Late yesterday someone leaked Rishi Sunak’s plans to water down the UK’s Net Zero measures to the BBC. He was not, everyone was at pains to note, discarding the overall 2050 target. The leaked changes were all about softening and delaying the pain.
Here is the BBC’s list of the eight rumoured policy changes:
- Push back the ban on petrol cars to 2035 from 2030
- Soften the ban on gas boilers from no new gas boilers in 2035 to 20% of new boilers still gas in 2035
- Rescind looming energy efficiency regulations for homes
- Push back the ban on oil boilers from 2026 to 2035
- No new taxes to discourage flying
- No interference in people’s diets
- No measures to encourage carpooling
- Not implementing a recycling strategy requiring householders to operate 7 bins.
Updates will follow here when Sunak makes his speech.
Reactions from important people will be posted in comments. Readers are encouraged to add to these.
UPDATE:
Rishi Sunak’s speech has now been given. The entire transcript is copied below from the gov.uk website for you delectation.
Let me get straight to it.
I know people in our country are frustrated with our politics.
I know they feel that much gets promised, but not enough is delivered.
I know they watch the news or read the papers and wonder why in the face of the facts as they have them, choices are made as they are.
I know that they dislike Westminster game playing, the short termism, and the lack of accountability.
But most of all I think people are tired of the false choice between two versions of change that never go beyond a slogan.
I have been Prime Minister for nearly a year now and it is the privilege of my life.
I know the fundamentals of our great country are solid and timeless.
Its people are its greatest strength, economically and socially.
Their hopes and genius are what propel us forward, not Government.
Government can set the framework, step in when needed, and step back when necessary.
It can make big decisions.
But what I have concluded during my time so far as Prime Minister, is that those decisions – the decisions that could bring real change, change that could alter the trajectory of our country – can be so caveated, so influenced by special interests, so lacking in debate and fundamental scrutiny that we’ve stumbled into a consensus about the future of our country, that no one seems to be happy with.
And this is because too often, motivated by short term thinking, politicians have taken the easy way out.
Telling people the bits they want to hear, and not necessarily always the bits they need to hear.
We are making progress, including on my five priorities.
Inflation – down again today and on track to be halved.
Fastest growth in the G7 over the last two years.
Debt – on target to be falling.
The NHS – treating more patients than last year.
And small boats – crossings significantly down on last year.
But put simply: that isn’t enough.
If for too many, there remains a nagging sense that the path we’re on no matter which party is in government isn’t quite what we hoped for, and that no one seems to have the courage to say so.
That we make too little, that we spend too much, that things take too long and that even when we know these things, we seem powerless to change them.
Now, I am here today to tell you that we do not have to be powerless.
Our future doesn’t have to be a foregone conclusion.
Our destiny can be of our own choosing.
But only if we change the way our politics works.
Can we be brave in the decisions we make, even if there is a political cost?
Can we be honest when the facts change, even if it’s awkward?
And can we put the long-term interests of our country before the short-term political needs of the moment, even if it means being controversial?
I have spent my first year as Prime Minister bringing back stability to our economy, your government, and our country.
And now it is time to address the bigger, longer-term questions we face.
The real choice confronting us is do we really want to change our country and build a better future for our children, or do we want to carry on as we are.
I have made my decision: we are going to change.
And over the coming months, I will set out a series of long-term decisions to deliver that change.
And that starts today, with a new approach to one of the biggest challenges we face: climate change.
No one can watch the floods in Libya or the extreme heat in Europe this summer, and doubt that it is real and happening.
We must reduce our emissions.
And when I look at our economic future, I see huge opportunities in green industry.
The change in our economy is as profound as the industrial revolution and I’m confident that we can lead the world now as we did then.
So, I’ll have no truck with anyone saying we lack ambition.
But there’s nothing ambitious about simply asserting a goal for a short-term headline without being honest with the public about the tough choices and sacrifices involved and without any meaningful democratic debate about how we get there.
The Climate Change Committee have rightly said you don’t reach net zero simply by wishing it.
Yet that’s precisely what previous governments have done – both Labour and Conservative.
No one in Westminster politics has yet had the courage to look people in the eye and explain what’s really involved.
That’s wrong – and it changes now.
The plans made on your behalf assume this country will take an extraordinary series of steps that will fundamentally change our lives.
A ban on buying new boilers even if your home will never ever be suitable for a heat pump.
A ban that takes effect in just three years for those off the gas grid.
And mandatory home upgrades for property owners in just two years’ time.
There have even been proposals for:
- Taxes on eating meat
- New taxes on flying
- Compulsory car sharing if you drive to work
- And a government diktat to sort your rubbish into seven different bins.
Now I believe deeply that when you ask most people about climate change, they want to do the right thing, they’re even prepared to make sacrifices.
But it cannot be right for Westminster to impose such significant costs on working people especially those who are already struggling to make ends meet and to interfere so much in people’s way of life without a properly informed national debate.
That’s especially true because we’re so far ahead of every other country in the world.
We’ve had the fastest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the G7. Down almost 50% since 1990.
France? 22%.
The US? No change at all.
China? Up by over 300%.
And when our share of global emissions is less than 1%, how can it be right that British citizens, are now being told to sacrifice even more than others?
Because the risk here, for those of us who care about reaching Net Zero – as I do – is simple: If we continue down this path, we risk losing the consent of the British people.
And the resulting backlash would not just be against specific policies but against the wider mission itself, meaning we might never achieve our goal.
That’s why we have to do things differently.
We need sensible, green leadership.
It won’t be easy.
And it will require a wholly new kind of politics.
A politics that is transparent, and the space for a better, more honest debate about how we secure the country’s long-term interest.
So, how do we do that? What is our new approach to achieving net zero?
First, we need to change the debate.
We’re stuck between two extremes.
Those who want to abandon Net Zero altogether – because the costs are too high, the burdens too great or in some cases, they don’t accept the overwhelming evidence for climate change at all.
And then there are others who argue with an ideological zeal: we must move even faster, and go even further no matter the cost or disruption to people’s lives and regardless of how much quicker we’re already moving than any other country.
Both extremes are wrong.
Both fail to reckon with the reality of the situation.
Yes, Net Zero is going to be hard and will require us to change.
But in a democracy, we must also be able to scrutinise and debate those changes, many of which are hidden in plain sight – in a realistic manner.
This debate needs more clarity, not more emotion.
The test should be: do we have the fairest credible path to reach Net Zero by 2050, in a way that brings people with us?
Since becoming Prime Minister, I’ve examined our plans and I don’t think they meet that test.
We seem to have defaulted to an approach which will impose unacceptable costs on hard-pressed British families.
Costs that no one was ever told about, and which may not actually be necessary to deliver the emissions reduction that we need.
And why am I confident in saying that?
Because over the last decade or more, we’ve massively over delivered on every one of our carbon budgets despite continuous predictions we’d miss them.
We’ve seen rapid technological advances which have made things like renewables far cheaper:
Just consider offshore wind, where costs have fallen by 70% more than we projected in 2016.
And people are increasingly choosing to go green – look at how demand for electric vehicles has consistently outstripped forecasts.
Given these things, I’m confident that we can adopt a more pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic approach to meeting Net Zero that eases the burdens on working people.
And that’s the second part of our new approach.
Now I’m not saying there will be no hard choices.
And nor am I abandoning any of our targets or commitments.
I am unequivocal that we’ll meet our international agreements including the critical promises in Paris and Glasgow to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.
I’m proud that our country leads the world on Net Zero, with the most ambitious 2030 target of any major economy.
And as we’re as committed as ever to helping developing countries.
Just the other week I announced $2bn for the Green Climate Fund – the single biggest commitment of its kind, the UK has ever made.
But we can do all this in a fairer, better way – and today I can set out the details of what our new approach will mean for people.
That starts with electric vehicles.
We’re working hard to make the UK a world-leader.
I’m proud that we’ve already attracted billions of new investments from companies like Tata’s Jaguar Land Rover gigafactory.
And I expect that by 2030, the vast majority of cars sold will be electric. Why?
Because the costs are reducing; the range is improving; the charging infrastructure is growing.
People are already choosing electric vehicles to such an extent that we’re registering a new one every 60 seconds.
But I also think that at least for now, it should be you the consumer that makes that choice, not government forcing you to do it.
Because the upfront cost is still high – especially for families struggling with the cost of living.
Small businesses are worried about the practicalities.
And we’ve got further to go to get that charging infrastructure truly nationwide.
And we need to strengthen our own auto industry, so we aren’t reliant on heavily subsidised, carbon intensive imports, from countries like China.
So, to give us more time to prepare, I’m announcing today that we’re going to ease the transition to electric vehicles.
You’ll still be able to buy petrol and diesel cars and vans until 2035.
Even after that, you’ll still be able to buy and sell them second-hand.
We’re aligning our approach with countries like Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Australia, Canada, Sweden, and US states such as California, New York and Massachusetts and still ahead of the rest of America and other countries like New Zealand.
Now, to get to Net Zero, we also need a fairer, better approach to decarbonising how we heat our homes.
We’re making huge advances in the technologies that we need to do that, like heat pumps.
But we need a balance.
Between incentivising businesses to innovate, so heat pumps become even cheaper, more effective, and more attractive.
But without imposing costs on hard-pressed families, at a time when technology is often still expensive and won’t work in all homes.
For a family living in a terraced house in Darlington, the upfront cost could be around £10,000.
Even the most committed advocates of Net Zero must recognise that if our solution is to force people to pay that kind of money support will collapse, and we’ll simply never get there.
So, I’m announcing today that we will give people far more time to make the necessary transition to heat pumps.
We’ll never force anyone to rip out their existing boiler and replace it with a heat pump.
You’ll only ever have to make the switch when you’re replacing your boiler anyway, and even then, not until 2035.
And to help those households for whom this will be hardest I’m introducing a new exemption today so that they’ll never have to switch at all.
Now, this doesn’t mean I’m any less committed to decarbonising our homes.
Quite the opposite.
But rather than banning boilers before people can afford the alternative; we’re going to support them to make the switch.
I’m announcing today, that the Boiler Upgrade Scheme which gives people cash grants to replace their boiler, will be increased by 50% to £7,500.
There are no strings attached.
The money will never need to be repaid.
And this is one of the most generous schemes of its kind in Europe.
Next, energy efficiency.
This is critical to making our homes cheaper to heat.
That’s why we’ve got big government grants like the Great British Insulation Scheme.
But under current plans, some property owners would’ve been forced to make expensive upgrades in just two years’ time.
For a semi-detached house in Salisbury, you could be looking at a bill of £8,000.
And even if you’re only renting, you’ll more than likely see some of that passed on in higher rents.
That’s just wrong.
So those plans will be scrapped, and while we will continue to subsidise energy efficiency – we’ll never force any household to do it.
And that’s not all.
The debate about how we get to Net Zero has thrown up a range of worrying proposals and today I want to confirm that under this government, they’ll never happen.
The proposal for government to interfere in how many passengers you can have in your car.
I’ve scrapped it.
The proposal that we should force you to have seven different bins in your home.
I’ve scrapped it.
The proposal to make you change your diet – and harm British farmers – by taxing meat.
Or to create new taxes to discourage flying or going on holiday.
I’ve scrapped those too.
And nor will we ban new oil and gas in the North Sea which would simply leave us reliant on expensive, imported energy from foreign dictators like Putin.
We will never impose these unnecessary and heavy-handed measures on you, the British people but we will still meet our international commitments and hit Net Zero by 2050.
And if we’re going to change politics in the way I’m talking about, we can never allow carbon budgets to be set in the same way again.
The last Carbon Budget process was debated in the House of Commons for just 17 minutes and voted through with barely any consideration given to the hard choices needed to fulfil it.
It was the carbon equivalent of promising to boost government spending with no way to pay for it.
That’s not a responsible way to make decisions which have such a bearing on people’s lives.
So, when Parliament votes on carbon budgets in the future, I want to see it consider the plans to meet that budget, at the same time.
If the first part of our new approach to meeting Net Zero is to change the debate and the second part is a more pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic approach that eases the burdens on families…
…then the third is to embrace with even greater enthusiasm, the incredible opportunities of green industry and take the necessary practical steps to create whole new sectors and hundreds of thousands of good, well-paid jobs right across the country.
We’re already home to the four of the world’s largest offshore wind farms, we’re building an even bigger one at Dogger Bank and we’re improving our auction process to maximise private investment into this world-leading industry.
We’re lifting the ban on onshore wind.
We’re investing in four new clusters to capture and store carbon from the atmosphere.
And we’re building new nuclear power stations for the first time in thirty years.
Just this week, we took a significant long-term decision to raise funding for Sizewell C – putting beyond all doubt our commitment to decarbonising our power sector.
And later this autumn, we’ll shortlist the companies to build the new generation of small modular reactors.
But one of our biggest constraints to reaching Net Zero and improving our energy security, is this:
We’re investing billions in new energy projects, yet we don’t have the grid infrastructure to bring that power to households and businesses.
And when energy security is national security – that’s unacceptable.
Right now, it can take fourteen years to build new grid infrastructure.
There are enough projects waiting to be connected to generate over half of our future electricity needs.
So, I can announce today that the Chancellor and Energy Security Secretary will shortly bring forward comprehensive new reforms to energy infrastructure.
We’ll set out the UK’s first ever spatial plan for that infrastructure to give industry certainty and every community a say.
We’ll speed up planning for the most nationally significant projects.
And we’ll end the first-come-first-served approach to grid connections by raising the bar to enter the queue and make sure those ready first, will connect first.
So, from offshore wind, to nuclear, to a revolution in our energy infrastructure investors should have absolute confidence that we’re getting on with the job and the UK will remain the best place in the world to invest in the green industries of the future.
Not least, because of something else this country has always excelled at: innovation in new technologies.
As a country that emits less than 1% of the world’s carbon emissions, one of the most powerful contributions, we can make is our unique ability to develop new technologies that can help the world.
Like the SENSEWind team in Scotland developing the technology to service floating offshore wind turbines while still out at sea.
Or the researchers at Cambridge who pioneered a new way to turn sunlight into fuel.
And that’s why today we’re going further, creating the new, £150m Green Future Fellowship.
This will support at least 50 leading scientists and engineers to develop real, breakthrough green technologies.
And it builds on the £1 billion I invested as Chancellor, in the Net Zero Innovation Portfolio.
And finally, we can’t tackle climate change without protecting nature; and vice versa.
Just the loss of forests alone accounts for the equivalent of ten times the global emissions of the entire United Kingdom.
And in the coming weeks, ahead of my attendance at COP28, I will set out the next stage in our ambitious environmental agenda.
So, in conclusion.
This country is proud to be a world leader in reaching Net Zero by 2050.
But we simply won’t achieve it unless we change.
We’re now going to have a better, more honest debate about how we get there.
We’ll now have a more pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic approach that eases the burdens on families.
All while doubling down on the new green industries of the future.
In a democracy, that’s the only realistic path to Net Zero.
Consent, not imposition.
Honesty, not obfuscation.
Pragmatism, not ideology.
That’s how we’ll turn the challenge of net zero into the greatest opportunity – and the proudest achievement – of our lifetimes.
And this is just the start.
What we begin today, is bigger than any single policy or issue.
We are going to change the way our politics works.
We are going to make different decisions.
We won’t take the easy way out.
There will be resistance, and we will meet it.
Because I am determined to change our country and build a better future for our children.
Nothing less is acceptable.
Climate Scepticism 
To my mind, those commitments, if made, will necessarily involve abandoning the Net Zero 2050 target which is written into UK law. If Sunak makes those commitments, he will have to face the wrath of the Green lawfarer brigade or face up to revoking May’s net zero statutory instrument. Has he got the balls? If he has, will he split the party or will he face an immediate vote of no confidence?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, he’s still promising to get there, but more slowly. (Not sure how credible this is. How credible is Net Zero by 2050 anyway?) Tory MPs calling for a no confidence vote will be dicing with their seat on the green benches if an early election is precipitated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A discussion about the leak began on Cliscep here yesterday.
LikeLike
This from Labour on the BBC’s live coverage:
Labour commits to keeping ban on new diesel and petrol cars
Labour’s shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones says the party is committed to banning sales of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030.
Speaking to LBC, he said: “We supported the 2030 target when the Conservatives introduced it into Parliament”.
He went on to confirm that Labour would bring back the target to 2030, should the Conservatives move it to 2035, if they win the next general election.
@9.49
This is surely a mistake from Labour. They will have a hard time defending such an unpopular policy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
David Turver has a fairly comprehensive piece about this on his Substack. Usefully titled ‘Green Blob in Meltdown as Net Zero Targets Relaxed – A small step in the right direction, but only repealing the Climate Change Act can save us from penury’ it covers in particular a selection of the predictable green blob reactions. His conclusion:
I agree with this: repealing the CCA now is in my view not practical politics. But keeping up the pressure is of the first importance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Net Zero Watch’s press release:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comments from some of the PM’s friends, also from the BBC live page:
Chris Skidmore:
Zac Goldsmith:
Alok Sharma:
LikeLike
Net Zero Watch has a Press Release re this story. An extract:
NZW hopes Sunak will stick to his guns. So do I.
LikeLike
Apologies Jit – I missed your note on the NZW Presser.
LikeLike
The BBC has just reported that ‘Rishi Sunak will now deliver a speech at 16:30 this afternoon‘.
LikeLike
Another good article – this time by Fraser Myers on ‘spiked’. It’s worth reading in its entirety but I found the opening paragraph quite amusing:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Boris Johnson has said ahead of Sunak’s speech that Britain ‘cannot afford to falter now or in any way lose our ambition for this country’ on net zero.
LikeLike
Given Boris’s record, that should be enough for people to see sense. 😊
LikeLike
I’ll just wait for Sunak’s speech. It could all just turn out to be a storm in a teacup – and we know they are now a frequent occurrence due to climate change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So what have we learned from Sunak’s speech this afternoon? A few notes:
1. He is ‘confident’ the UK can lead the world on climate change.
2. But it’s not right to make changes that deeply affect people’s lives without an informed debate.
3. The country needs “sensible green leadership” and will require more transparent politics and a more honest debate around net zero.
4, Re EVs he says: ‘At least for now, it should be you, the consumer that makes that choice – not the government forcing you to do it.’
5. The public will still be able to buy new diesel and petrol vehicles until 2035, the PM says, a delay of five years on the current plan to ban them by 2030. Even after that they will be able to be sold second-hand.
6. Re heat pumps, ‘households will have more time make the transition to heat pumps, and households will only have to make the switch when they’re changing their boiler anyway, and not until 2035’.
7. ‘The boiler upgrade scheme will be increased by 50% to £7,500.’
8. … in the future he wants to see the government consider the plans to meet carbon budgets at the same time as setting them.
9. Re wind farms, ‘The auction process is being improved to maximise private investment and the ban on onshore winds is being lifted’.
10. He will set out the “next stage” of the environmental agenda before COP28 in Dubai later this year.
11. ‘Consent not imposition, honesty not obfuscation, pragmatism not ideology, are the keys to meeting the challenge of net zero,’ he says and finishes by saying that the government is going to ‘change the way politics works’.
12. He criticised his Tory predecessors for not levelling with people over net zero – and denounced some of the measures announced by Boris Johnson’s government. He claimed these put unnecessary burdens on voters.
LikeLike
A curate’s egg, then.
It will be interesting to see if he manages to disappoint Tory supporters while enraging the Green Blob.
He seems to have woken up to the electoral possibilities, but he may nevertheless have blown it by sitting on the fence.
LikeLike
This was an inauspicious start. According to reports the dam was in sore need of maintenance.
It was disappointing to hear him trebling down on windfarms and talk about grid connections as if there was no wider cost to those. Plus he is getting high on his own supply re: the supposed decline in windfarm costs.
That is not the test I would propose, which is a far more pragmatic one: we proceed on measures where the benefit exceeds the cost.
He said a lot about not imposing things on people, and then set about saying how he was going to impose things on people, just slightly more slowly.
The best thing about it is that it will hopefully create a debate where there was Borg-like unanimity before.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By the way, I updated the head post with the full transcript.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Consent, not imposition”
Sunak said nothing about scrapping the ‘energy smart appliances’ section of the Energy Bill, which allows the government to IMPOSE energy rationing and ‘load control’ upon the British public. So much for the transparent new politics on Net Zero then!
LikeLike
My summation of Sunak’s speech, left as a comment on David Turver’s Substack. Not a lot more to be said IMO. He blew it.
“Nothingburger speech by Sunak. Total waste of space. He pretends that he is walking the ‘right path’ between two extremes: those who want to scrap Net Zero and those who want to go harder and faster towards Net Zero. Net Zero IS an extreme political agenda to unilaterally (and thus completely ineffectively considering the major polluters are not ‘following our lead’) address a ‘climate emergency’ basically invented by the Guardian editorial team in 2018! You CANNOT pretend to be a ‘go slow with democratic consent on my side’ moderate when you are STILL intending to impose an extreme, unachievable, economically and socially destructive, physically impossible and completely unnecessary political agenda!”
LikeLike
My take is that there’s not very much here. The only serious change is the deferral of the ICE ban for five years – hardly radical as that’s EU policy anyway. Yet the greenies have gone into near-meltdown about it. Perhaps that’s what Sunak intended – he changed the ‘mood music’ and that may give him some electoral advantage.
LikeLike
Am I alone in finding extraordinarily strong parallels between Sunak’s backing away from Net Zero (however hesitantly) and the Brexit farrago?
In both cases we have an establishment absolutely committed to something (EU membership/net zero) and determined to deny the public any choice in the matter, with the main opposition parties fully signed up to the agenda in each case, while the Tories are split on it. In each case a vociferous section of the Tory party bangs on about the need for Brexit/net zero abandonment, while a large section of the Tory party sides strongly with the establishment view.
In each case we were told that opinion polls show strong majority support for the establishment view, yet with regard to Brexit that claim was wrong, as it may well be for net zero. In each case, despite the establishment’s apparent confidence in public support, the establishment is/was desperate to avoid the public being allowed a vote on the subject.
In each case when the establishment view ceases to hold sway with the Tory PM of the day, the establishment, including most Parliamentarians (and a substantial proportion of Tory MPs) goes into meltdown and fights tooth and nail to preserve the status quo. Rogue Tory MPs are so upset that they seemed over Brexit – and seem now – quite amenable to the idea of bringing their own government down over the issue.
By and large, the pro-EU, pro-NetZero people are the same. Curious then that the pro-EU anti-Brexit crowd accused Brexiteers of hankering after the days of empire etc, yet now claim that we need to preserve net zero so as to set an example to the world; if we abandon net zero, apparently we can’t expect Johnny Foreigner to take climate change seriously. As Robin Guenier might say, they’re neo-colonialists, and I agree. It’s all so very familiar and at the same time so very strange.
LikeLike
If you stayed tuned to hear the question and answer session, you will have heard ?I think GB News? ask about a referendum on Net Zero. The reply was a nervous laugh and a line something like “We’ve had enough referendums.”
LikeLike
Jaeme – yes, but scrapping net zero, although highly desirable, isn’t practical politics. OK this is only a tiny step and he could have done more, such as reinstating fracking. But it is a step – and it’s in the right direction. And that’s a huge improvement on anything any politician has done re the climate for many years.
LikeLike
I agree with Robin, and with Jit and Jaime.
The only extent to which I’m prepared to give Sunak the benefit of the doubt is to recognise that he’s a canny politician. He must have watched the Brexit shenanigans and be very worried about the same think happening as to the Tories as happened over Brexit. Also, it’s very difficult to suddenly reverse around two decades of consensus politics over climate change and net zero, because that would involve admitting that what has gone before was all wrong.
Nevertheless, it’s disappointing that he feels able only to splash about in the shallows, rather than (to use Robin’s term) to put some clear blue water between him and the opposition parties. As I mentioned in an earlier comment, he may end up falling between stools, annoying everyone and pleasing nobody. At least if he had announced something truly radical, he might justify the establishment meltdown that has followed his announcement, but he might just by doing so pick up a lot of votes that he currently looks like losing at the next general election.
LikeLike
I sincerely hope we don’t have a referendum. Recent polls have shown substantial support for Net Zero – until respondents consider its impact on their lives and wellbeing when support largely disappears. So much would depend on the wording of the referendum – and it would be so easy to get it wrong.
LikeLike
Robin, you say that scrapping net zero isn’t practical politics, but the imposition of net zero via statutory instrument, in a sham vote by Parliament, right at the end of May’s failed premiership, merely so she could shout something vainglorious about her ‘legacy’, was? Getting rid of that farcical target should be as simple and practical as was introducing it, that being with zero democratic debate and zero public consent. If Sunak is so interested in securing public consent, then the very first thing he should do is repeal Theresa May’s last poisonous parting swipe at the majority electorate whom she tried so hard to stich up with her execrable ‘EU withdrawal agreement’, failed, so stitched us up with Net Zero instead. ‘Practical politics’ is not going to stop Labour getting in. They’ll then have five years to take us further down the path to economic and social ruin.
LikeLike
Jaime: you know that scrapping May’s parting gift would provoke a massive row – an insistence on a proper and uncertain parliamentary vote and total media and academic meltdown. However desirable, it’s not practical politics and Sunak would almost certainly lose far more than he’d gain.
LikeLike
The BBC has a article by Justin Rowlatt and Mark Poynting titled ‘ Could Rishi Sunak’s green review threaten UK net zero?’: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66867679. I won’t attempt to summarise it except to note that unsurprisingly they conclude that the answer to their question is Yes. But I will quote their concluding statement:
And that’s the reason why we shouldn’t defer the ban on ICE cars for five years? Mad – quite mad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is interesting that the car manufacturers are also complaining about the policy changes:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/20/car-firms-condemn-sunak-plan-delay-petrol-diesel-vehicle-ban
It appears the car makers want government regulations to force people to buy their products rather than create vehicles that people actually want together with a charging network that is functional. Whatever happened to the free market?
As I have mentioned before, we own a Tesla Model 3. It works well for us as we can charge at home and have a second ICE vehicle. The Tesla network of fast chargers is fantastic, easy to use and reliable. It is simple to travel across North America in a Tesla. Ford and GM have made a deal with Tesla to use the Tesla network in North America and other manufacturers (Honda , Mercedes Benz) are joining in Could be a game changer for EV sales and if the Tesla network could be adopted in the UK by other manufacturers it would solve many of the UK charging problems:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/09/tesla-ford-gm-ev-charging-partnerships.html
LikeLike
Potentilla,
No disagreement from me on any of that. And while it’s true that some car manufacturers are complaining (I can imagine the anger if you’ve decided – as many seem to have done – to spend a fortune on ditching ICE manufacturing plant and replacing it with EV manufacturing plant: just look at the lost profits from ICE sales), not all are complaining. This is from the BBC website’s rolling coverage of the story this morning:
Meanwhile, the man who I regard as one of the most deluded and dangerous in Britain is at it again (same place for the reporting):
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-66872792
LikeLike
I think the lack of chargepoints is something of a phantom. It probably doesn’t take many bad experiences to make an average person acutely afraid of being out of range of home.
There are roughly 50,000 chargepoints in the UK for 850,000 EVs – 1 for every 17 vehicles. But we know that only 5-20% of EVs use public chargers, so that comes down to 1-4 cars per charger when only counting cars that use them. Sure there are going to be massive bottleneck moments on motorway service stations just prior to Christmas etc – but building in redundancy on that scale would not be a commercial decision.
(By the way, I estimate there are about 450 petrol cars per pump, and here we are dealing with cars that do not have the option of fuelling at home.)
LikeLike
Milliband is taking us for fools. If EVs are cheaper than the alternative, then people will choose them. You don’t have to ban the more expensive option to ensure uptake. This is just basic logic. I hope the presenters challenged him on this nonsense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
On the front page of the Guardian, Al Gore quoted as saying that Sunak is “doing the wrong thing.” What sort of outfit goes to Al Gore for a quote on its front page? Come back to us Al when the US’s per capita emissions are below the UK’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for this. Most useful to have the full text.
Meanwhile Ben Pile has a huge article-length tweet putting Sunak’s U-turn/pirouette into context of the world & everything. Dunno how he did it so fast. It must be there waiting in his brain for the right moment to come out.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Excellent stuff from Ben. Thanks, Geoff, for bringing it to our attention.
LikeLike
Fascinating stuff, the speech, the reactions, media spins, comments here and elsewhere. Of course Andy West would be the first to remind that cultural forces will determine eventual action or inaction. How will the body politic respond and for what are people actually willing to argue and fight?
As it happens, a recent Angus Reid survey in Canada may have some relevance, if UK citizenry is similarly broken into factions. A National Post article applies animal behavior metaphors to the clusters.
“Last week, the Angus Reid Institute released a study on the bubbling, sometimes boiling, political conflicts in Canada. The study characterized five culture war factions that comprise the country: the “zealous activists,” the “quiet accommodators,” the “conflicted middle,” the “frustrated skeptics” and the “defiant objectors.” They make up the political ecosystem, which is why they are perhaps best recast as members of the animal kingdom.”
“zealous activists,” (Wolves)
“quiet accommodators,” (Sheep)
“conflicted middle,” (Ostriches)
“frustrated skeptics” (Leopards)
“defiant objectors.” (Lions)
These are factions responding to the whole woke, social justice and genderism attack on traditional values and understandings, which of course include “climate emergency” as a pillar Wolves rally around. Seems obvious Leopards come out of hiding and together with Lions wake up the Ostriches while leading at least some sheep to higher ground.
Bruce Pardy writes at National Post:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/bruce-pardy-woke-wolves-dominate-the-culture-war-ecosystem-for-now
My synopsis:
LikeLiked by 1 person
That Ben Pile article is remarkable – as Mark says, excellent stuff.
Many thanks Geoff.
LikeLike
A seemingly contradictory statement from Ben:
“It was the mildest possible reversal. It is in fact an attempt to SAVE Net Zero, not roll it back.
. . . . . . .
Sunak could not have done less to correct this mess. But what he has done is a good thing. And it includes setting a trap for the eco-catastrophists. The more they howl and wail, the more they will expose their utter contempt for ordinary people.”
I think probably what Ben means is that Sunak intentionally set out to save Net Zero by backing down on some of the more unpopular policies which he knows will incite mass dissent, which could imperil the smooth progress towards ‘not achieving Net Zero but royally screwing up the country in the process.’ Politicians of all parties don’t want the plebs realising too quickly that the real purpose of Net Zero is to deindustrialise the nation and enable much more state control over our daily lives along the way.
The ‘good thing’ that Sunak has done is inadvertent because the reaction to his ‘mildest possible reversal’ may incite the meanest possible backlash from the eco-catastrophists and maybe, by so doing, out them as the “brainless ideological zombies” which we sceptics have known they are for years now anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re right Jaime – those statements also struck me as contradictory. It would be helpful if Ben could provide an explanation. I’ll try to contact him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An anti-Tory sitcom from 2007 is currently being repeated on Radio 4 Extra. Yesterday’s episode of _His Master’s Voice_ was about a Tory press baron’s efforts to steer David Cameron away from embracing green policies. Here he is puffing an opinion poll that he’s commissioned.
Press baron: ‘”Would you support the Tories if they increased your taxes?” 85% said no. That goes on the front pages of my dailies tomorrow.’
Journo: ‘Great. Of course, it doesn’t say anything about saving the planet.’
Press baron: ‘Of course it doesn’t! Saving the planet is noble. You never know what people might say, so you don’t ask. “Would you vote Tory if they took away your central heating and put a permanent clamp on your car?” Now that’s a much better question.’
(Minor tech note: It seems that the new WordPress set-up doesn’t offer you the chance to post comments if you have pasted them without modifying them in any way.)
LikeLike
Matt Goodwin has an interesting article on Sunak’s speech. His conclusion:
The Uxbridge bye-election result and opinion polls such as THIS suggest that they may.
LikeLike
Ron: “Of course Andy West would be the first to remind that cultural forces will determine eventual action or inaction.”
Fortunately, not everything goes well for a culture and the recent backlash against Net Zero policies is bad for climate catastrophism. But indeed there’s a lot of cultural momentum built up, and I doubt it is in major damage territory yet. The elites are still convinced, and as the first part of Ben’s statement from Jaime at 1:48pm says, I think this is an attempt to save Net Zero by making the on-ramp gentler, and I doubt there’s any lack of belief that it is still 100% needed. Yet with a general election looming and the party in a poor state, Sunak can both calm this backlash against Net Zero AND get some great political capital for doing so at the same time, also placing Labour in a more awkward position. And while he risked howls from the most ardent and indeed got them, in truth it’s a minimal concession and the howls are to some extent just a ritual that must be exercised yet will likely subtract far less from his political position than he gains by a big majority of a grateful public who are dismayed by the loss of ICE as near as 2030 etc. So now it will only be 2035; this has likely *increased* the chances of it actually happening, and yet Sunak gets political kudos for being sympathetic too – smart move I think.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Meanwhile:
“Firms still forced to sell more electric cars despite petrol ban delay”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66875554
I’m afraid this demonstrates a nonsensical position on the part of Sunak and the Government. What happened to “‘Consent not imposition, honesty not obfuscation…”?
If 22% of new car sales next year must be electric or else fines will follow, that doesn’t sound very consensual. It also means, I should imagine, that the price of new ICE cars will go up substantially as manufacturers and dealers seek to persuade car buyers to go for EVs instead of ICE cars and also to increase the profit they make on ICE car sales so that, if they still fail to hit the 22% EV sales requirement, they will have some extra money put by to pay the fine. I’m afraid I regard the maintenance of this ridiculous quota as profoundly dishonest, given what else was in the speech.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fabulous BBC bias on display here:
“Seven bins and Sunak’s other net zero claims fact checked”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66878893
Huge irony there. It’s normally sceptics who point out that net zero involves the UK exporting, rather than reducing its emissions, and doing so by having our products manufactured in countries dependent on cheap coal-fired electricity generation.
By the way, it’s interesting to note that the BBC never bothers to fact-check its own articles, which are regularly strewn with errors or questionable opinions stated as facts. Also, it only ever seems to fact check statements by people, or stories, it doesn’t like and seeks to undermine.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Guardian’s at it as well, of course:
“Factchecking Rishi Sunak’s claims on the net zero transition
Sandra Laville, Fiona Harvey and Helena Horton
We assess five claims used by the prime minister to try to justify his U-turn on green policies”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/21/factchecking-rishi-sunak-claims-on-the-net-zero-transition
In fairness, I think it makes a better job of it than does the BBC, though needless to say it’s fact-checking is highly selective (and Sunak did give them an open goal with regard to some of his dubious claims).
LikeLike
By the way, given that the net zero enthusiasts tend (with some exceptions) to be the anti-Brexit die-hards, it’s more than a little curious that they have gone into meltdown over Sunak’s doing little more than aligning the UK with the policies being adopted across the EU. This is also interesting:
“Swedish government faces backlash after slashing climate budget
Move has drawn comparisons to UK, where Rishi Sunak has U-turned on environmental commitments”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/21/swedish-government-faces-backlash-after-slashing-climate-budget
LikeLike
“Sunak’s anti-green stance exposes his reckless dishonesty. His fate is what matters, the planet can go hang
Polly Toynbee”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/21/sunak-net-zero-reckless-dishonest
I would very much like Polly Toynbee to explain to me the measurable difference to the planet (and its climate) that will be the consequence of Sunak’s announcement. I’d also be grateful if she could explain this:
What mortal peril? Climate-related deaths are down by around 99% in the last century despite a substantial multiplication of the human population on this planet in that time, and given that almost ten times as many people still die from extreme cold than from extreme heat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An FT headline this evening: How net zero became a global election issue A subject once regarded as a peripheral concern for voters has moved to centre stage.
Well, that’s what many Clisceppers wanted. How do we make the most of it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A subject once regarded as a peripheral concern for voters has moved to centre stage.”
While many people pursuing many angles have opposed the orthodoxy of a climate catastrophe for many years, I suspect that this opportunity has come about more through a heavy dose of reality than because of those efforts.
“Well, that’s what many Clisceppers wanted. How do we make the most of it?”
Reality is the enemy of culture, on this basis my best bet would be to ensure that reality never fades from the public consciousness again; so try to use the opportunity to it latch in permanently. This means not worrying about climate science, but going big on the ineffectiveness of policy to achieve actual results (Robin), the fact that the policies do not stem from rationality in the first place (me, and in a popular form people like Brendan O’Neil), and also the heavy downsides for humanity and even the environment of NZ policies anyhow (many), and all in the most public spaces possible.
But this is far easier said than done. On climate issues, the UK is not an island, it’s embedded in the global picture, so only at certain times is there opportunity for local deviance, which could be ‘corrected’ back to the global norm in-between those times. And the best way to ensure that reality stays latched in, is to have political representation, which is still not the case; Rishi’s minor dilution in no way amounts to political representation against climate and Net Zero orthodoxy. And pushing for a referendum before most of the reality has dawned on the public is risky; they are starting to learn about the cost aspect, but even now they could well vote for Net Zero, just ‘a bit later’.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Maybe it’s time for Robin to contact Bim again. I’d be very interested to know if he will dutifully fall into step with the new beat coming out of No. 10.
I think banging the drum about the futility of UK action is a good line to take. Reading the likes of the almost-hysterical Polly Toynbee in the Guardian (she is far from being alone) saying (I paraphrase) something along the lines of Sunak is letting the planet go to hell, is deeply dispiriting.If people understood that nothing the UK does can make a difference to anything in the scheme of things, the hysteria might die down, and the nation might take a calmer and more realistic look at the issue.
The unscientific anti-factual drivel pumped out by people who would be first to tell us we have to “follow the science” is deeply depressing.
LikeLike
Well, we all saw this coming:
“Rishi Sunak likely to face legal challenges over net zero U-turn
UK climate watchdog said policy change would make it more difficult to meet legal commitments”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/21/rishi-sunak-likely-to-face-legal-challenges-over-net-zero-u-turn
And, in fairness to the campaigners, if Sunak decides to ignore the law (in the form of the CCA) they may well have a good case. The only answer is to amend or repeal the CCA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarded by whom as a peripheral concern for voters? The fact is that the downstream effects of Net Zero policies have always been a central concern for voters. It has simply been the case that a veil of obfuscation has been thrown over what is happening now and what is in train in this area. From the unipolicy of our politicians to friendly Labrador media, debate has been shut down about why things are happening and what their consequences will be to ordinary folk. How absurd it was when the cost of the entire enterprise was portrayed in Skidmore’s recent review as the “growth opportunity of the 21st century” not the drag anchor on the UK it is at best and the existential crisis for us it is at worst.
When costs and benefits are debated openly, the sceptics can’t lose, because data and logic does not care what we believe reality is or wish it to be. Time for politicians to wake up to what they have signed us up to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“‘Wishful thinking’ for Sunak to say UK on course to meet emissions targets, says Climate Change Committee boss – as it happened”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/sep/21/rishi-sunak-net-zero-u-turn-environment-tory-labour-latest-politics-updates-live
Hilarious “wishful thinking” claim from someone who has indulged in wishful thinking for years.
LikeLike
Utterly delusional, IMO:
“Sunak’s net zero U-turn is so toxic that it’s united Greens and car manufacturers against him
Caroline Lucas”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/20/rishi-sunak-net-zero-u-turn-green-mps-car-manufacturers-caroline-lucas
At least she seems to have stopped (for now) claiming that wind energy is”9 x cheaper than gas”.
LikeLike
TCW has a post today headed ‘Sunak’s Net Zero ‘U-turn’ – or is it?’ which publishes Ben Pile’s excellent Twitter article. I commented and in my second paragraph attempted to resolve Ben’s apparent contradiction:
LikeLike
Sunak has pleased very few. The eco-hysterics are doing what they do best and only . . . . having hysterics. Most sceptics realise the ‘watering down’ is really only a drop in the ocean. But the increasingly pragmatic and aware public and even the right leaning press are quickly realising that Sunak’s alleged ‘u-turn’ on Green policies is nothing of the sort and doesn’t actually put a dent in the Net Zero juggernaut.
Ross Clark:
“Much as I welcome Rishi Sunak’s decision to relax proposed bans on the sale of petrol and diesel cars and gas boilers, this isn’t the last time he or his successors are going to have to revisit Britain’s net zero target.
The truth is that the Prime Minister needs to go much further in freeing us from the huge costs that will be visited on households and businesses if we plough on trying to reach the arbitrary 2050 goal.
As I argue in my book on the folly of rushing to net zero, the deadline has made us hostages to fortune.
Either we will be lucky, in that multiple technological breakthroughs will arrive just in time — or, more likely, we will find ourselves sacrificing much of our industry and living standards while having minimal impact on global carbon emissions.”
And he agrees with me on the utter absurdity of how all this started:
“The astonishing thing about the net zero target is that it was nodded through Parliament in the dying days of Theresa May’s government without a vote, an impact statement, any idea of what it would cost or even whether it could be achieved at all in an advanced industrial country.”
Repealing that ridiculous statutory instrument – and subsequently repealing or drastically amending the CCA 2008 – is the ONLY way this nonsense is going to end, be that initiated by due and proper political process (what we used to call democracy) or by riots on the streets and mass non-compliance.
LikeLike
“Long before 2050 comes, the target is almost certainly going to have to be dropped, extended or heavily watered down. I appreciate that political pressures might make it difficult for the Prime Minister to do this now — it would, at any rate, require primary legislation to abolish the Climate Change Act.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12547243/ROSS-CLARK-net-zero-deadline-approaching-Sunak-didnt-mention.html
The longer politicians wait, the deeper the damage will be done via the legally compelled pursuance of an unattainable target. Another year of fake Conservative dithering plus five years of a Weird Starmer government might just guarantee those riots.
LikeLike
Jaime, you say ‘ Sunak has pleased very few’. Very few commentators perhaps (if you include the eco-catastrophists) – but even Ross Clarke whom you cite (both links) welcomes yesterday’s announcement. But, far more relevant to the harsh reality of today’s politics, it seems – according to this poll conducted by YouGov yesterday – that his principle announcement (deferring the ICE ban) is supported by 50% of respondents (i.e. voters) and opposed by only 34% – confirming earlier and more substantial polls by Ipsos, YouGov and Professor Matt Goodwin. Certainly much more is needed but as Ross Clark says: ‘I appreciate that political pressures might make it difficult for the Prime Minister to do this now’.
LikeLike
With apologies to Macaulay and especially to brave Horatius, the current Captain of our Fate:-
Was none who would be foremost
To lead such Green attack;
But those behind cried ‘Forward!’
While Rishi whispered, ‘Back! …
… Just a little bit, please, into the light of the Overton window’.
’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not so John. Sunak has moved very slightly and cautiously forward – while those behind are crying out for a more determined attack. Don’t forget that brave Horatius, having moved forward, stood still and held off the Etruscans while others got on with demolishing the bridge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another FT headline: ‘Populism could derail the green transition Western politicians are scared of a backlash against climate change policies that have been sold as good for the economy.’ These greenies really don’t like the views or ordinary people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘Populism’ = majority opinion, most notable for being in opposition to the opinions of an elitist minority who generally have wealth and/or power. The prevalence of ‘populist’ opinion in society via voting used to be called democracy. Nowadays, ‘democracy’ equates to the imposition upon the majority of the views of the elitist minority, without popular consent and without debate.
LikeLiked by 5 people
This whole fuss is beyond ridiculous: all these hysterics when all Sunak has done is bring UK policy into line with much of Europe while in New York Antonio Guterres allowed the representatives of only 34 countries to speak at his Global Action Summit. It seems the rest (about 160 countries the source of over 70% of global GHG emissions and including China, the US, India, Russia, Japan, Indonesia and South Korea) don’t have ‘credible policies and plans’. Yet, so far as I can see, none of the eco-catastrophists, while fulminating about Sunak, has even mentioned it. Links: HERE and HERE .
An extract from the first link:
They may come to the table – but there’s zero likelihood of their offering anything of any significance. When will Guterres and the EU recognise that, apart from the US, none of these countries has any serious interest in cutting their emissions?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I recently mentioned this BBC article:
“Seven bins and Sunak’s other net zero claims fact checked”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66878893
Within 24 hours or so, the BBC has followed up with this:
“Councils in limbo after seven-bin policy scrapped”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66894091
Well, come on BBC, which is it? The seven bins claim was nonsense, or it was a ridiculous policy that deserved to be scrapped, or scrapping it leaves councils in limbo? It seems that a desire to criticise Sunak’s policy change overrides objective reporting.
LikeLike
Jaime,
>”The prevalence of ‘populist’ opinion in society via voting used to be called democracy.”
That’s exactly what I thought when I read this. At what point did real democracy become a dirty word? At what point did the JSO version become so laudable?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Rishi Sunak urged to stop attacking Climate Change Committee
Scientists ask PM to cease ‘politicising’ government’s independent advisers after his remarks and Tory letter to journalists”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/22/rishi-sunak-urged-to-stop-attacking-climate-change-committee
How shocking! It’s fine for the “non-political” chief executive and chairman of the CCC to go on BBC radio and criticise the Government, though….(which of course it is, but I don’t see why criticism should only be in one direction. To suggest that the CCC is in some way non-political, when its very function is to give advice with regard to a highly contentious and political set of issues, is absurd).
LikeLiked by 2 people
More propaganda from the BBC – about as one-sided and unbalanced as an article can possibly be. It also uses the old tactic of labelling (so as to give their pronouncements greater apparent credibility) all green campaigning organisations it quotes as “independent”.
“Net zero: Will Rishi Sunak’s changes to climate policies save money?”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66864122
LikeLike
“Only 22% of Britons trust Sunak on climate, finds Guardian poll
Exclusive: Poll finds fewer than a quarter of people trust PM to tackle climate crisis after policy U-turn”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/23/only-22-percent-of-britons-trust-sunak-on-climate-finds-guardian-poll
The Guardian is so confident regarding the methodology of this “exclusive” poll of…..1,313 people…..that it nowhere provides a link so that interested onlookers can check it out. I suspect that such polls are set up to get the results they want – seek and ye shall find – but without letting its readers see the poll in question, the Guardian is guilty of obfuscation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is that poll Mark. The reason the Graun doesn’t link to it is that its findings are VERY different from what the Guardian would like to portray to its readers.
https://wethink.report/polls/net-zero-is-important-but-personal-costs-worry-voters/
LikeLike
Jaime, from your link:
I wonder whether the Guardian reported this statistic?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark, the finale of your BBC link:
First, only a fool or someone with vested interests uses the phrase “climate catastrophe” seriously. Second, the dichotomy presented is absurd, since the major emitters are free riders and only guilt-wracked Western governments are taking the necessary measures. The formulation is only true if climate change will lead to catastrophic outcomes, and if you have world government (or effective international controls or sanctions), thereby eliminating free riders. Third, where is the evidence that the cost of wind and solar has plummeted? I expect a more substantial argument than a mere assertion. Even if the energy-extracting devices have fallen in cost, the cost of integrating them into a grid has not, and in fact the marginal cost must go up as the weather-dependent penetration goes up.
Fourth – and a more general observation about the article: to believe that Net Zero measures do not entail a net cost, you have to believe that governments are operating perversely in sticking to policies with more downsides than upsides. This is not credible, even with the low-quality politicians of today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John: “That’s exactly what I thought when I read this. At what point did real democracy become a dirty word? At what point did the JSO version become so laudable?”
Regarding climate change issues at least, across nations, clearly cultural patterns (due to climate catastrophism and its interaction with traditional religion), are definitely stable from 2015 onwards, but have not reached a stable pattern by 2009. So I believe that captured elites and grass-roots supporters alike would have passed your turning point somewhere in-between these 2 dates. However, it’s complicated by the fact that while climate catastrophism is one of the biggest cultural drivers, ‘populism’ is also used to describe pretty much anything right of centre politically, anything that riles against immigration, anything that riles against CRT based culture and so-called anti-racism, and in the UK anything that supports Brexit, and so on.
Back on climate-change alone though, those cultural patterns have remained stable through to late 2022, so despite Covid, although the impact of this eroded overall integrity at bit. Across about 40 series from about 20 sources, the pattern for ‘climate-change most-endorsing attitudes’ are summarised in the chart below. The y-axis is the climate-change most-endorsing response to survey questions, on the x-axis is national religiosity (NR). Black, correlating with NR responses, are from unconstrained questions (e.g. ‘how serious do you think climate-change is?’). Different gradients are different strengths of emotive alignment to catastrophism. Grey, anti-correlating with NR responses, are from reality-constrained questions (e.g. picking ‘action on climate-change’ as 1 of N top priorities from a bigger list of M issues). Different lines sinking downwards represent different constraint strengths (stronger = lower). E.g. a 1 out of 10 pick is stronger than say a 3 out of 12 pick, which is stronger than say a 6 out of 17 pick (the last is the WC line).
UK is at about 30% on the x-axis. Asking about delaying ICE abandonment by 5 years is a reality-constrained question, about medium strength would be my initial guess (so the ‘MC’ line). Hence for UK we’d expect about 25% to 35% for a CC most-endorsing response (i.e. in this case, opposing the move to delay). MC, medium-constrained, is dashed because it’s intuited; I’ve never found a survey with the same wording across many world nations, that roughly bisects the space between SC (strongly constrained) and WC (weakly-constrained). Moving ICE abandonment out in date is essentially weakening the constraint. If instead, the question asked to bring the date inwards, to say 2025, i.e. very close, this would strengthen the constraint a lot, and CC-endorsing responses would almost certainly drop below the SC line, maybe to the FC (F=Full) line, say 5 to 15%. If the date was pushed out to say 2045, i.e. very far away, CC most endorsing responses, i.e. opposing the move, may get close to a majority (say 45%), and given noise levels for any individual country are high, if this worked in the right direction it could indeed get a majority.
R-squared values go from 0.35 to 0.87, all p-values are below 0.02, the great majority being several to many orders below this.
LikeLike
The Speccie (Coffee House) has an article this morning by Patrick O’Flynn headed ‘Tory MPs can dare to dream about the next election’. O’Flynn suggests that Sunak’s speech may persuade some disenchanted habitual Tory voters to return to the fold. My post has garnered the most upvotes (jointly with someone else) and a lot interesting comments. Here’s what I said:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Re that Guardian report (well done Jaime for finding the actual findings that tell a very different story) it’s interesting that this morning The Times published some of the findings of a recent (21/22 September) YouGov poll (like the Graun it provided little detail). It reported that, whereas 36% support Sunak’s changes, 35% oppose them. However, when asked about the delayed ICE ban, 50% were in favour and 37% opposed – almost exactly the same as other current polls are finding. But I’d love to see more detail – e.g. the explanation of that 36/35% division and how findings are split between various categories of respondent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, I can’t see any link to the underlying categories for the ‘We Think’ poll Jaime links, but the YouGov one you linked has splits on regional, age, political lean etc. Surely, given polls are coming up with similar overall figures, one presumes the breakdowns wouldn’t be very different too.
LikeLike
Mark,
>”…but without letting its readers see the poll in question, the Guardian is guilty of obfuscation.”
Indeed so. But it is also guilty of failing to abide by the first of the 10 Elements of Journalism, as per Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel:
“Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.”
In explaining this element, the American Press Institute pointed out that:
“Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information.”
This, and the disingenuous way in which the Guardian recently reported upon the ONS data on temperature-related mortality in the UK, provides further evidence that, when it comes to reporting on climate change, the Guardian is no longer fit for purpose:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin, my opinion is that Sunak needs to go further and ditch Net Zero or commit to ditching it after the election. There are many sound, logical reasons the Tories could cite for abandoning a mad, uncosted, technologically unachievable, economically and socially disastrous policy which was just waived through Parliament with no public consultation or consent whatsoever. They could make that case to the electorate if they were so inclined. Either way, it looks very much like they are going to lose the next election anyway. If the Conservatives repealed Net Zero before the election, this would undoubtedly create uproar, and they would still probably lose, but it would also put Starmer in a very awkward position when he becomes PM, explaining to the public how he will re-implement Net Zero when he becomes PM, but this time having to justify in rather more detail exactly how it will be achieved, WHY it will be re-implemented when major polluters are obviously not following our lead, and what the costs to the public will be and how our lives will be disrupted by the inevitable transition. The Cons are in a lose lose situation. They might as well go for broke. This of course assumes that there is some difference between Labour and Conservative and that a significant proportion of Conservative MPs are not fully committed to implementing the mad Net Zero agenda. If the Parliamentary Uni-party is committed to driving over the cliff to Net Zero, as I suspect, then it really doesn’t matter what Sunak says or doesn’t say before the next election: the Cons will lose and Labour will press full steam ahead with the eco-catastrophe agenda, merely reversing the token gestures made by Sunak in his ‘u turn’ speech.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rupert Darwall weighs in on Sunak’s speech. His Article is:
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2023/09/21/rishi_sunak_speaks_sense_on_net_zero_981146.html
My take on Darwall:
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jaime, I don’t think Sunak would have a majority for that. Then you’re into no confidence -> leadership election -> Hunt at No. 10 -> status quo ante -> election -> Starmer at No. 10 -> avalanche of Net Zero measures -> pushback and potentially authoritarian crackdowns -> long term decline of UK standard of living.
The point is taken that the Conservatives have nothing to lose. However, Sunak’s announcement has already opened a tiny crack. Debate is surely a good thing. I still have hope that rationality will prevail.
If I was an advisor to Sunak, I would float the idea of pegging the UK’s per capita emissions to the world average. A level of action that is both achievable and rational because avoiding the free rider problem. That, or go to the next COP and demand all countries adopt our pathway or else walk. Guess what? They won’t agree. Then he can walk.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime: “my opinion is that Sunak needs to go further and ditch Net Zero or commit to ditching it after the election.”
As Jit notes it’s highly unlikely he’d get a majority of his own party onboard for that.
“There are many sound, logical reasons the Tories could cite for abandoning a mad, uncosted, technologically unachievable, economically and socially disastrous policy which was just waived through Parliament with no public consultation or consent whatsoever.”
But it’s never ever been an issue that has followed any sound or logical reasoning to date; indeed public attitudes and policy commitment across nations are reasonably predictable from cultural factors alone. While hard realities are making themselves felt, I think we’re still a very long way from rationality ruling. We can’t know what Sunak actually thinks, but my pure guess is that he still personally believes in Net Zero, and also that he can’t politically afford to ditch it anyhow, on which, pragmatically, due to the cultural capture of even most conservative MPs, he’s most likely right. It was clever to make a dilution that, despite howls from all the usual places, bought him time and kudos, but actually this makes it more not less likely that banning ICE can be achieved. And maybe it has opened a crack that can be exploited later, but I doubt very much whether he is the person who will try to exploit it further.
LikeLike
Andy, you say: ‘YouGov one you linked has splits on regional, age, political lean etc. ‘. Yes, but that was the YouGov 27/28 July poll. What I’d like to see are the details of their 21/22 September poll – also for The Times.
LikeLike
Jit, you say in reply to Jaime’s suggestion that Sunak should ditch Net Zero: ‘I don’t think Sunak would have a majority for that.‘. I very much agree. I fear it might well lead to a successful vote of no confidence and an early election that Starmer would win. No – a careful step at a time strategy is by far the best course.
As for pegging the UK’s per capita emissions to the world average, the latest EDGAR GHG data show that the UK at 6.27 ton/GHG is now below the world average (6.76): https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2023?vis=pop#emissions_table. I think Sunak would do well to take advantage of this remarkable fact. And I liked your COP28 idea.
LikeLike
Robin: ??
The survey at the link you provided, which includes splits, is entitled: “Would you support or oppose the government delaying its ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035?” and says ‘Conducted 20 September 2023, 3201 GB adults surveyed’. There are links to further Net Zero questions polled on the same day, which is not in July 0:
Am I missing something?
LikeLike
Ron: thanks for providing a link to the Darwall article. As usual for Darwall, it’s an excellent take on the current situation in the UK. His concluding paragraph is spot on:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Andy – it rather looks as though I may be missing something. Today’s Times poll provided overall answers to three questions, but no detailed breakdown.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Matt Goodwin’s breakdown of polling figures from his article 2 days ago. You can’t see all the article without subscribing, but you can see enough for the breakdown of views. I don’t think there’s anything too surprising in these.
https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/rishis-rollback-of-net-zero
LikeLike
Andy, I subscribe to Matt’s substack and he has kindly sent me details of two of his polls. And they and YouGov and others are telling the same story: the delay of the ICE ban is popular. It seems Sunak has made a good start. Let’s hope it’s more than just a start. But in any case, as I said, I thought Darwall’s final paragraph was spot on: ‘Britain’s climate policy debate will never be the same.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
I am largely reserving judgement while I see how this plays out. However, the hysterical response from the eco-zealots and the intense debate that is already taking place in the media, suggests that at last the issue of net zero is up for discussion.
I may yet have to change my initial opinion, and decide that Rishi Sunak is perhaps shrewder than I originally gave him credit for. Step by step, testing the water, wrong-footing the opposition, then perhaps being a little bolder if it looks as though that would prove popular, might be his plan. So long as he keeps moving in the right direction, then all power to his elbow.
LikeLike
Having said that, he still has a problem with the Courts unless he moves to amend the CCA. Could his game plan be to lose a Court case, then come out and claim that the Courts are preventing the Government from acting in the nation’s interests, and so he has no alternative but to seek to amend the CCA so as to prevent ongoing damaging litigation? No doubt we’ll find out in due course.
LikeLike
“The Observer view on Rishi Sunak’s net zero backtrack: a cynical ploy that won’t play with voters
The prime minister has trashed the consensus on climate to no electoral avail for the Tories”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/23/observer-view-rishi-sunaks-cynical-backtracking-on-climate-will-be-to-no-electoral-avail
Giving the voters a meaningful choice in the world of Observer/Guardian editor is trashing a consensus. I see. There’s more:
If they’re so confident of this point of view, why are they so desperate to run dozens of articles howling in anguish? It can only be a problem, surely, if the change of tack is a vote-winner?
We end, as usual with Guardian/Observer articles, with a concluding paragraph introducing the word “toxic”, a much over-used word in those newspapers. It seems that everything the Guardian dislikes is “toxic”:
LikeLike
Another article in similar vein, though more thoughtful and interesting than the utterly predictable editorial line:
“Watering down the UK’s net zero strategy may backfire for Rishi Sunak
Robert Ford
Just as the ‘stop the boats’ campaign didn’t win the Tories support, their new ‘red wall’-targeting policy on carbon emissions may backfire”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/23/watering-down-the-uks-net-zero-strategy-may-backfire-for-rishi-sunak
LikeLike
The Sunday Torygraph has a good article by Janet Daly headed: ‘ On net zero, Britain can’t afford to be the moral model to the world Political grand-standing comes at too high a price. Sunak has realised this, Starmer still toys with making people poorer. She notes that, when eco-alarmists are asked why it’s so important for Britain to ‘act’ when it contributes so little to global GHG emissions, they always answer that we ‘must stand as an example to the world of how a nation and its people could willingly make sacrifices in the name of the greater good.’ She has no difficulty in demolishing that position and concludes with this:
However before we get too excited about all these developments we should I suggest note that, according to a YouGov poll published yesterday, Sunak’s net favourability score has fallen to a new low of -45.
LikeLike
“Ross Clark: There’s one net zero deadline that’s fast approaching which Rishi Sunak didn’t mention. And it should seriously worry all of us”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12547243/ROSS-CLARK-net-zero-deadline-approaching-Sunak-didnt-mention.html
LikeLike
Mark, re that Ross Clark article – while it’s true that Labour’s plans for 2030 may be absurd (they are), they don’t include a target to remove all fossil fuels from the grid. Labour’s plans can be found HERE . An extract:
[My emphasis]
So, in the event of one of these ‘extended periods without wind or sun’ and if, as seems certain, CCS, hydrogen and long-term energy storage couldn’t cover the shortfall of electric power (let’s say 60%), a Labour government could simply call up their ‘strategic reserve’. Problem solved. And it would be within their policy.
LikeLike
Robin,
Thank you for that important clarification, which demonstrates that they are not completely mad. However, it is still, as you say, absurd. On what basis will the gas-fired power station operators be paid to twiddle their thumbs and then come back on inefficiently at great expense when our Lords and Masters call on them?
LikeLike
The BBC will hold the front page for anyone saying what they want:
“Net zero: Rishi Sunak ‘destroying’ UK green credibility, says Yanis Varoufakis”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66905231
How shameful! How dare he allow the electorate to have a choice, and to offer policies that a substantial proportion of the electorate favours? What is he? Some sort of believer in democracy?
LikeLike
Mark, you ask – ‘On what basis will the gas-fired power station operators be paid to twiddle their thumbs and then come back on inefficiently at great expense when our Lords and Masters call on them?‘
Good question. And how much gas-fired power would be kept in reserve? It would have to be a lot to cover likely eventualities. And of course it means that Labour’s promise of ‘a cheaper, zero carbon electricity system by 2030‘ is simply untrue – it’s not what they’re planning at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And if, as Varoufakis says, Sunak has ‘destroyed all the credibility that [UK] governments have tried to build up regarding commitments to net zero” by bringing our policy into line with the EU’s, logic says that he believes the EU’s policies are without credibility. But I don’t suppose logic applies here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin in ‘Draft Note for Bim’(2023-09-19 at 5.44pm) set out this challenge, “And maybe – just maybe – we’re beginning to move towards that desirable outcome. I wonder: is there anything we might do to accelerate that?”
I have considered Robin’s challenge in the light of what the prime minister subsequently announced (as quoted below) and make the following observations:-
1. Towards an Honest Debate (at last!)
Sunak said, “But what I have concluded during my time so far as Prime Minister, is that those decisions – the decisions that could bring real change, change that could alter the trajectory of our country – can be so caveated, so influenced by special interests, so lacking in debate and fundamental scrutiny that we’ve stumbled into a consensus about the future of our country, that no one seems to be happy with.”
Sunak said, “And this is because too often, motivated by short term thinking, politicians have taken the easy way out. Telling people the bits they want to hear, and not necessarily always the bits they need to hear.”
Sunak said, “… the path we’re on no matter which party is in government isn’t quite what we hoped for, and that no one seems to have the courage to say so.
That we make too little, that we spend too much, that things take too long …”
Sunak said, “Can we be honest when the facts change, even if it’s awkward?”
My comment is, firstly, to echo the prime minister’s “Can we be honest?” given the huge vested interests (plus their huge support amongst the elites of the media and civil service) in extracting maximum rent from present policies. The prime minister will have to make some serious changes in government (in its very broadest sense) if a move towards an honest debate is to be attempted – more power to his elbow.
2. Policy Targets, Their Costs and Public/Parliamentary Scrutiny
Sunak said, “But there’s nothing ambitious about simply asserting a goal for a short-term headline without being honest with the public about the tough choices and sacrifices involved and without any meaningful democratic debate about how we get there.”
Sunak said, “No one in Westminster politics has yet had the courage to look people in the eye and explain what’s really involved.”
Sunak said, “The test should be: do we have the fairest credible path to reach Net Zero by 2050, in a way that brings people with us?”
Sunak said, “We seem to have defaulted to an approach which will impose unacceptable costs on hard-pressed British families. Costs that no one was ever told about …”
Sunak said, “And if we’re going to change politics in the way I’m talking about, we can never allow carbon budgets to be set in the same way again.”
Sunak said, “So, when Parliament votes on carbon budgets in the future, I want to see it consider the plans to meet that budget, at the same time.”
If the prime minister follows through on this latter comment then he seems to be challenging parliament to face up to the ruinous costs that its current policies have already imposed upon the public. Again, more power to his elbow.
3. Energy Policy and Infrastructure (plus more Honesty)
Sunak said, “And later this autumn, we’ll shortlist the companies to build the new generation of small modular reactors.”
Sunak said, “We’ll set out the UK’s first ever spatial plan for that [energy] infrastructure to give industry certainty and every community a say.”
Sunak said, “This country is proud to be a world leader in reaching Net Zero by 2050 … We’re now going to have a better, more honest debate about how we get there.”
Sunak said, “Consent, not imposition. Honesty, not obfuscation. Pragmatism, not ideology.”
Once again, the prime minister is suggesting more openness, more honesty and more democratic scrutiny. Excellent … if it can be achieved!
Overall, my inferences are that the prime minister:-
a) Knows, but dare not yet acknowledge publicly, that current renewables have been and remain ruinously expensive and technically incompetent (even if he is, as yet, unaware of their major EROEI failings);
b) Is challenging parliament to thoroughly examine, and thereby take responsibility for, future energy policy costs in a way that the GrIM (green-industrial-media) complex has to date, via the consensus argument, helped to gloss over;
c) Is trying for greater public involvement in order to bring into plain sight and thereby counter both the GrIM’s greenwashing and its rent-seeking tendency.
d) Is trying to move the Overton window in the direction of greater public scrutiny of today’s GrIM policies, probably with the twin but strongly coupled objectives of (i) improving his and the Tories’ re-electability and (ii) nudging parliament towards a thermodynamically competent and affordable energy policy i.e. one that ordinary British people, as opposed to rent-seekers, can sustain financially.
I will address in a later post, once I have seen your comments, how I think we might now answer Robin’s challenge. The prime minister too has set himself a huge challenge; all credit to him for that.
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you John. Apart from all else, your useful analysis answers what Jaime and I thought were contradictory statements in Ben Pile’s article. Yes, it seems that Sunak is genuinely attempting to ‘save Net Zero, not roll it back‘. But that’s easily compatible with Ben’s later observation that ‘what he has done is a good thing.‘ It’s a good thing, not because he’s trying to save Net Zero, but because (1) he’s broken with the consensus – a rift from which I believe there’s no going back and (2) it means that he intends to try to get to Net Zero by a route that involves ‘meaningful democratic debate about how we get there.‘ And, if he truly means that (and I sense he does), it would unquestionably be a good thing. Especially as he would soon discover that Net Zero is unachievable.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin,
As I suggested yesterday, the jury is still out for me regarding Sunak’s motivation and the game he’s playing – is it all politics, is he serious about having a debate and giving the public a democratic choice? At this stage I really have no idea, but I am watching developments with great interest.
LikeLike
Mark:
One thing you can be sure about is that he’s broken the consensus. Even if that’s all he’s done, it’s unquestionably a good thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Net zero and the politics of narcissism
Climate hysteria is symptomatic of our absurdist age”
https://unherd.com/2023/09/net-zero-and-the-politics-of-narcissism/
LikeLike
Perhaps we really will have a debate and the public really will have a(n imperfect) choice at the next general election:
“Labour to stand firm on net zero policies and attack cost of Tory retreat
Party will argue green growth is route to lower bills and says Rishi Sunak will leave UK stuck in economic ‘doom loop’”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/25/labour-to-stand-firm-on-net-zero-policies-and-attack-cost-of-tory-retreat
If this is true, then for Sunak it may be a case of “job done” – Labour will be the party on very thin electoral ice. It might not be enough to save the deservedly unpopular Tories from defeat, but it could deny Labour a clear majority and who knows? It might even cost them the election altogether. After all, the public aren’t as stupid as many Labour politicians. They can see what net zero involves, and lots of them don’t like it all.
LikeLike
“Alok Sharma challenges Rishi Sunak: show us how UK can meet green pledges
Former Cop26 chair says emissions cuts must be made elsewhere and ministers must show how they plan to achieve this”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/24/alok-sharma-challenges-rishi-sunak-show-us-how-uk-can-meet-green-pledges
Regrettably, Sharma is right. The CCA (as amended by May’s little-noticed net zero statutory instrument) is legally binding, and therefore so are the carbon budgets made under its aegis. It must be repealed or greatly amended if Sunak is to avoid the usual suspects bringing case after case in the Courts. Is that his plan? To point to the chaos, to say it’s ridiculous for a Government to have its hands tied in this way, and that therefore the Act must be repealed? Let’s hope so, though I have my doubts.
LikeLike
The carbon budgets would certainly seem to be a serious problem – perhaps Sunak does plan to let a Court challenge enable him to highlight the absurdity of the whole shebang – although like you I rather doubt it. We’ll have to wait and see. But one day – probably not yet – a Court will almost certainly have to face the reality that the Government (Tory or Labour) is unable to meet its clear CCA obligations because it’s simply impossible to do so – unless of course the CCA is repealed which currently seems unlikely.
It’s interesting – although not surprising – that Sharma is taking a tough line. Interesting because from his previous comments I got the impression that Bim is a Sharma supporter. His response to my brief email (if I get one) should be interesting – and possibly indicative of how many Tory backbenchers see things.
LikeLike
“UK electric car sales risk falling further behind after Sunak U-turn, analysts say
Country already trails well behind Europe and PM’s backtracking on climate policies could widen the gap”
A couple of quick points. Apparently our lack of public charging points is a disgrace compared to the EU, yet this article also confirms that while the UK now has 11.3 electric vehicles for every publicly accessible charge point, and that this is leading to “range anxiety” for drivers considering buying an electric vehicle for longer journeys, in Germany there are 12.8 public charging points per EV. Yet it is the UK that has now been labelled a climate pariah. Do they not also have range anxiety in Germany, then?
We are also told:
It’s always an investment, never a cost, it seems. Never mind that the trillions that net zero will cost the UK could more usefully be spent on ameliorating poverty instead of exacerbating it.
LikeLike
Would this have happened without Sunak’s soft shoe shuffle?
“Biggest untapped UK oil field approved by regulators”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66933804
Needless to say the usual suspects are having a meltdown about it.
LikeLike
Professor Tim Jackson (Professor of Sustainable Development and Director of the Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity, University of Surrey) has launched an extraordinary attack on Sunak’s climate speech in an article in The Conversation titled ‘Rishi Sunak has ripped up decades of cross-party consensus on climate change.’
Jackson says, ‘There was so much patently wrong in the speech that it’s difficult to know where to start.’ Well, there’s much that’s patently wrong with his article that it’s extremely difficult to know where to start. But here’s an extract:
I think his reference to Arendt may be significant. A Jew born in Germany in 1906 she fled the Nazis in 1933 and moved to the US where she became established as an authority on totalitarianism. Controversially, she argued that Adolf Eichmann was not inwardly wicked or depraved but merely “thoughtless”: his role in the extermination of the Jews therefore epitomised the fearsome “banality of evil” that had swept across Europe at the time. Could Jackson be trying to suggest that Sunak, like Eichmann, has unthinkingly launched something that is likely to lead to a dreadful outcome?
LikeLike
Has Sunak really blinked?
“Most new cars sold in UK will have to be fully electric by 2030, government confirms
Green campaigners relieved after last week’s decision to delay ban on petrol and diesel cars”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/28/majority-of-newscars-sold-in-uk-will-have-to-be-fully-electric-by-2030-government-confirms
LikeLike
So there you are. The ‘u turn’ was a big fat nothingburger. Instead of banning ICE cars and gas boilers, the government is compelling manufacturers to stop producing them, issuing them with statutory targets for EVs and heat pumps and fining them for every ICE car or gas boiler produced over quota. Nut Zero is still full speed ahead complete with Soviet era Marxist economic principles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Has Sunak really blinked (Part 2)?
“Prime minister Rishi Sunak pledges to compensate disrupted communities”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-66950453
It doesn’t sound like it.
LikeLike
Robin, thank you for raising Arendt’s ‘banality of evil’ argument as I think it is very pertinent to all the arguments around the so-called energy transition away from fossil fuels towards more electric technologies.
I hope to return to this topic later but, in short, I suspect that those who advocate for Net Zero and similar policies are falling into what I call the Eichmann trap i.e. they have shown and continue to show a lack of consideration to those who will suffer from their Net Zero policies.
In haste,
John. [P.S. I am finding commenting very difficult with WordPress these days.]
LikeLike
John C: thanks for the comment – I was beginning to think that no one had seen my reference to Professor Jackson’s preposterous attack on the minor adjustments made in Sunak’s speech. I was especially interested in his reference to Hannah Arendt. I hope you’ll be able to return to this topic soon. R
LikeLike
From the FT: ‘British exporters face hefty EU carbon tax bill after Sunak weakens climate policies. UK carbon market collapse lets Brussels benefit from revenues that would previously have gone to Treasury’
How on earth have Sunak’s minor adjustments caused the ‘UK carbon market’ to collapse?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is there still hope?
“Kemi Badenoch: We Can’t Bankrupt Ourselves Getting to Net Zero”
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/10/01/kemi-badenoch-we-cant-bankrupt-ourselves-getting-to-net-zero/
LikeLike
“Tory swing voters switch to Labour after Sunak’s green retreat, poll finds
Survey shows nearly 90% of 2019 Conservative voters say green industry is vital to UK’s economic growth”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/01/tory-swing-voters-switch-to-labour-after-sunaks-green-retreat-poll-finds
The article purports to offer an embedded link to the survey (or so I thought), but when I clicked on it, it was simply a link to another Guardian article. That’s an increasingly regular Guardian ruse. Embedded links can look like a link to something justifying a claim made in the article. But if people don’t click on the link, they won’t discover that it’s no such thing. It’s a bit like climate scientists citing their own work as justification for the “new” claims made in their latest study, IMO.
LikeLike
Robin yesterday: the story is now on the front page of the FT, where it notes that the carbon border tax does not come into force until 2026. Of particular interest to me was this little snippet:
I am horrified to discover that there is such an operation as a “carbon consultancy.” Reality is slipping through our fingers.
We must also note that the FT, and Ferdinand, have no idea what the carbon price will be in 2026. It should be zero in my view but it won’t be. There is no reason to suppose it will be as low as today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes Mark it does seem that, when the Guardian provides a link to what appears to be evidence supporting a claim, it commonly turns out to be a link to another Guardian article on the same topic. But, in the particular example you cite, there was good reason why they might not wish to provide a link to the survey itself. As a Spectator article (‘Why did the Observer bury a poll showing Starmer’s shrinking lead?‘) notes:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-did-the-observer-bury-a-poll-showing-starmers-shrinking-lead/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
Further to our brief mentions of The Banality of Evil or Eichmann trap, I think there is much to say on this topic. However, as a brief starter I note that Curry [Ref. 1] mentions several of the 2015 Sustainable Development (SD) goals: 1st is No poverty, 2nd is Zero hunger, then in 7th place is Affordable and clean energy, and way down in 13th place is Climate action.
Thus the West’s obsession with Climate action in its various forms (such as Net Zero) is addressing a subsidiary issue, especially as the proposed climate solutions in the form of current renewables drive up electricity prices (thereby contradicting SD goal 7) and hence exacerbate energy poverty thereby driving many families into the heat-or-eat poverty trap (i.e. actually reducing the chances of attaining SD goals 1 and 2).
Because of its Dash-for-Net-Zero obsession there has been an almost complete absence of competent cost-benefit analysis by the Establishment. In its headlong rush to achieve its “luxury beliefs” [Ref. 3] the Establishment utterly failed to consider the huge costs its policies would necessarily impose upon people other than themselves while the rent-seekers and their cheer leaders in the press equally showed no interest in such costs, contemptuously dismissing all nay sayers as in the pay of Big Oil or Big Coal etc.
In summary, there has been a complete lack of concern for the little people who have to support these onerous policies. This is, at the very least, a moral failing akin to Eichmann’s (albeit, mercifully, on a much less heinous scale). At a practical level, too, this shows a major failing of our parliamentary institutions in the West. And it was all so very, very avoidable if more temperate voices had been heeded at any time during the last couple of decades.
In fact, to rub salt into the wound, the situation is even worse than set out above because the current “renewables” have such low EROEI values [Ref. 2] compared to conventional fossil-fuel and nuclear options that they do much more damage to Gaia. But do those with “luxury beliefs” care?
References
1. Judith A. Curry, “”Climate Uncertainty and Risk”, Anthem Press, 2023, especially pages 249-250.
2. David Turver, https://davidturver.substack.com/p/why-eroei-matters
3. Matthew Goodwin, “Values, Voice and Virtue”, Penguin, 2023, especially pages 20, 65, 140-147, and 175. The latter page says, “… providing another example of how the luxury elite beliefs that are promoted by the new elite often entail very negative consequences for other groups in society.”
Regards,
John.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The eco-zealots in the Tory party aren’t go to lie down and take Rishi’s soft shoe shuffle without making a lot of noise about it:
“Net zero isn’t act of economic harm, Theresa May says”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66988847
She makes three basic errors, IMO:
Well, we’ve been leading the way, supposedly, for a decade or two now, our energy has never been as expensive, manufacturing has collapsed, having been exported to China and elsewhere (along with the associated GHG emissions), and the much-vaunted “green” jobs haven’t appeared. So where’s her evidence?
Thereby ignoring the fact that we in the UK can’t make any difference to climate change, whatever we do, if the rest of the world don’t follow us in our act of economic suicide.
Thereby failing to understand that when the Tories go full steam ahead on net zero, they will never receive any credit or votes from lefty greenies, but they will alienate traditional Tory voters and lose votes from their core support.
LikeLike
We at Cliscep have in the past chewed the fat regarding the possibility of Kemi Badenoch becoming Tory leader, and whether she would be better than the alternatives. Well, here’s an interesting take from one of the Guardian’s better and more thoughtful contributors, Simon Jenkins:
“Kemi Badenoch as next Tory leader? That would not be such a bad thing for the party
The trade minister is showing herself to be tactical rather than strident, and pragmatic on issues such as the climate crisis”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/03/kemi-badenoch-next-tory-leader-not-bad-thing-for-party
Good to see a Guardian journalist acknowledging “the crippling cost of climate-change policies”.
LikeLike
Whenever I glance at the title of this thread, my eyesight fails me and I see “Binks” reminding me of a floppy-eared Sith Lord Ja Ja Binks with a crap voice. Is there any hope?
LikeLike
Well, we all saw this coming:
“Chris Packham to challenge Rishi Sunak over net zero policy delays”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67008481
The only way to stop this sort of thing is to repeal or substantially amend the CCA. When will the Government work this out?
LikeLike
John C: there’s so much good sense in your recent comment that I find it hard to respond. One comment however: establishments in the West have been obsessed by emission reduction since the 1992 UN ‘Earth Summit’ in Rio. However, as has been shown by for example Matt Goodwin, it’s clear that ordinary people in the UK don’t share the establishment’s (i.e. the elite’s) reverence for the UN nor its obsession with emission reduction. Hence Sunak’s hopeless dilemma: he – like his peers – has no doubt about the need for net zero but is trying to reconcile that with clear evidence that most people will go along with that only so long as it doesn’t exacerbate their cost-of-living struggles. It is of course a dilemma that’s impossible to resolve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“‘Detached from reality’: anger as Rishi Sunak plans to restrict solar panels
Climate campaigners dismiss government argument that controversial move will improve food security”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/07/rishi-sunak-plans-to-restrict-solar-panels
LikeLike
Mark: that Guardian article re solar panels is interesting. It seems that Sunak is prepared to chip away at various aspects of the net zero madness. Nothing much to be sure – but perhaps he did blink after all.
LikeLike
This article strikes me as the Guardian at its worst, I’m afraid:
“Dear Keir Starmer: here’s what you should know about Sunak’s attack on climate policy – he lied and lied”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/09/keir-starmer-sunak-attack-climate-policy
LikeLike
I’ve been looking at reports of Rachel Reeves’ and Ed Miliband’s speeches today to see what we can expect re climate policy from a Labour government.
To start with Reeves – she having said ‘You cannot tax and spend your way to economic growth’, indicated that therefore there had to be more government borrowing – primarily for investment in energy infrastructure’. Hmm – following Truss’ experience, it’s hard to see the money markets being very enthusiastic about that. But perhaps they’d be impressed by her assurance that Labour will approach the public finances with ‘iron discipline’. Incidentally she called for a ‘proper windfall tax,’ suggesting again that the effective 75 per cent tax rate on the big energy companies right now is not high enough.
Now Miliband – having accused Sunak of ‘dithering and delaying’ over tackling the climate crisis, (‘But friends, he’s wrong. He’s dead wrong’), he went on to list the things Labour would do differently. First, Labour would create ‘GB Energy’, a state-owned company which would invest in energy. Having commented that he’s ‘proud that Keir’s 2030 mission is for the greatest investment in homegrown energy in British history’, he went on to say: ‘We’ll double onshore wind. We’ll treble solar. We’ll quadruple offshore wind. We’ll invest in nuclear and hydrogen and carbon capture and tidal power.’ This elicited ‘huge applause’.
I don’t have to say that this would – in the unlikely event of it’s being possible – be massively expensive. It would be interesting to see how all this ‘investment’ it can be reconciled with Reeves’ promised ‘iron discipline’.
LikeLike
Robin, they have lost touch with reality. I would imagine that the markets will do to them what they did to Truss and Kwarteng, except that I fear that “green capitalism” has also lost touch with reality. It’s rather alarming to me that I have gone from being a Labour Party activist to becoming someone who sees the way I cast my vote at the next general election as being all about how I can most effectively try to keep Labour out of office, despite despising the alternative. What a mess!
LikeLike
Mark:
Does Fiona Harvey (environment editor at the Guardian) really believe all that … really believe that Sunak’s minor adjustments to climate policy amount to a ‘bitter and sustained attack’? And does she really think the UK achieving net zero could stop ‘extreme weather around the world’?
That in my view is the key question: even if you believe that man-made climate change is the cause of extreme weather around the world, what makes you think that eliminating the UK’s miniscule share of GHG emissions would eliminate the problem and therefore make the massive costs worthwhile? And it applies to Miliband: what’s the point of the huge ‘investments’ and vast disruption of the extraordinary programme he’s planning?
Yet Mark: a vote to keep Labour out of office would, if successful, mean keeping the Tories in office – and, despite Harvey’s ravings, their climate policy is just as absurd and just as dangerous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This afternoon I’ve been looking at reports of Keir Starmer’s speech to see what we can expect re climate policy from a Labour government. This is what I found:
He promised to create a national wealth fund which will ‘be ready to invest in the critical industry that the country needs, such as battery factories’. He got a standing ovation for his promise to ‘switch on Great British energy’ and to ‘speed ahead’ on climate policies utilising clean British energy, which he argued will be cheaper than fossil fuels.
Regarding that ‘cheaper than fossil fuels’ claim, it’s interesting to read Francis Menton’s article published today: ‘Extraordinary Costs Of Green Energy Creeping Into Public Awareness’. ( LINK ) As Menton notes:
Says it all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s looking a lot like Hobson’s Choice, Robin, I agree. Would the Tories’ energy policy be slightly less damaging and expensive than Labour’s?
LikeLike
Mark, yes it would seem to be Hobson’s choice. I think we can assume there’s zero chance of Labour softening its position – although Rachel Reeves seems to be quite sensible so you never know. Therefore it all rather depends on developments in the Tory party. If Sunak is really beginning to have doubts about net zero – and I feel he may be – then perhaps the Tories will make a few other small changes to their policies. It could be both interesting and worrying. A saving grace is that whoever gets into power will find, probably quite soon, that implementing their plans is essentially impossible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, let’s hope so. After all, it wouldn’t be the first time (and it certainly won’t be the last) when politicians promise (or threaten) something in a manifesto, only for them to say that circumstances have rendered implementation impossible. But they meant it when they said it, scouts’ honour.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Given the hullaballoo about Sunak’s soft shoe shuffle to go some way towards aligning the UK@s net zero policies with those of the EU, where’s the outrage about this story, from all those who rushed to condemn Sunak for turning the UK into a climate pariah?
“EU must cut carbon emissions three times faster to meet targets, report says
Climate commissioner says pace of reductions needs to speed up in buildings, transport and agriculture to meet 55% target by 2030”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/24/eu-must-cut-emissions-three-times-more-quickly-report-says
LikeLike
“Rishi Sunak to ‘double down’ on anti-green policies in king’s speech
PM will announce a new system for awarding oil and gas exploration licences, and new pro-car legislation, sources say”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/28/rishi-sunak-to-double-down-on-anti-green-policies-in-kings-speech
It’s rather a lightweight piece that spends most of its time bashing such ideas, so who knows whether there’s anything in it? We;ll know fairly soon, I suppose.
LikeLike
Here endeth any hope that Sunak really has blinked, or that the appointment of Claire Coutinho signalled a change of direction:
“New UK-Germany partnership announced to boost Net Zero”
https://www.4coffshore.com/news/new-uk-germany-partnership-announced-to-boost-net-zero-nid28219.html
LikeLike
“Sunak to use king’s speech to announce new system to award oil and gas licences
Conservatives hope plans will open up clear dividing lines with Labour and protect thousands of jobs”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/05/sunak-kings-speech-new-system-oil-gas-licences
What’s really disappointing is the confirmation that politicians on both sides see our energy policy through such a confusing fog.
LikeLike
Mark – what is disappointing to me is that Ed Miliband (shadow climate secretary) still gets in this quote –
“This proposed bill is a stunt which does nothing to lower bills or deliver energy security. We already have regular North Sea oil and gas licensing in Britain, and it is precisely our dependence on fossil fuels that has led to the worst cost of living crisis in generations.”
he seems to have no idea/never learned that without imported “fossil fuels” we will not have “energy security”, but homegrown “fossil fuels” at least gives UK some “energy security”.
He is fixated with his Climate Change Act 2008 & the real world since then passes him by it seems.
LikeLike
dfhunter,
Also he continues with the fantasy that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, thus ignoring the associated costs (energy storage, fossil fuel back-up, huge new cabling and pylons etc, dislocation to the National Grid) that should be (but usually aren’t) included when discussing the costs of renewables. It also involves him ignoring the real-world evidence from struggling and loss-making wind farm companies demanding higher prices in order to avoid ongoing losses, and who are walking away from projects that they now realise will be loss-making. It’s staggering, really.
LikeLike
The story about annual oil and gas licensing rounds is mentioned in this story at Unherd: https://unherd.com/thepost/will-the-tories-net-zero-gamble-pay-off/
The answer to the writer’s question is obviously no. But he notes that Net Zero measures are popular. This may be true, but we all know that support for Net Zero is superficial: the end goal is firmly supported, but individual policies are frequently opposed.
The Tories are in a trap of their own making. They have pushed Net Zero as some sort of new revolution. They claimed it would bring jobs, prosperity, security, feed the poor and save the planet. The constant propaganda has people believing these things are true. “It wasn’t true after all” is no answer for a tired government. There is no scope at all for a U-turn, because their work over the the last decade has created a phalanx of spear-tips jammed into their backs.
The shame is that even if some politicians are waking up to the idea that we might be on a path to national suicide, Ed Milliband is not among them. Net Zero is going to cause more damage to this country over the next 6 years than climate change will, that much is clear to me.
PS. The comments under the Unherd article are well worth reading as usual.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The full text of the King’s Speech, including Government spin, can be found here:
Click to access The_King_s_Speech_background_briefing_notes.pdf
A crude search (using CTRL + F and the two words “net zero”) throw up 12 net zero references:
1.
2.
3.
They are the references within the speech itself. They are expanded on by the notes that follow, which include the following:
4.
5.
The chances of my voting Tory at the next general election were always vanishingly small, but now I can safely say that they are net zero.
LikeLike
“I’m not in hock to ideological zealots on climate, says Rishi Sunak
Before Cop28 summit, PM says ‘of course’ UK will get to net zero but it can be done in ‘sensible’ way”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/nov/30/im-not-in-hock-to-ideological-zealots-on-climate-says-rishi-sunak
I see from this article that Starmer, Sunak, Cameron and King Charles are all going to be at COP28 – to achieve what? And I think I’ve read that Cameron, Sunak and Charles are all travelling in separate private jets (I’ve no idea how Starmer is getting there).
LikeLike
Well, yet again, here’s Sunak’s chance to distance the Tories in a potentially electorally successful way, from the increasingly deranged Labour Party:
“UK would be a climate leader again under Labour, vows Starmer
Exclusive: Labour leader tells Guardian at Cop28 that Britain is wanted back in ‘leading role’ as he accuses Sunak of retreating”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/04/keir-starmer-vows-to-make-uk-climate-leader-again-labour-cop28-rishi-sunak
One man’s smug reference to “cross-party consensus” represents an overwhelming desire to deny the public a democratic choice on the matter. If he’s so confident that net zero is a vote-winner, Starmer should be egging Sunak on to ditch it, but instead he’s “hoping to restore that cross-party consensus”. That speaks volumes, and suggests strongly yo me that Starmer is still very nervous about the political unpopularity of net zero. For goodness’ sake Sunak – wake up!
LikeLike
Has Sunak blinked? It doesn’t much look like it:
“The electric-car fantasy
Rishi Sunak’s green diktats are a recipe for disaster.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/12/08/the-electric-car-fantasy/
The extraordinary thing about Sunak’s feeble amendments to net zero policies are that they have, politically speaking, been disastrous for him and the Tories. The BBC and the Guardian make a big deal about him backing away from net zero (he isn’t – far from it), thus earning him opprobrium from the zealots; meanwhile, it’s abundantly obvious to us sceptics that he’s as signed-up to it as the zealots, so he earns opprobrium from us too. He could have had his cake and eaten it. Instead he has the worst of all worlds.
LikeLike
“Rishi Sunak unveils ‘massive’ £11billion deal in major new energy lifeline for UK”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/rishi-sunak-unveils-massive-11billion-deal-in-major-new-energy-lifeline-for-uk/ar-AA1kQLba
Increasing our energy security? Hardly. It appears he remains as signed up as he ever was to the madness.
LikeLike
If we don’t get the Uniparty out at the next election – a VERY tall order given the lack of credible, united opposition – then they will destroy the country; it’s as simple as that. The irony is, the people (especially the struggling working classes) will vote for their own demise at the next election, by voting Labour, or not voting at all, instead of spoiling their ballot paper by voting ‘none of the above’ if there is no opposition candidate to the Uniparty. It’s tragic and absurd at the same time. The electorate COULD, if they were united in defiance, massively reject the treasonous Uniparty at the next election, but they would need to wake up to what’s happening and be herded into mass opposition in order to do so. Not going to happen, so it’s goodbye Great Britain, I fear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does this have any significance?
“Peer who praised rising temperatures appointed to climate crisis committee
Labour says appointment of David Frost shows ‘wacky’ climate views no longer confined to Tory party fringes”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/22/david-frost-peer-who-praised-rising-temperatures-appointed-to-climate-crisis-committee
It’s worth reading to the end for Ed Miliband’s comments. At first I thought he was talking about himself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think it has significance Mark. ‘Frostie’, as Dominic Cummings has affectionately called him in the past, is clearly a climate sceptic and gave the GWPF annual address last year: Not Dark Yet, But It’s Getting There. It’s a signal from Sunak. One can see that as part of “Let’s try anything” but what would Starmer’s equivalent be? What senior Labour person is in any way comparable? There isn’t one.
(I didn’t click down to get Miliband’s take. I’m deeply sorry. Not.)
LikeLike
The bit from The Guardian that includes Miliband’s comments is as follows …
QUOTE:-
Ed Miliband, the shadow secretary of state of climate change and net zero, said Frost’s appointment showed that Sunak was trying to keep those seeking to oust him onside.
“Rishi Sunak is so weak that he has allowed this key position to go to someone who thinks the climate crisis is a good thing,” he said.
“The truth is that wacky, fringe views on climate are no longer resigned to the extreme wing of the Conservative party – they are now the official position of Rishi Sunak’s flailing government.
“By trying to keep happy those in his own party who want to oust him, Sunak is putting party above country. The result is a disastrous energy policy that will leave Britain with high energy bills, energy insecurity, and Britain left lagging behind other countries.”
Downing Street has been approached for a comment.
END OF QUOTE.
If The Guardian is correct in this Miliband quote about a disastrous energy policy that will leave Britain with high energy bills, energy insecurity, and Britain left lagging behind other countries then the only bit that is correct is surely the final snippet about the UK lagging other countries … in terms of national wealth and productivity – but I suspect Mr Miliband did not mean it in that sense!
Is Mr Miliband so insulated from reality that he does not know that, apart from nuclear, CURRENT renewables are hopelessly ineffective/inefficient in EROEI terms? They are the way to further penury – and they put more CO2 into the atmosphere. How can he (and the Civil Service and political/media classes) be so ignorant given that the EROEI concept has been around for a decade, and reliable forensic accounting from Prof. Gordon Hughes has been available for about the same time period.? It is bizarre and, perhaps, malicious.
I see no virtue signalling, just luxury beliefs at the expense of the whole country. So, I fear, Jaime (8th Dec. ’23 at 1036pm) may be correct: good-bye GB as we knew it in much, much better days. The edge of the EROEI cliff approaches; the slope is getting steeper.
Regards, John.
LikeLike
Three late pieces in the Telegraph tonight
Replace Sunak or face decade of decline under Starmer by an erstwhile ally.
Oust Sunak or Tories face election massacre, warns former Cabinet ally citing a fascinating YouGov poll
The runners and riders to replace Rishi Sunak with Kemi Badenoch in front.
LikeLike
The Guardian follows the Telegraph with another anti-Sunak plotter breaking cover: Former adviser to Rishi Sunak working with Tory rebels trying to oust him. The fact that Lord Frost is so closely involved:
at the same time as “being appointed to a key parliamentary committee on the climate crisis” by the Prime Minister (see Mark’s last comment) … well, it’s pretty surreal.
LikeLike
Shock horror – top story on the Guardian/Observer website this morning:
“Sunak stands with net zero and climate conspiracy group at farming protest
Demonstration against Welsh Labour policy included No Farmers No Food campaign calling for end to climate measures, and Welsh Tory leader”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/25/sunak-stands-with-net-zero-and-climate-conspiracy-group-at-farming-protest
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems that in Guardian land, standing next to a sign reading “No Farmers No Food” is in some way controversial. I would be interested to know what “conspiracy theories” the group have spread.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it’s that the WEF wants to make us all eat bugs.
LikeLike
As for the WEF bugs conspiracy theory, the Guardian has a bit of a cheek:
“If we want to save the planet, the future of food is insects”
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2021/may/08/if-we-want-to-save-the-planet-the-future-of-food-is-insects
“Insects should be part of a sustainable diet in future, says report
Alternative protein sources will be needed for humans and livestock to reduce land and energy use, says UK government’s waste agency”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/05/eating-insects-should-part-sustainable-diet-future-report
“Eat insects and fake meat to cut impact of livestock on the planet – study
Changes in diet are vital to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation caused by the world’s growing appetite for meat, say scientists”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/05/eat-insects-and-fake-meat-to-cut-impact-of-livestock-on-the-planet-study
“Insects could give meaty taste to food – and help environment – scientists find
Flavorings made from mealworms could one day be used on convenience food as a source of protein”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/24/insects-meat-flavor-mealworms-research
“Insects will be important part of UK diet by 2020, says scientist
Consumers in the UK will turn to insects as food as conventional meat becomes scarce, says entomologist”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/mar/31/insects-uk-diet-2020
[That one didn’t age well].
“Grubs up: a third of Britons think we’ll be eating insects by 2029
Research finds belief that scoffing crickets or worm burgers will be commonplace”
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/02/grubs-up-a-third-of-britons-think-well-be-eating-insects-by-2029
And so much more – but that’s enough to be going on with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“says UK government’s waste agency – say scientists – scientists find – important part of UK diet by 2020, says scientist – Consumers in the UK will turn to insects as food as conventional meat becomes scarce, says entomologist”
as Mark says, chew on that BULLSH*T UK Farmers.
LikeLike
At PMQs, per the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68418502
McMorrin says NFNF “are anti-net zero and have shared conspiracy theories about climate change action”
I’ve begun to feel that accusations of conspiracism are being spread too thinly to matter.
Muck-spreading surely has to have a decent density of shit per square meter to be effective?
This works to discredit all such smears, going right back the eponymous Dr Loo.
Sunak’s response has for me the right “I’m not going to dignify your low-density dung even with the appearance of a rebuttal” vibe.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Boiler tax set to be scrapped
Energy Secretary to ditch policy branded a form of ‘coercion’ and blamed for pushing up prices”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/02/government-scrap-boiler-tax-blamed-pushing-up-prices/
LikeLike
Is this a sign of the times? Does it have implications on this side of the Pond?
“
Biden backtracks on climate plans and ‘walks tightrope’ to court both young voters and moderates
After stalling plans for pollution regulations, Biden is trying to keep progressives onboard while appealing to swing state voters”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/08/biden-backtracks-climate-goals-moderate-voters
“Joe Biden, touted as the US’s first climate president, is presiding over the quiet weakening of his two most significant plans to slash planet-heating emissions, suggesting that tackling the climate crisis will take a back seat in a febrile election year.
During his state of the union speech on Thursday, Biden insisted that his administration is “making history by confronting the climate crisis, not denying it,”, before reeling off a list of climate-friendly policies and accomplishments. “I’m taking the most significant action on climate ever in the history of the world,” the US president added.
However, last week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it would delay a regulation that would reduce emissions from existing gas power plants, most likely until after November’s presidential election. The delay comes as the administration waters down requirements that limit pollution from cars, slowing the country’s adoption of electric vehicles.
The backtracking could jeopardize Biden’s goal of cutting US emissions in half this decade, which scientists say is imperative to averting disastrous effects from global heating, and shows the competing pressures upon a president looking to hold together a wobbly coalition including climate activists, labor unions and centrist swing state voters before a likely showdown with Donald Trump later this year….”
LikeLike