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

2. It would be socially and economically disastrous. That’s especially so as neither the Government’s nor Labour’s all-renewable energy project includes a fully costed (or indeed any) engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun. Yet without such a plan, electricity blackouts would be inevitable – ruining many businesses and causing seriously damaging problems for millions of people, including dreadful health consequences threatening everyone but in particular the poor and vulnerable. And that’s not the only aspect of net zero for which costs have yet to be determined. All that’s clear is that the overall cost of the entire project would almost certainly be unaffordable: for example, a recent National Infrastructure Commission projection of £1.3 trillion is probably far too low. The borrowing and taxes required to pay costs in the trillions would destroy Britain’s credit record and/or put an impossible burden onto millions of households and businesses.

Net zero would have two other dire consequences: (i) as China essentially controls the supply of key materials (for example so-called rare earths) without which renewables cannot be manufactured, the UK would greatly increase its already damaging dependence on it, putting our energy and overall security at most serious risk and (ii) the vast mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables are already causing appalling environmental damage and dreadful human suffering, affecting in particular fragile, unspoilt ecosystems and many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people; the continued pursuit of net zero would make all this far worse.

3. Above all, it’s pointless. Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 75% of CO2 emissions and home to 84% of humanity – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt from or ignoring any obligation to reduce their emissions, are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security. As a result, global emissions are increasing and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future whatever the UK (the source of less than 1% of global emissions) may or may not do. It therefore makes absolutely no sense for Britain to pursue this unachievable and disastrous policy.

– October 2023

516 Comments

  1. Robin,

    I am glad that you have updated your post to reflect the National Infrastructure Commission’s musings about the cost of net zero – and I am glad, too, that you share my belief that the figure it arrived at is a significant under-estimate. My onw back of a fag packet calculation suggests that the true figure is likely to be nearer £3 trillion. Put another way, that would be well over £100,000 per UK household.

    Even if the National Infrastructure Commission has a better handle on this than you and I (and in theory they should), that’s still almost £50,000 per household. Ameliorate it still further, and spread the cost over the next 26 years, and it’s still almost £2,000 per household per year, every year until 2050. That’s certainly unaffordable (and, as you say, pointless too).

    Like

  2. No need for that fag packet Mark. Professor Michael Kelley has calculated that even £3 trillion is too low: see THIS . His conclusion:

    ‘With extra costs comfortably in excess of £3 trillion, a dedicated and skilled workforce, 70% of that of the NHS, and key strategic materials demanded at many times the supply rates that prevail today, and all for no measurable attributable change in the global climate, the mitigation of climate change via a net-zero emissions UK economy in 2050 is an extremely difficult ask. Without a command economy, the target will certainly not be met.’

    [My emphasis]

    Liked by 2 people

  3. The financial costs are in some ways – but not all ways – irrelevant. As we now know only too well from the Covid debacle, the government can conjure up money out of thin air in order to finance its fantasies. The pain comes later. But you can’t create or destroy energy – that is a fundamental law of physics – and the energy required to transition to a renewables powered economy and society must come from somewhere, and it will come from the ‘useful’ energy which we have available to us as a modern, industrialised society and we will all be very much poorer and a lot more miserable for it.

    https://davidturver.substack.com/p/electrification-efficiency-gains-illusion

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Robin, Jaime, both links are excellent. Reading them should be made compulsory for politicians and policymakers. They might learn something.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Jaime, you say that ‘As we now know only too well from the Covid debacle, the government can conjure up money out of thin air…’. Not really – that money was ‘conjured’ up by a combination of international borrowing and higher taxation. The pain of both is felt now as further borrowing becomes more difficult and taxpayers suffer. The idea that we could finance over £3 trillion the same way is dangerously absurd.

    Thanks BTW for drawing our attention to David Turver’s excellent article.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. In a comment above I noted that Professor Michael Kelly calculated that, for the UK, the cost of net zero would ‘comfortably’ exceed £3 trillion. HERE ’s a more recent article of his, this time about the US. An extract:

    ‘So we can see that the infrastructure parts of the net-zero project which are theoretically possible would cost comfortably in excess of $35 trillion and would require a dedicated and highly skilled workforce comparable to that of the construction sector as well as enormous amounts of materials. Net zero would also require several things which today are completely impossible: scalable non-fossil energy storage, very high temperature electrical industrial processes, serious electrical aviation and shipping. There would also be the matter of decarbonising agriculture. These things, if they can even be achieved, would multiply the cost at least several times over, to more than $100 trillion’.

    Scaled to the UK, $35 trillion would be about £4 trillion and $100 trillion about £12 trillion, making the observation in my article that the NIC’s £1.3 trillion projection is ‘probably far too low‘ look conservative.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. And the people who dictate energy policy in the UK, USA and elsewhere in the western world haven’t a clue what a catastrophe they are unleashing. Instead they believe that they are virtuous Mr. Micawbers, relying on something turning up to save the day.

    Like

  11. Britain, a goner with the wind

    Mark: I see you’ve posted THIS elsewhere, but it’s so relevant to this thread that I thought I’d also post it here as well. Its conclusion:

    ‘Britain’s economic future is being sacrificed on the altar of Net Zero. A renewable grid will produce abundant electricity for a few days annually and prohibitively expensive, unreliable power the rest of the time, resulting in demand destruction, supply rationing and deindustrialisation.

    Building more wind generation represents a monumental misallocation of capital and a generational policy folly. Britain is a goner with the wind.’

    Exactly.

    Like

  12. The three pillars of Net Zero – electric vehicles, heat pumps and wind power – are all going awry, with little likelihood of recovery. Yet we’re legally committed to achieving this seemingly impossible goal. Disaster seems unavoidable. But is it?

    Comments, thoughts and ideas would be welcome.

    Like

  13. Disaster can be avoided by the simple expedient of repealing, or at least radically amending, the Climate Change Act. That would go a long way to rendering invalid all the attempts to force the issue of net zero through the Courts.

    FWIW I suspect that the next general election will usher in a Labour government, who will double down on the nonsense for a while. Then the reality of the problems it causes will become clear, since they will be the ones in power who will be taking the flack from the public (aka electorate) for the way it will be wrecking their lives. At which point, with no fanfare at all, a seamless volte-face will take place. I give it three years from the point at which Labour takes over the reins of Government.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. ‘Disaster can be avoided by the simple expedient of repealing, or at least radically amending, the Climate Change Act.’

    Unlikely to be so simple I’m afraid: I very much doubt if it would be possible to muster a HoC majority for repeal or amendment. So the risk of fanatics trying to force the issue through the Courts would remain. As for the actions of an incoming Labour administration, you’re probably right – and, because of the huge skilled manpower shortage and the growing cost of wind power (not to mention the EV and heat pump problems), probably in less than three years.

    Like

  16. Mark, Robin,

    ” At which point, with no fanfare at all, a seamless volte-face will take place. I give it three years from the point at which Labour takes over the reins of Government.”

    When do we pass the point of no return? Have we already passed it? Will we pass it very soon? I strongly suspect that the economic carnage being wrought by Net Zero policies right now have committed the UK to social and industrial decline, which is now largely unavoidable. In three years time, when Labour do their volte-face, it will be way too late. The Cons had one chance – to repeal or amend the CCA 2008 before the next election, and of course they have blown it.

    Like

  17. To hope that we will reach the nadir of climate policy in four years’ time, two things need to happen by then. First, there need to be disasters caused by the policy. Second, the public need to attribute those disasters to their true cause, rather than allow themselves to be gaslit.

    So far a shortage of fossil fuels has been re-badged as an over-reliance on fossil fuels. Domestic energy prices have doubled and the public has put up with it. What disaster will befall us in the next four years that could make the difference?

    Like

  20. Konstantin Kisin has just published a LINK to a talk he gave recently to an ARC conference in London. It’s worth accessing it. I’d never heard of the ARC, so looked it up. It’s the ‘Alliance for Responsible Citizenship’ – yes, that sounds rather pompous but it turns out to be quite interesting. I’m posting a link here because, under ‘Research’, its website includes two interesting essays: one entitled ‘Understanding the Cost of Net Zero and the Energy Transition: The Australian Case Study’ (by Robin Batterham) and the other ‘The Green Gamble: The Geopolitics of Net Zero’ (by Professor Doug Stokes). Both are worth reading.

    An extract from the first:

    ‘Counting the Cost

    The scale, cost, ambition, and potential disruption of achieving net zero by 2050 is unprecedented and immense.

    Policymakers around the world need to have an honest conversation about the trade-offs involved and ensure there is a plan in place to provide citizens with the energy they need. In other words, governments should not turn off legacy technologies before they turn on reliable and affordable sources of renewable energy.

    Responsible stewardship looks for ways to care for our environment whilst also ensuring we do not power the renewables transition on the backs of the poor. Solutions must be holistic, consider all risks, and embrace subsidiarity, sharing the load between individual citizens, businesses, community, and government.’

    And from the second:

    ‘China Powers Net Zero

    Mapping where renewable energy resources come from reveals that China is the dominant producer of many materials used in solar panels, electric vehicles, and wind turbines. In countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”), China retains control of production because it owns most of the mines in the DRC. Developed countries depend on exports from these countries to power the green transition. Take rare earth elements (“REEs”) for example. Currently, the United States does not have any facilities capable of processing REEs; China produces most of the global supply, yet it restricts exports through quotas, licenses, and taxes.

    As the West moves towards net zero, its demand for critical minerals is increasing at a pace that far outstrips current domestic supply capabilities. This imbalance makes the system vulnerable to geopolitical risks, export restrictions, and potential price volatility. Western countries are inadvertently driving their energy systems into ever-increasing dependency on China in the pursuit of net zero targets. But policymakers must consider how to achieve energy security through the appropriate balance between state intervention and market forces and find solutions to China’s rare-earths dominance through new alliances and supply chain diversification. The West cannot turn the lights off on its legacy infrastructure until it is confident it can keep the lights of renewable energy switched on.’

    A third essay – ‘The African Climate Paradox’ by Magatte Wade – though not relevant to this thread is also worth reading .

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Another fine article by David Turver: ‘Something in the Water‘ – https://davidturver.substack.com/p/something-in-the-water-oxford-university

    From his conclusion:

    ‘… when everyone thinks the same thing, it’s clear that nobody is thinking at all. Oxford University used to be a respected institution. Yet, they are pumping out endless pages of marketing literature for the renewables industry masquerading as scientific research. It seems to have been written by people who have never delivered anything more difficult than pizza. We desperately need some sort of Red Team approach to break the circle of group think. The sooner we start, the better.’

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Robin,

    Thanks for bringing that to our attention – an excellent read.

    Like

  23. I have just commented on David’s substack to the effect:-
    START QUOTE
    This report from Oxford appears to be a variant of The Iron Triangle relationship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_%28US_politics%29) that is so common nowadays in Western economies despite president Eisenhower warning us about such policy capture in his farewell address:-
    “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
    (https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address)

    One way to break the Triangle is, as you and others propose, to instigate a systematic Red Team review process to answer Juvenal’s question, “Who will watch the watchmen?” or “Who will guard the guardians?”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F

    This is surely one of the most urgent and important tasks for Western societies in the immediate future if we are not to fall permaently into the clutches of self-serving elites whether it be for Covid or Climate Change or WHO regulations.

    At the moment we are failing badly, very badly.
    END QUOTE.

    On Radio 4’s “Broadcasting House” programme this morning I heard one commentator say that parliament is no longer the force it once was – sadly, I have to agree. So if parliment is unlikely/unable to instigate a Red Team review system, how is one to be introduced? Or are we already too deeply in the mire that there is no reasonable prospect of escape? …

    I am looking for that escape route but am unable to see it. Can you help me (or otherwise), please.

    Regards,
    John.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. the government can conjure up money out of thin air

    That’s what team Truss thought. True up to a point but then the markets get an urge to trash your national credit rating, thus making more borrowing horribly expensive, or impossible. Maybe the present dire straits of the wind industry offer a faint hope of toppling net zero insanity, but probably not.

    Like

  25. ‘I am looking for that escape route but am unable to see it. Can you help me (or otherwise), please.‘

    Well John, I agree there’s no serious hope of our politicians instigating a Red Team review system. Just look at the wretched Covid Inquiry which instead of investigating the key issue – was lockdown the right policy? – seems to be based on the unquestioned assumption that lockdown was necessary, saved lives and should have been imposed earlier and kept going for longer.

    I think our best hope is that the policy will prove to be completely unachievable – and that this will happen quite soon. Unless transportation, domestic and industrial heating and, in particular, the supply of electricity cease to be reliant on fossil fuels Net Zero cannot be achieved. And it’s happening already: see my comment above that the introduction of EVs, heat pumps and wind power are all going awry, with little likelihood of recovery.

    Like

  26. oldbrew: I think the dire straits of of the wind industry offer more than a faint hope. The whole edifice of Net Zero depends on wind power and that’s almost certainly going hopelessly awry.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. There’s an excellent article in TCW today entitled ‘Net Zero is unstoppable – except by common sense’. It can be found here .

    I have a comment, based on my reply above to John Cullen, that’s the fourth most popular but just below mine is a most interesting comment by ‘GeorgeEH’ that I think is worth quoting in full:

    ‘There is a large spanner in the works about to hit ‘renewable’ advocates head on. The incontrovertible fact is that no transition from fossil fuels to “green” energy sources is under way, nor will it occur, EVER.

    Why? Because wind and solar installations are entirely parasitic: they cannot be produced without using enormous quantities of fossil fuels.

    A major, painstaking study for the Finland Geological Survey (GTK) by Professor Simon Michaux, Professor of Geometallurgy, found the necessary amounts of certain minerals, their mining and processing, to be “impossibly large”.

    For example, at 2019 production levels, it would take 10,000 years to mine the lithium and 29,000 years for the germanium needed for just one generation of technology to replace fossil fuels. All will require frequent running replacement.

    This means that every projection that anyone has made of the ultimate cost of a wind and solar economy is vastly too low. It also means that the cost of pretty much everything else we buy, from cars to mobile phones and anything that requires equipment to produce, will also rise beyond the resources of the average consumer.

    In short, a cripplingly-expensive, self-inflicted environmental disaster.
    It’s time for the gullible to wake up – the cure is a great deal worse than the disease!’

    Is that a correct analysis?

    Like

  28. “Is that a correct analysis?”

    I don’t know, but I have heard something like it before. Possibly it’s a gross exaggeration, but even if it is, it’s as nought compared to the gross exaggerations that are trotted out every day, with their false claims of the net benefits of net zero.

    Like

  30. PS. WordPress is making it annoyingly difficult to comment these days. I’m sure it must be putting folks off.

    Like

  31. Jit, yes, quite. When the problems first commenced I trusted that WordPress would fairly quickly become aware of them and do something about it. Regrettably it’s been like this for weeks now.

    Like

  32. Jit/Mark: curiously I’m finding WordPress is making comment easier. Whereas I’ve always had to sign in every time I wanted to make a comment, now that’s no longer the case: I type my comment click on ‘Reply’ and it’s posted.

    Like

  34. Oh the wind it isn’t blowing
    And the weather it is snowing
    And the energy’s not flowing,
    It’s closing time…

    Oh the country’s debt is growing
    The economy is slowing
    Our security is going,
    It’s net-zero closing time.

    H/t Leonard Cohen.

    Liked by 2 people

  35. Copied from another thread, at Robin Guenier’s suggestion:

    John Cullen says:
    06 NOV 23 AT 10:19 PM Edit
    Robin, IIRC one of the points made by Mattew Goodwin in his recent book “Values, Voice and Virtue” was that Western governments look to their international peers for legitimacy rather than to their electorate. Hence, if (as seems true) every governmental effort is to be made to achieve Net Zero targets then whatever stands in the way must be destroyed. It is just the price to be paid by ordinary people for the ‘luxury beliefs’ of the governing elites.

    The one chink of hope I have is that Sunak, having been Chancellor and now PM, knows (i) the whole Net Zero project is monumentally expensive, and (ii) moving towards rescuing both fossil fuels and reality may be the one way he can save his premiership and his party (and the country!) from even deeper immiseration and hardship. So far he has made the tiniest of baby steps away from the abyss. With the King’s speech tomorrow we may see whether (or not) he is trying to set himself/the country free, or whether (as I fear) he is only pretending.

    Regards,
    John.

    Jit says:
    07 NOV 23 AT 9:05 AM Edit
    John, people up and down the UK believe that Net Zero is a good policy. This is the result of a decade of promises from on high that it is all the things the sceptic knows it isn’t. So although when individual policies begin to bite opposition can be vociferous, the underlying belief remains that such policies (e.g. ULEZ) are not necessary to achieve Net Zero. We have been told that we can have our cake and eat it, and few are as obsessed as we sceptics in digging behind the hype to find out what Net Zero really means. So I don’t think international standing is so important. We have spent a decade feeding a monster that won’t be put back in its cage…

    Robin Guenier says:
    07 NOV 23 AT 1:51 PM Edit
    John: regarding Net Zero targets, it certainly may be true that the government’s position is that ‘whatever stands in the way must be destroyed’. It certainly would seem to be so. On the other hand, it could possibly be true that Sunak understands both your points (i) and (ii). However, the King’s speech this morning didn’t indicate the slightest move towards setting ‘himself/the country free’. Assuming Sunak does understand your points, why was that? And the answer I suggest is simple: when it comes to major issues (such as immigration), he has proved to be weak – and cowardly.

    No, as I’ve said to you on the Net Zero Policy thread, our best hope is that the policy will prove to be completely unachievable – and that this will happen quite soon. Current problems re EVs are one example of how this is happening already. These are not problems that can be ‘destroyed’ whatever the government’s position may be.

    Best – R

    Robin Guenier says:
    07 NOV 23 AT 1:55 PM Edit
    Jit: I’m not sure that people believe Net Zero is a ‘good policy’ but research certainly indicates that they support it. However research also indicates that they do not support Net Zero policies that impact their personal and family circumstances…

    John Cullen says:
    07 NOV 23 AT 3:57 PM Edit
    Hello Robin,

    Thank you for these comments. I understand and agree with your argument as far as it goes i.e. the Net Zero policies may indeed prove unworkable in the relatively near future. My worry is what happens then?

    Using the logic of the group-think which our major parties are drowning in, it cannot be the policy that is wrong. It must be, therefore, that we are not trying hard enough. Hence, we will need more of the pain rather than less, irrespective of Labour or Conservative government or, perhaps, even with a hung parliament.

    In short, how will we escape the doom-loop? I don’t yet see how our much diminished democracy can correct the ship of state. What are your thoughts one and all?

    Regards,
    John.

    Robin Guenier says:
    07 NOV 23 AT 5:57 PM Edit
    John, you say:

    ‘My worry is what happens then?’

    A good question. And obviously I don’t know the answer. But I agree that our ‘leaders’ are most unlikely to accept publicly that the policy is wrong – although I’m pretty sure that there must be some who have their doubts. So what might happen? Well it’s hard to see how for example they could force people to buy a car they don’t want or cannot afford. Likewise, although they could make heat pumps obligatory, how would they deal with the costs of bigger radiators and enhanced insulation. They cannot force millions of people to pay money they haven’t got. And, in any case, there aren’t nearly enough skilled tradespeople to do the vast amount of necessary work. Then there’s the wind power conundrum. I suppose they could decide to pay suppliers the huge subsidies they’re now insisting are necessary – but they cannot, for example, make the materials shortages go away. Nor can they resolve the need for massive grid re-engineering by wishing it away – not least because there aren’t nearly enough skilled electrical engineers needed to do the necessary work. As for wind intermittency, no one knows a practical solution to that.

    So they’d be faced with practical problems they couldn’t resolve but couldn’t ignore. But they’re politicians and one thing that politicians are good at is finding palatable excuses for not following a previously announced policy. And that I suspect is what would happen.

    Best – R

    Like

  36. John Cullen says:
    07 NOV 23 AT 7:17 PM Edit
    Robin,
    Thank you. The outcome you envisage seems quite likely to me since, as you say, politicians are very skilled at finding arguments for not following previously key policies. However, we need them not simply to tack away from their entrenched position but essentially to completely reverse direction. Politicians are not good at that – too much egg on face – unless they are completley new brooms untarnished by the failed policies of the past. Since the alternative parties seem, to date, to have little traction with the electorate I ask myself, “Where within the existing main parties are tomorrow’s Churchills to counter today’s Chamberlains?”

    If there is no-one to reverse course then we may be saddled with a partial change of direction. For example, a major expansion of nuclear while tight constraints on fossil fuels are maintained by the slightly modified all party group-think at Westminster . Those would be tough times to add to the many recently experienced.

    [Regarding thread discipline. Sorry if I am in the wrong one! These topics are so cross-cutting that I find it difficult to know where to comment.]

    Regards, John.

    Like

  37. John, you say:

    ‘However, we need them not simply to tack away from their entrenched position but essentially to completely reverse direction.’

    We do. But, for the reason you state, they won’t. And I fear there are no Churchills. I’m not even sure there are any Chamberlains – I have some sympathy with the view that he deferred action so that we would be better prepared for an inevitable conflict and I see no sign of such good sense in the HoC. So yes, a partial change of direction seems likely – e.g. retention of Net Zero but retaining it for a few years, perhaps aligning us with China’s 2060.

    Best R

    Like

  38. So the future looks very gloomy. But, if I may be indulged for a moment, what or who could save us, and how? Let me clutch at a rather short and feeble straw …

    Reports have it that a significant section of the Tory Party was decidedly underwhelmed by yesterday’s king’s speech. It certainly sounded lacklustre to me. But was that a cunning ploy of Sunak’s since the royal speech also said, albeit in more regal language, that ordinary Brits were not to be clobbered? So could it be that our PM is putting together a new and urgently needed realistic energy strategy in time for the Autumn Statement … or perhaps as a Christmas present for the whole country, but particularly for his overwhelmed/underwhelmed party?

    If I was in the PM’s rather elegant shoes I would be thinking that I have to turn things around politically – and soon. Since energy is embedded in almost every economic activity its pricing has the potential to affect every voter for good or ill – which is why it has made such a powerful weapon in the hands of the Luxury Belief elitists. Thus I would be inviting the likes of Professors Dieter Helm and Gordon Hughes around to No. 10 for tea, muffins and unlimited time in the rose garden’s extensive and well-appointed sand pit, just as long as they come up with an energy plan – any outline energy plan – that can plausibly move me and my party up in the political ratings. And if they promise to put us/me within striking distance of Labour in time for the general election then I might even throw in lashings of ginger beer to make it really special quality time.

    Thank you for your indulgence. Back to reality.

    Regards, John.

    Like

  39. John,

    I agree with your sensible analysis, but our politicians mostly seem to have been captured by the net zero obsession. Even while recognising that net zero is problematic, as I think Sunak does, (though many politicians, especially in the Lib Dems, Labour, SNP, Greens et al, haven’t yet cottoned on to that reality), he can’t bring himself to give up on the dream. The dream, of course, is in actual fact a nightmare, and the political party in power when the sh*t hits the fan on net zero will crash and burn. Perhaps Sunak, deep down, knows this, and is prepared to lose the next general election (after all, the Tories losing it must be odds on anyway) so that Labour (or better still, a Labour coalition with other net zero-obsessed parties) can carry the can.

    Regrettably, none of this augurs well for the long-suffering British public.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. John:

    Sunak would seem to be an intelligent man and there’s evidence that he understands that there’s a huge – and dangerous – divide between the so-called elite and ordinary people. For example, you may recall that in his September speech he said this:

    ‘What I have concluded during my time so far as prime minister is that those decisions 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.’

    Moreover, in the same speech he went on to say that Westminster’s politicians did not have the courage to look people in the eye and explain what was really involved in various policies, not least Net Zero.

    But does he have the courage to follow this up with the sort of determined action that a Helm/Hughes (and Michael Kelly?) energy plan would require? I see no sign of it. And that’s despite the reality that a dramatic initiative such as this might well improve his party’s standing and certainly couldn’t make it any worse; in other words, it wouldn’t even be particularly courageous.

    Mark: your suggestion that Sunak might be content to let Labour etc. carry the can for Net Zero failure is interesting. But what a sad reflection on Sunak and the state of UK politics that would be. Does no one have the guts to at least try to turn this round before it’s too late? Sadly it seems not.

    A depressing outlook. So, as I’ve said above, our best hope must be that the policy will prove to be unachievable. And the evidence for this is there already: the introduction of EVs, heat pumps and wind power are all going awry, with little likelihood of recovery. All this will surely get much worse over the next twelve months – i.e. before the General Election. It will be interesting to see how our wretched politicians deal with it.

    Liked by 2 people

  41. “A sad reflection on the state of UK politics,’ and beyond … USA, Canada,
    and my own once Great Southern Land, all evolving into Fascist economies.

    Like

  42. Robin; there’s an approach to putting the brakes on NZ that could be sold as just being pragmatic.

    Mrs Beeton said “first catch your hare”. In the context of our electricity supply that should mean that it would be best to hold off on measures that increase demand until there is zero-CO2 energy to spare.
    As things stand, we never have an excess of available zero-CO2 power (afaik); ie power that can be transmitted to consumers, excluding output that is constrained due to lack of transmission capacity.
    That is unlikely to change anytime soon, especially now that offshore wind is in such trouble. In addition all but one of our nukes will be shutdown well before 2030.
    Consequently any increase in demand is met by gas generation as all of the zero-CO2 output is already fully-allocated.
    That undermines one of the main drivers for mass electrification. It also shifts the dial on the point when the heavy CO2 footprint of EV manufacture is compensated by lower emissions in use. (The comparisons typically use the grid mix or even 100% renewables for the EV’s power).
    So Sunak could take the line that it makes sense to avoid increasing the demand for electricity until (unless) there is the zero-CO2 output to match it.

    Like

  43. Francis Menton (Manhattan Contrarian) has just published another important article in which he shows how, despite the crumbling of the transition to green energy, major environmental NGOs are doubling down on their climate change focus.

    His conclusion:

    ‘Well, they have religious fervor and fanaticism on their side, but we have reality.’

    Very relevant to our current discussion.

    Like

  44. Robin,

    From that article:

    “A significant shift in donor contributions to nonprofits fighting climate change in recent years has left some of the nation’s biggest environmental organizations facing critical shortfalls in programs on toxic chemicals, radioactive contamination and wildlife protection. The Natural Resources Defense Council is shutting down its nuclear mission and has laid off its top lawyer in the field. . . . The NRDC is not alone. The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and the Environmental Working Group, which have been at the forefront of efforts to clean up waste water, regulate pesticides and adopt tougher standards for atomic power plants, are facing similar financial problems.”

    A quote which which would be equally at home on the ‘Saving the planet by trashing it’ post. These people are not environmentalists – at least, they don’t qualify for the ‘environ’ part! They are cult obsessed End Times climate crisis zealots and/or neo-Marxists intent on reordering society and the global economy in their own highly distorted image.

    Like

  45. Mike, you say – ‘Sunak could take the line that it makes sense to avoid increasing the demand for electricity until (unless) there is the zero-CO2 output to match it.‘. Yes he could and it would be a sensible position. But there’s little likelihood that he will.

    Like

  47. Mark (at 8.21pm on 8th Nov.),

    You wonder, “Perhaps Sunak … is prepared to lose the next general election … so that Labour (or better still, a Labour coalition with other net zero-obsessed parties) can carry the can.”

    That is a cunning plan worthy of Baldrick, but at the moment I am not convinced by it for the following reasons. Politicians like to be winners and they definitely do not like being losers. And the Tory party is famously ruthless with leaders who do not perform. Who wants to be a failed ex-Prime Minister and ex-leader of the Tories? I’m not currently convinced that Sunak sees himself in that self-sacrificial role.

    But it is far from impossible – so much about our current politics is like a 1960s bad trip with all its flashbacks. The country is certainly doing the cold turkey … and it is no fun. I’ll stick to the lashings of ginger beer, thank you.

    Regards, John.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. Robin (at 1046am today, 9th Nov.),

    Thank you for the reminder of what Sunak said; I had remembered the gist but not the detail. Your reminder of his words makes me think that he may indeed be secretly planning something energy related. However, as you say, there is no sign yet as to what it might be. Equally, if I was in his shoes then I too would be keeping my cards very close to my chest for the following reasons.

    He knows there are going to be monstrous howls of anguish and anger from the climate elites and their allies in the mainstream press to anything that is off-message. So his arguments and those of his allies have to be sturdy enough to withstand a sustained maelstrom of acrimony from all quarters. In other words, there is no point in revealing a half-baked plan that will be shot down and derided in short order – then he and his premiership would be toast. Sunak would be just another short-term Tory leader biting the dust and entering the history books as just that.

    However, if he can emerge from his foxhole, all guns blazing, taking the fire to the enemy by appealing to the electorate over the heads of the climate elites then he stands a very good chance of reconnecting with the much abused public, rescuing his premiership and his party in one fell swoop. So it is radio silence until first light on D-Day, followed by blitzkrieg on all fronts. “Sh!t or bust” as one of my supervisors used to say. What has he got to lose that would not be lost at the forthcoming general election anyway?

    I wonder. Would Baldrick approve of such a plan? Perhaps I should have watched Blackadder.

    Regards, John.

    Like

  49. John C,

    Interesting speculations on your part in two regards, responding to my and Robin’s comments. I fear you are too logical to be a politician. I’d like to believe you are right, but I suspect you’re not – I think there’s just too much evidence to suggest that – like almost all mainstream politicians – Sunak sincerely believes in the net zero agenda, even if he frets about the difficulties associated with it.

    Perhaps he will see the world differently when the general election can be avoided no longer and if (as seems likely) the Tories are massively trailing Labour in the polls. Sh*t or bust might just become a bit more appealing at the point.

    Liked by 1 person

  50. Mark,

    Yes, perhaps Sunak is viewing matters completely the other way around from what I have imagined. So let us suppose that he deeply and truly believes in Net Zero. What can he do about it given that, as Robin has pointed out, it is in deep trouble on all fronts? Offer more and larger subsidies all round? I am sure his old pals in the financial sector would love that – all those government guaranteed profits. But, and it is a huge ‘but’, that idea sounds like more misery for ordinary people and hence an utter loser at the ballot box i.e. political suicide.

    Must go. Matron’s calling.

    Regards, John.

    Like

  51. John/Mark:

    I’ve little more to offer on the interesting – and most important – topic of Sunak’s intentions. But I liked John’s thought that he might perhaps be planning a sh!t or bust strategy. All I can suggest is that we keep an eye on the developing reality of multiple NZ problems and wait and see what if anything Sunak might have in mind.

    Like

  52. Mark, further to my comment above. Surely political suicide is what fringe parties do, not mainstrean parties – especially the Tories, the self-styled “most successful political party in history”. On the logic that it ain’t suicide – but as you say, logic may have little to do with it – he (Sunak) must be planning something. Surely?

    His colleagues and his broader party machine would not let him just wimp out and fade away, would they? That would be the antithesis of politics. So he must be up to something, even if it is only loosening the time constraints on Net Zero in a much more meaningful way than previously announced.

    As encouragement to do something (anything?), I noted earlier today it was announced that the UK economy is still flat-lining. Fingers crossed therefore for some action in due course. In the meantime, listen out for unusual sounds from No. 10 or No. 11.

    Regards, John.

    Like

  53. Did you ever see a zombie commit suicide? the Tory party is a zombie party. It is not conservative and thus the Conservative party does not exist. It has not embraced truly conservative values, principles, ethics and most importantly, policies, for many years. The Conservative Party is effectively dead anyway, so indulging in a bit of hara-kiri come election time is really no big deal. If you don’t believe me, watch whilst Suella Braverman gets pushed out because she had the audacity to suggest – on the available evidence – that the Metropolitan Police were pro-Palestinian, ergo anti-Israel and pro-Hamas.

    Like

  54. John, you suggest that Sunak ‘must be up to something, even if it is only loosening the time constraints on Net Zero in a much more meaningful way than previously announced.‘. That certainly seems plausible. You may perhaps recall that, at 8:07 PM on 7 November, I said this:

    ‘So yes, a partial change of direction seems likely – e.g. retention of Net Zero but retaining it for a few years, perhaps aligning us with China’s 2060.’

    I’ve just noticed that I made a mistake: I meant to say ‘retention of Net Zero but extending it for a few years’ etc. That could be done I think by means of a simple amendment to the CCA and would I believe make a lot of sense. But could he persuade the HoC to agree? If it were tried today, the answer would surely be No. But, if in say 10 months NZ was obviously going very wrong, he might perhaps be successful.

    Best R

    Liked by 1 person

  55. John and Robin, I wish I could share your optimism. I fear that net zero is so integral to the way politicians see the world that none of them will be in a hurry to recognise reality and ditch it. All we can hope is that with the reality of electoral annihilation staring the Tories in the face, they finally decide to do something. Not that I am a Tory fan – far from it – but if any mainstream party is likely to budge on this issue much before 2030, they seem to be the most likely (however unlikely it is).

    Like

  56. Mark: ‘he might perhaps be successful‘ is hardly optimistic. And deferring the policy’s target date for a few years is very different from recognising reality and ditching it.

    PS: my ease of posting a comment was short-lived – I now have to go to the WP website and reply to an earlier comment.

    Like

  57. 1. Robin, thank you for the clarification. I had indeed had trouble understanding your use of “retaining” whereas “extending” makes complete sense and coincides with my musing, namely that extending the time limits in the CCA is much easier (at least in principle) than repealing the Act.

    2a. Jaime, over recent years several commentators in several outlets have observerved (as you have done) that the Tory Party is no longer Conservative, except in name. So, ideologically, its near annihilation at the next election might be no big deal – just the final nail. However, there is a whole network of Conservative associations with their various officers and club premises, plus Conservative Central Office (or whatever it is called) for whom such a demise would be a very big deal. Surely, they would not want to see their party sleepwalk to annihilation, would they? I imagine the very real prospect of such a wipeout is, even as I type, animating them “bigly”.

    2b. Incidentally, the tranformation of many of the traditional major political parties of the West, including the UK’s Labour Party, is a major feature of prof. Goodwin’s latest book “Values, Voice and Virtue”. Traditional broad-church politics expressed through these parties is no longer working [Why? Goodwin’s previous book {written with prof. Eatwell} partly answers that question] and so we have seen the rise of the so-called populists.
    A major challenge for the West is to get its broad-church politics back on track, including getting our political systems much more answerable to their electorates. As a case in point Net Zero Watch have sent out an e-mail today which includes:-
    START QUOTE
    Net Zero Watch is calling for an investigation after it was reported that ministers are considering doubling the guaranteed prices on offer for offshore windfarms next year to between £70 and £75/MWh.
    The news comes after this year’s auction failed to attract any bids from offshore wind developers.
    Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:
    “Just a few months ago, Whitehall was telling us that the cost of offshore wind was just £44/MWh. If this story is true, they will be effectively admitting that they have been lying. We must get to the bottom of why civil servants have consistently been underplaying offshore wind costs, despite repeatedly being warned that the underlying financial accounts of windfarms told a different story.”
    Dr John Constable, Net Zero Watch director of energy, said:
    “Consumers will continue to be forced to foot the bill for offshore wind farms that are expensive, unproductive, and destroy the economics of the grid.”
    END QUOTE
    Dr Constable might have added that off-shore wind farms destroy not just the grid but the whole economy.

    Regards, John.

    Liked by 3 people

  58. John C,

    I hope you don’t mind me posting that Net Zero Watch press release on the Spot the Difference thread. I’ve long had an interest in CfDs, the spin surrounding them, and the problems associated with them, hence that article.

    Liked by 1 person

  59. The Speccie has an article this morning headed ‘Rishi Sunak is in office but not in power.’ Two extracts:

    ‘This is a Prime Minister heading into winter not doing any of the things he told us were his top priorities when Jack Frost was last nipping at our toes: not halving inflation, not growing the economy, not reducing debt despite his desperate protestations to the contrary, not bringing down NHS waiting lists and not stopping the boats.’

    ‘Sunak …continues to follow the old nostrums of ‘centre groundism’, constantly triangulating between two voter tribes who despise each other and increasingly despise him as well.

    In other words, unless something dramatic and surprising happens over the next few months, he’s heading for an utter and personally humiliating electoral defeat. Therefore, as he’d have nothing to lose and – just possibly – a lot to gain, Sunak’s best bet would seem be to do something totally unexpected and headline-grabbing. What might that be? Well, he’s indicated some concern about Net Zero and must be aware of its massive, damaging cost implications. And his recent statements and policy changes at least suggest that he’s worried that ordinary people (voters) don’t really understand any of this and are unaware of what’s going to hit them as the policy is implemented. Moreover, because of his Indian background and connections, he must surely be aware that other major economies have no serious interest in cutting their emissions; indeed are more interested in growing their economies. Therefore, a change of course on Net Zero would seem to be an excellent candidate for that dramatic headline.

    But exactly what line might he take? Obviously, an announcement that he plans to repeal the Climate Change Act would get the headlines – and more. But he’s hardly likely to opt for that as it’s unlikely that he could get it through Parliament. However, there’s one possibility that in practice would have many of the advantages of repeal and yet be more acceptable. And that – as we’ve discussed above – would be to extend the target date. I would suggest from 2050 to 2060 (or better still 2070). He wouldn’t, I think, find it difficult to explain the logic behind such a move. The only serious counter-argument would be the ‘need to set an example’ / ‘exercise leadership’ assertion. But that’s easily countered.

    Any thoughts?

    Liked by 1 person

  60. Hello Robin, my simple response is: Yes! Yes! Yes, please! …

    But push back not just the date for finally reaching Net Zero nirvana/hell, but all the other intermediate (and therefore more pressing) targets. Really signal hard (but camouflaged in lots of soft words) that the end times for petrol/diesel vehicles (and indeed for all that is fossil fuel related) are being pushed back too.

    Sounds almost too good to be true. So, as I said above, he will need to have all his ducks lined up before going public. It could be just what he and his party need to reconnect with the voting public … and as Jaime pointed out, it could sound like a return to proper Tory policies. If I was a potential Conservative voter then getting rid of command economy targets would sound like the good old days before consensus politics arrived to hollow out our once vibrant democracy.

    Regards, John.

    Liked by 1 person

  61. John: I agree with all that – defer the whole thing by at least ten years. And I think Sunak’s certainly clever and organised enough to get all those ducks lined up. But, although he would probably recognise the huge potential advantage of taking this step, does he have the guts to actually take it? And there I’m not so sure.

    Best – R

    Like

  62. Robin, I have not been able to read the Spectator article to which you referred (despite trying a couple of tricks). However, I was able to read the related article by Niall Gooch, “The Tories biggest missed opportunity” from which I quote, “And so will pass one of the most incredible missed opportunities in British political history. A Tory majority of a size not seen since the Thatcher years has been used to achieve a great deal of nothing at all. There was not a single measure from Tuesday’s King’s Speech that could not plausibly have appeared in a Labour manifesto.”

    So it seems that the Tories (or former Tories as Jaime would say) are becalmed in Labour’s wake and can’t be bothered to bestir themselves to enact Conservative policies. Bizarre … almost beyond comprehension given that practical politics is (or used to be) about getting into power and trying to ensure the opposition stay out of office for a very, very long time.

    If (as you wonder) Sunak does not have the guts, is there somebody around him that can put some fire in his belly? If not then what is the point of his continuing premiership? I just don’t know.

    I am bewildered, but not of Tunbridge Wells.

    Regards, John.

    Liked by 1 person

  63. John/Robin,

    I am bewildered by politics generally. A Uniparty, with so little talent; and none of the shades of grey green seem to have the slightest idea what to do to make things better (or indeed to stop making things worse, which would at least be a start). Indeed, they all seem very anxious to ditch responsibility by giving it to QUANGOs, Bank of England, OBR, Infrastructure Commission, Climate Change Committee, etc etc. I suppose that way they can at least say “It wasn’t me”, but how do they expect to achieve anything at all if the power has all been handed to unelected officials?

    Sunak is a failure in his own terms, and he seems to have been outmanoeuvred by Braverman. Sack her, and he alienates much of his party (and especially the members); fail to sack her and he looks weak. He is stumbling towards electoral annihilation, and doesn’t seem to have a clue what to do about it, even though the only possible answer (though admittedly even that might not work) is staring him in the face – repeal the Climate Change Act and kick net zero into the long grass.

    Liked by 2 people

  64. Hello Mark,
    Thank you for mentioning the Uniparty because I suspect that hints at something we don’t discuss enough, namely all the behind-the-scenes lobbying and the related financing of the political parties. Lots of the financial institutions have gone big on the (pseudo) energy transition and the major subsidies that go with it.

    However, as The Manhattan Contrarian has recently observed (see link below), big money seems to realise the days of easy profits from the (pseudo) energy transition may be coming to an end. To avoid that disaster (from their perspective) they are now concentrating on bolstering the climate scare. What effect is that having on our (Western) politics? Are our “democracies” holed below the waterline because our political parties are essentially in the pockets of big money? And what about the media? And many charities and NGOs?
    https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2023-11-8-as-the-transition-to-green-energy-crumbles-funding-for-the-climate-scare-soars

    Is it any wonder that writers such as prof. Matthew Goodwin speak of the hollowing out of our democracies?

    Regards, John.

    Like

  65. Mark, you say that Sunak doesn’t seem to have a clue about what to do ‘even though the only possible answer … is staring him in the face – repeal the Climate Change Act and kick net zero into the long grass.‘ I disagree: in my view, there’s no possibility of his being able to put together an HoC majority for CCA repeal – try it and he would look even more clueless. No, a more practical solution is a simple amendment to Article 1 (1) of the Act, changing ‘2050’ to ‘2060’ (or better still ‘2070’). He might well get support for that by pointing out that more time is needed to sort out the many practical difficulties the policy is facing – especially if he proposes it in say six months time when I’m sure these problems will be even more serious. Of course the real effect of this would be to kick NZ into the long grass: by the time another ten or more years have passed it’s highly likely that the policy will have become an obvious absurdity.

    Liked by 2 people

  66. Robin,

    You’re right of course. What I should have said is that Sunak should fight the next general election on a platform of repealing the CCA, not that he should try to do it before the next election (as you say, as Parliament is currently constituted, any such attempt would fail – even in the unlikely event that the Commons passed it, the Lords would block it, and there isn’t time to use the Parliament Act to push it through in the face of such opposition ahead of the next election).

    Liked by 1 person

  67. I’m sorry Mark but I still disagree. I think that fighting the election on a repeal the CCA platform would be a serious error. The reality, demonstrated by most opinion polls, is that the majority of people believe that GHGs must be reduced. What they don’t like is anything that would make life more difficult for them. Clearly illogical – but, as Sunak seems to recognise, people simply don’t understand what Net Zero entails. An article in the Torygraph this morning illustrates this perfectly. The author notes the absurdity of trying to ban gas boilers – ‘we installed just 55,000 heat pumps in 2022, against a Government target of 600,000 a year by 2028‘. She goes on:

    ‘What’s most irksome isn’t the tireless assault on the essentials for a good life, it’s the shortsightedness of trying to scrap something before considering the consequences – not least for the energy system and the grid.’

    And there’s more good stuff on these lines: £19 billion to upgrade the grid, the need for nations with higher emissions to produce needed equipment … etc. But she concludes with this:

    ‘Of course we need to reduce our carbon footprint … but we don’t need endless bans and crippling costs.’

    So there you have it – confirming my view that by far the best approach is to extend the 2050 target. And, with it, the immediate targets: EVs, heat pumps and all-renewable electricity.

    Like

  68. Well, Robin, we rarely disagree, but for once we do. The Torygraph conclusion is inane:

    ‘Of course we need to reduce our carbon footprint … but we don’t need endless bans and crippling costs.’

    Having reduced (realistically, largely exported to Asia) our emissions by a substantial proportion, the low-hanging fruit has been picked. Changing from coal to gas for electricity generation was a relatively cheap and easy (certainly compared to what is left) change to make, which significantly reduced our emissions. The rest can only be achieved by endless bans and crippling costs. That’s the reality, which needs to be patiently and repeatedly explained to the electorate. We either need to keep reducing our emissions or we don’t. We either believe in a climate emergency, or we don’t. We either believe that the UK taking unilateral action can make a significant difference to the climate, or we don’t. If we do (which seems to be what is represented by “of course we need to reduce our carbon footprint”) then kicking the can down the road to 2060 or 2070 is pointless. More to the point, it would be an electorally naive and potentially disastrous strategy. The Opposition parties (and most of the media) would have a field day – they would be able to say that Sunak believes in the need for the UK to reduce emissions because we face a climate emergency (why else would you believe in the need to reduce emissions?), but he has no sense of emergency even though there is an emergency, ergo his position is illogical, and he’s not fit to run the country.

    By contrast, the only way to distance himself from the Opposition and to offer the electorate a credible and real choice, would be to say he would repeal the CCA. He might crash and burn at the election if he did that, but I guarantee that he will crash and burn if he doesn’t.

    Liked by 1 person

  69. Mark / Robin, is there a middle way between your positions? For example, (i) immediately delay the targets by 10 years and (ii) propose a review/up-date of the CCA to ensure that it is still fit for purpose (given that Sunak recognises both the lack of honesty shown by politicans and the huge costs associated with matters green). Regards, John.

    Liked by 1 person

  70. Mark, I drew attention to that Torygraph article precisely because its conclusion is inane. It illustrates perfectly the view of a media, some of whose journalists are beginning to appreciate the emerging impossibilities of Net Zero, but nonetheless remains firmly convinced that the UK must reduce its emissions. It’s a position that, in a few cases, is moving on slightly from the position of most ordinary people who believe that the UK must reduce its emissions but who do not yet understand the implications of the NZ policy – understandably in my opinion. I agree with your outline of the reality – but unfortunately there’s essentially no sign of anyone ‘patiently and repeatedly‘ explaining it to the electorate. That’s why a proposal that the CCA is repealed would be shot down in flames and would contribute to the Tories’ destruction at the ballot box. Far better in my view that the target date is deferred (a relatively easy process) coupled with a clear statement of (a) the emerging difficulties that have to be tackled and (b) the pointlessness of damaging our economy now when so many big economies are doing essentially nothing re emission reduction.

    John, I think your ‘middle way’ might well be a practical solution.

    Liked by 1 person

  73. Robin: “So there you have it – confirming my view that by far the best approach is to extend the 2050 target. And, with it, the immediate targets: EVs, heat pumps and all-renewable electricity.”

    While I agree with the sentiment, some of those targets are out of our control. The govt might relax the timing of the deadline for EVs but what ICE cars will be available to buy? Afaics, all the significant manufacturers have committed to going all-electric well before the deadline.
    Similarly, how long will it be before gas boilers are no longer to be bought?
    Obviously the manufacturers and suppliers could relax their timings but they will only do that if all of their major markets decide to push back their deadlines. There seems little chance of that happening.

    I fear we are just going to have to ride it out for as long as it takes for reality to overcome the West’s political group-think.

    Like

  74. Mike, you say: ‘all the significant manufacturers have committed to going all-electric well before the deadline.‘ Not so much committed as obliged: the government has ruled that, from next year, 22% of cars sold must be EV’s – a percentage that increases each year until it gets to 100% in 2035. My suggested 10 year deferral (by Sunak) would include such mandates, including those applying to gas boilers. I have little doubt that their markets (i.e. the general public) would mostly support such a move.

    Like

  75. Robin,

    You are right about that, of course. However, Mike does raise a very real point. The EV mandate to date has driven (pardon the pun) many motor manufacturers to ditch ICE vehicles and to go for EVs on a big scale (getting their fingers burned in the process, I suspect). When my wife and I were looking for a new diesel car earlier this year, finding one that suited our requirements was extremely difficult, due to the extent to which manufacturers are giving up on diesel. We got one in the end, and are happy with it, but it was Hobson’s Choice.

    Combine that existing reality with the fact that despite putting the date back to 2025 from 2030 for all new car sales to be EVs, Sunak has barely moved the dial at all on the proportion of car sales that have to be EVs each year between now and 2030, nor has he reduced the size of the fine (£15K per car). Such factors do make me wonder if he’s serious, or if the reality is that he is yet another political net zero zealot who has just tweaked policies a tiny amount because he’s scared of the electoral backlash (given the state of the country and of the Tory Party, I think he has more to do than slightly tweaking net zero to avoid electoral meltdown).

    Like

  76. Good points Mark. Nonetheless I’m pretty sure the motor (and gas boiler) manufactures would welcome a 10 year deferral of the mandates. What I’m less sure about however is the likelihood of Sunak actually doing any of these things.

    Liked by 1 person

  77. Robin – re your above partial quote –
    “a more practical solution is a simple amendment to Article 1 (1) of the Act, changing ‘2050’ to ‘2060’ (or better still ‘2070’)”

    had not been aware that was an option!!! seems the sensible thing to do (2070/80) if we can’t get the act scrapped.

    or as said above by John Cullen at least extend it until the futility hits home.

    Like

  78. Robin; I very much doubt whether the motor manufacturers would change their plans on our account alone. They may well welcome a deferral but only if it applies across all their major markets. Furthermore they are highly unlikely to continue to make ICE cars just for the UK market.
    So far all that Sunak has done is move our deadline back into line with Europe.

    Like

  79. I don’t think there is any scope for Sunak to make a meaningful change to Net Zero policy (I equate “meaningful change” with any measures that would be wholeheartedly cheered by climate sceptics).

    I make the following observations in support of this proposition:

    1. The screeching U-turn was nothing of the kind. It was more like a scene from Invasion of the Bodysnatchers where you think you are about to be rescued, but your rescuer turns out to be a pod person after all.
    2. In order to create political momentum for the idea, it has to be sufficiently different from the present plan for everyone up and down the country to understand it as such. The announcement Sunak made to delay the ban on ICE vehicles was not only feeble, it was disingenuous based on the maintenance of the EV sales quotas. This non-announcement was apparently the most that could be dared.
    3. Key is for the policy change to create a dilemma for Labour: their instinct will be to oppose changes, but they will be on the lookout to see how popular the changes are. The present attempt to postpone the ICE ban is so innocuous that no political tension was created by Labour opposing it. Therefore a simple delay on bans is not going to cut through. Bans and quotas have to be removed publicly and loudly to create any hope of a popular surge.
    4. There is however no credibility on the part of the government, since it has presided over the national suicide project for the last 13 years. In what world can they speak up to say “everything we said and did was wrong”? The necessary U-turn would supply an enormous strategic advantage for Labour.
    5. The landscape has changed. Net Zero is popular. Gaslighting is widespread. A generation has been brought up to believe facile ideas that cannot resist a meeting with Nature. But those facile ideas are rife within the present government and back benches, where the question of Net Zero has ceased to be about facts and has become a matter of right and wrong.

    The best hope I see is for Labour to win next year, and then to double down on stupid, enabling a populist revival by a renewed Conservative cohort which has the freedom to create new political ideas without the baggage of a decade of failure, the vision to promise freedom and wealth to the UK’s people once the burden of Net Zero has been thrown off their backs. For this to happen fast, the margin of Labour’s win must be narrow, such that its majority is threatened at times.

    But a more realistic prediction of the future is five years of continued decline under a new banner, its cause obfuscated, woes blamed on an over-reliance on fossil fuels, a quiescent public prepared to accept ever higher bills, ever greater destruction of the natural world around them and ever greater impositions on their freedoms. And at the end of that time, for the two main parties to profess no difference in policy, to offer the electorate of 2029 more of the same.

    So my advice to Mr. Sunak would be to be bold, even at the risk of being overthrown now. Anything else clings on until inevitable defeat. But he wouldn’t take my advice, that’s for sure.

    Liked by 2 people

  81. Jit’s advice to Sunak advice would be to be bold. I agree, although I fear that, even if he considered this proposal, it doesn’t seem to be in his nature to be particularly bold. I suppose some may regard Braverman’s sacking as bold but it seems to me to be more of a weak surrender to established opinion. Nonetheless, I’ll try to review here what I think might make sense.

    It would be announced that the CCA target date was to be changed from 2050 to 2060. The rationale for this would be: (a) that the necessary actions (e.g. the move to an all-renewable electricity supply, the nationwide adoption of heat pumps and the introduction of electric vehicles) are proving more difficult, impractical and economically damaging than was originally envisaged and that more time is required to resolve them, not least by training more of the skilled people needed to implement the necessary changes; and (b) that, in any case, such a delay would make no appreciable difference to the reduction in global GHG emissions as the UK is the source of only 0.79% of global emissions whereas major economies which are the source of far greater emissions (e.g. China (29.16%), India (7.33%) and Russia (4.80%)) have target dates of 2060 and beyond.

    It would be noted that such an extension is not a reversal of the Net Zero policy but a sensible action to overcome practical difficulties. How it will affect current near-term policies such as the ban on gas boilers and ICE cars would be determined by consultation with for example householders, car owners and manufacturers. Re EVs, possibilities would include cancellation of the requirement that an increasing annual percentage of vehicles sold must be EVs and an extension of the 100% ban from 2035 to 2040.

    Liked by 1 person

  82. Sunak’s unlikely to do anything which will increase his chance of winning the next election, least of all relax the grip on the nation’s throat imposed by Net Zero. Konstantin Kisin says he has already handed Labour (the other face of the Parliamentary Uniparty) a landslide:

    “If you have been living under a rock or simply made the wise decision to spend last weekend enjoying time with family, gardening or doing whatever it is normal people do, you may have missed the rapid sequence of events that has almost certainly secured a landslide for Keir Starmer’s Labour Party at the next election.

    It started, as political crises increasingly do, with a politician who was prepared to say something that is extremely controversial by virtue of it being true.

    Suella Braverman, then Home Secretary, penned an “inflammatory” article in the Times on Wednesday in which she made a few statements of the bleeding obvious.

    What was it about her comments that so disrupted the fragile fabric of our society? What did she say that had the media elite so incandescent with rage, choking on their quinoa salads as they tweeted their way into an aneurysm?

    Braverman dared to suggest that the police are not enforcing the law in a balanced way. As an example, she raised the disparity between the way BLM protestors were policed during the summer of 2020 when coppers routinely kneeled in front of them.

    …and the way anti-lockdown protestors were treated only months later when the police kneeled on them.

    So far, so inflammatory. She also went on to say that the public expect to see upcoming anti-Israel protests in London to be properly policed. Booooooo!”

    https://www.konstantinkisin.com/p/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-labour

    Liked by 1 person

  83. Jaime, I’ve seen and liked KK’s piece. Matt Goodwin also makes some pungent observations here: https://www.mattgoodwin.org/p/what-suellas-sacking-means

    His conclusion:

    ‘ … it seems to me, at least, that we are increasingly incapable as a country to tolerate and discuss serious and sometimes radical alternatives to the elite liberal consensus which pervades Westminster and our ruling class. And that in itself, despite what you think about Suella Braverman, despite what you think about the Tories, should worry us all.’

    I agree. And as for Sunak and Net Zero, there’s obviously no serious possibility of his adopting a policy akin to that we’ve been discussing here. But it’s been interesting.

    Liked by 1 person

  84. Just a thought. David Cameron famously spoke about getting rid of the “green crap”. Could it be that, years later, he is just about to embark upon doing just that? Too much to hope for, I suppose. But I can dream. Regards, John.

    Like

  87. Robin, Mark,

    Ouch!

    “I will, of course, continue to support the government in pursuit of policies which align with an authentic conservative agenda.”

    So we can expect no further support for the government from Suella Braverman then. Oh dear.

    Like

  88. This is November, the temps are 6 – 8 c and no wind, currently grid is running at 3.8% COAL : 3.7% wind and 0% solar. Luckily the wind is coming back tonight will it save the magic figures of renewables catching up on fossil ? Wind to die down again next week ! We now have a new 9 turbine wind farm right in our faces looking towards the back glen to Comrie. Ruining a scenic view for 9 yes only 9 turbines, there were quite a number of objections but you can’t stop the green stampede waving bits of paper. The new development in the Ochils looks like going ahead aswell . We see turbines every way we look.

    Like

  89. I noted above that Braverman’s extraordinary ’resignation’ letter indicated that Sunak didn’t seem to be the right person to take the action we’ve been discussing here. Well, here’s a comment extracted from Dominic Cummings’ Substack providing further evidence:

    ‘An easy way to see the utter rot of the Tory Party (and the No10/Cabinet Office system) is to consider that after the Boris-Truss fiasco they’ve put in charge the MP with probably the highest IQ in Parliament and the toughest work ethic …

    He spends his time wading through endless detail and spreadsheets on fifth order matters because it’s psychologically easier than doing the PM’s actual job which he doesn’t know how to do nor wants to do. Officials obviously prefer him to Boris or Truss. He reads the papers diligently and is neither a crook nor a cretin. But the old hands know it’s roughly the Brown failure mode: a workaholic, the PM’s office a massive bottleneck and can’t sustain focus when the news shifts, the smartest MP but can’t build a team or lead etc etc.’

    Ouch – putting it mildly.

    https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/4-the-startup-party-time-to-build

    Liked by 1 person

  90. JamesS,

    You have my sympathies. as you know, I have spent several happy days walking in the wonderful Ochils. I always admire them when driving past them on my way north to bigger hills. That they can be blighted by wind turbines beggars belief. Some people have no soul.

    Like

  92. At The New York Krazy Klimate Konference

    Francis Menton (Manhattan Contrarian) has just posted a splendidly amusing report on last week’s ‘2023 Clean Energy in New York Summit’ – the absurdity of which applies equally to the UK’s net zero policy.

    His conclusion:

    ‘From the evidence of this Konference, it it completely clear that the people running New York’s supposed energy transition do not have the slightest hint of competence. I suppose that’s for the better, because people who were actually competent could keep the charade going for a much longer time. With this crowd, the collapse will come sooner, although not nearly soon enough.’

    Like

  93. I’ll post this here, because it seems to me to have implications for the UK’s supposed net zero policy. The story is one of those where the Guardian used to campaign against ruthless employers, and used to be on the side of the “little people”. Having only the version of events reported by the Guardian, I have no idea whether this really is one of those stories, or whether it’s more confected outrage. Appearing in the Guardian, it could be either:

    “Seasonal cherrypicker from Chile files unfair dismissal claim against UK farm
    Julia Quecaño Casimiro becomes first worker on post-Brexit scheme to launch claim after flying thousands of miles for short-term employment”

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/nov/22/seasonal-cherrypicker-from-chile-files-unfair-dismissal-claim-against-uk-farm

    What interests me is the idea that the Government (committed to net zero ruining the lives of UK residents) is apparently more than happy to fly in workers from all over the world under the terms of a special seasonal workers visa scheme:

    When Julia Quecaño Casimiro left Chile to pick cherries in Herefordshire in June, she hoped she might finally save enough money to study biochemistry….

    …She was one of 134 Latin American workers who came to the farm…

    …The Guardian revealed last year that Indonesian workers were left with debts of up to £5,000 to third parties after coming to pick fruit in the UK…

    What on earth is the UK doing, exporting its manufacturing emissions to China, flying in foreign students by the tens (hundreds?) of thousands every year, and flying in seasonal fruit pickers from (inter alia) South America and Indonesia?

    Like

  94. This morning I was invited to join a political party.

    Here’s how it happened. Yesterday the Speccie had an article about the UK immigration record and one commentator (‘The Manchesterist’) said that people should consider voting for the Social Democratic Party in view of their having the best immigration policies which he cited. Having had a look at the SDP website, I suggested that the climate section (Introduction: ‘‘Britain must lead by example in being at the forefront of global action to combat climate change …’) was not so impressive. He responded by indicating that the energy section was rather better – which it was – and that some editing of both sections was the answer. My reply:

    ‘But it would need more than editing (both sections) if the policy is to be practicable: the ‘lead by example’ concept is simply embarrassing and the 40% nuclear by 2035, although desirable, unlikely to be possible. As for the repeated focus on carbon capture and storage – I suspect you know that’s a hopeless dream.’

    His reply:

    ‘I have been in touch with them to press your points.

    You should join them and advise on policy (only £2 a month). I have read your comments on here for a long time and they are always well informed, moderate and evidenced. I think you’d be a great asset to them.’

    Hmm … despite the flattery I don’t plan to join his or any political party. But, before I say so, any thoughts?

    Like

  95. Robin, in order to remain fully independent it is probably better not to join any political party. That way you can comment freely rather than being bound by party policy which, in the current climate/energy realm, has a high risk of being badly skewed. Such independence will not stop you from commenting, critically if need be, on any party’s policies. And the party can, if it is so minded, look to you for independent and well argued advice. Regards, John.

    Liked by 1 person

  96. Thanks for this John. I wholly agree and, as I indicated above, have already decided to say that I have never in my (long) life belonged to a political party and don’t intend to do so now. Of course, in the unlikely event of the SDP (in many ways an admirable entity) asking me for advice, I’d be glad to respond. As I would for any political party, admirable or not. Best – R

    Liked by 2 people

  97. The SDP is far from perfect, but IMO they are the best of a (very) bad bunch. In the unlikely event that they get their act together sufficiently to have a candidate stand in my constituency at the general election, that represents about the only chance of my voting next time. I am not a member of a political party either (though I have been in the past).

    Like

  98. Everyone on here agrees that this wholesale transfer to electrification powered by wind and solar is a disaster in waiting.
    Optimists seem to believe that, once the consequences become apparent, the penny will drop and politicians will back-off from their net zero fantasies.
    I fear that this will not happen because once you venture so far down the road there is no way back.
    Once Grangemouth power station is closed there is no switch that can turn it back on again. Once the filling station network is degraded, it wil become difficult to refuel ICE vehicles and the relative attractiveness of of EVs will increase.
    This is not a static system and the dynamics militate against an easy way back to sanity.

    Like

  99. Perhaps to Robin’s list of “Unachievable, Disastrous, Pointless” we can add unaffordable:

    “Labour unlikely to meet its £28bn green pledge at all”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67528894

    It is unlikely a Labour government will be able to meet its ambition to spend £28bn a year on green initiatives, a source close to Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.

    Labour announced the flagship policy at its annual conference in 2021.

    But in June shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves watered the pledge down, saying the figure would not be reached until 2027.

    Now, it is understood the figure will probably not be reached at all.

    A senior source in the Labour leader’s office said that was because of the state of the public finances. They stressed that Labour’s fiscal rules were more important than any policy…

    …During the Labour party conference in Brighton two years ago, Ms Reeves announced her ambition to be the UK’s first “green” chancellor.

    She unveiled Labour’s Green Prosperity Plan, explaining money would go on offshore wind farms, planting trees and developing batteries. She added it would be funded by borrowing.

    But in June Ms Reeves said she took the decision to scale back the Green Prosperity Plan as a result of the poor state of the economy.

    “No plan can be built that is not a rock of economic and fiscal responsibility,” Ms Reeves told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme at the time.

    She added. “I will never play fast and loose with the public finances.”…

    …Another Labour source told the Telegraph: “The fiscal rule matters more, and that will dictate how much is in the green prosperity fund.”

    Labour is determined to paint itself as the party of economic credibility – even if it means tempering one of the central planks of its programme for government.

    Like

  101. Mark,

    Dieter Helm is never going to square his circle whilst he insists that the science of global warming is settled and that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is both ‘dangerous’ and 100% attributable to human activity. His UK tailored ‘climate realist’ response to a non existent crisis is almost as absurd as unilateral Net Zero itself:

    “The North Sea is one of the best places in the world to try out and develop offshore wind and carbon capture and storage (CCS). That is where the greatest efforts should go. The UK also has a great science and research base, and again this is where spending will be likely to have the best results on global warming, transferring our discoveries and innovations for free to the world. An offshore wind + an offshore CCS + a large research spend would probably be the best we can hope to achieve. To this could be added new technological options for adaptation in the face of the inevitable significant global warming that is coming.”

    Good grief, yes, just what we need, more lavish research grants for hare-brained schemes like CCS!

    Liked by 1 person

  102. Mark, to add to Jaime’s comments: don’t we know from the EROEI parameter that current renewables technologies are even more energy intensive than fossil fuel and nuclear technologies? In other words, if one believs as Helm does, that there is a CO2-driven global warming crisis then the solution is definitely NOT to use current renewables technologies (even with CCS).

    What is a little surprising – but only a little since he is in the bubble of academia – is that Helm does not mention the Achilles heel that EROEI represents for current renewables. Thus if one accepts the fossil-fuel driven global warming hysteria then the solution is NOT to plough on with more renewables based upon current technology, but rather to return to the laboratory and develop a new generation of renewables that are both cost effective and EROEI-competent. But I won’t expect a quick solution to emerge from the labs since it has taken engineers and scientists some 250 years to develop the modern heat engine (and hence our modern society) from the days of Boulton and Watt.

    Regards, John.

    Liked by 2 people

  103. There’s little in Helm’s essay that’s is unfamiliar to most of us here. But, unlike any of us, he’s a public figure and therefore – despite Jaime’s strictures, John C’s acute observation and various other problems (such as his use of the term ‘carbon’ instead of CO2) and because it contains a lot of good sense – it could, if it got into the hands of the right politicians (notably I suggest Rachel Reeves), just possibly turn out to be a useful step towards the UK abandoning the insane Net Zero policy.

    However, like Jaime, I wasn’t at all impressed by his concluding paragraph and its proposal that we should focus on the development of off-shore wind and carbon capture and storage. Surely he’s aware that CCS development schemes have failed time and time again? And I was interested to compare his thinking with my short essay – ‘A Fresh Start’ – published HERE in March. An extract:

    ‘Britain needs a fresh start. We need to establish an optimum course in a world where we’re rapidly losing influence, where greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise and where our trying to prevent that from happening is futile. Instead therefore we should abandon net zero and similar policies – necessitating the repeal or radical amendment of the 2008 Climate Change Act – and come to terms with international political reality by: (a) prioritising a strong and growing economy, underpinned by reliable, affordable energy; (b) encouraging research into the development of technologies for delivering practicable, reliable, inexpensive low emission energy; and (c) focusing on long-term adaptation to whatever climate change may occur.’

    I see no reason to change that.

    Liked by 2 people

  104. Francis Menton has just published an article – The Green Energy Wall Gradually Coming Into Focus – that might even appeal to Jaime.

    His conclusion:

    ‘The best thing to end the wind/solar craziness will be to have one or two jurisdictions fail spectacularly as a lesson to everyone else. I wouldn’t have wanted my own New York to volunteer for that role, but that may be what’s happening.’

    Liked by 1 person

  105. Jaime and John C,

    I agree that the final section of Sir Dieter Helm’s article is nonsense, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that despite being a climate alarmist (of sorts) who is signed up in principle to the need for net zero, he not only is aware of, but actively draws attention to, its many costs and problems, which are routinely ignored by politicians and climate activists. As Robin says, what he wrote in that article is very familiar to us, but it is so encouraging but he is someone who to an extent has the inside track with the establishment in a way that we humble and much misunderstood sceptics don’t. Let’s give him two cheers for telling the establishment what they need – but don’t want – to hear.

    Liked by 2 people

  106. Interesting – even the Guardian has realised there are problems (not that it will stop it campaigning for net zero, deeper, harder, sooner, every day):

    “‘It’s like buying an iPhone and not having a cable’: UK’s bid for net zero in the balance due to grid ‘blind spot’”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/25/race-to-get-uk-electricity-grid-ready-for-net-zero

    As well as more clean energy, Britain needs miles of extra cable to carry it. But a global shortage of components and skills means efforts to meet climate targets will go down to the wire

    From next year, engineers will need to roll out more than 100km (62 miles) of electric cabling every day until 2040 if the government hopes to power the UK towards its climate goals, according to new data.

    Analysis of Britain’s existing power grids and the country’s predicted electricity demand reveals that within the next 17 years, more than 600,000km of electric lines will need to be either added or upgraded across the UK.

    The research, carried out by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and shared with the Observer, lays bare the scale of Britain’s infrastructure challenge…

    …This surge in electrical infrastructure will be a critical step in the government’s plan to wean the economy off fossil fuels and create a net zero nation by 2050. Challenges will include overhauling government policy and securing supplies of the high-voltage cables needed….

    …Advanced economies will need to lay at least 23 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 to meet their renewable energy goals, according to a recent report, and on a global level, 80m km of cable will be needed….

    …Global demand for components such as high-voltage cables, pylons and converter station equipment threatens to outstrip manufacturing capacity, pushing British energy companies into an international race to secure supplies…

    …The owners of Britain’s high-voltage transmission lines – National Grid, SSE and Scottish Power – have warned that this “blind spot” needs urgent action if the grid is to be rewired in time to meet green energy targets.

    Keith Anderson, boss of Scottish Power, has warned that power companies and ministers will have their work cut out getting households to accept what will be a “colossal” increase in visible electricity infrastructure….

    …Electricity demand in the UK is forecast to more than double by 2040 as fossil fuel heating systems and internal combustion engines are swapped for electric vehicles and heat pumps. Heavy industry must also switch away from fossil fuels in favour of clean power.

    To meet the demands of an electrified economy, the government wants to quadruple the UK’s offshore wind power capacity to 50 gigawatts by 2030, and solar farms and battery facilities storing power generated by wind and solar are expected to mushroom across the country.

    But for every pound spent on clean energy projects another pound must be spent on upgrading the power grids, according to Anderson. “There’s no point investing in renewables without investing in the grid. It’s like buying a new iPhone and not having a cable to go with it,” he said.

    Britain’s energy planning policies also need rewiring. A string of power projects – from solar farms to batteries, with a combined capacity six times Britain’s current output – are waiting for approval by the Department for Energy and Net Zero. …

    …There are delays too in building the high-voltage transmission “arteries” required to link offshore windfarms to the mainland grid, and areas of high power generation in the north of the country to areas of high demand in the south…

    …And skills gaps threatened to “haunt” the UK’s green agenda…unless there was heavy investment to create a new reservoir of trained staff…

    …Local opposition to visible energy infrastructure is a key barrier for the government. Deals such as the £1,000 discount for households who accept new pylons nearby is unlikely to sway residents in many upmarket enclaves.

    “How much are our nature reserves worth? Our wildlife? Our footpaths? You can’t put a figure on that,” said Riches, adding that there was “a massive case” for compensating businesses that rely on tourism if the cable project goes ahead. Work on the converter station and cables could begin in 2027 and take around four years, but residents fear the impact on the area will last far longer….

    Like

  107. Yes Mark, that Guardian article is interesting. Good to see that my hobbyhorse – the skills shortage – is briefly mentioned. But still nothing about intermittency and the need for storage/backup. Nor about the harsh reality that nothing we can do would have the slightest appreciable impact on global emissions. Nonetheless, it does seem to be very gradually dawning on people that this whole shebang is the most ghastly, unaffordable, pointless and disastrous absurdity.

    Liked by 3 people

  108. The favourite response from Greenies when wind turbines are accused of killing birds is that power lines (and cats) kill many millions more.

    “2014, Treehugger [via USA Today] listed the greatest threats to birds by fatality numbers. According to the 2014 State of the Birds Report (the most recent report with these statistics), wind turbines came in eighth. The top threat to birds is cats (2.4 billion), followed by windows (599 million), cars (200 million), power lines — collision (25 million), communication towers (6.6 million), power lines — electrocution (5.6 million), agricultural chemicals (US number unknown, Canada is 2.7 million), and wind turbines (234,000).”

    [Update] No, Mr. Trump — ‘windmills’ are not going to ‘destroy the bird population.’ Here’s what will

    So, given the “colossal increase in visible electricity infrastructure” required to connect bird chopping wind turbines to the national grid, then it will be a double whammy I guess – birds killed by wind turbines AND many millions more birds killed by the millions of miles of overground cable required to get their ‘clean’ electricity to consumers. Silent Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter it is then.

    Liked by 1 person

  109. Posted @ Jo Nova 26th November. Examines costs of offshore wind developments from go to woe. (

    By David Wojick, Ph.D.
    https://www.cfact.org/2023/11/22/offshore-wind-cannot-be-justified/

    “Paul Driessen and I just finished a study on the impact of offshore wind developments on CO2 emissions, since emission reduction is their primary justification. Turns out global emissions from mining, processing, manufacturing and transportation offset any reductions from power production. We use New Jersey as an example.

    How Offshore Wind Drives Up Global Carbon Emissions
    By David Wojick, PhD, Paul Driessen, JD
    The full report is here: http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Wojick-Driessen-How-Offshore-Wind-Drives-Up-Global-Carbon-Emissions-FINAL.pdf

    This article is our Executive Summary. Please share it.”

    Liked by 4 people

  111. First and foremost …
    Wind , like Solar, is
    intermittent – knot
    twenty- four / seven.
    Turbine life, fifteen to
    twenty-one years –
    max.

    Secondo, don’cha know,
    turbine manufacture is
    fearsomely eXpensive…
    all that concrete, steel ‘n
    cables’ energy out-put,
    it jest don’t
    pay its way

    Liked by 2 people

  112. The climate change policy of the poll topping Dutch PVV (Party for Freedom) is worth a read. It can be found HERE.

    Like

  113. Robin, on a related matter here in the UK: on Friday there were several reports in the media that Labour was going to drop/severely reduce its commitment to “investing in green tech”. However, by Saturday morning media reports had it that the Labour party is back on message and would indeed “invest in green tech” if elected.

    Ir seems that there is a large battle going on at the top of the Labour Party, with the green establishment currently in the ascendancy. Unfortunately I have not heard any more about the matter since. Can anybody enlighten me further , please?

    Regards, John.

    Like

  114. I cannot help John: it’s all most confusing. Yes, It seems there’s a mighty battle going on – one that’s unlikely to be settled as Net Zero policies look increasingly unaffordable. As they surely will. Best – R

    Liked by 1 person

  115. Robin,

    It’s interesting to muse on the implications of that climate policy. Did a party, regarded by many as extreme, win the most votes because the electorate has moved “far right”, because the electorate is sick of the country’s net zero style politics, or is it much more complicated than that?

    Are there lessons for UK politicians? Would a party in the UK at the next general election, standing on an avowedly anti-net zero policy, clean up? My suspicion is that they would so long as there other policies weren’t too alarming. As things stand, I suspect Labour will win the next election easily and that the Tories will crash and burn, but that such an outcome wouldn’t be due to Labour being popular, rather it’s to the Tories being very unpopular. I think that any sensible alternative party, especially one with different net zero policies to the mainstream parties, might clean up.

    Like

  116. Mark: I very much agree with your expectation that Labour will win the next election easily and the Tories crash and burn. And I suspect that another party putting forward a well-argued anti-net zero policy probably coupled with an anti-immigration policy could attract a lot of votes. But clean up? I rather doubt it – I fear our voting system would make it very difficult. However, I’m not entirely sure of this: with the Tories so desperately unpopular and Labour not widely admired, I suppose a new party might spring a surprise. But IMO it’s unlikely. Interesting times.

    Like

  117. What the hell are the smaller parties – Reclaim, Reform, Heritage – doing? They have no visibility whatsoever and we are maybe months away from a General Election. They should be out there, pushing hard their anti Net Zero, anti mass immigration, anti WHO pandemic treaty, pro British manufacturing industry, pro British farming etc. Where’s Farage? He could have won numerous seats at the last election but he gave them away to the rotten Tories at the last moment, who then betrayed the nation once they got their majority. If all these smaller parties formed a workable coalition and put aside their minor differences and egos, they might actually stand a chance of winning more than a few seats at the forthcoming election, by campaigning on a clear policy platform which rejects the globalist policies of the parliamentary Uni-party. But they’re doing bugger all as far as I can see.

    Like

  118. Oh dear, according to this report, Lord Stern warns, ‘Sunak’s net zero backsliding “deeply damaging for Britain“’. It seems, according to Stern, that we ‘are now internationally regarded as backsliding … a mistake founded on a whole series of muddled and incorrect arguments’. He asserts that Sunak’s strategy not only damages the UK but the whole world by encouraging ‘other people who don’t want change and encourages them to raise their voices more loudly.‘

    Therefore, it would seem that, if the major non-Western economies that are the source of 75% of global emissions don’t reverse their wicked energy policies and the world spirals down to climatic catastrophe, we will be largely to blame. (By making two modest changes to our policies, bringing them into line with much of Europe.)

    Liked by 1 person

  119. Robin, these ridiculous Net Zero neo-colonialists are still living with the delusion that the world revolves around Little Great Britain, that somehow, more than a century after the decline of Empire and two hundred years after instigating the industrial revolution and modernising international trade, we still command respect and admiration in the world and whatever the good old Brits do (or don’t) the rest of the world will follow. They also find it so very easy to conveniently reverse that compliment when appropriate and blame us for the social injustice and carbon woes of the world, precisely because of Empire and the Industrial revolution!

    Liked by 2 people

  120. Jaime: I had some fun a week ago on The Conversation where an article’s author had commented on the interconnectedness between the West’s consumerism, environmentalism and race politics. Here’s my response:

    ‘What’s so often missed these days in discussions about consumerism is just how much the world has changed over the last few years. Today the world’s principal consumer market is almost certainly the huge and burgeoning middle class (probably close to a billion people) that has emerged across India, China and Southeast Asia. These people are avid consumers. And of course they’re all non-white people. Therefore, environmentalism today could well be characterised as little more than old white men (politicians and scientists) in the West telling people of colour in the non-Western world (the source of over 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions and comprising 84% of humanity) what they should be doing. Unsurprisingly the latter are not impressed.’

    She didn’t reply.

    Liked by 3 people

  121. She probably broke a tooth whilst grinding them together, and therefore needed to book an urgent dentist appointment Robin, hence the lack of a reply.

    Like

  122. Re Stern’s warning (see above) it’s interesting that, in a letter he sent to Gordon Brown in June 2006 about his now famous report, he said this (Para 7):

    The report will argue strongly that effective action against climate change requires a multilateral response, and that national policy should be seen in the light of its contribution to generating effective international action. The focus of our recommendations will be on options for global and EU action, not on unilateral UK policy matters.

    Liked by 1 person

  123. Robin, It’s interesting that Stern said that. As you reminded us some time ago, the Impact Assessment to the Climate Change Act says this:

    The benefits of UK action will be distributed across the globe. In the case where the UK acts in concert with other countries then the UK will benefit from other nations reduced emissions and would be expected to experience a large net benefit. Where the UK acts alone, though there would be a net benefit for the world as a whole the UK would bear all the cost of the action and would not experience any benefit from reciprocal reductions elsewhere. The economic case for the UK continuing to act alone where global action cannot be achieved would be weak.

    At what point, I wonder, was that fundamental logic thrown out of the window?

    Like

  124. Is the ‘climate crisis’ scam starting to seriously unwind ahead of COP28? CNBC has shut down its climate desk.

    “Bloomberg reporter Akshat Rathi tweeted it was a “sad day” when a major news publication decided to cut jobs that provided essential coverage of a planetary crisis. “The science is clear, the impacts are here, and many world leaders are taking it seriously. So why does a media publication not see a business case?” he asked. The sensible answer might be that there is no planetary crisis, it is an invention of political activists, the science is not clear, it is more in dispute than ever, while the catastrophisation of individual weather events is the last desperate throw of the dice following 25 years of slowing warming. The business case for CNBC seems clear – what money can be made by simply subbing clickbait press releases from academics desperately trying to secure funding for their increasingly fanciful climate claims? Not a lot, it seems, when all the competitors are acting as similar trusted messengers citing the usual, ‘scientists say’.”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2023/11/28/world-apocalypse-on-hold-as-tv-station-cnbc-quietly-disbands-climate-desk/

    No wonder academics are scrambling for more research funding; their media payments for ‘expert’ comment are starting to dry up.

    Liked by 1 person

  125. Francis Menton (Manhattan Contrarian) has published another excellent piece today: Some More Energy Reality In New York City. An extract:

    ‘…converting this building has shown that retrofitting a central heat pump system like this for such buildings is infeasible to the point of being ludicrous. But of course, this is New York, and nobody is allowed to say that….Energy reality is rising up once again.’

    But of course – because of our wise and far-seeing leaders – such nonsense couldn’t possibly happen here.

    Liked by 2 people

  126. The Net Zero rebellion is spreading. Sooner or later, the blue touch-paper will be lit in the UK. Maybe destroying developed economies is not going to be as easy as I imagined. Let’s hope so.

    Like

  128. This essay – Archimedes’ Fulcrum – by Professor Gwythian Prins contains a wealth of good sense. However, I cannot see how his recommendation that the word ‘aspiration’ be substituted for ‘legal target’ in climate change legislation – although very desirable – could, given the power of the blob and the foolishness of our political ‘leaders’, conceivably happen.

    Like

  129. Ross McKitrick has an excellent post at Climate etc. on the use of Total Least Squares statistical regression method used to estimate the ‘fingerprint’ of GHGs on global warming. Again, we see that Al Jaber was right when he said there’s “no science” behind the claim that we need to phase out fossil fuels to limit global warming to 1.5C.

    “One of them, after noting that statisticians and econometricians don’t like TLS, added:

    “it seems to me that the target audience of the paper are practitioners using TLS quite uncritically for climatological applications. How large is this community and how influential are conclusions drawn on the basis of TLS, say in the scientific debate concerning attribution?”

    In my reply I did my best to explain its influence on the climatology field. I didn’t add, but could have, that 20 years’ worth of applications of TLS are ultimately what brought 100,000 bigwigs to Dubai for COP28 to demand the phaseout of the world’s best energy sources based on estimates of the role of anthropogenic forcings on the climate that are likely heavily overstated. Based on the political impact and economic consequences of its application, TLS is one of the most influential statistical methodologies in the world, despite experts viewing it as highly unreliable compared to readily available alternatives like IV.”

    In particular, on the subject of the ‘settled science carbon budget’ for 1.5C:

    “Among other things, since TLS-estimated coefficients are plugged into carbon budget models, this will result in a carbon budget being biased too small.

    TLS-derived signal coefficients yield systematically underestimated carbon budgets.”

    Climate attribution method overstates “fingerprints” of external forcing

    Like

  130. An interesting take in Politico about the west’s net zero policy, and its problematic implications:

    “A warning for 2024: The losers of the green revolution won’t go quietly”

    https://www.politico.eu/article/climate-change-blowback-warning-losers-green-revolution/

    …It would be naïve, however, to think the green transformation will be different from history’s other epochal shifts. Like every previous industrial revolution, this one is creating losers as well. No matter how many clean-energy jobs will be created in future, hundreds of thousands are being destroyed now. Freedoms — to drive, to consume without care — are being curtailed. Society is being reshaped, and the pain is real. Especially that of those hit the hardest.

    There something distinctive about this revolution, however. More than any other that came before, it’s being driven by political choices rather than by technology or capital. So, as the Luddites come, it’s inevitable they’re coming not just for the machines — but also for the policymakers and the politicians.

    In short, it’s becoming clear that the success of the green revolution will depend on whether policymakers and climate campaigners start taking into consideration those who will bear its greatest costs….

    Like

  131. Under ‘Leadership?’ I referred to Rupert Darwall’s report, ‘The Folly of Climate Leadership – Net zero and Britain’s DISASTROUS ENERGY POLICIES’. It can be accessed HERE .

    I suggest that anyone who’s interested in and concerned about the UK’s Net Zero policy – and who has the time (it’s 75 pages long) – should read this well-written, detailed and depressing analysis (probably ignoring the less impressive Forward).

    A simple but accurate summary from the Overview:

    This … is a story of a massive deception practiced by Britain’s governing class, leading to the biggest resource misallocation in British history—done in the name of saving a planet, which the vast majority of its inhabitants has no intention of emulating.

    Like

  132. Robin,

    Thank you for the Darwall link. I have read his excellent book ‘Green Tyranny’, and so I will definitely find some time over Christmas to read his report.

    Like

  133. John: I’ll be interested to hear what you think of it. Note one of his two concluding recommendations:

    ‘A future British government should amend the Climate Change Act to remove the statutory duty on the government to ensure that the UK’s net greenhouse gas emissions fall by a prescribed amount (currently 100 percent) by a particular year (currently 2050).‘

    An excellent idea. But, like Professor Prins’ recommendation (see my post here on 19 December) that the word ‘aspiration’ be substituted for ‘legal target’ in climate change legislation, it’s hard to see how, given the power of the blob and the foolishness of our political ‘leaders’, it could conceivably happen.

    Like

  134. Darwall’s short article for RealClearEnergy is excellent; it lays bare the Net Zero scam for all to see in stunning detail and easy to understand numbers. I am particularly impressed by his closing remarks:

    “Britain’s energy-policy disaster has lessons for America. The physics and economics of wind power are not magically transformed when they cross the Atlantic. Whenever a politician or wind lobbyist touts wind as low-cost or says net zero will boost growth, they become accessories to the wind power scam. The data lead ineluctably to a decisive conclusion: net zero is anti-growth. It is a formula for prolonged economic stagnation. Anyone who wants the truth about renewables should look at Britain and the sorry state of its economy. For the last decade and a half, it has been going through its worst period of growth since 1780.

    Unlike in business and finance, there are no criminal or civil penalties for those who promote policies based on fraud and misrepresentation. Rather, net zero is similar to communism. Like net zero, communism was based on a lie: that it would outproduce capitalism. But it failed to produce, and belief in communism evaporated. When the collapse came, it was sudden and rapid. The truth could not be hidden. A similar fate awaits net zero.”

    https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2023/12/20/britains_net_zero_disaster_and_the_wind_power_scam_1000250.html

    Net Zero is eco-communism with a generous side serving of fascism. Our western politicians have the benefit of hindsight and the historical record to inform them that communism and fascism are failed ideologies and result only in chaos, economic ruin, misery and death. They have the benefit of the current knowledge that Net Zero is not working, that indeed it is not possible in practice, that it is anti-growth and that it is impoverishing and immiserating people and destroying large swathes of the natural environment which its advocates pretend to be protecting. Yet still they promote the big lie. What else other than malign intent can explain their pig-headed refusal to change course?

    Liked by 3 people

  135. Jaime: I agree about Darwall’s short article – although I also strongly recommend his much longer report (see above). Interestingly, I also quoted one of the extracts that you selected when I referred to the article on the ‘Leadership?’ post. Here’s another (very relevant to that post) that I particularly liked:

    ‘‘The Climate Change Act was passed to show Britain’s climate leadership and inspire the rest of the world to follow its example. How did that work out? In the 11 years that transpired from passing the Act to legislating net zero in 2019, Britain’s fossil fuel emissions fell by 180 million metric tons – a 33 percent reduction. Over the same period, the rest of the world’s emissions increased by 5,177 million metric tons – a rise of 16 percent. Put another way, 11 years of British emissions reduction were wiped out in around 140 days by increased emissions from the rest of the world.

    ‘Someone who claims that he’s a leader but who has no followers is typically regarded as a fool. It’s different with climate. Politicians parade their green virtue – Skidmore is to quit the House of Commons, and he teaches net zero studies at Harvard’s Kennedy School – while voters get mugged with higher energy bills.’‘

    Get that? Skidmore is to teach ‘net zero studies’ at Harvard!

    Liked by 2 people

  136. I have also bookmarked the 75 page Darwall report for some light Christmas reading! Robin, thank you for supplying the link. I suspect it should be on the reading list of all Parliamentarians, but I’m confident it won’t be.

    Like

  137. I apologise, but I simply have to quote again the very short extract from Darwall’s report that I quoted above:

    ‘This … is a story of a massive deception practiced by Britain’s governing class, leading to the biggest resource misallocation in British history—done in the name of saving a planet, which the vast majority of its inhabitants has no intention of emulating.‘

    An excellent summary of his message. But also a precise and damning comment on what’s happening with Britain’s energy policy.

    Liked by 3 people

  138. Rupert Darwall is on a roll, bringing his view on the UK energy disaster up to date by posting an article in the Spectator about the how Danish energy giant Ørsted, following its doubts about the viability of the Hornsea 3 offshore project and after discussions with the government, is after all pressing ahead with the project. The article – What’s the true cost of Britain’s biggest offshore wind farm? – can be found HERE .

    His opening message:

    ‘The news this week is being hailed as a boost for Britain’s net zero strategy but don’t be deceived: the true cost of this scheme will be enormous.’

    He goes on to explain why. Essentially it seems that Ørsted has been allowed to reduce the generating capacity agreed under the previous agreement by 25 per cent and – although Darwall doesn’t say so – to transfer that share to take advantage of the much higher price for ‘contracts for difference’ set out by the government under the more recent ‘Allocation Round 6’. In other words, it’s been allowed to renege on the earlier agreement.

    Darwell then tries to explain the background to all this:

    ‘Contracts for difference, which the government uses to subsidise renewable energy, are valuable options that the government uses to entice wind developers. Because of the way these contracts are allocated by the government, wind investors are incentivised to low ball the strike prices they offer. Thus moral hazard is hard wired into the allocation mechanism. For this reason, falling strike prices in successive allocation rounds reveal nothing about the cost trajectory of offshore wind.’

    I’m not confident that I really understand that. I know what ‘moral hazard’ is but am less sure about how it’s ‘hard wired’ into energy companies’ deals with government. Perhaps someone can explain.

    Like

  139. Hello Robin, is this ‘hard wiring’ not just the usual ploy by Big Wind, namely bid a low price per MWh to win the non-binding “contract” but then, once operational, accept higher market prices in perpetuity thereby never accomplishing their side of the “contract” i.e. heads they win, tails the consumer loses? In short, this is simply how moral hazard works in the cosseted wind industry.

    I am also intrigued by the 25% reduction in generating capacity. Are Oersted accepting that they will build a given number of wind turbines but that, because of the turbines’ wretched unreliabilty, only 75% of them at any instant can be relied upon to be availalble for generation? Or is Oersted going to build 25% fewer windmills than originlly planned because they are each so expensive? Either way this sounds a very bad deal for the consumer … but what can we expect from our captured political class/uniparty?

    Regards, John.

    Like

  140. John, you say:

    ‘I am also intrigued by the 25% reduction in generating capacity.‘

    I believe the answer – as I indicate above – is that Ørsted’s been allowed to transfer that 25% to take advantage of the much higher price for ‘contracts for difference’ announced by government under the more recent ‘Allocation Round 6’. In other words, government – desperate to ensure the Hornsea 3 offshore project doesn’t collapse – has allowed it to renege on its earlier agreement, thereby loading even more costs onto energy users.

    Best – R

    Liked by 1 person

  141. Robin, thank you for this further explanation. I now understand from you that it is just an accounting exercise whereas I (as a retired engineer) had thought it also had engineering implications. Either way, it is still a very expensive development for the long-suffering consumer.

    Regards, John.

    Like

  142. John: rather more than an accounting exercise I suggest. What seems to have happened is that one party to a contract (the government) has feebly allowed the other (Ørsted) to abandon its obligations under that contract, allowing it to take advantage of a much more rewarding opportunity that has arisen since the original contract was agreed.

    R

    PS: I qualified as a lawyer many many years ago.

    Like

  143. But Robin, didn’t the wind blow the old contract out into the Sea of Wishful Thinking, there to be sunk without trace and without penalty clauses? So let’s have a nice new shiny one that costs the consumer lots more money – it’s Christmas after all (for Oersted at least) … I think I’m getting the hang of this wind power business.

    Unlike you, I have no legal training. However, I note that according to Wikipedia the Mens Rea doctrine says “the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty”. Thus what happens legally when, as so often in modern energy policy, the guiding mind is (apparently) not so much guilty as naively foolish? Is the expensive contract still enforceable against the government/consumer?

    Regards, John.

    Liked by 1 person

  145. PS to John: you may, as I do, regard the government’s foolish irresponsibility as ‘criminal’. But I’m afraid the law isn’t going to help. R

    Liked by 1 person

  146. Robin,

    Our government’s “foolish irresponsibility” will amount almost certainly to what Professor Rudolf Rummel termed ‘democide’ and unlike genocide, for which there might be limited accountability in terms of the threat of international criminal trials for human rights atrocities, democide does not appear to be a crime. But, according to Rummel, 262 million people were democided by their governments throughout the 20th century, with totalitarian and communist regimes accounting for the vast majority. But that was the 20th century. Things have changed radically in the 21st. Putative ‘liberal democracies’ have embraced authoritarian public health measures and planet saving net zero measures which have killed millions and threaten to kill many millions more, especially net zero, aka eco-communism/fascism which has the potential to kill hundreds of millions of people, perhaps even billions, in the developed and developing worlds. But it’s not a crime; it’s just governments behaving rather stupidly and irresponsibly.

    https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

    https://reason.com/2014/05/15/be-antigovernment-and-proud/

    Like

  147. Jaime: but it cannot be ‘democide’ until it’s actually happened. And I believe that’s unlikely – at least not to a significant extent – because the UK doesn’t have enough skilled technical managers, electrical and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, builders, mechanics and other tradespeople (probably about a million) to do the multitude of tasks that are essential to implement the absurd and irresponsible Net Zero policy.

    Like

  148. Robin, our politicians have already begun implementing the absurd and irresponsible net zero policy. They show no signs of reversing or stopping, or even slowing down the implementation of net zero. The fact that they cannot get to the end target is in some ways beside the point. Immense damage has already been done to the economy and further damage is ‘baked in’. Five years of the Labour loons accelerating net zero will cause further immense damage to the economy and the social fabric of the nation. We might not see the knock-on effects of this for many years to come, but almost certainly it will result in a significant loss of lives and a dramatic drop in quality of life and hence quality of life years.

    Like

  149. Jaime:

    ‘Five years of the Labour loons accelerating net zero will cause further immense damage to the economy and the social fabric of the nation.‘

    The harsh and simple reality is that without many thousands of skilled practical people net zero cannot be accelerated. And those people don’t exist.

    Like

  150. Robin’s alerting us to reality is the only crumb of comfort I can gain from the current situation. So far as I can see, a Labour government (probably with a decent working majority) is pretty much nailed-on following the next general election. Once that would have been a prospect to make me very happy. Today it fills me with trepidation.

    However, as Robin says, once reality hits, they are bound to be forced to retreat from net zero acceleration (and possibly from net zero itself). I wait with interest to see how they will spin the inevitable U-turn.

    Like

  151. Neither does the climate crisis exist Robin, but that hasn’t stopped them from carpeting land and seascapes with bird-chopping, bat munching, whale killing monster turbines and decommissioning hundreds of thousands of acres of productive agricultural land all for the purpose of producing less energy out for more energy in. The non-existence of technicians is not going to stop them from making laws which assume they do exist or from giving more money to wind farm developers to build more turbines which will produce electricity but probably won’t be connected to the grid because of the lack of critical infrastructure due to the non-existence of technicians. It won’t stop politicians from forcing people to buy electric cars and install heat pumps which will not work because there is not enough electricity to run them. If there is a shortage of qualified heat pump installers, the government will just pay firms to train them using our money. The labour loons could easily spend five years juggling net zero fantasies whilst inflicting maximum damage upon the economy.

    Liked by 1 person

  152. Mark, you wrote, “once reality hits, they [Labour] are bound to be forced to retreat from net zero acceleration”. However, I don’t necessarily share your logic and optimism. Net Zero is such a dominant trope amongst the elites that they may argue for doubling their efforts and thereby further immiserating the populace/destroying the econony.

    If, as Robin argues, there are insufficient resources then the elites will simply make do with what they already have to hand … until such time as both (i) the next general election arrives AND (ii) provided that there is a plausible alternative party to stand against the uniparty and its Net Zero destructiveness. The only way I can see out of this almost inevitabile development is if there is civil disturbance (as per the Poll Tax under Thatcher) sufficient to break the prevailing mindset. Sadly, lots of serious damage can be done between now and then.

    Regards, John.

    Like

  153. Mark: re the skills shortage, I thought it might be helpful to provide some backing data. Here are extracts from two articles:

    ‘The UK is currently facing a shortage of 166,000 tradespeople, with vacancy levels for many trades close to record highs. The shortfall is forecast to grow to 250,000 tradespeople by 2030 as more homeowners look to improve their property’s energy efficiency by installing measures like insulation, heat pumps or solar panels. The biggest shortages are set to be among electricians, plumbing and heating installers, and carpenters/joiners.’

    ( LINK )

    ‘ More than 200 contractors were polled in mid-November by electrotechnical trade body ECA, working in partnership with the Building Engineering Services Association (BESA), Scottish engineering trade body SELECT, and regional plumbing and heating trade body SNIPEF.

    ‘Just over half (52 per cent) of respondents said they had unfilled vacancies in their business, with these firms typically citing a basic shortage of applicants or a dearth of candidates with the required skills and qualifications. The survey results follow figures from the Office for National Statistics, which found that 43,000 jobs were unfilled across construction as of September 2021 – the highest volume of vacancies in the sector for at least 20 years.’

    ( LINK )

    These data are essentially about the problems of today’s construction industry. Net Zero means that a vast number of wholly additional skilled people will be needed. I just don’t see how it will be possible.

    Like

  155. Robin,

    Many green jobs became unsustainable in CA last year. They won’t be coming back anytime soon as the state’s NEM 3 rules were recently upheld- “California appeals court rejects challenge to state’s updated net metering rules | Utility Dive”

    Glad we departed the state before NEM 3 took effect. We knew what was in store for early adaptors of PV. I started reading the blue inserts in our PG&E bills back in 2005. PG&E was kind enough to send me a complete Phase I General Rate Case package in 2011/2 so we knew the logic that was going to be used to eliminate a rate schedule and/or change time of use time periods and rates(cents/kWh) (1).

    The next big policy fight in CA is going to be around fixed fees based on income-
    “What’s wrong with basing electricity fees on household incomes – Daily News”

    If we still lived in CA I was going to recommend that the commercial sector of the economy be charged fixed fees based on income/wealth/? factors. Should Stanford pay less, the same or more for a kWh than what Claremont College does?

    1)”EIA Levelized Costs Can be Misleading – (archive.org)” https://ddears.com/2012/12/07/eia-levalized-costs-can-be-misleading/

    Like

  156. It looks like Sunak is going to call an election in Spring, which he will lose and we will be saddled with Starmer, who will accelerate the Net Zero destruction wrought by the Tories. Most frustrating, Farage pops up again and there is talk he will lead Reform . . . . . what, to defeat and zero seats just like he did with the Brexit Party, handing the Tories an unearned huge majority in the process? I’m trying on twitter to get people to relaise that ONLY a coalition of the smaller parties, led by someone who does not have a huge ego, with a clear opposition manifesto, can possibly hope to take seats from the Uniparty Labour and Conservative candidates. But it seems a pointless exercise.

    Like

  157. Jaime,

    Regrettably it is a pointless exercise. A combination of the FPTP electoral system and voter inertia will almost certainly result in a Labour government. Once that would have pleased me. Now I fear it will result in an outcome even worse than the appalling mess we currently have (hard though that is to believe).

    I have heard a suggestion that the SDP plans to put a candidate up in every constituency. I hope it’s true. They are most unlikely to have an MP after the election, but at least then I might be able to vote with something other than a very heavy heart.

    Liked by 1 person

  158. There are many reasons to vote for specific political parties other than for their attitude toward climate change.
    At times in the past I have voted for an individual because of what they have articulated in the past, rather than for the political party that stood for. Am prepared to do this again.

    Like

  159. Alan, for me it’s not about attitudes to climate change, but to net zero. It is a disaster for this country, and is the biggest threat facing us. I cannot vote for anyone who stands on a net zero platform, regardless of whatever positive qualities they may have (that said, I am unimpressed in any event by the candidates for the three main parties in my constituency).

    Liked by 1 person

  160. David Turver highlights a recent poll which suggests that most voters consider neither Labour or the Tories are fit to govern the country. So who on earth do they vote for? Reform, Reclaim, Heritage, Independent? A wasted vote in my opinion as they will be squabbling over the scraps that the FPTP system hands to them. If the minor parties united on a clear platform of opposition, voters might be tempted to vote for them in significant numbers, but sadly they won’t abandon their prejudices and their precious egos in order to do that. Tribalism comes before the good of the country. One answer might be to provide a NOTA (None Of The Above) vote on the ballot paper and then voters could at least officially register their disillusionment with the state of politics and politicians in this country instead of just not bothering to vote, which gets us nowhere.

    Liked by 1 person

  161. None of The Above really should be on the ballot paper. It will never happen, though, because it would clean up, and they know it.

    Instead we get low turnouts, they accuse us of apathy, and they say they will have to work harder to get their message across. It never seems to dawn on them that we heard their message loud and clear, and that is why we didn’t vote for them.

    Liked by 2 people

  162. Matt Goodwin’s latest Substack article indicates that, according to very recent polling, Labour is virtually certain to win the 2024 general election and to do so with a substantial overall majority.

    What does the poll tell us about the electorate’s views on Net Zero? Well, although for Labour voters ‘tackling climate change’ is only a ‘distant third’ priority, at least it’s a priority which certainly suggests that, despite it’s not being a priority for most voters, Labour is unlikely to abandon its determination to pursue the policy. So for those of us who, like Mark, regard the Net Zero policy as the biggest threat to the UK, the outlook would seem to be hopelessly dismal.

    But is it? I see a tiny crumb of comfort in Matt’s finding that the top priority of all voters is the cost of living crisis – also top for Labour voters although second for Tories (who have ‘stopping the boats’ first). Why is that a crumb of comfort? Well, let’s see what’s likely to happen when (if?) Labour gets into power. They’ll inherit a dire financial position – and remember, they (and especially Rachel Reeves, their powerful and highly regarded shadow Chancellor) have promised not to further damage the country’s economy and have told voters that they’ll prioritise the cost of living crisis. Yet it will almost immediately become apparent that the Net Zero project will be appallingly expensive – because it’s clear that wind power is not the cheap solution they’d expected and Miliband’s plan to ‘rewire’ the UK is likewise turning out to be impossibly costly. (Both these factors might even have become apparent during the election campaign.) All this means that, if they pursue the policy, they’ll almost immediately break two promises: re the economy and re the cost of living. Will they care? Possibly not. But I’m not so sure they’d really want to do that, and especially not to infuriate voters, right at the start of their longed-for administration.

    And there’s another problem. Labour have said they’ll prioritise house building. Yet, as I’ve evidenced in our pre-Christmas exchange, the UK construction industry is seriously short of skilled labour and that’s bound to put a major obstacle in the way of Net Zero implementation.

    The Net Zero policy is already having ghastly consequences. But maybe – just maybe – a Labour government might not make it any worse.

    Like

  164. Robin,

    Your optimism warms the cockles of my heart, but as I said earlier (on this thread, I think) I fear Labour will begin to implement the costly and damaging net zero acceleration before reality forces them to drop it. So I’m in a middle sort of camp on this topic. I think senior Labour politicians seriously believe in the policy and will seek to implement it; but they won’t manage to carry on with it because the complaints from the electorate will rapidly become very shrill. Having been in the electoral wilderness for so long, Labour under Starmer won’t want to lose the next but one election and find themselves the Opposition again by 2029.

    Like

  165. dfhunter,

    Wow reading that, it sounds like if you build an extension, you are banned from using gas or oil central heating to heat it! Fortunately, the zealots have not dared to go that far (yet). You can install radiators from the existing boiler or even upgrade the existing boiler as long as you don’t install a new gas boiler in the extension.

    “From 1st January 2025 it will be illegal to install a fossil fuel heating system in a new building.

    This will apply to:

    new domestic and non-domestic buildings.
    new buildings, as defined in building control legislation. This means that the ban will apply where the system is to be installed in a new extension.

    This will not apply to:

    installation of new or replacement fossil fuel heating systems in existing buildings.
    the use of an existing fossil fuel heating system in a new extension by the installation of pipework and/or radiators connecting a new extension to an existing fossil fuel heating system.”

    Like

  166. Mark: I don’t think my ‘tiny crumb of comfort’ really qualifies as optimism. All I concluded was that a Labour government might not make a ghastly situation any worse.

    Liked by 1 person

  167. Let’s face it, you guys don’t like the climate/energy policies of any of the political parties that are likely to form a majority in next year’s general election. So why not concentrate on other matters that you consider important? Which are?

    Like

  168. Alan, while I understand your logic I feel it is at odds with the raison d’être of this thread which specifically relates to the UK’s Net Zero policy and its unachievabilty, disastrousness and pointlessness.

    I come to this thread (and Cliscep in general) for a sound critique of climate/energy policies and in the hope that, between us, we may find some way of influencing the key decision makers to steer away from the ever steepening EROEI cliff that we in the UK in particular (and indeed much of the West) are inexorably heading for despite the unachievabilty, the disastrousness and the sheer futility of it all … and that is not to mention all the other geopolitical issues that will be made so much more intractable by a rapidly weakened West.

    I am sorry if you find the current discussions unappealing or even tedious but this is a very, very serious matter because I know as an electrical engineer that abundant, reliable, affordable energy is the life-blood of any advanced economy that hopes to remain as an advanced economy – present policies are, as EROEI shows, greatly worsening the situation while pretending (under a veneer of green-washing) to improve it.

    Our current uniparty political class seem to have lost the will/competence to GOVERN in the interests of the populace and seem more interested in MANAGING on behalf of other corporate influencers such as, for example, WEF or WHO or IPCC; finding a way back to a more stable and more representative democracy seems to me to run, in part, through correcting our UK energy/climate policies. So I hope you will forgive me/us if we hark back to these topics in this thread. However, you are correct to indicate that there are other topics of great democratic import – thank you.

    Regards, John.

    Liked by 3 people

  169. Robin, Ed Miliband is almost certain to become the next Energy Secretary.

    It’s hard to imagine, but I think the Net Zero catastrophe is going to get even worse with a man in charge who is as much a moron as he is a malign narcissistic sociopath.

    Liked by 1 person

  170. I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage.

    An oft-used quote from Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord. You may guess in which category I find Miliband.

    Liked by 2 people

  171. Alan,

    I take your point, but I take John C’s more.

    I would like to see a government made up of people who care about social justice, and who seek to improve the lot of the poorest and most disadvantaged in society. To do that, we need a strong and well-functioning economy. The UK economy was already a mess before the banking crisis and the mad response to the covid pandemic. Now it’s a basket case. We need a government which understands the need for a strong functioning economy and which implements policies aimed at shoring up the economy, in order to be able to afford to do good with regard to issues of social justice.

    Instead, we have (as Jaime often opines) a Uniparty, with all of the major parties (and a lot of the minor/nationalist ones too) committed to net zero, a policy which will fatally undermine what is left of our economy. It doesn’t matter how well-intentioned some of those on what passes for the left these days might be – the reality is that their net zero obsession will ensure that the poorest in society find their lives being made even worse. I can’t vote for that.

    If they put up a candidate in my constituency, I will probably vote SDP. They’re not perfect, but they score points with me inasmuch as they understand the need for a functioning economy in order to enable deliver their desired social programme. It will be a wasted vote, but less so than voting for anyone else, and at least I will be voting with something approaching a clear conscience, rather than casting a negative vote with a heavy heart while holding my nose.

    Liked by 1 person

  172. Well worth a read regarding the insanity of net zero:

    Energy market outlook – what can we expect in 2024?

    …The failure of so many wind tenders and the need to reduce expensive energy subsidies are likely to drive further thinking into energy economics. Whether that is positive or not remains to be seen – policy-makers struggle to let go of favoured narratives (renewables are cheap) and in some EU countries, subsidies are welcomed more warmly than in others. Subsidies are necessary to stimulate immature markets, but should be phased out once those markets reach maturity. That has manifestly not happened in the wind sector – indeed, subsidies are increasing despite a quarter of a century of market stimulation.

    Policy-makers are recognising that one way out of this difficulty is to reduce demand, and there continue to be half-hearted attempts to reduce energy waste in the built environment. However, this is a hard-to-solve problem and there’s no real prospect of any country really seizing on the challenge at a time when budgets are constrained.

    Governments want to make energy cheaper, but are failing to recognise that their own policies are making energy more expensive. Energy systems built on intermittent renewables are certain to be more expensive than those based on more reliable technologies, for the simple reason that double the amount of capacity will need to be built in order to ensure security of supply. It ought to be self-evident that this is the case, irrespective of the short-run marginal operating costs of wind and solar. In addition to extra capacity, whether that is in the form of generation or storage, additional grid infrastructure is needed to connect all of this capacity, and balancing costs rise when both supply and demand become highly variable. It’s past time that policy-makers recognised these realities, and it is to be hope that the failed wind tenders and turbine-maker losses of 2023 will be a catalyst for this re-evaluation….

    And much more.

    Liked by 2 people

  173. Alan: you asked why Cliscep commentators don’t give up on UK climate policy and concentrate on other matters they consider important. We’ll, for my part, the answer is simple. In my view the Net Zero policy will, if implemented, be a comprehensive social and economic disaster for Britain. Yes, we have other ghastly problems – but I consider this to be by far the worst. Therefore I’m determined to do whatever I can towards the termination of that policy.

    You may well think that an absurdly hubristic view – what conceivable influence can a small group of people contributing to a website that hardly anyone’s heard of have on a policy supported by both main political parties? And maybe you’d be right. But maybe not. And, so long as there’s a possibility of success, I have no doubt it’s worth persevering.

    This site provides me with a multi-faceted understanding of the issue, an understanding that reinforces and supports comments I make about it elsewhere – something I do whenever I see an opportunity; especially with the policy’s supporters. I believe that the more widely that understanding is spread, the more likely it is that the message will get through to people with influence – something that’s especially important in an election year.

    Liked by 1 person

  174. Robin if you believe I thought Clisceppers were pointlessly focusing upon the importance of climate change to different political parties you would be wrong. If anything their stance on this topic is both very similar and equally important. It was this similarity that I commented upon and the fact that whatever and however we comment upon climate change it is unlikely to influence politicians of any persuasion. The voting on the Climate Change Act long ago established this fact. As is the use of the word Uniparty to describe British politics.
    My suggestion was there are other topics that possibly are not getting sufficient attention here that might get more attention if we divert some of our attention away from our relentless focus upon climate and energy matters.
    Clisceppers will do whatever they feel to be appropriate anyway.

    Like

  175. Alan, you say that ‘whatever and however we comment upon climate change it is unlikely to influence politicians of any persuasion. The voting on the Climate Change Act long ago established this fact.‘

    That may well have been true until quite recently. But times are changing. I agree for example with an interesting article published by Ben Pile this morning. His opening paragraph:

    ‘Net Zero scepticism, if not climate scepticism, has exploded, and is now a fixture of the mainstream, albeit a minor part. Former ministers and broadsheet news media began to find their sceptical voices in ’23. This is largely confined to the centre-right, but this may be a consequence of the realities of power — a Labour government is going to inherit the same problems of their own making, and they will find it difficult to sustain the consensus. The GMB’s interventions shows that the broad left’s support of the Miliband set’s preferences cannot be taken for granted. However, independent media and analysts are still very far ahead of the mainstream, which has yet to form robust critiques of green ideology, except in extreme (e.g. XR/JSO) cases, and is still inclined to apologise for climate alarmism, and/or tinker with policy. The cross-party Westminster consensus on climate holds for now.’

    This would seem to be exactly the time when, far from giving up, we – and others like us – should be doubling down on getting our voices heard.

    Liked by 2 people

  176. The Tory Party (one cheek on the arse of the Parliamentary Uniparty) is now openly promoting UN Agenda 2030 and the sustainable development goals. ‘Cut the green crap’ Cameron is promoting green crap with bells on in 2024, being driven through undemocratically in the name of a mythical three-pronged climate crisis, global health crisis and ecological crisis, green crap which is a clear and present danger to the UK, as well as globally. Our politicians have openly abandoned any pretence at allegiance to the people who trusted them to govern in their best interests. Removing them from power and dismantling the catastrophically destructive and regressive Net Zero agenda is THE most vital thing we can do or contribute to, in any small way whatsoever, in order to secure a decent future for ourselves and our children – AND, I might add, protect the natural environment and its wildlife. There is no greater and more immediate existential threat to humanity and modern, industrialised civilisation than UN Agenda 2030, One Health and Net Zero.

    Liked by 2 people

  177. Mark – thanks for “Energy market outlook” link above.

    Interesting how she finished the post –
    “The increased reliance on intermittent renewables creates real security of supply risks in the absence of long duration storage, and since such storage (with the exception of hydro, which cannot be deployed everywhere) has yet to be invented, many countries face similar threats. The use of interconnectors to mitigate these risks will likely prove of limited benefit since the connected markets are likely to share similar weather and similar energy mixes. The US is building more gas fired generation to deal with this risk – other countries, particularly the UK are likely to have to follow suit.”

    found this jan 23 post from the guardian -https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/29/gas-fired-plants-uk-lights-on-cost-profits-energy-crisis

    seems a balanced article & ends with –

    “The country’s electricity supply industry is a complex jigsaw puzzle designed to encourage the generation of everything from wind, solar and nuclear power to biomass and gas-fired.
    Underpinning this is the “balancing market”, operated in effect by National Grid, which relies on offering the right prices to incentivise power plants to help balance supply and demand. Last winter, the network operator tripled its spend on balancing the grid to £1.5bn.”

    Liked by 1 person

  178. I guess this is as good a place as any to insert a quote from the latest Spiked article:

    “Three issues are accelerating this realignment – climate policy, immigration and divisions over cultural attitudes. Support for Net Zero is almost universal among establishment institutions. Billionaires like Elon Musk, green capitalists in Silicon Valley and Wall Street investors all seek great opportunities in what US treasury secretary Janet Yellen has called ‘the greatest economic opportunity of our time’ – namely, addressing the so-called climate crisis.

    For the bureaucracy, this green drive – largely a product of government edict – provides opportunities to expand its power, as well as to swell its ranks. For them, any expansion of the regulatory state provides both psychic rewards and more power over citizens. This oppressive model emerged most clearly during the pandemic in virtually all major countries, with the exception of Sweden. Lockdowns and other Covid restrictions were celebrated by Lise Kingo, chief of sustainable development at the United Nations, as ‘a fire drill’ for regulating life according to the Net Zero principles of the global elite.

    For the working class and much of the middle class, on the other hand, these policies could prove catastrophic. This explains why working-class French gilets jaunes, farmers in the Netherlands and New Zealand, and factory hands in rapidly deindustrialising countries like Germany, are all turning out on to the streets or are voting for anti-establishment parties. In the US, those involved in the material ‘carbon’ economy – truck drivers, loggers, oil workers, farmers, plumbers and construction workers – tilt toward the Republicans. Meanwhile, those professions such as teachers, environmental workers, yoga instructors and psychiatrists overwhelmingly back the Democrats.”

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/01/04/why-the-right-is-eating-the-lefts-lunch/

    I’m not sure the current enthusiasm for the Reform Party in the UK is going to remedy this situation. Tice is not a Reformer, he is a Conformist, and if Farage takes over, I doubt that bodes well either.

    Like

  179. Not much point voting Reform if you want to get rid of this obsession that politicians have with the ‘clean energy transition’:

    Like

  180. Breaking news from The BBC:

    Chris Skidmore: Tory MP quits over oil and gas licences

    ‘ Conservative MP Chris Skidmore says he will stand down as an MP “as soon as possible” in protest at plans to issue more oil and gas licences … his decision will trigger a by-lection in his Kingswood constituency.’

    Might be interesting.

    Liked by 1 person

  182. My very minor-level optimism regarding the first stirrings of concern about net zero and climate policy among people who make decisions, was dealt a blow yesterday evening while listening to BBC Radio 4’s “Any Questions” programme, while driving home.

    A panel of David Willetts, Ash Sarkar (young journalist who contributes to the Guardian), Fraser Nelson and Frances O’Grady (of the TUC and the House of Lords) was asked a question regarding the appropriate timescale for progressing to net zero. Not one questioned the need for it, the advisability of it, or talked about the cost (other than Frances O’Grady who alluded to it indirectly by waffling something about the need for a just transition). All accepted it as a necessary given. Even Fraser Nelson sought to celebrate the speed with which we in the UK are cutting emissions, which I found very disappointing from someone so intelligent and independently-minded. David Willetts, when asked whether he was in line to be the next Chair of the Climate Change Committee, declined all knowledge, but when pressed seemed to suggest he wouldn’t mind the job.

    The establishment remains fully signed-up to the madness, I’m afraid.

    Ash Sarkar lined up an open goal for sceptics. In response to an earlier question she talked about a recent holiday she enjoyed in Mexico, then proceeded to pontificate about why we shouldn’t licence any new oil and gas fields. She also complained that we have off-shored manufacturing emissions to places like China, who she pointed out use coal to generate the power to make the rubbish (my word, not hers) they send us, having extolled China as being ahead of us with regard to things like high-speed rail. The open goal was to point out that we don’t make much any more because renewable energy has rendered manufacturing costs prohibitively high, while they remain cheap in China because it uses coal.

    Nobody on the panel seemed to notice or to care.

    Liked by 3 people

  183. I’m not at all surprised by this Mark. Nonetheless, I’m pretty sure that scepticism about net zero is gradually but quietly becoming more widespread amongst establishment pontificators (and those who make decisions). But these people – e.g. Fraser Nelson (although I share your disappointment) – are still so intimidated by the blob that they’re reluctant to put their heads above the parapet. But that doesn’t alter the basic realities: net zero is hopelessly expensive, we haven’t got nearly enough of the skilled people needed to implement it and ordinary people are not going to accept the additional burden that even attempting to implement it would put on their already ailing finances.

    Two examples of evidence supporting Ben Pile’s recent comment that net zero scepticism is now a fixture of the mainstream, albeit a minor part – and these are I suggest more than straws in the wind:

    1. The Telegraph yesterday had a report by Fraser Nelson (!) about Starmer’s new year speech. An extract:

    ‘Starmer’s signature economic policy was announced two years ago: to follow America and the EU and embark upon a huge state spending programme to support green technology. “Labour is committed to a climate investment pledge worth £28 billion a year until 2030…” he said.

    This £28 billion – to be spent every year of Labour rule – was supposed to be Starmer’s article of economic faith. But it’s being embalmed, prior to burial. The pretence now is that the £28 billion-a-year has not been abandoned, just delayed until when Labour’s “fiscal rules” allow. Which is to say: never.’

    2. The Times first leader this morning is headed ‘Green Folly – Labour’s ‘green prosperity plan’ does not add up, and the party knows it. So it is now backing away, without admitting it is doing so.’

    From its conclusion:

    ‘It is instructive – and concerning – that the one widely recognised policy Labour has been pushing has fallen apart under elementary scrutiny. It is neither properly costed nor achievable. Labour knows this, but having made such a hullabaloo about it for so long, it cannot bring itself to admit it.’

    And we’re right at the start of the year. I expect we’ll see more of the same as the year progresses.

    Liked by 3 people

  186. The kindest interpretation is that he is an idiot.

    In his statement, he said he was going in advance of the introduction of the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, which he said would “allow more frequent new oil and gas licences and the increased production of new fossil fuels in the North Sea”.

    He added: “The Bill that will be debated next week achieves nothing apart from to send a global signal that the UK is rowing ever further back from its climate commitments.

    “We cannot expect other countries to phase out their fossil fuels when at the same time we continue to issue new licences or to open new oil fields.

    “It is a tragedy that the UK has been allowed to lose its climate leadership at a time when our businesses, industries, universities and civil society organisations are providing first class leadership and expertise to so many across the world, inspiring change for the better.”

    From his resignation letter via the Telegraph on Friday. I presume he is incapable of figuring out that such countries are happy to see us poison our own wells, not intending to follow suit and poison their own, but intending instead to sell us potable water.

    Liked by 1 person

  187. Alas, I fear the sudden departure of Skidmark from politics, supposedly because of his righteous moral indignation at the government bill granting north sea oil and gas licenses is just panto, confected high drama. For a start, he’s probably jumped ship now because he wants to take up his lucrative green appointments and the rumours that the election won’t now happen until later in the year mean that he can’t do that if he’s tending to the totally boring concerns of the constituents who elected him. So he’s triggered a pointless, wasteful, expensive by-election in a seat which is going to disappear at the next election.

    As for Sunak and the government’s ‘pragmatic’ decision to continue to extract north sea oil and gas, you’ve got to as yourself, why? because this insane, Net Zero obsessed government and our PM are NOT rowing back on Net Zero, certainly not for any pragmatic reasons or for the benefit of consumers. Is it because, rather, they have realised that in order to continue with their insane fantasy, they have realised that they are going to need MORE natural gas, not less? I give you this to ponder from David Turver, writing about the government’s newly announced ‘hydrogen roadmap’:

    “Their green hydrogen ambition would use up 36% of 2022’s total renewable generation. This means we would have to burn more gas to keep the lights on, the heat pumps running and the EVs charged.

    Thankfully, as we saw above, there is no chance that they will achieve their 10GW ambition. But if they achieve the 4GW total capacity shown in the roadmap, with 2.4GW of this from electrolysis, then that would still require nearly 20TWh of electricity from renewables which still means we would have to burn more gas to keep the lights on.

    In short, this is a crime against thermodynamics. It makes no sense at all to take methane, use it to produce hydrogen and then blend that hydrogen back into the gas network. It adds cost, reduces efficiency and will increase consumer bills. In essence, more natural gas will be used to deliver the same energy from the gas network with blended hydrogen and of course higher demand for gas means higher prices.”

    https://davidturver.substack.com/p/weird-scenes-inside-the-energy-gold-mine

    Yes, our government is insane, and still deluded by chasing the illusory Net Zero goal to the extreme detriment of all of us, but maybe not quite so insane that it hasn’t thought to cover its Green virtue signalling arse – hence the bill going through Parliament which so ‘offends’ Skidmark that he has resigned his seat. Coincidentally, it gives the impression that this government is being ‘pragmatic’ about reducing our dependence of fossil fuels but of course it isn’t. Every good sceptic hates Skidmark at the moment and celebrates his departure with resounding calls of ‘good riddance’. But are we taking our eye off the ball re. this government’s continued, utter Net Zero insanity in the process?

    Liked by 1 person

  188. Jaime: I don’t think anyone here at Cliscep (or indeed any net zero sceptic elsewhere) is taking their eye off that ball.

    Liked by 1 person

  189. I thought you’d all (and Jaime in particular) be delighted to learn that Skidmore has been appointed ‘Professor of Practice’ at the University of Bath. He will focus on Net Zero Policy (surprise!). No doubt his Oxford doctorate in modern British history will stand him in good stead.

    Liked by 1 person

  190. Roger Hallam dedicated one of his recent doom-rants* to Chris Skidmore, whom he described as ‘the only true conservative in the House of Commons’.

    ===
    *Wayback:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20240107173927/https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vS5RCXMtIYtQRBf_Vlk-aA-R45yn0PLwU0Z1ovrLaMvt0_R_ucGqq7WsUsTuOMFF4AvfxDJrGx1kW4c/pub

    Hallam’s article was rejected by UnHerd**, perhaps because it started with criticism of UnHerd, perhaps because it was by someone who mentioned suicide and was clearly in a bad place, or perhaps just because it was crap.

    Summary: climate change causing the ‘actual end of civilisation’ is a ‘science thing’; Hallam hoped that a Tory MP he’d met (Skidmore?) would be ‘the Churchill of my dreams’; Hallam’s Heathrow drone trial was ‘suicide inducing’; if Heathrow’s third runway is built it’ll be ‘the biggest crime in UK history’; the judge and prosecutor at Hallam’s drone trial were more evil than Adolf Eichmann; mass death; 1984; the French Resistance; Hallam’s ‘utter horror and despair’; social conservatives should know that Augustus –> Tiberius –> ‘the cesspit of Caligula’ is the way things always are; infinite suffering; Hallam feeling like a pathetic, half-starved individual who was stranded on an island and waiting to be rescued by ‘a real social conservative out there who is not totally morally and spiritually dead’; and, finally, there’ll be one billion climate refugees and the end of the world economy within 15 years.

    No Gandhi (or Ghandi), suffragettes or MLK this time.

    Hallam will be sentenced for his Heathrow drone antics on 16th Feb.

    **https://nitter.net/RogerHallamCS21/status/1742537149621080285

    Like

  192. Well Mark, surely you’re not suggesting that he’s been planning and negotiating this appointment for some time and used the exploration licences as a useful excuse for moving on now? Surely not?

    Like

  194. I thought there might be some interest here in a comment I just posted on a Speccie article about the Post Office scandal:

    ‘A feature of so many public and private sector disasters is failure to consult in detail with key users well before a new system is introduced. A classic example was Blair’s National Programme for IT (NPfIT) – the project to radically change NHS IT. Amazingly, it was not thought necessary to consult doctors despite their being the main users of the new system. Unsurprisingly, the project failed costing the taxpayer well over £12 billion. The Post Office project is another obvious example: had the subpostmasters (again the proposed system’s users) been involved from the outset none of this need have happened.

    ‘An absolutely gigantic project – Net Zero – is currently being introduced where again those who will be most affected have not been consulted. Most people and households in the UK are already being hurt: increased energy bills, low traffic zones, ULEZ, absurd speed limits, phasing out of reliable and affordable cars, heat pump requirements, etc etc. But it’s not yet too late to avoid total disaster. What’s needed is a major public campaign to explain to people why it’s considered so important – what it’s expected to cost and how it’s likely to impact ordinary people’s finances and wellbeing. The object should be to show how the project’s obvious disadvantages are clearly offset by substantial advantages. The campaign should allow people to comment and to get involved in detailed consideration of what’s planned. Above all, if the project is obviously not achieving widespread public support, it should be radically amended or abandoned.’

    Liked by 3 people

  195. Robin, it’s painful how much I agree with you on all three IT project disasters. (NZ is of course more than IT but certainly no less.)

    I got involved in a brief discussion of the disgusting Post Office ICL/Fujitsu system and management corruption in a lovely Somerset cafe earlier. One man’s father had been a subpostmaster it turned out. I may just say more later.

    Liked by 2 people

  197. I didn’t know – or didn’t remember. Which is different from saying that I’m surprised.

    I do remember writing to Alistair Campbell (a near neighbour in Gospel Oak) before Blair met Bill Gates to warn them against getting the government locked into Microsoft.

    It’s atrocious how the gov was fleeced by computer firms and consultancies, to the grave detriment of the poor. Until Francis Maude started to listen to some wiser heads leading to GDS and gov.uk. Seen one way Net Zero is simply Goliath biting back against that.

    Liked by 1 person

  198. Better late than never, or shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted?

    “UK government plans further nuclear power expansion”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67939708

    The government hopes to boost the nuclear power industry with the biggest expansion of the sector in 70 years.

    A new large scale nuclear plant would quadruple supplies by 2050, which the government claims would lower bills and improve energy security.

    It also said its £300m ($382.6m) nuclear fuel programme would reduce reliance on overseas supply.

    But the Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology (REA) said all clean energy needed fast-tracking.

    Nuclear power currently provides around 15% of the UK’s electricity but many of the country’s aging reactors are due to be decommissioned over the next decade.

    The government’s Civil Nuclear Roadmap is intended to bolster the UK’s energy independence by exploring a new site for another nuclear power station of the size and scale of the £30bn plants under construction at Hinkley Point in Somerset and committed to Sizewell in Suffolk.

    Industry sources have told the BBC the leading candidates would include Wylfa on Anglesey or Moorside in Cumbria….

    Liked by 1 person

  199. Meanwhile France is expanding its plans for new nuclear plants to 14 from the previous 6 by firming up the option for another 8. The bill coming before their parliament also leaves the door open for further orders…….

    Liked by 1 person

  200. The Speccie has an article this morning by the always excellent Rod Liddle titled ‘My wish for Ed Davey’. Starting with the Post Office, he refers to several other recent scandals and notes how whistleblowers are always ignored.

    I posted this comment:

    There’s an absolutely gigantic scandal – Net Zero – rushing upon us. It’s almost unbelievably foolish: unachievable, socially and economically disastrous and completely pointless. Yet, despite many voices pointing out its absurdity, our political masters are determined to foist this ruinous policy on the country.

    Although most people and households in the UK are already being hurt – increased energy bills, low traffic zones, ULEZ, absurd speed limits, phasing out of reliable and affordable cars, heat pump requirements, the industrialisation of the countryside, etc. – all this is just a taster of what’s to come unless the madness is stopped.

    And, if the politicians were to stop for a moment and listen to the critics, it would not be too late to do that. But will they? Experience says it’s unlikely.

    Gratifyingly it’s (by far) the most popular comment.

    Liked by 3 people

  201. I suggest that someone with a better understanding of technical matters than me (Jit?) goes to this article on NALOPKT, reads what looks to me like an outstanding criticism by Ralph Ellis (at 4.32 pm today) of Chris Stark’s Climate Change Committee report, ‘Progress in Reducing Emissions 2023’ report and lets us know his thoughts.

    Ellis’s Summary:

    This report is a complete waste of space. It is an unbelievable 430 pages long, presumably to convince politicians that it is authoritative, when this verbosity is merely covering up the ineptitude and ignorance of its authors. It also has no coherent direction or layout, jumping from topic to topic without explaining any of them in a rational fashion.

    Worst of all, most of the report is padded out with meaningless tables and diagrams, that add nothing to the report. These are wild guesses and meaningless flow-charts, pulled from the author’s arse. Look, if a report is so complex that no politician will read it, it is not worth the paper it is printed on.

    You need to sack the entire department that made this report, and start again. The report needs to be slimmed down to 70 pages maximum, focusing on an idealised 2035 grid and then a 2050 grid. It needs to specify from page one the expected proportions of the proposed grid, from nuclear, to renewables, to storage. And then explore each of these topics, with a few pages on each.

    The report should start with something like:

    Nuclear – expected 20% or 9 gw by 2030.
    – expected 33% or 50 gw by 2050.
    – ie: another 10 Hinkley Points by 2050.

    Wind onshore – expected 13% or 6 gw by 2030. (or 30 gw nameplate).
    – expected 4% or 6 gw by 2050. (not enough land area).

    Wind offshore – expected 40% or 18 gw by 2030. (or 55 gw nameplate).
    – expected 50% or 75 gw by 2050. (or 220 gw nameplate).

    PW Storage – expected 33% of grid. Thus 15 gw and 5,000 gwh by 2030. (20 days backup)
    – expected 33% of grid. Thus 50 gw and 15,000 gwh by 2050. (20 days backup)

    That is all we need.
    Plus extrapolations of current build rates to match those totals.
    Plus explanations of how these figures were derived.
    Plus mention of where the machinery will be manufactured (where is the Green Jobs boost?)

    Liked by 3 people

  203. Thanks Richard. I agree about the support. The number of ‘thumbs up’ (now 136) is gratifying, but what’s particularly encouraging is the substantial number of supporting comments. It seems there are a lot of people out there who recognise this madness for what it is. But how might it be mobilised so as to make a difference?

    Liked by 2 people

  204. ‘This report is a complete waste of space. It is an unbelievable 430 pages long, presumably to convince politicians that it is authoritative, when this verbosity is merely covering up the ineptitude and ignorance of its authors. It also has no coherent direction or layout, jumping from topic to topic without explaining any of them in a rational fashion.’

    Death by a thousand cuts, or rather, 430 pages…

    Liked by 1 person

  206. ‘The dam must crack but we don’t know where that will start.‘

    I agree. But will it start in time to avoid disaster? And in any case, we’ll be up against a huge wall of privately provided money designed to ensure we fail while the senior activists prosper: see THIS and THIS .

    Liked by 1 person

  207. Disaster is a relative term. Thanks for those links – sobering as always. Hate that the second has the quote and pic of Edmund Burke, one of the key heroes of the 18th century for me.

    Liked by 1 person

  208. Thanks for the references as I wasn’t aware that the former mayor wants to shut down the planned chip making plants in Ohio- as that’s what will happen if he has his way-

    “But for Bloomberg, even that $45 million to C40 is chickenfeed compared to the $1 billion that he has given to groups seeking to shut down America’s gas and coal power plants. The goal is to “shut down every last U.S. coal plant” and “slash gas plant capacity in half, and block all new gas plants”.”

    As soon as he cuts off the natural gas generation plants and pipelines in the state of NY I will consider putting a PV array up in the western addition. Until then …..

    Mark

    Like

  210. This morning the Speccie had an article headed ‘There’s another dodgy data scandal brewing’. It’s about Universal Credit and the ‘Real Time Information’ system. I posted the same comment as I posted on Thursday on the Rod Liddle article, but with an amended first sentence:

    It may not be specifically about ‘dodgy data’ (although there’s plenty of that) but, as I commented on Thursday on a Rod Liddle article (and I make no apology for repeating it here), there’s an absolutely gigantic scandal – Net Zero – rushing upon us.

    And, once again, and despite being seriously ‘off topic’, it’s the most liked comment. It’s surely quite encouraging that so many people think Net Zero is such an important subject?

    Liked by 2 people

  211. This morning the Telegraph has an article headed ‘Why Keir Starmer’s plan to ‘rewire Britain’ is already coming unstuck Labour’s goal to create a ‘clean energy superpower’ borders on the fanciful’.

    Only ‘borders’ on the fanciful’? Note: this article is about Labour’s mad plan ‘to make Britain’s electricity grid zero-carbon by 2030‘. It touches on many of the obstacles – but no mention for example of storage, the inadequacy of solar power, the huge problems of hydrogen production or the skilled labour shortage and there’s an assumption that CCS is a viable technology. But, above all, there’s no mention of the likely costs involved – and no one asks the simple and most basic question: Why on earth are we doing all this anyway?

    Liked by 2 people

  212. Robin,

    ‘Borders on the fanciful’ is possibly the understatement of the year, or maybe even the decade. It is palpably insane, barking mad, away with the fairies on an extended long haul break to Cloud Cuckoo Land.

    Liked by 1 person

  213. I see that the Telegraph article reports that Ember is the consultancy behind Labour’s (pie in the sky) plans. Enough said.

    Liked by 1 person

  216. Mark: prompted by your reference to your Ember article, I just now sent an email to Malgorzata Wiatros-Motyka. It’s on the Ember thread.

    Like

  217. The Guardian has some really dreadful news today. It reports that ‘A third of UK teenagers believe climate change is “exaggerated”…’ It seems that evil deniers have been telling them that ‘climate solutions do not work, climate science and the climate movement are unreliable, or that the effects of global heating are beneficial or harmless’. Obviously, such dangerous views must be silenced. Watch out Cliscep!

    Liked by 3 people

  218. From that shocking Guardian piece on the ‘New Denial’, as expounded by the lovely Center for Countering Digital Hate:

    Young people are particularly heavy users of YouTube – the Pew Research Center recently found 13- to 17-year-olds use YouTube more than any other social media platform, with 71% using it daily.

    Examples highlighted by the report of channels which push these new denial messages include the online figure Jordan Peterson (7.64 million subscribers), and channels such as BlazeTV (1.92 million subscribers) and PragerU (3.21 million subscribers).

    I’m never one to say told you so but oops, I just did. (My comment on Jit’s post was at 10:36am and the Grauniad stated moaning about the very same things at 11am. Thanks guys.)

    Liked by 1 person

  219. ‘Tis not so much the success of pesky deniers superspreading ‘misinformation and disinformation’, but the abject failure of years of fear-based propaganda and anti-science brainwashing of our youth. The drugs don’t work anymore. This is what’s got them REALLY worried.

    Like

  220. Ross Clark has an article in the Speccie today on the same story. He says:

    ‘According to a poll by Survation, 31 per cent of Britons between the ages of 13 and 17 agree with the statement “climate change and its effects are being purposefully overexaggerated”….

    ‘But, no, this can’t possibly be a sign of teenagers thinking for themselves and working out that climate activists are spinning apocalyptical visions to promote their cause. Rather it is a sign that our youth have fallen victim to a dark conspiracy to poison their minds with shameless lies. Or so the Center for Countering Digital Hate (‘hate’ in this case seeming to mean anything which diverges from its own left-wing views) seems to think. It says it has analysed 96 YouTube channels which it thinks might be responsible, including ones which have spread such blatant untruths as ‘climate policies are ineffective or flawed’ (they are, as we all know, fully-baked and 100 per cent effective) or that ‘Clean energy technology or biofuels won’t work’ (it is wrong to single out wind and solar energy sources as being intermittent, according to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, because gas and coal powered stations sometimes need to be taken offline, too). It also seems to think it is a lie to deny that the world is suffering from more storms – even though that assertion is flatly contradicted by the observational evidence presented by the IPCC.

    The world, according to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, is engaged in an “enlightenment battle of truth and science versus lies and greed”.’

    For once, I can’t be bothered to add a comment.

    Liked by 3 people

  221. Robin, it’s a cry of anguish from the Left which goes something like: “Not fair! Their propaganda and misinformation is more powerful than our propaganda and misinformation, therefore we must censor them before their stronger poison infects any more weak minds than our own poison has.” It is an argument which grants young people no independence of thought or agency whatsoever.

    Liked by 2 people

  222. The CCDH Report (‘The New Climate Denial’) can be found HERE . Including several extracts from videos of quite sensible people saying sensible things (as evidence of this ghastly new phenomenon), it’s surprisingly interesting.

    Liked by 2 people

  223. Haha, that’s so funny Robin. The authors boast that “we have developed a deep understanding of the online harm landscape.” They then go on to distinguish between “Old denial” and “New denial”, but this in itself is old news because climate fanatics have been wittering on about this for a few years now, claiming to have vanquished old style climate science deniers, but now stating that they face a new breed of ‘climate mitigation deniers’. The truth is, all that’s happened is the “Old deniers” didn’t croak or go extinct, the “New deniers” just became more vocal as the significant harms of Net Zero legislation and policies became self-evident. Their ‘deep understanding’ is superficial and lightweight and they fail to recognise that “Old denial” is making a storming comeback. Go on X and see the number of posts questioning key facets of the ‘settled science’. Hilariously, they consign scepticism re. cold weather and ice melting to “Old denial”:

    9 Old Denial: Deniers have shifted away from claims the climate is cooling
    Example: Weather is too cold for global warming
    Example: We’re heading into an ice age
    Example: Ice isn’t melting

    But if you go on to Twitter, there are no end of posts cynically observing that extreme cold weather is happening in the supposed Era of Global Boiling plus pointing to actual data showing that the Arctic has gained a record amount of ice during 2023/24.

    So, they’re rather behind the curve and it’s still a case of: “Meet the New denial, same as the Old denial”

    Like

  224. Good article by Ross Clark:

    I’ll take [‘overexaggeration’] as the teenagers themselves presumably interpreted it: that they are not entirely convinced by the rhetoric thrown at them daily, such as ‘the world is on fire’ (Greta Thunberg) or ‘there will be the slaughter, death, and starvation of six billion people’ (Rogar Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion) or ‘we have five years to save the planet’ (the World Wildlife Fund in, er, 2007) and think that the reality is quite likely a lot more modest than that.
    …
    When today’s teenagers reach adulthood and start witnessing predicted doomsdays pass without incident I dare say a few more of them will move into the camp which believes there is quite a bit of exaggeration over climate change.

    As for the CCDH ‘Climate Denial’ is hate speech that trivialises the Holocaust. Not so much an own goal as a grenade thrown into your own supporters. I have better things to do.

    Except to say … it seems you didn’t even try to take on Spotify and Joe Rogan, who has vastly more subscribers than anyone else. Another big mistake.

    Like

  225. “Net zero: Inquiry into NI’s decarbonisation goals begins”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68001336

    An inquiry into Northern Ireland’s decarbonisation goals will begin at Westminster later.

    MPs on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee will examine barriers to renewable energy in the wake of COP28.

    They are concerned that the sector is not expanding rapidly enough to meet local targets.

    There is a legally-binding target of generating 80% of energy consumption from renewable sources by 2030….

    …Among other matters, MPs will look at what measures are needed to reach the 80% goal, what progress there has been and how the sector can be incentivised to invest in renewable energy without increasing costs to customers….

    Good luck with that!

    Like

  226. “Climate change: London is underprepared for extreme weather”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67993950

    It’s the usual load of exaggerated claims regarding the impact of climate change. Nevertheless, what appears (at least at first sight) to be a move from mitigation to adaptation is to be welcomed, as being a more intelligent policy, and a better use of limited funds.

    Like

  227. “Net zero: NI has ‘no powers’ to meet decarbonisation goals”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-68001336

    Climate alarmists probably find that headline to be deeply disturbing. The bit that bothers me from the report is this:

    …The Utility Regulator told the inquiry the last major piece of regulatory legislation in Northern Ireland came in 2003.

    Since then, John French said, the equivalent body in Great Britain had fifteen pieces of legislation….

    Like

  228. I saw this FT headline and brief comment this morning:

    UK’s environmental ambitions ‘largely off track’ says watchdog
    Government on course to meet just 10% of green targets, finds England’s Office for Environmental Protection

    Perhaps I should be ashamed to say that I hadn’t heard of the Office for Environmental Protection. So I went to its website and discovered that it’s another taxpayer funded ‘independent’ body tasked with giving the Government a hard time for not doing enough about the environment. And, as the FT and Guardian tell us today, it’s just published a report detailing these failings. The Report can be downloaded HERE . It’s long (200 pages) a lot of it seems to be useful stuff but, re climate mitigation (Chapter 8), not so much. Some extracts:

    Climate change is happening now, causing loss and damage to people and the natural environment. For government to meet its vision of leaving the environment in a better state, the UK must continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions…

    … emissions reduction rates will need to increase rapidly across all sectors outside of energy supply if the UK is to meet future targets. Government can still meet Net Zero, but to do so it must build on past progress by improving the scale and pace of delivery, as well as the clarity and transparency of plans to do so. (I like the last bit)

    Publication of the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan in 2023 provided further transparency on the Net Zero pathway but raised concerns about the reliance on technological innovation and the lack of long-term funding for action.

    Apart from the power sector, emissions reduction rates must quadruple within eight years to meet targets.

    Climate change places a significant pressure on the natural environment and is increasing over time. The UK’s climate is becoming warmer, with drier summers and wetter winters. The 10 warmest years on record in the UK have occurred since 2003, including record-breaking temperatures in 2022 that brought widespread drought and unprecedented numbers of heat-related deaths and wildfires.

    To leave the environment in a better state for the next generation, the extent of climate change must be curbed through mitigation measures…

    … without effective mitigation, the risks and pressures caused by climate change will continue to grow.

    The UK has been considered a global leader on climate action in terms of targets and commitments, as demonstrated through the COP26 presidency. However, this leadership on commitments is meaningful only if it is translated into effective delivery, setting a clear direction for the global effort to reduce emissions.

    There has been progress towards Net Zero and most sectors across government now consider adaptation to a degree, but effective delivery across both mitigation and adaptation is not occurring at the pace or scale required.

    There should be a greater emphasis on communication and education campaigns to enable people to make informed green choices. … Such an approach could, for example, reduce household emissions from heating and transport as well as encouraging active travel and engagement with the natural environment.

    Groan.

    Liked by 2 people

  229. More from the FT:

    UK prepares to extend subsidy for Drax biomass power station
    Ministers plan for bill-payers to continue paying levy beyond 2027 deadline despite criticism from green campaigners

    Like

  230. Robin,

    Apart from trotting out the usual UK “leadership” nonsense, this waffle offers no explanation as to how UK net zero policies can lead the environment better rather than worse.

    First, there is more – much more – to the environment than weather, and many renewable energy projects are causing massive damage to the environment.

    Second, the UK doesn’t exist in a climate bubble. If the UK achieves net zero, and the rest of the world doesn’t follow us off the cliff (and so far most of the rest of the world is showing a marked reluctance to do so) it will make no measurable difference to the climate at all.

    It’s the failure of logic that I find so troubling.

    Like

  231. Mark: your point that for the UK to achieve Net Zero (impossible anyway) would, even if all the scare stories were true, make no measurable difference to global emissions is by far the most basic point. It’s what I’ve been saying for over 15 years. I cannot understand why it’s not obvious. But it seems not. The only possible counter to it is the embarrassingly absurd ‘leadership’ argument.

    Liked by 1 person

  232. Guido Fawkes has an interesting story this morning: ‘LABOUR’S SPIN ON DITCHING £28 BILLION-A-YEAR STILL DOESN’T ADD UP. It seems that, despite assuring them that ‘We’ll keep the promise to turn Britain into a clean energy superpower’, Labour sources have spun to The Sun that the party is ditching the £28 billion commitment to green projects altogether.

    Like

  234. More about the Labour party’s £28bn difficulties: Ben Pile has a typically detailed piece – headed ‘Renewable energy is hard Labour’ about it HERE . It’s good: I suggest people read it. And don’t miss the short video clip from GB News where, as well as Ben, Mark Dolan interviews three ‘pundits’ all of whom support Labour’s policy. Their message: yes it’s expensive, yes it’s complex – but climate change is a most serious challenge and we have no choice, we have to tackle it. What’s necessary, they insist, is ambition – ambition to overcome whatever difficulties there may be.

    I’m pretty sure that that – completely ignoring both the massive obstacles to what’s so airily proposed and of course the harsh reality of international climate political reality – is also the absurd and irresponsible position of many of our ‘leaders’. I’m so tired of it.

    Liked by 2 people

  235. Robin, even if we accept their argument (i.e. that “climate change is a most serious challenge and we have no choice, we have to tackle it. What’s necessary, they insist, is ambition – ambition to overcome whatever difficulties there may be”) then we have to ask what the proposed solutions are. And we know from the EROEI parameter that all CURRENT renewable solutions WORSEN the problem rather than solve it! No amount of ambition in deploying CURRENT renewables is going to solve that problem (although it will make poor people even poorer).

    So if they (Labour Party) want effective ambition (rather than a false “virtue signalling”) then the way forward is two-fold:-
    i) Stop further deployment of CURRET renewables;
    ii) Start a research programme into NEW renewables technologies, but make sure the NEW technologies do NOT escape from the research labs until they have passed rigorous cost-benefit analyses that include both financial costs and resource costs.

    Regards, John.

    Liked by 1 person

  237. Jit, thank you for the necessary clarification; my criticism is primarily of the plague of CURRENT wind and solar. We should note too, however, that current nuclear tends not to be good at load following and thus is better suited to base-load rather than countering the vaguaries of CURRENT wind and solar.

    As Dieter Helm has pointed out, CURRENT wind and solar could (by pairing with reliable energy sources) provide a wholly reliable energy offering to the grid. But what would be the cost of that solution, I wonder? Is anybody asking? Or are all politicians deliberately avoiding even posing such questions?

    Regards, John.

    Liked by 1 person

  238. This article from today’s Telegraph is a must read:

    Energy bills must rise to pay for net zero, says Siemens Energy boss
    Interview: Joe Kaeser says ‘a lot of big mouths but little action’ pushing wind turbine makers into the red

    Two extracts:

    Mr Kaeser said manufacturers had become locked in a harmful “rat race” to build ever-bigger turbines and claimed developers and governments were in denial about the costs this entailed. He also warned that inflation is battering industry balance sheets and warned of separate growing problems with faults and breakdowns in the sector.

    Mr Kaeser told The Telegraph: “Every transformation comes at a cost and every transformation is painful. And that’s something which the energy industry and the public sector – governments – don’t really want to hear.”

    “If you want to have cheap energy, you need to be gas fired. That’s the cheapest way, the most secure way if you calculate the whole thing, from the beginning to the end. I believe people need to become reasonable about the energy transition.”

    (Second extract added)

    Liked by 2 people

  239. Hello Robin, thank you for this link to Siemens Energy’s Mr Kaeser. He speaks a lot of sense, for example:-
    0. Probably good that he was speaking at the WEF in Davos;
    1. Use gas for cheap energy (and thus for competitiveness);
    2. We all need a long-term energy plan – tell me (and Cliscep) about it!
    3. The cost of energy does not go down on renewables if you do not innovate. So develop NEW technologies rather than the EROEI-incompetent wind turbines that you are currently losing money on, sir.
    4. If countries and developers are not prepared to put their money where their mouths are, they should rethink their plans for net zero altogether. Yes, sir, Mr Kaeser! Have you spoken to our Ms Reeves who is, I hear, at Davos too?
    5. Energy supplies are governed by a triangle of “reliability, affordability and sustainability”, but “sustainability and affordability may conflict”. I am afraid it is worse than that, sir. CURRENT wind turbine technology is both unsustainable and unaffordable – see point 3 above.

    Regards, John.

    Liked by 2 people

  240. John C; modern nukes are quite good at load-following after many years of design development, especially by the French. While not as rapid as gas, they are better than coal plants.

    Liked by 2 people

  241. Yet more important reading :

    Germany: so much for the ‘grown-up country
    The model nation for centrist liberals is in political and economic turmoil.

    Is there any possibility that our wonderful ‘leaders’ might pause for a moment and take note of this?

    Like

  242. Robin,

    It’s a self-described long read, but it’s not so long really, and it’s certainly worth a read.

    Like

  243. I know Francis Menton is popular with several Cliscep readers, but anyone who hasn’t already done so should read THIS . Headed Markers Along The Road To The Death Of Net Zero it’s incisive stuff. An extract:

    Among the net zero zealot countries I have identified as the leading candidates for imminently hitting such a wall are Germany and the UK. But perhaps, instead of a sudden crash, the demise of the green energy illusion will look more like a slow but steady decline, a gradual withering of economic activity and prosperity. In this scenario, high energy prices brought about by energy restrictions drive important industries out of business and, as good jobs disappear and energy prices increase, the people gradually and inexorably get poorer. Recent events in the UK and Germany seem to point in the direction of this type of scenario.

    Perhaps we should be pleased that so much well-argued anti net zero material is being published. Perhaps … but I’m afraid I find it extraordinarily depressing – largely I suppose because I see no prospect of our ‘leaders’ taking the slightest notice of it.

    Liked by 2 people

  244. Yes, Robin, our leaders seem not to be paying attention, far less interested. This is apparent at the end of Menton’s article from which you quote:-
    “Frankly, the UK and Germany would be better off hitting a hard wall, which could wake them up in time to potentially turn things around. The current situation of steady ongoing decline is inflicting damage that may well not be reversible. Even if energy prices suddenly come down in the UK by a factor of 3 or more, is anyone going to re-build Port Talbot once it has been dismantled?
    Net zero may be dying, but so are the economies of the UK and Germany. I just hope that the U.S. can be rescued in time. ”
    Amen.

    Regards, John.

    Liked by 3 people

  245. Another important (and interesting) report : ‘Is the EU dropping Net Zero? – Right-wing parties have cottoned on to voter rejection of green policies’

    An extract:

    ‘In hindsight, 2024 may well be remembered as the year of the Great Reversal on EU climate policy. That many of the most ambitious emissions goals will not be achievable has been common knowledge for a while now, but until recently the policies themselves had not been questioned. There was a widespread consensus that the European Union was in position to be a global leader for emissions reductions and the green transition away from fossil fuels.

    Now, this consensus is crumbling.’

    How soon before the UK is almost the only country in the world still trying to get to Net Zero?

    Liked by 2 people

  246. From the FT this morning:

    ‘EU must invest about €1.5tn a year to meet net zero targets, says Brussels ‘

    Hmm … to say the least that seems unlikely.

    Liked by 1 person

  247. The Guardian catches up with Robin Guenier:

    “We’re facing a critical shortage’: why UK’s green revolution urgently needs skilled workers
    The country’s net zero transition may not be short of funds. But it desperately requires many more skilled engineers, electricians and workers than it has”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/20/were-facing-a-critical-shortage-why-uks-green-revolution-urgently-needs-skilled-workers

    Liked by 3 people

  249. Oh dear – from Energy Live : ‘NAO: Government fails to ensure biomass sustainability in £20bn support
    A new National Audit Office report reveals that despite over £20 billion in government support to biomass businesses in the past two decades, the government lacks adequate evaluation of sustainability compliance’

    An extract:

    Gareth Davies, head of the NAO, said: “If biomass is going to play a key role in the transition to net zero, the government needs to be confident that the industry is meeting high sustainability standards.

    “However, the government has been unable to demonstrate its current assurances are adequate to provide confidence in this regard.”

    Liked by 1 person

  251. Thanks Jit. For anyone who missed the important reference to Drax (not clear from my post above), it can also be found HERE .

    It’s heading:

    Britain’s biggest renewable power station faces further claim of greenwashing
    National Audit Office is questioning sustainability of burning wood sources

    An extract:

    Britain’s biggest renewable power station cannot prove it is burning wood from sustainable sources despite receiving billions of pounds in taxpayer handouts, the Government’s audit body has said.

    The Drax plant in Selby, Yorkshire, receives subsidies to help generate 6pc of Britain’s electricity, which it achieves by burning 8m tonnes of wood a year.

    Drax has claimed that the wood is sourced sustainably, although the National Audit Office (NAO) has sought to question this: “The Government cannot demonstrate that its current arrangements are adequate to give it confidence that industry is meeting sustainability standards.”

    Liked by 1 person

  253. Yes Richard, it would seem to be most important. It’s interesting to note that, whereas the National Infrastructure Commission recently projected a Net Zero cost of £1.3 trillion, Professor Michael Kelly has said it would ‘comfortably exceed £3 trillion’.

    Liked by 1 person

  254. The FT this morning:

    Brussels struggles to placate farmers as far right stokes protests
    Commission president to hold talks in bid to end escalating demonstrations against EU green policies

    The evil ‘far right’ are at it again.

    Like

  255. It never seems to dawn on them that this is a Europe-wide response to their damaging policies. In their world it can’t be their fault, so this must be the work of the far right. It’s appallingly patronising. In effect they are saying the farmers are too stupid to understand and are stupid enough to be the pawns of the far right.

    Liked by 1 person

  256. From the Guardian:

    ‘Hypocrisy’: Tata builds vast India furnace despite Port Talbot emissions claims
    Owner says shutting Welsh blast furnaces will cut emissions, but it is opening a new one in India

    An extract:

    The owner of the Port Talbot steelworks has been accused of “gross hypocrisy” as it prepares to open a new blast furnace in India, while citing a cut in carbon emissions for its decision to close two blast furnaces in south Wales, costing thousands of jobs.

    … However, union bosses told the Guardian the decision was at odds with a project to build a huge new blast furnace at Tata’s Kalinganagar industrial complex in eastern India, which is entering its closing stages.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/24/unions-accuse-tata-of-hypocrisy-over-port-talbot-closure-green-claims

    Like

  257. It suggests that I was right to suppose that Tata Steel bosses are delighted at the gullibility, naivety and stupidity of Government ministers.

    Liked by 2 people

  258. I suppose most of us have heard about how at Davos the new president of Argentina, Javier Milei, castigated the WEF for in effect preaching socialism. But I at least hadn’t come across a speech by Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation, who went even further than Milei in criticising the WEF. I found it in an interesting article in the American Spectator.

    Having noted how ‘ Political elites tell the average people … that the reality is ‘X’ when in fact reality is ‘Y’’, he listed five issues with which the WEF was obsessed: immigration, public safety, China, gender ideology, and climate change. He highlighted the last in particular:

    ‘I guess the favourite at the World Economic Forum — is climate change. Elites tell us that we have this existential crisis with so-called climate change. So much so, that climate alarmism is probably the greatest cause for mental health crisis in the world. The solutions, the average person knows, based on climate change, are far worse and more harmful, and cost more human lives … than do the problems themselves’

    Great stuff – although I’m not sure that the ‘average person’ really knows that yet. But they will .. they will.

    Liked by 3 people

  259. Great to hear Robin. This landed in one of my Gmail folders on 12th January:

    Dear Richard,

    Have you heard of the World Economic Forum (WEF)?

    They’re a group of global elitists (often billionaires, CEOs, influential world leaders) that fly their private jets to Davos, Switzerland once a year to devise ways to remove state sovereignty and give themselves more power.

    As Heritage Foundation president Dr. Kevin Roberts put it bluntly, they’re “infamous hypocritical self-avowed Marxists, private-jet environmentalists, and genocide-adjacent humanitarians.”

    Shockingly, they invited Dr. Roberts to speak at their annual meeting next week.

    So, Dr. Kevin Roberts is going on your behalf into the belly of the beast to read them the riot act.

    He will tell these global elites to their faces that they’ve lost the people’s trust because they reject the nation state and natural rights, and push insane environmental policies, Covid lockdowns, transgender ideology, and destructive Communist redistribution, that has failed everywhere it’s been tried and destroyed lives.

    He will tell them we reject their preferred dystopian future where, to quote their infamous tweet, “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.”

    These are the same people that will give you a list of reasons we should add insects to our diets…

    And he will tell them that “We the People” will not stand by and willingly shoulder the burdens of Davos-style global elitism without a fight.

    …

    “Have you heard of the World Economic Forum?”

    Er, yes. Which is quite different to saying I understand.

    I’m very glad to hear Roberts made the most of this opportunity.

    (The email is over 175 items down in one of my many bulging folders of people and orgs I’ve encouraged to message me in some way in the past. I was lucky to notice it at the time. Most of the rest is ‘spam’ effectively. But such is life.)

    Liked by 2 people

  260. Chris Morrison has a good article this morning in the Daily Sceptic about the absurd influence of the Climate Change Committee on parliamentarians. An extract:

    The push to 100% Net Zero was rushed through with barely an hour’s debate in the House of Commons in 2019, with MPs relying on advice from the CCC that there would be just seven days a year when wind turbines produced less than 10% of their potential electricity output. This of course helped play down the enormous cost of storage required for intermittent wind and solar power. Net Zero Watch has noted not seven, but 30 such days in 2020, 33 in 2019 and 56 in 2018.

    A link to that NZW finding would be useful. Can anyone help?

    Liked by 1 person

  261. David Turver has a must-read guest post at Net Zero Watch. Titled ‘Cold, hungry, stuck at home: Net Zero’s drastic lifestyle changes’, it can be found HERE .

    From his concluding paragraph:

    It looks like that, somewhere in the deepest recesses of Government, there is a realisation that the energy-scarce world they are proposing will not work and will not be popular. The Government appears to believe that we will not embrace their vision without coercion. Civil Wars have been fought for less.

    Turver doesn’t mention population growth. For that, I suggest a look at Matt Goodwin’s post this morning : ‘What Britain will look like in 2036’.

    Either of these articles is bad enough. Taken together they’re terrifying.

    Liked by 1 person

  262. Net Zero Watch has published another important guest post today. By Gwythian Prins (Research Professor Emeritus at the LSE) it’s titled ‘The Net Zero music stops’ and can be read HERE .

    Some key extracts (rather extensive I’m afraid):

    … this is the moment when the music stops. The Port Talbot closure harshly exposes the costs of luxury ‘green’ beliefs as we enter the second phase of a global war. It is a war of different theatres and modes of conflict: simultaneously ‘hot’ (kinetic) in Ukraine, the Middle East and with Taiwan threatened; ‘cold’ (economic) with China, Russia and Iran; and ‘grey’ (psychological, cyber and subversive), with all the enemies of the Free World.

    Re the Port Talbot closure:

    It must be reversed – we cannot be dependent on imports for the full range of necessary steels to rebuild our arsenals – the Navy first and foremost – and most ridiculously, we cannot be dependent for them on our global antagonists. China’s coal-fired economy is why it can readily build its new navy, just as we once did and must again.

    What we must do:

    … there is only one broad highway to safety. It is to follow Germany, erstwhile home of deep green eco-politics, which, in a hard-headed way after the disaster of the Energiewende, is moving back to coal – yes coal – but not coal as you think you know it. Advanced ultra super-critical technology (AUSC) is clean coal that achieves close to 50% thermal efficiency. … this means re-opening South Wales premium hard coal and Nottingham deep mines, because we need domestic supplies both to power the grid cheaply and reliably once more – no form of nuclear will be made ready quickly enough, while GE’s AUSC plants are available today. CCGTs can then be retired from base load, and take on a supporting role as peaking power, as such a high-quality fuel should be used.

    Re Net Zero:

    Outside the closed belief-systems of eco-zealotry, in the real hard world of geopolitics, anthropogenic CO2 risks rank pretty low and, for our adversaries, not at all. They weaponise our ‘green’ thinking against us.

    His conclusion:

    The reversal of the Port Talbot blast furnace closure on national security grounds, a return to domestic coal for power and for steel, pulling the subsidies plug on renewables-that-are-not, and jettisoning of Net Zero targets – so glibly conjured into being on the back of shoddy data, and unthinkingly nodded into law to give Mrs May a semblance of a ‘legacy’ – will be the signal that reason and clear-thinking have returned. We shall once again have economics as if the defence of the Realm, the wealth and health of its citizens, and indeed the health of the environment too – which is no paradox – really mattered. That true environmental visionary E.F. Schumacher was never apologetic about his career with the National Coal Board. No more should we be about clean coal now, as the noises of eco-zealotry in the isle subside and we awaken as if from a dream.

    Liked by 3 people

  263. Robin, none of that is likely to happen under a Labour government. Far more likely is that when Labour get in – as they surely will – they will continue headlong down the path to eco(nomic) ruin. The most hopeful outcome is that the UK suffers a complete collapse of the electricity grid in a few years time and widespread serious blackouts, which will prompt the fall of the government (if it doesn’t collapse before then because of the deepening vaccine scandal). From the tattered ruins of the establishment political parties and their treasonous, insane, murderous, nation-destroying policies, there may emerge an electable political party which can start to heal the damage done – but it will take more than a generation, that’s for sure, even if it possible.

    Like

  264. Robin (on 27th January at 7.48am),
    Following the reading of an article in the Daily Sceptic on 27th January, you were seeking a source at NZW for some dunkelflauten data. I too was curious as to where those figures came from.

    I followed the link to the Sunday Telegraph in NZW’s 26th January article (‘The Times covers up for the Green blob’) by Andrew Montford:-
    https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/the-times-covers-up-for-the-green-blob
    which led me here …

    Similar figures appeared in The Telegraph on Saturday 20th January written by Edward Malnick, the Sunday (not Saturday!) political editor, who in an article entitled ‘Climate chiefs admitted net zero plan based on insufficient data, leading physicist says’ referred back over two years:-
    “In October 2021 The Sunday Telegraph revealed that assumptions underpinning the committee’s 2019 advice to ministers included a projection that in 2050 there would be just seven days on which wind turbines would produce less than 10 per cent of their potential electricity output. That compared to 30 such days in 2020, 33 in 2019 and 56 in 2018, according to analysis by Net Zero Watch, a campaign group.”
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/20/climate-change-wind-farms-royal-society-green-energy/ but behind paywall.

    However, I have been unable thus far to unearth confirmation that the info above is in fact NZW dunkelflauten data. Perhaps I will write to NZW to see if they can confirm the figures – but that is a job for tomorrow.

    I hope this makes sense.

    Regards, John.

    Like

  265. Thanks John. Assuming you contact NZW, I look forward to hearing the outcome. R

    Like

  267. Jaime, the extraordinary thing is the remarkable stupidity of politicians (ones who are supposed to believe in free market economics, at that). Here’s a quote from the article:

    …Even though the target had not come into force, manufacturers were already increasing prices on their gas boilers to counter the impact of the fines, with prices set to increase by up to £120 this year.

    Claire Coutinho, the energy secretary, accused manufacturers of price gouging, which is when businesses heavily inflate the price of products that are in high demand.

    She is preparing to scrap the 4 per cent target and fines after concluding that any government intervention was unlikely to prevent consumers from being hit with additional costs.

    A government source said: “Boiler manufacturers have saddled families with indefensible price hikes — this is not right. We’re looking again at the policy, and expect manufacturers to do the right thing and remove their price hikes immediately.”…

    Given that manufacturers were going to be forced by government intervention to sell more heat pumps than people wanted, or be fined for selling the gas boilers that people do want, how on earth did the Government expect the manufacturers to react? And Coutinho actually admits that gas boilers “are in high demand”.

    I will give her the benefit of the doubt for apparently realising that the policy is stupid and costly, and for seeking to reverse it, but as for those who thought it was a good idea to introduce it, I despair.

    Liked by 1 person

  268. Robin,
    Further to our discussion above about dunkelflauten data attributed to NZW …

    I wrote to NZW regarding the origin of the data cited at the end of this newspaper text, “… assumptions underpinning the committee’s 2019 advice to ministers included a projection that in 2050 there would be just seven days on which wind turbines would produce less than 10 per cent of their potential electricity output. That compared to 30 such days in 2020, 33 in 2019 and 56 in 2018, according to analysis by Net Zero Watch, a campaign group.”

    In their reply to my query NZW wrote:-
    “The CCC released its energy system modelling under FOI. From the wind output in that model, it is possible to calculate the hourly capacity factors. That then gives the number of hours per year where the CF is below 10%.
    The model can be found on the CCC FOI releases page.
    https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/EIR-Technical-working-level-Net-Zero-spreadsheets.zip
    You want the spreadsheet called 1.5C Power Analysis.”

    Thus it seems that the figures were indeed derived by NZW, but by using the CCC’s spreadsheet.

    Regards, John.

    Liked by 1 person

  269. Bit O/T – but having read JC comment above & downloaded the zip file, I notice they are Excel spreadsheets.

    It so happens I am currently reading a book “Humble Pi” by Matt Parker, which has these partial quotes related to using Excel – “the default settings for new spreadsheet are not fit for purpose when it comes to scientific research” – ok, may not be relevant in CCC case.

    next partial quote “Microsoft Access is an actual database system & tell them to use a real data base LIKE AN ADULT”

    Makes me wonder?

    Like

  270. John: thank you for sending me these data. I’ve dowloaded ‘1.5C Power Analysis’. It should prove useful. R

    Like

  271. “The Retreat From Net Zero” by Ross Clark

    Click to access Clark-Retreat-From-Net-Zero.pdf

    A new paper published by Net Zero Watch shows that governments worldwide are starting to ditch decarbonisation policies, as they seek to avoid electoral wipeout.

    Author Ross Clark shows that the economic pain inflicted by Net Zero policies has now become acute, and that voters are starting to rebel against them:

    “As you look across Europe, politicians who reject climate alarmism and Net Zero scaremongering are on the rise. The days of green radicalism, and other luxury beliefs, are on the wane. The political landscape will look very different by the end of 2024.”

    Mr Clark shows that, in the face of voter unrest, targets are being watered down, delayed and discarded, as he catalogues examples from around the world. And he argues that this is the start of a long road back to rational policymaking:

    “Net Zero was an attempt to defy the laws of physics and thermodynamics. It was irrational and bound to fail. Cannier politicians are starting to see its fatal flaws. The retreat has begun, and will continue inexorably for years to come. It’s now just a question of how long it takes, and how much damage will be done to society before sanity returns.”

    Liked by 2 people

  272. Mark: I’ve sometimes been slightly dubious about Clark’s position on Net Zero. But no more – this paper is well written and comprehensive. I suggest it’s a must read for all Clisceppers.

    Things are moving very quickly – e.g. Labour’s retreat from its £28bn p.a. commitment, Sunak’s various watering downs and of course the big changes in Europe. All this is causing me to think that the mad policy might – even with Labour’s almost certain GE triumph – be so curtailed that it turns out to be far less harmful than once seemed inevitable. What do others think?

    Like

  273. Robin,

    I think that things are slowly beginning to move in a sensible direction. However, the backlash is – and will continue to be – furious and overwhelming. Too many with snouts in the trough have too much to lose; and too many who have been advocating nonsense for too long don’t want to be left with egg on their faces.

    I think we are in for a long hard fight and a vicious rearguard action, but for the first time I am daring to hope that common sense may prevail.

    Liked by 1 person

  274. Robin, I think Mark has probably got it right when he says, “I think we are in for a long hard fight and a vicious rearguard action, but for the first time I am daring to hope that common sense may prevail.”

    We must certainly not let down our guard; we must keep b*ggering on.

    Speed the plough!
    Regards, John.

    Like

  275. Robin: “Things are moving very quickly”

    It’s called an imminent general election puncturing ludicrous New Zero fantasies.

    I’m going off prediction, just enjoying the all-party flip-flopping for what it is.

    Like

  276. Mark and John: I wish we were getting involved in a ‘long hard fight‘. I’d really welcome that. But it doesn’t seem to me that that’s what’s happening. Yes, we exchange views and have our disagreements here, I make my comments re the foolish articles in The Conversation, try to engage my MP and achieve some popularity in Speccie comments – and others are similarly active elsewhere. But are we fighting the real enemy? I doesn’t feel like it.

    Liked by 1 person

  277. Robin,

    All of us who are climate and energy realists are fighting the real enemy. It may just be that some of those who didn’t understand who the enemy is are starting to work it out and joining our ranks.

    Like

  278. Robin, you ask the very valid and challenging question, “Are we fighting the real enemy?” In response I make three points:-
    1. Agreed that your comments at the Speccie etc and my letters to Establishment figures are (at least for the present) only scratching the surface. Sometimes I feel that my letters don’t even do that as, I suspect, they are not so much filed as binned.
    2. As I have asked here before: what other tactics might work more effectively? For example, does somebody need to stand for parliament as a single issue candidate? Or does the urgency of the issue require a poster/TV ads campaign? Somthing to damage the media’s all-pervasive catastrophist narrative would appeal to me. But other ideas will be most welcome!
    3. Unless we have an answer to point 2 then I do not know what we can do other than keep b*ggering on, while taking heart from Mark’s conjecture that, “It may just be that some of those who didn’t understand who the enemy is are starting to work it out and joining our ranks.”

    So perhaps to take up your challenge we need to draw up a list of possible effective strategies (complete with their pros and cons). In business terms am I suggesting a SWAT analysis? …

    Over to our readers.

    Regards,
    John.

    Like

  279. John: unfortunately I don’t have an answer to my own question. I’ve tried – but can see no alternative but to ‘keep b*ggering on’ as you suggest. Two developments (neither of our doing) seem likely to help: (1) the increase in sensible opinion pieces by high-profile commentators such as Ross Clark and (2) the growing – but desperately slow – realisation that ‘green’ policies are hopelessly impractical and damaging that seems to be dawning on some of our ‘leading’ politicians, not least in the Labour Party.

    Liked by 2 people

  280. This is harder-hitting than I’ve seen before from a recently resigned minister:

    The public are sick of politicians’ dishonesty about what net zero entails

    It’s a depressing paradox of government that while the smallest policy changes can be debated ad nauseam, the most profound are often decided without a proper debate at all.

    Net zero sits in the latter camp. It was decided upon after Theresa May had agreed to stand down, while the country was occupied by Brexit debates, and nodded through the Commons with fewer than 90 minutes of debate. The consequences of this statutory instrument will make the decision to leave the EU, and the incessant debates that followed it, seem trivial.

    As a Treasury minister at the time it was clear the costs associated with this intervention were likely to be astronomical. The plan to achieve this goal had not been given anywhere near the level of scrutiny it warranted. To his credit, the then Chancellor Philip Hammond bristled at the vaguery of this announcement and firmly pushed back. Banning plastic straws had been subjected to more detailed analysis for goodness sake, we protested. He was overruled.

    Five years of debate later and few in Westminster grasp the enormity of the undertaking. Reaching net zero by 2050 requires us to overhaul the material foundations of our economy in just three decades. There is no historical precedent for such a change. It constitutes an eye-wateringly radical revolution; a bet on scientific progress in technology that doesn’t yet exist.

    — Robert Jenrick, Daily Telegraph

    You’ve helped create the culture where such statements are possible Robin. All further power to your elbow.

    Liked by 3 people

  281. Richard: thanks for drawing our attention to this remarkable and eloquent article. It’s unfortunate that he didn’t (or so it seems) make these sensible comments before he resigned from the Cabinet. Nonetheless, it’s a good example of point (2) of my recent reply to John Cullen.

    Thanks for your kind words about me, but I don’t think I’ve had any real influence on the change of culture that’s made such a statement possible. I only wish it were true.

    Like

  282. “The Struggle to Achieve Net Zero Emissions — While Balancing Security, Affordability and Sustainability”

    Click to access the-struggle-to-achieve-net-zero-emissions.pdf

    Despite rapidly rising investments, the decarbonization of our energy systems continues to progress too slowly. The transition is failing because the chosen strategy is
    not aligned with the Energy Trilemma constraints of security, affordability, and sustainability.

    • Focusing solely on solar and wind will not get us to the net zero target. Measured in primary energy terms, renewables have very low power density, and therefore, solar and wind should only be used for direct electrification where the energy losses are lowest.

    • Taking intermittent electricity production above a certain threshold in the grid leads to rising electricity prices and instability and potential blackouts of the grid.

    • Underinvestment in primary energy will lead to energy scarcity, and the poorest part of the global population will pay the highest price in capped human development.

    • Inequality in access to energy is probably the most significant human development issue.

    Well worth a read.

    Like

  283. From today’s FT:
    Labour’s political credibility questioned after green spending U-turn
    UK’s main opposition party faces backlash following decision to ditch key policy ahead of general election later this year

    What Matt Goodwin terms the ‘luxury belief elite’ are surprisingly ignorant. They truly think that ordinary voters will be upset by Labour’s policy change.

    Liked by 1 person

  284. An interesting paper Mark, containing some valuable and well-expressed information. But it’s hard to take seriously a detailed study of the challenges of global decarbonisation that only refers to China once in one of its charts and not at all in the text.

    Like

  285. Mark / Robin, as the Disclaimer (page 15) says, the paper is marketing material. Thus I think we should treat it as such. I would not expect such a document to tell the whole story; if you want that then you have to pay the piper.
    Nevertheless, it tells us quite a lot, namely that we are not alone, even if the pill is sweetend for current prevailing sensitivities/group-think with wording about the decarbonisation progressing too slowly.
    Regards, John.

    Like

  286. Robin (at 8.14pm today), Yes! One of the key points of Goodwin’s recent book “Values, Voice and Virtue: the new British politics” is that the modern Labour party has been ‘captured’ by a university graduate class which also inhabits much of the UK’s professional cadres such as in politics and the media. One result of that ‘capture’ is that the traditional working-class base of the Labour Party has been marginalised.

    Unlike Goodwin, I am not a political scientist. However, even I observed this “flipping” of the Labour Party towards what I want to call the far or even hard right where the original aims of the Labour Party, namely the protection and advancement of ordinary working people, have become marginalised. IIRC, Goodwin says in the aforementioned book the new Labout elite with their new goals despise the old working class and its needs.

    Anyway, because those on the traditional right (with, for example, their belief in free markets etc.) would, understandably, take umbridge at my use of the term right-wing for the “flipped” Labour Party, I adopted the term “blight-wing” as this captured the damage being done to traditonal Labour values by the new masters of the the Labour Party and their fellow travellers in the media.

    So, I agree with you, Robin: the traditonal working class voter will not mind one jot that the Green Blob’s favourite things have been jettisoned. But the media may have a good many tantrums.

    We must be on our guard, however. As NZW rightly says,
    QUOTE
    But Mr Montford warned that Sir Keir’s work has only just begun:
    Labour is still hamstrung by the ludicrous pledge to decarbonise the grid by 2030. When that is jettisoned, Sir Keir will start to look like he’s serious.
    END QUOTE
    https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/is-sir-keir-about-to-slay-the-green-blob
    Regards, John.

    Liked by 1 person

  287. As if to give confirmation to my observation (1052hr last night) that Labour has been “flipped” to the (far) right, I heard on Radio 4 an hour or so ago that Charles Moore writing in The Torygraph has reminded us – and I hope Labour’s leaders were listening, “What about the workers?”

    Did you hear that Messrs Miliband and Starmer? The cry is “What about the workers?” and definitely NOT, “What about the wokers!”. Bring an end to blight-wing politics now by returning your party to one which supports and advances the needs and aspirations of ordinary working people; it will be good for your party and very good for the country’s politics.

    Regards, John.

    Liked by 1 person

  288. From an article on the Energy Voice website, Labour’s NZ and Energy policies would make things even worse for the N Sea oil and gas companies:
    “Trade body Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) has claimed up to 42,000 jobs and £26 billion of economic value would be lost after Labour unveiled manifesto plans to increase tax rates and cut investment allowances if it takes power.”
    https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/547554/oeuk-labour-windfall-tax-plan-would-wipe-out-north-sea-investment/

    Liked by 2 people

  289. Maybe – just maybe – a change is beginning to occur. Front page news on the BBC website this evening:

    “Are politicians cooling on tackling [sic] climate change?” which, when you click on it, morphs into “Kuenssberg: Are the politics of climate change going out of fashion?”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68261445

    …It’s not so long ago that world leaders were jostling to be pictured with celebs like Leonardo diCaprio, Stella McCartney or Emma Watson at the huge COP26 climate conference in Glasgow where Boris Johnson played host.

    Then, it was hip to be green – being at COP in 2021 was the political equivalent of the fashion week front row. But with Labour shrinking away from its big £28bn commitments this week, and the Conservatives shifting tack and rumoured to be dropping the so-called “boiler tax”, there’s no doubt trends have changed…

    …This week however it’s been the Labour leadership’s turn, finally getting rid of its vow to spend £28bn a year to help the country go green.

    Without adding to the vast acreage of coverage about this decision, it shows above all that Labour wants to reassure voters it would be careful with their cash over anything else.

    It’s worth noting this week was the deadline for Labour’s top team to give their manifesto plans to shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves.

    The decision was finally made, after weeks of Tory taunting, when the sums actually had to add up….

    …While the parties’ political attitudes have been shifting what has not budged at all is the obligations they face – not because of star-studded celeb pressure or activists gluing themselves to roads.

    This is because, just before she left office, Theresa May changed the law in an absolutely profound way by introducing legislation that would force the UK to hit net zero by 2050.

    In 2020 that was followed by another target to cut emissions by nearly 70% by 2030.

    At the time the former PM pushed it through at breakneck speed 2050 seemed very far away. The practicalities of how such an ambition would be achieved were so vague that MPs (mostly) happily signed up.

    One of those involved in the decision told me this week: “We thought it was the right thing to do but we understood we didn’t have all the answers. It was a bit like when JFK said we are going to land a man on the moon at the end of the decade. He had no idea how he’d do it but it was a clear ambition.”…

    …There is a definite sense in industry that politicians are yet to understand fully the scale of the changes that have to be made to reboot the energy system – the “transition”…

    …But as we move closer to the 2050 and 2030 targets the practical realities of the move to a greener economy will hit closer to home.

    As one of the architects of the 2050 law, a former senior Conservative figure, said now “we’ve got to the point where it is starting to affect individual families it was always going to become politically contentious”.

    The public wants action generically, but might not like the effect of them – or as it was put to me: “Voters are allowed to be hypocrites – they can say ‘I want you to do more’ but then when you do, they say ‘oh I didn’t mean that’.”…

    …Maybe our conversations about the climate are becoming less about emotion and more about the economy. The problem is real. Now the political arguments are here to stay.

    Like

  290. And here’s a (long) extract from Charles Moore’s column in today’s Telegraph:

    The political class is only just realising that voters prefer prosperity over climate jingoism
    Labour’s green U-turn reflects the shifting sands of climate policy

    After a tussle with their consciences, Sir Keir and Rachel Reeves, who, in 2021, declared at the party conference that she would be Britain’s “first green chancellor”, announced on Thursday that her exciting green investment plan, unveiled in that same speech, will, sort of, not happen. Under that plan, a Labour government would have spent an extra £28 billion every year until 2030, including “borrowing to invest”.

    As late as Tuesday, Sir Keir was still clinging publicly to the £28 billion figure. He said he was “unwavering”. But on Thursday he waveringly tried to defuse his own tax bombshell. He had decided, though of course he did not put it like this, that voters care more that Labour should be safe with the economy than it should save the planet.

    … looking green is no longer a clear electoral plus. The Tories saw this slightly earlier than Labour last year. They stole a march by lessening the net-zero torture, extending the lives of the internal combustion engine and gas boilers. Probably Rishi Sunak intended no revolution of policy, only its softening, but the effect is marked. Once people realise you can have prosperity or an energy system dominated by renewables, but not both, they will choose prosperity. That realisation has big political consequences. I believe it makes net zero by 2050 unachievable.
    …

    As is well set out in Rupert Darwall’s new short book, ‘The Folly of Climate Leadership’ (RealClear Foundation), the increasing costs have been relentless. They are particularly high here because of what Darwall calls Britain’s “climate jingoism” – our vainglorious desire to get ahead in what successive governments have decided is a race to net zero.

    Our Climate Change Act of 2008 mandated an overall cut in greenhouse gases of 80 per cent of the 1990 baseline by 2050. That was under Labour, led by Mr Brown. In 2019, that percentage was upped to 100 per cent (“net zero”) and became law after only 88 minutes’ debate in the Commons. That was under the Conservatives, led by Theresa May. In 2020, we were told that Britain would become “the Saudi Arabia of wind power”. That, of course, was under the Conservatives, led by Boris Johnson.

    Our heroic example did not inspire others. Between 2008 and 2019, our CO2 fossil-fuel emissions fell by 33 per cent, but those from the rest of the world rose by 16 per cent, wiping out in 140 days, Darwall calculates, the reductions we achieved over 11 years.

    There is a high price for setting this pace: by 2020, our citizens were paying about 75 per cent more for their electricity than were Americans. Darwall points out that, from 2008-22, Britain has experienced its lowest underlying growth rate since the 18th century.

    The two phenomena are related. Competitively priced energy is essential for robust economic growth. By the 1990s, with Arthur Scargill well beaten and privatisations accomplished in the previous decade, Britain had achieved a good and secure energy mix on the “gas to nuclear” track, rendered more efficient by letting price signals drive changes. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, but a relatively clean one. Today our energy system is expensive, creaky, insecure, teetering on the edge of serious power cuts and, since the invasion of Ukraine, vulnerable to the malevolence of Vladimir Putin.

    If you survey this history, two thoughts arise. One is the uniformity of error across the political spectrum. How was it that most people in all main parties thought they had to think the same things about the complicated and uncertain subject of climate change? Why did they unquestioningly accept ideas like the uniformity of “the science”, the concept of “emergency” in relation to policy, or the ability of governments, rather than businesses and consumers, to make the most efficient choices? In particular, why did the post-Brexit Tories not take the opportunity to develop an energy policy that catered for Britain’s needs rather than trying to lead the global COP-out from reality?

    The other thought – and this is addressed especially to Sir Keir and his party – is “What about the workers?”. Labour, as its name suggests, was founded for the political representation of those who work. The whole climate-change caravanserai of international panels and world leaders gathering at summits to issue edicts and rebukes could have been expressly designed to exclude the wishes of the workers from their considerations.

    I come back to Rupert Darwall’s point that net-zero obsessions coincide with the credit crunch, financial strains and slow growth. This combination is the path to relative poverty – not for our leaders, of course, but for most people who vote.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/09/political-class-voters-prosperity-climate-jingoism/

    Liked by 1 person

  291. Robin, thank you for the quote from Charles Moore. I suspect that many of us at this site would conclude that he is simply stating the bleedin’ obvious, but we should nevertheless be pleased that he has done so – the mainstream media have been far too unquestioning about Net Zero for far too long. Although the imminent general election is surely concentrating minds, for the most part our senior politicians still appear wedded to the Net Zero calamity irrespective of the huge damage it has done, is doing, and will continue to do to the economy and individuals. All commentary such as Moore’s is thus helpful in stirring Net Zero doubts among MPs, media functionaries, and others of the Luxury Belief class.

    Regards, John.

    Like

  292. David Turver has posted a (mildly) amusing article this morning:

    Will Net Zero be a Casualty of Green-on-Green Attacks?
    More cracks are appearing in the Net Zero project

    He opens with this:

    There has been quite a stir in the Net Zero world these past few weeks. In effect, the various bodies taking it upon themselves to guard the Net Zero agenda have begun a kind of warfare against each other.

    And closes with this:

    It is clear all is not well in the big green tent. Only time will tell if these developments are as significant for Net Zero as the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was for peace in Europe. But the net zero advocates are now turning on each other and exposing their own paper-thin analysis. The end of the net zero project cannot come soon enough.

    Worth reading.

    Like

  293. Robin, thanks for the link – yes, it is well worth reading.

    The sentence I liked best (in the context of arguments about how much electricity storage will be needed to enable us to survive dunkelflaute etc) is this:

    They are effectively arguing about how many lifeboats should be on the Titanic as they set a course full speed ahead for the iceberg.

    Like

  294. Then a quote from the chairman of struggling Siemens Energy:

    …“If you want to have cheap energy, you need to be gas fired. That’s the cheapest way, the most secure way if you calculate the whole thing, from the beginning to the end.”

    With two sentences, the mantra of cheap wind and solar renewables has been blown away in a giant mushroom cloud of hubris and lies. The chairman of Siemens Energy should know what he is talking about….

    Like

  295. Finally (from me), his attack on the Labour Party’s plans:

    …They are planning to use the money to create a state run power company call GB Energy and establish a national wealth fund (NWF). The NWF is intended to invest in EV production, clean steel (aka steel that is too expensive), hydrogen (10X more expensive than gas) and carbon capture (essentially an energy tax to reduce the efficiency of conventional power plants). What could possibly go wrong?

    They have also maintained their commitment to decarbonise the electricity generation sector by 2030. They say this programme will create good jobs, lower energy bills and deliver energy security”. To partially pay for their plans they are going to implement a “proper windfall tax” on energy companies, increasing the marginal tax rate to 78%.

    Quite how they’re going to deliver the required renewable generation capacity when they have withdrawn most of their funding remains to be explained. Nor do they explain how higher taxes will encourage energy companies to invest more. It is also difficult to see how more expensive, intermittent renewables will deliver lower bills, good jobs or energy security….

    Like

  297. Ross Clark has another article – The renewables bubble has burst – this morning. This time it’s in the Speccie: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-renewables-bubble-has-burst/

    It’s an overview of the problems with wind energy experienced by Orsted and Vattenfall. I posted this short comment:

    And that’s just one aspect of the rapidly collapsing case for Net Zero – a policy that means we must pay for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless objective.

    It’s the most ‘liked’.

    PS: Clark’s article is also the ‘most popular’.

    Like

  299. I believe the unwelcome, sad but (for me) unsurprising outcome of Mann v. Steyn confirms something I’ve believed for several years and which is especially important now. It’s this: believers in dangerous AGW (i.e. most of the elite establishment) are strongly dug in and well able to repel direct attack. It’s simple really: as the Mann/Steyn case illustrates, believers make certain that, in the world of climate change orthodoxy, debate or criticism is not allowed and anyone who unwisely tries to combat that is simply dismissed as being ‘anti science’ or a ‘climate denier’ (usually both). And that, it’s asserted, makes them unworthy of serious attention however cogent their arguments.

    Understanding this is especially important now as current political developments make it likely – in my view – that we’re going to see more opportunities to criticise the mad NZ policy. And, as it’s possible to bypass those strong defences by making an irrefutable case for abandoning the policy without mentioning climate change science, I’ve no doubt at all that that’s what we should do.

    Note for example how Robert Jenrick, the WorldWide Asset Management, Charles Moore, David Turver, Ross Clark (all recently cited above) and (er) my article heading this thread are all able to deploy powerful anti-NZ arguments without any need to refer to ‘the science’.

    Liked by 1 person

  300. This article from WUWT illustrates the decline of European industry driven by suicidal energy policies:

    The Deindustrialization of Europe in Five Charts

    The statistics on the dramatic loss of capacity in key industries are frightening.
    Sadly it will only get worse unless governments regain their senses.

    The charts should be required viewing for all of our MPs, although many of them wouldn’t understand the significance.

    Liked by 1 person

  301. An interesting article in the Daily Sceptic this morning:

    Net Zero Crisis Deepens as Government Says it is Only Planning to Build a QUARTER of the Carbon Capture Capacity Needed to Hit Green Target:

    https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/14/net-zero-crisis-deepens-as-government-says-it-is-only-planning-to-build-a-quarter-of-the-carbon-capture-capacity-needed-to-hit-green-target/

    An extract:

    There are of course all number of reasons why Net Zero is unachievable, unnecessary and unjustifiably costly. But the chasm between the amount of carbon capture the CCC says is needed to hit the target and the amount the Government actually thinks it will have available at the time means Net Zero is unachievable even on the Government’s own terms. It means that it doesn’t matter how much the Government cripples U.K. industry and drives it overseas, how successful it is in replacing dependable fossil fuels with intermittent renewables, it will never hit Net Zero by 2050 or anywhere close to it and has no credible plan to do so.

    Well said.

    Liked by 3 people

  302. Robin, going back three days ago:

    Understanding this is especially important now as current political developments make it likely – in my view – that we’re going to see more opportunities to criticise the mad NZ policy. And, as it’s possible to bypass those strong defences by making an irrefutable case for abandoning the policy without mentioning climate change science, I’ve no doubt at all that that’s what we should do.

    Ok, but I think we have to be careful about what we classify as ‘climate change science’.

    Is this climate change science? It’s a rather wonderful story of engineering and innovation.

    I found it interesting that Steve was finding comfort in this reality after testifying in the crazy world of a Washington DC court. Ben Pile then pointed to another reality in the area of policy:

    What about the graph of deaths from extreme climate (or weather) events over the last 100 years? Is that science or policy? Neither. It’s fact. It reveals the nakedness of the consensus emperor.

    I’d say in all things we are basing our position on reality as opposed to ludicrous fantasy. Opposed to a climate crisis that is wholly imaginary and the crazy, impossible dream of Net Zero that is purported to fix this imaginary problem at such demented cost and futility.

    This isn’t debating the science, because the ‘the’ is entirely inappropriate. Good science feeds into our grasp of reality and it’s reality that we have to bring the mass of the public back to.

    Liked by 2 people

  303. Richard, by ‘climate change science’ (note the quotation marks) I’m referring to alarmists’ belief that recent atmospheric temperature increases were caused by humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and that, unless such emissions are radically reduced, humanity faces disaster. Therefore, they say, we face a ‘climate emergency’. My position is simple: don’t even try to counter that or you’ll be sucked into the ghastly world of climate change orthodoxy where you’ll be dismissed as a ‘climate denier’ unworthy of serious attention however cogent your arguments. Instead, bypassing all that, you should demonstrate that net zero policy, as well as being unachievable and extremely damaging, cannot make any more than the most trivial contribution to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions – if that.

    The substantial reduction of climate related deaths challenges the alarmists’ belief so is a matter of science. And it’s a good example of my point. You say it’s a fact – and I daresay you’re right – but deploy that argument and they’ll be ready for you with their ‘fact checks’: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/drop-climate-related-disaster-deaths-not-evidence-against-climate-emergency-2023-09-19/ and https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/11/27/false-claim-disaster-deaths-show-climate-change-not-real-fact-check/71249882007/. Try to argue with that and you’ll be sucked into the ghastly world to which I refer above. And you’ll get nowhere.

    Liked by 1 person

  304. Robin,

    You say: “Instead, bypassing all that, you should demonstrate that net zero policy, as well as being unachievable and extremely damaging, cannot make any more than the most trivial contribution to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions – if that.”

    I think that net zero advocacy is founded upon the belief that it will not be damaging, is achievable and will make a difference. So the point I would make is as simple as yours: don’t even try to counter that or you’ll be sucked into the ghastly world of climate change orthodoxy where you’ll be dismissed as a ‘climate denier’ unworthy of serious attention however cogent your arguments.

    I think the sad reality is that the day will not be won by winning an argument. Instead, we are ultimately going to have to rely upon human nature to steer us in the right direction. Net zero advocates may argue that resisting their policies will be self-destructive, but there is ample evidence that people will choose self-destructive options in preference to alternative options that they consider give an unfair advantage to others. Pointing out unfairness, I believe, is the main value in your argument.

    Liked by 1 person

  305. John R, you say:

    ‘net zero advocacy is founded upon the belief that it will not be damaging, is achievable and will make a difference.’

    Perhaps it is. But it’s easy to point out that they’re wrong. Just two examples (there are plenty more): (1) one of many reasons why NZ is unachievable is that the UK doesn’t have nearly enough skilled technical managers, electrical and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other tradespeople (probably about a million) to do the multitude of tasks essential to achieve net zero and (2) the reason why NZ cannot make a difference is that major non-Western countries – the source of over 75% of greenhouse gas emissions – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and are focused instead on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security; as a result, global emissions are increasing and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future whatever the UK (the source of less than 1% of global emissions) may do. Whenever, supported by clear factual evidence (there’s plenty), I make these and other points – as I do for example with the academics on The Conversation – my ‘opponents’, far from dismissing me as a ‘denier’ (that’s never happened), almost always go quiet. Sometimes re (2) they may try to say that the UK should show an example or exercise ‘leadership’. But that’s easily countered.

    It’s most encouraging that there are today many voices taking a similar line to mine (see above) and, because it’s an election year, I think politicians are beginning to listen.

    Like

  306. Robin, I disagree with your philosophy, as you know. By attacking the policy prescription only, you are attempting to treat the symptoms, not the underlying disease. Hence the disease will just re-emerge, even if you are able to derail Net Zero. Norman Fenton here talks about the disease: politically biased scientists who abuse science and abuse their position of authority in order to lie for the ‘greater good’ – exemplified in Covid and climate change policy responses. If we want to live in a sane, rational, fact-based society, where policy is driven by evidence, by uncorrupted and non-manipulated science, by sound data, then we absolutely must hold ‘climate science’ to account for its policy prescriptions, which frame Net Zero as ‘necessary’, regardless of whether it is achievable, practical or more harmful to society and the environment than ‘climate breakdown’ itself.

    Liked by 1 person

  307. The problem is that nothing dents the carapace of certainty. See the article below, which I referred to on another thread earlier today:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/10/climate-crisis-deniers-sought-for-exclusive-florida-residence-private-ark-essential

    Now that it turns out that the claims of cheap green energy are false, it’s makes not a joy of difference. If not zero means that we have to have more expensive energy, Gaia doesn’t mind. How unreasonable of poor people to complain. Don’t they care about the climate emergency?

    Like

  308. Jaime: I have no doubt that getting rid of the madness of net zero must be the overriding priority. Neither do I have any doubt that the way to do that is to show that the policy cannot possibly achieve the believers’ aim of radically reducing GHG emissions. And, as I’ve illustrated many times here, that’s relatively easily done. If that results in net zero being, as you put it, derailed – and the UK thereby saved from social and economic disaster – then would be the time to tackle the alarmists’ abuse of science. But, to try to do that now would simply muddy the water and get us nowhere.

    Mark: that Guardian article is yet another one informing us of the horrors of the ‘climate emergency’ and insisting, with absolute certainty, that action now is necessary. Moreover, the author tells us, it doesn’t matter if poor people are harmed by that action. But would a leading politician in an election year agree? The answer is surely obvious.

    Like

  309. Robin,

    >”But it’s easy to point out that they’re wrong.”

    Maybe so, but you said it yourself when you said, “however cogent your arguments”.

    Your experience of hand-to-hand combat on the battlefield may have left you with the impression that you are not thought of as a denier. That much is to your credit. But what matters more, in my opinion, is how your arguments are analysed under the microscope of “the ghastly world of climate change orthodoxy.” This world is exemplified by the proselytizing of the likes of the Institute of Strategic Dialogue, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, John Cook and fellow academics, the Guardian and, of course, the BBC, who will all tell you that there is a new form of denial on the internet that has abandoned outright denial of the science and replaced it with tactics that seek to question the viability of net zero in order to cause delay and dilution. Worse still, these are all the same ‘bad actors’ who used to be vocal science deniers but have now just gone quiet on that topic.

    Your arguments may be cogent but it hasn’t stopped them being cited by the climate change orthodox as myths that are easily fact-checked. Yes, I know the fact-checking is bullshit, but so were the two examples you gave when you pointed out how the drop in extreme weather event mortality has been fact-checked.

    Like

  310. The ‘Denier’ epithet has become a very effective cultural enforcement tool. Many people like Robin, who clearly see the pointlessness and insane destructiveness of Net Zero policies are reluctant to go anywhere near the ‘necessity’ argument lest they fall victim to what has become in effect a cultural taboo which will taint them personally and dsicredit their wider argument via association.

    But the point is, by submitting to this cultural enforcement and not engaging the necessity argument, not challenging the ‘science’ which informs policy, what one is actually doing is further energising the original ‘Denier’ argument and giving it increased legitimacy, the upshot of which, as John points out, is to allow the climate cult movement simply to extend their cultural taboo to those ‘delayers’ and ‘mitigation deniers’ questioning policy, many of whom may or may not be previous science deniers, it doesn’t matter, because climate denialism is a mental disease which manifests as the denial of ‘actual’ facts (settled science and the unchallengable necessity/feasibility/benefits of Net Zero) via the presentation of ‘alternative’ facts consisting of misinformation and disinformation.

    Having said this, there is still concern among climate change cultists about the few die-hard science deniers out there who are unaffected by cultural taboos. Why else would a DC court have awarded the odious cry-bully Michael Mann $1m in punitive damages simply because Steyn had the audacity to call his hockey stick a fraud?

    Like

  311. John R: I fear you may be missing my point. For example, when I said ‘however cogent your arguments’ I was referring to arguments re ‘climate science’, not re the impracticability etc. of net zero policy – where cogent argument easily prevails. And, when my criticisms of net zero are analysed under the microscope of climate change orthodoxy (if indeed they ever are), no one (so far) has been able to show they’re wrong. As for Cook and fellow academics, the Guardian and the BBC, they all go out of their way to avoid having to say anything about, to take my previous examples, the huge skilled labour shortage in the UK and China’s and India’s continuing to emit vast amounts of GHG. I’m always careful to keep my observations to such easily verified topics. And it works. I suggest you try it.

    Here are two recent examples. In the first, I seem to have succeeded in shutting alarmists up altogether. And the second is an example of a radical change that’s happened with TC commentators: increasing numbers of them feel able to criticise climate change orthodoxy.

    https://theconversation.com/access-and-exclusion-what-cop28-revealed-about-the-dynamics-of-global-climate-diplomacy-220198

    https://theconversation.com/central-banks-should-be-fighting-the-climate-crisis-heres-why-217744#comment_2955742

    Like

  312. Jaime, you say:

    ‘Many people like Robin, who clearly see the pointlessness and insane destructiveness of Net Zero policies are reluctant to go anywhere near the ‘necessity’ argument lest they fall victim to what has become in effect a cultural taboo which will taint them personally and discredit their wider argument via association.o’

    No Jaime, that’s not my position at all. I’m not interested in challenging the alarmists’ view of the ‘science’ (what you term the ‘necessary’ argument) because I’m anxious, above all, to do what I can to persuade our ‘leaders’ to abandon the disastrous net zero policy – and I haven’t the slightest doubt that referring to the ‘science’ would, for the reasons I’ve stated ad nauseam here, be a major obstacle to my achieving that critically important objective.

    As I said at the outset of this mini-thread (see my post on 11 February), the Mann v. Stein outcome is a perfect illustration of my point.

    It’s funny really: I seem to be having more trouble dealing with my allies here than I do with my enemies on TC and elsewhere.

    Like

  313. This. The people who are pushing carbon reduction POLICY are VERY worried about ‘science deniers’ questioning the science. To my way of thinking, this means that we should NOT hold back on questioning the science AND the policies themselves. You don’t hold up peer review procedure on a policy evaluation and critique paper which questions scientific integrity unless you feel that the policy makers themselves are very vulnerable to such a critique:

    “This paper evaluates the billion dollar disaster time series by applying criteria of NOAA’s Information Quality and Scientific Integrity policies. The evaluation finds that billion dollar disaster time series fails comprehensively to meet NOAA’s criteria for “information quality,” specifically, NOAA’s criteria of traceability, transparency, presentation, and substance. Thus, it is not surprising that the billion dollar disaster dataset is not simply an insufficient basis for claims of the detection and attribution of changes in climate variables (or a consequence of such changes), but the dataset is of insufficient quality for use in such research.
    Climate data should be the basis for claims of detection and attribution of changes in climate variables, not economic loss data. Because of the shortfalls in scientific integrity documented in this
    evaluation, policy makers and the public have been grossly misinformed about extreme events
    and disasters in the United States.”

    Liked by 1 person

  314. Thanks Jaime, interesting. But, for all the reasons I’ve stated – and won’t bore you by repeating them now – I remain convinced that questioning the science would seriously impair the chances of persuading the politicians to abandon net zero. And trying to achieve that is my absolute priority. It seems we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    Liked by 1 person

  315. Robin, I’m sorry that you have more trouble dealing with your allies than your enemies, but that’s probably because your enemies don’t have any lucid counter arguments. You are clear in that you advise all sceptics NOT to attack the Net Zero/climate cultists on the basis of the science:

    “If that results in net zero being, as you put it, derailed – and the UK thereby saved from social and economic disaster – then would be the time to tackle the alarmists’ abuse of science. But, to try to do that now would simply muddy the water and get us nowhere.”

    I am equally clear in my contention that you personally are free to challenge them on policy only, ignoring the science ‘until later’ if you wish, but that should not apply to everyone and that indeed, challenging these fraudsters on the science is both legitimate and equally as important as challenging them on their insane policy prescriptions. We are not going to see eye to eye on this, ever, I feel, but we remain allies and I hope friends. I say this having seen what is currently happening in Covid/vaccine sceptic circles at the moment, where disagreements have turned into bitterness and insults. We don’t win if we are divided.

    Liked by 1 person

  316. Jaime, you say:

    ‘We are not going to see eye to eye on this, ever, I feel, but we remain allies and I hope friends.‘

    Nicely put: I wholly agree. Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  317. Robin,

    >”I fear you may be missing my point. For example, when I said ‘however cogent your arguments’ I was referring to arguments re ‘climate science’, not re the impracticability etc. of net zero policy – where cogent argument easily prevails.”

    I wasn’t missing your point. I was quite aware that you were referring to arguments ‘re climate science’. My point is that you can’t say that the cogency of an argument doesn’t count in that context without recognising that cogency is just as irrelevant in the net zero policy context. You maintain that you are easily prevailing but I do not see any evidence of that. People going quiet on you or simply failing to address your points is not evidence of prevailing. That’s exactly what they did with those who argued against the science. Meanwhile, the ‘denier’ propaganda is aimed just as much in your direction as it is against the likes of myself or Jaime.

    Like

  318. John R, you say:

    ‘That’s exactly what they did with those who argued against the science.‘

    Is it? It seems to me that they raged about them being deniers.

    ‘Meanwhile, the ‘denier’ propaganda is aimed just as much in your direction as it is against the likes of myself or Jaime.‘

    Some time ago I was occasionally referred to as a ‘denier’. No longer.

    Look John, this is getting us nowhere. I suggest we agree to disagree and follow Jaime’s wise advice.

    Like

  319. >”Is it?”

    Of course it is. Unilaterally declaring the argument to have been settled is the basis for calling the opposition deniers.

    As for you being personally called a denier, I have never said you were. But I am pointing out that those who argue against the validity of net zero policy are characterised nowadays as a new breed of denier, and I’m afraid that is an empirical fact.

    You can end it here if you wish, but a lack of resolve to properly settle disagreements is what this is all about.

    Liked by 1 person

  320. As I’ve said John, I suggest we agree to disagree and follow Jaime’s wise advice.

    Like

  321. Robin,

    I was watching the Blue LED U tube story, that Richard highlighted, when I read your comment and it spurred me to get off my butt to see if the “Not For Sale in CA LED 15WA19 100 W replacement 2700K” bulb that we bought yesterday at the lighting store for $7.12 was a little or a lot cheaper than the led bulb we bought at the Home Depot earlier in the day. It sure was less- as we paid $12.17 for the Feit clear glass bulb! The Statco bulb from NEO Lighting looks more like a traditional incandescent bulb- which is the bulb type we replaced in the canoe bathroom downstairs. The “Estimated Energy Cost per year” is identical for both bulbs- $1.81. 11 cents a kWh is denoted as the price for the juice (energy) to operate the bulbs for 3 hours a day on both packages. It’s been a LONG time since we paid 11 cents a kWh!

    In fact, one of the reasons for our leaving CA was the soon to be even more unaffordable cost for juice/energy- even with our still operating great 6.12 KW PV system that was being billed via a NEM 2 rate schedule from Pacific Greed and Extortion (PG&E). The system was given the OK to send juice into the CA grid on the second highest grid load day in the history of CAISO’s operation. Back then (July 24th, 2006) our cost for a kWh during off peak time was about 7.5 cents for baseline usage. This January a kWh from PG&E billed at off peak would be a shit load more- 40 cents for off peak in winter for baseline usage and 50 cents for over baseline. It’s kind of SAD that the solutions CA has implanted to fight co2 levels in the atmosphere have been so expensive to implement. That’s what happens when you ignore the “Affordable” part of the sustainable development goals!

    My father-in-law can’t purchase the Statco bulb in CA! Its label is noted as operating for twice as long as the CA approved lighting solution bulb by the way. So, when one figures out how much it costs him for lighting, he has to use 40 cents a kWh NOT 11! When determining his ROI for a bulb his expected bulb life is half of what I can purchase here in Ohio. Not a smart way to go policy wise if you care about those on fixed incomes! Physics tells us that our juice vibrates it way down a transmission line about 10 miles from the nuclear plant north of us to a substation close by to feed power down our distribution line where we paid 13.6 cents a kWh for juice last month.

    One might ask whose efforts/solutions have been more effective at reducing co2 levels…… WWS advocates or those of us who have to pay the bills and know how to make things work in the real world? That question is rhetorical.

    The choice to migrate within the US of A is still free/open. Whose rules will be put in place to move juice/energy on the other hand…….. and who gets stuck paying (allocated) for the costs are up in the air on this side of the pond.

    Mark

    Like

  322. Interesting Mark. Good luck with your move from CA. My daughter lives in LA – I might ask for a comment.

    Like

  324. “Farmers are in revolt and Europe’s climate policies are crumbling. Welcome to the age of ‘greenlash’
    Brussels is ditching green measures as EU leaders panic over rural protests, upcoming elections and the threat of the far right”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/16/europe-farmers-climate-green-protest-eu

    …Von der Leyen, a former German defence minister, is vying to lead the centre-right European People’s party’s campaign for the elections even though she is not herself seeking a European parliament seat. Her coronation at a party congress on 6-7 March as the EPP’s Spitzenkandidaten (lead candidate) to run the commission from 2024 to 2029 is a formality, since there is no other contender. But she has had to water down her green policies to placate a party so spooked by the “greenlash” against net zero legislation that it is rushing to reposition itself as the voice of gradual adaptation at a pace that citizens can accept and afford….

    That seems to me to the nub of it. Net zero will crash and burn when politicians face an angry electorate, upset at the cost and restrictions imposed on them.

    Liked by 2 people

  325. Jaime,

    I have now had time to watch the Fenton interview you posted yesterday, and I found it every bit as informative as I expected it to be. I was particularly interested in his anecdote (10 minutes in) regarding the advice he had received from the ‘senior professor’ who had written Fenton’s script for him in the BBC’s Climate Change By Numbers documentary. When Fenton questioned the accuracy of one particular aspect of the script the professor reassured him, only for Fenton to discover after broadcasting that it wasn’t actually true. When Fenton went back to the professor to complain, the professor replied ‘well we all have to lie for the greater good’. It is hearing such stories that causes one to call into question the integrity of the scientific advice that politicians had received before putting in place the net zero policy. For that reason alone, one should always unapologetically raise concerns regarding scientific integrity whenever they arise.

    Liked by 4 people

  326. I also intend to watch the Fenton video, lagging further behind than John. And catch up on the rest of this excellent thread since my last intervention!

    Like

  327. John, if I remember correctly, the issue with the senior professor was concerning the fact that warmer winters would result in less excess deaths from the cold, which would outweigh the small increase in excess deaths from hot summers. The script given to Fenton was something like ‘climate change is going to kill more people because of heatwaves’. Which bare-faced lie by omission, if I remember correctly again, you have covered previously on here.

    Liked by 1 person

  328. Jaime,

    Yes, I think you’re right.

    The subject of temperature-related mortality has indeed been covered on this site by a number of us. The mortality drop is, as our opponents would put it, a favourite contrarian talking point. But it is also one of those cogent arguments that has, nevertheless, been the subject of purported fact-checking. Two such fact-checking refutations were cited by Robin earlier, one of which tried to maintain that mortality was actually an irrelevant metric! Desperate or what?

    Like

  329. Robin, at 9.11am yesterday: those “fact-checking” links have to be read to be believed. From the second one, my jaw dropped when I read this:

    …Disaster mortality trends can also be skewed by a small number of very high mortality events.

    For instance, one analysis of more than 12,000 disasters that occurred between 1920 and 2020 showed a decrease in the number of disaster deaths over that timeframe, according to a Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters report.

    However, Delforge said, “what drives the trend of the aggregated roughly 12,000 weather-related disasters is a marginal amount of disasters − 10 to 50 − of very high mortality impact, due to famines and the lack of assistance at these times and places.”

    If those events are excluded from the analysis, the data shows an increase in deaths, according to the report. But, due to other potentially biasing factors, the report’s authors also cautioned against interpreting this alone as confirmation that disaster deaths are increasing….

    High mortality impacts due to famines (almost certainly the result of difficult climatic conditions at the time) mustn’t be allowed to skew upwards the number of deaths due to climate change in the past. Why, if only we exclude those pesky massive numbers of climate-related deaths in the past, arising from smallish numbers of devastating climate incidents, and hey presto, climate-related deaths are on the increase! That takes some chutzpah.

    Liked by 1 person

  330. Yes Mark, those ‘fact-checking’ links are nonsense. And they’re perfect examples of my point: avoid discussion of ‘the science’ and you won’t be deflected from making sensible comment about practicalities by becoming embroiled in such absurdity.

    Like

  331. Robin,

    >”And they’re perfect examples of my point: avoid discussion of ‘the science’ and you won’t be deflected from making sensible comment about practicalities by becoming embroiled in such absurdity.”

    I thought you had declared a lack of interest in continuing with this debate. Perhaps, by providing some context here, I can persuade you to stick by your initial decision.

    You are a relative newcomer to a site that, according to its self-description, specialises in “climate change and how it seems to have become a quasi-religion”. Unsurprisingly, therefore, you will find a number of posts that are focused upon the reporting of the science and the extent to which it does or does not avoid the trappings of religiosity. That is what we do here. That said, you have been invited onto this platform to pursue your own arguments regarding the practicalities associated with net zero policy. After all, “[T]he group is just a collection of disparate voices in a joint venture. There’s no ‘party line’ or rulebook, and certainly no 97% consensus about anything.” Furthermore, the hospitality shown to you has entailed a great deal of vocal support for what you are doing, albeit with a range of views expressed regarding your prospects of success. In return, however, you have frequently (or to use your own words, ‘in ad nauseam’) criticised the ambitions of the site upon which you are blogging, claiming that its continued preoccupation with scientific issues risks ‘muddying the waters’, thereby making your job harder. You have even complained that you now “seem to be having more trouble dealing with my allies here than I do with my enemies.” However, given that you are seeking to influence the agenda on a site that prides itself in not imposing an agenda, you really have no basis for complaint, and certainly no basis for expecting anyone to take your advice.

    I get why you would not raise the subject of the climate change science whilst focusing upon the practicalities of net zero: I would take the same tack. I can also see why you will have experienced some success in retaining such a focus. However, persisting with your suggestion that we should stop what this site was initially set up to do strikes me as unreasonable and likely unproductive. I think I speak for many here when I say that your challenges to the net zero policy have been commendable and your tactics have been spot on, but please stop criticising the efforts of others who just so happen to be focused upon different issues.

    Like

  332. John R: I’m not suggesting for a moment that ‘we should stop what this site was initially set up to do‘. Nor am I for a moment criticising the efforts of those efforts are focused on issues other than the need to persuade our ‘leaders’ to abandon net zero. I commonly find them admirable. I really cannot see how my reply to Mark could be interpreted as my criticising those efforts.

    Like

  333. I don’t like to see us disagreeing among ourselves, when the enemy is elsewhere. United we stand, divided we fall, and all that.

    I didn’t take Robin’s comments as being critical of anyone else, rather as being an impassioned plea for concentrating on the damage that net zero is wreaking, and will increasingly wreak, on the UK unless it is stopped in its tracks. I agree that this must be the priority. With the exception of possible nuclear annihilation (about which we can do nothing) I regard net zero as being the greatest threat to this country and its inhabitants, and my top priority politically is to stop it. I will vote for anyone who opposes it (even if that might mean voting with a very heavy heart).

    That is not to say that we shouldn’t oppose the entirety of the project, including dubious science. We all agree broadly on the rights and wrongs of all this stuff – differing over priorities is legitimate, and can involve an interesting discussion with good arguments deployed by fine minds – but we really shouldn’t fall out over it.

    I am quite happy to support Robin’s relentless banging of his drum against net zero, while also supporting Jaime’s dedicated pursuit of scientific realism and John’s debunking of quackery. You all deserve, and receive, my support and thanks for tirelessly pursuing an otherwise thankless task.

    Like

  334. Net Zero policy relies on a chain of reasoning that, in theory at least, can be broken at any link. In Denierland, I argued for nuance, even while tacitly acknowledging that, in a war between angels and devils, a lukewarmer is still a devil.

    I just asked the opinion of someone with no skin in this game, who advised me that, if we wish to persuade someone to abandon support for Net Zero, we should skip the Necessity part, skip the Viability part, and go straight to Net Zero’s Consequences.

    Perhaps logic would dictate moving forwards from evidence, but emotion dictates working backwards: maybe, once the Consequences are realised to be disastrous, reason might self-engage to reconsider Viability and Necessity.

    I’m not sure about this, and will think more about it. One thing I am quite sure of: if support for Net Zero begins to falter as the ground ahead steepens, the Necessity argument is going to go off the rails entirely. Sceptics will need to be on hand to point out the absurdity of the most extreme claims.

    Like

  335. In defence of continuing to debate the science, AS WELL AS ATTACK NET ZERO ON ITS OBVIOUS, INHERENT ABSURDITIES, I give you this. There is no other effective response to this than to throw it right back at the Met office and demand that they show us their working, i.e. demonstrate to us, scientifically, the validity of the claim that storms are becoming worse in the UK because of climate change. The fact that they are ignoring demands to do so means that they are vulnerable on the issue, thus we should keep hammering it, because this nut WILL crack eventually, barring them criminalising the asking of questions. The ‘climate change causes extreme weather’ narrative is wide open to abuse, but also wide open to very substantial, rational, science-based criticism. It only takes Churchillian persistence on our part to win the information war.

    “It is possible that if the Met Office is obliged to explain or retract what was after all just a routine scare broadcast on a tame state-reliant media outlet, it might be forced into more substantial scientific debate. How it abolished the global temperature pause from 2000-2014 by adding 30% extra warming on a retrospective basis to its HadCRUT5 record, and why it insists on promoting temperature records from busy U.K. airbases, are two subjects that spring immediately to mind.”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/22/met-office-fails-to-retract-false-claim-of-more-intense-storms-due-to-climate-change/

    Like

  336. Paul Homewood has posted a DT article criticising Net Zero which made reference to the “Antwerp Declaration”. It’s an open letter from 70 companies, including some of the biggest, and trade associations calling for massive action to save European industry.
    While it is couched in the language of greenery, the underlying message is clear. It’s worth a scan, mainly for the list of signatories and the scope of concerns/panic.
    This should link to a PDF:
    https://duckduckgo.com/?hps=1&q=antwerp+declaration&atb=v255-1&ia=web

    Like

  337. Rupert Darwall (one of my climate heroes) has a good article – Net Zero’s days are numbered – in the Speccie. His concluding paragraph:

    The purpose of writing Net Zero into law is the anti-democratic one of putting Net Zero beyond politics. Both Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer are trapped by it. All their other policy priorities must be subordinated to the government’s legal duty to meet the Net Zero target in the Climate Change Act. As eminent economists like Blanchard and Sir Dieter begin to speak out about its costs, the firebreak between Net Zero and democratic politics becomes less tenable by the day. Sooner rather than later, politicians are going to start telling the truth about it. When that happens, Net Zero’s days will be numbered.

    But is it realistically likely to happen? A lot of MPs are probably glad Sunak and Starmer are trapped by the CCA.

    Liked by 2 people

  338. Is the hitherto ‘green’ FT beginning to see sense? Today’s headline:

    The metropolitan elite has ignored farmers for too long
    It’s time for political leaders to balance reducing carbon emissions with maintaining cheap food production

    Liked by 1 person

  339. Ross Clark has another interesting article in the Speccie today: John Kerry has unwittingly exposed the climate change wheeze

    His opening paragraph:

    Here’s a good wheeze: prod every last inch of your own country, open the taps and become the world’s largest producer of fossil fuels. Then, when other countries start to try to develop their own resources, tell them they mustn’t, for the good of the planet. In other words, make them all dependent on you. That is pretty well what John Kerry, the outgoing US special envoy on climate change, suggested on the BBC’s Today programme this morning.

    Having noted how the US overtook Saudi Arabia in 2017 to become the world’s largest oil and gas producer, citing the IEA Kerry insisted that Britain should not develop new oil and gas fields.

    Clark’s concluding paragraph:

    While Europe, Britain included, continues to sacrifice its industry and compromise its citizen’s lifestyles in order to pursue net zero targets, the US is pretty shamelessly using climate change as a means of promoting its own industries – oil and gas ones included. It is small wonder that the gulf between growth rates in Europe and the US is widening by the day.

    And we’re stupidly letting them get away with it.

    Liked by 3 people

  341. The Spectator’s editorial this week – headed ‘Net-zero targets have hamstrung British prosperity’ – covers much (but far from all) of the right ground, but is not nearly as forceful as it should have been.

    Starting with some material from the Confederation of British Industry and the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit that claims that, although the UK’s net zero economy is booming – especially with the creation of thousands of high paying jobs – this success is being put at risk by ‘mixed signals, policy U-turns and contradictory political rhetoric’. This it seems contrasts with the US and EU which are getting on with investment in ‘clean’ industries.

    The Speccie is unimpressed. Some extracts:

    …the CBI’s claims are at odds with what is really happening to jobs in renewable energy in Britain and Europe. The Danish wind company Orsted – formerly Denmark’s national oil and gas producer – cut 800 jobs and suspended its dividend last month after losing £2.5 billion in the third quarter of 2023. … According to the Inter-national Renewable Energy Agency, 5.55 million of the world’s 13.7 million jobs in renewable energy are in China, and only 1.8 million in Europe. Why China? Because energy is a lot cheaper there, for one thing. But China certainly isn’t using clean energy to manufacture Europe’s wind turbines and solar panels – 60 per cent of the country’s electricity is still generated by burning coal.

    … there is little joy in celebrating the creation of ‘net-zero jobs’ if, overall, the target to achieve net zero is costing you many more jobs while you lose your remaining industrial base due to high energy costs and excessive regulation imposed by net-zero targets.

    As the US is showing, what really powers industrial growth is cheap energy. That is where Britain, like Europe, is falling down. If we are losing out on investment and job creation, that has less to do with the relaxation of one or two net-zero targets. … It has rather more to do with the expense and bureaucracy being imposed on businesses in a desperate attempt to reach overly demanding net-zero targets.

    The problem with this article is that it understates the real problem: the net zero targets are not ‘overly demanding’, they’re utterly disastrous.

    Liked by 3 people

  343. Robin, I think we are witnessing the birth of a new quasi-political alignment, which may be just one of convenience or it may turn out to be something more permanent. XR/JSO yesterday joined forces with pro Palestinian protestors to jointly protest ‘climate justice and human rights’. You can’t be ‘for’ one or the other, you have to be signed up and ready to fight for both. Galloway doesn’t qualify obviously. I say ‘quasi’ because these people are fanatics and extremists and they WILL use violence and intimidation eventually if they do not get their way.

    Like

  344. This morning Net Zero Watch has published an important and timely report entitled ‘The Music Stops Net Zero and National Security‘.

    It comprises three short essays: ‘The Music Stops: steel, electricity and national security’ by Professor Gwythian Prins, ‘Dangerous Fantasies: ‘zero-carbon’ planes, tanks and ships in numbers’ by Professor Gautam Kalghatgi and ‘The Man in the Diesel Tank is King’ by historian Guy de la Bédoyère.

    I believe all three are essential reading.

    Liked by 1 person

  345. Another indication that net zero is weakening:

    The farmers’ net zero revolt has come to Britain. About time This civil unrest has a clear cause, however much our out-of-touch elites may try to deny it

    An extract:

    ‘The root cause of the crisis is the same in Wales as it is across the rest of Europe. An increasingly out-of-touch and unaccountable political and administrative class is more interested in showing off their commitment to “sustainability” than figuring out how farmers can make a reasonable profit while preserving the natural landscape at the same time. It turns out that it does not make much difference whether it is Brussels or Cardiff imposing the rules. The outcome is the same. Families that have often worked the same land for generations get crushed by rules designed by people who seem to know little about their way of life, or have little regard for whether they can survive financially.’

    And it’s not only farmers. Net zero means many (most?) ‘ordinary’ people will also be crushed by rules designed by people who seem to know little about their way of life, or have little regard for whether they can survive financially.

    Liked by 1 person

  346. My post about Galloway this morning was only half serious. But, now I’ve noted some of his policies, I can see why he did so well. As well as opposing net zero, they include supporting white working class voters (fed up with the socially and economically liberal political establishment) by promoting small businesses, taking a robust approach to law-and-order, defending biological reality in the name of traditional family values, reopening the Maternity and A&E departments at Rochdale Infirmary and making the open-air market the heart of the town.

    Hmm … good traditional values: the main parties could – but probably won’t – learn a lot from him. His contributions in the HoC should be interesting.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-galloway-won-rochdale/

    Liked by 1 person

  347. This is not directly about the UK’s net zero policy, but I didn’t know where else to post it.

    Another encouraging report :

    Europe’s consensus on climate is crumbling
    With farmers in revolt and the far right surging, is Ursula von der Leyen about to wreck her own green agenda?

    (It’s that evil ‘far right’ again – but it is the New Statesman.) An extract:

    ‘It is instructive to look at what happened to Green politics in Germany. The coalition of the centre-left SPD, the Greens and the liberal FDP started with great enthusiasm in 2021, but is now hopelessly divided. After a string of unpopular laws, Germany’s anti-Green surge has been in full force for some time. Both the far-right AfD and Sahra Wagenknecht’s new left-populist party have identified the Greens as their main opponent. They depict them as members of metropolitan elites forcing their urban values on rural communities. The language suggests parallels with Brexit. As the EU is associated with partisan policies of the centre left, opposition to those policies and opposition to the EU are starting to merge.’

    Is it possible that things really are changing – or is that just wishful thinking?

    Liked by 1 person

  348. Robin,

    It is certainly possible that things are really changing. As the reality of net zero-type policies hit home, rather than being events with effects at some remote point in the future, the electorate are bound to react negatively to them.

    In the UK, the huge imponderable (which by and large the media and politicians are ignoring) is how will the silent majority vote at the next election? It’s all very well pointing to the Tory vote collapsing and Labour surging (other than at Rochdale), but the huge winner so far has been “none of the above”. When I write “silent majority”, that’s exactly what I mean. Rochdale’s vote saw one of the highest turnouts since the last general election, and even there more than six out of ten electors didn’t bother voting. Elsewhere the turnout has been even lower.

    The voters who don’t (just now) vote could well be the people who decide the next election, assuming they do decide to vote. But what are they thinking, and who will they vote for? They are the very large elephant in the room, and the politicians can’t (or won’t) see them. They certainly aren’t talking about them.

    Liked by 1 person

  349. Another feature of the Rochdale result was that more than 70% of the votes cast were postal ballots. I find this very worrying.

    Like

  350. Paul Dennis,

    I hadn’t spotted that, so thanks for bringing it to our attention. I share your concern. As I understand it, postal votes were introduced so that people who were ill or incapacitated, and therefore couldn’t readily attend a polling station in person, would not be denied the right to vote. The wholesale adoption of postal votes by people who could go to a polling station but choose not to strikes me as worrying. Yes, there may be occasions when a fit person can’t attend in person, perhaps because they’re going to be on holiday, but if you can’t be bothered to attend (and after all, there are lots of them, so nobody has to travel too far), then what price democracy?

    I am bemused that the Guardian in particular seems to be campaigning sporadically against the need to produce ID when voting in person. The need to prove who you are before being allowed to vote strikes me as an important protection against voter fraud. Might postal votes be a way around that important protection?

    Like

  351. Robin G; That’s not wishful thinking – there are increasing numbers of straws in the wind these days. One which has not had the exposure it merits is the recent Antwerp Declaration which I mentioned a while back. In my view things must be getting desperate for so many companies and trade associations to take such a strong position in public.
    I doubt it will have much effect on the Eurocrats but the millions who work for those companies will probably take notice since their employers are warning that their jobs are at serious risk.

    Like

  352. Chris Morrison has a a most interesting (and important) article in the DailySceptic this morning:

    Met Office Must Account for the ‘Junk’ Temperature Data Propping up Net Zero Insanity

    Two ‘taster’ extracts:

    Pressure is likely to grow in the coming days for the U.K. Met Office to make a full public statement about the state of its nationwide temperature measuring stations. This follows sensational revelations in last Friday’s Daily Sceptic that nearly eight out of ten sites had huge scientifically-designated ‘uncertainties’ that essentially disqualified them from providing the accurate data required to promote the collectivist Net Zero agenda.

    So far as can be seen, no Met Office heat record has been set since 2000 at pristine Class 1 sites, which might not surprise given there are only 24 of them. Only two – the highest U.K. February temperature at 21.2C° and November at 22.4C° – have been set at near pristine Class 2 locations. Most propagandising for Net Zero revolves around higher temperatures, and without this ammunition the project will quickly wither. It explains why these so-called ‘records’ are rarely out of the mainstream media headlines.

    Reading in full is a must.

    Liked by 2 people

  353. Robin, I was pointing out 4 and a half years ago here at Cliscep that not only were dodgy high temperature ‘records’ from decidedly dodgy weather stations being cited directly as evidence of climate change, ‘scientists’ were actually doing attribution studies formalising the link between, for example, one ‘record’ hot day at a Cambridge Class 5 weather station and climate change – obligingly splashed all over the media of course. It’s unreal what they have got away with for so long.

    One Day Heatwave at Cambridge Botanical Gardens Made 20 Times More Likely By Climate Change, Experts Say

    Liked by 4 people

  354. In a Press Release welcoming the Government’s decision to defer the introduction of the so-called ‘boiler tax’, Andrew Montford says:

    It is more than likely that Mr Starmer and his party will simply introduce the system of fines after the election. That will be a bitter blow for electorate. But the Westminster establishment sees their needs as secondary to those of the green religion.

    [My emphasis]

    True.

    Liked by 2 people

  355. Jaime, Robin,

    Re: Class 5 weather stations.

    Oh dear, here we go again. According to the Met Office’s Chief Scientist, Professor Stephen Belcher, “in a climate unaffected by human influence, climate modelling shows that it is virtually impossible for temperatures in the U.K. to reach 40C°”

    Of course, what he is trying to do here is to persuade the public that the heatwaves are virtual proof of the AGW basis for the climate crisis narrative. As such he is making a statement of the type P(H|D) = 1 (or at least very near to unity). Except, the eagle-eyed will have noted that his statement is actually of the P(D|H) type, i.e. the probability of observing the data given the hypothesis, rather than the other way around. How is he managing to make P(D|H) come across as P(H|D)? Simple. He just says that ‘climate modelling shows’ rather than ‘climate modelling hypothesises’.

    I am left with the distinct impression that the chief scientist at the Met Office is another one who doesn’t understand about transposed conditionals, in which case might I suggest the real problem is not that there are too many Class 5 monitoring stations in the Met Office network but that there are too many Class 5 intellects in charge.

    Liked by 3 people

  356. Is the worm turning? Today, for the first time, I saw a large (home-made) sign hung from a building near a local main road, reading “No farmers, no food. Say no to net zero”.

    I have always thought that when net zero started to affect people adversely, and when it was obvious that net zero was the cause of the problem, it would rapidly run out of support. To date the authorities have done a pretty good job of disguising the fact that rising costs and problems should be laid at the door of net zero, but angry farmers may be the first sign that people are working it out.

    We can hope.

    Liked by 1 person

  357. Another Press Release by the GWPF: ‘Former World Bank economist warns of energy transition’s fiscal risks‘

    It refers to a linked paper by Professor Gordon Hughes. A GWPF comment:

    … Hughes reveals that a realistic estimate of Britain’s planned energy transition also has an astronomical price tag. Large investments in capital-intensive technologies for producing and consuming non-carbon energy is estimated to be a minimum of 5% of GDP for the next two decades and might easily exceed 7.5% of GDP.

    Some extracts from Lord Frost’s Foreword:

    ‘The message in this briefing note could hardly be more urgent. … Either we must be honest with the public and be clear that they are going to have to pay at a currently unanticipated level. Or we must extend the time period for the transition – that is, delay the net zero 2050 target, perhaps out till 2070 or 2075. Failure to do either – sadly, perhaps the most likely outcome – will mean that we simply muddle on, pretending we are making progress, spending at high levels, but achieving little. Meanwhile the rest of the world outside the West will look on, incredulous at this unprecedented act of economic self-harm.’

    Better still to cancel the wretched thing altogether – otherwise a useful comment, especially the last sentence.

    Like

  358. Further to the above, I strongly recommend Professor Hughes’s paper . It’s most interesting and well expressed and, although he cannot quite bring himself to say so, it makes it completely clear that Net Zero is in reality hopelessly unaffordable.

    He says we have a choice:

    Either: Government should set out to persuade the public that the huge sacrifice required to implement the ‘energy transition’ (i.e. Net Zero) is both necessary and feasible – an exercise that must be based on ‘full and realistic information’. Unsurprisingly, he doesn’t think that’s likely to be possible.

    Or: The time period allowed for the energy transition should be extended to a more realistic date, allowing the transition to proceed at a rate consistent with a budget of ‘perhaps 1% of GDP over a period of 40 or 50 years’. He suggests an end date of ‘2040, 2050, 2060 or beyond’.

    He clearly favours the latter (although I suspect his heart isn’t in it). It’s most unfortunate that he appears to believe it’s necessary to accept the need for an energy transition and therefore cannot even hint at a third option: to abandon the wretched project altogether.

    Liked by 2 people

  359. Robin, I agree that he cannot quite say the third option, namely that the project should be abandoned entirely and immediately.

    My own preferred quote comes from page 9, “However it is financed, the energy transition will involve a substantial reduction in household incomes and consumption for a population that has neither been prepared for such a shock nor agreed to it.” And all for something that, Robin, you have correctly characterised as ‘unachievable, disastrous, pointless’. Chilling.

    Regards, John.

    Liked by 1 person

  360. John, in a way I think I may be able to see what Hughes is doing here. His priority – remember, he’s an economist – is to show just how impossibly expensive Net Zero really is. This, he probably hopes, just might enable anyone with the merest grain of sense to see that the only practical way forward is to abandon the project. I don’t suppose he expects that to happen, but at least he’s made the harsh reality public. (Of course another harsh reality is that, as it comes from the evil GWPF, no one in power is likely to read it anyway.)

    Like

  361. Yes, Robin, I had wondered whether he was deliberately pulling his punches in order to drive the message home without raising the hackles of any reader who is (currently) a Net Zero enthusiast; that is a difficult balancing act. Regards, John.

    Liked by 1 person

  362. Little snippets keep leaking out regarding the unaffordability of net zero. For instance:

    “Winchester park-and-ride buses to run on vegetable oil”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-68478625

    “Kelsie Learney, cabinet member for climate emergency, said the change was an “interim step” until electric vehicles could be afforded.”

    Like

  363. Chris Morrison has posted a comment in the DailySceptic this morning about professor Hughes’s paper. His concluding paragraph:

    ‘Any future Government wishing to travel the path of Net Zero must make the choices of reducing public services and mandating savage cuts in household expenditure. Needless to say, the general population is in almost total ignorance about these realities. Hughes notes that the electorate has given no indication that they are willing to bear the costs involved. “Indeed until now all they have been told is that there are few or no trade-offs required, and technology will somehow magically solve everything.’

    Eventually – probably quite soon – ‘leading’ politicians will no longer be able to ignore this horrible reality. What will they do then?

    Liked by 2 people

  364. Robin, one answer might be to take up the suggestion made by Capell Aris in this paper (https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/should-we-abandon-electricity-generation-using-gas). That is, adopt modern gas-fired power station technology over the next 15 years and thereby achieve a good reduction in CO2 emissions, increased electricity security, and (I hope!) much reduced electricity bills. The latter would be welcome by every home and business, plus be a great boost to the economy. But it might mean less climate leadership. What is not to like?

    Regards, John.

    Liked by 1 person

  365. An excellent plan John. One problem: there’s essentially zero chance of Labour (almost certainly our next government) adopting it. R

    Like

  366. Another informative article from Francis Menton demonstrating the total absurdity of New York’s plans for 70% of electricity from ‘renewables’ by 2030. Yet Labour is aiming for 100% by the same date!

    Like

  367. Says Professor Hughes, “Indeed until now all they , ( i.e. the serfs,) have been told is that

    there are few or no trade-offs required, and technology will somehow magically solve everything.’

    Key word here is ‘magically.’      ‘

    Like

  368. A point from Hughes’s paper that puts the whole thing into perspective: he estimates that the ‘transition’ to Net Zero would cost a minimum of 5% of GDP for the next two decades and might exceed 7.5% of GDP. Yet the £28 billion p.a. for ‘green’ spending that Labour has abandoned as unaffordable would only have been about 1% of GDP.

    Like

  369. John: I’ve just read that Capell Aris paper advocating the building of new technology CCGT plants – especially on the sites of retired plants. If he’s right (and I suspect he is) they would have huge advantages not least their ability to burn gas from offshore gas fields or fracked gas – also to burn ‘syngas which can be extracted from UK coal, increasing our fuel security’.

    There are other huge advantages. An extract:

    ‘The existing site can be reused, including the operational, secure connection to the electricity grid. Building 30 GW of CCGTs on existing sites would cost less than £15bn. There are further benefits of reusing the CCGT sites. The cooling water system will be in place and only has to be reworked for the new plant. The small team that managed and operated the old CCGT can move across to the new. There will already be road access to the site capable of handling heavy loads’.

    I suggest Aris’s paper should be read in conjunction with David Turver’s recent paper (https://davidturver.substack.com/p/wait-for-the-blackout), noting in particular Figures 2 and 3.

    There’s no doubt Labour will face an appalling energy problem soon after they come into power (I’m assuming they will) and it will be interesting to see how they deal with it. Obviously renewables are not the solution. But how can they possibly reverse years of anti-fossil fuel rhetoric and build more CCGT plants? Yet, so far as I can see, that’s the only long-term solution.

    Like

  370. Hello Robin, I agree that there are lots of advantages in the Aris plan, not the least being that it could be implemented relatively quickly and thereby fill the gaping void in UK despatchable generating capability at very reasonable cost. I have been horrified recently to see that, at times, the interconnectors have been importing over 20% of demand in recent days.

    In times of scarcity, gas should ideally be used for chemical feedstock/domestic heating in the first instance. However, we are not in ideal circumstances due in large measure to the wilful blindness/rent-seeking greed of the misnamed-renewables lobby and its mesmeric hold over the political and media classes. So I say full steam/gas ahead, Mr Aris.

    As for the Labour wing of the uniparty, I just hope they can grasp this nettle rather than further debillitate the economy and further immiserate their core supporters who, like their Conservative counterparts, are losing faith in the traditional political parties – see Eatwell & Goodwin’s book “National Populism – the revolt against liberal democracy” wherein they spell out their four D’s describing the electorate’s understandable frustration:- Distrust, Destruction, Deprivation, and De-alignment.

    I added a fifth D by way of advice to politicians trying to counter the electorate’s sour but totally unsurprising mood of – if I have judged correctly- quiet, simmering rage: Don’t Do Dumb things to your voters!

    I had already sent Turver’s ‘wait for the blackout’ paper to my (Labour) MP requesting it be forwarded to seniors in the party and to relevant government ministers. However, I have thus far received only an auto-generated acknowledgement.

    Interesting times – I hope they don’t become too interesting.

    Regards, John.

    .

    Like

  372. Another interesting article by Kathryn Porter:

    New report: Gas network decommissioning


    I haven’t read the full report yet but the summary makes it clear that, once again, no thought has been given to the consequences of Net Zero pledges.

    Wrt the Capell Aris article, I fear he may have based his scheme on a false comparison. He cites the excellent efficiency, 64%, of the Siemens unit at the new Keadby plant and contrasts it with the much lower performance of the existing CCGT fleet at 46%. That latter figure strikes me as very low since CCGTs have been known to reach 60% for decades. Indeed, press releases for plants commissioned 10 – 15 years ago talk of 60% efficiency.
    So I wonder if he’s comparing the new unit running steadily at full output with existing plants ramping up and down, even stopping and starting, to compensate for fluctuating renewables output? That would be like comparing at new car’s fuel consumption at a steady cruise with an old one’s in mixed motoring.

    Like

  373. Thanks Mike. You may well be right about Aris comparing the performance of the Siemens unit at the Keadby plant with the performance of the current fleet. But that doesn’t detract from his observations about the many advantages of building new CCGT plants on the sites of retired plants. And – whatever Labour may believe – it seems pretty clear that we’re going to need new plants if we’re to have any chance of avoiding quite serious problems in the near future.

    Like

  374. Robin; I agree it’s a good idea in principle to re-use the sites. Much the same has been going on with the nuclear fleet for years – Sizewell B, Hinckley Point C and now the govt has bought back the Wylfa site for either another GW plant or a batch of SMRs.
    Given that most of the CCGT fleet is not that old, as power plants go, I wonder why he did not look at “re-engining” them? The ancilliary systems such as cooling, transformer kit, etc is probably good for many more years – probably also the generators. New, high-efficiency turbines and control systems would give those plants another 20 years easily.
    There were other things in the article which gave me the impression that it had been done in a bit of rush but you are right to focus on the fundamental point that it would make a lot of sense to re-use the existing sites.
    Of course, that assumes that there are companies willing and able to do the work. The Watt Logic article that I linked calls that into question because the lack of govt foresight and planning risks undermining the whole financial structure of the industry.

    Like

  375. https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/07/budget-will-increase-energy-bills-by-1-4-billion-to-subsidise-wind-power/

    See link above to David Turver’s analysis of yesterday’s UK budget …

    “… so guess what, all these new renewables are going to be considerably more expensive than current gas-fired generation. Electricity bills are never coming down, and it seem ministers don’t care and they are on a death wish to kill the economy and further impoverish the poor.”

    In haste, John.

    Liked by 1 person

  376. Combined with the extension on windfall profits, this seems very unlikely to be attributable to ‘insanity’, as claimed today by Rupert Darwall on X. This is calculated, deliberate, malign destruction of an advanced economy and the theft of the accumulated ‘wealth’ of the many (the increasingly impoverished working and middle classes) into the hands of a few Green crony capitalists. Labour will just accelerate this policy. But don’t forget, Putin is our worst enemy.

    Liked by 1 person

  377. Mikehig, re the advantages of upgrading the near-retirement CCCG plants you say doing so ‘assumes that there are companies willing and able to do the work’. True and, given political hostility to gas-fired plants, there may well be no such companies. But it also assumes that our political ‘leaders’ would support its happening. And that, because of their mad and ill-conceived Net Zero policy, is unlikely to happen – indeed some of them would probably applaud the demise of evil gas-fired plants.

    Like

  378. Robin, even if there are companies to do the work, the Kathryn Porter article makes it clear that the chances of getting funding for such work are going to diminsh sharply the closer we get to NZ deadlines. Indeed it may become difficult just to keep existing plants running.
    Cynical old me wonders whether this is simply a lack of foresight or has the anti-FF lobby within govt realised that, without action, the plants will be left to wither on the vine. As you say, that would serve the aims of the “first lemmings” and would let them deny any responsibility while attributing it to “the markets”.

    Liked by 1 person

  379. Yes Mikehig I’m sure many (most?) of our ‘leaders’ would be happy to leave these plants ‘to wither on the vine’. But where would that get them? Capell Aris and David Turver can help.

    First Aris: ‘Are Labour sleepwalking to energy disaster?’
    https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/are-labour-sleepwalking-to-disaster

    Based on an assumption that typically UK electricity supply varies between 35 and 45 GW, he shows that, given that a significant part of our reliable (gas and nuclear) generation is due for closure quite soon, by next year Labour may be faced with having only 18 GW left – and, by the end of its term of office, only 12 GW. In other words, as he says ‘ it is hard to imagine how we will avoid a serious crisis’.

    Now Turver: ‘Wait for the Blackout When will Net Zero turn out the lights?’.
    https://davidturver.substack.com/p/wait-for-the-blackout

    Taking a rather different approach from Aris, he calculates that fossil fuel and nuclear must be able to reach 32.3 GW to avoid a blackout when wind and solar fail Therefore, given pending retirements, he’s able to show when their capacity will fall below that requirement. The answer – assuming gas plants have a 30 year life –is that disaster could strike as early as next year (see his Figure 2). Then he does a similar calculation based on gas plants having a 40 year life and being eliminated altogether by a Labour government. This (Figure 3) shows disaster striking in 2028 – and utter disaster in 2030.

    He asks:

    ‘ what might fill the gaps? Well, the most obvious thing to do would be to keep the coal-fired plants running and nurse the gas-fired plants into a longer life. To be safe, we should be investing in more new gas-fired plants…’.

    And concludes:

    ‘… our generation capacity is in a parlous state and there is a very real risk we will face blackouts in the not-so-distant future.’

    Might our ‘leaders’ take any notice of this simple good sense? I don’t suppose so.

    Liked by 1 person

  380. “

    UK energy minister denounces his own government’s oil and gas plans

    Andrew Bowie criticized plans to extend the windfall tax on oil and gas giants.”

    https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-energy-minister-denounces-his-own-governments-oil-and-gas-plans/

    “Energy Minister Andrew Bowie has rejected a key plank of the energy plans announced in his own government’s budget.

    Bowie criticized plans unveiled by Chancellor Jeremy Hunt on Wednesday to extend the windfall tax on oil and gas giants.

    Bowie — whose west Aberdeen constituency is a hotbed for oil and gas jobs — branded the move “deeply disappointing” in the wake of Hunt’s speech.

    Downing Street has placed the minister on resignation watch, according to reports. POLITICO has approached Bowie for comment.

    Bowie said that he will be working with Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross — who confirmed he would not vote for the windfall tax extension — to “resolve” the issue.

    The government introduced the Energy Profits Levy in 2022 to bring in tax revenue from the soaring profits of fossil fuel companies. Hunt previously uplifted the rate and confirmed Wednesday that he would extend the tax by another year to 2029, raising an additional £1.5 billion.

    One energy industry figure and a government official told POLITICO ahead of the budget that Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho also fought back against the move.”

    Like

  381. Here is a good illustration of the delusions of net zero advocates:

    “Budget fell far short on UK green investment, experts say

    Green economists dismayed by failure to recognise one of the fastest-expanding areas of business”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/07/budget-fell-far-short-on-uk-green-investment-experts-say

    “Hunt, a self-described green Tory before he became chancellor, flourished a few minor measures with a green tinge. There was £120m for the green industries growth accelerator initiative, to be spent on emerging low-carbon technologies; a £270m push for zero-carbon aviation and road vehicles; a £1.5bn extension of the windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas to 2029; more money for offshore wind developers, to encourage them to bid to build new projects after previous offshore wind auctions failed; and slightly higher duties on business class flights.”

    To these people “more money for offshore wind developers” is a minor measure with a green tinge. They are so arrogant they don’t even state the cost of the latest CfD round. There is no recognition of the fact that the previous round failed miserably because attempts to drive down CfD costs in accordance with the propaganda that renewables are cheap, failed miserably. The latest round is back in massive subsidy territory. Renewables are not cheap, nor are they reliable. Over-reliance on them is an extremely costly national economic disaster.

    Like

  382. As an interesting aside, Radio 4 this morning announced that former Tory prime minister Mrs May (whose legacy is in part Net Zero policy) has announced that she will not be standing at the next general election in order to concentrate upon her other interests.

    I wonder whether Mrs May’s decision to stand aside was in any way related to the anticipated electoral wipe out of her Tory party. Anyway, if the Tories are indeed sent into opposition at the general election then, subsequently, without Mrs May they should find it easier to dump policies such as Net Zero which are electorally unpopular.

    [I have a talent for not receiving replies to the letters I had send to prominent people regarding disastrous energy/climate and related policies. In this vein I had writtern to Mrs May some time ago with information regarding the ever more apparent devastating effects of her legacy Net Zero policy; I requested, IIRC, that she should review it and, ideally, recommend the policy’s withdrawal. Unfortunately I have not yet received a reply.]

    Regards. John.

    Like

  383. David Turver has posted another excellent, well-researched article this morning:

    ‘Offshore Wind: Follow the Money UK billpayers subsidising overseas investors and getting expensive, unreliable energy in return‘

    His conclusion:

    ‘ What we have seen is that it is not just the wind turbines that are offshore. The subsidies are harvested from UK billpayers and exported in the form of dividends and interest payments to offshore entities. Even the electricity itself is sold to traders in foreign countries so they can take their cut. The offshore wind industry is merely a means of lining the pockets of overseas investors at the expense of British energy consumers and UK taxpayers. What we get in return is expensive and intermittent energy that cannot be described as good value on any measure. We even have UK-based lobbyists taking their own cut to promote this rip-off. How do they sleep at night? It is the classic bait and switch trick on a grand scale. The overseas operators, financiers and banks are having a field day using our money.

    We appear to have fallen prey to an offshore parasitic class, facilitated by Government and lobbyists who are getting rich by sucking the lifeblood from society. Yet, all the while they insist it is good for us and the planet. It is time this industry was held to account.’

    IMO it’s a must-read.

    https://davidturver.substack.com/p/offshore-wind-follow-the-money?utm

    Liked by 2 people

  384. Yes, Robin, another excellent piece, and a must-read. It’s fascinating, in an appalling sort of way. Greedy capitalists, many of them foreign, making huge amounts of money out of a massive confidence trick, egged on by the anti-capitalist Guardian that never stops bleating about “Big Oil”. Seriously, you couldn’t make this stuff up. It’s surreal. When are we going to wake up and when is the nightmare going to end?

    Liked by 3 people

  385. Good thread from David Turver on Twitter, concluded, aptly, by a photo of Emma Pinchbeck in her dressing gown standing outside No.10:

    Like

  386. So far, I’ve got as far as Figure A and gone clunk. I don’t think offshore wind can produce 200,000,000 MWh in a month. Say 10 GW flat = 10,000 MW * 720 hours in a month = 7,200,000 MWh in a month. To get to 200 million MWh you’d have to produce >200 GW flat out.

    If anyone would care to sanity check my numbers, I’d be pleased. Meanwhile I’ll read the rest.

    Like

  388. Jit; Yes, something is well adrift with those numbers. He’s looking at CfD payments which, aiui, cover about 60% of our offshore wind capacity so 9 GW. Apply a capacity factor of a generous 40% across the year and that gives 31,500 GWh or 2,600,000 MWh per month on average

    Like

  389. Quite right too. Well worth another read, to remind ourselves how outrageously economically illiterate all this nonsense is. I haven’t yet decided whether I am ready to throw myself 100 per cent into Jaime’s camp regarding her view of our politicians. Perhaps they are all Byron wannabes – mad, bad and dangerous (for UK taxpayers and energy users) to know.

    Like

  390. Thanks Mike. Your numbers make sense. Oddly the mistake does not appear to be a substitution for KWh.

    Like

  391. Jit and mikejch: interesting, but I don’t think your calculations affect Turver’s conclusion that ‘The offshore wind industry is merely a means of lining the pockets of overseas investors at the expense of British energy consumers and UK taxpayers.‘

    Like

  392. A hardly believable article in today’s Telegraph:

    More cash for wind farms near towns as net zero shift stretches grid
    Government plans zonal pricing to encourage developments in high population areas

    The Government’s plan is to ‘introduce zonal pricing, with generators paid different rates according to the distance between their assets and consumers’ and thereby incentivise developers who ‘would be encouraged to buy up swathes of farmland in a region stretching from London to Bristol and up to Norwich and Cambridge for solar parks and wind farms.’

    Hmm … that doesn’t seem likely to be especially popular.

    A key aim it seems is ‘to halt an increase in ‘constraint payments’ – where wind and solar farms are paid to turn off their generators to stop them overloading the grid at peak times. This is particularly a problem when energy companies build wind farms in remote northern locations with insufficient grid connections to carry their power south. This can cause infrastructure to be overloaded at times of high wind. Operators can claim compensation payments for switching off in order to prevent power surges. Last year this added more than £300m to consumers’ bills. A government source said the change would cut consumer bills by an average £45 per year.’ Wow – big deal!

    An extract:

    ‘ Ofgem has calculated that 20 gigawatts of solar power generation is needed in southern England. Solar farms need up to 4,000 acres of land for each gigawatt, implying 60 million industrial solar panels need to be spread across an area equivalent to 40,000 football pitches.

    The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England has warned that such a plan could mean many tenant farmers being thrown off their land, greater pressure on the green belt, and rural landscapes altered forever.’

    Yet more proof – if any were needed – that Net Zero is quite mad.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/10/wind-solar-farms-south-england-charge-more-energy/

    Liked by 2 people

  393. Quite mad indeed.

    The problems created by their earlier stupid policy are now to be addressed (probably unsuccessfully) by another incredibly stupid policy. It’s enough to make me weep.

    Liked by 1 person

  394. Mark: enough to make you weep. Maybe – although I don’t weep easily. But is it enough to persuade you to throw yourself 100 per cent into Jaime’s camp regarding her view of our politicians?

    Like

  395. Paradoxically, that ‘More Cash for Windfarms’ story seems to be largely about solar farms: see the extract about Ofgem that I cited. And that serves to emphasise the madness of the Government’s plan. Current solar farm proposals in southern England are already seriously unpopular amongst local people and environmentalists, so why stir up yet more trouble, especially when solar power contributes so little to UK electricity generation (less than 5% over the last 12 months)?

    Like

  396. Robin; going back to Turver’s article on wind finances, you are quite right that those anomalous figures should not affect his conclusions. I am probably just being picky but that sort of thing makes me wonder if there are other errors which are not visible but distort the calculations?

    A few days you linked to the article by Capell Aris. A few points made me “go clunk”, as Jit says.
    ~ It puts demand at 35 – 45 GW: a quick look at Gridwatch shows that it ranges between 25 and 40 GW.
    ~ On our nukes, it says they will be shut down by 2031, forgetting Sizewell B which should be good for at least another 20 years. Plus it puts the start date for HPC at 2027 which is well out of date – it’s into the 30s now and there’s a gap of at least a year between Unit 1 and 2.
    ~ It talks of 25-year lifetimes for CCGT plants but DUKES shows that there are over a dozen plants which are already at or beyond that age: 30 or 40 years would be more appropriate.
    The broad conclusions are absolutely right: we’re in deep do-do. It’s a shame that such inaccuracies rather detract from the impact – for me at least – and provide easy ammo for anyone looking to discredit the article.

    Liked by 1 person

  397. All good points Mike – especially your concern about other errors. Note that, when I referred to that Capell Aris article, I also referred to one by David Turver. The latter has – unsurprisingly in my opinion – some rather different figures, especially his two charts with one showing CCGT plants having a 30 year life and the other (assuming some upgrading) a 40 year life. Of course both were written re a Labour government which is unlikely to be interested in spending much (if any) money on keeping gas plants going.

    BTW it’s interesting that https://grid.iamkate.com shows the past week with a 33.5 GW electricity demand and the past year only 29.8 GW.

    Like

  398. According to iamkate (speaking of such things) we are, apparently, currently importing 20.8% of our electricity needs via the interconnectors. So much for energy security. Oh yes, and coal is producing more than solar at the moment (admittedly it’s dark, so solar is producing nothing, as it does through much of the winter).

    Like

  399. The jury is still out regarding our politicians, Robin, but my view of them keeps getting lower, and I didn’t think that was possible.

    Like

  400. Robin; yes, the Turver article does a better job, although there are a few points:

    ~HPC will come online in two stages.

    ~The capacity graphs make no allowance for outages, maintenance, etc so the available capacity will probably be less at any given time, exacerbating any shortfall.

    ~”keep the coal-fired plants running”: there’s only one left – Ratcliffe – and that is on its last legs as, reportedly, it is not viable to keep running beyond its planned closure.

    ~”we have not installed a new CCGT plant since 2016″ is incorrect – Keadby 2 started up in the middle of last year.

    Again, the conclusions are undoubtedly valid and the next govt is going to have to face them pretty soon.

    Wrt to those grid figures, I would guess that the past year is lower than the past week because we are in winter. Looking at gridwatch, demand in summer runs in the 20 – 30 GW range whereas in winter it’s more like 30 – 40 GW.

    Like

  402. Mark; you beat me to it with that eugyppius article!
    It would be very interesting to find out whether there are similar articles circulating in other countries. We hear a fair bit about the US – Francis Merton’s articles are excellent but what’s the state of play elsewhere?
    Maybe a thread could be launched – “From our correspondent” – if there are enough readers in other countries?

    Liked by 1 person

  403. mikejch: I daresay various of the figures quoted by Aris and Turver are incorrect but, as you say, that doesn’t affect their conclusion that an incoming Labour government will – re its energy policy – face some major obstacles. So, to understand what they’re planning, I went to the party’s website (https://labour.org.uk/missions/) where I found that one of its five missions is to ‘Switch on Great British Energy’. Expanding that and downloading the ‘full briefing’ (https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Make-Britain-a-Clean-Energy-Superpower.pdf) I got a document headed ‘Make Britain a Clean Energy Superpower – to cut bills, create jobs and deliver security with cheaper, zero-carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net zero.’

    Now the problems with cutting bills, creating jobs and delivering security have all been aired here, so – in view of the above discussion – I thought I’d have a closer look at ‘zero-carbon electricity by 2030’ with particular focus on how they plan to deal with renewables’ intermittency. Scrolling down to find the answer I passed a lot of contentious material but, tempted though I was to stop and comment on much of it, I soldiered on to page 6. And there I found the answer:

    ‘ Invest in carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, and long-term energy storage to ensure that there is sufficient zero-emission back-up power and storage for extended periods without wind or sun, while maintaining a strategic reserve of backup gas power stations to guarantee security of supply.’

    You’d think that, with a mere five years to get to zero-carbon electricity, they’d be focusing hard on one intermittency ‘solution’. But No – they’re ‘investing’ in them all: CCS, hydrogen and long-term storage (batteries?) – an approach that most unlikely to resolve the challenge. But perhaps they know that and have (wisely?) decided they need that ‘strategic reserve of backup gas power stations’. Given the numerous problems and uncertainties associated with CCS, hydrogen and batteries, it seems highly likely that for substantial periods in a typical year those gas power stations would be working flat out.

    In other words, Britain wouldn’t be a clean energy superpower after all.

    Liked by 1 person

  404. Robin,

    “Jaime’s camp”.

    It’s not my camp, it’s just one I came across and decided that it’s probably the most appropriate place to be, given the available evidence. Here is an X thread by Ben Pile. The Cons – and now Labour – have hooked up with Green billionaires in order to do their bidding on Net Zero. The activities of these Green billionaires are clearly deliberate, intentional and designed to maximise their own wealth at the expense of the common people. The excuse they use is ‘saving the planet’ but it is obvious to us and is surely obvious to them that this will not be the outcome. Therefore their intent is both mendacious and malign.

    Politicians are sucking up to these people. The evidence suggests that they are not just being used as useful idiots but they too have a stake in promoting the destructive collectivist Net Zero agenda. Thus they are co-conspirators; they are not ‘mad’, they are bad – and dangerous.

    (Ridiculous and very irritating – WP will no longer embed tweets in comments. You will need to go to Ben Pile on X to see the thread!)

    Like

  405. Jaime: that was Mark’s term not mine (see his post yesterday).

    I find it hard to see how anyone (except perhaps China, Russia and Iran) benefits from destroying the UK economy. No, as I’ve said before, I think the majority of our politicians either truly believe the ‘green’ nonsense or are too frightened of the consequences of saying they don’t. We’ve agreed to disagree about that – let’s leave it there.

    Best wishes – Robin

    Like

  406. Robin,

    The UK’s Net Zero Policy – an Update

    Green multi-billionaires – promoting Net Zero in collusion with Western politicians – in addition to nations, like China, India and Russia, demonstrably benefit from the destruction of the manufacturing economies in the West and from the impoverishment of normal citizens, whose collective wealth is being transferred into their own pockets. This is not hard to see, but very hard to unsee.

    Like

  407. Useless WordPress again. I copied the address of a comment and it printed it as the post!

    Robin’s comment above (10 March at 5.19 pm):

    Mark: enough to make you weep. Maybe – although I don’t weep easily. But is it enough to persuade you to throw yourself 100 per cent into Jaime’s camp regarding her view of our politicians?

    Like

  408. Jaime,

    It was my comment that led Robin to use the words he did about your “camp”.

    The old question is whether it’s conspiracy OR cock-up. It’s starting to look like a conspiracy TO cock-up.

    Liked by 1 person

  409. Jaime: here’s what Mark said (in a post that pre-dated mine):

    ‘I haven’t yet decided whether I am ready to throw myself 100 per cent into Jaime’s camp regarding her view of our politicians.‘

    The timing look odd because his post went into spam – although I got it as an email.**

    Re your earlier comment let’s, as I said, leave it on an agree to disagree basis.

    ** I see Mark has just confirmed this.

    Liked by 1 person

  412. “We must end the Net Zero delusion before it’s too late

    Enough of the pretence. The current path threatens our economy, society and democracy, and we urgently need a change of direction”

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/11/we-must-end-the-net-zero-delusion-before-its-too-late/

    “…Pity the prime minister in charge in 2033, when the sixth “Carbon Budget” kicks in, or in 2035, when electricity will apparently be fully decarbonised. A gulf now lies between the wishful thinking of the political class and economic reality, yet still the discourse is dominated by doomsday language and a worrying desire to silence dissent.

    Consider the words of Climate Change Committee (CCC) boss Chris Stark, when asked for clarity over claims of a “mistake” (which it has denied) made by the body. “How’s this,” he told his team, “kill it with some technical language.” Like the clergy greedily collecting tithes from peasants unable to understand Latin, the green Blob seem to assume an unsuspecting public can be confused or shamed – usually both – into compliance.

    The CCC, set up to advise government on climate policies, is useful to elected leaders eager to grandstand without taking responsibility or accountability for the choices they make for us. It allowed politicians to bypass the opportunity to scrutinise the 2050 target because they relied on the CCC’s apparently unchallengeable assessment that net zero was “necessary, feasible, cost-effective” and “achievable with known technologies”.

    Yet in December, the OECD warned that the shift will leave our economy £60 billion – or 1.65 per cent – smaller. The idea that the green economy will lead to a jobs boom ignores the redundancies in those sectors that can never ride the net-zero wave, while the suggestion that the UK will be more prosperous and secure is difficult to square with our growing reliance on other countries for gas, oil, steel and the manufactures they rely on. It is time politicians ended the delusion that the current, top-down, centrally-planned approach to decarbonisation is the right one, and can be delivered at low cost…

    …Last week, however, that optimism was all but extinguished. Jeremy Hunt expanded the “one-off” windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas companies for another year, despite the risks to supply and investment, and the Government is reportedly pressing ahead with its “boiler tax” after much speculation the harebrained scheme would be scrapped. Companies that don’t install enough heat pumps will face a hefty fine, even though they have no control over demand for the controversial technology. It’s the same logic as the zero emission vehicle mandate, where car makers that don’t meet the government-mandated quota of EV new car sales could face a fine of £15,000 per extra non-compliant car sold. We are replacing things that work with things that don’t, or will cost more, and forcing businesses to foot the bill. In the end, of course, it is the consumer who will pay.

    At a time when the Government has little wriggle room on tax and spend, it would be cost-free to hand power back to Parliament, and end the reliance on arbitrary dates and an unaccountable CCC. We could take a more flexible path, driven by international best practice and guided by new estimates of costs, which were not available in 2019. Sunak could be remembered as the PM who bucked the trend and set Britain back on a sustainable and sensible path towards decarbonisation after the mistakes of his predecessors, a last expiatory act for the Tories’ sins of commission and omission before the waters close over the party forever – or at least the foreseeable.”

    Liked by 2 people

  414. Posted this on Open Mike but more relevant here –

    Net zero costs to hit poorest households hardest, warns Ofgem (msn.com)

    Starts well with this partial quote –

    “Ofgem raised concerns on Monday about how energy bills are being used to shoulder the cost of going green, particularly as the Government ramps up the roll-out of renewables such as wind and solar. “

    Then ends with –

    “However, the growing level of debt means a longer-term approach is needed to ensure we have a stronger market and the right support for struggling consumers to protect them from future price shocks and ensure all consumers benefit from the transition to a new cleaner, more secure energy system.”

    Says Tim Jarvis, Ofgem director general.

    Like

  415. This is extraordinary: there seems to have been an outbreak of common sense amongst some of our senior politicians. It’s almost as if the Government and Labour(!) have been reading Cliscep.

    A BBC headline this morning: ‘New gas power plants needed to stop blackouts, Claire Coutinho to say’ (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68538951)

    An extract:

    The UK risks blackouts unless it builds new, gas-fired power stations, Energy Security Secretary Claire Coutinho will warn today. The new stations will replace existing plants, many of which are aging and will soon be retired. But the government says the CO2 produced will not be captured – a measure which limits climate change. The government said new gas power stations were needed to have a safe and reliable back up for days when renewables like wind and solar didn’t deliver. PM Rishi Sunak said he would not “gamble with our energy security“. The decision is part of a wide-reaching review of how the UK’s energy market works. Labour … acknowledged retiring gas-fired stations needed to be replaced.

    [My emphases]

    With a life of about 40 years these plants will last well beyond 2050 – making a mockery of Net Zero.

    Fracking next?

    Liked by 2 people

  416. Something seems to happen to politicians when they cease to be politicians. I have often watched a relaxed former politician (who I disliked intensely when they were in Parliament) on TV, appearing to be likeable, intelligent and sensible – characteristics that seemed to be missing when they were an MP. In the case of the Tories, perhaps common sense is breaking out in anticipation of their imminent demise? Shame it’s too late!

    Like

  417. Well, the Guardian hasn’t wasted any time in responding to the news:

    “Sunak faces anger over gas-power strategy for ‘backing up renewables’

    PM says he will not gamble on energy security, in move likely to be seen as backwards step in decarbonising network”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/12/sunak-gas-power-stations-renewables-energy-security-decarbonise

    “Rishi Sunak risks further criticism from green campaigners after throwing his weight behind the building of new gas-fired power stations, saying he will “not gamble with our energy security”.

    The government will on Tuesday announce a plan to increase gas power capacity by providing extra certainty to investors that plants have a long-term future, even as Britain moves away from fossil fuels.

    Ministers said it represented a “commonsense decision” to ensure power supplies kept flowing during the transition to net zero. They argued that gas plants were a “safe and reliable source” when weather conditions did not power wind and solar farms.

    The government stressed that the move would not impact net zero targets. However, critics are likely to see it as a backwards step in the wider push to decarbonise Britain’s power network through renewable energy projects. Some big energy firms have deserted the gas industry in recent years to focus on renewables, which have a more certain future.

    Last year, gas accounted for 32% of Great Britain’s electricity generation, ahead of 29% from wind and 14% from nuclear. The last remaining coal-burning plant, at Ratcliffe-on-Soar in Nottinghamshire, is due to close in September…”

    The prospect of a Labour government remains a major concern for me in this area, when Mr E. Miliband can be quoted as coming out with nonsense like this:

    “…The shadow energy secretary, Ed Miliband, said: “Of course we need to replace retiring gas-fired stations as part of a decarbonised power system, which will include carbon capture and hydrogen playing a limited back up role in the system.

    “But the reason the Tories cannot deliver the lower bills and energy security we need is that they are specialists in failure when it comes to our clean energy future: persisting with the ludicrous ban on onshore wind, bungling the offshore wind auctions, and failing on energy efficiency.”…”

    The reason we don’t have energy security and lower bills, Mr Miliband, is precisely because we have placed too much reliance on expensive, intermittent and unreliable renewable energy.

    Liked by 1 person

  418. Further to the above, Sunak has an article in today’s Telegraph.

    An extract:

    …it’s time to grasp the nettle. It’s time to set out the plan to secure our energy supplies on the road to net zero – and that’s what we’re doing today. While we will continue leading the world in renewable power we will also take decisive action to boost our gas power capacity. First, by extending the life of existing gas facilities, where it is practical to do so. Second, by building the necessary new capacity to replace the gas-fired power plants that will need to be retired. When the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing, this is how we will keep your lights on and your bills down. It is the insurance policy Britain needs to protect our energy security, while we deliver our net zero transition.

    I’ve always believed that probably the biggest problem (one of many problems) with the adoption of wind and solar power is their intermittency. Building new fossil fuel based plants would seem to be the most obvious as well as the simplest solution. I suggest that one other advantage (if it happens – but note that Labour seems to support the move) is that it must inevitably and gradually undermine the case for Net Zero.

    Mark: it’s interesting that Miliband’s comment quoted by the Guardian doesn’t actually say that carbon capture will apply to the new/updated gas plants.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/12/rishi-sunak-energy-security-gas-net-zero-north-sea/

    Liked by 2 people

  419. Robin, Mark,

    So, reading between the lines, this appears to be an admission from the government that battery back up and storage or hydrogen storage of wind and solar generated electricity is pie-in-the-sky and is never going to supply sufficient energy to meet demand when the British weather does not play ball. Gas fired generating stations will be able to meet demand. But as for ‘energy security’ and ‘reducing consumer bills’ forget it. There is no energy security with continuing reliance upon gas if that gas has to be imported because we have banned fracking and north sea gas exploration and investment is being curtailed. Running CCGTs on an ad hoc basis only when needed because the wind isn’t lowing or the sun isn’t shining is expensive and inefficient. Consumer bills will not come down. Also, the Green blob is likely to launch lawfare challenges, especially as these gas fired power stations will not be run using carbon capture and storage technology (which would further add to the cost of using them as backup). Until Net Zero legislation is repealed, the farce will continue.

    Liked by 3 people

  421. Jaime: well said! But note: these changes will almost certainly be introduced under a Labour administration which I believe is likely to get an easier ride from the Blob than would a Tory administration. Moreover it may be that Labour, facing the reality of being in power and able to blame the Tories for all our energy ills, would find it easier to do what’s necessary to avoid the horrors of blackouts. And my comment above that the introduction of new gas plants must inevitably and gradually undermine the case for Net Zero is I suggest true whoever is in power.

    Liked by 1 person

  423. Thanks MikeH, Kathryn Porter’s analysis is, as always, first class. Her quote from a Government Press Release re Coutinho’s speech at Chatham House today is most interesting:

    Energy Security Secretary, Claire Coutinho, is expected to say:

    “There are no two ways about it. Without gas backing up renewables, we face the genuine prospect of blackouts. Other countries in recent years have been so threatened by supply constraints that they have been forced back to coal.

    “There are no easy solutions in energy, only trade-offs. If countries are forced to choose between clean energy and keeping citizens safe and warm, believe me they’ll choose to keep the lights on.

    “We will not let ourselves be put in that position. And so, as we continue to move towards clean energy, we must be realistic.”

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/energy-secretary-takes-action-to-reinforce-uk-energy-supply

    Powerful stuff.

    That Press Release is worth reading in full. In my view, it makes an unanswerable case for fracking. See this from Coutinho:

    ”From my time in this role, it is clear to me that we have entered a new era. It’s an era in which energy can be weaponised against us. An era where our adversaries can inflict harm directly on British families and businesses through energy prices.

    “If we cannot retain control of energy prices, if we cannot protect families and businesses from the threat of future shocks, then we are not really secure. So, we must be hard-headed about the future of our energy system. We must put national interest over ideology.“

    Reality seems to be biting. At last.

    Liked by 3 people

  425. David Turver is sure to comment on this government Press Release. I’m guessing that his comments will be overall more cynical than praiseworthy! Though I could be wrong. From my own perspective, though the more realistic tone is welcoming, I see a lot of weasel-worded phraseology in there.

    Like

  426. Jaime: I thought Coutinho’s comments were refreshingly free of weasel-worded phraseology. Didn’t you?

    As for Turver, a week or so ago he got close to saying that what’s being announced today is what’s needed: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/wait-for-the-blackout. However, I think he may point out that to treat these new plants only as back-up (as Sunak and Coutinho seem to be saying) would be an error. We’ll see.

    Like

  427. Writing in the Daily Sceptic, Will Jones cites a retired scientist with a background in wind energy:

    ‘The truth is that if we wanted to keep the lights on and the bills down we would run the gas-fired power stations 100% of the time and close down the renewables which are an expensive folly.’

    Says it all really.

    Jaime: something else that Turver might say?

    https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/12/rishi-sunak-is-right-to-turn-to-gas-but-wrong-to-claim-he-is-keeping-bills-down/

    Liked by 2 people

  428. Robin; yes, it’s encouraging stuff. Of course there’s the cynical view that they know it is very unlikely that they will be around after the election to implement anything so are setting Labour up to fail. Even so, it’s a positive that the issue is much more in the open now. We can hope that the media might start asking more about measures to keep the lights on.

    A key indicator of how much these plants are expected to be used will be the configuration chosen. If they really believe that these will only be needed for occasional, short-term back-up then most of them should be OCGT as that offers lower capital, simpler construction and faster response times, at the expense of higher fuel costs. However if, as I suspect, they go for mostly CCGT that will be a sure sign that they expect the plants to run for considerable periods each year.

    There’s one aspect which has not been mentioned, afaik. Is it possible to “re-engine” the older plants? While the turbine itself may not last much beyond 30 years, it seems likely that many of the other systems would last much longer: the generator itself; cooling systems; switchgear; buildings; transformers; etc.. It would be very interesting to see if anyone has done a proper engineering study of the possibilities. If feasible, it would be quicker and much cheaper than building a whole new plant, plus a new turbine would offer better efficiency.

    Liked by 1 person

  429. Robin,

    Coutinho is expected [?] to say:

    “There are no easy solutions in energy, only trade-offs. If countries are forced to choose between clean energy and keeping citizens safe and warm, believe me they’ll choose to keep the lights on.

    We will not let ourselves be put in that position. And so, as we continue to move towards clean energy, we must be realistic.”

    Putting aside the ridiculous notion that bird-chopping, bat-munching, cetacean-culling, tree-felling, farmland and natural landscape-swallowing, steel, concrete and rare earth-constructed ‘renewables’ could possibly be called ‘clean’, this government HAS put itself in the position of having to choose between ‘clean’ renewables and ‘dirty’ carbon dioxide producing hydrocarbons. What on earth is she *expected* to be on about?

    Like

  430. This has been really interesting stuff – for the last ~2 days. (Not saying it’s not been interesting before, but only just read that far back.)

    No groundbreaking comment from me. But I agree with MikeH et al that it is still significant what Coutinho is saying, despite the assumed electoral cycle situation. The climate nudge people want total silence for any kind of dissenting view. This isn’t that.

    Liked by 1 person

  431. Jaime: Coutinho’s comments are cited as ‘expected’ because they come from a Press Release issued several hours before she delivered her Chatham House speech.

    A Minister – especially a newly appointed one – is expected to stick firmly to the party line. Hence the ‘clean’ energy reference. But that doesn’t detract from the fact that her announcement today was, as I’ve said, extraordinary: despite years of anti-fossil fuel rhetoric, the Government has decided to build new gas capacity. A dose of reality which may – I sincerely hope – be the precursor of more such good sense. In that context, here’s reminder of something else she said:

    “…we must be hard-headed about the future of our energy system. We must put national interest over ideology.”

    Amen to that!

    Like

  432. It looks as though the BBC is already regretting leading (briefly) with the news that we need gas to stop the lights going out. It has already disappeared from the front page of its news website, and there wasn’t a mention in the headlines when I listened to the 6pm news on Radio 4 this evening.

    Like

  433. “What are fossil fuels? Where does the UK get its energy from?”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63976805

    Given the plans to electrify the UK’s energy system, you just have to look at the graph early in the article showing the % of UK energy by fuel type in 2022 to realise the utter impracticability of both the net zero project and its suggested timescale.

    Like

  434. Yes Mark, it was amazing how quickly the story disappeared. Very early yesterday morning it was the lead story, but by about 7:00 it was displaced by a report on another horror inflicted on Gaza by the vicious Israelis. That remained for most of the day (joined by a story of a Tory donor making nasty racist remarks about Diane Abbott) while the new gas power station story vanished altogether.

    Like

  435. Jaime: you may be interested in this comment by John Constable at Net Zero Watch:

    ‘Net Zero dies, not with a bang, but a whimper. Subsidising new gas power stations to prop up unreliable and uncontrollable wind and solar means that the failing Net Zero target can limp along for another five or ten years at huge consumer cost and vast economic damage. Looking on the bright side, these power stations will eventually be used as part of the desperate return to fossil fuels that is inevitable as reality bites home and wind and solar are abandoned. But with a little courage all of this absurd cost could have been avoided. What a mess.’

    So … where I express a hope, Constable makes a prediction.

    https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/recognition-need-for-gas

    Liked by 2 people

  436. Robin, whichever way you slice it, providing backup for intermittent weather dependent renewables is going to very very costly, whether that backup comes from so called ‘planet heating’ hydrocarbons or more ‘sustainable’ options like batteries and Green hydrogen. This in the Telegraph today. Bills are just going to keep rising if we want to keep the lights on. So yes, common sense must hit home at some point, but there’s going to be a lot of hardship beforehand.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/12/millions-of-households-face-200-increase-energy-bills-gas/

    Liked by 1 person

  437. But Jaime surely backup from gas-fired plants (as planned) will be vastly less expensive than the unknown costs of trying to provide backup from battery or hydrogen storage?

    Liked by 1 person

  438. Yes Robin, it will, but gas back up to dominant but intermittent renewables is still going to be unnecessarily costly compared to reliable gas and nuclear generating the lion’s share of our electricity, with renewables contributing only a modest amount. I think this is significant, perhaps even more so than the government’s announcement. Things are moving fast now. The dam might be about to break.

    Liked by 1 person

  439. ‘The dam might be about to break.’

    It would be wonderful if it were. But I very much doubt it – there are just too many powerful forces supporting the policy. I hope I’m wrong.

    Like

  442. Fanatics?

    “UK government accused of trying to ‘stoke culture war on climate issues’

    Green MP Caroline Lucas says call for investment in gas-fired power plants is election ploy that will jeopardise UK’s net zero target”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/13/uk-government-accused-of-trying-to-stoke-culture-war-on-climate-issues

    “Green MP Caroline Lucas has accused the government of stoking a culture war on climate issues by calling for more investment in new gas-fired power plants before a general election.

    Lucas used an urgent question in the House of Commons to challenge the energy minister, Graham Stuart, on the plans set out on Wednesday, which could see a string of new plants built in the coming years despite the government’s commitment to phase out fossil fuels.

    She called on Stuart to admit that “this is the government’s latest attempt to stoke a culture war on climate”. The MP for Brighton Pavilion warned that the plans to encourage more investment in unabated gas power in the 2030s would jeopardise Britain’s climate goals.

    The shadow climate change minister, Alan Whitehead, echoed the concerns and accused the government of trying to “conjure a culture war” with energy policy…”

    Liked by 2 people

  443. Mark:

    Very significant use of ‘culture war’ applied to (a slight) backing off from Net Zero dogmatism and impracticality, by the one Green MP and the shadow climate change minister.

    Culture war is mostly used of racism and rumours of racism and the many heated positions in the transgender debate. Without question this use is trying to tar with the worst of brushes.

    But interesting they’re not, as reported, using the conspiracy theory slur.

    I think they’re running out of smear rope. Too many cries of ‘unwoke wolf’.

    Like

  444. Mark:

    Very significant use IMO of ‘culture war’ applied to (a slight) backing off from Net Zero dogmatism and impracticality, by the one Green MP and the shadow climate change minister.

    Culture war is mostly used of racism and rumours of racism and the many heated positions in the transgender debate. Without question this use is trying to tar with the worst of brushes.

    But interesting they’re not, as reported, using the conspiracy theory slur.

    I think they’re running out of ropy smears. Too many cries of ‘unwoke wolf’.

    Like

  445. “culture war” from Wiki –

    “In political usage, the term culture war is a metaphor for “hot-button” politics about values and ideologies, realized with intentionally adversarial social narratives meant to provoke political polarization among the mainstream of society over economic matters of [3][4] public policy[5] and of consumption.[1] As practical politics, a culture war is about social policy wedge issues that are based on abstract arguments about values, morality, and lifestyle meant to provoke political cleavage in a multicultural society.[2]“

    makes sense to me (not)

    Like

  446. Mark,

    Desperate days indeed for our homegrown fanatics. The allowance of the intervention of realistic policies to counter the worst excesses of fantastical thinking is a ‘culture war’. Well perhaps it is, but then they are losing very badly in that case.

    Liked by 1 person

  447. Yeah, Jaime, I’m very happy to be in a culture war in this area, and to be seen by intellects on the level of Caroline Lucas as being in a culture war. “Welcome back to the fight. This time I know we will win,” as the resistance hero says to ‘Rick’ at the end of Casablanca. (Bogart doesn’t get the girl but one can’t have everything.)

    Liked by 1 person

  448. I think we may be reading too much into this. After all, comments by Ms Lucas hardly matter and, as both the BBC and Guardian reported on Tuesday, Labour has agreed that we need to replace retiring gas-fired power plants. Given that their energy policy includes maintaining a ‘strategic reserve’ of such plants, that was hardly surprising. I suspect Alan Whitehead felt that, as the Tories were being attacked, he had to join in.

    Like

  449. For me, it wasn’t the knee-jerk opposition (all too predictable) to the use of gas-fired power stations that was significant – rather, it was the use of the phrase “culture wars”. When they lose the debate, they turn to slurs and dodgy expressions. What on earth do culture wars have to do with a sensible debate regarding how we keep the lights on?

    Like

  450. Yes, Mark – but, as I just said, Labour isn’t opposing the build of new gas-fired power stations and Ms Lucas’s view hardly matters. And, if the use of these curious expressions amounts to acknowledgement that the debate is lost, I suppose we should be pleased.

    Like

  451. PM yesterday:

    [After a prolonged bout of spluttering about who owns the BBC…]

    Now, MPs had a chance today to question the Energy Minister about what had looked like an announcement yesterday that the UK was going to be building more gas-fired power stations to generate electricity, notwithstanding its Net Zero commitment for 2050. The announcement was press released by government, there were quotes from ministers. But in fact it was really all part of the launch of a rather technical consultation document called “Review of Electricity Market Arrangements”, REMA; and the gas-fired power stations bit was not really anything of a surprise. In the Commons, the Shadow Minister for Energy Security, Alan Whitehead, wondered whether there had been some politics in the way the announcement had been spun.

    WHITEHEAD: Can the Minister give us clarity on whether this is a meaningless announcement within existing policy arrangements, or an announcement that actually as has been said, is an attempt to conjure a culture war out of climate and energy policy with announcements with no substance or value and indeed that shows they have no serious plan for energy in our country?

    From about 38:30. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001x526

    Like

  452. Thanks Jit – interesting. It’s certainly true that the announcement made by Coutinho yesterday was, according to the preceding Press Release, part of a much wider consultation document and therefore could be interpreted as not being a firm commitment. Sunak’s article subsequently published in the Telegraph seems however to be clear enough:

    While we will continue leading the world in renewable power we will also take decisive action to boost our gas power capacity. First, by extending the life of existing gas facilities, where it is practical to do so. Second, by building the necessary new capacity to replace the gas-fired power plants that will need to be retired.

    Nonetheless, Whitehead would seem to be justified in asking for clarity about whether or not the announcement was Government policy. However, if that means that Labour, contrary to Tuesday’s reports, doesn’t support the idea of building new gas-fired plants, they would seem to be getting themselves into a dreadful muddle.

    Like

  453. Robin:

    if the use of these curious expressions amounts to acknowledgement that the debate is lost, I suppose we should be pleased

    I wouldn’t go so far as calling it a conscious acknowledgement. It’s just that in the past demonising any critics on energy policy, not least through spurious allusions to Donald Trump, has been an easy win. But this time ‘denier’ is out, ‘conspiracy theorist’ is out, and instead we have the weak-as-water ‘conjure a culture war’ (alluding to the US and Trump to my mind). The smearing no longer has the power it did because it’s been way over-used.

    Having said that, what Graham Stuart said in response, relayed on PM, immediately after the bit Jit transcribed, was atrociously bad in every particular. If ever a party deserved to be thrown out of government with a massive swing this is it.

    I would never vote for this Labour Party though, due to its stance on transgender ideology, on antisemitism in the UK and on bonkers energy policy. Protest voting also seems pointless.

    Liked by 1 person

  454. Richard:

    I’ve found that accusations of ‘denier’ etc. usually signalled that my opponent knew they had lost the debate (on the few occasions when one was allowed). Although I accept that that didn’t mean they’d come to accept my position. But you’re right that smearing has lost its power; and that’s undoubtedly a step forward.

    I’ve now seen Stuart’s response. As you say, quite dreadful. And unhelpful: was Coutinho’s announcement Government policy or merely a suggestion?

    Liked by 1 person

  456. Thanks Mark – a well expressed piece. I’m unsure about some of his numbers but that’s unimportant. The author (Mark Ellse) concludes by describing Sunak’s ‘dash for gas’ thus:

    The logic is simple and irrefutable. The only real renewable available in quantity is wind. Since our total energy needs are 2,000 billion units per year, let’s increase the number of wind turbines so that, at peak, they have a capacity of 2,000 billion units per year. Let’s also build gas turbine power plants which will generate 2,000 billion units per year. So when the wind is blowing at full strength, we use wind. When it is blowing at half strength, we use half wind and half gas, and when it is not blowing at all we use all gas. On average we will then be half wind and half fossil fuel – and paying a fortune for the privilege.

    It’s simple arithmetic to see that this kicks out all notions of Net Zero. At best it’s Net 50%. As the Green Alliance think tank says, it “flies in the face” of Net Zero. It’s like Canute commanding the tides to hold back, while gradually backing up the beach so that his feet only get half wet. It’s a climb down. But that’s what happens when laws of the land conflict with natural law. It’s the former that have to give way.

    Good one – although I don’t think Sunak is proposing such a massive investment in gas.

    Like

  457. Re the above, a commentator (‘vermint’) says this:

    There are going to be many more “Canute” moments ahead. Net Zero was never discussed. No one questioned it. Not the cost, not the practicality, not even if the technologies required could even be invented, especially in the daft time scales proposed. ——-Who in their right mind enters into something not knowing the cost or even if it is in the least bit feasible? —–Only one bunch of silly people do stuff like this. Ideologically motivated brown envelope politicians pandering to United Nations phony environmental politics that pretends to be about the climate. ——–Reality has a habit of coming up and biting people. Todays political class are going to feel they have just been mauled by a pack of rabid hyenas when the real world starts to not just bite them but tear off their arms and rip out their guts. They are living in cloud cuckoo land and the hyenas are coming for them.

    I wish I was as eloquent.

    Liked by 2 people

  458. As expected, David Turver has published his view of the Government’s unabated gas for backup announcement. It’s quite short so I’ll quote the meat of it here:

    This week, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak took to the pages of the Telegraph to front-run the statement by Claire Coutinho to announce that the Government is committed to building new gas-fired power stations. This was positioned as a “common sense” decision to ensure we have enough generation capacity when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.

    On the face of it, this is a welcome move, because only last month, this Substack was warning of the risk of blackouts because much of our gas fleet is approaching retirement age.

    However, there are significant problems with this announcement. It is a tacit acknowledgement that wind and solar renewables are not reliable and need to be backed up. In effect, we are being asked to fund two generation systems. One that works and is reliable, and another that only works in favourable weather conditions. This begs the question of why not simply invest in the system that works?

    In other words, much the same message as yesterday’s King Canute story.

    https://davidturver.substack.com/p/-rishi-goes-for-two-system-solution

    Liked by 5 people

  459. I know the electric ambulance story has been covered elsewhere, but I thought an article by Karol Sikora (a senior cancer specialist) in today’s Telegraph put the whole absurdity into perspective. Some extracts:

    Patients above politics, every single time. Yet politics is exactly what the NHS’s new net-zero drive – with its roll-out of electric ambulances and fixation on reducing the environmental impact of cannulas – is all about. Ask any patient waiting for a diagnostic biopsy, cancer treatment or a hip replacement what they would prefer – timely care, or a greener facility delivering it? The answer will always be the same.

    As we are constantly reminded, resources are limited. So who decided that this green agenda should be at the top of the list – and how can they justify it to the public? In my 50 years as a doctor, I’ve never seen the NHS in such dire straits. Patients are dying unnecessarily because of systematic delays. And many are suffering without proper symptom control. The NHS is simply unable to provide sufficient care in a timely manner. Its carbon footprint is of no consequence in comparison to its failure to deliver on its core mission – and attempts to electrify ambulances, for example, put patient safety at greater risk.

    The politicisation of the health service is not limited to the green drive. Its CEO Amanda Pritchard has boasted about the diversity of the workforce as one of its greatest strengths. Last year NHS England had plans for community and diversity departments with a staffing budget of almost £14 million per annum. But the net-zero push is another example of a health service seemingly more concerned about scoring virtue-signalling points than delivering for patients. If the NHS was truly world-leading, then this frivolous nonsense might be tolerated. But it’s not. Let’s get the service back to basics. Patient care above all else. That’s the only thing that really matters.

    Worth reading in full:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/15/net-zero-green-ambulance-electric-vehicle-nhs-backlog/

    Liked by 2 people

  461. Oh dear indeed Mark. A pity they’ve got the wrong date in the first line:

    Keynote speeches from the Ofgem strategy launch conference on 22 February 2023

    Like

  462. An interesting article in the Guardian this morning:
    Sunak and ministers stoking division over UK’s net zero target, warns Ed Miliband

    Fiona Harvey reports that in a speech today Ed Miliband will say that ‘Ministers are stoking the fires of the culture wars over the UK’s net zero target instead of addressing the urgency of the climate crisis’.

    It’s interesting because it seems to be becoming the standard response to anyone belittling net zero or similar policies to say that they’re indulging in ‘culture wars’: see posts here on 13 and 14 March. Maybe that’s because it’s easier to deploy this (to me) meaningless phrase than to deal with the real issues.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/18/sunak-and-ministers-stoking-division-over-uk-net-zero-target-warns-ed-miliband

    Liked by 3 people

  463. Culture war references in this context are crass and divisive, where what we need is a grown-up debate, followed by an INFORMED electorate being allowed a choice. Some of the net zero zealots are (perhaps correctly) terrified of democracy. Their language and behaviour are, IMO disgraceful.

    Liked by 3 people

  465. The Speccie had two articles about Net Zero this afternoon:

    The first, ‘Ed Miliband’s dangerous net zero fantasy’ is by Ross Clark. And the second, ‘The Tories are stuck in a Net Zero trap of their own making’ by Rupert Darwall.

    Here are a few choice comments from the former:

    Rishi Sunak, [Miliband] claims, is condemning us all to higher bills by watering down net zero targets. All, apparently, out of a desire on Sunak’s part to ‘stoke the fires of a culture war’.

    The trouble is that the number of people who share Miliband’s fantasy – that net zero will save us money – is fast diminishing. … For example, Olivier Blanchard, former chief economist of the IMF, told the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee last month that there will be a ‘substantial fiscal cost to net zero… The public do not believe, or has not been made to understand, that it is going to be costly for them. It is going to be costly and the message has to be set out.’

    Miliband has failed to explain how his plan will deal with the problem of intermittency of wind and solar. …The possible solutions – such as battery storage, hydrogen storage or continuing to use gas plants fitted with carbon capture and storage – are all either fantastically expensive or don’t even exist yet at scale in Britain.

    Miliband’s promise to decarbonise electricity by 2030 and save us money in the process is doomed from the beginning. It is a failure that voters are unlikely to forgive if they see bills surging as a result of net zero policies in the next parliament.

    And from the latter:

    The Prime Minister’s pronouncement that Britain needs investment in new gas-fired power stations to keep the lights on is a rare moment of realism in the fog of Net Zero delusion. … in a speech on the same day by the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary Claire Coutinho … argued that pretending ‘you can do things overnight is a fundamentally dishonest position’, referring to Starmer’s pledge to decarbonise the grid by 2030 rather than by 2035.

    But there is a fundamental difficulty with Sunak and Coutinho’s attempt to position themselves on the side of realism and honesty on this issue. They too are trapped by their commitment to achieving Net Zero. The Tories’ differences with Labour on this are mainly matters of degree. Both parties are committed to decarbonising the grid in absurdly short time scales, both pledge a massive build out of wind power that will push up energy bills and both have played down the impact of intermittent wind generation on the grid.

    … Coutinho gets electricity generation back-to-front. Rather than gas providing backup for intermittent wind-generated power, gas-fired capacity provides the backbone of the grid and wind is a high-cost, optional extra. In essence, investing in wind requires having two parallel sets of generating capacity: one that generates electricity only when the wind is blowing and one that can generate electricity 24/7.

    Furthermore, new gas power stations will be required to be ‘Net Zero ready’ when they’re built. Either they must be able to connect to carbon capture and underground storage (CCUS) or have turbines that can also burn green hydrogen. On CCUS, the government is making a £20 billion bet on what Coutinho calls ‘this game-changing technology’. CCUS needs costly pipeline and storage infrastructure, not to mention that the post-combustion removal of carbon dioxide incurs an additional energy penalty. Outside the oil and gas industry, where CCUS is used to enhance oil and gas retrieval, the technology has yet to demonstrate commercial viability and quite probably never will. Betting on silver bullets seldom turns out well. … Green hydrogen is another silver bullet that’s colossally expensive.

    … the costs of Net Zero are off the charts. Yet Coutinho says the government will stand with potential investors if they avoid ‘hiking bills for families’. Similarly, the Prime Minister promises to deliver Net Zero ‘but not by piling thousands of pounds worth of costs onto households’. Both are being less than honest in their denial of a trade-off between decarbonisation and the cost of energy.

    Both are worth reading in full:

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ed-milibands-dangerous-net-zero-fantasy/

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-britain-needs-new-gas-fired-power-stations/

    Liked by 1 person

  466. “Scotland’s climate target unreachable says watchdog”

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgrv45ed1po

    “Scotland’s flagship 2030 target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is now out of reach, the government’s independent advisers have warned.

    The Climate Change Committee (CCC) said the measures that would be needed to achieve the target by the end of the decade were “beyond what is credible”…

    …Scotland has missed eight of the past 12 annual targets for cutting planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.The latest figures – for 2021 – show emissions were 49.2% lower than the baseline year of 1990. The target for 2030 is 75%…

    …The committee’s assessment said the Scottish government’s actions “continue to fall far short” of what is legally required to reach the targets.It adds that most key indicators of delivery progress are off track, significantly so across a number of areas.These include electric van sales, tree-planting and recycling rates.Heat pump installations were at half the recommended level in 2023, with just 6,000 fitted.That will need to increase by a factor of 13 – to 80,000 annually – by the end of the decade.The CCC said there had been no progress in recycling rates over the past 10 years.New electric car sales in Scotland are lower than for the UK as a whole although public charge point provision is on track…”

    Like

  468. My favourite extract from the Darwall article:

    ‘…Coutinho gets electricity generation back-to-front. Rather than gas providing backup for intermittent wind-generated power, gas-fired capacity provides the backbone of the grid and wind is a high-cost, optional extra. In essence, investing in wind requires having two parallel sets of generating capacity: one that generates electricity only when the wind is blowing and one that can generate electricity 24/7.’

    Liked by 2 people

  469. Net Zero is NOT government policy, it is a legal obligation thrust upon successive governments who have to try to tinker with policies in order to fulfil that legal requirement, or at least look like they are trying to fulfil what is essentially an impossible target in order to avoid lawfare attacks from well-funded green blobbists and JSO eco-terrorists.

    “Thanks to the Climate Change Act (2008) imposing on the government a legal duty to pursue Net Zero, the wind industry has ministers over a barrel. The government has ‘listened to the energy industry’, Emma Pinchbeck, chief executive of trade group Energy UK, told the FT, and Jeremy Hunt’s boost to the renewables budget had sent an ‘important signal’ to investors.

    Shadow energy secretary Ed Miliband, who drove the Climate Change Act through parliament, said Coutinho was attempting to open up a culture war.”

    As David Turver points out, Pinchbeck is pushing for the rising costs of renewables subsidies to be loaded onto the cost of gas in order to try to hide the rising costs from the public and force the adoption of heat pumps as the alternative to gas boilers. More dishonest tinkering. Nothing will avert the inevitable catastrophic collapse of energy security and grid reliability which lies ahead unless the CCA 2008 is repealed in its entirety. That’s not going to happen. Buy a generator and invest in some off grid solar panels if you want to keep the lights on.

    Liked by 2 people

  471. We’ve noted Labour’s ludicrous ‘Clean Power by 2030’’ plans before but an article in today’s Telegraph confirms their utter absurdity. Headed ‘Unprecedented surge in offshore wind needed for Starmer’s net zero plan’, it can be found here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/20/surge-offshore-wind-needed-starmers-net-zero-plan/

    A few snippets:

    a five-fold increase in turbine installations and a massive expansion in port capacity

    Since 2015, offshore wind has expanded by about 1.4 gigawatts per year – equivalent to about 150 to 200 turbine installations annually.
    Labour’s targets would mean increasing annual installations to 7.5Gw or 750 turbines…

    deploying 60GW offshore wind by 2030 will require significant expansion of the transmission network and a rapid scaling up of supply chains.

    Labour also plans to … install several thousand more turbines on uplands across Great Britain, as well as turning an area of countryside bigger than Middlesex into solar farms.

    Four thousands kilometres of new transmission lines by 2030 will require at least a 250pc increase in raw materials …

    Ashley Kelty, energy research director at investment bank Panmure Gordon has a sensible comment: “This is political virtue signalling without any comprehension of the realities around the energy transition. There is a snowball’s chance in hell of achieving anywhere near the targets promised…” True.

    Liked by 2 people

  472. Here’s the rub: Labour’s Green Prosperity Plan is for the birds, it was hatched in Cloud Cuckoo Land and there it will stay. However, Labour’s Green Poverty Plan is well on track.

    Liked by 2 people

  474. @Mark – 20 MAR 24 AT 6:33 AM comment – “Scotland’s climate target unreachable says watchdog”

    quote – “Heat pump installations were at half the recommended level in 2023, with just 6,000 fitted.That will need to increase by a factor of 13 – to 80,000 annually – by the end of the decade.”

    Never going to happen, you have to wonder if someone in a nice warm office has had a liquid lunch before this installation brainwave.

    Heat pumps may be practical down south England but not for most area’s in Scotland, it gets very cold in winter as I can testify to 😦

    Like

  475. SNP retreat is “high water” for Net Zero
    Net Zero Watch welcomes Scottish Government’s new-found realism on climate.
    https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/high-water-for-net-zero

    Andrew Montford:

    This is a purely political decision. Whatever course they take, the Scottish Government will face opposition from environmentalists, the Climate Change Committee and their Green coalition partners. But they have no option. You can’t negotiate with reality.

    [My emphasis]

    When will England catch up?

    Liked by 2 people

  476. I’m not keen on badging all environmentalists as net zero enthusiasts. In fact, the consequences of net zero are terrible for the environment, so if anything, these terms are antonyms.

    Liked by 2 people

  478. From today’s FT:

    A ‘critical year’ for the UK’s carbon capture ambitions
    Whether the nascent industry turns into reality rests on talks taking place behind the scenes

    Good thinking – ‘talks’ are obviously the key to fixing CCS problems.

    Like

  479. Robin: Do you remember the “Is it a crisis?” debate in New York in March 2007 between Lindzen, Stott & Crichton and Gavin Schmidt and co? In his brilliant talk (always worth a listen, for me, at least once a year) Michael Crichton outlined the hypocrisy of the ‘climate concerned’ celebrities who wouldn’t dream of reducing their own emissions. Then wittily asked

    Is talking enough? I mean, the talking cure of the environment … didn’t work in psychology, it won’t work for the environment either … is that enough to do? I don’t think so. I think it’s totally inadequate.

    — YouTube video

    He goes straight into an impassioned plea for cheap energy for the poor of the earth. And finishes, close to tears. The year before he died. I think he knew he had terminal cancer by this time. Oh my.

    Liked by 3 people

  480. There’s a dreadful article in the Telegraph today. By Ben Marlow, Associate Editor, it has an excellent headline:

    ‘The threat of blackouts is looming and our politicians are clueless about what to do
    Britain’s major parties are failing to offer real solutions to the energy crisis‘

    And that of course is only too true. But Marlow’s ‘solution’ is no better. Far from it: he thinks we must build

    ‘the vast electricity storage facilities required to store wind and solar-generated electricity … more batteries, advanced compressed air energy storage, pumped hydroelectric dams, and underground salt caverns for collecting hydrogen’.

    The stratospheric costs and impossible timescales of all this? And natural gas and coal? Not even mentioned.

    I’m close to despair.

    Liked by 3 people

  481. Richard – I hadn’t seen that. Thank you so much for drawing it to my attention. Very moving. No, talking is not enough.

    Liked by 1 person

  482. Paul Homewood has commented on the Ben Marlow article. He has a simple solution:

    ‘embark on an emergency expansion of our CCGT fleet, and immediately abandon any further expansion of renewables.’

    John Cullen has posted a question in response to Paul’s article:

    ‘A (naïve) query that I have not seen answered elsewhere is this. Hydrogen combusts with oxygen for produce energy and water vapour; the water vapour can condense to form clouds or, at ground level, fog. So why are all these proposed ground-based hydrogen-fueled vehicles [cars, lorries, buses, trains etc.] not going to create a pea-souper of a fog the like of which we have not seen in decades – well, not seen here in my neck of the English Midlands?’

    Perhaps someone here can answer it.

    Like

  483. Robin,

    I don’t know the answer to that question, but the other point about hydrogen use is that its resultant creation of water vapour involves the creation of a greenhouse gas. Why does this apparently not matter?

    Like

  484. The combustion of hydrocarbons also creates water.

    On rare occasions combustion may be enough to produce local fog (cold, moist, still air).

    Liked by 1 person

  485. Mark, the occurrence of water as a greenhouse gas is self-limiting, as it condenses and falls back to earth. It doesn’t matter how much water you pump into the atmosphere, it will sooner or later make an exit. In other words, rain is what saves the day.

    Liked by 1 person

  486. Richard –  Thanks for that 2007 debate link – just shows how the same debate still rumbles on.

    only thing from it I noticed was GHG Methane got a good few mentions.

    Stott came across well.

    Like

  487. On Monday the Speccie had an article about the UK’s relationship with China. Although it didn’t mention energy, several readers liked my comment:

    Because China essentially controls the supply of key materials, for example so-called rare earths, without which so-called renewables cannot be manufactured, Tory and Labour energy policies, dependent on renewables, are a potential disaster. It’s a reality that puts our national security as well as our energy security at serious risk.

    Labour’s assertion that net zero will ‘deliver energy security‘ is absurd nonsense. Starmer yesterday: ‘In an increasingly insecure world, with tyrants using energy as an economic weapon, Britain must take back control of our national energy security.‘ That’s true. But we won’t achieve it by adopting a policy that’s dependent on materials controlled by China. Allowing ourselves to get into this position is almost unbelievably foolish.

    Liked by 3 people

  488. Robin: “No, talking is not enough.”

    It’s partly because Crichton was part of the Hollywood/West Coast glitterati himself, but a trained scientist, that his critique was both amusing and devastating.

    dfhunter: “just shows how the same debate still rumbles on”

    Well, yes and no. After suffering a substantial loss in the popular vote (or swing of the vote) that night, in highly Democrat NYC, Schmidt and his chums never did an open debate of this form again.

    I think I’ll say more on this but in the Climate The Movie thread – because Durkin’s previous effort ‘Swindle’ was also released in March 2007. Or within a month of that.

    Liked by 1 person

  489. Richard, I’ve just watched the full debate. Although those for the motion were easily the most persuasive, I wasn’t particularly impressed overall. Also I couldn’t find any detail of how the voting changed from the initial to the final result. Have you got a note of that?

    Like

  490. Robin

    In this debate, the proposition was: “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis.” In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.

    — NPR ‘Global Warming Is Not a Crisis’

    Given the likely ‘priors’ of the NYC audience that was extremely striking I thought. And I think Schmidt et al thought exactly the same. So no more of that!

    Even if the non-crisis side’s arguments were middling to terrible, what did we learn?

    Liked by 1 person

  491. Thanks Richard. ‘What did we learn?‘ Hmm … inter alia that appeals to consensus and authority and – oh dear – ‘think of the children’ don’t much help an argument.

    Liked by 1 person

  492. Yet the sneerers have been winning in the court of elite/government opinion ever since. (I well remember people commenting on Climate Audit about the sneering Schmidt in this debate and how badly that went down with the ‘unwashed masses’, when he could get away with this attitude towards dissenters on his own blog, RealClimate.)

    Anyway, I have tried to set up a wider debate on how we should view such things on Jit’s Climate the Movie.

    No offence, Robin, but you’re at 491 comments with this one and our limit is 500!

    Like

  493. ‘our limit is 500‘. I didn’t know that. But why? Surely a long thread indicates a healthy discussion.

    Like

  494. Richard,

    You can pinpoint the exact moment when Gavin Schmidt lost the audience if one listens to the audible gasp at 1:10:04 into the video. It’s the moment when he:

    a) accused the opposing team of lacking integrity and

    b) suggested that the audience was not educated enough to be able to see this for themselves

    He hasn’t engaged in public debate since because he fervently believes it would only give ‘pseudo-scientific’ sceptics another opportunity to fool the public.   

    Liked by 2 people

  495. Robin: I confess it’s a WordPress setting that any administrator can change. And you are one of those!

    I’ll do an email thread on that forthwith, with the relevant people. Later today.

    Like

  496. Or perhaps I should post a new article entitled ‘The UK’s Net Zero Policy – a Second Update‘? (It probably needs to be updated again anyway.)

    Like

  498. Yes thanks for that precise locator of a key moment in climate history John. When my laptop’s back in action I’ll enjoy taking another look.

    Like

  499. Three things:

    1. Don’t worry Richard, I won’t be ready to post this for several days. In the meantime a brief email discussion would be welcome.

    2. PLEASE no more posts on this (almost expired) thread. Give me room for a final comment.

    3. The more I think about it, the more I think a ‘Second Update’ might be a good – even necessary – plan. Before I try to articulate my thinking on this I recommend this article: Invasion of the Virtue-Signallers by Graham Cunningham. I’m beginning to think climate change might be able to make a useful contribution (no more) to a fight-back. I’ll explain why and how an updated post might help later.

    Liked by 1 person

  500. OK – so why might a second update contribute to a fight-back? The first thing to note is that, although I think Cunningham’s (and Putin’s) views (see above) on the destruction of Western traditional values, about the capture of higher education by ‘progressive’ opinion and about its colonisation of our institutions and the consequential corrosion of our society are accurate, I think his proposed solution (his ‘fight-back’) is hopelessly unachievable Quite simply, I don’t see how his proposed ‘sledgehammer legislative approach’ – even pursued with ‘Machiavellian sleight of hand’ – could possibly happen.

    No, we have to develop another approach – an approach where virtue-signalling and claims of victimhood cannot be relevant and where there’s no need for the total upheaval of Cunningham’s ‘solution’. And I believe climate change provides a perfect opportunity for just that. The overriding need to ‘tackle climate change’ is I think one of a few beliefs that are common to academia, leading politicians, the civil service, the NHS, the military, major charities (e.g. the RSPB and the National Trust), the Church of England, the MSM … etc. Yet I’m pretty sure that quite soon – possibly even within the next twelve to eighteen months – ‘climate action’ is going to be shown to be utterly impracticable. Harsh reality, already beginning to bite, will I think become a major factor completely nullifying the virtue-signallers’ view that ‘something must be done’ – a ridiculous position to take when anything that could be done is shown to be both hugely expensive and clearly ineffective. So how might an updated article on Cliscep contribute to something that – if I’m right – is going to happen anyway? I suppose my answer is that it cannot be very much: hardly anyone is aware of Cliscep. However I believe that nonetheless having a succinct note of the issues involved, a note we can focus on, think about, discuss and argue about can help us to engage, as I try to do, with the outside world – and especially when it’s expounding the orthodoxy. By so doing I suggest we can ‘nudge’ third parties towards an earlier understanding of reality. Obviously, it must be advantageous for that focus to be as accurate and complete as possible.

    And – re other ‘progressive beliefs – who knows where the defeat of net zero might lead?

    Liked by 2 people

  502. That’s really interesting Robin. A cogent ‘line of attack’ on much broader issues?

    As you and the other active admins know, I’ve raised the comment limit to 520, just to allow a sensible ending here! After that no commenting will be possible. (Probably best to leave that to Robin himself.)

    Like

  505. Robin – Funny how your “Invasion of the Virtue-Signallers” links with another article comment by John on this site “When Behavioural Scientists Misbehave – Climate Scepticism (cliscep.com)“

    partial quote from your link –

    “Research in the US context finds that “the political beliefs of the median federal government employee lie to the left not only of the median Republican, but also the median Democrat”. (In the UK context, Unherd columnist Peter Franklin reflecting on his own experience of working in two government departments comments: “How many of the civil servants that most closely serve this Conservative government are actually Leftwing? Well….I would say approximately all of them”.)

    Like

  506. In my most recent post above I said:

    Harsh reality, already beginning to bite, will I think become a major factor completely nullifying the virtue-signallers’ view that something must be done – a ridiculous position to take when anything that could be done is shown to be both hugely expensive and clearly ineffective.

    And that ‘already beginning to bite’ phrase is nicely exemplified by an article by Ross Clark (yes, him again) in the Telegraph this morning:

    ‘The EU’s net zero retreat is gathering steam
    Across Europe, 72 gigawatts-worth of gas plants are being built, as nations realise you cannot power a national grid on solar and wind alone‘

    Some extracts:

    ‘Only a “consensus” of climate activists with their heads in the clouds – plus Ed Miliband – thinks we could save consumers money by closing down all our gas power plants in the near future.’

    ‘… Britain is not the only country that is building new gas plants. Across Europe, 72 gigawatts-worth of them are being planned. This may well be contrary to the targets governments have set themselves to decarbonise their power sectors, but when forced to make a choice between virtue-signalling and keeping the lights on they are invariably choosing the latter.’

    ‘… when ideology collides with reality, governments are not going to sacrifice the well-being of their citizens. The move to build new gas plants is yet one more sign of Europe’s retreat from unrealistic net zero targets.’

    It may be that events will move so quickly that a revised article criticising Britain’s Net Zero is unnecessary. However I very much doubt it. But attitudes seem to be changing quickly and it may well be, as I suggested above, that a revised article can have little practical effect on that change. But, if nothing more, it can provide a forum for monitoring what seem certain to be some interesting developments.

    Liked by 3 people

  507. Lionel Shriver, one of my favourite journalists (also a good novelist), has an amusing article in the current Spectator:

    ‘Going electric requires electricity. Who knew?’

    Some extracts:

    Lo and behold, when you push people to electrify everything in their lives – cars, cookers, heating systems – while bribing them to go all-electric with lavish government subsidies, it turns out they use more electricity. Who would have thought?

    Burning fossil fuels to not burn fossil fuels is a tad inconsistent. Utilities all over the US are busy building gas-fired power plants to meet rising demand for electricity, when the whole point of this exorbitant energy ‘decarbonisation’ is to stop burning the likes of gas. The NYT calls it an ‘ironic twist’ that the demand for electricity from green technology is imperilling the whole point of green technology, but I call that instead ‘wholly foreseeable’.

    Intermittent wind and solar power require fossil fuel backup. Now, most of us are bored witless from reading repeatedly that ‘when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine’ some unreasonable people still expect to flip a switch and have a light come on. But NYT journalists haven’t been reading the same tiresome articles we have. ‘In interviews,’ an article explains, ‘utility executives say gas is needed to back up wind and solar power, which don’t run all the time.’ See, to come to this astonishing conclusion, they had to conduct interviews.

    BTW, any Britons inclined to smugness should talk to Ross Clark, because the cart-before-horse idiocy of going electric-everything without the, ahem, electricity is even more irresponsible in the UK.

    We’re all being victimised by denial, wishful thinking, dogmatism rather than idealism, and rank incompetence. To forestall climate change, wildly impractical energy policies jeopardise the very populations they’re meant to protect.

    I’ve completed a draft of the second update of my article. It should be posted within the next few days. (This is comment number 506.)

    Liked by 3 people

  508. Robin; another straw in the wind wrt to the futility of our NZ efforts….Last year China’s CO2 emissions increased by almost double the UK’s total emissions. (From an exchange on NALOPKT).

    Like

  509. An article by the Telegraph‘s Sunday political editor:

    ‘Claire Coutinho: Labour’s dangerous net zero plans leave UK at China’s mercyEnergy Secretary says Opposition’s ‘unfeasible’ 2030 target would leave Britain over-reliant on Chinese-made resources’

    Well said Claire – absolutely correct. Just one problem: your plans are no better.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/30/claire-coutinho-energy-secretary-labour-net-zero-china/

    Liked by 1 person

  510. The Telegraph’s main leader this morning refers to its interview with Coutinho (see above):

    ‘A net zero threat we can no longer ignore
    Would our attitude towards Beijing’s aggression be inhibited in the future were we reliant on them to power our “green” economy?’

    Its concluding paragraph:

    ‘Evidence continues to mount that British politicians have rushed into an immensely significant policy agenda with little detailed idea of its practical implications. Whilst Rishi Sunak has, during his premiership, taken welcome steps towards loosening some restrictive energy targets by, for instance, delaying the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, Labour politicians appear too willing to meet the scale of the decarbonisation challenge by plucking yet more deadlines from thin air with scant prospect of success. Politicians of all stripes will need to be much more honest about the ramifications of their policies – not least the gift they may hand to Xi Jinping’s China.’

    It’s beginning to look as though the Tories may (unwisely) be trying to make Net Zero an election issue. Let’s hope they succeed – it might get some sense of reality of the absurd and damaging issue into the open.

    Liked by 2 people

  511. This week’s Spectator could have carried the strap line “Sceptical Special”. As well as the article by Lionel Shriver, mentioned by Robin, the editorial made a strong case for scepticism and standing up against alarmist panic.
    These paras make the point:
    “Four years ago, we also saw how susceptible government is to relying on computer models and projections which use flawed or incomplete data, and how vulnerable this makes us. Covid exposed a flaw in the democratic process which has still not been righted: there is no proper scrutiny of the modelling on which policies are based. This goes for the net-zero agenda too, while those who challenge the data are often derided as ‘sceptics’. It’s an unhealthy set-up.
    To use the word ‘sceptic’ as a pejorative is to forget the democratic tradition. The more extreme the crisis, the greater the need for questions and tests. Scientists and academics who challenge the status quo should be encouraged rather than punished. Ministers should get accustomed to working with ‘red teams’ designed to apply maximum scrutiny to official public health advice.”

    In addition, Toby Young used the whole of his regular column to extoll the Climate movie.

    Hopeful signs.

    Liked by 3 people

  513. That’s an outstanding article by Ben Pile. I wish I could inject his passion into the stuff I write.

    Like

  514. Not as good as Ben’s but Fraser Myers has a good article on the same topic on Spiked:

    ‘Labour: the party of deindustrialisation
    The Port Talbot job losses are just a taste of the green-fuelled misery to come.’

    His concluding paragraph:

    Labour’s zealous commitment to the Net Zero agenda puts it directly at odds with the interests of the British working classes. Its rush to ‘decarbonise’ energy and industry will deal a hammer blow to heavy industries and the communities they sustain. Labour has made itself the party of deindustrialisation.

    Liked by 1 person

  515. Robin – thank you for Myers link

    Last bit – “A proposed mine in Whitehaven, Cumbria, which would produce the coking coal needed for traditional steelmaking and provide around 500 jobs, is vehemently opposed by Labour. Ed Miliband, shadow climate secretary, has said a Labour government would ‘leave no stone unturned in seeking to prevent the opening of this climate-destroying coal mine’. Labour’s hostility to traditional industry cannot be overstated.”

    Looking like Ed will be our next climate secretary, sanity not needed for the job it seems.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.