The prospect of the Climate and Nature Bill being passed into law has prompted discussion of its implications, both at Cliscep (here and here), and also at Paul Homewood’s site. However, grim though the implications of the Bill are, things are quite bad enough already.
Today’s Guardian features an article whose title and sub-title alone make it clear that the ongoing effects of the Climate Change Act (CCA) aren’t about to go away, and those effects will include massive changes to our way of life: “Starmer faces test of climate leadership with big decisions on carbon budget – PM will have to respond to Climate Change Committee’s recommendations on future emissions cuts with drastic changes in many sectors of economy” Specifically, it reminds us that the Climate Change Committee (CCC):
will set out recommendations on the UK’s seventh carbon budget on 26 February. At the core of the budget will be an overall cap on emissions for the years 2038 to 2042, needed to meet the legal obligation of reaching net zero emissions in 2050.
What’s the urgency, you might ask? Well, the problem is that we in the UK are already slipping behind the targets, and if we are to achieve net zero by 2050, as mandated by the CCA, then policies must be implemented sooner rather than later. The article reminds us that thanks to the Prime Minister’s grandstanding in Baku and the pledge he then made, the UK will need to have reduced emissions from 1990 levels by 81% by 2035. Mind you, given how lightly the PM regards pledges, perhaps we shouldn’t worry too much about his world stage posturing. On the other hand, the Cabinet does seem to be stuffed full of climate and net zero zealots (as do the government back benches, if support for the Climate and Nature Bill is any guide), so maybe we should be concerned after all. And it gets worse – according to the Guardian, the seventh carbon budget, to be issued by the CCC, will need to go further still: “by 2040, emissions should be about a quarter of what they are today.”
Naturally, the Guardian is all in favour, and rolls out talking heads to tell us there’s nothing here to frighten the horses. According to Ed Matthew, campaigns director at the E3G thinktank:
It is the opportunity to put the finishing touches to a project to rewire the UK economy, to make it globally competitive and help nature to flourish. The only question is whether our leaders have the courage to be ambitious and stand up to the vested interests standing in our way.
The only question? I appreciate that we all see the world in our individual ways, but I think there might be a few other questions too – such as, is this affordable? Is it sensible? Will it achieve anything positive? Is it practicable? Will it damage the economy, our manufacturing sector, our way of life?
Even the Guardian acknowledges that it is in fact a big deal. It notes that it will require not only the decarbonisation of the power sector, but also drastic (the Guardian’s word – not mine, though I agree) changes in many other sectors of the economy. EVs must replace ICE vehicles; a widespread extension of public transport will be required (by which I infer that far fewer people will be allowed to have – or perhaps be able to afford – private vehicles); homes must be insulated (despite the issues?) and gas boilers exchanged for heat pumps (despite the problems); big changes will be needed to farming practices; new techniques for industry (a casually thrown-out phrase, with massive implications); and tree-planting and nature programmes must “restore carbon sinks”.
The Guardian rightly observes that both the Prime Minister and Mr Miliband have very prominently, on the world stage, claimed “global climate leadership” for the UK, so it will be difficult for them to depart from CCC advice. Worryingly (to me, and I suggest, to anyone who cares about this country’s future) an automaton at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has been approached for a quote and duly parroted the official mantra:
Britain is back in the business of climate leadership because the only way to protect current generations in the UK is by making Britain a clean energy superpower, and the only way to protect our children and future generations is by leading global climate action. We look forward to receiving the CCC’s expert advice and we will set our seventh carbon budget by June 2026, in line with our statutory duties.
Even Guardian journalists have an inkling that this stuff isn’t going to be easy, whatever the spin climate evangelists put on it. The article points out that the first three carbon budgets were relatively easy to meet, as simply shifting from coal to gas and throwing lots of money at – sorry, investing in – offshore wind was a quick and easy way to reduce emissions (but never mind the price). But little progress has been made with regard to other emitting sectors of the economy – transport, industry, buildings and farming. Already, the UK is well off-track to achieve the fourth carbon budget, which runs until 2028. The shift to EVs isn’t exactly going as planned, and the public’s fondness for SUVs isn’t helping either.
Agriculture apparently accounts for around 12% of the UK’s emissions, but the government has picked a fight with farmers, and co-operation might be in short supply. At this point the Guardian trotted off to obtain a quote from another of its favourite organisations – in this case from Tom Lancaster of the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit. He opined that the farming sector is well off-track and that significant acceleration in this area is needed:
Issues such as land use, production and consumption of livestock products and demand-side policies are likely to feature more prominently [in the seventh carbon budget] than in previous carbon budget advice.
I trust I’m not alone in finding references to “demand-side policies” as being more than a little sinister. It sounds like a euphemism for forcing the public to change their ways. Reading on, it appears that my suspicions might be correct. Next up is another old favourite – Friends of the Earth. Mike Childs, head of policy there, is quoted thus:
The deeper cuts neededto meet a 2040 goal can be met through more people choosing greener, cheaper and healthier lifestyles,” he said. “Already people are increasingly opting for meat and dairy alternatives and choosing to walk and cycle. The path to net zero should lead to better quality of life, particularly for those who have been left behind financially over the last decade.
It’s all there. Deeper cuts – doesn’t sound like a consumer-friendly option. More people must “choose” lifestyles which he claims (without supporting evidence) will be not only greener, but also cheaper and healthier. Greener and healthier I might accept, but colour me unconvinced on the claim that such options will be cheaper. I’m also unconvinced that what is being referred to as a choice really is just that. More likely we will be hectored and cajoled, and ultimately given no choice. The precedent is there already, after all, with regard to official diktats regarding EV and heat pump quotas. As to how healthy it is to cycle or walk several miles to work in the dark, cold and rain or snow in winter, rather than driving there, must be a moot point.
The only glimmer of hope is that the Guardian article ends by pointing out that the cross-party “consensus” regarding these issues is not so strong as it once was.
If Badenoch takes issue with the CCC’s findings, or vows to unravel the carbon budget should the Tories take back power, it would be an unmistakable sign that the crack has become a chasm.
Here’s hoping. Happy New Year!
Climate Scepticism 
If you are worried about the damage that has already been done to this country by net zero, and you want cheering up, then don’t watch this:
“Everyone Who Can Exit The UK Is Leaving” – Konstantin Kisin
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a pity that Kemi Badenoch has – for perhaps laudable reasons – declined to outline any sort of policy landscape should the Tories somehow find their way back to power. This has left a void that Farage et al have been filling quite well.
The Tories should make it quite clear now that Net Zero is gone as soon as they win an election. EV mandates, gone; subsidies for new renewables, gone; boiler tax, gone; etc. Perhaps it is naive of me but I believe that if the two main parties no longer had a united front on this that it would fall apart fast. Take EVs: the threat of allowing ICEs back would stay any major EV factory developments. The line should be, “Let people buy the car they want.” It might provide sufficient pressure to force Labour to bow.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Mark – Happy New Year to you & yours also 🙂
A few quotes from your post & linked article stood out to me
“an automaton at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has been approached for a quote and duly parroted – We look forward to receiving the CCC’s expert advice and we will set our seventh carbon budget by June 2026, in line with our statutory duties.“
“Housing accounts for a fifth of emissions, and much faster progress is needed on phasing out gas boilers and plugging the leaks in the UK’s draughty housing. Roz Bulleid, research and policy director at the Green Alliance thinktank, said: “Heat pumps and other forms of low-carbon heating will be rapidly replacing boilers in homes by the seventh carbon budget period.””
And just to slightly expand your Mike Childs quote –
“Mike Childs, head of policy at Friends of the Earth, said it need not be a chore. “The deeper cuts needed to meet a 2040 goal can be met through more people choosing greener, cheaper and healthier lifestyles,” he said. “Already people are increasingly opting for meat and dairy alternatives and choosing to walk and cycle. The path to net zero should lead to better quality of life, particularly for those who have been left behind financially over the last decade.””
Had to look up “chore” just in case – “a job or piece of work that is often boring or unpleasant but needs to be done regularly:
As for the last bit of his quote – “The path to net zero should lead to better quality of life, particularly for those who have been left behind financially over the last decade.”
I have no idea what planet he lives on.
LikeLike
The reality is that CO2 has NO climatic effect!:
See: Scientific Proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming
Click to access WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
This proof is irrefutable, and I am at a loss as to why no one will even consider it. Those idiots need to be punished!
LikeLike
The anti-livestock agenda is being driven by Vegan loonies, who form a major part of the Green loonies. It’s true that farm animals emit CO2 and CH4, but (unless we’re feeding them on coal or diesel) every atom of carbon they emit must have originally been captured from CO2 in the atmosphere, by the plants they eat. It’s called the carbon cycle and we all learnt about it in school (if we weren’t on Klimastreik that day).
It’s possible that this may result in a little more methane (and a little less carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere, but this is only temporary (the methane relatively quickly oxidises back to carbon dioxide) and can only be (at most) a second order effect. To compare the volume of methane emitted by livestock with that from fossil fuels is simply wrong.
It’s equally wrong to suggest that eliminating farm animals would allow us to grow much more crops. Pastoral farming is carried out mainly on land which is unsuited to arable crops (there’s quite a lot of this in the UK). This is because farmers aren’t daft, and arable is significantly more profitable per acre/hectare, while nobody has to get up at 4am to milk the wheat. (No, Greta, that isn’t how oat milk is produced.)
LikeLike
There are still people around who are stupid enough to believe we are warming the planet.
Farage is the only person fit to run your country.
Mack
LikeLike
Jit says:
The Tories should make it quite clear now that Net Zero is gone as soon as they win an election. EV mandates, gone; subsidies for new renewables, gone; boiler tax, gone; etc. Perhaps it is naive of me but I believe that if the two main parties no longer had a united front on this that it would fall apart fast. Take EVs: the threat of allowing ICEs back would stay any major EV factory developments. The line should be, “Let people buy the car they want.” It might provide sufficient pressure to force Labour to bow.
I agree. They can claim as many surveys as they like to the effect that net zero is popular, but the proof is in the pudding. It is in fact deeply unpopular. If ICEs were popular, they wouldn’t have to force them on us by a mixture of carrot and stick. Ditto heat pumps. People certainly don’t want to give up their foreign holidays – when covid lockdowns ended, the rush to go abroad on holiday was truly astonishing. People don’t want to give up their pets (it seems to me that there are more dog owners than ever) and they don’t want to change their eating habits. They certainly don’t want higher energy prices, and they don’t want their use of electricity to be rationed.
I don’t share Mr McIntosh’s view (above) that Nigel Farage is the only person fit to run the UK – I am more pessimistic. I don’t see any politician who is fit to run the country. I can’t remember a time when there has been such a dearth of talent, so few capable people in Parliament. However, Farage is aware of the truth regarding net zero. Unless the Tories recognise it too, they’ll be toast at the next general election. If Labour keeps doubling-down on the net zero madness, they could well be toast too.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, with the New Year comes a higher energy price cap – bills are going up again:
“Energy prices rise with warnings of more pain to come”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2612npy61o
The BBC article puts it down entirely to global factors, which evidently isn’t true. They don’t talk about the government’s promise of cheaper energy (whatever happened to that?). This is what it’s coming to (from the end of the article):
Limit time in the shower to four minutes. The charity WaterAid has compiled a playlist of four-minute songs, external to keep you to time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Only -8c this morning, we were forecast for -10c, we have clear blue sky and sun, actually very nice looking over to snow covered Ben Vorlich and it’s buddies. The point I’m getting at is all the lovely snow covered mountains comes at a cost, the temperature (must be the same in Cumbria) of our incoming mains water is dropping quite quickly now. We get our water from Loch Turret behind Crieff which is also very snowy, so every thaw deposits freezing water into the reservoir (try washing your face with just cold) which then costs us more to heat to household temperatures. The load put on ASHPs must be enormous at the moment just to maintain enough hot water for a family of 4. Using an electrically heated shower is hopeless you get a dribble at best heat setting. I can’t remember a winter when I could honestly say the water is warmer, regardless of warming or gulf streams poor old Scotland is geographically in the North it’s cold in the winter.
LikeLike
Sorry meant to put that in The temperature is rising.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JamesS, no worries. 😊
LikeLike
Some years ago I tried to calculate the energy saving on water heating to be had in the UK by the effect of a 1C rise in average temperature. It would be hard to find that number – lost somewhere in an old notebook probably. But I’m sure it was a non-trivial number.
LikeLike
“As the UK prepares its next carbon budget, what needs to be included?
Expert recommendations will influence plans for energy, housing, transport industry and farming for decades”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/21/as-the-uk-prepares-its-next-carbon-budget-what-needs-to-be-included
A depressing summary of what’s coming down the line.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Half of homes need heat pump by 2040, government told”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70ekknr2rwo
Four in five cars should be electric and half of homes should have heat pumps within 15 years, say the government’s independent climate advisers.
By law the UK must reach ‘net zero’ – no longer adding to the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – by 2050.
UK greenhouse gas emissions have more than halved since 1990, largely thanks to less electricity coming from fossil fuels and more from renewables. But the Climate Change Committee (CCC) says that to reach the 2050 target we’ll also need to change how we drive and heat our homes.
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said the government would consider the advice and respond in due course….
…Meeting these long-term goals will mean significant changes in the years ahead. One-third of emissions cuts between now and 2040 need to come from households making low-carbon choices, the CCC says.
This will mainly be through switching from petrol and diesel cars to electric vehicles and from fossil fuel boilers to heat pumps, making use of growing supplies of clean electricity. Smaller contributions will come from other choices, such as eating less meat and dairy....
“…households making low-carbon choices…” eh? I wonder how much “choice” we’ll be given, and how much compulsion will be applied?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The view from a parallel universe:
“UK urged to act now on net zero – and skip two kebabs’ worth of meat a week
Climate Change Committee issues advice to government on meeting carbon emissions target by 2050″
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/26/uk-urged-to-act-now-on-net-zero-two-kebabs-worth-of-meat-climate-change-committee
…There is broad public support for these moves, according to a representative citizens’ panel convened by the CCC and other polling. Although rightwing politicians have criticised climate action – Reform party leader Richard Tice calls it “net stupid zero” – the public are clearly in favour, according to Emma Pinchbeck, chief executive of the CCC.…
...Pinchbeck said: “If you are an elected representative who is hostile to renewables, heat pumps, electric vehicles, and some of these measures in the economy, what our numbers say is you are also hostile to your constituents saving £700 on their energy bill and about £700 on their fuel bill.”
Energy costs may rise in the short term, however, which could create problems for the current government. Key to hastening the switch from fossil fuels to clean power is to make electricity cheaper in comparison with gas....
Yeah, right. See:
https://cliscep.com/2025/02/25/economical-with-the-truth/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark: “I wonder how much “choice” we’ll be given, and how much compulsion will be applied?”
Looking at the changes to the EPC ratings system combined with the provisions of the Electricity Act, the govt has given itself plenty of powers of compulsion. I have no doubt at all that they will not hesitate to use them, whatever the social and economic cost. Paraphrasing a comment about the war in Ukraine:
Ed Milliband, fighting climate change to the last frozen pensioner.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
“Heat pumps and EVs – how to fight climate change from home”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpv4m3x1ldgo
It ain’t going to happen:
Households will need to make significant changes to their lifestyles to help the UK reach net zero by 2050, says the government’s independent climate advisers.
In its latest advice, known as the carbon budget, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) says by 2040, 80% of cars should be electric and one in two homes have a heat pump....
...The CCC is backing heat pumps as the main replacement for gas boilers and rules out using hydrogen.
It says only about 60,000 UK homes installed a heat pump in 2023. It wants that figure to be 450,000 by 2030 and 1.5 million by 2035.
However, it recognises that is going to be difficult. A key problem is heat pumps are typically more expensive than gas boilers, even after the government’s £7,500 grant. And because they heat water to a lower temperature than boilers, they work better in well-insulated homes with larger radiators or underfloor heating….
...In 2023, 16% of new cars were fully electric – the government says that will be 55% by 2027 and 95% by 2030.
The CCC says government will need to support the rollout of the charging network, and that the cost of charging needs to fall and payment be simplified.…
...Our changing diets will mean cattle and sheep numbers will need to fall by 27% as a result, it says. That will allow a shift towards woodland creation, the restoration of the country’s peatlands and allow more land to be used to grow energy crops.
UK farmers will need to be supported during this transition, it advises, and the government will need to be careful to ensure that low-carbon UK food is not just replaced by higher-carbon products imported from abroad….
…SAF [sustainable aviation fuel] is made from plant products or by combining captured CO2 with hydrogen. Just 1% of jet fuel is currently SAF, but the CCC expects that to rise to 17% by 2040.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Delusional – but what do I know – “cattle and sheep numbers will need to fall by 27% as a result“
Baa’d said Dolly.
LikeLike
“Net Zero Watch ridicules ‘fantasy’ Carbon Budget”
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/net-zero-watch-ridicules-fantasy-carbon-budget
Net Zero Watch has ridiculed the Seventh Carbon Budget, which was published today, saying that ‘it doesn’t rise much above the level of fantasy’. The campaigning organisation says that the spending estimates are unaffordable, and are lowballed, because they are based on figures that bear no resemblance to anything seen in the real world...
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLike
LikeLike
The UK government and the Climate Change Committee (CCC), with its 7th Carbon Budget, are keen to portray a “cakeism” narrative, suggesting that economic growth and net zero emissions are easily achievable together, without net costs and us having to change our lifestyles. The CCC even claims that it can reduce electricity bills by £700 by 2050. How would it know the prices in 25 years’ time? This misleading narrative downplays the significant costs and consumption changes necessary to really address climate change.
The political framing of the net zero targets on territorial emissions rather than consumption-based emissions pretends that when net zero is attained we will no longer be causing climate change. Politicians claim progress while potentially worsening the overall climate impact by shifting polluting industries overseas. Not only is this approach ineffective but it’s also dishonest, as it avoids confronting the public with the real costs and lifestyle adjustments required.
Time for an end to this spin surrounding climate change. We need to acknowledge the difficult realities of climate change and increased costs. Cakeism, “win-win” narratives and the avoidance of inconvenient truths will not lead to meaningful reductions in carbon consumption.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Carbon Budget Misinformation
Despite warning of misinformation about low-carbon technologies, the CCC has been spreading its own brand of misinformation in its latest Carbon Budget”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/carbon-budget-misinformation
The Climate Change Committee (CCC) recently released the 7th Carbon Budget, setting out what the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions have to be in the period 2038-2042. Their report mentioned “misinformation” or “misinformed” on five occasions in the context of low-carbon technologies in general and EVs and heat pumps in particular. But, as we shall see, the CCC itself has been peddling misinformation in its own report on a scale that destroys its own credibility.…
…the whole basis of their costs, particularly for renewables, is very suspect indeed and is perhaps the biggest source of misinformation in the whole report…
…The latest awards for new projects in AR6 were roughly twice the cost estimated by the CCC. Moreover, the trend is upwards, completely opposite to the CCC’s assumption. It is also worth noting that the CCC wants us to have 125GW of offshore wind installed by 2050. It is inconceivable that this can be achieved without significant floating offshore wind capacity. The costs of this technology are even more expensive and rising quickly…
…This gross under-estimate of electricity generation costs has knock-on effects throughout their calculations and is the source of much of the misinformation in the 7th Carbon Budget.…
…Of course, the CCC use the Heat Pump Association data. The CCC assume an average cost of heat pumps in 2025 of £11.4K, falling to £7.8K in 2050. However, the average cost of an air-sourced heat pump in the final quarter of 2024 was £12.5K and ground sourced heat pumps cost £25K. The trend in cost per kW of capacity installed is up too, not down. In addition, the CCC’s costs exclude ancillary costs such as a new hot water tank and radiator upgrades. …
…They say that EVs cost 37% more than petrol cars in 2023, but that premium will turn into a discount of 2.7% by 2028, growing to a discount of over 12% by 2050. This, coupled with falling electricity prices, drives an adoption rate of EVs faster even than Norway. But if their electricity price estimates are junk, then this prediction must also be consigned to the dustbin...
…It does seem rather odd that we need quite so many taxes, subsidies and other Government interventions to achieve these goals. It is almost as if the collective wisdom of the market does not believe the CCC’s misinformation.…
...What we have in the latest Carbon Budget is a Soviet-style five-year plan where the Government is being urged to meddle in our lives to an unprecedented extent. The CCC want more Government interference in energy, homes, industry and even the food we eat. All their calculations are underpinned by woeful cost assumptions and they have repeated the same mistake about low wind years from the sixth carbon budget. The so-called Balanced Pathway is totally unhinged from reality. They have the brass neck to publicly worry about misinformation, despite propagating obvious untruths in their own report. Misinformation is supposed to be created by mistake and disinformation is to knowingly spreading false information. Sadly, we must conclude that the CCC is spreading disinformation.
The renewable electricity cost assumptions far too low and carry through to much of the rest of the report. It does not take a genius to look at the results of the renewables auctions to check their figures. The NESO plan for Clean Power by 2030 has been in the public domain since November, so it is inconceivable that the CCC was unaware of their cost estimates.
This has not stopped Simon “Nine Times Cheaper” Evans from Carbon Brief promoting the false headline figures as gospel truth.
We can only hope that Parliamentarians are more diligent than Dr. Evans and can muster the analytical skills to pull the Carbon Budget apart and put it under forensic scrutiny before blindly adopting it as the law of the land.
I have made three FOI requests about the 7th Carbon Budget. It will be interesting to see the results..
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Seventh Carbon Budget is Seventh Heaven for the Green fanatics at the CCC and elsewhere, but mostly it will be Seventh Hell for the rest of us.
LikeLike
“The CCC is Crumbling
With no acknowledgement of FOI requests and no social media activity, our climate policy beacon is crumbling.”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/the-ccc-is-crumbling
One has to wonder if our beacon of climate policy, the Climate Change Committee is disappearing up its own fundament after delivering its Seventh Carbon Budget late last month.
On March 3rd, I submitted three FOI requests asking for:
More than two weeks later, I am yet to receive even an acknowledgement that those requests have been submitted. Moreover, I chased via email on March 5th and that email has gone unanswered.
The CCC’s X/Twitter account has not posted since February 26th. I thought they might have sulked off to Bluesky, but their account there has been similarly dormant. New Chief Executive, Emma Pinchbeck has deleted her X account and has not posted on Bluesky for over a month. She does not even appear on the About page of the Climate Change Committee website.
Interim Chair Piers Forster has not posted on his X account since February 26th, although he has managed to repost a call for IPCC authors. There has been no significant activity on his Bluesky account either.
Lord Deben stepped down as as permanent chair of the CCC in June 2023 and has yet to be replaced. It is looking like nobody wants to take on this particular poisoned chalice.
It certainly looks like the Climate Change Committee is crumbling under the weight of its own absurdity – how will we cope?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Combine this with the fact that the current Conservative leader has just admitted that virtually the entirety of Parliament, at the behest of a previous ‘Conservative’ prime minister in 2019, voted to legislate for an extraordinarily destructive, expensive and harmful policy which, in her own words, has proved to be “impossible” to achieve just 5 years later, a policy moreover which has done absolutely nothing whatsoever to address the ‘problem’ which it identified as needing to be solved, and which never will, even if we achieve the “impossible”. Bad Enoch has just tacitly admitted that Parliament, the Conservatives and British Government in general, in their grand ideologically driven idiocy (to be generous), were, and still are, the most profound threat to the British economy and its people ever! A grovelling apology would be in order.
LikeLike
Yes, an apology would be appropriate, but we won’t get one, because she isn’t (apparently) going to admit that net zero is wrong in principle, only that the timing has proved to be problematic. However, I fail to understand how she can say it’s correct in principle while blaming it for high energy prices.
LikeLike
Mark, re Badenoch’s speech, you said ‘I fail to understand how she can say it’s correct in principle’. Well, so far as I can see, she didn’t say that. Here’s a (rather long) extract from her speech:
At last we have a senior politician analysing in accurate detail some of the serious shortcomings of this disastrous policy. Yes, I wish she’d said more – especially by announcing that the Tories would scrap the policy entirely. But this is a good practical start and I very much welcome it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Robin,
The detail of the speech is more encouraging than the earlier BBC article. Like you, I believe this is a positive first step, though – also like you – I wish she had gone further. And I remain sceptical. She might have asked for a net zero plan when it was nodded through Parliament. Despite not getting one, she didn’t vote against it at the time.
Still, there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, and all that.
LikeLike
It seems Mark that there was no opportunity for a vote. So far as I can see she has always been a net zero sceptic. So perhaps she’s not a sinner.
LikeLike
Well, Robin, I am ashamed of my ignorance. It had never occurred to me that such a hugely important amendment of primary legislation could be passed without being voted on in both Houses of Parliament, but it seems that was the case.
It presents Kemi Badenoch in a better light, and net zero in a much worse one.
LikeLike
It will be interesting to see how Starmer and Miliband react to Badenoch’s speech. Will they imitate the action of the tiger … or of the ostrich? For example, could it embolden Starmer to take the opportunity to shuffle Miliband off his DESNZ brief and into well-earned back-bench obscurity? Regards, John C.
LikeLike
John C: the Speccie Coffee House is buzzing with comments on Badenoch’s speech. One article is headed ‘Will Kemi’s anti-net zero campaign bother Labour?‘
Here’s my reply (currently the top comment):
LikeLiked by 1 person
Saith the BBC,
LikeLike
Jit,
That’s the part that bothers me, assuming (a big assumption) that the BBC is accurately reporting what Badenoch has said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And when Kemi Badenoch was a government minister, she had this to say:
...Like many governments around the world, we’re dealing with low growth. We need to find our way through it. Because we owe it to our children and grandchildren to build a better, more prosperous future.
A lot of this growth will come from the ideas being developed by green industries. We know firms that innovate, expand faster than those that don’t. And the UK is quickly becoming the green creativity capital of the world….
…Our analysis shows that by the end of this decade, our green industries could create up to £170 billion of export sales.
And according to figures from the Office for National Statistics, by 2050 we could generate 1.4 million green jobs across the UK. That’s one for every person in Birmingham.
As the Prime Minister said last week, green jobs are the jobs of the future….
…Right now, we’re creating a pipeline of brilliant opportunities for investors. In our British Energy Security and Net Zero Strategies we set out plans to drive £100 billion worth of private sector investment into green industries, including offshore wind by 2030.
As you’ve already heard this morning, we’ve given ourselves an ambition of up to 50GW of offshore wind capacity by that same date – more than enough to power every home in the UK….
...With every idea, with every ambitious plan and with every transformed town, we are proving to global investors that the path to a green and prosperous future starts here in the UK.
I’m proud that my department is helping the world wake up to that message.
In just two years, DIT has helped to secure nearly £20 billion of green investment globally, creating 11,300 jobs.…
…So, I hope the investors among you will learn what this country’s green industries have to offer. And the businesses will discover how my department can open new markets for you. I look forward to working with you all.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/trade-secretarys-speech-at-the-green-trade-investment-expo
I’m glad that she’s changing her tune, but she has form. Jaime’s correct – an apology is overdue.
LikeLike
I don’t suppose there’s any realistic prospect of Badenoch apologising. But that pales to insignificance in the light of the extraordinary fact that a senior politician has stated unequivocally that the UK should scrap its Net Zero target, describing decarbonisation by 2050 as ‘impossible’ and warning of its ‘‘threat to living standards’. As I said above, her accurate analysis of many of the serious shortcomings of this disastrous policy was remarkable – a good practical start and, after over fifteen years of difficult, frustrating and at times lonely campaigning for the elimination of dangerous climate policies, I very much welcome it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh so do I Robin – it’s the first crack, and a very welcome one at that. I wish there was more of an acknowledgement of the failures of the Tory Party to date, and a greater attack on net zero than merely the suggestion that it’s only the date rather than the policy that is misguided. However, I suppose we have to be realistic, and accept that a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.
In reality, I suspect she’s flying a kite, to see how this is received by the party faithful, by the mainstream media, and by the public at large. If she thinks it’s going down badly, she has wriggle room allowing her to retreat. If she thinks it’s a vote-winner, she can become more hostile to net zero in an attempt to spike Reform’s guns and to put clear blue water between the Tories and the Labour government.
It’s very much the act of a politician, but at least she’s a senior politician (leader of a major political party who hopes to be the next Prime Minister), and it would appear that she has sniffed the air and sensed that net zero is a vote-loser. That in itself is potentially significant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark Hodgson 18 March 8.12am
“The CCC is crumbling”
What David Turver does in his Substack article
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/the-ccc-is-crumbling
is huge. By simply monitoring twitter traffic of the CCC & key personnel, he reveals that the organisation that determines government energy policy for the coming decades is out to lunch. I had a quick look on Google, and almost no-one in the media has been discussing the CCC this year. Apart from the Guardian and this at the Telegraph
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/26/climate-change-committee-should-be-abolished-net-zero/
I found articles at Vegconomist and Green Queen, and this at Civil Service World:
https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/climate-change-committee-chair-job-headhunters-saxton-bampfylde
Apparently, no-one wants John Gummer’s old job. I wonder why.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve now watched the speech and the questions that followed. It was a start, but I got the feeling that we were still going to crash into the ground – just 200 metres further along. I think the kite-flying is right. But Net Zero is popular. Green energy is cheap. Or so it is believed. There is a “climate crisis.” There will be loud opposition to the slightest change. [As we saw today with a long-trailed but toothless announcement on welfare – another realm in which we are going to crash into the ground 200 metres further along.]
The outcome of this policy review had better have teeth, or the country is ******. I am sceptical about the inordinate length of time it takes to make the obvious calls. This is not the 1970s. Things move fast in 2025. Will the voters wait? I don’t know. But the Conservatives have the opportunity to wrest the wheel away from Miliband now, just by stating what they would do and undermining the case for the “transition.” Will they?
By the way, I thought I saw a notable sceptic and an energy expert in the audience…
LikeLike
Mark: you say that that Badenoch’s merely made a ‘suggestion that it’s only the date rather than the policy that is misguided‘ and that you suspect she’s ‘flying a kite, to see how this is received by the party faithful, by the mainstream media, and by the public at large. If she thinks it’s going down badly, she has wriggle room allowing her to retreat’.
Well, here are three extracts from her speech:
Not much wriggle room there: I think she’d find it hard to row back on such statements which go well beyond your ‘only a date’ suggestion.
PS: shouldn’t this exchange be in the ‘Case Against’ thread?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The first question in the Q&A put as premise that Badenoch was in favour of Net Zero (about 37.45 in the video above). She did not reject that, although she did say that maybe there was a better way than Net Zero to achieve the same aims. That seems to mean emissions cuts. In response to the question, she said she was not merely going to change the target date to 2051 or 2049. The problem was the lack of a plan.
LikeLike
PS. Robin – as a fundamental, er we hope, breakdown in the cosy consensus, a new thread might be in order.
LikeLike
Yes, let’s continue this discussion either on a New Broom or on the Case Against. It just grew here, like Topsy!
LikeLike
I’d prefer the Case Against as I get notifications of new comments there – but not here where I have to search for them.
LikeLike