same degree of respect and dignity as other groups in society.”
The book does not deal explicitly with climate change/energy policies and so Goodwin seems largely unaware of the huge potential these subjects have for further destabilising the electorate. However, he writes (page 188)“… many people in the country are searching around for a radical alternative that will allow them to launch a revolt against the growing power of the new elite.”
As Jaime observed, “A hard landing ahead” is very likely unless at least part of the political class starts to seriously engage with the electorate as it is, rather than where they would like it to be. Because of their influences on prices throughout the economy, this applies particularly to energy and climate policies (as I hope Bim would agree).
Regards,
John.
LikeLike
John C:
Thank you for this. I’ve read Goodwin’s book, agree with its his overall thesis (that a privileged elite has lost touch with the mass of ‘ordinary’ people) and, like you, thoroughly recommend it to contributors here. I believe his observations are very relevant to climate / energy politics: the Uxbridge result and recent opinion polls are evidence of that. I’m sure there’s something we can build on here – IMO a pending election when ordinary people do have a voice makes this the right time for a push.
But I’m wary of mentioning it to Bim: I have other notes for him in the pipeline and don’t want to seem to be a busybody.
Best – R
LikeLike
Hello Robin,
1. Yes, please don’t mention it to Bim until you feel the moment is right.
2. The elite having lost touch with the majority of the electorate is worrying for current democracy but also, as you suggest, it is an opportunity for influence.
Regards,
John.
LikeLike
If watering-down net zero is a vote loser, why is the Guardian so keen to draw that supposed “fact” to the attention of the Tories?
“Rishi Sunak is plotting to make this the net zero election. That’s great news for Labour
John McTernan
Australian conservatives’ dismissal of the climate crisis was a huge error. Keir Starmer should make the most of this moment”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/16/labour-keir-starmer-election-net-zero
So why is the Guardian purporting to do just that, I wonder? Because it’s not a mistake? Because the Guardian is desperate to ensure that the UK electorate is denied a vote on the issue, perhaps?
LikeLike
“‘We are facing dependence on China’: EU battles to support green industry
Europe’s response to the US’s $369bn Inflation Reduction Act is being stymied by lack of funds and coordination, say analysts”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/16/facing-dependence-on-china-eu-battles-to-support-green-industry
The UK is facing a similar dependence on China, most regrettably.
LikeLike
Mark: You say “If watering-down net zero is a vote loser, why is the Guardian so keen to draw that supposed “fact” to the attention of the Tories?”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/16/labour-keir-starmer-election-net-zero
What’s even more surprising is that the comment with the most recommendations AND a Guardian pick, no less, sounds like a comment on Cliscep: (Sort by Recommendations)
“They won’t, because they know if they told the truth about what net zero would involve, they’d quite possibly, even probably, lose. Net zero involves staggering upfront costs and means voters giving up things they are accustomed to enjoying. At the moment 80% of Britain’s energy consumption is direct fossil fuels – heating, cooking, transport. The remaining 20% is electricity, of which, less than half is supplied by renewables: on a good day. On a bad day, a dark, cold, windless winter day, hardly anything comes from renewables. We have to turn to reliable demand led generation, namely, gas and nuclear. Britain could spend potentially trillions of pounds ripping out every gas cooker and boiler to replace them with electric hobs and heat pumps, totally rebuild the electricity network, it would need to build three or four Hornsea scale windfarms every year to meet the demand, all backed up with massive new nuclear power, virtually ban flying and private transport, force people to eat very little meat…and all to save the tiny fraction of global emissions that are British. All to no avail, given that China and India are slapping up massive new coal power stations at a rate of three or four every week – a rate that is steadily increasing. China built or approved more coal power in the first three months of this year than it did in the whole of 2021”
There are even more sceptical highly rated comments below the first including this:
“Whilst opinion polls show overwhelming public support for net zero, that is not true of individual policies that have been adopted to get there. Policies like not being allowed to install a gas boiler or an ICE car are proving increasingly less popular as people start to realise the real financial impacts on them as individuals”
If these views are starting to appear in the Guardian then maybe attitudes to Net Zero really are shifting.
LikeLike
potentilla,
That’s very encouraging. I confess I rarely bother reading comments at the Guardian, on the assumption that they will be as crazy as the articles they might be commenting on. It’s gratifying and reassuring to learn that even some Guardian readers are more aware of the realities of the situation than the average Guardian journalist. Thanks for that.
LikeLike
Robin, I think Mr Brown might be talking about you. Explain yourself!
“How lobbying has stalled climate action
Since outright denial of the crisis is an untenable position, other tactics have been employed”
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/aug/18/weatherwatch-lobbying-climate-action-crisis
And as for the unremitting lobbying by the Guardian, renewable energy companies and their lobbying organisations, and numerous “charities” funded by “green” billionaire philanthropists is absolutely fine, I suppose…..?
LikeLike
Some may recall that, after discussion here, I sent Bim a note focused on how Net Zero endangered our energy security, especially because of the serious risk posed by China’s control of key materials required for renewables. In a post here on 14 August (4.12 PM) I published the text of my note. I’ve had a reply.
It’s 481 words long, most of which is meaningless padding. So I’ve tried to boil it down to its essential message and have set out the result (215 words) below. You’ll note that only the third paragraph of my reduced version really says anything. And that doesn’t even begin to address my concerns. Here it is:
What next?
LikeLike
Robin,
What next? I don’t know. It’s difficult to know how to react when confronted with blind faith. You could try to point out the unwarranted assumptions that lurk in the Critical Minerals Strategy but you would be seeking to undermine his pride, and he isn’t likely to forego that in a hurry. If you strip away one layer of flannel, you are likely to expose just another. And I fear his position is flannel to the core.
LikeLike
Robin,
It might be worth pointing out that we are supposed to be as interested in energy security as in net zero, and that Bim has just admitted in his reply to you that net zero is undermining energy security, by making the UK dependent on foreign countries – who may be friendly now, but that might not always be the case.
However, as John says, stripping away one layer of flannel might just expose another one.
Going back to your own comment of 10th August, maybe the next step is option 3 – the unaffordability of net zero – as there’s increasing evidence that should penetrate even the thickest of carapaces (or layers of flannel). Option 1 (electoral risk/unpopularity) could be stressed at the same time, since this too does seem slowly to be dawning on politicians, and unpopularity is linked (inter alia) to cost.
LikeLike
Reading Bim’s reply again, I noticed something in the section I didn’t quote here that could be very interesting. Here’s the relevant extract:
He seems to be saying here that the security issue could cause the UK to delay the move to renewables in the short term. If so, that would be very significant. Significant enough for me to draft this reply:
I haven’t sent it yet. Any comments?
LikeLike
Robin,
If I read Bim correctly, he also seems to remain under the illusion that renewable energy is cheap and that the extent of its roll-out to date is in his view making energy cheaper for consumers – rather than the reality, which is that it is making it more expensive. Hence his reference to delays to the infrastructure necessary for renewables not having an adverse impact on consumers, i.e. he seems to be claiming that the delay need not be too troublesome.
If I have understood him correctly, then his position seems to be intellectually incoherent at a number of levels. This might be an opportunity to go on the attack regarding cost, but on the other hand, given his apparent failure to understand the realities of the situation, it might be best to focus on one issue at a time.
LikeLike
Mark: it seems to me his comment that ‘there is no reason to believe that energy prices would rise significantly under a scenario in which the UK sees its short-term ability to construct wind turbines reduced.’ indicates two things: (1) that it’s possible that security concerns might cause the UK to delay the introduction of additional wind turbines and (2) that doing so, although inconvenient, wouldn’t impact energy costs. If that’s what he is saying – and I concede that his meaning is hard to determine – both items are quite significant.
LikeLike
So as to clear the decks for consideration of how the forthcoming by-election in his adjacent constituency (Mid-Bedfordshire) might affect our exchange, I’ve sent my reply to Bim’s latest email. Somewhat shortened from the above, here’s what I said:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Warning: I’m about to blow my own trumpet – again!
The Speccie’s Coffee House blog had an article this morning entitled ‘Ulez could mark the end of the road for Sadiq Khan’. I posted this comment:
It quickly attracted the most upticks and, after nearly 250 comments, it’s still there – by a large margin. Moreover, the article is currently top of the blog’s ‘Most popular’ articles.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’d hoped that Grant Shapps’ appointment as Defence Secretary might help the cause. But a quick look at the biography of his replacement, Claire Coutinho, isn’t particularly encouraging. She was at one time employed at KPMG as a Corporate Responsibility Manager, described as ‘ a role which involves promoting social and environmental concerns in business operations‘. Oh dear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
Oh dear indeed. My last employer tried to make me a Corporate Social Responsibility Manager and I told them where to shove it. Even I had my limits. To be good at CSRM you had to perfect the art of professing good intent whilst knowing your organisation was doing the opposite and that wasn’t for me.
Wait! Come to think of it, perhaps Sunak has pulled a blinder.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hmm … the Guardian asserts that:
But that isn’t what recent opinion surveys have found. It seems the Left are getting seriously worried that the Tories might get electoral benefit from sacrificing climate policies. I suspect this ‘warning’ is addressed as much to Labour as to the Tories.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/03/ignoring-call-halt-new-airports-electoral-carnage-sunak-warned
LikeLiked by 1 person
But perhaps the Left’s worry is misplaced:
‘Tory Rebellion Forces Sunak to Overturn Onshore Wind Farm Ban‘
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/04/tory-rebellion-forces-sunak-to-overturn-onshore-wind-farm-ban/
LikeLike
Re the above, here’s something to watch. In a piece today about the current Labour Party re-shuffle, the Spectator’s Coffee House blog says this:
It goes on to say that he’s likely to stay put. But it’s interesting that some should see him as a liability – which I believe he is. But demoting him would almost certainly persuade some Labour supporters to move to the Greens.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I recall it was Ed Miliband that started the madness we now see as “net zero”, but he seems to get a free pass from the MSM.
LikeLike
dfhunter,
Ed Miliband was indeed behind the CCA, and IMO he is a liability to the Labour Party (and to the UK as a whole.
LikeLike
Sunak needs to make a decision on his electoral strategy regarding renewable energy soon. Is he just trying to keep Labour guessing? Is he a ditherer? Or is the Tory Party in Westminster as divided over these issues as it was (is?) over Brexit?
“Tory tussles over energy bill put progress on net zero at risk
Helena Horton
Environment reporter
The party’s clashing factions table series of amendments supporting and opposing renewables development””
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/04/tory-tussles-over-energy-bill-put-net-zero-progress-at-risk
Is it time to turn the ratchet on Bim again?
LikeLike
Anyone with the slightest doubt about whether or not the prospect of Ed Miliband attaining power is a major threat to the UK should, I suggest, read this: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Mission-Climate.pdf. Mind you the unlikely prospect of the Tories retaining power is little better.
LikeLike
Robin,
I think the word that best describes that document is “delusional” (followed closely by “dangerous”).
LikeLike
‘Is it time to turn the ratchet on Bim again?‘
It probably is – although he hasn’t yet answered my energy security note. Nor have I decided on the best line to take. However – prompted by the Guardian article you just cited – I think the Tory debate about the Energy Bill makes an early turn of the ratchet very appropriate. Here’s what Bim says in his current Newsletter:
Seems he’s an uncritical supporter. I’m beginning to fear he may be a lost cause.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Robin,
Yes, I fear you are correct; Bim is probably a lost cause. In an earlier comment I think I surmised that he was essentially “a candle in the wind” who will bend with the prevailing political current rather like the Vicar of Bray.
In light of the above, is it sensible to hang fire and wait to see how the up-coming by-elections turn out? They may (or may not) put the cat amongst the pigeons in terms of energy and climate policy. We should perhaps use the time until then to consider other possible means of advancing the cause.
At any rate I regret to say I am not *currently* convinced that putting much more effort into informing Bim of the many disadvantages of the misnamed renewable energy will achieve very much. Candles will be candles.
Best regards,
John.
LikeLike
On his substack today (in an article entitled, ‘The Next Big Populist Revolt‘), Matt Goodwin has published the results of a most interesting opinion poll. It’s particularly interesting because it almost exactly replicates the findings of the July YouGov poll discussed recently on this thread. My comment has so far got the most ‘likes’ (the first from David Turver). Here’s what I said:
Here are two extracts from Matt’s comments on his survey:
And:
John Cullen might be interested to note that this represents a major change of mind for Goodwin who, as he and I discussed, was not so long ago saying that the Tories would be unwise to campaign against net zero because of its widespread popularity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello Robin,
Thank you for posting these comments from Goodwin who, as you know, has published two important books [Refs 1, 2] on the state of politics in Britain (and by extension the West in general). In the first he introduces four key concepts (the four D’s) which describe the current relationship between the electors and their elected politicians: Distrust, Destruction, Deprivation and De-alignment. In my mind I added a fifth D which seems very relevant to our current discussions, namely:-
Don’t Do Dumb things to your electorate!
The second reference reprises the ideas in the first, largely in a British context … but the message is a siren call to much of the West. Specifically, Goodwin outlines how, through failure by the main established (or Establishment) parties to respond to the wishes of the people, populists like Trump and Farage have marched into the breach. Goodwin writes at page 106, “It was, ultimately, the establishment that created anti-establishment populism.”
So I conclude, Robin, that you are entirely correct when you wrote just above, “I believe that, if the Tories had the sense to moderate their net zero policies, paint Labour as climate fanatics and stand up to the ‘greens’ and Stop Oil idiots, they might actually recover some ground.” And this is, I believe, the way forward i.e. try to persuade the Tories that the electorate will back them if they make a stand against the many VERY EXPENSIVE green policies that are so damaging to our UK economy.
But how could the Tories be encouraged to move in that direction? For example:-
1. Could the by-elections be instilled with a ULEZ-like dynamic which would galvanize the electorate in the Tories favour? If so, how could that be achieved?
2. Do we need to canvass Tory HQ and Tory websites with these ideas?
3. Where does Bim fit into all this?
The Tories like to see themselves as the most successful party in (modernish?) history and so they should be persuadable – the whiff of power and of losing power are powerful motivators.
References
1. Eatwell & Goodwin, “National Populism – the revolt against liberal democracy”, Pelican, 2018.
2. M. Goodwin, “Values, Voice and Virtue – the New British Politics”, Penguin, 2023.
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some especially interesting detail from Matt Goodwin’s poll (of ‘a nationally representative sample of 1,175 British adults’):
Respondents were asked which of these statements was closest to their view:
(1) ‘The Government should prioritise helping the UK reach Net Zero carbon emissions, even if this increases the cost of living for ordinary people’, or,
(2) ‘The Government should prioritise keeping the cost of living as low as possible, even if this means it has to do less to help the UK reach Net Zero’.
16% of voters opted for (1) and 54% for (2). Skilled workers split 9/59.
The Tories (and Labour) would be most unwise to ignore this and the YouGov poll. But I suppose they will. John: I might try Bim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Robin,
1. Yes, if it does not put you out too much then please contact Bim; it can do no harm … and may do some good once he sees which way the wind is blowing.
2, Did you mean “skilled workers split 9% for option 1 and 59% for option 2 with 32% expressing no preference” or something else?
3. Regarding the Energy Bill going through parliament, David Turver comments, “If this Bill is enacted, we are on a very steep and slippery slope towards a totalitarian state, where decisions on whether you can heat your home or wash the dishes are taken by a state authorised body.
It is clear to anyone who understands what western values are supposed to stand for that we are on the wrong path. We need urgent action to change course …”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/criminalising-net-zero-disobedience
I agree with Turver’s comments above – we live in most worrying times.
Best wishes,
John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John:
1. Yes, it can do no harm so I’ll send him a note. And I may include something about the Energy Bill. However I have little confidence that anything will come of either issue.
2. My apologies – I should have said that skilled workers opted 9% for (1) and 59% for (2). BTW it’s unfortunate that Goodwin doesn’t provide a link to the full details – all questions and all results – of his poll. I was the founder chair of an online healthcare research organisation and hard experience taught me to be suspicious when survey results are only partly published. I’ll suggest to him that he should provide a link.
3. I also agree with Turver’s comments. As I noted above, Bim would seem to support the Bill (‘these new measures will reinforce Britain’s energy supply‘) although I suppose those words leave room for some criticism.
LikeLike
PS to the above – it was no surprise but nonetheless disappointing to see that Bim voted ‘aye’ in yesterday’s division on the Energy Bill: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-09-05/division/47DCC4BF-5DB0-49D6-AD9C-44698CFEFBC9/EnergyBill(Lords)?outputType=Names
No room for him to criticise now.
LikeLike
Well I’ve sent a note to Bim. Nothing yet about the Energy Bill – it would have made it too long and complex. Here’s what I said:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
Those expressions of opinion, even if questionable (and, like you, I am sceptical of opinion polls unless I know everything about the questions asked and the way the poll was conducted) ought to merit some thought from a politician facing a general election within the next 12 months or so.
However, while, Labour and Lib Dems seem to have a clear policy stance (net stupidity) regarding the UK’s energy policy, the Tories seem to be hopelessly confused. As things stand, they certainly deserve to lose the next general election, even though no other party deserves to win it.
LikeLike
I’m less sceptical of the YouGov poll. When I and two friends (one a senior GP and the other a professor of medical informatics) founded our healthcare research company (initially MedixUK) in 2000, we conferred with another start-up – YouGov – and used much the same methodology and basic system. I wanted to branch out into general research but my colleagues preferred to stay in their comfort zone so I was outvoted. However our business developed and was moderately successful. We sold it two years ago for a greater than expected price. But look how YouGov developed! Anyway, it was an experience that taught me a lot about opinion polls.
So I think those YouGov findings are probably accurate. And Matt Goodwin’s findings are a useful and interesting confirmation of them. Of course even the best polls can be wrong. But usually by no more than 3 or 4%. But, even if you scale back the YouGov and Goodwin figures by 5% the story is much the same – most people don’t support net zero when it affects them adversely. So yes, politicians should be taking notice of these findings. But they probably won’t.
And net zero’s adverse effects on ordinary people are going to get worse – much worse. What that might do for our nation’s wellbeing and for public order is quite frightening.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just like to thank Robin & other posters on this thread for efforts to stop a train wreck, emergency stop needed.
LikeLike
Robin,
I wonder whether the following would be a simple message that would be useful to Bim in his PRASEG (All-party Parliamentary Group for Renewable and Sustainable Energy) work. If memory serves prof. Dieter Helm has made a similar suggestion. The idea plays to the common conceit that renewable energy is cheap.
The UK grid requires dispatchable 50Hz power (not frequency-wild power) at every instant. But it is well known that wind and solar are intermittent and so cannot, by themselves, provide that dispatchable power. Only reliable energy sources like nuclear and fossil-fuels provide that dispatchability. Thus let the renewable energy providers team with whosoever they like to offer the grid reliable, dispatchable energy at whatever price they deem appropriate. This will provide the grid with the reliable energy it needs and yet employ cheap renewable energy to drive down electricity prices for hard-pressed consumers.
Is the idea simple enough? Could it be shortened and/or simplified to make it more easily remembered and repeated before the PRASEG committee?
And if we want a real challenge, can the message be made so short and pithy as to become a sound-bite that could be dropped into the forthcoming by-elections so as to create a ULEZ-like effect?
Regards,
John.
LikeLike
John C,
That’s a nice idea, but the main problem with it is that renewable energy isn’t cheap, as evidenced by the failure of the latest contracts for difference round (and the failure of much-trumpeted earlier rounds, where the renewable energy suppliers declined to implement the “contracts” – which, in reality, are one way options).
LikeLike
John – if the relevant auctions were for firm power – a certain number of watts in a certain half-hour block of a certain day – then there would be fewer reasons to oppose renewables. As it is, they currently have guaranteed sales even when the power is not wanted, with no penalty for non-delivery.
But I would still oppose renewables for their anti-bird properties and in the case of solar, the stupid waste of productive land.
LikeLiked by 4 people
John C: in a sensible world that would be a plan worth consideration. But I’m afraid that Bim and his PRASEG pals – obsessed with net zero – would reject any proposal that involved fossil fuels.
LikeLike
Mark / Jit / Robin,
Thank you for your comments. I fear I have inadequately explained myself so please let me expand a little. At point 1 below I address the big issue as I see it, and at point 2 below I respond to your comments.
1. Renewables are failing in so many ways but they are the only “solution” that the Establishment/uni-party is interested in at this time. My challenge to us is this: can we find ways, much like ULEZ in the Ruislip by-election, which will open up the debate with the general public (e.g. through the legacy press, or via by-elections, or otherwise) so that the UK can extract itself from the spiral of economic and democratic self-destruction upon which it has embarked?
Robin is to be applauded for his sterling efforts with Bim, with the Speccie, and with Goodwin’s blog. However, it seems from his reports that our advances are small thus far. Is there a ULEZ-like phenomenon that could turn these successful tactical forays into a rout?
2a. Mark, you are entirely correct: current renewable energy technology is by no honest measure cheap. Far from it! However, it is the conceit of the uni-party’s members that renewable energy is cheap, and thus I suggest we work from where they are rather than from where we would like them to be – see point 3.
2b. Jit. Yes, firm power is what the grid needs and so that is what we should be aiming for. Unfortunately the uni-party is, currently, interested only in renewables and so I was trying to work from these towards an affordable firm-power solution, albeit only an intermediate solution …
I say intermediate solution, because (like you) I oppose wind turbines for the murderous destruction they impose on flying creatures. Birds, bats and insects cannot afford this destruction. I recall the powerful paragraph (yours, if memory serves) from some months ago to the effect that the RSPB should oppose wind turbines like Ahab hates the whale. I cannot improve upon that sentiment which was so eloquently expressed.
2c. Robin, I agree that we should definitely NOT mention fossil fuels or even nuclear to Bim and PRASEG. Let them come to whatever solution(s) they can to provide firm power. Or do you suspect that Bim and/or PRASEG do not understand what firm power is, and why the grid needs it?
3. The renewables lobby is increasingly on the back foot and so we should harry them with the objective of ultimately bringing their arguments to checkmate. However, at the present time, the lobby has huge power and influence and so it is probably easier, in the short term, to use their weight against them (as per judo tactics?) so as to defeat them in the end game. And if we make the right moves we can hasten their ultimate defeat.
However, as the Manhattan Contrarian has recently written, “Eventually, reality will defeat the fantasy. The only question is how much senseless damage will be done in the meantime.”
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2023-9-4-uk-now-hopelessly-divided-over-the-net-zero-program
We really must do all we can to minimise the senseless damage. So what is our best strategy?
Best regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If this Guardian story is true, then the UN’s behaviour would be truly extraordinary (and extraordinarily stupid, if they care about the imaginary climate crisis, as they purport to do):
“Rishi Sunak avoiding UN summit after being warned about potential rejection
Exclusive: PM risked embarrassment of downgraded status if UN deemed UK’s climate policies lacking ambition”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/09/rishi-sunak-avoiding-un-climate-summit-over-potential-rejection
The interesting point, suggesting that Sunak may yet still be contemplating ditching (or watering down) dangerous, expensive and vote-losing net zero policies is the suggestion that Sunak might snub the meeting, and send deputies instead.
LikeLike
“Rishi Sunak tells G20: UK will resist ‘hair shirt’ policies on net zero pledge
The prime minister suggested to the summit that he wanted to limit the impact of green measures on British consumers”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/09/rishi-sunak-tells-g20-uk-will-resist-hair-shirt-policies-on-net-zero-pledge
Sunak is talking tripe, of course. But I suppose he has to try to move his party slowly away from the madness, so that the extremists make the journey with him. Except that they never will. Net zero is looking like the festering boil that was Brexit in the Tory party. Somebody needs to lance the boil, but it’s going to be a long and painful process (as it is with the Brexit boil – which has been lanced badly by an incompetent surgeon – or a surgeon whose assistants didn’t want the boil to be lanced – and re-formed).
LikeLike
Dropping net zero definitely has legs as an electoral strategy:
“Labour abandons congestion charge in Cambridge after public backlash
Car owners faced a £5-a-day charge to drive at peak times but council drops proposals because of ‘impact on low income families’”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/09/cambridge-congestion-charge-scrapped-labour-city-council/
Behind a paywall, unfortunately.
LikeLike
Sunak hasn’t got the balls to do what is needed – repeal at the very minimum the Net Zero statutory instrument introduced BY THE CONSERVATIVES in 2019 – BEFORE the next general election. His cowardice to face down the Net Zero zealots in his own party, in Parliament and elsewhere, will be the ruin of us all.
LikeLike
John C:
Thanks for your important and interesting post. I very much agree with you that we really must do all we can to minimise the senseless damage of net zero. I’ve tried to consider how we might achieve this by postulating some ideas in the comments on David Turver’s most recent Substack article: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/ar5-results-puncture-renewables-fantasy/comments. This has developed into another disagreement with Jaime who believes ‘the UK is doomed to total economic destruction and social disintegration and there’s nothing we can do about it ‘. I refuse to accept that.
I’ll devote some time to considering what might be our best strategy.
LikeLike
Mark, it’s possible to get over the Torygraph paywall by using this service: https://12ft.io.
LikeLike
Pre-election promises re. Net Zero from either party, with the intention of reassuring a jittery public that they will not lose out, are not worth the paper they are written on or the air which is compressed into sound waves by the words emerging from the mouths of electioneering politicians eager only for power and influence. Only a legally binding commitment to abandon the Net Zero target immediately after the election or action to do so before the election will convince me that the Tories or Labour genuinely want to avoid the horrific damage which the mad pursuit of unattainable Net Zero will unavoidably inflict upon our economy and society. Anyone who trusts politicians to act sanely, sensibly, and honourably, for the benefit of this country and its people, is going to be sorely disappointed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: to an extent I agree with you. But not entirely – especially knowing that your position is based on the proposition that our politicians actually want, as you said today on David Turver’s site, ‘total economic destruction and social disintegration of UK PLC‘. I don’t believe that: they may be muddled, they may be foolish, they may be ignorant, they may be hopelessly prejudiced – but few (if any) want to destroy the country. Therefore it’s not in my view unreasonable to believe that many of them don’t want to damage the wellbeing of millions of their fellow citizens and will be prepared adjust their views (and act) accordingly. Especially as they must be beginning to realise that the net zero project is already going hopelessly wrong. Few politicians want to be seen as committed to a policy that’s both unpopular and unachievable.
In any event, I’m determined to do what I can to minimise the damage of this absurd policy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
It would be comforting to think that most are just mixed up, muddled up, misguided ignorant fools, but how do you square that opinion with the fact that the majority of them have just voted to criminalise non-compliance with household energy performance standards and voted to introduce compulsory smart energy networks in the home which will be used to introduce centralised ‘load control’. i.e. turn off high power appliances when output from renewable energy sources fails to meet demand? Non compliance or interference with ‘smart’ equipment here will be a civil infringement punishable by hefty fines. Did they not bother to read these important clauses in the Energy Bill? Even if they did not, they would have been alerted to their existence by a few concerned colleagues during the parliamentary debate.
LikeLike
Because neither of those effects are obvious from a superficial reading of the Bill. They do not appear in its principal clauses but from powers the Bill gives to enable the Secretary of State to act in specific circumstances. Most MPs are too busy or too lazy to go into that level of detail. As for the sensible comments of a few concerned colleagues, the Chamber was almost empty when they were speaking.
LikeLike
Why are you covering for these shysters? They knew exactly what was in the Energy bill. It was all over the media beforehand and rebel Tory politicians had made their opposition to certain clauses in the bill very public. But MPs overwhelmingly voted it through all the same. Those are the actions of an elite few who are intent upon making life very difficult for ordinary British citizens who do not willingly get aboard the national push for Net Zero. This is atrocious legislation which tramples the freedoms and civil liberties of the British people and politicians know it. Bim voted it through too I believe.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/01/property-owners-failing-comply-new-energy-rules-face-prison/
LikeLike
He did – top of the list (because it’s in alphabetical order.) So you truly believe that almost all the MPs comprise ‘an elite few who are intent upon making life very difficult for ordinary British citizens who do not willingly get aboard the national push for Net Zero‘? I’m sorry Jaime but I don’t believe that’s the case.
LikeLike
Jaime and Robin. Hold your fire debating the Energy Bill if you would – here’s advance notice that I am hoping to produce something on that subject over the next few days. It might take the rest of the week, as I will be busy tomorrow, and Tuesday and Wednesday look like the last decent days to take advantage of some fine weather and enjoy the great outdoors, which I intend to do. Watch this space then (towards the end of the week, in all probability).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sure thing Mark. I’m looking forward to cooler nights I must admit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good discussion for September, thank you Robin and all. I’ve not looked at any Cliscep for a while I have to admit. The Guardian piece yesterday “Rishi Sunak avoiding UN summit after being warned about potential rejection” is extraordinary. But perhaps ever so slightly cheering. Thanks Mark for that.
LikeLike
Richard, by convening this ‘climate action summit’, UN Secretary General Guterres risks looking foolish as he did in September 2019. He called one then, emphasising that new coal plants should be banned from 2020 – not much success there. And, as seems is happening this year, the bad guys were not invited. Thus Japan, Australia, South Korea and South Africa were excluded because of their support for coal and the US, Brazil and Saudi Arabia because they’d criticised the Paris Agreement. Yet absurdly China and India were not only invited but allowed to speak despite being by far the world’s biggest coal developers. It will be interesting to see what happens this year – and who is deemed to ‘lack ambition’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A few days ago I sent a note to Bim entitled ‘Two opinion polls’ – posted here on 7 Sept at 4:59 PM. Here’s his reply:
Ho hum – it seems my feeling that Bim is a hopelessly lost cause is amply justified. I concluded my popular comment on Matt Goodwin’s article about his poll by saying this:
It seems I was right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
There is a default arrogance among politicians generally, which assumes that they know best and if the public disagree with them, then the public must be persuaded to change its collective mind.
I have lost count of the number of times I have listened to a politician who has just lost an election opining that they need to work harder to get their message across. They seem to be congenitally incapable of accepting that we heard the message loud and clear, understood it perfectly, and rejected it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Robin,
To quote from Bim’s text to you, “… public support for the environmental agenda, something that can only be achieved by seeing the energy transition as an opportunity, rather than simply a costly imposition.”
An opportunity! For whom? Rent-seekers? When Bim writes such things he surely shows himself as being one of the Luxury Belief Class as discussed by Goodwin [Ref. 1]. Goodwin also uses the term “brahmins”, terminology which he has borrowed from Thomas Piketty.
Although unsurprising, this is NOT a good development and, I feel, rather emphasises Jaime’s arguments … unless we can pull a strategy out of the hat which will get some climate/energy sense into at least one major political party and thereby reduce the on-going senseless destruction.
Reference
1. Matthew Goodwin, “Values, Voice and Virtue – the New British Politics”, Penguin, 2023, especially pages 140 et seq., and page 100.
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think I may have to give up on Bim. But, before I do, I plan to take him up on his closing sentence: ‘ Please don’t hesitate to get in touch again, if you have any further questions or concerns.’ I have a lot of concerns but top of the list is the Energy Bill. I plan to send him a brief note on that soon.
Re the Energy Bill – and apologies to Mark for raising it now – the Speccie has an article today entitled (or should that be ‘titled’?) ‘Could a return to its ‘nasty party’ roots save the Tories?’ (https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/could-a-return-to-its-nasty-party-roots-save-the-tories/). My comment has attracted a lot of upticks:
One person asked me this:
Depressing that anyone should be expressing such concerns – and doing so under a Tory government. I look forward to Mark’s analysis – perhaps he’ll be able to show us that it’s not quite so ghastly – although I rather doubt it.
LikeLike
Robin,
Mo need to apologise, the Energy Bill is highly topical. I’ve made a start delving into it, but it’s a big Bill, and I’ve been busy today (as I will be over the next two days) so my analysis will take a few days yet. I hope it’s worth the wait!
LikeLike
Hello Robin,
If you are contacting Bim about the frightful Energy Bill, is it an opportunity to introduce him to the EROEI concept, albeit indirectly (since, if memory serves, you don’t think he would understand it if addressed head on)?
You could explain that current renewables waste/consume prodigious amounts of energy and that, in consequence, they are anything but green (in the sustainability sense). David Turver’s graph (Fig. 1) in the following link is relevant if you believe Bim could understand its simple message:-
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/why-eroei-matters?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
I’m very much clutching at straws, I’m afraid; the little grey cells are clearly being powered by renewable energy in one of its intermittent moments.
Regards,
John.
LikeLike
John: I’ve pretty well given up on persuading Bim to change his thinking – his last response was so hopeless. If I make a comment on the Energy Bill, it will be to get it on the record – no more. I see little point in referring him to EROEI, even indirectly. It’s not that he cannot understand, more that he doesn’t want to understand: i.e. the ‘don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up’ syndrome.
LikeLiked by 3 people
*** And if the objective was insane, the methods were tragic ***
Robin, it is at times such as these – where climate/energy reality and parliamentary endeavour seem to part company – that I sometimes delve into my late father’s library, into a prize he won at school in 1936, the year of publication of the following. I go in search of history, not so much of finding it repeating itself but more in the hope/trepidation that it may rhyme (albeit rather badly).
In his famous book, “The History of Europe”, H.A.L. Fisher devoted a chapter to the Crimean War (1854-1856). Concerning the siege of Sebastopol he wrote:-
“It was a mad enterprise. Since the Turks unaided had repulsed the Russians from the valley of the Danube, and since all risk of a Russian advance upon Constantinople was overpast, there was no valid reason why the allies should waste a man or a shilling upon a siege which, even if successful, would make no sensible impression on the huge resources of the enemy. And if the objective was insane, the methods were tragic. The English army, without ambulances or proper transport, marched into action clad in uniforms fitted only for a London parade ground, nor did it even occur to the government of the greatest engineering country in the world to ease the transport of supplies from the port of Balaklava to the camp by laying down the necessary five miles of light railway.”
How, today, can the British make a sensible impression on the huge resources of Nature’s CO2 emissions, or even influence other nations’ enormous emissions? Why should we waste a wo/man or a shilling upon such silliness? And how, for our compatriots, can we ease the transition to (the insane objective of) Net Zero if we do not lay down the necessary affordable, robust infrastructure beforehand?
I note that in the preface to Clive Ponting’s book, “The Crimean War – the truth behind the myth” (Pimlico, 2004), he wrote, “The war of 1854-56 was rapidly considered to be a mistake that should never be repeated.” It seems our MPs are determined NOT to learn from history.
Best regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 4 people
With regard to the forthcoming Energy Bill, this article from the Daily Sceptic raises some profound and troubling issues:
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/12/the-energy-bill-2023-and-the-fusion-of-technology-and-law/
LikeLiked by 2 people
“We’re now in the era of Law 3.0, and we don’t even see rules of general application appearing at all. Instead we see legislation delegating authority to a Government minister to appoint licensees to issue “load control signals” to “smart appliances” on a “smart and flexible” basis in order to control energy consumption. The law, in other words, will self-execute through the technology itself, and non-compliance will become impossible – because our machines themselves will simply respond to the load control signals which they are sent. (And because we will have to use such machines, because the sale of others will be banned; ironically, we see here a vestigial role for Law 1.0 after all.)”
Yep, except we are entering the era of Law 3.0. Our politicians are happy to waive this through. We can still avert this disaster if we refuse to comply, en masse.
LikeLike
‘We can still avert this disaster if we refuse to comply, en masse.‘
Most unlikely to happen – unless the mass of ordinary people, who’ve got plenty of other things to worry about, can be persuaded that the implementation of net zero means inevitable disaster. But who could possibly do that? And how?
LikeLike
Robin, since I heard our former prime minister, Teresa May, this morning on the BBC’s “Today” programme (wherein she decried our current prime minister’s lacklustre commitment to Net Zero) I have been pondering a change of tack.
NetZero is not just a technical matter but a deeply (a)moral one as well. And as our recent prime minister is both the daughter of a minister and a church-goer herself, I wonder whether we should be getting our message out to the Churches. Many Christian denominations seem to have fallen hook line and stinker for the “climate justice” arguments and proclaimed their messages accordingly. What about other faiths?
However, do the Churches know about EROIE? Could they be persuaded to take another look given that renewables are anything but renewable? The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, spent over a decade in the oil industry and so may well understand the concept of EROEI.
So I am currently considering writing a short article to offer to our former PM’s parish magazine, plus a letter to the Archbishop. However, that won’t happen for a few days … but don’t let that stop our readers here if they are so minded from putting pen to paper/finger to keyboard.
After all, when the evidence changes, some people change their mind (or they may be more like Bim in not wishing to rock the boat).
Regards,
John.
LikeLike
Konstantin Kisin has a good article today on his Substack: https://konstantinkisin.substack.com/p/why-did-no-one-say-anything/comments. Essentially its about how in the last few years the mainstream media has began to publish article after article about racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc. and how social media has exacerbated the whole thing creating outrage and victimhood and producing ‘complaints, outrage porn – and victims’. So why, KK asks, don’t more people speak up? Well, of course the answer is that those that do are punished. He gives various examples. But, he says, part of the answer is ‘groupthink’ – people keep quiet because they know the majority disagree with them and they don’t want to be the black sheep. But then he refers to a related phenomenon – the ‘Abilene Paradox’. Here his explanation:
I used this in a comment in which I tried to explain Bim’s voting for the Energy Bill last week. Here’s what I said:
It’s currently the most liked comment. (I’ve also posted this on the Energy Bill thread.)
LikeLike
Mikehig – thanks for that link, a lot to digest, but my 1st thought was, has this bill ever been discussed in the media?
LikeLike
Robin is on a roll 🙂
LikeLike
dfh: I don’t know whether the bill has had any coverage in the media as I don’t read the main newspapers nor do I watch much TV news. The only coverage I have seen is on the Daily Sceptic, NALOPKT and other such sites.
LikeLike
I’m not wholly sure that the Abilene Paradox explains Bim’s (or other Tories’) vote last week. What do others think?
LikeLike
That the UK’s contribution to global GHG emissions is so small (0.79%) is a compelling reason for opposing the absurd and dangerous net zero policy. Another angle on this is that our per capita emissions (6.27 ton/cap) are less than the global average (6.76): data HERE
.
LikeLike
Robin, Net Zero is indeed absurd and dangerous and a deeply irrational response to a ‘problem’ – real OR imagined. It does not stand up to scrutiny in any way whatsoever. The only way, IMO, you can explain last week’s almost universal vote in favour of the catastrophically flawed Energy Bill, predicated largely on the implementation of Net Zero, is in terms of ‘opportunism’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not just the UK…..
Quote from the German Finance Minister in an article on Net Zero Watch:
“”I think [the EU buildings plan] is enormously dangerous,” Lindner said. The directive, he added, could endanger “social peace” because “people might get the impression that the policy makes it harder for them to live in their own homes and be able to pay for it.””
LikeLike
Mikehig, I suggest comment about the Energy Bill should be made in response to the excellent article and abundant data that Mark Hodgson has provided here: https://cliscep.com/2023/09/13/energy-bill/#comment-146448.
LikeLike
From an excellent comment on Spiked this morning – substantially amended:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin: Agreed but I posted it here because it might be of interest to show Bim that others are having doubts.
LikeLike
Interesting article in the Speccie. Perhaps Bim should have a word with Gary Smith, leader of the GMB Union, who talks a lot of sense. An example:
Another amusing extract:
LikeLike
Robin,
You beat me to it, but I agree, but it’s an excellent read, and I also recommend it to others.
LikeLike
An excellent comment by ‘JaneDoeNL’ in today’s Daily Sceptic on the Speccie interview (see above) with Gary Smith (leader of the GMB Union):
LikeLiked by 2 people
According to the BBC, Sunak is ‘considering weakening key net zero policies’: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66857551. Nonetheless, it seems that he will use his planned speech ‘to hail the UK as a world leader on net zero’. Pathetic: what sort of a leader are you when hardly anyone is interested and no one is following? And why do our politicians think this is so important?
However it’s good to see that his resolve seems to be weakening. I’d be very surprised if Bim doesn’t adjust his position accordingly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sunak’s nickname in Parliament is Inaction Man, apparently. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s going to set the cat among the pigeons in certain quarters, even if the rumoured changes to policy are untrue.
But I don’t really see the point of the half measures that have been leaked to the BBC – something more concrete would have been better politically, I think.
It does though offer the sceptics some hope, in that it may be the last days of more, faster.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Addendum: the reason I think more concrete moves would have been better is that they would have thrown down a gauntlet for Labour to pick up. That way we might have had a public debate between those who believe that Net Zero is worse than climate change and those who believe the opposite. I feel sure that in a fair fight, the sceptics win.
LikeLike
Jit: I completely agree. And maybe – just maybe – we’re beginning to move towards that desirable outcome.
I wonder: is there anything we might do to accelerate that?
LikeLike
Robin,
You may recall that on the day of Coutinho’s appointment you expressed dismay given her CSR background. I responded by pointing out that, in my experience, the good CSR manager knows how to present a virtuous corporate image whilst allowing the company to carry on with whatever it wants to do. The double-dealing we are now seeing is exactly what I would expect with a good CSR person in charge. I am encouraged.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The BBC seemed pretty confident that something is shifting with regard to Sunak’s stance, when I first heard this story on the 6pm news on Radio 4. They also seem pretty confident in that website article, saying:
They then go on to discuss the seven possible policy changes. I don’t think they would do that unless they have been fed a line by someone on the inside.
I share Jit’s frustration at the mealy-mouthed way any change is likely to take place, but politics is the art of the possible, and we have to remember that it was the Tories (under May) who introduced net zero (changing the legislated 80% reduction in GHGs to 100%), it was the Tories (under Johnson) who carried on with that policy full steam ahead, and the Tories under Sunak (I don’t think Truss’ short time at No 10 counts) who have failed to move away from the policy – until now, potentially. That being the case, with a general election no more than 15 months away, and possibly much sooner, Sunak has to tread carefully. His party is as divided on this issue as it has been over Brexit. He needs any change to be a vote-winner, not a vote-loser, and he needs to avoid splitting his party over it and to avoid rancorous in-fighting as he heads towards the pending election. I’m no Tory, I’m certainly no fan of Sunak, but I do think this change – if change there is to be – will have to be handled carefully if it isn’t to backfire on him.
Certainly, while the Tory press (Mail, Telegraph etc) will probably be very supportive, most of the broadcast media, including the BBC, will do its best to undermine him and cause problems.
So, what can we do to help nudge him in the right direction? I don’t know, other than to continue doing what we do, and possibly lobbying our Tory MPs (those of us who have them). I’m afraid that I suspect most politicians are sufficiently shameless as to elide seamlessly into supporting their leader, even if he makes a handbrake turn, so we may be pushing at a half-open door.
LikeLike
We must be alert to Jaime’s argument that, given the statutory legal background, weasel words are cheap whereas only significant actions will really amount to anything meaningful for us.
[What a timely development given that I had just written to former prime minister May and to my local bishop.]
Regards,
John.
LikeLike
The inevitable hysterical campaign of pushback has already begun. The BBC article now includes this:
LikeLike
Historically inaccurate! What a drip.
Perhaps these nay-nay-nay-sayers should scrutinise this:
And then explain to us why we should listen to their blather?
Why should the UK do more? The only developed nation below us on the list is France, and that country is replete with nukes, as we should be. Canada is rocking MORE THAN 3 TIMES our per capita emissions. Trudeau, get outta here. Come back when you are below us on the chart.
[Data from EDGAR as usual, read off the pie chart.]
LikeLike
John R / Mark / John C (cc Jit): I suggest that we wait until we’ve seen the actual speech and the reaction to it before we try either to assess what’s happening or decide on action – if any is feasible.
John R: you say that ‘a virtuous corporate image whilst allowing the company to carry on with whatever it wants to do‘. The trouble is that this ‘company’ wants to get to Net Zero – albeit it seems with short-term action somewhat watered down.
Mark: I completely agree that Sunak will have to handle any change very carefully.
John C: good points.
PS: I’ve just seen Mark’s note about the reactions of Labour, Chris Skidmore and Caroline Lucas. Excellent: those are exactly the sort of views that would make a good the basis for the public debate that Jit hopes might happen – assuming the Tory leadership has the cojones to get involved. As Jit said, ‘in a fair fight, the sceptics win.’
This may well turn out to be an interesting development – but I’ll defer getting too excited.
LikeLike
Jit: well said. And, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, EDGAR’s new GHG data set shows that the UK’s per capita emissions (6.27ton/cap) are below the global average (6.76). (And BTW below France (6.50)). Anything the UK might do is utterly unimportant – yet we seem to be hell-bent on wrecking our economy to get to net zero. Mad and utterly irresponsible.
LikeLike
According to a BBC report this morning (Attention-grabbing leak turbocharges climate politics), yesterday’s report was an unintentional leak. Today’s story includes some interesting observations:
It seems we may have to wait until Friday to see what this is really all about.
PS: the BBC have just changed the headline: ‘Climate politics turbocharged by Sunak leak‘. Another extract:
Good – I like the idea of the agenda being seized by climate politics.
LikeLike
Robin,
The conclusion to that latest BBC article is pretty interesting, too:
If true, it’s extremely interesting, and it’s long overdue.
LikeLike
This is such a big story, that the BBC is giving a running commentary on it this morning. It contains a couple of interesting statements:
And:
In a nutshell, that’s the difference between a politician recognising the reality of the situation, and a second politician, who apparently believes in delusional grandstanding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the meantime UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has excluded China and the US from his list of speakers at his ‘no nonsense’ climate summit because they don’t meet the criteria required to meet his goals. Jit will be pleased to note that Canada has been included. https://www.reuters.com/world/un-chief-puts-spotlight-movers-excludes-us-china-climate-summit-2023-09-20/
PS: I now see that India and Japan are not invited either. So that handily excludes countries that are the source of over 50% of global CO2 emissions. However the good news is that London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan has been invited to speak – but not the UK’s Prime Minister. As Guterres put it: ‘There will be no room for greenwashers, backsliders, blame-shifters‘. It’s all quite mad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Conservative MP Chris Skidmore, the former chair of the UK government’s net zero review, said diluting net zero policies would “cost the UK jobs, inward investment, and future economic growth that could have been ours by committing to the industries of the future”.
Householders “whose bills will remain higher as a result of inefficient fossil fuels and being dependent on volatile international fossil fuel prices” would ultimately pay the price, he added.”
Skidmark and other fanatical Greens take the British public for fools, no doubt buoyed by opinion polls which suggest that a majority of the public back Net Zero. To get a hint of the public mood, you only have to look at the top rated comments on the Mail article. Many are more concerned with immigration than net zero but those commenting on Net Zero indicate that the public are very well aware of the real issues:
“Oh please stop patronising us we all know the idea of getting rid of petrol cars wouldn’t work and the very idea would get put back down the line for the next government to sort out in 2050 but its a great distraction for the 8 million pound bill we pay each day to house people who come here illegally.”
“Meanwhile in CHINA and INDIA.”
“How about scrapping this nonsense altogether and let the market decide .. ?”
“@CheersNow Manufactures have been given quotas with large financial penalties for failure – wake up man, they’re not dropping ICE through choice!”
“Whichever Tory MP that has an issue with this needs to go & join the labour party.”
“Quite right Suella, glad I am that someone has an ounce of commonsense in the government.”
“Hooray! Common sense at last. Yes reduce pollution, yes reduce emission of greenhouse gasses, but don’t do it in a headlong ‘big brother’ imposed “panic”, but in a way that ordinary people can afford, that doesn’t leave the less well off in this country disadvantaged, or our energy supplies at risk.”
“When the other great polluters in the world cut back on their vast pollution levels, we could join in but not yet.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12539069/Were-not-going-save-planet-bankrupting-British-people-Suella-Braverman-says-government-economy-environment-Rishi-Sunak-moves-delay-2030-petrol-car-ban-despite-industry-anger-confusing-change.html
LikeLike
The thing about those Daily Mail online comments is that they are probably made by Tory supporters – the very voters Sunak needs to turn out and vote Tory if he is to avoid annihilation at the next election. Perhaps he has worked that out?
LikeLike
I’ve just sent this email to Bim Afolami:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
Well done. I look forward to you letting us know what reply you receive. My money is on the reply being broadly along the lines of “remaining committed to net zero by 2050, vitally important, blah, blah, blah, but of course the PM is correct to open up a discussion about those aspects which can usefully be delayed slightly for the public benefit without affecting the overall direction of travel, importance of the policy, blah, blah, blah.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Although I haven’t received a reply from Bim, I hardly need one now that I’ve read this article he’s posted on Conservative Home. In it, he’s almost embarrassingly supportive of the Prime Minister – effectively saying that his speech was no more than a sensible step towards achieving a necessary goal: little to see here, I don’t know what all the fuss was about.
Even more boring Mark than your predicted reply.
LikeLike
Robin,
It is embarrassing, isn’t it? As for this, I despair:
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve just received this reply from Bim:
This is of course the article he posted on Conservative Home. Sorry to bore you with it again.
LikeLike
Robin,
Ideally our MPs are busy. So I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that your MP has simply regurgitated his recent article, when replying to you. It’s disappointing, but not surprising. I’d put him down as a lost cause.
LikeLike
‘I’d put him down as a lost cause.‘
Yes he probably is. But I’ve one question for him. Watch this space.
LikeLike
Here’s the text of an email I’ve just sent to Bim (lost cause) Afolami:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good email, Robin, forcing him to think before he replies, rather than simply cutting and pasting an article.
LikeLike
What I said should happen is now happening. Net Zero is coming under persistent and concerted attack from all different angles – including the basic science of greenhouse gas radiative forcing. These challenges are going to keep coming, because they must; the clear and present danger and utter absurdities of Net Zero policies are very obvious and very urgent and the flaws in ‘the science’ are becoming way too obvious to ignore for fear of being called a ‘science denier’. Such accusations from alarmists are now ringing decidedly hollow whereas once they were a sufficient deterrent to many who would be inclined to question the scientific foundations of man-made greenhouse gas warming and its impacts. The ground has shifted. The imminence of the Net Zero cliff edge over which Western civilisation will almost certainly fall if politicians push onwards is the reason for that seismic shift. Bim might still be oblivious of this shift in public consciousness but, if he remains a politician long enough, even he will eventually be shaken out of his intellectually decrepit and largely self-imposed convenient slumber.
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2023-10-24-do-we-really-know-that-human-greenhouse-gas-emissions-cause-significant-climate-change
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bim Afolami: Meet the new City minister and ex-Freshfields and HSBC man
https://www.cityam.com/bim-afolami-meet-the-new-city-minister-and-ex-freshfields-and-hsbc-man/
LikeLike
Robin,
At least he’s been kept away from energy policy!
LikeLike