Robin Guenier has just drawn Cliscep readers’ attention to an article in the Telegraph, written by Claire Coutinho. The heading (“Miliband’s pledge to lower heating bills was always pure fantasy – now we have the proof; It’s becoming painfully clear that Labour’s ‘clean power’ revolution will fail to deliver on its promises”) is encouraging for those of us who believe that the new government’s dash to “decarbonise” the grid by 2030 is going to be destructive (of jobs and of the environment), expensive, pointless, and stupid.

Robin makes a very good point:

…Unfortunately (and unsurprisingly) she’s missed one small detail: that the entire Net Zero shebang is a disastrous and pointless waste of time and money introduced by a Conservative government in 2019 – the year she became an Tory MP – going on to become DESNZ Secretary of State with the specific objective of implementing this mad policy.

He’s right, of course, but I am keen to take the positives, and am optimistic as to what this might mean for the net zero debate hereafter. For a start, until now a debate has been almost non-existent (certainly in Parliament), but I think one is beginning. Recently, there was the poor (but better than nothing) debate in the House of Lords. And now I anticipate that things may get a little more lively in the House of Commons.

I am particularly impressed by this:

I was brought in to be energy secretary last year to reset the Conservative approach to energy and to make sure that we prioritised bills and living standards above a religious approach to net zero.

Unfortunately for too long we were an unthinking part of the congregation, but in Ed Miliband we are now being led by the archbishop.

The truth is now obvious for all to see: bills are set to soar under Labour’s approach and it’s not even clear that Miliband will be able to keep the lights on in Britain…

I may be wrong, of course, but I suspect that I detect the hand of Kemi Badenoch, the new leader of the opposition, in this, as it seems to mark a definite change of emphasis. “… [F]or too long we were an unthinking part of the congregation” reads to me like an admission of guilt, a recognition that net zero is a vote loser, and a belief that votes are to be won by opposing it. It’s a first step only, but then a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. Combine this with the election of Donald Trump over the Pond, and we could be in for interesting times.

43 Comments

  2. Further to this, I’ve just referred on the COP29 thread to an interesting article in this evening’s Telegraph. It contains this interesting observation:

    Far too late, Tories are realising their mistake in going along with it all. After 14 years of backing Net Zero, they cannot credibly pivot to “drill baby drill”. Nobody likes admitting they have made a colossal mistake. But there are tentative signs that new party leader Kemi Badenoch may begin to pull away.

    Back in 2022, she described the Net Zero target as “unilateral economic disarmament,” questioning the pace. If she really has doubts, her problem will be that many in her own party remain wedded to the agenda.

    Let’s hope she really does have doubts – and her comments in the recent leadership contest indicate that she does – and that’s she’s tough enough to see to it that her Net Zero supporting colleagues change their position. The Trump revolution should help.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Part of the congregation? Coutinho was in the government. She was pushing this national suicide project forwards. She just cannot credibly swerve like that. Either she believed in Net Zero before, or she was playing a cynical part.

    Like

  4. Jit,

    I suspect it’s a form of words chosen by Kemi. Saying they were part of the congregation seems to me to be an admission that they were drone-like believers in a religion, but now they’re having second thoughts.

    They can’t evade liability so easily, and I certainly won’t forgive them, but if they are finally waking up to reality, then I think that has to be a good thing.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Seems that Greta wasn’t the first deranged juvenile from Sweden to run amok claiming the sky was falling down. This 17th c version – known as Gävle Boy – suggests one way for our politicos to pivot but yet hide their gullibility.

    In those days it wasn’t “climate wot done it” when bad things happened but “witchcraft” and Gavle Boy plus friends set themselves up as witchfinders, pointing the finger much at random and sealing the fate of wholly innocent women. You can look him up in Wikipedia for more fascinating historical background including how they eventually overreached themselves to reveal the total fabrications at the root of the demise of so many.

    Fine, but this left a quandary for the clerical and legal powers-that-be who had played along with it all and put so many to death on unverified say-so. The way those in authority wriggled out of the situation was fascinating – simply put it about that thanks to their actions there were now no more witches in Sweden, problem solved, so move on. No need to admit gullibility and congratulations all round.

    So, a job for ChatGBT to concoct an equivalent tale that thanks to timely and vigorous policy interventions we have assembled all the information that we and future generations will require to counter a future threat from the climate quarter so let’s move on to the next bugaboo.

    Like

  6. Nah, I’m with Jit on this: the Conservative’s new broom is a bit like Trigger’s old broom: they might fit a new head or a new handle occasionally but it’s still Trigger’s broom. Coutinho is unaware of, or chooses to ignore the fact that no matter what politicians say or do, or don’t do, they are legally bound to pursue Net Zero and if they don’t, the climate cultist lawfare brigade will use the courts to make sure they do. The only way to roll back on the Net Zero path to destruction is to repeal CCA2008 and neither Labour or the Conservatives will do that.

    Like

  8. I’m partly in agreement with Jaime’s comment, and partly not. I agree that well-funded “green” lawfare will continue relentlessly unless and until the Climate Change Act (CCA) is either repealed or significantly and meaningfully amended. Until then, whether we like it or not, it is the law of the land, and campaigners are perfectly entitled to insist that the government obey the law. However, it’s a mad law, and it needs to go.

    It’s too early to expect the Tories (new broom or not) to start demanding the amendment or repeal of the CCA – after all, they are the clowns who (under May’s Prime Ministership) amended the CCA to double down on targets and turn the 80% reduction into a demand for 100% (or net zero) by 2050. It takes time to turn a super tanker round, and Badenoch doesn’t yet have her MPs completely on board with her, let alone with her plan. I still have hopes, however, that her plan does involve amendment or repeal of the CCA, and that over the next four or so years (in time for the next general election) she will be able to persuade Tory MPs and her party at large that such a policy is a vote-winner. After all, Miliband and his cohorts will become increasingly unpopular in the UK as the impact of the policies he is pushing becomes evident and those policies start to cause real damage and pain.

    Keep the faith!

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Jit / Jaime: see my comment about the Coutinho article quoted by Mark at the beginning of his header post. BUT – if some Tories really are changing their minds, surely that must be welcome.

    Like

  10. Max Beran,

    Profuse apologies. Your comment, for no good reason, went into spam, where I have just found it and released it.

    Like

  11. Robin, Mark,

    Yes, it’s encouraging in a way, but it’s not nearly enough and time is running out to save our nation from irreversible decline. Once the oil and gas prospectors leave, they’re not going to rush back. Land sequestered for ‘renewables’ is not going to be restored as pristine countryside/food producing fields. Money borrowed to throw down the drain of Net Zero will still have to be repaid. Businesses and industries destroyed by Net Zero will not just start up again.

    Bad Enoch is a self professed ‘Net Zero sceptic but not a climate sceptic.’ The soon to be most powerful leader in the world is saying it outright: climate hysteria is a hoax and he will withdraw from the Paris Agreement – and America is not nearly as far along the path to Net Zero destruction as the UK is. We are seriously at risk of the political backlash to Net Zero being ‘too little, too late.’

    It really does look like we are f…ed, as Ian observes.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Jaime,

    I can’t disagree much, if at all, with that. But we have to remain hopeful, or we may as well give up.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. I agree with Mark: see my closing comment to my post about the Chris Morrison Daily Sceptic article on the COP29 thread.

    Like

  14. “Tory former energy secretary facing conflict of interest claim over JCB owner links

    Shadow cabinet secretary Claire Coutinho accepted donation from Lord Bamford while overseeing millions awarded to his family businesses in green grants”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/nov/09/tory-energy-secretary-claire-coutinho-lord-bamford-donations-jcb-green-grants

    A Conservative former cabinet ­minister who took donations from the billionaire boss of the JCB digger dynasty – including a £7,000 trip on his VIP private helicopter – oversaw decisions to award his family’s business empire millions in taxpayer-funded green energy grants.

    Claire Coutinho also posed for ­pictures promoting Lord Bamford’s personal £100m hydrogen engine project and accepted a £7,500 donation from JCB to her local election campaign while she was the energy secretary in Rishi Sunak’s government.

    The revelations raise questions about possible conflicts of interest for the East Surrey MP – who is now serving as shadow secretary for energy security and net zero – and shed light on a wider pattern of donations from the JCB empire, which has given £300,000 to the Conservatives in 2024 alone.

    While the Tories were in office, Coutinho’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero was responsible for allocating funding from the Net Zero Hydrogen Fund and other funding pots intended to boost green energy initiatives.

    The family of Lord Bamford, a longtime leading donor to the Conservatives and a friend of former prime minister Boris Johnson, has invested heavily in hydrogen and lobbied for government spending on infrastructure projects.

    The Observer’s investigation has established that Coutinho met personally with Bamford and organisations linked to him before and after key funding decisions that benefited his family’s business empire.

    In September 2023, a consortium led by Ryze Hydrogen, a company owned by Bamford’s son Jo – heir to the family fortune and a director of JCB’s holding company – won £3.2m from Coutinho’s department to provide hydrogen refuelling to construction sites. JCB has a business relationship with Ryze, jointly signing a multibillion pound deal with an Australian mining company to supply green hydrogen to the UK….

    This raises lots of issues. As you will all know by now, I am no Tory, and any suspicion of funding for favours is something I find revolting. Of course, this is about largesse with regard to “green” projects. When will the Guardian/Observer realise that not only is there a thing called Big Oil, there is an equally greedy (but less useful) multi-national Big Green Blob?

    The main thing about this story, however, I suspect is its timing. Claire Coutinho has just written a piece suggesting that she may be retreating from net zero. Is this a hit job in response to that?

    Liked by 2 people

  15. If any firm is likely to make a successful “hydrogen engine” JCB meets the engineering expertise requirements.

    Would rather trust them with a proven track record, than some start up.

    But never mind, the evil woman –

    “With the JCB helicopter thought to burn almost 480 litres (about 105 gallons) of fuel an hour, her £7,182 return trip could have pumped out an estimated two tonnes of CO2. Had she gone by train, it would have cost about £90, taken approximately two hours each way – plus a 10-minute car journey – and caused a fraction of the pollution. Carys Boughton, a campaigner at Fossil Free Parliament, said the helicopter trip was the “toxic cherry on the cake” and described the donations as a “particularly obvious conflict of interest”.”

    Like

  16. dfhunter,

    As it happens, I also deplore the use of an expensive helicopter at the taxpayers’ expense for what amounted to little more than a photo opportunity.

    On the other hand, “an estimated two tonnes of CO2”. Hmm. I wonder how much CO2 will be pumped out by the various hangers-on who achieve nothing (let’s face it, the whole process achieves nothing, other than photo opportunities) at COP29?

    Like

  20. Mark: don’t forget that, during the Tory leadership campaign, Badenoch said that, although not a climate change sceptic, she was a net zero sceptic.

    Like

  23. Thank goodness the Tories have a new broom, given that this is the sort of thing coming out of the mouths of some of the old brooms:

    “Let China build electric cars in UK, Tory ex-chancellor tells Rachel Reeves ahead of trade trip

    Despite ‘spy’ scandal, Philip Hammond says Britain should now adopt a ‘pragmatic approach to Beijing’”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/22/let-china-build-electric-cars-in-uk-tory-ex-chancellor-tells-rachel-reeves-ahead-of-trade-trip

    …“Chinese advances in electrical vehicle technology and renewable energy technology do actually offer us a route to delivering on our strategic objectives such as electrification,” Hammond said. “Why wouldn’t we encourage the Chinese to build renewable energy technology and electrical vehicles in the UK, just as the Japanese did in the 1980s?”…

    Good grief. Where to start?

    Like

  24. “Why wouldn’t we encourage the Chinese to build renewable energy technology and electrical vehicles in the UK, just as the Japanese did in the 1980s?”

    Maybe because China sees trade as a zero-sum game, rather than a mutually-beneficial enterprise?

    Like

  25. Apropos the discussion on Robin’s thread, Net Zero Watch has just issued this press release:

    Net Zero Watch welcomes Kemi’s realism

    Net Zero Watch welcomes the admission by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch that the 2050 decarbonisation target was ‘a mistake’ and that it was put in place without any plan to deliver it.

    This new position will undoubtedly lead to speculation that the party is about to adopt a radically different climate and energy policy.

    Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:“Kemi Badenoch’s new position on decarbonisation is very welcome, and she is right that Net Zero is making us poorer. It shows that the Conservatives are abandoning green irrationality in favour of a new realism. Now she has to set out a new direction for her party and for the country.”Mr Montford said:“Net Zero Watch has been a lone voice in the wilderness for many years, but we were right, and it looks as if the political establishment is coming to accept that. This change of direction is a big victory for our campaign.”

    Liked by 2 people

  26. “The Tories set the UK net zero target. Now they are dumping it

    The 2050 goal “leaves us economically worse off,” Conservative energy chief Andrew Bowie said.”

    https://www.politico.eu/article/tories-uk-kemi-badenoch-conservative-opposition-net-carbon-zero-emissions-andrew-bowie/

    Kemi Badenoch’s new-look Conservative opposition is still working out the policies it wants to put before voters. But the U.K.’s net zero target is already firmly in the party’s firing line.

    The Tories, while in government, passed legislation to reduce net carbon emissions to zero by 2050. Now Badenoch and her shadow team say the target damages the country — and they want to ditch it.

    Setting that aim in 2019 was a “mistake,” argued interim Shadow Energy Secretary Andrew Bowie.

    “What’s quite clear is that the setting of arbitrary targets with no clear plan on how to deliver them does not work for the country,” he told POLITICO in an interview, his first since stepping into the role while his colleague Claire Coutinho takes maternity leave.

    Bowie added: “It leaves us economically worse off, and at a competitive disadvantage to other nations as well. So yeah — Kemi’s absolutely right when she says that it was a mistake.”...

    Liked by 2 people

  27. “Net zero by 2050 ‘impossible’ for UK, says Badenoch”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly3pnjyzp4o

    Kemi Badenoch has said it is “impossible” for the UK to meet its net zero target by 2050 – a goal set by a previous Conservative government.

    The UK is legally committed to reaching net zero by 2050 under a law passed by Theresa May in 2019. It means the UK must cut carbon emissions until it removes as much as it produces, in line with the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

    Badenoch said net zero cannot be achieved by 2050 “without a serious drop in our living standards or by bankrupting us”.

    The Conservative leader did not set out a replacement for the target, but her words mark a sharp break from years of political consensus….

    It’s probably not enough:

    …A source close to Badenoch said the Conservative leader still backs net zero, but not by 2050.…

    Like

  28. I should have added that the BBC article goes on with a dreadful piece of misinformation, seeking to portray Badenoch’s views as being those that are out of step with worldwide opinion, when increasingly the opposite is true:

    …Badenoch’s comments come as governments worldwide are investing in renewables to meet international climate targets and lower carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.…

    I think we need BBC Verify to analyse that dubious claim!

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Who knows about the rights and wrongs of this (I certainly don’t)? But the green blob is definitely rattled:

    “Kemi Badenoch accused of breaking pledge to Tory MPs of net zero by 2050

    MPs claim during her 2022 party leadership campaign she promised them she was committed to green targets”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/23/kemi-badenoch-accused-of-breaking-pledge-to-tory-mps-of-net-zero-by-2050

    …Speaking to the Observer, Chris Skidmore, who served as a government minister between 2016 and 2020, said that Badenoch had made clear to a group of Tory MPs and other Conservatives at a leadership hustings in 2022, when she was seeking their votes in the race to replace Boris Johnson, that she backed the policy.

    Skidmore said he recalled “how she told a Conservative Environment Network hustings of 60 MPs that I organised with [former business and energy secretary] Alok Sharma for the leadership in 2022 that she believed in net zero – and made that promise in private to us all.”...

    …Another Tory source who was at the 2022 hustings confirmed that, during a private meeting, Badenoch had said she would support the net zero policy, although the source added that she appeared to change her position soon after the hustings.…

    Like

  31. Rattled indeed. For Skidmore to choose the Observer to strike this blow for him is telling. Plus, it’s vapour. Are we supposed to believe that politicians don’t change their story according to how the message benefits them? Honest politicians get nowhere; they alienate too many people. You can only trust what they say when they have the power in hand to turn words into actions.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. “Tory shadow energy minister claims 2050 net zero goal ‘not based on science’

    Exclusive: Andrew Bowie calls climate scientists biased and says country should not be ‘hamstrung by arbitrary targets’”

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/13/tory-shadow-energy-minister-claims-2050-net-zero-goal-not-based-on-science

    The Conservative party’s energy spokesperson has attacked leading climate scientists as biased and claimed Kemi Badenoch could take the UK out of the Paris climate agreement.

    Andrew Bowie, the acting shadow secretary for energy, told the Guardian that the target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – passed into law by Theresa May – was “arbitrary” and “not based on science”….

    Liked by 1 person

  34. I’m afraid their position is not tenable. They are still trying to keep one foot in both camps, seemingly in order to placate the “green” elements among them. Their voters would prefer pragmatism, I am sure. And it also seems obvious that such voters will depart for Reform if the Conservatives don’t offer them what they want.

    Last week the Telegraph reported that 95% of its readers want Net Zero to be cancelled. The wishy-washy language of ifs and buts is not going to cut it for them.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Jit,

    You right about them trying to keep a foot in both camps, and you are right that it is a policy that is doomed to fail. The article also includes this:

    Bowie said: “We are not climate deniers and while we believe in getting to net zero…”.

    On the other hand, the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step, and I think they have taken quite a few steps now. I may easily be wrong, but so long as they don’t ditch Badenoch as leader, I think there is a reasonable prospect that the Tory Party manifesto ahead of the next UK general election will either ditch a net zero target date or even commit to repealing the CCA. If a week is a long time in politics, then four years offers plenty of time for lots of things to change.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. It’s most unfortunate that, instead getting involved in another war of words about ‘the science’, the Tories have not adopted the simple line that, irrespective of the science, the UK’s net zero policy is … wait for it … unachievable, disastrous and in any case pointless. It would be much harder for the climate warriors at the Guardian to argue with that – especially the last point. And it would provide a clear route to abandoning the wretched net zero policy altogether.

    Liked by 2 people

  37. If a new broom sweeps clean, this Labour government, it seems, is determined to carry on using the tired old brush (at least, that’s my take on the Guardian’s view of things):

    “Reeves’ review shows Labour plans to take on the right over net zero

    By earmarking billions of pounds for the green economy, Labour is setting itself apart from the Tories and Reform”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/12/reeves-review-shows-labour-plans-to-take-on-the-right-over-net-zero

    …Taken together, the spending package on the green economy adds up to more than £60bn, not counting the £22bn in research and development spending, some of which will go to green ends. The budget for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero alone was boosted by 16%, more than any other department.…

    Increasingly, it seems to me, Starmer is running scared of Farage, who is to an extent setting the agenda (more so than Badenoch and Tories). But this is an area where Starmer strikes me as being a zealot (albeit one who is happy for Miliband to be his lightning conductor), and net zero is his Holy Grail. It will also, I believe, prove to be his undoing at the next general election.

    So much, by the way, for claims of a black hole in the economy and for claims that Net Zero won’t cost the taxpayer/billpayer very much. There is an increasing “green hole”, and it will come back to bite Labour very hard.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. “Badenoch calls for end to oil and gas windfall tax”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czdy9lg89gpo

    Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has called for an end to the windfall tax on oil and gas companies and said new licenses should be issued for drilling in the North Sea.

    Addressing the Scottish Conservative party conference in Edinburgh, Badenoch said the tax – known as Energy Profits Levy – should be scrapped before its current 2030 expiration.…

    Like

  40. Jit has posted on another thread, but also worth noting here:

    “Kemi Badenoch vows to repeal Climate Change Act

    Tory leader says she would replace it with ‘cheap energy’ strategy, ending decades-long consensus on climate”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/02/kemi-badenoch-vows-to-repeal-climate-change-act

    Kemi Badenoch has vowed to repeal the Climate Change Act if the Conservatives win the next election, doing away with controls on greenhouse gas emissions and dismantling what has been the cornerstone of green and energy policy for successive governments.

    The Conservative party leader was already committed to scrapping the UK’s net zero target but repeal of the Climate Change Act would go much further. It would remove the need to meet “carbon budgets” – ceilings, set for five-year periods, on the amount of greenhouse gas that can be emitted – and disband the Climate Change Committee, the watchdog that advises on how policies affect the UK’s carbon footprint.

    Badenoch said: “Under my leadership we will scrap those failed targets. Our priority now is growth, cheaper energy, and protecting the natural landscapes we all love.”…

    Like

  42. Now we have a dodgy Guardian Factcheck from Fiona Harvey:

    “As Tories vow to scrap ‘failed targets’, how do their climate claims stack up?

    We fact check Kemi Badenoch and her party after she promised to repeal Climate Change Act if they win power”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2025/oct/03/tories-vow-scrap-failed-targets-how-climate-claims-stack-up

    It could easily be taken apart. I love the “fact” that as part of the “factcheck” they quote the opinions of a climate campaign organisation, E3G, as though that represents a fact that trumps anything Badenoch might say.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. From the Tory Party announcement that if elected again it will repeal the Climate Change Act and abolish the Climate Change Committee. A significant step in the right direction, but probably not enough for many Clisceppers:

    Q&A

    Q: Net Zero U-turn?

    The Conservative Party, under new leadership, is clear that Net Zero by 2050 is impossible without bankrupting Britain and driving up energy bills for families and businesses. That is why we are taking sensible, well thought through action to reduce energy bills by potentially hundreds of pounds to put more money in families pockets and support British industry to create a strong economy.

    Q: Does this mean you’re abandoning all plans to reduce emissions?

    We are unashamedly putting people’s finances and living standards first. The best way we will cut emissions is with more clean and reliable nuclear power, and by making electricity cheap so that people can buy electric cars and heating when it can save them money and make their lives better – not forcing them to do it just to meet a Government target. Britain accounts for just one per cent of global emissions. We alone cannot solve climate change, but Net Zero is making British peoples’ lives worse and making them poorer.

    Q: Does this mean you are pulling out of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change?

    The Paris Agreement does not need legally binding climate targets in domestic legislation. We will not pull out of the Paris Agreement, however it is clearly not working. It is not fair that Britain is one of the only countries which is compliant. We still believe there is a benefit to remaining party to the Agreement so that we can put our case forward about how best to address climate concerns.

    Q: Run to the right?

    We started a Net Zero reset in Government because we recognised we had to put cheap energy first – long before Reform was back on the scene. This is a return to common sense that puts our economy and energy security first. Parties like Reform and Labour want more state involvement in energy policy. Reform want to nationalise the North Sea, ban certain types of investment in the grid and their Deputy Leader makes up statistics about the cost of Net Zero because they do not do the hard work. Our policies are sensible and deliverable.

    It seems Badenoch is walking a tightrope, with the net zero zealots in the Tory Party causing problems behind the scenes.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.