In October 2008, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act requiring the UK government to ensure that by 2050 ‘the net UK carbon account’ was reduced to a level at least 80% lower than that of 1990. (‘carbon account’ refers to CO2 emissions and ‘other targeted greenhouse gas emissions’.) Only five MPs voted against it. Then in 2019, by secondary legislation and without serious debate, Parliament increased the 80% reduction requirement to 100% – thereby creating the Net Zero policy.i
Unfortunately, it’s a policy that’s unachievable, potentially disastrous and in any case pointless – and, importantly, that’s the case even if it’s accepted that human carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to a rise in global temperature.
1. It’s unachievable.
Many vehicles and machines (used for example in mining, mineral processing, agriculture, construction, heavy transportation, commercial shipping and aviation, the military and emergency services) and products (for example cement (and concrete), high-grade steel, plastics – all needed for the construction of renewables – fertiliser, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insecticides, insulation, tyres and asphalt) essential to life and wellbeing require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives; there are no easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives. Our civilisation is based on fossil fuels; something that’s unlikely to change for a long time.ii
Wind is the most effective source of renewable electricity in the U.K., but: (i) the substantial costs of building the huge numbers of turbines needed for Net Zero, (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable non-fossil fuel grid by 2035 (2030 for Labour) – not least the need to cope with a vast increase in high voltage grid capacity and local distribution, (iii) the enormous scale of what’s involved (immense amounts of space and of increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials, such as so-called ‘rare earths’, required because, unlike fossil fuels, the ‘energy density’ of wind is so low), and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see 2 below), make it unlikely that the UK will be able to generate sufficient electricity for current needs let alone for the mandated EVs and heat pumps plus industry’s energy requirements and other demands such as huge data centres and the extraordinary growth of artificial intelligence (AI).iii
In any case, the UK doesn’t have nearly enough skilled technical managers, electrical, heating and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other tradespeople to do the multitude of tasks essential to achieve Net Zero – a problem worsened by political plans for massively increased house building.iv
‘Net Zero’ means that there has to be a balance between the amount of any greenhouse gas emissions produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. That there’s no detailed, costed (or indeed any) plan for such removal, undermines the credibility of the project.
2. It would be socially and economically disastrous.
Neither of the main political parties’ all-renewable energy projects includes a fully costed engineering plan for the provision of comprehensive grid-scale back-up when there’s little or no wind or sun; a problem that’s exacerbated by the pending retirement of fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. Both parties are now talking of building new gas-fired power plants v – thereby undermining Net Zero – but they’ve not published any detail and it seems Labour intends to fit them with carbon capture and underground storage systems – again without a fully costed engineering plan. This issue is desperately important: without full back-up, electricity blackouts would be inevitable – ruining many businesses and causing dreadful problems for millions of people, including health consequences threatening everyone and in particular the poor and vulnerable.
Even more serious is the fact that, because there’s no coherent plan for the project’s delivery, little attention has been given to its overall cost. All that’s clear is that it would almost certainly be unaffordable: for example, a recent Office for Budget Responsibility projection of £1.4 trillion is probably too low vi – several trillion seems likely to be more accurate.vii The borrowing and taxes required for costs at this scale would destroy Britain’s credit standing and 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, lithium, cobalt, aluminium, processed graphite and so-called rare earths) without which renewables cannot be manufactured, the UK would greatly increase its already damaging dependence on it, putting its energy and overall security at most serious risk.viii
(ii) The extensive mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables are already causing appalling environmental damage and dreadful human suffering throughout the world, 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.ix
3. In any case it’s pointless.
For two reasons:
(i) It’s absurd to regard the closure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting plants in the UK and their ‘export’ mainly to SE Asian countries, commonly with poor environmental regulation and often powered by coal-fired electricity, as a positive step towards Net Zero. Yet efforts to ‘decarbonise’ the UK mean that’s what’s happening.
(ii) Most major non-Western countries – the source of over 75% of GHG emissions and home to 84% of humanity – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority and, either exempt (by international agreement) 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 (by 62% since 1990) and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. The UK is the source of less than 1% of global emissions – so any further emission reduction it may achieve cannot have any impact on the global position.x
In other words, the Net Zero policy means the UK is legally obliged to pursue an unachievable, disastrous and pointless policy – a policy that could result in Britain’s economic destruction.
Robin Guenier May 2024
Guenier is a retired, writer, speaker and business consultant. He was for twenty years chief executive of various high-tech companies, including the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency reporting to the UK Cabinet Office. He was Executive Director of Taskforce 2000, founder chair of the medical online research company, MedixGlobal and a regular contributor to TV and radio.
End notes:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/part/1/crossheading/the-target-for-2050
See Vaclav Smil’s important book, How the World Really Works: https://time.com/6175734/reliance-on-fossil-fuels/.
iii For a view of wind power’s many problems, see this: https://watt-logic.com/2023/06/14/wind-farm-costs/ This is also interesting: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/debunking-cheap-renewables-myth
iv A detailed Government report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65855506fc07f3000d8d46bd/Employer_skills_survey_2022_research_report.pdf
v https://news.sky.com/story/uk-should-build-new-gas-fired-power-capacity-to-use-as-backup-government-says-despite-green-targets-13092730
vi https://www.cityam.com/uk-fiscal-watchdog-puts-cost-of-reaching-net-zero-at-1-4trn/
vii In this presentation Michael Kelly, inaugural Prince Philip Professor of Technology at Cambridge and a Fellow of the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, shows how the costs of Net Zero would amount to several trillion pounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkImqOxMqvU
viii https://www.dw.com/en/the-eus-risky-dependency-on-critical-chinese-metals/a-61462687
ix There’s a wealth of data supporting this but arguably the most compelling and harrowing evidence is found in Siddharth Kara’s book Cobalt Red – about the horrors of cobalt mining in the Congo: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250284297/cobaltred
x This comprehensive analysis, based on an EU database, provides – re global greenhouse gas and CO2 emissions – detailed information by country from 1990 to 2022: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2023?vis=ghgtot#emissions_table
Climate Scepticism 
Desperate stuff? Or baby steps in the right direction? Too little too late?
“Tories pledge to ‘back drivers’ with new law”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgg2629xplo
LikeLike
Then again….
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn00xv0jl9zo
The Conservative Party, external said it was “embracing the opportunities of the green economy to create more well-paid jobs”.
It said it was providing funding for Sizewell C and “speeding up connections to new grid infrastructure”. The party said it was also supporting “more onshore and offshore wind” power and providing new funding to support green research and development.
The Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the government was still “completely committed” to the 2050 net zero target which his predecessor, Theresa May, made law back in 2019….
LikeLike
Well, well, well:
“Flynn attacks Labour’s North Sea energy plans”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c144x1wj0g0o
The SNP’s Westminster leader has attacked Labour’s North Sea energy plans and vowed his party was committed to a “just and sustainable” future oil and gas sector.
Stephen Flynn said Labour’s proposal for a time-limited windfall tax on fossil fuel companies would result in “100,000 job losses”.
LikeLike
Truly astonishing – is this what science has descended to?
“‘Disappointing and surprising’: Why isn’t this a climate election in the UK?”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/10/disappointing-and-surprising-why-isnt-this-a-climate-election-in-the-uk
More than 400 scientists write to political parties urging ambitious action or risk making Britain and the world ‘more dangerous and insecure’
After five years of record heat and record floods, one might assume British politicians would also pay record attention to the climate issue in the current election campaign....
In a sign of how worried the experts are, more than 400 scientists have signed a public letter to party leaders, urging them to adopt ambitious policies to prepare the country for the coming turmoil and to honour the UK’s international obligation to address the primary causes – the burning of gas, oil, coal and vegetation.
“It is very clear that a failure to tackle climate change with sufficient urgency and scale is making the UK and the rest of the world more dangerous and insecure,” notes the letter, whose signatories include former UK chief scientist Sir David King, former president of the Royal Meteorological Society Prof Joanna Haigh, and the creator of the “climate stripes” graphic, Prof Ed Hawkins.
The 408 scientists urge parties to promise five measures: a credible strategy to reach net zero by 2050, faster action to adapt the UK to now unavoidable climate impacts, leading by example internationally on “transitioning away from fossil fuels”, increasing climate funding for developing countries and respecting Climate Change Committee advice on North Sea oil and gas fields.
“Without such a pledge, we do not believe that your party deserves support in the forthcoming general election,” they write.
How many inaccurate or misleading statements are contained in that short snippet from the article? Quite a few.
LikeLike
“Starmer risks losing support for fighting climate change
Labour’s plan for ‘cheap renewables’ means more pain for squeezed households”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/09/starmer-risks-losing-support-for-fighting-climate-change/
…Central to the party’s plan are “cheap renewables” – with senior figures not only in Labour, but across all the main parties, repeatedly insisting that wind, solar and other renewable energy sources are far less expensive than other fuel sources.
But that’s not true.
Yes, once built, renewables have low running costs, so they should help lower energy bills in the long run. But, before that, the extremely high costs of building offshore wind farms and solar capacity must be paid for – and much of the cost of that, in the UK at least, come from steep network costs and subsidies routinely added to gas and electricity bills on top of wholesale energy costs....
...Wind power has surged to provide 29pc of electricity, with solar and hydro generating another 7pc between them. Throw in biomass energy, and renewables now account for 40pc of electricity generation, the same as coal little more than a decade ago.
That’s a significant shift, with the share of renewables in the UK’s energy mix now around the same as the European Union average.
But our end-user electricity prices are much higher. Households in Spain spent an average of around 21c€/kWh per kilowatt for electricity during the first quarter of this year, with their French counterparts paying just over 30c€/kWh. UK households shelled out considerably more – almost 40 c€/kWh, with similar differentials applying to UK-based companies too…
...Expensive energy helps explain why UK inflation peaked at 11.1pc back in late 2022, considerably higher than across the EU or in the US, with our cost of living crisis biting harder. High energy costs spread along supply chains and across the economy, pushing up the cost of everything else.
Sky-high utility and fuel bills are a big reason so many UK manufacturers struggle to maintain competitiveness, given the energy-intensive nature of what they do. Steep fuel and energy costs also explain why so many UK households continue to feel hard-pressed now, despite falling inflation and signs of economic recovery…
…There are two current problems which Labour shows no sign at all of understanding. The first is that because wind and solar power are intermittent – especially during winter when energy demand is high – and because we haven’t solved how to store renewable energy at a cost that makes sense, we need other sources to maintain baseload power during the gaps.
For the UK that means gas – and the huge expense of maintaining numerous gas-fired power stations on stand-by as back-up for renewables is a big reason we pay so much for our electricity.
The second mistake, which the Tories have also made, is to disregard the importance of the North Sea when it comes to energy security.
Oil and gas continues to meet no less than 75pc of the UK’s energy needs, once transport is included. And the North Sea provides around four fifths of the oil we use and just over half the gas.
Half of the UK’s 300 active oil/gas fields are due to close by 2030 – and the Tories’ 75pc windfall tax means many potential projects ensuring future supplies now aren’t financially viable.
Cheered on by environmental activists, Labour has promised an even more punitive tax on North Sea energy extraction – which, far from raising money as claimed, could destroy the entire industry. Rather than improving UK energy security, it would cause bills to spiral further and could even cause blackouts.….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
Good grief, the penny’s finally dropped at the Torygraph.
LikeLike
Oh dear
the ‘Success of Populist Insurgents in European Elections Could Spell Beginning of the End for Net Zero‘ according to Toby Young quoting the Telegraph in today’s Daily Sceptic: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/10/success-of-populist-insurgents-in-european-elections-could-spell-beginning-of-the-end-for-net-zero/
An extract:
What a shame. Never mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: Liam Halligan who wrote that article has always taken a reasonably sensible line on climate policy. But that doesn’t mean the penny has dropped at the overall Torygraph. And even Halligan has yet to realise that the whole absurd nonsense is pointless anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Shonky Reports from Wonky Wonks
Snake oil politicians peddling shonky reports from foolish policy wonks.”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/shonky-reports-from-wonky-wonks
Conclusions
Aurora is assuming costs for renewables that are a fraction of what we know apply in reality. They have also left out the costs of grid upgrades, BECCS, hydrogen storage and carbon capture. There are hundreds of billions of pounds missing from their analysis. The cost savings they claim are completely spurious.
It would not be surprising if the actual cost of delivering a Net Zero grid by 2030 is three times Aurora’s estimate once realistic costs are considered. The total consumer cost estimate from Aurora is clearly an untruth based on fantasy assumptions that bear no resemblance to reality.
It is not easy to be sympathetic to politicians, however, when they are fed shonky reports from thinktanks that purport to be the most influential in the country, it easy to see how they become caught up in Net Zero mania.
However, when Ed Miliband seeks to use the report to claim his Net Zero grid by 2030 will save money when such a shonky report clearly warns his plan is “likely to be out of reach”, then any sympathy that might have been due rapidly evaporates.
Our democracy is in real trouble when misleading and false claims are made to justify policy action when the reports those claims are based on are built on such dodgy assumptions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark: from the Graun article you quoted – “to address the primary causes – the burning of gas, oil, coal and vegetation.“
Does the reference to vegetation mean that the paper has finally realised the absurdity of subsidising biomass?
LikeLiked by 1 person
MikeH: the same thought occurred to me – what else could it mean?
LikeLike
Professor Gordon Hughes has just published on his ‘Cloud Wisdom’ Substack a most interesting article entitled ‘Labour’s energy promises – vision and reality’: https://cloudwisdom.substack.com/p/labours-energy-promises-vision-and
His opening paragraph:
It’s not clear why he’s dragged the lawyers in – but otherwise a good question. And his answer? Well, read the article – well worth it – but here’s his conclusion:
There was something that I found of personal interest. In the comments, Douglas Brodie (with whom some of us will be familiar) echoed Jaime’s line by saying how he found it frustrating that hardly anyone was willing to say that ‘man-made CO2 global warming is a political fiction based on corrupt science’. He noted for example how Andrew Montford had rejected his paper to that effect for publication on NZW. I responded with my standard comment that, as Net Zero could be completely refuted without reference to the science (as an example I provided a link to this thread) thereby avoiding the climate science orthodoxy minefield, that was the way to go. I was gratified when Gordon Hughes agreed.
LikeLike
The UK’s energy system may be squeezed from both sides if Andrew Montford is correct about the threat from Reform some 5 year from now. Renewables projects have an approximately 5 year planning period, and so any projects just entering that process may come to fruition just when Reform comes to power – which is a big risk to take just now if you are a potential renewables investor:- https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/political-risk-of-reform
And with Labour currently trying hard to frighten away fossil fuel companies from these shores, we may thus find ourselves between a cold place and a very cold place.
That off-ramp I keep looking for just keeps getting further and further away. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
‘...just when Reform comes to power‘
That’s a rather big assumption John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, I’ve left a comment at cloudwisdom.
LikeLike
Absolutely, Robin, which is why I used words such as “may” and “if” – Reform’s poll ratings (still only 13% on 9th June according to the BBC – see below) may melt away like snow in summer. Alternatively they may hold up or even grow once the current GE is over. Either way, if I were a potential investor in either UK renewables or UK fossil fuels, I suspect I would be in no rush to make my investment decision at the current time. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68079726
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
I thought it might be interesting to contact my local Reform candidate Charles Bunker sending him my ‘Case against Net Zero’ essay and asking for his views on climate policy. I got a lengthy and interesting reply reviewing when and how he got interested in the issue. Then he wrote this:
Hmm – not too bad. What do others think?
PS1: He hasn’t got much chance of success, but nonetheless – as I’m increasingly fed up with the Tories and haven’t the remotest wish to support Labour or LibDem – he might get my vote.
PS2: Re his point 6, it’s true I didn’t cite Michael Kelly’s GWPF paper (to avoid howls of anger from any activists to whom I might send the essay) but I did refer to a presentation Kelly gave on YouTube (see my endnote vii).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin, my immediate response is, “Wow!” And he knows what he is talking about. Surely he can’t be a politician – or not as we have known them. Very refreshing! Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Well, Reform aren’t my cup of tea, but that’s the most sense I’ve heard from a politician for a long time.
LikeLike
“Why greens were the biggest losers in the EU elections
The EU’s punishing climate policies are facing an almighty public backlash.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/06/11/why-greens-were-the-biggest-losers-in-the-eu-elections/
…At last week’s European elections, voters weren’t just turning against the green parties. They were rising up against the broader green agenda and the threat it poses to living standards and liberty. Long may the green-lash continue.
LikeLike
Robin: Excellent reply from the man from Reform.
No chance of Labour or LibDem getting in, given a massive swing away from the Tories?
I’m still in the anti-protest-vote party!
LikeLike
Richard: I think there’s every chance of Labour getting in – indeed I think it’s as close to certain as is possible. And which party is the anti-protest-vote party?
LikeLike
Oh dear, the reliably green FT is unhappy. From today’s edition:
Europe’s green backlash
Rightwing advances in EU parliament elections will lessen climate ambitions
LikeLike
Robin: Sorry not to be clear. I meant in your constituency, not nationally.
LikeLike
From the FT this morning:
Green activists are knocking on doors in the UK election campaign
New strategy by Greenpeace involves canvassing to establish global warming as leading electoral issue
Good plan. Maybe we should volunteer to help.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The WSJ has an interesting article by Steve Koonin, describing how the “climate crisis” will fade out:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-crisis-fades-out-5944bd44?st=2l84khcdn7ysjjc&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
It reminds me of the Lionel Shriver piece about manias and how interest wanes then moves on.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“How Jacinda Ardern Left New Zealand on the Brink of Blackouts – But Starmer Wants to Copy Her”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/12/how-jacinda-ardern-left-new-zealand-on-the-brink-of-blackouts-but-starmer-wants-to-copy-her/
Also at Paul Homewood’s website:
LikeLiked by 1 person
MikeH: Thanks for the pointer to the Koonin article. The WSJ was kind enough to let me through the paywall and I think it’s really excellent. Thought-provoking as to our future message, to avoid the worst damage, too.
LikeLike
From the Torygraph this morning:
Labour must drop ‘unviable’ net zero plans, warns GMB
Union claims Sir Keir Starmer’s clean power pledge will lead to ‘power cuts and blackouts’, in last attempt to influence party manifesto
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/12/labour-must-drop-unviable-net-zero-plans-warns-gmb/
An extract from a motion passed at the GMB’s annual congress this week:
True. But the Labour leadership isn’t listening – or, if it is, it doesn’t care.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A splendid note from the always excellent Francis Menton:
A Preview On Some Of The New York Impossibility
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-6-12-a-preview-on-some-of-the-new-york-energy-impossibility
An extract:
Worth reading in full – if only for its high amusement factor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comments about the launch of Labour’s manifesto have said little about its energy policy and, so far as I can see, nothing about the policy’s costs – a surprising omission, especially in the light of the party’s commitment not to raise corporation tax, income tax, national insurance or VAT. So I went to the document itself to see what it had to say. Here are a few extracts:
Were this programme possible – it isn’t – where would all the required funds come? See David Turver’s and Gordon Hughes’ recent reports for an idea of the horrendous costs that would be involved. Well, Labour seems to think they can leave it all to our ‘world-leading’ financial services. But that’s a solution from dreamland.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“green finance capital of the world”
Others will remain the original colour, meaning oblivion for the UK – or certainly ordinary people without any crony capitalist sinecure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…working people can never again be left vulnerable to dictators like Putin...”.
They weren’t really, but Labour will leave them vulnerable to dictators like Xi instead.
“…will ban fracking for good.“
I think perhaps Sir Keir should be reminded that Parliament is sovereign, and a future Parliament will be free to reverse any such ban. The fact that Labour can write like this in its manifesto is a worrying reflection of the fact that some people seem to think the CCA is written in tablets of stone.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Europe seems to be coming to its senses on Net Zero:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/16/world/europe/the-greens-are-dead-long-live-the-greens.html
Some highlights
For many voters, Green parties failed to show that their proposals were not just expensive, anti-growth policies that would hurt the poorest the most. And some view them as elitist urbanites who brush aside the costs of the transition to a less climate-harming way of life.
The poor showing for the Greens has triggered a chorus of lament that the European Union Green Deal — as the collection of policies the bloc has adopted to fight climate change and limit its own contribution to it is known — is dead.
Experts say that these concerns are unrealistic: Many of the policies that are meant to make an ambitious target for reducing carbon emissions possible are already law.
So why not change the law then?
“The radical Green Deal transformation raises tough questions about who will pay,” Mr. Tagliapietra said. “If those costs end up falling disproportionately on ordinary workers — let alone the poorest and most vulnerable communities — the transformation will worsen inequality and become socially and politically unviable,” he added. “That is not an option.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“The national grid has become the single biggest obstacle to the deployment of cheap, clean power generation and the electrification of industry. With grid connection dates not being offered until the late 2030s, important business and infrastructure investment is being stalled or lost overseas. Labour will work with industry to upgrade our national transmission infrastructure and rewire Britain.”
“rewire Britain.” !!! Wonder if they have anyone writing this guff that has a clue what is entailed.
It’s all make believe. As Robin has pointed out many times, even if they wanted to “rewire Britain.” we don’t have enough engineers to achieve the target/goal.
ps – had to google “make believe” to check I used the term correctly & got this –
to pretend or imagine:
Let’s make believe (that) we’re pirates.
Let the children make believe they’re film stars.
We can’t close our eyes and make believe that climate change doesn’t exist.
I tried to carry on with my life and make believe I didn’t have cancer.
They’ve just ignored the coup and are making believe that everything’s normal.
LikeLike
NZW has published another interesting note. By Harry Wilkinson its head of policy it’s entitled: Reform manifesto offers up the chance to vote against Net Zero.
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/reform-manifesto-offers-the-chance-to-vote-against-net-zero
An extract:
I very much agree.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It seems very likely that Bim will soon be ousted by the Labour candidate Alistair Strathern, previously MP for mid-Bedfordshire (since last year when he was elected in a major Tory upset). Accordingly, I’ve just sent him my ‘Case Against Net Zero’ PDF asking for his views.
His Wlkipedia entry suggests he’s unlikely to be very supportive:
PPE Oxford.
Chair of Oxford University Labour Club.
Employed at the BoE on ‘climate risk insurance’.
At Waltham Forest Council ‘Cabinet Member for 15-Minute Neighbourhoods’.
PPS to Ed Miliband.
Taken part in Greenpeace protests dressed as a zombie.
Partner a political campaigner for Greenpeace.
Hmm .. I don’t think he and I have much in common. (Although I was a member of the OU Labour Club a long time ago).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Looking at that CV, that’s a no, then!
LikeLike
From the BBC just now:
Exploding batteries spark deadly S Korea factory fire
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crgggmeyjj7o
Any possibility that this, and all the other reports about the danger of batteries, will cause a rethink about their true value? No – I suppose not.
LikeLike
“Vauxhall owner says car plants could shut unless ‘stupid’ UK rules change
Stellantis says it will decide in ‘less than a year’ whether to keep Ellesmere Port and Luton production lines open”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jun/25/vauxhall-owner-car-plants-shut-uk-stellantis-ellesmere-port-luton
Well worth a read, IMO. Surprisingly candid by Guardian standards.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark – thanks for the link.
“Vauxhall owner says plants could shut unless UK helps EV makers.
Stellantis to rule on viability of Luton and Ellesmere Port sites ‘within year’ amid criticism over lack of government cooperation and sales incentives”
“The warning comes weeks after the chief executive of Stellantis criticised the government’s EV policy as “terrible”, saying it could ultimately lead to car manufacturing facing bankruptcy.
Carlos Tavares blamed the UK’s quota system, which forces manufacturers to meet sales targets that he said were “double” the market demand. The so-called zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate forces manufacturers to sell an increasing proportion of electric cars.”
Only point/thought I would make, is without the charging infrastructure already in place in the UK, what did they expect sales to be ?
LikeLike
dfhunter,
You can’t expect politicians to think logically! If they were capable of that, perhaps we wouldn’t be in this mess.
LikeLike
More evidence that materials and supply-chain issues will be a major limit on Net Zero programmes, as Robin has siad often:
https://www.powermag.com/the-transformer-crisis-an-industry-on-the-brink/?oly_enc_id=1116I5572089I1F
It’s a long, detailled article but the gist is clear: delivery times for transformers have more than doubled recently and costs are rocketing.
LikeLike
Another valuable insight from Kathryn Porter at Watt-Logic, this time casting some doubt on the value of interconnectors: ‘Ofgem throws a spanner into GB’s interconnector ambitions‘
Worth a read.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well worth a read. Excellent, as always.
LikeLike
David Turver has published a very useful article (Risks of Net Zero) this morning nicely setting out the multitude of drawbacks of a Net Zero mitigation policy, especially as compared with a practical adaptation policy. There’s little here that will be unfamiliar to denizens of this site (although I was unfamiliar with the National Grid ESO’s estimate of the cost as around £3 trillion) but he brings the facts together neatly.
From his Conclusions:
A most important observation.
LikeLike
Robin,
As I pointed out to David on X, re. the fact that the UK can no longer make artificial fertilisers, it’s actually more serious than that:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, excellent work from David, as usual. Why can the vast majority of mainstream politicians not grasp these simple, obvious, and vitally important points? Why do so many of them think that the emperor is wearing wonderful new clothes?
LikeLike
Jaime: I wholly agree with you about fertilisers. Although I’m not willing to refer to ‘the phantom disease’, I think Turver may have given the impression of understating Net Zero’s problems in this morning’s article. For example, his heading ‘Risks of Net Zero‘ is rather weak – surely the immense harm that would be done by Net Zero is more than a risk?
Mark: the fact that our mainstream politicians are so frighteningly blind about this desperately important subject is one reason why I decided a few days ago (rather to my own surprise) to vote for Reform. I’d be interested to know why you’re adamant that you’re not going to do so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
From my point of view, the ‘disease’ is a diagnosed 1.2C rise in global mean surface temperature (prior to the sudden and unexplained – by the settled science – acceleration in 2023), roughly coincident with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, which itself coincided with an upturn in global temperature immediately following an entirely natural and exceptionally cold period known as the Little Ice Age. The diagnosis of the disease is the averaged sum of all climate models which allegedly account for all or most of this recent temperature rise (even though natural causes of climate change are very poorly constrained in the models). The additional diagnosis of the disease is the supposed increase in extreme weather, especially heatwaves, and their alleged attribution on an individual basis to ‘climate change’ (i.e. the observed long term increase in regional mean surface temperature which is presumed to be directly related to the increase in global mean surface temperature – even though there are many other factors which can and do influence regional temperature trends).
The models project a worsening of the ‘disease’ in the years to come, absent a sharp reduction in CO2 emissions.
You can see why I’m somewhat sceptical.
LikeLike
Yes Jaime I can see why you’re somewhat sceptical. But, as I regard the battle against Net Zero as of overriding importance and as that battle can in my opinion best be waged without reference to the science, I keep away from the topic. If pushed I would, like David Turver, describe myself as a lukewarmer (see his second paragraph).
LikeLike
Yes, I know Robin. But as I say, and will continue to say, we must address the whole argument for Net Zero, not just a part of the argument, and the whole argument consists of the following:
‘Safe, effective and necessary.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
To answer Robin’s question, we must all make our voting decision according to our own beliefs. Despite the inevitable shift to the right that usually comes with growing older, I still regard myself as left of centre, insofar as “left” and “right” mean anything these days.
In short , I can see lots of reasons not to vote Reform, and only two good reasons for voting for them. They are firstly that the system is in serious need of a shake-up, and a substantial vote for Reform might provide some shock waves. Secondly, their opposition to net zero is very important.
However, where I live there is a good SDP candidate, who is personally known to a friend of mine who assures me he is a solid and decent individual, and my views are in tune with many SDP policies. I would like to help him save his deposit. After all, the SDP and Reform might not even have any MPs after the election, regardless of how many votes they get.
For me , the main thing is to register my opposition to mainstream politicians and their net zero obsession while voting with a clean conscience.
LikeLike
Jaime: I much prefer to show that Net Zero is unachievable, disastrous and pointless. And that’s exactly what David Turver is saying this morning.
LikeLike
Your pointless argument Robin, rests upon the fact that we only contribute 0.8% of global GHG emissions and that much of the rest of the world, responsible for the majority of emissions, is not following our example. This is true and it is very relevant. However, if GHGs are not the main driver of climate change, then Net Zero is even more pointless in that, even if the rest of the world lost its mind and followed us and a few other mad Western economies, it would still make little difference to climate change. In this respect, I think you should give David some credit for recognising this as a possibility when he writes:
I don’t entirely agree with David’s conclusions re. CO2 not being the control knob of modern climate change, because the consensus climate crowd are arguing that CO2 concentrations are supposedly unprecedented in the last 100k years plus and so is recent global warming (both highly dubious assumptions), but the fact is, David is doing here that which you strongly advise against – questioning the science. Perhaps you should tell him off!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: between ourselves we can and should question the science. But, if we want to get something done in the wide world, it’s of little use as you’ll have to deal with ghastly and mind-numbing argument. That’s of no use or interest to me.
LikeLike
PS to the above: there’s nothing in David’s comments that conflicts with my views.
LikeLike
Robin, I recognise, and to some extent sympathise with your argument about subduing the scientific argument when contesting matters surrounding Net Xero. However, our opponents ultimately base their argument upon “the Science “ and potential environmental horrors based upon it. Sceptics do need our scientific foundations to counter those arguments used to invent our potential culpability.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
But if you point out that net zero is unachievable and pointless you still have to deal with ghastly and mind-numbing argument, so I’m not sure I get your point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John: the fact that it’s unachievable and pointless whatever the truth about the science is reason enough to cancel it. When that’s done you and Jaime can get on and persuade the world that it’s scientifically invalid.
LikeLike
John,
Ghastly and mind-numbing are routine tactics from those allegedly debunking sceptic arguments – be they from climate science sceptics or mitigation (Net Zero) sceptics. It’s what the climate alarmist cultists do. How can they not do ghastly and mind-numbing? If you are going to dismantle reason and rationality in favour of fact-denying ideology, you’ve got to go down the route of ghastly and mind-numbing. Robin believes that Net Zero realism and rational scepticism will burn clean through ghastly and mind-numbing in a way which climate science realism and rationality cannot. I’m not convinced. We need to pool resources and concentrate the flame of reason.
LikeLike
No Jaime it’s not what I believe. My view and experience is that the simple practicality arguments avoid getting involved with the ghastly and mind-numbing altogether. That’s why they can get things done.
LikeLike
Robin,
Seriously, have you ever received a response from renewables advocates to your “simple practicality arguments” which is not ghastly and mind-numbing? If so, please do please provide us with a few significant examples which demonstrate that you are actually getting somewhere with these people. AFAICS they are immune to rational arguments. Reality will need to come crashing in upon their utopian dreams and by then it will be too late.
LikeLike
Robin,
You still don’t seem to be getting the point. I could equally say that the fact that the climate crisis lacks scientific legitimacy, whatever the truth of Net Zero’s achievability and efficacy, is reason enough to cancel it. But the sad truth is that facts are not reason enough for anything when ghastly and mind numbing arguments are available to contend them.
And I think you need to be reminded that, as far as posting on this website is concerned, no one is waiting for your blessing.
LikeLike
This embraces one of Robin’s talking points:
“Labour’s net zero hopes threatened by plunge in factory apprenticeships
Drop in people starting manufacturing courses by almost half risks skill shortage”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/30/labour-net-zero-threatened-plunge-factory-apprenticeships/
Labour’s plan for a net-zero economy powered by wind turbines and electric vehicles (EVs) risks being thwarted by a huge drop in factory apprenticeships, British manufacturers have warned.
If Sir Keir Starmer’s party wins power on Thursday – as polls predict – his manifesto promises to reinvigorate growth and launch an unprecedented construction programme to make the country’s power grid net zero by 2030.
However 27 industry associations have jointly warned the UK faces a shortage of skilled workers needed to make Labour’s proposals happen, which includes investing in a series of gigafactories to accelerate the move away from petrol and diesel cars.
The trade bodies have blamed Britain’s skills shortage on a 41pc drop in the number of people starting manufacturing apprenticeships over the past seven years.…
...It is the latest sign that Labour’s plan to make the electricity grid carbon-free by 2030 will raise significant challenges.
The letters also warn that current skills shortages will hold back a host of other manufacturing sectors as well.
The signatories include Make UK, the Confederation of British Metalformers, TechUK, the British Coatings Federation and the Food and Drink Federation.
Stephen Phipson, chief executive of Make UK, warned that the recruitment issue at factories posed a particular barrier to Sir Keir’s mission to expedite the roll-out of green energy.
He told The Telegraph: “The net zero transition relies on basic engineering skills – you need technicians to fix the robots that make EVs, you need toolmakers to make the tools that make wind turbines, small modular reactors and carbon capture.
“But what we’re seeing in the country at the moment is a gradual erosion of those skills.
“The Government needs to get a grip.
“This is about the army of basic skills you need – on top of all the clever engineering design and artificial intelligence stuff – without which these things simply cannot happen.”
There are currently around 70,000 vacancies in manufacturing, costing the UK economy billions of pounds in lost output, according to Make UK….
LikeLike
Jaime and John: what I’ve found (on hostile websites and in conversation) is that, if you point to impracticalities (cost, shortage of materials, I’ll-defined need for backup, shortage of skilled workers, risk of reliance on for example China, etc.) people go quiet – they’ve heard but don’t have an answer. In contrast I’ve seen those who try to raise scientific issues raged at, called deniers and usually cancelled. I see little point in such an approach. It may well be that none of this matters as harsh reality hits those who are trying to implement these mad policies in the face. I think that’s likely to happen quite soon.
John: I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say by that last comment.
LikeLike
OK Robin, being met with silence is not ghastly and mind-numbing but it hardly “gets things done” does it? They’re just blanking you and carrying on regardless.
But yes, it looks like only harsh reality is going to intrude upon their fantasy world and as there are an awful lot of very influential and powerful vested interests with much to gain from the continuation of this fantasy, I expect it to be propped up for as long as possible (or necessary). Which will probably mean the destruction of the UK’s capacity to exploit its own fossil fuel reserves, even higher energy bills, the destruction of British manufacturing industry, degradation of large swathes of the countryside and marine environments and the complete loss of energy security. I wish I was wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
we’ll see soon enough.
I’m away from home and find typing on a tiny iPhone very difficult. Back tomorrow pm.
LikeLike
Robin, my experience, some years ago, is that when debating/arguing with those supporting Net Zero (or it’s precursors) that introducing practical difficulties does not produce silence but instead a return to climate fear arguments based upon “the Science “.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmm … an understandable attempt to return to their comfort zone perhaps?
LikeLike
Alan makes a good point and I will be leaving a long comment on the Assault and Batteries thread soon which relates directly to the issues we’ve been discussing here.
LikeLike
Robin,
I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say by that last comment.
Okay, I’ll rephrase it for you:
Thank you for your advice regarding the conditions under which it might be appropriate to return to arguments regarding “The Science”, but it should be obvious to you by now that neither myself or Jaime have any intention of following it.
However, more to the point, the question as to whether to argue against “The Science” or “The Economics” is a false dichotomy. Concerns regarding the affordability of a rapid transition to Net Zero are usually dismissed on the basis that a rapid transition will actually save money. These economic arguments rely heavily upon the monetary evaluation of savings to be made by avoiding projected climate change damage; damage which is predicted by “The Science”. So you can’t win the economic debate without returning to “The Science” and addressing its uncertainties.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The case for Net Zero is appallingly weak, and can be demolished logically by anyone with a trifling acquaintance with the facts. It is impervious however, and its shield is its moral standing. Appeals to lack of necessity / feasibility and warnings of negative consequences are just bouncing off. Everyone knows who is on the side of the angels. It isn’t curmudgeons like us.
Sometimes it seems that people are coming over to our way of thinking, but not much seems to change. Will it ever? Necessity is the root of the tree, but focusing on the science leaves open the moral outrage opponent-excluding “denier” response. That makes it risky for people in public life to adopt it as the basis for their opposition.
Things will change eventually. Much damage will be done in the meantime. There will be no comeback for those who have driven us down this path, and no bouquets for those who dug their heels in.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very nicely put Jit, I entirely agree.
John and Jaime: I have and never have had the slightest intention of advising you when and how to address the science.
LikeLike
Jit, Robin,
I never argued of course that challenging The Science should be the sole basis of opposition to Net Zero, just an essential part of it.
Can someone please dig my comment out of moderation on Assault and Batteries. Thanks.
LikeLike
May I suggest that we all read and then comment on Ben Pile’s most interesting article (on his sub stack)?
LikeLike
Robin,
“I have and never have had the slightest intention of advising you when and how to address the science.”
You must wonder, therefore, why it is that Jaimie and I are under the impression that you are doing it all the time. Maybe it is because of statements like this:
“When that’s done you and Jaime can get on and persuade the world that it’s scientifically invalid.”
LikeLike
I suggest we move on from this potentially unpleasant exchange. Maybe to Ben Pile’s Substack article?
LikeLike
Robin, it doesn’t need to be unpleasant, but you should acknowledge that you have consistently and strongly advised against challenging Net Zero by making any direct challenge to The Science, even to the point of stating that to do so is counter-productive and will detract from the efforts of people like yourself challenging NZ on its impracticalities. John and I have both interpreted this as a mild admonishment. That’s all. We shouldn’t be arguing amongst ourselves but we should all feel free to pursue our instincts and exploit our own particular aptitudes in challenging the Climate Change/Net Zero cult-cum-profit-making politico-industrial complex.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nicely put Jaime. I agree.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just starting to read Ben’s article:
That’s very funny. I hope that Ben is correct in his crushing dismissal of Keith the Son of a Toolmaker. Personally I feel this excruciatingly bland and uninspiring technocratic manager may be just as menacing in government as was Blair, perhaps more so, simply because he is a totally dispassionate cypher – unlike Blair. We shall see.
LikeLike
As for Robin’s point about one of many elephants in the room – the power-hungry nature of AI that makes net zero highly improbable, even if the rest of it made sense:
“Google’s emissions climb nearly 50% in five years due to AI energy demand
Tech giant’s goal of reducing climate footprint at risk as it grows increasingly reliant on energy-hungry data centres”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/02/google-ai-emissions
Google’s goal of reducing its climate footprint is in jeopardy as it relies on more and more energy-hungry data centres to power its new artificial intelligence products. The tech giant revealed Tuesday that its greenhouse gas emissions have climbed 48% over the past five years.
Google said electricity consumption by data centres and supply chain emissions were the primary cause of the increase. It also revealed in its annual environmental report that its emissions in 2023 had risen 13% compared with the previous year, hitting 14.3m metric tons.
The tech company, which has invested substantially in AI, said its “extremely ambitious” goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2030 “won’t be easy”. It said “significant uncertainty” around reaching the target included “the uncertainty around the future environmental impact of AI, which is complex and difficult to predict”.
Google’s emissions have risen by nearly 50% since 2019, the base year for Google’s goal of reaching net zero, which requires the company removing as much CO2 as it emits.
The International Energy Agency estimates that data centres’ total electricity consumption could double from 2022 levels to 1,000TWh (terawatt hours) in 2026, approximately Japan’s level of electricity demand. AI will result in data centres using 4.5% of global energy generation by 2030, according to calculations by research firm SemiAnalysis.
LikeLike
“Can the climate survive the insatiable energy demands of the AI arms race?
New computing infrastructure means big tech is likely to miss emissions targets but they can’t afford to get left behind in a winner takes all market”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/jul/04/can-the-climate-survive-the-insatiable-energy-demands-of-the-ai-arms-race
...Datacentres are a core component of training and operating AI models such as Google’s Gemini or OpenAI’s GPT-4. They contain the sophisticated computing equipment, or servers, that crunch through the vast reams of data underpinning AI systems. They require large amounts of electricity to run, which generates CO2 depending on the energy source, as well as creating “embedded” CO2 from the cost of manufacturing and transporting the necessary equipment.
According to the International Energy Agency, total electricity consumption from datacentres could double from 2022 levels to 1,000 TWh (terawatt hours) in 2026, equivalent to the energy demand of Japan, while research firm SemiAnalysis calculates that AI will result in datacentres using 4.5% of global energy generation by 2030. Water usage is significant too, with one study estimating that AI could account for up to 6.6bn cubic metres of water use by 2027 – nearly two-thirds of England’s annual consumption.
A recent UK government-backed report on AI safety said that the carbon intensity of the energy source used by tech firms is “a key variable” in working out the environmental cost of the technology. It adds, however, that a “significant portion” of AI model training still relies on fossil fuel-powered energy.
Indeed, tech firms are hoovering up renewable energy contracts in an attempt to meet their environmental goals. Amazon, for instance, is the world’s largest corporate purchaser of renewable energy. Some experts argue, though, that this pushes other energy users into fossil fuels because there is not enough clean energy to go round.
“Energy consumption is not just growing, but Google is also struggling to meet this increased demand from sustainable energy sources,” says Alex de Vries, the founder of Digiconomist, a website monitoring the environmental impact of new technologies.…
LikeLike
The AI arms race
Thanks for the link to that Guardian article Mark. Jo Nova has a powerful piece on the same subject this morning: Google emissions surge nearly 50% as demand for AI sets fire to their Net Zero plan.
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/07/google-emissions-surge-nearly-50-as-demand-for-ai-sets-fire-to-their-net-zero-plan/
Two extracts:
This is likely to be an increasingly important topic – one I’m glad I touched on in the subject article.
LikeLike
The AI arms race
PS to the above: I suppose our new masters may believe it necessary to ban these huge data centres because of their evil propensity to consume a lot of electricity – making AI yet another product such as chemicals, nitrogen fertiliser, fossil fuel and high-grade steel where we have to rely on others to do the dirty work for us.
LikeLike
Who needs artificial intelligence when you’ve got the real deal – Keith, Ed and Claire – at the helm?
LikeLiked by 1 person
NZW has just published this press release:
‘Starmer is holding a Net Zero time bomb
‘Net Zero Watch has warned that Net Zero is an issue that could blow up in Keir Starmer’s face at any moment. The campaign group’s energy director Dr John Constable said:
‘Green Conservatives promised that Net Zero could be delivered at modest cost. It wasn’t true. The decarbonisation drive is now causing pain across the economy, and policies such as mandatory electric cars and heat pumps are extremely unpopular. As jobs are lost, and bills keep rising, it could soon get much worse.
‘Net Zero is therefore a time bomb that the Tories will be very glad to have passed on to the Labour Party. Keir Starmer has shown no sign that he understands the scale of the problems he has inherited, or that he sees the risks that Ed Miliband represents to his new administration.
‘And Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford offered the organisation’s help in rectifying the problems.
‘Eventually, everyone in the Westminster bubble will accept that extreme decarbonisation was a historic and catastrophic mistake. When they are ready, Net Zero Watch is happy to talk to anyone who wants to understand how to put things right – from MPs to ministers to trades unionists to civil society groups.’
Perhaps Cliscep should volunteer to help. Although I fear ‘eventually’ may be a long time coming.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin, good idea! I have just written a short e-mail to NZW to volunteer so will see what they say. I had contacted them some months ago regarding their strategy but they were, understandably, very tight lipped.
Yes, the policy of “extreme decarbonisation was a historic and catastrophic mistake”. However, it is I believe, as Richard indicated recently, just a symptom of how the West’s politics (and hence our policies) has become very distorted i.e. energy/climate is just one important failing among many others. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As for “unachievable”, here’s the state of play in the EU:
“Nearly every EU country blows major climate plan deadline
The ongoing delays are imperiling the bloc’s 2030 climate goals — and, by extension, its 2050 net neutrality ambition.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-countries-miss-major-climate-plan-deadline-green-deal/
…Only four of the 27 EU governments — the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland and Sweden — met a Sunday deadline to submit their so-called National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs), a core document for officials to show how they’re going to hit their share of the bloc’s emissions-cutting target for 2030. A fifth, Italy, filed its plan on Monday.
It’s the second consecutive blow in the process. Most EU countries were already late last year in submitting drafts of their climate plans. And when the documents did finally trickle in, the EU executive’s verdict was damning: The plans, it said, showed the bloc wouldn’t hit its 2030 goal to slash at least 55 percent of its emissions compared to 1990 levels...
…The ongoing delays and the shortcomings of the plans, climate activists warn, are endangering the EU’s Green Deal — as well as the bloc’s global reputation, as falling behind on domestic goals also means failing to meet international commitments. …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Had to google “EU’s Green Deal” – The European Green Deal – European Commission (europa.eu)
Partial quote from the header –
“Climate change and environmental degradation are an existential threat to Europe and the world. To overcome these challenges, the European Green Deal will transform the EU into a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy, ensuring:
The European Green Deal is also our lifeline out of the COVID-19 pandemic. One third of the €1.8 trillion investments from the NextGenerationEU Recovery Plan, and the EU’s seven-year budget will finance the European Green Deal.
The European Commission has adopted a set of proposals to make the EU’s climate, energy, transport and taxation policies fit for reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. More information on Delivering the European Green Deal.”
Would be a good link in/to your “Oil or Nothing Full steam ahead” post & your Ed Hoskins link – The myth of cheap “Renewable” Power in the UK – edmhdotme (wpcomstaging.com)
“unachievable” pointless clap trap that some get “€6 trillion investments” to squander.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oops – just noticed above should read –
“unachievable” pointless clap trap that some get “€0.6 trillion (€600 Billion) investments” to squander.
LikeLike
It’s started. Miliband has just blocked the licensing of new oil and gas exploration, including projects which were already in the pipeline.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/11/miliband-overrules-officials-immediate-north-sea-oil-ban/
You can call him a nutter, a deluded zealot or whatever, but his actions will demonstrably harm this country irreparably, for no benefit whatsoever. He is a rogue and a clear and present danger to the UK and Starmer will not sack him, not at this stage.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime: he’s done this because, in view of his earlier statements about oil and gas, he would have looked very foolish to now appear to be presiding over new licenses. That this is harmful to the UK may be obvious to anyone who, like us, understands the topic but unfortunately that doesn’t extend to many senior and ‘establishment’ people in positions of authority who – and I know this from my own experience – genuinely believe that we must stop burning fossil fuels if we’re to contribute to a global effort to ‘tackle’ the existential danger of a changing climate. This view extends well beyond Miliband and his many advisers and associates. These people, cultured and well educated, are not rogues; they’re quite simply hopelessly ill-informed about this issue.
LikeLike
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has apparently denied that Miliband has ordered an immediate ban on new oil and gas, although only one newspaper has said that so far:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24445188.ed-miliband-orders-immediate-ban-new-drilling-north-sea/
In other news about just stopping oil, the jury has found Roger Hallam and four others guilty of conspiring to cause a public nuisance. They have been remanded in custody. Sentencing is next Thursday. The judge has said that he will impose long prison terms.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, Robin, DESNZ and NSTA have strenuously denied the story in the Telegraph and called it a “complete fabrication”. By your logic, if Miliband was just following through on what he promised and what all those other people in government genuinely believe is necessary, then why are they now in such a hurry to deny the claim in the Telegraph that they have simply honoured their pledge? That doesn’t make sense. Either the Telegraph was lying, in which case Labour are already shying away from Ed Miliband’s fanatic determination to ban North Sea oil and gas exploration completely, or they were reporting the truth, which has evidently caused a massive uproar, and now Labour are swiftly back-tracking and going into damage limitation mode, just one week into government.
https://www.cityam.com/government-denies-ed-miliband-has-banned-new-north-sea-oil-licences/
LikeLike
No Jaime I didn’t say that all those establishment people believe it’s necessary to ban North Sea oil and gas exploration. What I said was that these people believe that as a matter of overall policy we must stop burning fossil fuels if we’re to contribute to a global effort to ‘tackle’ the existential danger of a changing climate. And that’s why they would not regard banning exploration as demonstrably harmful to the country – even though they might well believe that that particular policy is not actually desirable.
What I hope is happening is that Labour has, after all, decided that it’s opposed to Miliband’s plan to ban North Sea oil and gas exploration and is therefore back-tracking from the policy. If so, it’s happening a lot more quickly than I expected. I fear however that it’s likely to be no more than a cock-up.
LikeLike
Thank you Vinny, I thought you were joking, but it’s true. We await the sentence with interest.
Guardian.
LikeLike
Just Stop Oil’s delusional press release.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the last link Vinny, like how they end the press release –
“Until leaders act to protect us, Just Stop Oil supporters will continue to take the proportional action necessary to generate political pressure. This summer, airports will be declared sites of civil resistance. Sign up to take action at juststopoil.org.”
Bet that will go down well with the public.
Also from that link – ACSR_C_2024_26_UK_SR_EnvDefenders_public_statement_24.06.2024.pdf (unece.org)
Michel Forst – UN Special Rapporteur on environmental defenders under the Aarhus Convention.
Partial quotes –
“At the outset, I underline that the United Kingdom, as a Party to the Aarhus Convention, has a binding obligation under article 3 (8) of the Aarhus Convention to “ensure that persons exercising their rights in conformity with the Convention are not penalized, persecuted or harassed in any way for their involvement”.”
“The sanction faced by Mr. Shaw should be a matter of concern for any member of the public in the United Kingdom as well as the international community as a whole. The right to peaceful protest is a basic human right and an essential part of a healthy democracy. When, in the midst of a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, a peaceful environmental protester like Mr. Shaw faces an extended prison sentence in the United Kingdom, alarm bells should go off not just across the United Kingdom, but across the international community also. It signals that fundamental pillars of a democratic society are right now in grave peril in the United Kingdom.”
Need I say more?
LikeLike
Robin; if these folk are well-educated – or even if they are uneducated – it is absolutely obvious that such measures ARE demonstrably harmful.
Jobs will be lost. Future tax revenue will be lower. We will be more vulnerable to external market disruptions. The balance of payments will worsen. Companies will be discouraged from investing to maintain the existing production. And so on.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Oops – my comment should have been @ Jit.
LikeLike
You’re right MikeH, these consequences are (or should be) obvious. I cannot speak for all dangerous man-made emission believers but I think many understand this but would say that avoiding potential disaster is a matter of overriding importance and we have to accept that most unfortunately it will not be easy.
LikeLike
The always excellent Francis Menton has just published another good article . Headed Big Tech On The Path To Net Zero it reviews how Google, Microsoft and Meta, despite insisting on the critical importance of emission reduction are I fact – because of their establishing giant data centres – massively increasing their own emissions.
An extract:
Menton reviews each of their annual reports and exposes their extraordinary hypocrisy. A good and amusing read.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin – thanks for the link, which ends with –
“The fact is that all the talk about “net zero” put out by these companies is pure fantasy. If they really think that emissions reductions are an important goal, they have only one realistic way of attempting to accomplish that, which is to contract for their own sources of nuclear power. Meanwhile, I look forward to somebody in the press holding them accountable.”
But never fear – Delving into the deep with underwater data centres | Data Centre Magazine
“One of the most compelling factors in favour of deep-sea data centres is the elimination of cooling costs. Unlike their land-based counterparts which rely on energy-intensive mechanical cooling systems, deep-sea data centres can leverage the ocean’s inherent cooling capacity, effectively eliminating the need for active cooling systems.”
LikeLike
“Ed Miliband is the new face of Britain’s Net Zero folly”
Neil Record has the same suggestion on Net Zero as me: commit to doing as much as the rest of the world, and no more:
Telegraph, paywalled….
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree with both you and Neil Record – it’s a practical suggestion that makes exceptionally good sense. Here’s Record’s concluding paragraph:
The reason it won’t happen of course is that our ‘leaders’, even if they accepted that we are the source of less than 1% of global emissions (they’d probably counter that by wittering on about ‘historical responsibility’), are in thrall to the arrogant neocolonial idea that we should be exercising global leadership and setting an example.
This article contains little that we don’t know already, but Record makes his points with admirable clarity. Too bad it’s behind a paywall.
LikeLike
I haven’t commented on The Conversation for a long time. But today I came across this article – Is Britain on track for a zero-carbon power sector in six years? – and decided to do so. At first I thought I would comment on some of the misleading points raised but, having only indicated my views on these, I decided to return to my comfort zone.
Perhaps someone else here might like to join in?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, the disclosure statement of the authors of that piece is interesting:
Andrew Crossland has a consultancy agreement with SolarZero, a supplier of residential solar and battery technology in New Zealand.
Jon Gluyas is a founder and shareholder of Snowfox Discovery Ltd (a hydrogen exploration company), Geoenergy Durham Ltd (an energy transition consultancy) and Geoptic Ltd (a company that includes monitoring stored CO2). He is a founder and director of not-for-profit UK National Geothermal Centre. Jon has received funding from the UK government, research councils and industry to work on the energy transition and net zero.
This achieves transparency, which is good, but it seems to me that the authors both have a vested interest in pushing the line taken in the article. I will be interested to see if your comment, which undermines their vested interests, produces a response.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Commented. “. . . . . symbolic step towards addressing the complex challenges of climate change” . . . . they gave the game away.
LikeLike
Thanks to all who joined me at TC. It’s getting quite busy. Anyone feel like supporting me in my tussle with Daniel Baird?
LikeLike
Robin – from that post –
“even with all these extra renewables, the grid would need something to fill the gaps when batteries were flat and wind was low. At the moment, that role is typically filled by gas power stations that can be fired up at short notice.
Filling these gaps in a low-carbon way will require energy storage, low-carbon generators that can be turned on when needed (low-carbon biomass plants, for example) or gas power stations with carbon capture and storage. It is unclear what the industry sees as the breakthrough technology – and the grid may well need gas to keep the lights on in the short to medium term.”
Wonder what they think will fire up “low-carbon biomass plants” or does it self combust.
As usual, they have a vested interest.
LikeLike
Just read further down –
“the technologies are numerous: low-carbon heating (electric heat pumps, for instance), solar panels, electric vehicle chargers, batteries and energy-efficiency improvements like insulation. Geothermal energy, which involves pumping heat from underground, could also reduce emissions and dependency on imported gas. Solar panels can provide power directly to the home in the day and heat pumps are over three times more efficient than combi boilers. Combined, they can slash the energy that households need to buy each year (by around 40% for an average home).”
Read further link on Heat pumps shown to be three times more efficient than gas boilers – Energy Systems Catapult but gave up, my head can’t take the guff.
LikeLike
As I have pointed out elsewhere (and as Andrew Montford has also recently pointed out at the Daily Sceptic), heat pumps might be three times more efficient than combi boilers, but electricity is four times more expensive than gas. Also, as others have pointed out, the efficiency of heat pumps is less in winter, greater in summer (not surprising, given that they rely on using outside air, which is colder in winter, warmer in summer). The efficiency of heat pumps is an average over the year. Running them probably adds anywhere between 30% and 50% to the average bill.
LikeLike
“EnergyUK may need new gas-fired power stations to decarbonise grid
Report says new nuclear capacity will not be ready in time to provide required increase in baseload electricity”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/23/uk-may-need-new-gas-fired-power-stations-to-decarbonise-grid
Labour is likely to have to approve new gas-fired power stations in its attempt to decarbonise the UK’s electricity systems by 2030, in what would be a tricky decision for the new government.
Keeping the lights on for the rest of the decade, and beyond, will require some additional baseload power, and new nuclear power stations will not be built in time, according to a report from the National Engineering Policy Centre.
All the UK’s existing gas-fired power stations are expected to be kept going as long as possible but it is probable that more will be needed….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin has of course talked about this – yet another elephant in an increasingly elephant-filled room. It’s a shame that those in charge seem to have an elephant blind spot:
“Ireland’s datacentres overtake electricity use of all urban homes combined
Statistics raise concerns that rise in demand for data processing driven by AI could derail climate targets”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/23/ireland-datacentres-overtake-electricity-use-of-all-homes-combined-figures-show
Ireland’s energy-hungry datacentres consumed more electricity last year than all of its urban homes combined, according to official figures.
The country’s growing fleet of datacentres used 21% of its electricity, an increase of a fifth on 2022, according to the Central Statistics Office.
It was the first year that datacentres supporting the Irish tech hub surpassed the electricity used by homes in its towns and cities, which consumed 18% of the grid’s total power last year.
Experts have raised concerns that the sudden surge in power demand driven by datacentres could derail climate targets in Ireland and across Europe.
Google, which has based its European headquarters in Ireland, said earlier this month that its datacentres risked delaying its green ambitions after driving a 48% increase in its overall emissions last year compared with 2019.
The rise in demand for data processing, driven by recent breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, could lead Ireland’s datacentres to consume about 31% of Ireland’s electricity within the next three years, according to the country’s National Energy and Climate Plan.
This would eclipse the electricity demand of Ireland’s urban and rural homes, which together made up 28% of overall power demand in 2023, according to the figures….
LikeLiked by 2 people
There’s an interesting article by Bjorn Lomborg in the Telegraph today:
Net zero will only make you poorer and China richer
We need to wake up and stop hemorrhaging trillions in self-inflicted climate policies that will mainly benefit Beijing
(Unfortunately it’s paywalled.)
Some extracts:
One observation: there’s little evidence to date that China is seriously interested in curbing its own emissions – even modestly. .
LikeLiked by 2 people
A bit more of Lomborg’s article can be read here, without a paywall:
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/24/net-zero-is-impoverishing-the-west-and-enriching-china/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin/Mark – thanks for the links. From Marks link, at the bottom we get this link – Net zero will only make you poorer and China richer (telegraph.co.uk)
Partial quotes from Bjorn (already partially covered by Robin) –
“The world needs a better way forward. The best solution is not to push people to be worse off by forcing a premature transition from fossil fuels to inadequate green alternatives. Instead, we should ramp up investments in green innovation, eventually driving down the cost of clean energy to be cheaper than fossil fuels. This is much cheaper and will allow everyone, including India and other emerging economies, to want to make the shift.
Rich countries need to wake up and stop hemorrhaging trillions in self-inflicted climate policies that will be followed by few, laughed at by many, and will mainly make China rich. Spending a small fraction of the climate trillions on green innovation would fix climate change. This will allow us to focus the rest of our resources on education, defense, health care and the many other, important challenges in the 21st century.”
“Spending a small fraction of the climate trillions on green innovation would fix climate change” – mmm, not sure the “”Spending a small fraction of the climate trillions on green innovation would fix climate change”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dfhunter,
That sentence – ”Spending a small fraction of the climate trillions on green innovation would fix climate change” – confused me too. My assumption is that he means that we could adapt to climate change more cheaply than our forlorn attempts to prevent it, but I didn’t find his meaning here to be clear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David Turver is not impressed by the Government’s launch of the GB Energy Bill:
Labour Launches GB Energy Bill
Debt-funded GB Energy to invest in the most expensive electricity generation technologies.
He notes for example that Labour’s pre-election pledge to cut energy bills by £300 has been has been reduced to a pathetic ‘should make bills lower in the long term.’ As Turver says:
He concludes:
Worth reading in full.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Definitely worth a read – I have just caught up with it in full now.
I listened to a very depressing interview with Sarah Jones, Minister of State at DESNZ, on BBC Radio 4’s PM programme earlier this evening. It seemed to me that she didn’t have any real understanding of what is being proposed, and it was such a pity that she wasn’t subjected to any meaningful questioning. Had she been, I suspect she would have been in real difficulties. As it was, I didn’t really feel that she answered even the easy questions that were put to her.
LikeLike
Coincident with the Government’s publication of the Great British Energy bill, the Royal Academy of Engineering has published a report entitled Rapid decarbonisation of the GB electricity system. There’s a lot of interest here – not least that Sir Patrick Vallance (Minister of State for Science) was, until 5 July (i.e. just after the election), co-chair of the working group that produced the report.
I suggest that many here may like to have a look at some of the detail: there’s a vast amount to note. Here are just a few of the many items that caught my eye:
Page 1:
Page 7:
Page 10:
Page 12:
Page 22:
Looking at this report as a whole it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Academy, although reluctant to say so openly, believes the decarbonised grid by 2030 project is hopelessly impracticable.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Robin,
This ‘vision’ consists entirely of Mad Ed’s feverish imaginings and already broken Labour manifesto promises – £300 reduction in energy bills, creation of Green jobs as UK becomes a ‘clean energy superpower’ and ‘tackling the climate crisis’.
The £300 bill reduction promise has already been ditched; Mad Ed has already put the mockers on thousands of highly paid, good quality jobs in the North Sea oil and gas industry, steel industry, coal mining industry and refining industry – so that’s a net loss of jobs at present; and it’s becoming generally known that Britain’s puny attempts to ‘tackle climate change’ will do nothing to affect global mean temperature (or the bleedin’ weather!) even assuming that GHG emissions are the main driver of climate change, which also looks increasingly suspect. So Vallance and his team are going to have to come up with some extraordinarily powerful ‘nudges’ in order to get the public on side, is all I can say! There are no ‘benefits’ evident (EVs and heat pumps are inferior to ICE cars and gas boilers), just wishy washy promises of a Utopian ‘clean Green future’ of plenty via a ‘just transition’. In other words, codswallop.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, so far the public don’t seem to be particularly concerned about the 2030 project. But that will certainly change and the ‘essential’ ‘public support and understanding’ quite simply won’t be forthcoming. Will Miliband care? I doubt it.
LikeLike
Jaime:
And on Monday it looks like they’re going to break their tax promises, on a false basis, making Net Zero an even grosser prospect for ordinary taxpayers:
on which Nick Timothy (now an MP) has this to say
It’s worth reading the n tweets to see how dishonest this is.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Richard, you’re right – there’s nothing secret or unexpected about the £20 billion ‘black hole’: the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have been referring to it for months. But there’s a real black hole in the offing: Reeves seems likely to agree to 5.5 per cent pay rises for public sector workers for which there was no provision in Labour’s ‘fully-costed’ manifesto.
But aren’t we drifting somewhat off topic?
LikeLike
Well, if they raise more money through breaking their promises on tax they will have more of it to waste on Net Zero codswallop. The crisis will be delayed, to the very great detriment of the whole UK population.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Labour are going to torpedo the Tories’ free speech bill for universities too. We have their measure in just two weeks. Lies, u-turns, misinformation and now authoritarian censorship of free speech, which will eventually extend to free speech re. Net zero and climate change scepticism, as well as ‘Islamophobia’ and gender critical ‘transphobia’ of course. And we shouldn’t look to the ‘Conservatives’ for opposition either: as Nigel Farage has pointed out after observing the goings-on in Parliament for just a few days – there is none, they agree on almost everything.
LikeLike
Jaime: I agree with most of that. But I’m becoming quite uncomfortable about our getting so political.
LikeLike
Today’s Telegraph has an article by Professor Gordon Hughes that’s severely critical of net zero and especially of the 2030 target:
The true cost of Labour’s net zero plans is slowly being revealed – and the sums are staggering
Electricity bills would have to double by 2030 to achieve Labour’s goal of decarbonising our grid
Some extracts:
His conclusion:
Not the outcome that Miliband is promising.
LikeLiked by 3 people
An article by Andy Mayer, also in today’s Telegraph and referring to Hughes’ piece above, says this:
I thought Jaime might like that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Francis Menton (of The Manhattan Contrarian) has just published another interesting article: How Will New York’s Energy Madness End? The “Don’t Do It!” Report
Having reviewed the absurdity of New York’s energy policies, Menton says this:
It’s an important article and worth reading in full – noting that Menton is one of the ‘public-spirited guys’. Perhaps we need a similar group to take such action in the UK?
Here’s the referenced Report: https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/report-to-trade-assocs-v8-070724.pdf
LikeLiked by 2 people
And David Turver, excellent as usual:
“Debt-Funded GB Energy to Bet on the Costliest Electricity Generation Technologies”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/07/27/debt-funded-gb-energy-to-bet-on-the-costliest-electricity-generation-technologies/
…It is only a matter of time before we are exhorted to Stay Cold, Protect the Grid and Save Gas, perhaps accompanied by Patrick Vallance giving daily tallies of deaths from hypothermia.
LikeLike
David Turver has published another devastating article this morning:
DESNZ Has Net Zero Competence
DESNZ ministers, SPADs and senior civil servants are totally unqualified for their roles
His opening paragraph:
He goes on to review the academic qualifications of DESNZ ministers, special advisers and departmental civil servants and finds scant evidence of any background in science, technology or engineering. A look at senior people in the National Grid ESO and the CCC comes up with the same result.
He concludes:
I never feel altogether happy with such articles. I have a law degree and am qualified as a barrister and, although I have a lot of commercial experience in high-tech industry, I have no training in science, technology or engineering. Yet I like to think that I understand of at least the rudiments of the climate issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But Robin, you look outside the bubble but they refuse to! Regards, John.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
My thoughts exactly (regarding your concluding paragraph). Having said that, what appears to be an almost complete lack of people with STEM backgrounds anywhere near positions of power and influence with regard to energy policy is worrying. All the engineers I know think net zero is impracticable and crazy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As Ben points out on X, even the supposed ‘experts’ are infected by magical thinking:
But, packing the policy-making team with humanities graduates ensures that they must defer to the ‘experts’ and thus are ill-equipped to independently question supposed ‘science-based’ policies and their implementation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Re Turver’s excellent article, it’s interesting to note again two items from the Royal Society for Engineering’s recent report (see my note here at 4:03 PM on 26 July):
‘Placing engineering at the core will drive a whole-systems approach that enables better choices and avoids the high costs and perverse consequences of multiple uncoordinated initiatives.‘
‘Action for government:
Quickly establish a delivery-focused energy system transformation capability staffed with sufficient technical, engineering, portfolio management, programme management and financial expertise, backed by effective data and information systems with visualisation tools.’
[My emphases]
It seems the Government is unlikely to take any notice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jonathan Leake has an interesting article in today’s Spectator blog:
Why Ed Miliband’s energy bills pledge may become an epitaph
Labour’s campaign centrepiece could prove to be a load of hot air
Some extracts:
Inscribed on another edstone? Let’s hope that day comes soon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s difficult to square those extra costs with cutting bills by £300 – so where did that claim even come from? The answer is that it was based on a report published last October by Ember, a pressure group campaigning on climate change and clean energy.
And so we go round in circles:
https://cliscep.com/2023/04/16/burning-ember/
Of course, one of the leading lights behind Ember is none other than (now) Baroness Bryony Worthington, one of the lead authors of the Climate Change Act.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh dear, the Torygraph reports on another problem for Mad Ed:
Britain ‘runs real risk’ by relying on wind power, says Centrica boss
LikeLike
The Daily Sceptic refers to the above story. I liked this comment by ‘Marcus Aurelius knew’:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Given the Telegraph paywall, this might be useful:
“Boss of British Gas owner raises concerns over wind power efficiency
Chris O’Shea, Chief Executive Officer of Centrica, has expressed concerns about the efficiency and future role of wind power in the UK’s energy system”
https://www.energylivenews.com/2024/07/29/boss-of-british-gas-owner-raises-concerns-over-wind-power-efficiency/
...Mr O’Shea stated, “The UK has around 30GW of installed wind generation capacity which has generated 4.41GW of electricity on average in the last week. This means less than 15% utilisation.
“If you look over the last year, wind has generated 9.43GW, which takes the utilisation up to 30%.”
The boss of the owner of British Gas posed the question of whether focusing heavily on building more wind generation would improve the energy system or simply reduce the utilisation of existing wind generation capacity.
Mr O’Shea also questioned the need for subsidies for wind farms, noting the form of a guaranteed price for electricity produced.
He said: “Whilst wind power is great, we run a real risk if we focus too much on new wind as we look to decarbonise the energy system of the future. A net zero future requires a range of technologies and a good balance.”…
LikeLike
The Speccie blog has an article by Ross Clark entitled Is ‘Rachel Reeves really worried about a fiscal black hole?‘
Clark reviews how Reeves’ ‘emergency audit’ has, as she puts it, forced her to cut back on various ‘unfunded commitments’ such as the Household Support Fund, the Stonehenge tunnel and pensioners’ winter fuel payment – although it’s OK to give in to teachers, doctors etc.
My comment is the most liked:
Apologies for the trumpet blowing.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The Speccie had another article about Reeves’ speech this morning. I posted a comment much the same as the above and based on her slogan: “If we cannot afford it, we cannot do it”. I won’t bore you with the detail but it was gratifying that it went straight to the top of the likes. I suggest we should be pleased that Spectator readers seem to agree that Miliband’s mad ambitions are an especially important topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin – trumpet blowing is ok with me, seems your message/point of view/backed with facts is getting the feedback you deserve.
LikeLike
Roger Pielke Jr has what I think is a particularly interesting article on his Substack: Why Climate Misinformation Persists
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/why-climate-misinformation-persists
In it he attempts to answer this:
He proposes three interrelated explanations — the noble lie, conventional wisdom, and luxury beliefs.
Well worth reading.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Another excellent piece by David Turver:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-147204904
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin – thanks for the link to the Pielke Jr Substack, Well worth a read as you say.
So much I could quote, but thought this partial quote apt –
“Conventional Wisdom
The phrase was popularized by John Kenneth Galbraith in his 1958 book, The Affluent Society, where he explained:
The key point here is “acceptability” regardless of an idea’s conformance with truth. Conventional wisdom is that which everyone knows to be true whether actually true or not. Examples of beliefs that at one time or another were/are conventional wisdom include — Covid-19 did not come from a lab, Sudafed helps with hay fever, spinach is high in iron, and climate change is fueling extreme weather.
As the noble lie of climate fueled extreme weather has taken hold as conventional wisdom, few have been willing to offer correctives — Though there are important exceptions out in plain sight, like the IPCC Working Group 1 and the NOAA GFDL Hurricanes and Global Warming page.
Actively challenging conventional wisdom has professional and social costs. For instance, those who suggested that Covid-19 may have had a research-related origin were labeled conspiracy theorists and racists, those who suggested that President Biden was too old to serve another term were called Trump enablers, and those who accurately represent the science of climate and extreme weather are tarred as climate deniers and worse.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
This concise summary by Pielke Jr. is worth reading:
“What the IPCC Actually Says About Extreme Weather
I promise, you’ll be utterly shocked”
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-ipcc-actually-says-about
“In this Report (AR6) emergence of a climate change signal or trend refers to when a change in climate (the ‘signal’) becomes larger than the amplitude of natural or internal variations (defining the ‘noise’)”
“The IPCC has concluded that a signal of climate change has not yet emerged beyond natural variability for the following phenomena:
Pleased to see that a statistical rather than anecdotal approach is being used by the IPCC (sarc). The disconnect between the catastrophic style of media reporting on extreme events and the IPCC conclusions is really astonishing.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Today’s Telegraph has an article about how a boom in nickel mining is devastating much of Indonesia’s natural environment.
Some extracts:
It’s illustrated by some remarkable photographs.
I liked this comment by Winston Thomas:
If you cannot access the Telegraph much of the article can be found at the Daily Sceptic HERE .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin – thanks for the link with the “remarkable photographs” you mention.
If this was because of coal mining, can you imagine the outrage from the usual suspects.
Like – “First UK coal mine in decades approved despite climate concerns – Published 7 December 2022”
First UK coal mine in decades approved despite climate concerns – BBC News
PS – also like the current top 2 comment your link –
“Tee Dee 1 min ago So thats what going green means. Have you you seen this Greta? Destruction in the name of nett zero. You couldn’t make it up
Comment by Michael Gleaves. MGMichael Gleaves13 hrs ago Can you please send this article to Chris Packham, I don’t have his email address”
LikeLike