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 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% to 100%i, creating the Net Zero policy (i.e. any emissions must be offset by equivalent removals from the atmosphere).
Unfortunately, it’s a policy that’s unachievable, potentially disastrous and in any case pointless. And that’s true whether or not humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to increased global temperatures.
1. It’s unachievable.
A modern, advanced economy depends on fossil fuels; something that’s unlikely to change for a long time.ii Examples fall into two categories: (i) vehicles and machines such as those used in agriculture, mining and quarrying, mineral processing, building, the transportation of heavy goods, commercial shipping, commercial aviation, the military and emergency services and (ii) products such as nitrogen fertilisers, cement and concrete, primary steel, plastics, insecticides, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, lubricants, solvents, paints, adhesives, insulation, tyres and asphalt. All the above require either the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives: easily deployable, commercially viable alternatives have yet to be developed.iii
Although wind is the most effective source of renewable electricity in the U.K. – because of its latitude, solar power contributes only a small percentage of the UK’s electricity – it has significant problems: (i) the substantial costs of subsidising, building, operating and maintaining the huge numbers of turbines needed for Net Zero – all exacerbated by high interest rates; (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing a stable, reliable, comprehensive non-fossil fuel grid by 2030 as planned by the Government; (iii) the vast scale of what’s involved (a multitude of enormous wind turbines, immense amounts of space iv and large quantities of increasingly unavailable and expensive raw materials and components v); and (iv) the intermittency of renewable energy (see 2 below).vi This means that the UK may be unable to generate sufficient electricity by 2030 for current needs let alone for the mandated EVs and heat pumps and for the energy requirements of industry and of the huge new data centres being developed to support for example the government’s plans for the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI).vii
In any case, the UK doesn’t have enough skilled technical managers, electrical, heating and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other skilled tradespeople required to do the multitude of tasks essential to achieve Net Zero – a problem worsened by the Government’s plans for massively increased house building.viii
2. It would be socially and economically disastrous.
The Government aims for 95% renewable electricity by 2030 but has not yet published 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 complicated by the likely retirement of elderly nuclear and fossil fuel power plants. The Government has indicated that back-up may be provided by new gas-fired power plants ix and possibly by ‘green’ hydrogen. But it has yet to publish any detail about its plans for either. The former is obviously not a ‘clean’ solution and it seems the Government’s answer is to fit the power plants with carbon capture and underground storage (CCS) systems. But both green hydrogen and CCS are very expensive, controversial and commercially unproven at scale.x This issue is desperately important: without full back-up, electricity blackouts would be inevitable – potentially ruining many businesses and causing dreadful problems for millions of people, including serious health consequences threatening everyone and in particular the poor and vulnerable.xi
Net Zero’s major problem however is its overall cost and the impact of that on the economy. Because there’s no comprehensive plan for the project’s delivery, little attention has been given to overall cost; but, as several trillion pounds seems likely to be a correct estimate, it may be unaffordable.xii The borrowing and taxes required for costs at this scale would put a huge burden on millions of households and businesses and, particularly in view of the economy’s many current problems, could jeopardise Britain’s international credit standing and threaten the country’s economic viability.
But Net Zero is already contributing to a serious economic problem: essentially because of the costs of renewables (e.g. subsidies and back-up to cope with intermittency), the UK has the highest industrial and amongst the highest domestic electricity prices in the developed world.xiii The additional costs referred to elsewhere in this essay – for example the costs of establishing a comprehensive non-fossil grid and of fitting CCS systems to gas-fired power plants used as back-up – can only make this worse. And high energy costs are incompatible with the government’s principal mission of increased economic growth.
Net Zero would have two other dire consequences:
(i) As it essentially controls the supply of key materials (for example, lithium, cobalt, aluminium, processed graphite, nickel, copper and so-called rare earths) without which renewables cannot be manufactured, the UK would greatly increase its already damaging dependence on China, putting its energy and overall national security at most serious risk.xiv
(ii) The vast 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.xv The continued pursuit of Net Zero would make all this far worse.
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 (especially China), commonly with poor environmental regulation and often powered by coal-fired electricity – thereby increasing global emissions – as a positive step towards Net Zero. Yet efforts to ‘decarbonise’ the UK mean that’s what’s happening: it’s why our chemicals industry faces extinctionxvi and why, by closing our few remaining blast furnaces, we will soon be unable to produce commercially viable primary steel (see endnote 3).xvii
(ii) The USAxviii plus most major non-Western countries – together the source of over 80% of GHG emissions and home to about 85% 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 energy abundance and thus on economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security.xix As a result, global emissions are increasing (by 62% since 1990) and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. As the UK is the source of only 0.72% of global emissions any further emission reduction it makes (even to zero) would make no perceptible difference to the global position.xx
In other words, Net Zero means the UK is legally obliged to pursue an unachievable, potentially disastrous and pointless policy – a policy that could result in Britain’s economic destruction.
Robin GuenierJanuary 2025
Guenier is a retired, writer, speaker and business consultant. He has a degree in law from Oxford, is qualified as a barrister and for twenty years was chief executive of various high-tech companies, including the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency reporting to the UK Cabinet Office. A Freeman of the City of London, 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:
i http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/part/1/crossheading/the-target-for-2050
ii See Vaclav Smil’s important book, How the World Really Works: https://time.com/6175734/reliance-on-fossil-fuels/
iii Regarding steel for example see the penultimate paragraph of this article and: https://www.construction-physics.com/p/the-blast-furnace-800-years-of-technology.
iv See Andrews & Jelley, “Energy Science”, 3rd ed., Oxford, page 16: http://tiny.cc/4jhezz
vi For a view of wind power’s many problems, see this: https://watt-logic.com/2023/06/14/wind-farm-costs/ This is also relevant: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/debunking-cheap-renewables-myth
vii https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/14/keir-starmer-ai-labour-green-energy-promise
viii A detailed Government report: http://tiny.cc/bgg5001 See also pages 10 and 11 of the Royal Academy of Engineering report (Note 6 below). Also see: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yg1471rwpo
ix See this report by the Royal Academy of Engineering: https://nepc.raeng.org.uk/media/uoqclnri/electricity-decarbonisation-report.pdf (Go to section 2.4.3 on page 22.) This interesting report contains a lot of valuable information.
x This report on CCS is useful: https://www.iisd.org/articles/insight/unpacking-carbon-capture-storage-technology And this article is interesting: http://tiny.cc/psp7001 Re hydrogen see this: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-2-14-when-you-crunch-the-numbers-green-hydrogen-is-a-non-starter.
xi This article shows how more renewables could result in blackouts: http://tiny.cc/lnhezz
xii The National Grid (now the National Energy System Operator (NESO)) has said net zero will cost £3 trillion: https://www.current-news.co.uk/reaching-net-zero-to-cost-3bn-says-national-grid-eso/. And in this presentation Michael Kelly, Emeritus Professor of Technology at Cambridge, shows how the cost would amount to several trillion pounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkImqOxMqvU
xiii For current international price comparisons go to p. 22 here: http://tiny.cc/xan6001 Note that industrial electricity prices are well above those of international competition – and that’s not because of gas prices which are about average (p. 23).
xiv https://www.dw.com/en/the-eus-risky-dependency-on-critical-chinese-metals/a-61462687 and https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/dependency-china-critical-minerals-dangerous
xv See for example http://tiny.cc/3lhezz and http://tiny.cc/gtazzz. Arguably however 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
xvii A current example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70zxjldqnxo
xviii Note: Trump’s abandoning plans for renewables is not really such a huge change for the US as, despite his climate policies, the oil and gas industries flourished under Biden: http://tiny.cc/2ww1001
xix This essay shows how developing countries have taken control of climate negotiations: https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/the-west-vs-the-rest-2.1.1.pdf (Nothing that’s happened since 2020 changes the conclusion: for example see the ‘Dubai Stocktake’ agreed at COP28 in 2023 of which item 38 unambiguously confirms developing countries’ exemption from any emission reduction obligation.)
xx This comprehensive analysis, based on an EU Commission database, provides – re global greenhouse gas (GHG) and CO2 emissions – detailed information by country from 1990 to 2023: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2024?vis=ghgtot#emissions_table
Climate Scepticism 
Yet another upgrade, this time the ninth. Perhaps I should apologise but I don’t plan to do so as I think it’s necessary because of Trump’s arrival in the White House. And that’s already making a difference, although not much yet re the UK’s mad Net Zero policy. But it will – and here’s the place to discuss it.
It’s going to be interesting to see how soon a tenth upgrade will be necessary to reflect real change.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Meanwhile:
“UK politics: Miliband tells MPs UK needs to ‘speed up, not slow down’ in net zero drive – as it happened
Energy secretary insists there is ‘no contradiction between net zero and economic growth’ in hearing at Commons committee”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/jan/27/gen-z-authoritarian-leader-uk-kemi-badenoch-covid-inquiry-conservatives-labour-uk-politics-latest-updates
LikeLiked by 4 people
A remarkable statement. He unquestionably deserves to be known as Mad Ed. How long can his nonsense survive?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Watt, Mr Miliband? Steam did not power the Industrial Revolution?
Oil fields did not make the US a powerhouse of industrial development?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Robin,
As a fellow lawyer, you might like to take a look at the Coolglass decision in the Irish High Court earlier this month:
https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/c6e01981-1045-4571-af0c-06d260290823/2025_IEHC_1.pdf/pdf
It has rather opened my eyes. If we think things are mad and bad in the UK with net zero and all that it entails, it seems to be even worse in Ireland, which is of course even more insane, given that while the UK contributes 0.72% of global GHG emissions, Ireland’s contribution is 0.11%, according to EDGAR. The climate legislation there seems to be more akin to our Climate and Nature Bill than to our Climate Change Act, from what I can see – more extreme, more damaging, more dangerous, more pointless. I commented on the Scotland Against Spin Facebook page as follows:
The Planning Board justified its decision to refuse planning permission for the proposed wind farm because the developers wanted to put it in an area where the local plan specifically banned them because ‘these areas are not considered suitable for wind farm development due to their overall sensitivity arising from landscape, ecological, recreational and/or cultural and built heritage resources as well as their limited wind regime’. Unfortunately it appears that the planning inspector, on whose report the planning board relied, had confused the relevant sections of the Planning Act.
Unfortunately, in in Nagle View Turbine Aware Group v. An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 603 the Planning Board inspector said:
““While it is noted that many of the submissions reference their agreement in principle in respect of merits of renewable energy, there is resistance to the location of such a proposal within the locality for the range of reasons outlined in the summary of submissions received above. In order to address Climate Change, I would suggest that other elements of our environment and the context within which the environment is perceived must also change. This includes in particular the visual context of an area which cannot be expected to remain unchanged in perpetuity but particularly within the context of a climate emergency.”
The Judge in this case commented:
“…only a lawyer would attempt to call it rational for the board to produce totally inconsistent approaches in different decisions. To anyone else, the board can’t say on the one hand that measures to tackle the climate emergency “must” (the inspector in Nagle View) result in changes to visual context, and on the other hand that renewable energy infrastructure “must” (the inspector in this case) take place within local policy provision – such that the board must capitulate immediately and without meaningful discussion to a provision of a development plan grounded in the council’s assertion that visual context takes priority over the climate emergency.”
The case was decided largely on technical procedural grounds, but comments such as those above are depressing. The section dealing with the Irish climate change legislation doesn’t form the basis of the decision, but the Judge went on to express an opinion on it anyway – what we lawyers call obiter dicta. The Irish legislation seems to be very far-reaching – not too far removed from the Climate & Nature Bill that has just (thankfully) stalled in the UK Parliament. The Judge noted in passing one of the speeches in the Dail in support of the legislation:
“… an ambitious and far-reaching response to the climate crisis facing our planet. This immense climate challenge requires an equally immense effort to combat what will be, if we do not act, an utterly devastating impact on our world as we know it. … The message was clear; we need climate action now. This momentum and appetite for system change, not climate change, has been steadily building. The urgency of this crisis has united millions of people across the globe. They have marched in their droves to strike for climate, demand change and fight for their futures. We must deliver emission reductions now for our children’s futures, our planet’s future and our shared future. Sustained climate action requires a combined commitment and co-operation across politics and society. …The climate challenge can only be addressed if we are all working together to do so. This requires a change in the way we govern, live and work. We must educate our children through school, university and apprenticeships so they are equipped with the skills and knowledge to tackle this challenge head-on. We need system change so that it is clear, obvious, safe and cheaper to make the green choice rather than the environmentally destructive one. …
The Government’s consultation on the climate action plan does not just ask what we can do but how Government can best help everybody to work together to meet this challenge. The Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill is a momentous Bill. I commend [the sponsoring Minister, Minister Ryan and] every single official, activist, expert and campaigner who contributed to make this the vital Bill it truly is. This Bill is the culmination of years of hard work, endless campaigning and unwavering commitment by so many to protect our planet as best we can, to make it a liv[e]able and safe place for generations to come and to transform Ireland into a world leader when it comes to tackling this climate crisis.”
The Judge seems to be a true believer. He didn’t question any aspect of the climate crisis narrative, saying:
“The climate emergency represents a critical risk to human and other natural life on earth”. And:
“A legislative purpose to facilitate radical and far-reaching action is consistent with the fact that:
(i) we know from the IPCC that rapid, deep and in most cases immediate cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are required to meet essential climate targets in the interests of preserving the state of the earth as a liveable habitat for human and other natural life; and (ii) we know – definitionally – that rapid, deep and immediate cuts to GHG emissions can’t be delivered by business as usual – and therefore it follows that radical new approaches are required, and required now, not at some indeterminate future time.”
The decision is too long to quote much more, but the obiter dicta basically suggest that the climate crisis/emergency (sic) mean that Ireland has to go hell for leather to achieve massive renewable targets. In fairness to the Judge, his decision was made on strictly legal grounds, albeit against a backdrop of extreme Irish legislation, and he seemed to be entusiatically in favour of the applicant’s case and rather grumpy towards the planning board.
I thought it was bad in the UK – it seems to be much worse in Ireland.
LikeLiked by 3 people
My God! Even Ireland wants to be the world’s leader. What is it with these little countries with fantastical ambitions?
I incude the UK in that category.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Can somebody tell me how this is not deliberate sabotage. Malign. Intentional. The salting of the earth.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/28/uk-last-two-fracking-sites-ordered-to-close/
Banning fracking is not enough for the climate zealots; they wish to ensure that Britain can never benefit from fracked gas, thus condemning future generations to be dependent upon gas imports; either that, or freeze to death. You can barely slide a Hanlon’s Razor blade between ideologically driven incompetence/stupidity and calculated, malign social and economic vandalism.
Liz Truss reversed the ban on fracking. Those wells were set to go into production again. She had to be got rid of at all costs – so they did. Sunak immediately reinstated the ban once he was parachuted into place by Tory high command. Now Labour are going to ensure once and for all that fracking can never be restarted in order to genuinely kickstart economic growth – by pouring millions of tons of concrete down our last two viable fracking wells. Meanwhile, we get Rachel from Accounts waffling on about how she’s going to allow a Third Runway, as if that’s going to miraculously reverse the decline which her budget kick started. Four more years of this. God help us.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Even in the EU a shift from net zero insanity.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, whose country currently holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union, has given a landmark speech in the European Parliament attacking the Green Deal. Speaking in Strasbourg on January 22, Tusk warned that high energy prices were killing the EU and its competitiveness.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Jaime,
I agree with everything you’ve said apart from the Liz Truss bit. Liz Truss was not removed because of her stance on fracking. She was got rid of because she was Liz Truss.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is what we are up against. I wrote to my MP asking him not to support CAN and informing him – with evidence – that the science was not settled. This was his brain-dead reply: Labour are going to pursue Net Zero to our bitter end and they are going to ‘incorporate the spirit’ of the lunatic CAN bill if not its substance.
“Good afternoon,
Thank you for contacting me about the Climate and Nature Bill.
I fully recognise the scale and urgency of the climate and nature crisis. Last year was the hottest on record, the first to pass 1.5°C above the pre-industrial average. We have seen, both at home and abroad, numerous instances of extreme weather that has been exacerbated by climate change. We also face the threat of biodiversity loss, with one million species facing extinction and wildlife populations having fallen 69% since 1970.
I therefore appreciate the spirit and aims of the Climate and Nature Bill and pay tribute to Zero Hour and those who have campaigned for the Bill.
It is important that we integrate climate and nature objectives. At the same time, I believe it is important to recognise the legally binding targets we already have in place under the Climate Change and Environment Acts and to focus on delivering these, rather than unnecessary additional legislation.
I welcome that since coming to office, the current Government has already introduced a world-leading agenda on climate and nature action, making rapid progress and overturning the legacy of the previous Government, which left the country as the Climate Change Committee confirmed last July, off track to meet our climate goals.
I welcome, for example, the Government’s ambitious mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower – delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero across the economy. I also support the commitments it has made toward our natural environment, including halting the decline of British species by 2030 and developing a new, statutory plan to protect and restore our natural environment, with delivery to meet each of our Environment Act targets.
As you may know, the Climate and Nature Bill was not pushed to a vote on 24 January. I am pleased that instead the Government and the Bill’s sponsors were able to come to agreement on taking forward the spirit and substance of the Bill, including strengthening action on nature; having an annual climate and nature statement to Parliament and the country; and having greater public participation on these issues.
I welcome that the Government continue to engage so we can make a real and meaningful difference to climate and nature in this country.
Thank you once again for contacting me about this crucial issue.
Kind regards,
Markus Campbell-Savours,
Member of Parliament for Penrith and Solway.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
God help us. I’m very glad that I didn’t vote for him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am beginning to wonder if civil war is about to break out in the Cabinet. Included in Reeves’ announcement was a comment about the re-opening of the airport at Doncaster/South Yorkshire. This is in Miliband’s constituency. Was she deliberately poking him?
LikeLike
Markus? As in ‘et tu Brutus’?
LikeLiked by 2 people
John, it’s a Labour political dynasty (there seem to be a few of them just now). His father (Dale Campbell-Savours) was the local MP here, back in the day.
LikeLike
Mark – I hope so! I understand that Miliband didn’t turn up for Reeves’s big speech. I wonder why.
LikeLike
“Environmentalists urge Reeves to rethink plans for airports and roads
Critics say chancellor’s ‘growth at all costs’ plans are not compatible with UK’s climate targets”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/29/environmentalists-urge-reeves-to-rethink-plans-for-airports-and-roads
For once, I agree with a Guardian headline. The critics are right, but they have it the wrong way round: the UK’s climate targets are not compatible with growth plans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, as it happens, Liz Truss has just explained in her own words the reasons she thinks she was ousted:
I also don’t forget that Sunak basically condemned the country to 4 years of Starmer, Miliband and Reeves by refusing to change course on distinctly un-conservative policies and by unnecessarily calling an early election – in the rain. looking like the total drip he is.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime, I appreciate that we disagree about this but I suggest that if, when writing to your MP, you’d said something along these lines – ‘because most major countries – the source of over 80% of emissions – have no intention of cutting them, nothing we (the source of a mere 0.7%) might do could make the slightest practical difference to the global situation – i.e. our policy is pointless‘, you might have made more progress. Nothing he said to you in that dreadful word-salad is an answer to that simple statement.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt that would have made the slightest bit of difference Robin. Campbell-Savours is obviously away with the fairies and no appeal to logic, reason, science, data, facts or evidence is going to convince him that we are not in the midst of an existential climate crisis and that it is Great Britain’s divine destiny to lead the world out of that crisis – whilst becoming a Clean Energy Superpower at the same time!
LikeLike
In my opening comment on this thread I asserted that, although Trump’s arrival in the White House had not yet made a difference to the UK’s mad climate policy, it will. No sign of that yet – it continues to be as foolish as ever.
LikeLike
Perhaps you’re right Jaime – but in my view the simple approach is always the best.
LikeLike
John Ridgway, I’m attempting to respond to your post over at “Climate Etc.”. For some reason my comment is not getting through over there.
Anyway, thanks for that informative post. I especially liked your phrase “Prosocial censorship“. Sometimes I run into that when I’m trying to debunk the GHE nonsense.
LikeLike
Rachel from Accounts has just basically reaffirmed the Government’s belief that it is indeed Great Britain’s divine destiny to lead the world in saving the world from man-made Thermageddon and moreover that this is the industrial opportunity of the 21st century. Net Zero is synonymous with economic growth, not the nemesis of it. HMS UK is going down; it’s being holed beneath the waterline by mad people and by bad people.
LikeLike
Clint R,
Thank you for the feedback. I am of course unable to help you regarding your problems with Judith’s website. I should also add that the term ‘prosocial censorship’ is not mine, though I agree it is very apposite at times.
If you want to discuss the issues arising from my article within the relative safety of Cliscep, a more suitable thread for that purpose can be found here:
When to Give a Fig – Climate Scepticism
LikeLike
“Ed Miliband Snubs Reeves Speech Unveiling Heathrow Expansion Plans”
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/01/29/ed-miliband-snubs-reeves-speech-unveiling-heathrow-expansion-plans/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually Robin, I just checked my original email to Markus and I did in fact mention that anything we do is going to have virtually no impact, before I explained to him that the science is far from settled, but he chose to completely ignore all my valid arguments. Point made I feel:
LikeLiked by 1 person
But at least ED is not alone – “Earlier on Wednesday, the BBC ran an interview with Dale Vince, the green energy entrepreneur who has given £6 million to Labour, in which he was also critical.
Mr Vince said: “It’ll take 10 years to build a runway, cost maybe £50 billion. It’ll create the wrong kind of growth – we’ll be exporting tourism money abroad, creating a bigger imbalance than we already have, and it will come at the expense of our carbon-cutting effort. I think it’s the wrong kind of growth.
“We’ve got to decarbonise energy, transport and food, and at the moment we’re on course to do energy, and we won’t do that with this Heathrow expansion, which is a big mistake.”
Wonder where Dale gets 10yrs @ £50 billion from?
LikeLike
Jaime Jessop
Your comment: “Can somebody tell me how this is not deliberate sabotage. Malign. Intentional.”
Yes. On an earlier thread, I asked the rhetorical question WHY is this being done.
Money, powerlust, uncontrollable narcissism (I’m saving the planet, you know) … sure, but it’s so deliberately bloodyminded that there is a hollow in there I cannot fathom. I’m missing seeing some key motivation.
In Aus, we have a somewhat similar situation in that a particularly obdurate Minister has both the Climate Change and Energy portfolios. There is an election due within 3-4 months and he has gone into early hiding as he is really loathed for all the reasons reiterated in this thread.
This coming election may change some things here. Would that the UK did not have to wait another 4 years. My daughter has relocated herself to the UK, found a decent man, bought a house and had a child, so I thought she had organised herself so well I could relax into stupefied old age at last. Now I’m deeply worried for her by the deterioration in the country, on both economic and population grounds.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Is Rachel Reeves right that there is no trade-off between growth and net zero?”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-there-really-no-trade-off-between-growth-and-net-zero/
Why is it that some lies get endlessly repeated without ever being challenged, even though they are quite obviously wrong? In her pro-growth speech today, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves asserted:
‘There is no trade-off between economic growth and net zero’.
Government ministers, advisers and many others have been saying such things for years – and hardly ever do they get properly challenged….
iiicutting carbon emissions to zero is an act of deprivation. It means refusing to use sources of energy that have enriched the world immeasurably over the past 200 years. It also involves voluntarily giving up other established ways of doing things, such as making steel and cement, growing food, and manufacturing anything from plastic. If there were alternatives to all these things that were better and cheaper, we would want to use them anyway – we wouldn’t need to commit ourselves to net zero because they would naturally be adopted as a consequence of the pursuit of economic growth.…
…Much as I disagree with the climate extremists who openly say they want to make us poorer in order to reach net zero, they are being more honest than Reeves. Take UK Fires, for example, a group of academics that was commissioned by the last government to look into the aviation industry and net zero. It concluded: ‘There are no options for zero-emission flight in the time that is available for action, so the industry faces rapid contraction.’ That is the reality if you are determined to achieve net zero by 2050. As I wrote here earlier in the week, we are a long way from powering planes with affordable Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), as Reeves wants to do, and even if the industry could get to 100 per cent SAF, it would only reduce emissions by around 40 per cent.
There is nothing wrong with trade-offs in themselves. All of us have to make them all the time. But the honest trade-off between net zero and economic growth is to ask: by how much are we prepared to compromise economic growth to achieve net zero? Would we be happy shrinking the economy, and if so, how many people are we prepared to throw into poverty? To pretend that no such trade-off exists is foolish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The hollowness of Rachel Reeves’s dash for growth
Despite the chancellor’s boosterish rhetoric, Labour remains wedded to a miserabilist green agenda.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/01/29/the-hollowness-of-rachel-reevess-dash-for-growth/
…But the chancellor dashed any such hope in her speech today. ‘There is no trade-off between economic growth and Net Zero’, she intoned. ‘Net Zero is the industrial opportunity of the 21st century and Britain must lead the way.’ She then cited the upcoming publication of the UK’s next carbon budget as part of her strategy for green-driven growth, seemingly forgetting that the very purpose of these carbon budgets is to establish an upper limit on economic activity, in order to meet legally binding CO2 targets. The obvious contradiction clearly escaped her.
In truth, there isn’t only a trade-off between economic growth and Labour’s climate ambitions – you could go as far as to say they’re incompatible. The UK’s attempts to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, which Labour Net Zero secretary Ed Miliband has accelerated, has already pushed electricity prices for industry to the highest in the developed world. It has also made our electricity supplies far less reliable. Earlier this month, the National Grid came the closest it has been to blackouts in decades, as the UK was hit by a windless cold snap.
Far from spurring growth, Net Zero is leading to rapid deindustrialisation. The Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate is decimating the UK car industry, forcing Vauxhall to close its van factory in November, after 120 years of operations. Port Talbot, Britain’s largest steel plant, is to shed over 2,000 jobs, as it transitions to a greener, electric manufacturing process. Grangemouth, Scotland’s largest oil refinery, is to shutter under the combined weight of soaring energy costs, carbon taxes and Labour’s ban on new North Sea oil and gas licences. Unions representing workers in the fossil-fuel industry fear they will become the ‘miners of Net Zero’. A boom in green jobs to replace those supposedly ‘outdated’ ones was first promised by New Labour in the first decade of the century, it is not going to suddenly materialise on Reeves’s watch.
If Rachel Reeves really wants to take on the ‘blockers’ who are standing in the way of the UK’s prosperity, she could start by taking a look in the mirror.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: I’m pleased but not surprised that you mentioned to your MP that anything we do is going to have virtually no impact. I believe however that, if you’d said nothing more than that, you might have got somewhere. After all, he couldn’t then ignore it and, as he couldn’t demonstrate that your comment was incorrect, you’d have put him firmly on the spot.
LikeLike
LOL, Robin, I’ll give you this: your faith in the power of the One Item of Immutable Logic to move mountains – when undiluted, untainted by the presence of any other item of logic or reference to simple facts and data – is unshakable!
LikeLike
IanL, what can I say? If the Trump Effect ripples out to Australia in the coming months, and Rachel from Accounts, Weird Stalin and Red Mad Ed are still in power in the UK, I would strongly suggest that your daughter and her husband move back to Oz!
LikeLike
Jaime: if an irrefutable case can be made simply, there’s nothing to be gained by further argument.
LikeLike
From the Telegraph:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2025/01/29/TELEMMGLPICT000409714001_17381745280360_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqJTeZMeu5zVirdfcGQiVeGd3RT2biEQ-fg9ko75h_02c.jpeg
LikeLike
The conclusion of the article headed by the above cartoon:
Well said.
LikeLiked by 3 people
.As John Ridgway says … ‘Even Ireland wants to be the world’s leader.’
LikeLiked by 2 people
We have only one choice, bankruptcy or prosperity.
LikeLike
Sacking Red Mad Ed will only give us a brief respite from the Net Zero madness. Starmer and Reeves might be able to tweak the targets a little to allow some breathing room for the economy to expand. But if this government does not repeal Red Mad Ed’s CCA2008, or at the very least strike down the Net Zero amendment, plus withdraw from the Paris Accord, plus annul EU laws which require the UK to carry out environmental impact assessments re. downstream carbon emissions, then the Green Blob lawfare brigade are just going to force through our immiseration and deindustrialisation anyway. The chance of this Labour government doing those things is net zero.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The indefatigable Ross Clark has an article in the Spectator about the Court of Session decision regarding the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields. He says:
Could have been written by Jaime.
LikeLiked by 4 people
For what it may be worth, I’ve just posted another comment in a The Conversation article. I must say that I do like challenging these professors!
http://tiny.cc/4998001
LikeLiked by 1 person
Keep at ’em, Robin. The power of logic must get through to one of them at some point, surely?
LikeLike
Robin – if you do get a response, bet it is rote. Partial quote from his bio –
“A Professor and internationally recognised expertise in interdisciplinary studies and science communication. My research involves using poetry and games to engender meaningful dialogue between scientists and society.”
From his article –
“As a climate researcher and communicator, my job is to help move the conversation from personal guilt to shared responsibility and accountability. This shift empowers people as citizens, not just consumers, to demand action from leaders and industries.
Understanding that while personal responsibility is meaningful, the real power to create change lies with corporations and governments is vital. We need systemic change, not consumer guilt.
To tackle the climate crisis, we must make personal choices that reflect care for the environment. But we must also work together to demand that companies and governments adopt sustainable practices, for example through voting for leaders who prioritise environmental reform. The path to a sustainable future is collective action – not carrying the weight of guilt alone.”
Stick your poetry and games Prof, Cranky uncle is old hat now.
LikeLike
Robin has very nicely laid out how costly and ill-thought are UK net zero policies, along with how insignificant are UK emissions in a global context.
I would like to offer a slightly different slant. That is to look at UK policy in the context of the (now forgotten) 2030 climate targets. On the back of the IPCC SR1,5, the UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2018 stated that relative to 2017 global GHG emissions of 53.5 GtCO2e, for 1.5C of warming emissions needed to reduce 55% and for 2C they needed to reduce 25%. That is to 24 and 40 GtCO2e.
The UNEP EGR 2024 stated that 2023 global emissions were 57.1 GtCO2e, an increase of 3.6 on 2017. Global emissions are increasing, not decreasing rapidly. The general increase in emissions has been forecast in every UNEP EGR since at least 2014.
The UK official GHG emissions figures are 0.45 GtCO2e in 2017 and 0.384 GtCO2e in 2024. UK emissions are around a tenth of the global increase in six years. Regardless of the science, UK policy cannot be claimed to be combating climate change. It is against the trend.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I was puzzled as to why global greenhouse gas emissions has increased so rapidly in 2017-2024 when from the previous few years has seen a slackening of emissions growth. By my estimates, over half the 3.6 GtCO2e emissions increase can be accounted for by an 18% increase in global coal production. This despite a 24% decrease in coal production in OECD countries.
Note that the massive 34% increase in China’s coal production is partly due to cutting imports.
Of CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, 43-45% comes from coal, 33-36% from oil and the 21-22% from gas. The UK
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess there’s an article in this. Any takers?
“No targets for aviation or farming in UK climate plan”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyv4g7000m4o
LikeLike
The Telegraph describes how there are in fact targets for farmland:
Tenth of farmland to be axed for net zero
I also draw the reader’s attention to Labour’s “plan” when in opposition, described in Tilling an Unyielding Soil.
LikeLiked by 1 person
manic: in 2021 I published an essay (LINK) in which I said that, according to the IPCC, global CO2 emissions would have to come down to 18.7 Gt by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5ºC target. I noted that three countries, China, India and Russia, already emitted 15.8 Gt and that it was only necessary to add the US’s 2030 emission target for just four countries to exceed the Paris target. Well – wind forward to 2023 and now just three (China, the US and India) already emit 20.9 Gt. As it’s obvious that all these countries will increase their emissions over the next five years – as will over 100 other countries – there’s no doubt that the 1.5ºC target will be massively exceeded. As will the Paris ‘well below 2ºC’ target.
So be in no doubt: we’re all doomed.
LikeLiked by 3 people
A very interesting article by Ed Hoskins, further demonstrating the madness of almost total reliance on renewables:
https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/2024-power-generation-in-germany-the-uk-and-france-compared/
His summary of conclusions:
The illustrations of UK power generation in 2024 shown above, indicate:
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a barrister Robin, can you (or Mark) tell me how on earth, given this data, a UK court can find that the downstream (Scope 3 emissions) from Horse Hill (or even Jackdaw or Rosebank) can possibly be deemed to have a “significant impact on the climate” in the context of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 – even if one accepts the Science as settled? I suspect in absolute terms, the impact is minimal (Jit may have done this calculation), but in relative terms, it is next to zero.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime,
When they use words such as ‘significant’ they lose sight of the fact that they are defined in public access documents called dictionaries. However, this doesn’t seem to matter because the days when the normal rules of rational argumentation applied are long gone. Dictionaries are for people who lack the faith.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime:
I haven’t got time to do a detailed review of the Supreme Court’s decision re Horse Hill. But, as I understand it, the Court, having confirmed that hydrocarbon production projects in the UK (at least in respect of onshore projects) should be supported by EIAs (Environmental Impact Assessments) that assess greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the combustion of hydrocarbons produced by the project, determined (and this was the key issue) that that must include GHG emissions which would be released when the crude oil produced by the project was ultimately combusted. I believe the reason that is likely to be a killer is the extreme difficulty of making such an assessment. I don’t think the Court said anything specifically about ‘significant impact on the climate’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, a reminder:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, Robin,
Apologies if you or Jit have covered this already, but I’ve just got around to skimming through the Horse Hill judgement. The lifetime emissions are quantified:
Compare that to the tens of gigatons (10 x 1000 x 1 million tons) needed to have a significant impact on the climate and the measure of emissions from China etc. plus the total annual global CO2 emissions of 37Gt in 2023 and you can see that Horse Hill (over its entire lifetime) emits just 1/3700 of annual global emissions. In relative terms, it is a vanishingly small contribution to global CO2 emissions and cannot, according to the dictionary definition (thank you John) be deemed ‘significant’. But the Judgement maintains that it is significant:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, indeed , but ultimately the failure that invalidated the planning permission was procedural It may yet be possible for a Council to require downstream emissions to be taken into account in an EIA, and then decide that in global terms they are not significant.
LikeLiked by 2 people
One would hope so Mark, but the Council granted planning permission having accepted assurances from the developer that the on site direct emissions were ‘minimal’ or ‘negligible’, whereas the judgement notes that the downstream emissions are ‘an order of magnitude greater’ than the direct emissions; thus it seems to me that they are using that argument to claim that the indirect emissions are ‘significant’ in respect of the on site emissions and on that basis alone should be taken into account when deciding whether the ‘impact on climate’ is significant. Thus I’m not hopeful that a realistic assessment of emissions in the global context will prevail.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime,
Of course, you are correct again, but there is the possibility that realistic planners would accept that downstream emissions were not significant. Inevitably, though, anti fossil fuel campaigners would no doubt rush straight off to Court to complain, in that eventuality.
As I have commented elsewhere, it will be interesting to see the downstream emissions disclosed by an eventual EIA into the third runway at Heathrow. I think things may very soon descend into civil war in the Cabinet, with Miliband on one side and Reeves on the other. For now, Reeves is claiming that net zero and growth strategies are not incompatible, but she must know that isn’t true. If she really believes it, then she’s even dafter than I thought.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Once again there’s hardly any wind and no sun (at 5:15 PM): wind 4% and sun 0%. Fortunately gas is contributing 63% and interconnectors (mainly France and Norway) 10%. Price is £141.53/MWh and Demand 40.3GW.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…The Government has committed the UK to this new target, without having the faintest idea of how to achieve it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is civil war within the Labour government creeping closer?
“‘We’d go absolutely nuts’: PM warned of Labour fight if he backs huge oilfield
Exclusive: MPs and ministers say they would oppose Starmer if he tries to approve Rosebank development”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/31/keir-starmer-warned-against-approving-rosebank-oilfield-labour-unease-heathrow
Senior Labour figures are warning of a serious fight if Keir Starmer tries to give the go-ahead to a giant new oilfield off Shetland later this year.
MPs and ministers have told the Guardian they are prepared to oppose the UK prime minister should he try and give final consent to the Rosebank development, which is Britain’s biggest untapped oilfield.
Many in the party see the battle over Rosebank as the next front in the struggle between its environmental wing and those around Rachel Reeves who want to push for economic growth above all else. The chancellor signalled her support for a third runway at Heathrow this week as part of the government’s latest push to stimulate the economy.
One ally of the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, who is leading the government’s climate agenda, said the former Labour leader would have a “punchy” response for any attempt to give consent to Rosebank. The ally said: “Ed will come to that fight armed with a lot of evidence about what Rosebank will do to our carbon emissions.”
A spokesperson for Miliband declined to comment….
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I’m a Labour MP – but the government’s ‘growth’ mission reeks of panic
The decision to expand Heathrow is just the latest evidence that my party is chasing policies that serve profit, not people”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/31/labour-mp-government-growth-heathrow-party
Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s recent “big growth agenda” speech wasn’t just the expression of a vision for the economy. It was also a warning shot to wavering Labour MPs. The message was blunt: get on board with the government’s economic strategy or step aside. Growth, we were told, is the non-negotiable mission.
This was not a sudden shift but a reaffirmation of her stance at Davos, where she made clear that “the answer can’t always be no”. That answer, now firmly codified, prioritises GDP growth above all else. Heathrow airport expansion is in; net zero, bats and newts are out. The promise? A revitalised economy, busy high streets and more bobbies on the beat – a Labour-friendly vision of progress designed to bolster morale and stuff leaflets with “good news” ahead of the next election.
This strategy is fraught with risk. Some may call it bold; others, a sign of desperation. A growing suspicion looms that our government lacks a coherent governing philosophy or ideological compass beyond the vague pursuit of “growth”. But if growth at any cost is the mantra, the costs will soon become painfully clear. Why pledge to be clean and green, only to undermine that commitment with a Heathrow expansion promise six months later? Burning the furniture to stay warm doesn’t signal confidence – it reeks of panic.
Regardless of the motivation, Labour has crossed the Rubicon. Approving Heathrow expansion is an irreversible break with our pre-election pledges. In 2021, Reeves stood in front of the Labour party conference and declared that she would be the “first-ever green chancellor”. Now, Labour is accused of obstructing the climate and nature bill and abandoning its ambitious decarbonisation plans. The rapid turnaround is striking….
LikeLike
Jaime Jessop
Thanks for your reply on Jan 30. Repatriation for my daughter and her family will be beyond my lifetime, I expect, if it ever occurs.
Any real change in Aus is difficult to achieve, for much the same reasons as in the UK. The bulk of the Aus population is by far urban and has been almost completely disconnected from the sources and supply logistics of energy, food and wealth creation (NOTE – not redistribution, though) for decades now.
The electoral system that has evolved pushes everything towards the centre. This is quite ruthlessly administered by the various Public Services and re-inforced by the MSM. At least 50% of the corporates (including the biggest four banks) seek rent from the tax buckets rather than competing in the markets.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In a response to manicbeancounter yesterday I showed how, if the IPCC was right in its 2018 Special Report, there’s no doubt that the Paris Agreement’s 1.5ºC target will be massively exceeded. I added that that applies also to its ‘well below 2ºC’ target. Here’s why:
The IPCC recommended that, to achieve that target, global emissions should ‘decline by about 25% from 2010 levels by 2030’. Therefore, as global CO2 emissions in 2010 were 34.0 Gt, they’d have to come down to 25.5 Gt by 2030 to meet the target. But the emissions of just 7 countries (China, the USA, India, Russia, Iran, Indonesia and Mexico) already exceed 25.5 Gt and these countries are most unlikely to reduce their emissions over the next five years. Therefore, if the IPCC has got it right, warming of more than 2ºC would seem to be a certainty.
And that’s true even if every other country in the world reduced its emissions to Zero.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Telegraph has nicked my one-liners which I’ve been using for quite some time now:
OK, I’ll give the author credit for the ingenious replacement of ‘clear’ with Keir! But seriously, who at the Telegraph has ‘long feared’ that Net Zero is a trojan horse for the destruction of capitalism? I must have missed those articles over the years because as far as I’m aware, it’s only us tin foil hat conspiracy theorists who’ve been saying this!
LikeLiked by 4 people
We’ve been told for years that the ‘clean energy transition’ is a ‘just’ transition, implying that it is inherently fair and equitable. But the Guardian and Emma Pinchbeck are now fretting about how to make the ‘just’ transition fair and equitable!
I suggest they are going to fail. Why? Because the above statements are like saying:
Labour warned it risks losing support for immigration policy if illegal immigrants are not spread fairly across the country.
But Pinchbeck and the Guardian are so wrapped up in their own ideological dream world, they will not see this until it stands up and smacks them hard in the face.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/01/labour-warned-risks-losing-support-net-zero-costs-not-spread-fairly
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jaime: thanks for the link to that remarkable Camilla Tominey piece: ‘Labour politicians aren’t just bad, they aren’t just unpopular – they’re dangerous‘. Not only is it a ‘must read’, but I believe it’s also a ‘must keep’. An outstanding example of good journalism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime -thanks for the Guardian link by good old Fiona (see she has not lost her fervour).
Partial quote from Emma Pinchbeck –
“But politicians of all parties had difficulty grasping the scale and speed of the shift to a low-carbon economy, despite the huge economic benefits it could bring, she said, while the public were often still in the dark over what net zero would involve.
“I would absolutely love to see the government confidently championing this agenda,” she told the Guardian. “They can call it what they like, but it is important that they do it.”
God help us from clueless/deluded people. I appreciate it is her job to push this B/S, but….
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s funny how Robin’s point about the lack of appropriate skilled workers as being a reason why net zero can’t work, has never troubled the Guardian/Observer, but it suddenly becomes relevant when there’s talk of a third runway at Heathrow:
“Can we build it? No – because Britain may not have enough workers”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/02/can-we-build-it-no-because-britain-may-not-have-enough-workers
...There are 300,000 fewer workers in construction in the UK now than in 2019, with a particular decline in the experienced, 50-plus age range, accelerated by Brexit and the pandemic.
A review into the skills shortage in construction and engineering published by the government last week suggested a shake-up and merger of both sectors’ industry training boards. Its author, consultant Mark Farmer, warned of an “unprecedented risk now emerging in relation to declining workforce size and skills misalignment”….
But then, net zero is in the frame too, after all:
…For the UK, Francis says bluntly: “Without a skilled construction workforce, the 1.5m new homes target, net zero transition and all the projects to improve transport and water infrastructure will not happen.”…
LikeLiked by 2 people
David Turver’s latest makes for interesting reading:
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/great-british-energy-emergency
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, thanks for the link to the Turver article. His final paragraph could well have been addressed to Jaime and me:
LikeLiked by 2 people
What interested me most about Fiona Harvey’s report on her discussion with Emma Pinchbeck was not what Pinchbeck said but what she didn’t say.
Thus on the one hand she insists that Starmer and Reeves ‘should be making a “strong, confident” case for decarbonisation as an engine of economic growth’. Not saving the planet? No – what matters are ‘the huge economic benefits’ that Net Zero would bring. As Pinchbeck says: ‘Decarbonisation is better for growth than not decarbonising …You can’t have economic growth without delivering on net zero’. And as Harvey reports: ‘Pinchbeck is clear: failure to decarbonise now would not improve the economy, but saddle the UK with enormous costs in years to come.’
But what about saving the planet, tackling climate change, observing our Paris Agreement obligations, keeping temperatures below1.5ºC, following climate science, exercising global leadership, etc., etc? Not mentioned.
Perhaps we’re seeing a move from one mad theory to another mad theory?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Perhaps we are Robin, and if so I think it’s good news. It means they are abandoning a sinking ship to get on one that is holed below the waterline. It’s going to end badly for them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Balderdash. What is the first-mover advantage in Net Zero?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jit, unless the energy return on energy invested (EROEI) figures have changed (in which case please forgive my ignorance) there is only disadvantage to be had by ever adopting current-generation “renewables”. They are a technological dead end (except in niche applications), but they are also a great moneyspinner for their rent-seeking promoters.
The argument above does not preclude the invention, one day, of “renewables” that are much closer to truly being renewable than the current duffers. However, I expect that such an invention will not happen quickly or cheaply. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Roger Bootle in The Telegraph:
He’s still for Net Zero, just at a pace aligned with everyone else. Of course, that would mean we aren’t heading anywhere any time soon.
Aligning our per-capita emissions with the global average is something I have advocated in this neck of the woods.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jit, currently our per-capita emissions are lower than the global average: 5.5 vs 6.7 t CO2eq according to EDGAR. So, if your proposal was adopted, we’d have to increase our emissions.
LikeLike
Robin, I think you included a typo, and that you meant to say that our per capita emissions are currently lower than the global average, so that matching the global average would involve us increasing them.
LikeLike
Thanks Mark. Corrected.
LikeLike
The Ashcroft poll has a number of interesting stats on the public’s opinion of Net Zero:
Link (scroll down).
LikeLiked by 1 person
From the same poll, I think this is significant too:
More than 6 in 10, including a majority of 2024 Labour voters, said they thought achieving net zero would mean higher costs for themselves and their households. Fewer than 3 in 10 – including only a minority of Labour and Lib Dem voters – thought achieving net zero would be worth doing even if it meant higher costs for businesses and households over the next few years (Green Party voters were the only group in which a majority disagreed). Most said households and businesses could not afford higher costs at the moment, even if this meant having to put off net zero.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kathryn Porter’s REPORT – Blackout risk in the GB grid – is I believe essential reading. In detailed, measured and non-alarmist language it makes it clear that Net Zero 2050 is very unlikely to be achieved with the ‘Clean Power 2030’ plan especially vulnerable – indeed she’s plainly saying that it’s completely impossible.
Her concluding paragraph:
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oh dear, George is not at all happy:
Look at Labour’s acts of environmental vandalism and ask: did I vote for this? | George Monbiot
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/30/labour-environmental-vandalism-rivers-wildlife-air-government-gdp
There are just one or two issues here where I agree with George – e.g. his attack on ‘chicken factories’. But not for example this:
Hmm … ‘a surprising act of good sense’ might be more accurate.
LikeLiked by 4 people
From today’s FT:
How transformers are holding up the UK’s energy transition
Four-year waits for essential equipment threatens to slow move to renewables
One of many key problems identified by Kathryn Porter in her excellent paper. Well done FT!
LikeLike
More from today’s FT:
China, Europe and UK should form climate coalition apart from US, energy expert says
Lord Adair Turner advocates for ‘pull together’ of rest of the world to accelerate shift to green energy
Great plan Adair (the ‘energy expert’) – let’s ally with China regarding climate policy. (I met Turner many years ago – and wasn’t impressed then.)
LikeLike
Yes, that’ll work. The UK and EU can buy Chinese renewable paraphernalia built by slaves using coal power, and China can keep on increasing its emissions every year. It’s a win-win scenario.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
Moonbat’s latest rant proves that Greenism is a progressive disease which afflicts the mental capacity of its sufferers; it becomes acute when victims can no longer profit economically, politically, socially or emotionally from the Green grift, and is ultimately incurable and terminal in the vast majority of cases.
LikeLike
Something I don’t understand. In the Executive Summary of her paper Katheryn Porter says that chemical batteries, ‘not yet operational’, may last for 100 hours. That sounds pretty good. But in a footnote (page 5) she says that pumped hydro, that can only run ‘for a matter of hours’ (5 hours for Dinorwig), ‘lasts longer than chemical batteries’.
Has she made a mistake or – far more likely – am I missing something?
LikeLike
Robin; those points caught my eye too. I think she mixed up her info and/or missed an explanation.
Batteries are usually tasked to provide high output over short durations to support grid stability. Dinorwig is similarly intended to provide short-term output, taking over from or supporting batteries and allowing time for gas plants to ramp up. Although it cannot respond quite as fast as batteries, its capacity is far greater so it can run for longer.
I don’t understand her 100 hours comment. Present-day batteries can run for long periods, if the capacity is large enough and the rate of discharge is low. However that’s not their purpose, aiui, and to provide any meaningful output over that time the capacity would have to be huge which would be horrifically expensive.
Needs a bit of editorial input.
LikeLike
Robin, thank you for spotting Kathryn’s apparent inconsistency.
I was somewhat surprised when she wrote in the Executive Summary about “Cutting edge chemical batteries, which are not yet operational, may last for 100 hours – the average of the current
fleet of GB batteries is around 1.5–2.0 hours.”
Wiki is suggesting that a single Li-ion battery could supply a grid, but not necessarily our UK grid, for up to 8 hours (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage). Thus I take Kathryn to mean that ganging together a large number of chemical batteries (while minimising the not inconsiderable short-circuit and fire risks) will create a ‘cutting edge battery’; such a battery bank could, in principle, sustain the grid for many hours. However, I am not surprised that they are not yet operational. And, selfishly, I hope they do not build them near a Cliscepper’s home.
I understand her other reference i.e. to pumped storage lasting longer than chemical batteries to mean that the best of our current UK pumped storage capability would last longer than our current generation of chemical batteries.
[On related matters, I am investigating (in very slow time) the potential (if any) for DC sources such as interconnectors and batteries to be upgraded to incorporate kit that will make them fully useful in recovering the grid in ‘black start’ situations. They are already useful once the 3-phase AC system has been re-established, but it is that initial re-establishment of those 3-phases (each running at 50 Hz with minimal harmonic pollution) that concerns me. Pumped storage schemes do not have this weakness because they use AC generators that automatically create the 50 Hz 3-phase system that the grid requires.] Regards, John C.
LikeLike
“Net Zero threatens the UK’s future.
The enemy is within.”
https://tomed.substack.com/p/net-zero-threatens-the-uks-future
An amusingly sarcastic view of what’s wrong with net zero. I did like this paragraph:
The reason for the UK’s rabid pursuit of Net Zero is to set an example for the world to follow, which is an example of exactly how not to run a country’s energy supply. It’s telling everyone how warm it is once you’re in, while holding your jaw to stop the shivering from loosening your fillings.
LikeLike
“Why net zero will become a headache for Labour
The upfront cost of renewables is pushing up energy bills for consumers and businesses.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/02/why-net-zero-will-become-a-headache-for-labour
…Businesses are increasingly vocal about the uncompetitiveness of energy prices. It has long been the case that Europe has higher energy prices than the US because the US has embraced fracking. President Trump is going to inflict many wounds on the US economy, but his “drill, baby, drill” approach to energy policy will lower the cost for US businesses further.
Even in the European context, our energy costs are high. Industries such as steelmaking and chemicals are increasingly priced out of the UK for this reason. Nor is this just a problem for established industries. Artificial Intelligence requires data centres and data centres require a lot of energy. An ambition to lead the world in AI is incompatible with high energy prices.
There are those who argue that the route to lower energy prices is to abandon fossil fuels and embrace renewables, pointing out that the marginal costs of renewables are much lower than fossil fuels. But as Oxford professor Dieter Helm (no climate change denier by any means) has pointed out, what really matters is the systems cost. Intermittent renewables, such as solar and especially wind, require back-up options and the cost of these need to be included. Once this is taken into account, alongside the costs of installing renewable sources of energy, abandoning fossil fuels is expensive. Our high levels of renewables and our high energy prices are not a coincidence….
It’s interesting that, as Robin has pointed out, Miliband says much less about leading the world these days. He’s also gone very quiet about reducing energy prices. Now his sole argument seems to be the very dubious one that renewables will provide the UK with energy security.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MarkH, I have always found the “renewables provide energy security” argument very odd since we are almost entirely dependent upon the likes of China to provide the technology.
Surely, anybody who stands back and looks at the “renewables” arguments in their entirety sees that they do nothing for energy security, do nothing for energy reliability, do nothing for energy cost minimization, do nothing for energy efficiency (because their EROEI is so low) and hence do nothing for stabilizing (let alone boosting) the economy. However, on the plus side – and there is one! – they shovel money from poorer people to rent-seeking profiteers. What’s not to like?
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oh dear. From today’s FT:
Most big polluters to miss UN deadline for 2035 climate targets
Handful of countries ready to submit plans to tackle global warming in the next decade
LikeLike
Returning to Kathryn Porter’s report, it is an excellent analysis of the numerous problems arising from the govt’s energy plans.
There are a couple of aspects which, in my view, should be greater coverage. Firstly carbon capture and storage does not get a mention (that I could see) although £22bn has been earmarked for it. As is well-known, even if it can be made to work, it will add significant costs to the plants adapted and reduce their efficiency. Thus it may well hasten the retirement of many older, less efficient plants and cut back the available capacity of those that remain.
Secondly, the possibility that Norway will restrict power exports has greater ramifications for us than just the loss of up to 1.4 GW of imports. As “It doesn’t add up” has pointed out elsewhere, Norway also supplies Denmark, Holland and Germany. If exports to those countries are also cut or restricted, it will limit their capacity to export to us and may see them becoming competitors for supplies from France. We have averaged nearly 4 GW of imports over the past year and have often hit peaks close to the total capacity of the interconnectors so losing a significant portion could have drastic consequences.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Another warning for Mad Ed. At 8:15 this morning wind was generating 15% of demand (not a disaster on the face of it) but Interconnectors were contributing only 2.5% and gas was working away to fill the gap (57%). Price was £172.57/MWh.
Energy security? I don’t think so.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Are we looking at Climategate 2.0 (US version)? Is this the beginning of the end for The Settled Science? What “confidential information” are Doge staffers going to uncover in NOAA’s IT systems?
The Guardian – inventor of the ‘climate crisis’ – is uncharacteristically low key about such a direct challenge to the authority of the Science and data holders.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/04/doge-noaa-headquarters
LikeLiked by 1 person
The concern about access to IT systems and confidential information is interesting. I accept, of course, that some information is confidential – say private details of employees, etc. But what else are they so concerned about? Nothing that NOAA does, that is paid for by the US taxpayer should be confidential, unless it’s to do with US security. And I don’t think any of their climate and related pronouncements fall into that category.
LikeLiked by 1 person
According to Business Green:
UK government relaunches Net Zero Council
‘Council aims to bring together senior figures from the public and private sectors to explore how to accelerate the transition to a net zero emission economy.‘
A tough requirement. I wonder why they had to relaunch it.
LikeLike
Robin,
Across at NALOPKT commentators georgeherraghty and Micky R have picked up on the quote from prof. Scherkinau to the effect that ““The energy transition in its current form, as a grid-scale build out of wind and solar with the goal to replace oil, coal and gas, is probably one of the greatest mistakes that humanity has ever made”“
I am trying to find a source for that quote as prof. Scherkinau is unknown to me.
In haste, John C.
LikeLike
John: Scherkinau has an article HERE setting out his views in some detail. It doesn’t include that quotation although it certainly supports its sentiment. Of course the ‘energy transition’ isn’t ‘one of the greatest mistakes that humanity has ever made’ because it’s a mistake that’s only being made in the West – except now for the US.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
[I hate how WordPress eats text and won’t regurgitate it.]
2. Thanks to a response on NALOPKT I now know Scherkinau’s devastating quote comes from here:-https://co2coalition.org/news/german-energy-expert-says-energy-transition-a-mistake/
In haste, John C.
LikeLike
Thanks John. Unfortunately in an exchange with a believer the CO2 Coalition isn’t a useful reference as its raison d’être is the importance of CO2.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On this morning’s Radio 4 Today programme Ed Miliband described the shift to net zero as ‘the fight of our time, not just for climate but for energy security’, that the move to ‘clean energy’ represented ‘a once in 200 year transformation of our economy’. He said that ‘Britain is exposed to fossil fuels to our absolute detriment as a country …they don’t give us energy security, they don’t cut bills’. He explained that the only answer to energy security questions is to shift to clean power. That, he said, is where the ‘sustainable jobs of the future come from’. He added: ‘We are in the grip of petro-states and dictators that control these prices, we don’t have control’.
These comments would seem to indicate, as I’ve suggested before, that Mad Ed is moving away from the ‘need to save the world from an existential threat’ rhetoric to a new ‘net zero is really all about the UK economy’ position – which is of course is equally absurd.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David Turver has just posted an article on the Daily Sceptic headed:
Miliband’s Net Zero Plans Torpedoed by UK’s Top Offshore Wind Developer as Ørsted Axes Major Projects
He noted that Ørsted’s announcement yesterday was not specific about which projects will continue and which will be cancelled; it looks as though Hornsea Project 3, already under construction, will continue. However, Hornsea 4 has been axed from Ørsted’s new investment plan. Moreover, Turver says, ‘It is all but certain that Ørsted will not be participating in the forthcoming Allocation Round 7 (AR7) to win new subsidy contracts’.
All this accentuates what was becoming increasingly obvious: Mad Ed’s plan to almost quadruple offshore wind capacity by 2030 is almost certainly in tatters. Turver’s conclusion:
Well said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A sucker for punishment (or more accurately for being ignored) I’ve just posted a comment on another The Conversation article. Unfortunately I’ve just seen that the ghastly Norman Rides also has a comment there.
LikeLike
Excellent comment over there, Robin, and I’ll be interested to see if it generates a response (from the author of the article, rather than from Norman Rides). I give you great credit, though I fear you’re a glutton for punishment.
LikeLike
I’ve left a comment too. It will be interesting to see if our ‘Professor of Climate Science’ responds to both Robin’s comment and mine, both of which legitimately challenge his BS but from two totally different angles.
LikeLike
I continue to think he sincerely believes his own propaganda, despite the fact that the evidence suggests he’s hopelessly wrong and utterly deluded. He’s certainly the most dangerous man in Britain today, IMO:
“Labour’s clean energy plan will not only cut emissions but lift hundreds of thousands out of fuel poverty
The party’s agenda is about energy security, lower bills, economic growth and good jobs”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/08/labours-clean-energy-plan-will-not-only-cut-emissions-but-lift-hundreds-of-thousands-out-of-fuel-poverty
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Net Zero Cure Worse Than Climate Change Disease”
https://open.substack.com/pub/davidturver/p/net-zero-cure-worse-than-climate-change-disease
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark: thanks for the link to the Turver video and article. Essential viewing and reading and a most interesting contrast to the Mad Ed article in the Guardian to which you also provided a link.
LikeLike
“Blow to energy security as ‘Czech Sphinx’ scales back gas power plant plans
Concerns over impact on blackout prevention system after billionaire halves electricity guarantee”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/08/blow-energy-security-czech-sphinx-scales-gas-power-plant/
Britain’s blackout prevention system has been dealt a blow after the billionaire known as the “Czech Sphinx” scaled back plans to build a new gas-fired power station in Yorkshire.
EPH, controlled by Daniel Kretinsky, previously set out plans to spend more than £1bn on redeveloping Eggborough’s coal power station by building two combined cycle gas turbine plants there, along with new battery storage.
The gas-fired plants secured government contracts to provide 1.5 gigawatts (GW) of power from 2026 onwards through the capacity market, a backup system meant to keep Britain’s lights on. This would be enough to power more than 1m homes.
However, EPH last month terminated one of the contracts, halving the amount of electricity it would guarantee to the grid, according to regulatory filings seen by The Telegraph.
Experts said the withdrawal threatened UK energy security unless the capacity was swiftly replaced, creating a headache for Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary.
They also warned that Mr Kretinsky’s decision to scale back his ambitions was potentially an ominous sign about the viability of other gas plants, given the relatively high payments the Eggborough plants had secured.…
LikeLiked by 2 people
At this rate the UK is going to be the only place in the world insisting on net zero etc. How can we be a world leader if absolutely nobody is following us?
“Inside the divided coalition coming for the Green Deal
Intentionally or not, concerned businesses, the ascendant far right and traditional conservatives are coming together to rewrite green rules.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/inside-divided-coalition-green-deal-far-right-eu-parliament/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Net Zero Watch says the Reform Party may have stopped the green bandwagon in its tracks. In a news conference today, the party’s deputy leader Richard Tice announced plans to claw back subsidies from renewables operators.
With the party now ahead in many polls of Westminster voting intention, the announcement will be a major blow to a renewables industry already beset by problems, from soaring capital costs to collapsing demand. In particular, it threatens the next annual round of the Contracts for Difference renewables auction (AR7). The government needs the auction to deliver an unprecedented quantity of new renewables if it is to deliver on its Clean Power 2030 plan. However, the auction timetable has slipped compared to last year, suggesting that investors may already be nervous, and now Reform’s announcement may kill it off entirely.
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Reform UK sets out plan to tax renewable energy”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn93w44yv74o
Reform UK would impose taxes on the renewable energy sector, under its plans to scrap the country’s net zero target, the party’s deputy leader Richard Tice has said.
Tice argued net-zero policies were to blame for higher energy bills and deindustrialisation in the UK.
He said renewable energy was a “massive con” and promised Reform would recover money paid in subsidies to wind and solar companies.
“The British people are being ripped off by the renewables industry,” Tice told a news conference.
He suggested a “generation tax” and a “special corporation tax” would cover the costs of government funding for renewable energy.
“The British people need to know there is a direct link between the cost of all these subsidies to the vested interests in the renewables industry and your bills,” the Boston and Skegness MP said.
The party did not share further details about how the taxes would work in practice, including at what rate renewables would be taxed, or how much revenue would be raised.
Tice also announced plans to tax solar farms, and pass new laws to put energy cables underground rather than on pylons.
Reform’s deputy leader said “we will scrap net stupid zero” if the party won the next general election....
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – your POLITICO link above is replete with “the far right” reference. Also notice Donald Tusk (remember him) is mentioned, saying –
“One thing these protagonists do share is a sense of ascendency. In the five years since its inception, the European Green Deal has faced opposition and criticism from all sides. It has never, however, faced a serious prospect of being severely weakened or reversed — until now.
“The revolt against regulation is inevitable!” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk wrote on X Tuesday. “Whether someone in the EU likes it or not. The time is now!”
ps – Politico: White House says it will cancel $8 million in subscriptions after a false right-wing conspiracy theory spreads | CNN Business
LikeLike
dfhunter, the irony of Tusk demanding less EU regulation hadn’t escaped me.
LikeLike
The Speccie has another energy policy article by Ross Clark – Will Ed Miliband see sense and drill British gas? – about the reported discovery of a huge amount of shale gas in Lincolnshire. I liked his closing paragraph in particular:
The answer I fear is No.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The Green mafia fancies itself against the rest of the world, the Trump administration and now, increasingly, the weight of public opinion in the UK. I don’t fancy Millioaf’s chances – or that of the Green Blob – if they attempt to double down on the fracking ban in light of this new find.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comments elsewhere suggest that this is a conventional gas field, not shale, so may not require fracking. If correct, that would remove one fig-leaf the govt would try to hide behind.
LikeLike
“EVs and datacentres driving new global ‘age of electricity’, says watchdog
Forecast for rising global electricity use likely to stoke fears of rising costs and stalled efforts to fight climate crisis”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/14/electric-cars-datacentres-new-global-age-of-electricity
The world’s electricity use will grow every year by more than the amount consumed annually by Japan because of a surge in electric transport, air conditioning and datacentres, according to the world’s energy watchdog.
The International Energy Agency has raised its predictions for the world’s rising demand for electricity, pegging the growth at almost 4% a year until 2027, up from its previous forecast of 3.4% year.…
...More governments are taking steps to rely on electricity for transport and heating systems as well as heavy industry, according to the report, and there is also expected to be a rapid expansion of energy-hungry datacentres used to train artificial intelligence (AI).
The forecasts are likely to stoke fears that the race to build more datacentres to support the boom in AI could become a drain on energy supplies, causing costs to rocket and stalling efforts to cut fossil fuels from power generation….
...Dave Jones, a director at global energy thinktank Ember, said that although the world’s growing stock of clean energy projects would keep pace with the faster than expected growth in electricity use, it would not rise fast enough to displace the existing fossil fuel electricity used today.
“More investment in clean electricity is needed, otherwise coal and gas generation could be at the same record levels in 2027 as they were in 2024,” Jones said….
By the way, there they go again, calling the International Energy Agency the “world’s energy watchdog”. Who appointed them thus? They’re not part of the UN, nobody elected them. Stop giving their every utterance this faux level of apparent authority.
LikeLiked by 2 people
How about CliScep International, ‘the world’s Climate and Net Zero watchdog’?
It’s got a ring to it I feel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark; “EVs and datacentres driving new global ‘age of electricity’, says watchdog”
The spread of power-hungry data centres has implications for our electricity supplies – and not just in terms of additional loads on our fragile system.
EdF is offering to host data centres on sites adjacent to 3 or 4 of its big nuclear plants in France. Should the proposal be realised, it would reduce the power available for export to the UK and others.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reading further about the Lincolnshire gas field, it does appear to be a shale prospect. That’s according to Heyco, the US company that bought Egdon in 2023. So exploitation probably will require fracking techniques as employed in the US.
It would be interesting to hear from Alan K on the geology, etc…..
LikeLike
From today’s FT:
UK risks ‘going bust’ chasing net zero, says GB News backer Sir Paul Marshall
Hedge fund boss speaks ahead of right-leaning Arc conference in London next week
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Gainsborough Trough prospect is almost certainly unconventional and in the Bowland-Hodder Shale. It will require extensive fracking at multiple well sites to exploit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sometimes I wonder if we’re the only sane people discussing energy and climate issues:
“AI experts warn electricity costs may stunt growth”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20g3dr4n4no
The government must invest in long-term renewable energy if it wants to drive artificial intelligence (AI) growth in the East of England, experts have warned.
AI is set to be at the forefront of a £2bn data centre in Loughton, Essex, as well as the chancellor’s plans for ‘Europe’s Silicon Valley’ between Cambridge and Oxford.
Dr Haider Raza, a senior AI lecturer at the University of Essex, said it was a “very exciting time” for the region but stressed sustainable energy was needed for AI to flourish.
A government spokesman said it was “exploring bold, clean energy solutions” to meet its AI ambitions while aligning with the UK’s net zero goals….
...However, Dr Raza said “awful” electricity costs could stunt growth and said the government should invest in renewable energy to power AI centres.
“We have to make data centres more efficient. This point is very, very important,” he told the BBC.
“Data centres are going to churn through a lot of energy, especially if they are processing too many jobs and mining large amounts of data.
“There are so many aspects we have to manage. Considering the cost of electricity, it’s very challenging financially.”...
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure about AI, but we could certainly do with some of that good old genuine human intelligence and (un)common sense. Instead, what we have in abundance – at least in all our institutions and places of power – is 100% genuine, home grown stupidity! And it will be the death of us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve just posted another comment on a The Conversation article – this one by Aimee Ambrose, a Professor of Energy Policy at Sheffield Hallam University.
PS: oh no – the dreadful Norman Rides has already replied!
LikeLike
He continues to demonstrate the net zero fanatics’ neo- colonialist attitude while failing to understand that nobody in Africa cares what we in the UK think or do. Why should they? It’s utterly delusional.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – I’ve replied on exactly those lines. You may recall this observation in my ‘Leadership’ article:
LikeLiked by 1 person
“US Energy Secretary Chris Wright: Net Zero is “Lunacy” and a “Colossal Failure””
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/02/17/us-energy-secretary-chris-wright-net-zero-is-lunacy-and-a-colossal-failure/
...Wright called Net Zero 2050 a “sinister goal” that “lowers the standard of living of the population” by “impoverishing… citizens in pursuit of a delusion”.
He said his priority instead is to “grow the supply of affordable, secure energy”, criticising countries like the UK that have pursued Net Zero and allowed the “export [of its] industry” as “no one is going to make an energy intensive product in the UK anymore”.
Net Zero has meant trillions of dollars of investment with scarcely any return, he told delegates. Anywhere that there is significant renewables penetration, electricity prices have gone up….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Net zero leads to the sort of thing that David Turver takes aim at here:
“REMAgate: The Tangled Web at the Heart of REMAInaccurate Government figures, conflicts of interest and a shady network of activists have corrupted the Review of Electricity Market Arrangements”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/remagate-the-tangled-web-at-the-heart-of-rema
...If you only read the material produced by Octopus Energy, its proxies, FTI and indeed Ofgem, you might think that locational pricing has almost universal support. However, there is significant opposition to locational pricing. In an open letter to Ed Miliband last year a consortium of groups including MakeUK, Ceramics UK, RenewableUK, Solar Energy UK and Scottish Renewables warned that zonal pricing would undermine investment in low carbon energy and would penalise energy intensive industries. SSE also commissioned its own report from LCP that warned of increased prices if locational pricing was implemented. SSE’s Group Head of Policy, Alistair McGirr has recently attended a DESNZ seminar about REMA and has publicly expressed his concerns about the plans.
This has not stopped CEO of Octopus, Greg Jackson dismissing critics of locational pricing as “bloated incumbents.” In a supreme twist of irony, Greg Jackson was on Question Time last year complaining about the impact on democracy of tycoons owning propaganda platforms and he also bemoaned the major threat to society from misinformation.
The whole REMA process is built on sand. The first error is that the supposed benefits of locational pricing rely upon fake Government figures about the cost of renewables. Second, there are obvious conflicts of interest with the main advisor to Ofgem also working for one of the main advocates of locational pricing. This obvious conflict clearly taints the Ofgem report. Finally, it certainly looks like there is a network of activists connected in one way or another to Octopus, that have infiltrated the REMA process in an attempt to get their own way.
The Government’s Generation Cost report should be withdrawn because the faulty figures within it are being used to support fundamental decisions about how the electricity market should work. The rest of the REMA process should be scrapped and begun again using realistic costs and advisors untainted by conflicts of interest.
LikeLike
So much for the promise of bills reductions:
“Miliband urges energy watchdog to act as typical bill could rise by more than £100 a year
Exclusive: Whitehall source expects bills in England, Scotland and Wales to rise by about £9 a month over the next three months”
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/feb/18/miliband-urges-energy-watchdog-to-act-as-typical-bill-could-rise-by-more-than-100-a-year
Ed Miliband has urged the energy watchdog to take swift action as it emerged that the typical energy bill could soar by more than £100 a year amid a rise in global gas prices.
A Whitehall source said they expected bills in England, Scotland and Wales to increase by about £9 a month over the next three months in a blow to government plans to tackle the cost of living.
They blamed volatile global gas prices linked to the end of the transit deal that enabled gas to flow to Europe, through Ukraine, from Russia.
Miliband, the energy secretary, has written an urgent letter to Ofgem, saying the price rise means the energy regulator must move faster to protect consumers.
This month, gas prices hit a two-year high, exacerbated by the lack of gas storage in Britain and Europe, combined with colder weather though prices have begun to stabilise. Cornwall Insight, a consultancy which produces closely watched forecasts for the energy price cap, is set to release its latest forecast on Tuesday....
My emphasis above, because weather is influential with regard to energy costs, not just with regard to it being cold, but also because we have seen a series of dunkelflautes over the UK and over western Europe through late autumn and winter. During these extended periods, the cost of electricity is always extremely high. It’s a function of depending on renewables, not a glitch.
LikeLike
The Guardian , perhaps inadvertently, confirms the point I made in my last comment:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/feb/18/defence-secretary-john-healey-armed-forces-nigel-farage-reform-uk-politics-live-news-updates
The forecast by the influential consulting firm Cornwall Insight is higher than its earlier prediction that prices would rise to £1,785 a year this spring after colder weather and limited renewables caused gas storage levels to fall across Europe.
LikeLike
Mark, I will copy these news items over to the Energy Price Cap thread, for posterity.
LikeLike
Yes, apologies Jit. We’ve been so prolific over the last few years that I’m starting to lose track of the appropriate articles when it comes to posting links and news snippets!
LikeLike
No worries Mark. It is often the case that items belong here and elsewhere, the elsewhere being hard to find at times.
Take this example from the Telegraph today:
“Hydrogen planes were meant to deliver net zero. Those plans are being torn up
The aviation industry’s scramble to decarbonise has run into an indomitable foe – the law of physics”
===
It mentions SAF in passing, so could have gone on the “Pigs…” thread. However, I place it here because it notes that Net Zero aviation via hydrogen is not going to happen, owing to a hitherto unknown feature of the Universe called physics.
Something that, I am sure, sceptics have been saying for years, the aviation industry have eventually understood. Hydrogen and planes doesn’t square (and SAF is a joke).
Batteries! What about batteries!
Nope, I think it’s back to airships.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Haha, the 24-carat comedy gold just keeps coming from the Net Zero nutters. A huge tankful of compressed liquid hydrogen, the lightest element in the known Universe, aboard a commercial aircraft? I mean, what could possibly go wrong? Here is what the FAA says about very small compressed gas (non-flammable oxygen and CO2) cylinders aboard flights:
https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/packsafe/small-compressed-gas-cylinders
I don’t have to remind readers here that hydrogen, unlike CO2, is very flammable and the higher you fly in an aircraft, the lower is the atmospheric pressure, putting even more stress on pressurised container storage of any liquefied gas. Pesky laws of physics getting in the way of Green dreams again! Miliband is pressing for a Parliamentary vote on “banning them for good” – just like fracking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit: “Nope, I think it’s back to airships.” I wish! My father saw the Graf Zeppelin flying over England a few times before the war. It must have been quite a spectacle – something bigger than Titanic hanging in the air (in much the same way as bricks don’t, to quote HHGTTG).
LikeLike
Ross Clark has a most interesting article in the Spectator this morning – The shame of Big Energy’s £3.9 billion profit windfall
His opening and closing paragraphs:
Worth a read. Note the excellent supermarket analogy.
LikeLike
A remarkable article by Andrew Neil in the Mail online. Its title says it all:
We CAN pay for a rapid rebuild of our military might – by using the hundreds of billions Miliband is planning to splurge on his fatuous pursuit of Net Zero
An extract:
Makes sense.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Britain’s net zero economy is booming, CBI says
Green sector growing at triple the rate of the UK economy, providing high-wage jobs and increasing energy security”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/24/britain-net-zero-economy-booming-cbi-green-sector-jobs-energy-security
The net zero sector is growing three times faster than the overall UK economy, analysis has found, providing high-wage jobs across the country while cutting climate-heating emissions and increasing energy security.
The net zero economy grew by 10% in 2024 and generated £83bn in gross value added (GVA), a measure of how much value companies add through the goods and services they produce.
The analysis, by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), found that 22,000 net zero businesses, from renewable energy to green finance, employ almost a million people in full-time jobs. The average annual wage in the businesses – £43,000 – was also £5,600 higher than the national average.
The analysis showed economic growth and climate action go together, said the report’s authors, and improve lives and livelihoods….
But guess what? The analysis isn’t by the CBI – rather it’s at their behest and has been conducted by the ECIU:
https://eciu.net/analysis/reports/2025/net-zero-economy-across-the-uk
Or is it the other way around?
https://ca1-eci.edcdn.com/reports/250220-ECIU-CBIE-2024-Net-Zero-Economy.pdf?v=1740068439
CBI Economics was commissioned by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) to
measure the contributions of the UK’s net zero economy and assess the opportunities the
sector brings across regions and local communities. This report builds upon previous
research, providing an updated and expanded analysis of the sector’s economic impact at
national, regional, and local levels
That’s the ECIU that’s largely funded by the European Climate Foundation and the Melore Foundation.
According to the European Climate Foundation’s website:
The European Climate Foundation (ECF) is a major philanthropic initiative working to foster the net-zero transition and ensure a healthy, thriving planet for current and future generations. We support over 700 partner organisations to drive progress towards the goals of the Paris Agreement, promote practical policymaking in response to the climate crisis, and broaden political and public support for climate action. We strive for a positive, people-centred, and socially responsible climate transition in Europe and around the world.
According to the Meliore Foundation’s website it is the project host for GSCC and STrategic Perspectives:
The Global Strategic Communications Council (GSCC) is an international, collaborative network of communications professionals in the field of climate and energy which aims to inform and strengthen media debate and public discourse.
Informed by national context, Strategic Perspectives is a pan-European think tank, created to promote effective climate action as the solution to a multitude of interconnected crises facing the EU.
Given all of that, was a report by the ECIU ever going to come to a different conclusion? The report, by the way, claims that:
Employment within the sector has also seen significant growth of 10.2% over the past year,
with the net zero sector now supporting the equivalent of 951,000 full-time jobs, including
273,000 directly tied to net zero businesses and 678,000 through supply chain and related
activities.
I suspect that’s a load of rubbish, and that in turn casts doubt on the other claims. But even if they’re correct that the net zero economy is growing faster than the rest of the economy, does not simply reflect the fact that the government is forcing the economy to work in this way, and that the rest of the economy is suffering as a result of these warped priorities? Incidentally, the report, despite its exuberant tone, really endorses Robin’s claim that this is a deeply problematic project:
However, capitalising on these opportunities [sic] requires bold and coordinated action. Public
and private sectors must work together to ensure that policy, infrastructure, and financing
mechanisms align with the demands of a net-zero economy. Strategic investments in
research and development, workforce upskilling, and regional industrial clusters will be
critical in establishing the UK as a global leader in green innovation. Furthermore,
addressing barriers to adoption, such as the high upfront costs of clean technologies and the
need for systemic reforms in energy markets, will be essential for ensuring an inclusive and
equitable transition.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What’s behind the green door?
Don’t know what they’re doing but they
laugh a lot behind the green door!
LikeLike
Mark: even if that report is accurate (it probably isn’t) what’s really happening of course isn’t so much that the green economy is growing but that the rest of the UK economy is shrinking because of the hugely damaging results (such as high energy costs) of government-imposed net zero policies.
LikeLiked by 3 people
An excellent article by David Turver on the multitude of measures the govt is considering to enforce their Net Zero plans, in combination with the powers established by the recent Energy Act:
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/epc-stick-to-beat-us-energy-performance-certficates?publication_id=1285567&post_id=153079935&isFreemail=true&r=219jpi&triedRedirect=true
He concludes: “The proposal to add Smart Readiness to EPCs is a blatant attempt to force homeowners to install smart meters and appliances so their energy use can be controlled remotely. This is moving towards a level of control that is incompatible with a modern democracy, all in the name of the totalitarian Net Zero agenda. The sticks predicted by the chap from WEF to enforce Net Zero are becoming all too visible.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
“Is Britain’s ‘net zero economy’ really booming?”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-britains-net-zero-economy-really-booming/
LikeLike
Beth – it’s shakin – Bing Videos
LikeLike
I’m posting this here, as it’s a useful counterpoint to that absurd ECIU report:
“AR7 Changes Show Net Zero is Not Working
The Government is working to change the rules of Allocation Round 7 and for Drax so we pay more subsidies for “cheap” renewables.”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/ar7-changes-show-net-zero-is-not-working
We are all supposed to believe that offshore wind is nine times cheaper than gas and we can become the Saudi Arabia of Wind if we just build more of these magic windmills. Nobody has ever explained why we need annual auctions to decide which projects should be financed by subsidies paid for through our energy bills if wind power is so wonderfully cheap.
The Government is pressing on with its Clean Power 2030 plans to spend £260-290bn by 2030 to save at most £7bn per year on gas for electricity. However, judging by recent announcements about Allocation Round 7 (AR7) Contract for Difference (CfD) auction and the extension of Drax’s tree-burning contract, the plans seem to be hitting the buffers, demonstrating that Net Zero is not working….
...Conclusions
With extra bungs to encourage investment and a new consultation at such a late stage, we know the world of renewables is in trouble. The proposed longer contracts and the apparently inevitable higher prices for floating offshore wind mean our bills are going to continue their inexorable rise. The extension of eligibility criteria to projects without planning permission looks like the Government is struggling to find projects to meet its target of near-quadrupling offshore wind by 2030. While the Government claims that the subsidies due to Drax will halve, the price per MWh is actually going to rise.
We are already seeing the demise of vital industries like steel-making, chemicals, ceramics and oil refining. More expensive, less reliable electricity will only accelerate this de-industrialisation. It is clear that Labour’s Clean Power 2030 plan is in some trouble and Net Zero is not working.
LikeLike
From Ben Pile (formerly of this parish). Behind a paywall, unfortunately, but the first two paragraph are available and say enough to reinforce my suspicions regarding the nature of anything produced by the ECIU:
“Another Green Blob Gaslighting ‘Report’”
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/02/26/another-green-blob-gaslighting-report/
Last week, I wrote about how the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change had written a report that seemingly poured cold water over the Labour Government’s Net Zero plans, but which was just an attempt to save Net Zero for the Green Blob – the Blair think tank’s funders. This week, another report, produced by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) for the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), attempts to boost the Net Zero agenda by analysing the green sector’s metrics. Whereas the Blair report was characteristically slippery, this week’s report from the Green Blob is a far more blunt attempt to gaslight the public.
I should first explain what the ECIU is, because it helps to reinforce the main point that I made in the previous article. The Blair report, I pointed out, was produced with the ‘support’ of the European Climate Foundation (ECF), as every report from every think tank and fake academic organisation intervening in climate politics is. The ECIU was founded and is funded by the ECF. It is one of a constellation of think tanks and campaigning organisations that simply would not exist were it not for the ECF’s bottomless bank account. And from the outset in 2014, it produced dodgy reports that did not inform the public debate, but instead belittled the public’s capacity. Its first public offering was analysis of a poll that the ECIU had commissioned, which, the ECIU claimed “shows widespread misconceptions about energy and climate change”, but which in fact clumsily misinterpreted the results of its own poll that asked a stupid question....
LikeLike
Also Jonathan Ford on the ECIU / CBI report at UnHerd.
LikeLiked by 2 people
An extraordinary (and unexpected) article published by the green supporting Reuters:
Climate policy requires a more realistic approach
It’s opening paragraph:
Note: it doesn’t say that there’s anything wrong about a policy of emission reduction, but that we’re pursuing a hopelessly poor way of achieving it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Robin,
The author has no suggestion – other than ‘human ingenuity’ – as to ways to solve the problem which he assumes is a problem:
Let me help him out a bit:
LikeLiked by 4 people
Also discussed at Jo Nova’s
LikeLiked by 1 person
The above referenced Reuters article includes a link to an essay by Professor Vaclav Smil. Titled ‘Halfway Between Kyoto and 2050: Zero Carbon Is a Highly Unlikely Outcome‘, here’s its opening paragraph:
And its conclusion:
It’s quite long, but worth reading in full if you have some time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jo echoes something I’ve been saying for a while. The real battle is not to demonstrate that Net Zero is a non starter and cannot work, is not working – harsh reality is now winning that for us, hands down, just in the nick of time it would seem (but not alas, for us poor sods lumbered with Mad Miliband). The real battle is to confront The Science:
It’s not over until the Climate Denier Fat Lady sings.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jaime – while I always agree with you on the Science is not as robust as to change how we live, It seems, as you say “harsh reality is now winning that for us, hands down”.
The more the public are impacted by this madness, the more people may start asking “why are we doing this, for what end”.
Most people watch/read MSM news & don’t have the time (or can’t be ass*d) to look deeper.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Ed Miliband could face axe in the Spring Reshuffle as Keir Starmer pushes Net Zero drive to the side”
So say “Whitehall sources” at the Mail.
LikeLike
If Starmer were to axe Mad Ed and repeal (or substantially amend) the CCA, he could be on his way to victory in 2029 – provided however that he also got immigration under control and undid the damage done by Rachel from accounts. Doesn’t seem likely, although Ed’s sacking would nonetheless be welcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From a few days ago, Robert Bryce interviewed by the Spectator.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The Guardian view on Labour eyeing green cuts: they would undermine growth and climate goals
Editorial
Bold pledges to fund climate projects now appear under threat, exposing deeper fiscal constraints and policy dilemmas within the government”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/02/the-guardian-view-on-labour-eyeing-green-cuts-they-would-undermine-growth-and-climate-goals
...net zero targets wouldn’t be met without removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Fast forward and the Treasury is, reportedly, preparing to scrap the £22bn plan, after economic growth failed to materialise. What a difference a few weeks make.
The change of heart is not about the technology – carbon capture and storage (CCS) is still as underdeveloped as it was in October, when ministers extolled its virtues. The government’s climate advisers are unequivocal: net zero is impossible without CCS. But the economic circumstances have changed. Ms Reeves underestimated how slowly interest rates would fall, and the deep spending pressures left by Tory austerity. She also faces rising defence costs.
Her rigid, self-imposed fiscal rules dictate that any higher-than-expected spending in one area must be offset by cuts elsewhere. Rather than such arbitrary constraints, Britain needs a transparent system that enables strategic investment. The good news is that the Climate Change Committee told the government last week that the net cost of cutting UK’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 to 100% below 1990 levels is now 73% lower than it previously thought in 2020. The bad news is that the transition would still require a net cost of around £4bn a year, a little under 0.2% of GDP.…
£4Bn p.a.? Don’t make me laugh. It’s costing at least three times as much as that per annum as things stand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Net zero has made Britain poorer, warn City economists”
Telegraph link.
When you ration energy, the country does less stuff.
LikeLiked by 3 people
They seem to be coming thick and fast these days. Maybe the list on deck is becoming too pronounced to ignore.
“The true cost of Net Zero New research reveals the shocking cost of green policies”
David Rose reports on some work Prof Gordon Hughes has done for UnHerd creating a model of the UK’s electricity system. It shows, as might be expected, that Net Zero is going to lead to increasingly devastating self-inflicted wounds, until we give it up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I liked this article by Ivor Williams published today by TCW:
Net Zero report – an instruction book for a mythical world
His opening paragraphs:
An amusing read if you have a moment to spare.
LikeLike
Mark – thanks for the Guardian link above, as you say, you have to laugh –
“The good news is that the Climate Change Committee told the government last week that the net cost of cutting UK’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 to 100% below 1990 levels is now 73% lower than it previously thought in 2020. The bad news is that the transition would still require a net cost of around £4bn a year, a little under 0.2% of GDP.”
“While private investment will eventually play a dominant role, the climate committee makes it clear that public spending remains necessary in areas where market forces alone can’t drive change fast enough.”
Wonder why they think “private investment will eventually play a dominant role”, unless they can make money out of the investment?
I despair, have any of these people ever had a job where the employer/company had to to make a profit.
LikeLike
df hunter: “I despair, have any of these people ever had a job where the employer/company had to to make a profit.“
Probably not, unless it was a business where the profits depended on state subsidies.
LikeLike
The thought occurs that companies that make a profit when state subsidised should hand said profit back. I’m sure this is entirely unreasonable, but the current way of doing things has no redeeming feature. It should not be hard to devise a subsidy scheme that prevents obscene profits (as delivered by Drax, for example). The subsidy is supposed to produce a public good, not wealthy shareholders.
LikeLike
Jit, should all the profit be handed back? Certainly the public should not be fleeced by acceding to excessive profits, but is not a small profit an encouragement to run a tight ship? The tighter the ship, the larger the (small) profit – and the public, in principle, gets a good service.
Alternatively, the state/non-profit organisation could run things at zero profit. But would that lead to an efficient operation in the long term? Or, with time, would the Iron triangle come into play such that the continuation and expansion of the organisation becomes its primary aim? [I have not checked the history, but suspect that the Iron Triangle and related concepts were not known about in the late 1940s when most of the UK’s nationalised industries were created]. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Well, and not knowing anything about the topic, how about something like this: a fixed share of final profits diverted to purchasing or issuing shares to be held in a “National Wealth Fund.”
LikeLike
“Miliband faces Cabinet rebellion over net zero promises
Energy Secretary accused of undermining growth with push to cut carbon emissions”
At the Telegraph, if you are within range of the receiving apparatus.
LikeLike
It does seem that at last the Government is beginning to understand that net zero and economic growth are incompatible. But just getting rid of Mad Ed isn’t the answer. What’s needed is the repeal (or major amendment – including abolishing the CCC) of the 2008 Climate Change Act. And I don’t think there’s any serious chance of that happening.
LikeLike
“Want to reindustrialise Britain? Drop Net Zero
Keir Starmer’s eco-deranged government cannot deliver the industrial renaissance we need.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/03/04/want-to-reindustrialise-britain-drop-net-zero/
…The most damaging aspect of Net Zero has been its catastrophic impact on energy production and prices, which has affected industries across the board. The UK currently has the highest commercial electricity prices in the developed world. As a new research paper by Kallum Pickering and Charles Hall of Peel Hunt lays out, British electricity supply peaked in 2005 and has fallen since thanks to government decarbonisation policies. While the landmark Climate Change Act, which set legally binding carbon targets for the first time, didn’t pass until 2008, and Net Zero didn’t officially arrive until 2019, the New Labour government was already started putting climate at the front and centre of UK energy policy in 2003. And so gas, oil and coal power plants were taken out of commission, only to be replaced with inefficient and unreliable renewables. The result is that, over the past two decades, the electricity available in the UK has fallen by a whopping 21 per cent. This squeezed supply has sent prices soaring, throttled productivity and destroyed industrial competitiveness.
As Hall and Pickering put it, this is an entirely ‘self-inflicted headwind’. Yet it’s a headwind that has only blown stronger since Labour returned to power last year. Ed Miliband has refused new drilling licences for North Sea oil and gas. He has extended the Tories’ ban on fracking, which, if lifted, could supply the UK with decades’ worth of cheap, domestically produced fuel. He has also accelerated the UK’s switchover to a fossil-fuel-free electricity grid. All of which has likely contributed to recent jumps in energy prices and a slump in manufacturing output.
The good news is that a turnaround is possible. If we abandon Net Zero, we can invest in securing abundant supplies of energy that could power the industrial renaissance that Britain so badly needs. But if you think Keir Starmer is going to do this, you’ll be waiting for a very long time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An extract from another article in today’s Daily Sceptic:
That’s why the CCA has to be repealed and the CCC abolished. But of course there’s a slight problem: the one-track eco-zealots (plus the LibDems) would make sure the CCA wasn’t repealed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Net zero was never a good idea. Now it’s a dangerous one
Rishi Sunak says Britain should abandon its legal commitment to deliver carbon neutrality”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/05/net-zero-not-good-idea-dangerous/
Now he says so!
LikeLiked by 3 people
John – exactly, to be honest I never had much interest in politics until it started impinging on my life/family/community in recent years & as I got older with more free time to think about it.
It almost feels like UK PM’s/MP’s are wedded to the NZ mantra while in power for some reason (lead the world, Messiah complex). But once the “Power” has gone, they hit the ground with a pathetic thump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Although amusing, this article – University of Sussex Offers Degree in Climate Justice – in Moonbattery is making a serious point. Its opening paragraph:
And two extracts from the University’s description of its planned course:
Read – and despair.
LikeLike
Robin,
Needless to say, the Guardian was one of the first to report that story – which it did enthusiastically. I lampooned it here:
https://cliscep.com/2022/05/08/the-green-degrees/#comment-158686
LikeLike
“DESNZ – Previous governments should have raised electricity prices even more”
https://cloudwisdom.substack.com/p/desnz-previous-governments-should
Professor Gordon Hughes responds to DESNZ’s criticism of his last piece.
‘We have seen from all of the institutions of the UK government that influence energy and climate policy that they are all, without exception, incapable of doing anything competently. That is the true measure of the UK today – a country run by fools who are determined to run our economic ship into the nearest iceberg.’
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Mark for the link to Gordon Hughes’ response to DESNZ. It’s hard to imagine a more damning statement than that you quoted. Anyone here who’s at all interested in UK energy policy should read this (short) article. His conclusion that ‘the DESNZ press response encapsulates the problems of ignorance and incompetence that have overtaken energy policymaking and management of the UK’s electricity system‘ is I’m sure accurate. And utterly depressing. Is there any possibility of finding a way for the UK to escape from this appalling mess?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve just read the Gordon Hughes piece. It is profoundly depressing. Catastrophic failure of our economy and vital energy system is virtually baked in at this point. But is it just mind-blowing incompetence? Prof Hughes implies that it is, but then paradoxically states that we have a “country run by fools who are determined to run our economic ship into the nearest iceberg.” That implies a sense of purpose, a determination to do maximum harm. I think that the longer Miliband is left in place to cling to the tiller and steer us towards that inevitable iceberg whist Labour cronies and lackeys may or may not rearrange the deckchairs to give the impression that they are doing something, anything, to avoid catastrophe, then the more compelling the claim that this government is determined to do us harm becomes.
LikeLike
As you will expect Jaime, I disagree. What Hughes is saying is that they’re determined to follow a course that will run us into that iceberg. Because of their incompetence they don’t understand that that will be the inevitable result of their policies.
LikeLike
Robin,
I measure this government’s indisputable capacity for incompetence versus malign intent not just by looking at their record on energy, industry and the economy, but by looking at other policy areas – and what I see convinces me that this mediocre government of retards, misfits and sociopaths means to do us harm.
LikeLike
Should this government have malign intent (which I doubt), it doesn’t have the intelligence or ability to implement it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m afraid I sit on the fence with regard to the disagreement between Jaime and Robin, but Robin’s last comment definitely resonated with me. It would be amusing, were it not so serious.
LikeLike
“Net zero is strangling our economy – here’s the proof
Limiting available electricity has stifled productivity without denting rising global emissions”
Kallum Pickering in the Telegraph.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin, if I remember correctly, the current DESNZ secretary cancelled the NZ costing exercise ordered by his predecessor. Why would he do that if he is convinced that current renewables are so much cheaper than fossil fuels?
Possible answers that come easily to my mind are (i) malicious intent, (ii) deep green ideology (i.e. renewables must be implemented whatever the costs), (iii) group-think as part of the Green Blob. None of these answers demonstrate much concern for the world outside these bunkered mentalities.
However, there must be plenty of other answers. What are they? I am particularly interested in answers that would cast the current NZ Secretary and government in a good light (because I lean increasingly towards Jaime’s perspective but want to be fair). Any thoughts? Regards, John C.
LikeLike
John: I think it’s a combination of your (ii) and (iii), implemented by foolish, incompetent people who believe what they’re doing is, despite short-term ‘difficulties’, good for everyone in the long-term. Far from putting them in a good light, it’s an analysis that confirms that Ed in particular is indeed Mad.
LikeLike
This picks up on my earlier statement as to why I believe there is some measure of intent in government policy on Net Zero – simply because of government policy in other areas. A familiar pattern has emerged – which to my way of thinking, demonstrates some measure of intent, rather than mere incompetence. Ben Pile, writing at the Daily Sceptic (pity it’s paywalled yet again):
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/03/07/climate-covid-war-the-establishments-alarm-narrative-is-wearing-thin/
LikeLike
I’m sorry Jaime but I cannot see anything in that Ben Pile extract that’s supports your long-held view that most politicians of all parties are intent on destroying Britain.
LikeLike
In some quarters, people have backed themselves into a corner with their support for Trump, which now requires them to flag-wave for absurdities. Is there a high-ranking US politician that Putin would rather have in the White House, given the choice? In the broad rather than narrow sense, Trump is very obviously a Russian asset.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Gordon Hughes
Ed Miliband doesn’t want to know the cost of Net Zero, but here it is anyway
It’s essentially a gas grid plus a much bigger green energy one. Not cheap”
Telegraph link.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit – Gordon spells it out, Ed is a crossword puzzle, 1 down (hopefully).
LikeLike
David Turver has another excellent piece this morning – Carbon Budget Misinformation – in which he demonstrates that the figures and assumptions in the CCC’s recent 7th Carbon Budget are almost all based on absurd wishful thinking (even ignoring the recently-published NESO cost estimates). If David has got it right, and I see no reason to believe he hasn’t, and despite my innate cynicism about type of people employed in such quangos, I find it hard to understand how the Committee can be staffed by people who are quite so incompetent.
David’s conclusion:
This time it’s David himself who is indulging in wishful thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apologies Robin, my post on this crossed with yours. David Turver’s piece is excellent, and well worth a read.
LikeLike
David Turver:
Spectacular incompetence has crossed the wafer thin dividing line which is the sharp edge of Hanlon’s Razor Blade, and migrated into deliberately peddling misinformation. We can speculate on the motivations for such behaviour, but it is intentional, and it is malign. If the budget is adopted by our politicians, then this ups the ante considerably. The Seventh Carbon Budget will be our Seventh Hell.
LikeLike
Jaime, the effects will indeed be malign for most ordinary people in the UK (and for Gaia too). But for the elites that are heavily invested in “renewables” the future is bright, very bright, and very profitable. What’s not to like from their perspective? Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: I have no doubt that the CCC is deliberately and intentionally peddling misinformation. Nor do I doubt that, as John says, the effects will be malign for most people in the UK. But I do not believe the CCC’s action is deliberately malign – i.e. that they’re intent on destroying the UK’s economy. No, I think their action is driven by one of two possibilities: either they stupidly don’t understand that the information they’re peddling is inaccurate or they do understand that but think it’s excusable in the interest of ‘tackling climate change’. I incline to the former.
LikeLike
Robin, John,
I use ‘malign’ in the sense of “having or showing intense often vicious ill will : malevolent”, not merely ‘injurious’, ‘harmful’ or ‘malignant’. It may indeed be that the CCC grifters are just in it for the money, the power trip and the unearned moral supremacy. But, they are lying about the costs and the impacts, intentionally. It is inconceivable that they cannot be aware of the present harms and the very likely future harms of their web of lies posing as ‘evidence-based policy making’. In fact, that is why they are lying: to conceal the harsh truth of Net Zero. In that sense, their behaviour is both intentional and malign. It is debatable whether the CCC are motivated just by pure greed and egotism or whether something deeper and more sinister motivates them. I don’t know the answer. Maybe they are just too stupid to fully appreciate the existential harm which they are inflicting upon society and the economy. But I would argue that someone, somewhere, higher up the food chain, is aware of the existential threat which Net Zero poses to the UK and they are quite happy to proceed with its imposition regardless – and not because they think that the UK will somehow single-handedly save the planet from ‘climate breakdown’. So why?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin, thank you for these comments which interpret the CCC’s actions in a benign sense. However, I have very great difficulty in accepting that their actions are benign for the following reasons.
Firstly, I think alarm bells should have been ringing very loudly years ago for all concerned citizens when it was first mooted that the world could overturn about 300 years of industrial/societal progress based on reliable fossil fuels and instead convert society, at very little cost and in only a few decades, to reliance on the current generation of “renewables”.
Since their introduction there has been a mountain of information (e.g. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/03/05/they-fought-the-carbon-and-the-carbon-won/) to show that current “renewables” have been an utter failure for most sections of society – but not, of course, for the rent-seeking subsidy junkies of the elite who profit from the many weaknesses of “renewables”.
One has to live in a very deep, dark bunker far from reality to have missed all the well argued criticisms of “renewables”. In this communication age where most people have a smart phone it is difficult to remain in ignorance unless one lives behind soundproof walls, or lives in an echo chamber of ‘yes men’, or lives immersed in a totalitarian political ideology that preaches Net Zero at any price and whatever the cost for the ‘little people’.
For the reasons outlined above, I find it difficult to view the CCC’s actions as benign; they are, surely, at the very least, wilfully ignorant – it reminds me of earlier times, not so long ago, when people looked the other way at great cost subsequently to a large part of the world. However, the CCC would not be alone in their wilful ignorance and their promotion of expensive unsustainable “renewables”. The world is, alas, full of charlatans and we have to be on the qui vive against them at all times. We must not drop our guard at this time when some of the Western world (but not yet the UK) seems to be recovering its senses. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Jaime: your belief that the intention of the CCC – and all those politicians past and present involved in the pursuit of net zero – is au fond to destroy the UK economy is, in my view and as I’ve said many times before, nonsense.
LikeLike
John: I concluded my short response to you (not about the CCC but about Mad Ed’s decision to cancel the NZ costing exercise ordered by Claire Coutinho) with this: ‘Far from putting them in a good light, it’s an analysis that confirms that Ed in particular is indeed Mad.’ I find it hard to understand why you interpret that response as saying that I thought his decision was ‘benign’.
I completely agree however with your two concluding sentences.
LikeLike
It is possible to suffer from optimism bias, and give hopeless underestimates of cost, without being malign. But there is no excuse for only offering a best case, which the CCC etc like to do. Presumably they fear that if they provided a range of estimates, then the higher estimates would be seized upon by opponents intent on scotching the entire project.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s not what I said Robin. I believe that there are and have been influential players who have used and intend to use Net Zero as a trojan horse to destroy the UK free market capitalist economy and impose a command and control economy in its place. As regards the CCC, I believe they are deliberately misleading the British public about the costs and supposed benefits of Net Zero, possibly out of self-interest only. In that regard, their behaviour is both purposeful and malign. I withhold judgement on whether senior personnel at the CCC are fully aware of the existential threat which Net Zero poses to the UK and, even if they are, whether they view that as ‘collateral damage’ or as the primary purpose for pursuing Net Zero. We live in strange times where our democratically elected leaders are happy to behave in ways which are demonstrably harmful to those who elected them, and who don’t seem at all concerned about concealing that treacherous behaviour. Therefore I really don’t see how you can dismiss outright as ‘nonsense’ the suggestion that those same leaders are complicit in the destruction of the UK economy and industry, and the impoverishment and immiseration of the majority populace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t accept that analysis – although I respect the thought and care that’s gone into producing it and agree with parts of it.
I’m truly sorry Jaime, but I really don’t see any benefit in continuing this exchange. As I’ve said several times before, let’s simply agree to disagree.
LikeLike
Happy to agree to disagree Robin. We might never know for sure which one of us is right, though I have hopes that the full shady story of how ‘catastrophic man-made global warming’ came to dominate Western politics, academia, public institutions and the media over the course of 45 years will one day be revealed. Meanwhile, ‘events dear boy, events’ – they keep happening and they keep inviting further speculation as to the motivation of those who are fully aboard the Great Green Grift Bandwagon and who are intent upon riding rough shod over us plebs regardless of facts and harsh reality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My view of the CCC is that they know their cost estimates are way too optimistic; they know that net zero can’t be achieved by 2050; they know that the whole thing is rubbish. But turkeys don’t vote for an early Christmas. If the CCC told the truth, then the calls for the abolition of net zero and the repeal of the Climate Change Act would grow. And of course, if the CCA is repealed, then there would be no role for the CCC, which is a product of the CCA. And so they continue to peddle the lies about the cost of net zero, because to do any other would result in their own abolition. I’m not sure if that qualifies as malign, though I can see an argument that it does. It’s certainly all about self-interest, and the self-interest of the interlocking bodies dependent on the perpetuation of the net zero nonsense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Mark. I agree with much but not all of that. But I suggest you may have missed something important: ‘tackling climate change’ has become an obsession amongst many – sometimes intelligent – people who converse frankly only with each other and are careful to confine their media input to the BBC and Guardian. They truly believe that reducing CO2 is a noble endeavour and believe that the end justifies the means. It’s a position that’s akin to a cult – a cult that doesn’t take kindly to being confronted and refuses to tolerate dissent.
An old (and I mean old!) contemporary of mine came to lunch yesterday. Hugely accomplished: a double first in Greats and a senior role at the Bank of England. Somehow climate change came up in our post-lunch chat (I try to avoid it on such occasions) and at first it was obvious that he accepted the orthodox position although I suspect he hadn’t thought much about it. However, in the course of our discussion, he came round to accepting much of what I said. A quote from his thank-you email:
Given where we started, I regard that as a success. Unfortunately, one or two of my Guardian reading friends – intelligent, cultured people – have fixed views and just don’t want to discuss it with me. I suspect many politicians and officials – in many cases neither intelligent nor cultured – fall into that category.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There’s hope for your friend in his old age Robin. You should email him back and ask him why he believes that CO2 emissions may be accelerating climate change and ask him what he believes is the estimated contribution from emissions vs. natural climate change. Because that matters as regards mitigation policy vs. adaptation and climate sensitivity to CO2, which even the IPCC still can’t estimate with any real certainty. You should also explain that science is not a matter of belief, it is careful assessment of the data against theory and you can’t necessarily rely upon the ‘experts’ to communicate that assessment fairly and honestly. Then you should direct him to this post on X:
https://x.com/NikolovScience/status/1898574708624568763
Hopefully, he will be inspired to investigate further.
LikeLike
Jaime: I’ve sent him a copy of my Case Against NZ essay. I think that’s enough.
LikeLike
Robin, you wrote, “They truly believe that reducing CO2 is a noble endeavour and believe that the end justifies the means. It’s a position that’s akin to a cult – a cult that doesn’t take kindly to being confronted and refuses to tolerate dissent.” To me an intolerant cult sounds rather similar to a totalitarian political organisation, and so I am reminded of Mussolini’s dictum, “”We do not argue with those who disagree with us, we destroy them.” https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1085804
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Robin,
It will only be enough to cause him to seriously question the “effectiveness of some of the means of getting there,” it will not give him cause to doubt why we should get there (Net Zero). That is a big problem. Because he should. We all should.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime: if I’ve persuaded him that the whole Net Zero shebang is pointless – and I think I’ve got close to achieving that – I’ve done my job. In any case it’s hardly an important matter: he retired about 20 years ago.
LikeLike
“Trump’s ‘drill, baby, drill’ agenda could keep the world hooked on oil and gas
The US president is making energy deals with Japan and Ukraine, and in Africa has even touted resurrecting coal”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/12/trump-fossil-fuels-oil-and-gas
...This vision of a world wedded long-term to fossil fuels could spur greater US backing for drilling in Africa, delighting business interests that claim oil and gas are the answer to bringing power to the 600 million people on the continent who lack electricity.
“With President Trump’s rollbacks of restrictions, there will be new opportunities for US investors to engage with Africa’s oil and gas sector,” said Robert Stryk, chair of Stryk Global Diplomacy, a consultancy helping the African Energy Chamber facilitate US-funded oil and gas projects in Africa. “It has the potential to unlock real benefits for African nations. Secretary Wright made a powerful statement. It was a genius move.”...
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://irinaslav.substack.com/p/headlines-march-2025
LikeLike
“Westminster’s net zero consensus is about to collapse and it’s not a moment too soon”
Charles Moore in the Telegraph. I think the headline is more definitive than the actual piece. It recommends the breaking of the consensus rather than predicts it. However, its arguments are very much in line with Robin’s essay above.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ben Pile, formerly of this parish (behind a paywall, unfortunately):
“There’s No Such Thing as ‘Green’ Industry”
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/03/16/theres-no-such-thing-as-green-industry/
News this week emerged about the collapse of Swedish battery startup Northvolt. “Like many companies in the battery sector,” the failed company’s website explained, “Northvolt has experienced a series of compounding challenges in recent months that eroded its financial position.” European Governments, including those of Britain and the EU, have long claimed that as pioneers of green policy and the ‘transition to a low carbon economy’, their policies will cause domestic industries and the green economy to boom. But instead of the green dream turning into reality, across the continent there is only a bleak economic outlook and deindustrialisation. Given that so much of this was predicted, yet those predictions met with policymakers’ intransigence, isn’t it time to ask if this nightmare is a feature of green policy, not merely a bug?…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ross Clark has a piece in the Spectator also inspired by the Northvolt failure: How Europe’s electric battery dream ran out of power
He opens with this:
After outlining Nothvolt’s development, he commented:
He concludes:
Ben Pile is right: when will European policymakers wake up to the reality that the result of the green dream ‘is only a bleak economic outlook and deindustrialisation’?
LikeLiked by 2 people
NALOPKT carries a strong article from the DT which highlights the catastrophic decline in our manufacturing industries (WordPress won’t post my comment with the DT link). This para illustrates the point:
“Some of the figures are genuinely shocking. The output of the chemicals industry has fallen by 38pc since 2021. Electrical equipment is down by 50pc over the same period. Overall industrial output is down by 10pc since the pandemic, while the latest annual update from Make UK, the trade body for manufacturing industry, revealed that the UK has now dropped out of the top 10 countries for making stuff for the first time.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
MikeH, although as an engineer it sickens me to read it, I thank you for posting this terrible news. What have ‘green’ policies achieved beyond this wealth destruction? Anything positive? Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some may be interested to see this exchange on GB News between David Turver and Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/eigen-values-on-gb-news.
LikeLike
More hubris and delusional thinking:
“Ed Miliband vows to engage with China on climate after Tory ‘negligence’
Energy security and net zero secretary travels to Beijing for countries’ first formal climate meetings since 2017″
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/17/ed-miliband-vows-to-engage-with-china-on-climate-after-tory-negligence
...Miliband stressed that “the world is way off track from where we need to be” before the Cop30 UN climate summit in Brazil in November. He said that in his first eight months as secretary of state, he had visited Brazil, India and China, showing that “Britain is back as a climate leader” on the world stage. The UK is hoping to shape a new global axis in favour of climate action along with China and developing countries, to counter Donald Trump’s abandonment of green policies in the US.
Asked about how Britain could show leadership on sensitive areas in China’s energy transition, such as human rights, Miliband declined to give details.…
...Miliband also addressed the issue of coal phase-out in China. Despite the country’s huge rise in clean energy production, Beijing remains committed to coal, and recently pledged “increase coal production and supply capacity” to ensure energy security.
“We obviously want China and all countries indeed to move away from fossil fuels,” Miliband said. He said that he believed the Chinese side “sees renewables as the kind of driver of the system” and fossil fuels as the “underlying backup”.
It’s terrifying that the UK’s energy system is being driven onto the rocks by someone who can believe in such fantasies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A wonderful common sense tour d’horizon from Sir Dieter Helm. It touches on so many issues that we have discussed here at Cliscep that I could have posted it under any number of articles, but here seems as good a place as any, given that its ultimate target is the folly of UK net zero. I urge you to read it:
“Defence and the retreat from net zero”
https://dieterhelm.co.uk/publications/defence-and-the-retreat-from-net-zero/
LikeLiked by 3 people
Mark: thanks for the link to that remarkable Dieter Helm article. As you say a tour d’horizon. I particularly like his ability to make his points in simple straightforward language.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Extraordinary leccy generation stats figures at 6:10 this evening: gas 63%; nuclear 10%; biomass 6%; wind 3%; sun 0%; interconnectors 10% and price £155.11/MWh
LikeLike
Robin, those figures are extraordinary, especially bearing in mind that we are on the cusp of the equinox. One might expect to see such figures in the depths of winter, but that we are seeing them at this time of year doesn’t bode well. When are those in charge of the system going to start pointing out to Ministers that not everything in the garden is so rosy as they would like to believe?
LikeLike
The statistics are broadly comparable to those Robin posted earlier, with the exception that the interconnectors are now supplying a net 14.5% and wind has dropped to 2.5%. The key difference is that the cost has gone up substantially, and now stands at £177.48/MWh.
LikeLike
Don’t you love a Guardian fact check (nearly as bad as BBC Verify)?
“Factcheck: Kemi Badenoch’s claim that net zero is ‘impossible’ by 2050
Tory leader provides no evidence to support position that flies in face of expert reports and her own words”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/19/factcheck-kemi-badenoch-conservative-leader-claim-that-net-zero-is-impossible-by-2050
The article does make some interesting and reasonable points, such as this:
There could have been a vote if MPs who attended the debate called for one.
But some of the assertions are claptrap. Kemi said:
‘Even if we hit absolute zero, we will not have net zero around the world, if other countries are not following us. And they are not’
This is untrue. The large majority of the world is signed up to net zero targets: 142 countries covering 76% of all global emissions, 78% of global GDP, and 84% of the world’s population. China and India are accelerating investment in renewable energy, as is the EU, and the the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Investment report says: “The world now invests almost twice as much in clean energy as it does in fossil fuels.”
This is drivel. Being signed up to a target (which less of the world is signed up to now than was signed up to it this time last year) is not the same as actively pursuing policies to achieve it. Their claims about China and India ignore those countries’ huge investments in expanding fossil fuel use. They ignore the fact that most countries have failed to submit their updated NDCs ahead of COP30 within the timescale that was required of them. Anyone can sign a non-binding treaty in order to virtue-signal and (in the case of developing countries) in the hope that it might result in some “climate cash” coming their way, but that most certainly is not the same as following the UK off the energy cliff.
And how’s this for desperate stuff?
Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit analysis has found that every country totalling between 0% and 1% of global carbon emissions – which includes many of the world’s richest countries – adds up to 29%. That’s more than China, which totals 27%.
Big deal. So what? Many of those countries aren’t actively reducing their emissions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Leccy generation stats figures at 6:35 this morning: gas 54%; nuclear 12%; biomass 8%; wind 3%; sun 1%; interconnectors 19% and price £116.46/MWh
LikeLike
The Sun claims to have leaked documents that show an impending economic collapse:
“NET ZERO BOMBSHELL Mad dash to Net Zero risks CRASHING Britain’s economy, bombshell leaked government document admits”
Sun link.
Also described at the Mail.
Mail link.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
An hour later and the sun is making a more modest contribution as it rises in the sky, but wind is still stuck at 3%, the interconnectors are contributing a net 20.8% while gas has dropped to 49.8%, and the price has risen to £132.50/MWh.
This can’t go on. It’s madness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Guardian and the BBC have done a fact check on Alice and Wonderland after claims that the White Queen believing six impossible things before breakfast is really quite silly. They have verified that believing six impossible things before breakfast is quite rational, in fact desirable, because, contrary to populist, far right, fossil fuel shilling opinion, those six impossible things are actually possible, even probable, if we just redouble our efforts to become a ‘clean energy superpower’ .
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Daily Sceptic has published a remarkable report this morning by its Energy Editor Tilak Doshi. Headed ‘After Years of Pushing Net Zero Propaganda the International Energy Agency Suddenly Remembers What it’s For‘, it recounts how Fatih Birol, the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), has dramatically changed his tune: from saying in 2012 that ‘If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now – from this year’, he’s now saying that ‘I want to make it clear… There is a need for oil and gas upstream investments, full stop’.
To explain this extraordinary turnaround, Doshi reviews how the IEA, founded as the OECD’s energy advisory body in 1974 following the 1973 oil price shock, became the key go-to source for global energy data. That was true until 2021 when, under Birol’s leadership, it became an advocate for the promotion of renewable energy at the expense of fossil fuels. As a result many energy practitioners ceased to trust it. So why has he changed his view now? Perhaps, says Doshi, it’s not so much because of an objective analysis of two decades of wasted spending on intermittent and unreliable technologies as awareness of changed circumstances under the Trump administration.
Doshi’s closing paragraph:
Well worth a read if you have access to the Daily Sceptic.
It really does seem that energy politics may be changing: e.g. see Dieter Helm’s recent paper, Badenoch’s speech … and now this. Encouraging.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Badenoch U-turn – if we’re calling it that – was mentioned on PM this afternoon. Lord Deben was called upon to argue the case for Net Zero. He did the usual appalling waffly job of that. From about 17.15 if you have access to BBC Sounds. Of note was the fact that Evan Davies was not his usual supine self in asking the questions. He was not as blunt as I would have liked, but it was an improvement over his usual approach to Net Zero.
LikeLike
Jit – interesting about Evan Davies: it’s beginning to look as though attitudes may at last be changing. Or so it seems to me – I hope I’m right.
LikeLike
Thank you Robin for bringing to our attention a possible change of emphasis at the IEA. Under his leadership, Faith Birol seems to have turned the IEA into a cheerleader for renewables and net zero. Certainly, its reports in recent years have been greatly appreciated by the Guardian and other true believers who cite them as purported evidence that net zero is affordable, inevitable and economically beneficial. This is despite the fact that subsequent reports usually demonstrate that earlier ones were overly optimistic.
If the IEA is performing a post-Trump pivot back to fossil fuels, and toning down the net zero rhetoric, then that may suggest that things really are changing and that net zero is dying.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Over at Bishop Hill unthreaded, it doesn’t add up has helpfully supplied a link to Hansard for the short debate in the House of Commons when net zero was nodded through in 2019. For those of us who remain nervous about her sincerity in attacking net zero (or perhaps only attacking the 2050 date?) it can be scene that her contribution was minimal, but it enables her to burnish her sceptic credentials to a modest degree:
Many of my constituents, especially schoolchildren, will be delighted by this announcement, but others are rightly sceptical about the costs. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the plan will be achievable and affordable?
LikeLike
PS Hansard link here:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-06-24/debates/28C238E5-2CA0-421C-AE98-B2588C102CB0/details#contribution-7F6C9363-DBD3-4498-8D2C-E39CE13E07B9
LikeLike
Badenoch’s criticism of net zero seems to have the Guardian worried, but I hoped they might manage to do better than this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/20/kemi-badenoch-net-zero-brexit-right-climate
It’s one of the most vacuous, fact-light, opinion-heavy, conspiracy theorist pieces of journalistic nonsense I’ve read in a long time.
LikeLike
Mark: I can only conclude that you are just an “irresponsible, ignorant reactionary”. I was struck by one statement regarding questioning Net Zero:
……it has until now been broadly disallowable in mainstream political discourse
The UK has been poorly served by politicians if debating Net Zero has been “disallowable”.
On a more positive note, many of the highest rated comments on the article are sceptical so not all Guardian readers are on board. For example:
“Most people are in favour of Net Zero. What they’re not in favour of are increased costs and lifestyle changes in the short-term that may generate some nebulous saving at a distant future date, (if that saving ever materialises, which is a big if).
If your day-to-day is spent worrying how you will pay your bills, you’re not going to be able to afford an electric vehicle, solar panels or a heat pump regardless of how many times a well heeled member of the middle class tells berates you for being complicit in the destruction of the human race”
LikeLike
potentilla,
That Guardian article (which was opened up for comments) was accompanied by many of the usual Guardianista type digs at Badenoch and critics of net zero. However, like you, I was struck (and pleasantly surprised) by how many comments were critical of the article and even supportive of Badenoch’s (new) position. If even some Guardian readers are beginning to question the wisdom of net zero, then perhaps the worm really is turning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
WHAT THE HEATHROW !
I hope I have this wrong but …
It appears from the substation failure at Hayes that the major national infrastructure asset which is Heathrow airport is fed electrically by ONE radial feeder! Why is it not on a ring main? Or, at worst, why is it not fed by two or three radial feeders?
One good(ish) thing about this foul-up is that it shows what will happen when the UK is totally dependent upon wind turbines – blackouts will come as standard, all the time.
Oh! And where is our glorious dunkelflautenfuehrer when you need him to see the carnage he is wreaking with his mad policies? Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 4 people
According to the London Fire Brigade the source of the fire at the Hayes substation is a transformer (https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/incidents/2025/march/fire-at-electrical-substation-hayes/).
My immediate reaction was that a transformer would be the most likely source of fire at a substation in ordinary circumstances. But important transformers (especially nationally significant infrastructure ones!) are permanently health-monitored (typically using a Buchholz relay) so as to detect faults as they are developing i.e. ideally before a fire breaks out. So what happened here? Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
More hypocrisy on the “drive” to Net Zero. While happily expanding drilling for oil and gas in the US, the Biden administration paused approval for new LNG terminals for export of LNG to gas-short Europe. From the Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday:
“The Energy Department on Wednesday approved the Venture Global CP2 liquefied natural gas export project that became a cri de coeur for climate activists. Good call. Meantime, we are learning more about how the Biden team deceived Americans about its 2024 LNG export “pause.”
President Biden, prodded by climate adviser John Podesta, announced a supposedly temporary suspension of LNG project approvals in January of the election year. The stated purpose was so Energy could do a study to determine if increased exports are in the “public interest.” It turns out that DOE career staff had already completed such a study by autumn 2023.
A draft of that study, which was shared with us, shows that increased U.S. LNG exports would have negligible effects on domestic prices while modestly reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. The latter is largely because U.S. LNG exports would displace coal in power production and gas exports from other countries such as Russia.
“The majority of the additional U.S. natural gas substitutes for other global sources of natural gas,” the study notes. “Global and U.S. GHG emissions do not change appreciably” across various scenarios that DOE staff modeled.
The study projected that, even assuming countries meet their net-zero pledges, global natural gas consumption would grow through 2050. This is notable because the climate lobby claims building more LNG projects would result in “stranded assets” as countries wean themselves off fossil fuels.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
Dunkelflautenfuehrer.
What a brilliant word. I love it.
LikeLike
“We’re all paying the price for Ed Miliband’s net zero rush”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ed-milibands-net-zero-rush-is-dooming-britains-economy/
Pursuing net zero is the ‘opportunity of the century’ which will create tens of thousands of well-paid green jobs and slash our energy bills. That is this Labour government’s official line, at least, as it was the last Tory government’s. Now we know, thanks to a leaked study, that is not quite how the Department for Business and Trade sees it. Rather, it seems, net zero threatens the recession of the century.
The Macroeconomic Impacts of the Net Zero Transition, prepared by the Economic and Strategic Analysis team at the Department for Business and Trade in November 2023, warns that net zero targets could provoke an economic shock on the scale of the 1973 oil crisis, which led to global recession and a decade of high inflation. A rapid transition, it forecasts, could take 10 per cent off UK GDP by 2030. It goes on to warn ministers that an abrupt transition ‘creates the potential risk of destabilising the financial system’, thanks to industrial plants and other assets being forcibly retired before their time. ‘The overall impact of the transition to net zero on public finances is likely to be negative,’ it states – coming on a day with yet another dire set of figures on public borrowing.
The report goes on to warn that the worst-hit would be poorer households: ‘This raises questions as to whether the most affected households at the lower end of the income spectrum will be not just willing but in fact able to forego consumption to fund higher investment.’ Public spending will have to be ratcheted up ‘to offset negative impacts on disadvantaged groups’ – putting further strain on the public finances...
…Predictably enough, however, Miliband has chosen to double down on net zero, giving an interview to the Guardian in which he claims that he is ‘absolutely up for this fight’. Unfortunately, the rest of us can see that the government’s own advisers think it will result in Britain punching itself on the nose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
More on Mad Ed I’m afraid: this morning The Daily Sceptic published the text of an interview with him on the BBC’s Today programme yesterday. Almost unbelievably painful it can be accessed HERE. Or you can listen to the whole interview HERE (go to 02:16:00).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
The transcript is bad enough. I don’t think I could bear to listen to it. It demonstrates a complete failure to understand, refusal to answer the questions, inability to accept reality, and the politicians’ belief in the power of endlessly repeating the mantra, however inaccurate it may be. It was truly appalling.
LikeLike
Strange goings-on with the make-up of UK electricity generation just now. 26.2% is coming through the interconnectors, while renewables are providing 22.3% and gas more than either at 34.7%. The price is £102.32 per MWh.
LikeLike
David Turver has an article this morning welcoming Kemi Badenoch’s statement:
Cosy Climate Consensus Collapses
Kemi abandoning the Net Zero 2050 target collapses the fragile Jenga tower of climate and energy policy.
He says little about the statement itself (although a lot about the absurdity of its critics) but welcomes the fact that it destroys the cosy parliamentary consensus. His conclusion:
I think most Clisceppers would agree with that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Funnily enough, though I suppose I may have missed it, I can’t find this reported at either the BBC or the Guardian, both of which are normally quick to highlight reports by bodies supporting renewables. Two tier reporting?
“North Sea could produce half of all UK oil and gas in run up to 2050 – report”
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/568554/north-sea-uk-oil-gas/
The North Sea could produce about half of the oil and gas the UK will need in the run up to 2050 – but only if new projects can be developed, industry chiefs have said.
As it stands Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) said the UK is on track to produce just 4 billion of the 13bn to 15bn barrels of oil and gas the country will need over the next 25 years.
However, OEUK argued that by “unlocking additional resources from waters around the coast” this could be increased to about 7bn barrels – a move which the industry body said could be worth £150bn to the UK economy.
Speaking as it published its 2025 Business Outlook report, chief executive David Whitehouse said this could only happen if the UK Government consents to new projects....
...Ben Ward, market intelligence manager for OEUK, meanwhile said that gas from the North Sea had fewer carbon emissions associated with it than imported gas.
He said: “On average imported energy, liquefied natural gas, has a carbon intensity of four times the emissions of domestically produced gas.
“So there is a real environmental benefit to producing as much gas domestically as we can.”
Even while the UK strives towards net zero, Ward said oil and gas would continue to “play a significant part” in meeting UK energy needs.
“By 2050 a fifth of the energy we consume will still be oil and gas, even under a net zero scenario,” he stated.
“If we make the right choices we can produce half of that domestically ourselves.”
Ward continued: “As we look forward oil and gas will still maintain a massive part of our energy sector and we need to make sure we are producing as much of that domestically as we can to protect jobs, to generate income, to create energy security.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another good piece in the Daily Sceptic by its Energy Editor, Tilak Doshi. Titled ‘Beautiful, Clean Coal’, here are its opening paragraphs:
Doshi goes on to review in interesting detail how coal, ‘the world’s most abundant energy resource … a success story of scientific progress’ has increasingly come to make a substantial (and clean) contribution to energy generation and how this and developments in America and elsewhere are making a nonsense of UK climate policies.
His concluding paragraph:
Worth a read.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A question prompted by the above: does anyone know what actually happened when Mad Ed visited China? We were treated to a lot of unlikely claims about what he was going to achieve, but I cannot find any report of the outcome of his discussions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
I think the fact that we don’t know what happened when Miliband visited China tells us everything we need to know. I assume he received short shrift.
The Guardian allowed him the opportunity to write a big piece to promote his visit before he went, but since then? Tumbleweed. Enough said.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLike
Anyone who thinks it possible that Starmer may decide soon to remove Mad Ed should think again. A poll of Labour members – reported here – has Ed, with a net favourability of +62.95, as the most popular Cabinet minister. Rachel from accounts incidentally (-11.19) is the least popular.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a pity that WordPress only allows the opportunity to like comments. That last one from Robin deserves a shocked or angry face. The fact that so many people can approve of the man I regard as the most dangerous person in Britain is rather concerning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Only ‘rather concerning’ Mark?
LikeLike
Anyone who (as I have) has been resisting an increasingly annoying campaign from his/her electricity supplier to install a ‘smart meter’ may be interested to read THIS TCW article. Titled The cunning plan to make us all use smart meters, here’s how it opens:
It goes on to review in detail the background to and recent developments regarding all this. And this is how the author, Rick Bradford (an Honorary Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Engineering at the University of Bristol), summarises that:
He concludes (I think) that the battle is lost and we might as well give in:
I’d be interested to know what others think.
LikeLike
Robin / Mark, my wife and I hosted four friends over Sunday lunch; they are Labour/Guardian enthusiasts (as is my wife). At the end of the meal they started discussing the pros and cons of current ministers, especially those they viewed negatively e.g. our Rachel. When I remarked that they had not mentioned Ed they were shocked and a little annoyed; Ed is “on top of his brief” I was told in no uncertain terms. I wanted to enquire further (as I consider Ed to be easily the most damagingly dangerous wo/man about town) but my wife wisely shut me up as I wanted to have my rant about our dunkelflautenfuehrer’s policies – a pity in a way, but probably avoided a row. But it does mean I do not know in depth why he is so popular among Guardianistas/Labourites …
“On top of his brief” are not the words I would use; very much the converse seems much more accurate to me. But I suppose it depends upon what Labour’s ultimate goal is? What do the words “Net Zero” really mean in their very cold light of day? I am left with a feeling of trepidation. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 3 people
John C – know the feeling, often get the “shut up” look from my wife for the same thing. Then we go back to important topics like – soaps, reality tv, films etc…
At times I wonder If I’m the sad one for worrying/riling against about the future the UK faces.
LikeLike
The Conversation has just published an article that I think might have opened the door to a useful discussion. Headed To address the environmental polycrisis, the first step is to demand more honesty, it’s by Mike Berners-Lee, Professor of Sustainability (Lancaster U), author of There is No Planet B and brother of the more famous Sir Tim Berners-Lee. In his article, where comments are possible, he argues that:
I think that essentially most of us here would agree with that – although I suspect our view of what should constitute political, media and business honesty would be very different from Professor Berners-Lee’s. I plan to comment. Perhaps others may also decide to do so?
LikeLike
Robin (yesterday): the folks on TOUTs will not be paying the appropriate price either. In the doldrums of January, the Octopus tariff’s rate was capped at £1/kWh, as I noted here.
Since the leccy rate for dumb meters is set by Ofgem for now and seemingly indefinitely now that we have a broken system, I don’t see that they have scope to punish refuseniks.
My conclusion is still that, if you want to turn on appliances in the early evening without obsessively watching your tariff’s half-hourly swings… that you’re better off with a dumb meter.
==
Robin (today): the Berners-Lee piece was referenced at Cliscep yesterday here.
LikeLike
Re your first point, I think you’re probably right although I’m fed up with the barrage of communications I’m getting from Scottish Power especially as they lie about my meter being connected to the soon-to-be-discontinued Radio Teleswitch system. However I did follow the logic of author of the piece I cited when he says that in a year or two those of us who kept our old meters will be paying more than we need. You disagree?
Re your second point, I simply missed it – sorry. Although we know what he really thinks, Berners-Lee makes no specific claims or accusations in his article regarding who is being dishonest leaving, as I said, the door open for what could be useful discussion with an important figure of the alarmist persuasion.
LikeLike
It’s really quite simple: we will all be paying a lot more for electricity in the coming years than we should. The purpose of ‘smart’ meters is not to reduce bills for customers but to ration electricity and to control its use according to when it is available (or not) depending on the weather. In order to entice the unwary into signing up for a smart meter and/or half hourly variable rate tariff, energy companies are increasingly offering carrots – the promise of freebies and reduced rates off peak if you make the switch. They tell you it will save you money. It might do, for a short while. Conversely, if you’re a smart meter refusenik, you might ‘miss out’ on the opportunity of saving some money if you’re willing to use more electricity at unsociable hours. But the alleged savings won’t be great. As more people switch to smart meters, the ‘savings’ will get meaner and meaner and I don’t believe in the end that there will be much difference between the average smart meter bill and the average refusenik bill. It will only be those who are willing to radically change their behaviour who will benefit financially and in the end, it is the government’s intention to force us to adapt/reduce our electricity usage via a combination of carrots and sticks (probably more sticks eventually). I am planning to eventually go off grid when that happens – barring a complete turn around on Net Zero/renewables insanity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Miliband forced to set aside £8bn over risky net zero plan
“Ed Miliband has been forced to set aside £8 billion to cover the risk of a carbon capture disaster as the costs of net zero stack up.
The Energy Secretary’s department has taken the charge to compensate companies in case the technology fails. It will in effect act as an insurance policy for risks ranging from CO2 leaks to simply not making enough money.
The £8 billion is thought to be in addition to the £22 billion of funding and subsidies already pledged by the Government to support the nascent industry.
Details were buried in Rachel Reeves’s Spring Statement, which listed the colossal sums simply as “contingent liabilities” without giving any explanation.
Contingent liabilities is the term for money set aside to cover unpredictable future events with potentially disastrous costs.”
LikeLike
dfhunter, that’s a good find, not reported by the usual suspects, so far as I can see. Further paragraphs from the article:
...the industry fears CO2 could leak from the pipelines or from underground storage sites. Such an escape on land could be not only disastrously expensive but also dangerous. [my emphasis] Plugging a leak in a repository deep under the sea would meanwhile be both difficult and expensive.
Sarah Jones, a junior energy minister, previously announced plans to indemnify the industry in the Commons but without giving costs.
She said: “Carbon capture usage and storage is the only feasible method for decarbonising many hard-to-abate sectors such as cement production, and is currently the most cost-effective method of decarbonising others, such as dispatchable power.
“While there is growing interest worldwide, a programme of this nature is first of a kind and consequently there are multiple market barriers which inhibit the development of a carbon capture usage and storage market in the UK….”...”
The UK, leading the world in stupidity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin,
Three days ago you asked: “does anyone know what actually happened when Mad Ed visited China? We were treated to a lot of unlikely claims about what he was going to achieve, but I cannot find any report of the outcome of his discussions.“
I have the answer now. The Chinese are going to close the steelworks in Scunthorpe unless the UK government gives them £1 billion instead of the £0.5 billion currently on offer. Way to go Ed! You tell ’em!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“not only disastrously expensive but also dangerous. [my emphasis]”
Think of the disaster that was Lake Nyos in Cameroon. Admittedly a catastrophic release of volcanic carbon dioxide that, constrained by topography, flooded down the side of the volcano killing nearly 2000 local people and 4000 livestock.
In the UK context It’s hard to think of a sub-surface reservoir leak or pipe line failure having anything close to the same impact but one can envisage local situations where the hazard poses a degree of risk.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The World at One just now – Dieter Helm on, asked about high energy bills, points the finger at Net Zero, no challenge from the BBC. From 13.25 if you can access the programme.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Jit. I found the Helm comments (at about 24.00 not 13.25) and yes he was absolutely clear: Net Zero is what’s causing our energy prices to be so high and why we’re having to close our blast furnaces. Yet he said blast furnaces are required to make the primary steel needed for example for the manufacture of defence equipment. Moreover it’s the high prices that are why we’re closing for example our fertiliser and chemical plants. Yes, all this is bringing down UK emissions but, as it means our needs have to be manufactured overseas, it does nothing to reduce global emissions and thus has no impact on climate change.
No hint of criticism from the BBC. Interesting.
LikeLike
By 13.25 I meant 25 past 1! But I’m sure it ruffled a few feathers among some listeners.
LikeLike
I hope so.
LikeLike
From NALOPKT – Energy Bills Support
“Average annual household bills for gas and electricity increased from £1,277
in winter 2021–22 to over £4,000 by the start of 2023. The Department
deserves credit for the speed with which it provided financial support
ensuring it protected many consumers from the extremes of these price
increases. The Department also designed the schemes in such a way that
the levels of fraud and error were comparatively low (less than 1% of total
expenditure), providing clear lessons for government more widely.”
Tame start, but the rest shows some are finally waking up as reality starts to bite.
LikeLike
Oops – spoke to soon, partial quote –
“We remain concerned that even after the crisis has subsided, UK
electricity bills are the highest of the countries providing comparable
data to the International Energy Agency. The UK had the highest
electricity price out of 25 countries reporting both domestic and industrial
electricity prices in 2023, (including taxes and levies) and electricity is
currently four–times more expensive than gas. Despite repeated promises,
the Department has delayed taking action to rebalance energy prices by
shifting the cost of environmental levies from electricity to gas.”
I give up expecting/hoping sanity with kick in.
LikeLike
dfhunter,
The answer, of course, is not to have the “environmental” levies (a euphemism for the costs of net zero) at all. Moving them from electricity to gas (or to general taxation) would be a deliberate attempt to hide the costs of net zero, to obfuscate, and to mislead the British people, but we’d all remain much worse off.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I stumbled earlier today on Alex Cull’s piece at Cliscep about the (non-) debate on the amendment to the Climate Change Act that led to the adoption of net zero without a vote:
https://cliscep.com/2019/06/25/parliament-of-fools/
It’s worth reminding ourselves of the contribution then made by our current Chancellor of the Exchequer:
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab): The Government have committed to phasing out new sales of the internal combustion engine by 2040. My Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has recommended that the date be brought forward by almost a decade, if there is to be any chance of meeting the commitment of net zero by 2050. Will the Minister look again at the phasing out of the internal combustion engine, so that we can get more electric vehicles on our roads and bring down carbon emissions?
Of course, her request for zealotry was duly acted upon, but it’s worth reminding ourselves of her history if we ever dare to dream that she really will put economic growth and security ahead of net zero. This is a government populated by net zero zealots, and if they ever waiver in their zealotry, their back-benchers will insist on holding their feet to the fire. Ps Here’s Mr Miliband’s contribution:
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) … It is excellent that we shall be hosting the conference of the parties next year, but let me say to the Minister and to the House that this is a massive challenge. It is an incredibly important moment for the world, when every country has to update its Paris targets. In a way, this is the last chance for us to get on track for what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has described to us as a really dangerous and urgent situation.…
Last chance, eh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Net Zero under pressure in the EU:
“EU exploring weaker 2040 climate goal
The European Commission wants to keep a 90 percent emissions-cutting target but to change how countries calculate their progress.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-exploring-weaker-2040-climate-goal-90-greenhouse-gas-cut-wopke-hoekstra/
EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra is considering options to soften the bloc’s 2040 climate goal as he tries to contain a backlash against Europe’s climate ambitions.
The European Commission, the EU’s executive, is expected to propose legislation in the coming weeks to adopt a previously announced target to cut 90 percent of greenhouse gas pollution by 2040.
But to allay political concerns about the effort’s cost to heavy industry and agriculture, Hoekstra is weighing “flexibilities” for reaching that goal, according to a Commission official and two people briefed on the discussions, granted anonymity to reveal details of confidential deliberations.
The options being discussed range from allowing countries to defer steeper cuts to letting them count carbon reductions they pay for in other countries. Another idea would be to lean more on carbon that forests or technology can remove from the air.
For EU officials, the approach is a way to make an increasingly unpopular goal more politically palatable — and help ensure the European Parliament and EU capitals will approve the legislation….
There seems to be a theme developing here. The UK ignores consumption emissions and counts only territorial emissions. The UK ignores certain emissions associated with the production of “green” hydrogen when assessing er the emissions associated with producing “green” hydrogen, and now the EU is thinking about allowing countries to pay other countries, and thus claim emissions reductions. Net Zero is beginning to look like a dead duck; alternatively a concept from Alice in Wonderland.
LikeLike
Mark: it’s always been standard practice throughout the world to ignore consumption emissions and count only territorial emissions; it’s not a developing theme.
LikeLike
Not much wind today. Leccy generation stats figures at 9:00 this morning: gas 49%; nuclear 12%; biomass 3%; wind 10%; sun 8%; interconnectors 16% and price £119.21/MWh
LikeLike
Robin,
I appreciate that it has long been standard practice to count territorial emissions only. However, the increasingly desperate attempts to fudge the numbers while pretending that unfeasible net zero target dates remain in place is, I think, an interesting development.
LikeLike
Mark: I don’t really understand your point. I’m unaware of any serious attempt to query the view that the UK’s emissions are about 0.7% of the global total. What am I missing?
LikeLike
An anagram of the EU Climate Commissioner’s name is Stark Woke Hope. Is that significant I wonder?
LikeLike
Robin,
My point goes beyond that of territorial versus consumption emissions. We are increasingly in a situation where those in power, whether the UK government or the EU Commission are fudging the numbers. Even Drax emissions don’t count because the wood it burns is imported. They pretend that “green” hydrogen manufacture involves fewer emissions than is really the case. And now the EU is seeking ways to massage emissions figures.
What I am suggesting is that the plan is colliding with reality. They can only pretend for so long that the plan is achievable before they have to admit that they are lying to us and it isn’t going to happen.
LikeLike
Mark, you wrote, “They can only pretend for so long that the plan is achievable before they have to admit that they are lying to us …”
I am not at all sure you are correct given how Andrew Montford finished his 2012 book ‘Hiding the Decline’. At pages 307 – 308 he wrote, “The tale of Climategate … is not an edifying one … [T]he impression we get is of a wave of dishonesty, a public sector that will spin and lie, and mislead and lie, and distort and lie, and lie again. If one lie fails then another lie is issued … Climategate was … a tragedy born of misunderstood motives. The response to it was an extraordinary failure of the institutions and of the people who are paid to protect the public interest – a failure of honesty, a failure of diligence, a failure of integrity. Their failure to seek the truth and to speak the truth condemns them utterly.”
I am yet to be convinced that, in the many years since Climategate, anything has changed very much in our (UK) public discourse. Please correct me if I am wrong. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 3 people
John C,
I don’t disagree regarding the nature of public discourse with regard to net zero and related topics. However, my point is that 2050 is now only 25 years away and this Government’s crazy 2030 date for decarbonising the grid is only 5 years away. It’s one thing to work towards a distant date and pretend that everything will be fine, but it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain the pretence when the crucial date is getting closer and it’s obvious that everything is far from fine. The obfuscation around the figures is increasing, but that will only work for so long. The Scottish government, which (perhaps inevitably) decided to pass an Act requiring net zero by 2045, is way off target, and has reluctantly had to acknowledge that while maintaining its 2045 target. What happens in 2030 when it’s still way off track? And again in 2035?
The whole nonsense that is net zero will crash and burn. The only question is as to when its failure becomes so glaringly obvious that even the facade, based on egregious fudging of the figures can no longer be maintained.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Re Robin’s comment about the sources of our electricity this morning, it’s even worse now that the sun has set. Just now gas is providing 53.2% of our electricity; wind 10.8%; solar 0%; interconnectors a net 14.5% and the price is £121.84/MWh.
When I drove past our local abomination of a wind farm (it’s on the edge of the Lake District and visible from Scotland as well as from much of the northern Lake District) not a single turbine was moving. Was this because there was no wind? (I suspect not, as there was a very slight breeze, and a small turbine that I assume is for a local farmer’s benefit, was certainly turning). Was it receiving constraints payments? If so, why?
LikeLike
Mark, you wrote (and most Clisceppers would surely agree), “The whole nonsense that is net zero will crash and burn. The only question is as to when its failure becomes so glaringly obvious that even the facade, based on egregious fudging of the figures can no longer be maintained.”
However, the tragedies of it all are that, as Robin’s essay heading this thread makes so clear, (i) the failure has been blindingly obvious for YEARS to those who, to use Le Carré’s term, have not had their eyes wide shut all this time, and (ii) there is enormous economic damage that Mad Ed can do between now and his final exposure as the naked Emperor’s dunkelflautenfuehrer.
The sheer blind stupidity and wilful ignorance of it all demonstrate that several human minds in key positions in the UK’s elite hierarchy have exceedingly narrow tunnel vision – a vision that will impoverish the country now and for years to come. And all for essentially net zero impact upon the global climate. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fear not, British Summer Time is here, which means that the Sun will be shining for a whole extra hour in the early evening now, just when we need it most!
Also, the wind was blowing quite nicely on the Cumbrian coast today, as it was the other side of the Solway, spinning those turbines to generate lots of nice ‘clean’ home grown electricity.
But if home grown clean energy is still not your thing, we can always import Moroccan sunshine generated electrons to boil our kettle – for a cool £25 billion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bit O/T – just watched BBC One – What They Really Mean for You, Ready Meals thinking it would give some insight into the nutritional value vs home cooked meals.
But guess who pops up right from the start, Justin Rowlatt. It turned out to be about British food industry’s attempts to reach net zero by 2050. So a misleading prog title & just another nudge.
ps – BBC TV licence major update issued as UK households urged to respond
That should get Alan to respond. Hope he’s OK by the way.
LikeLike
Jaime – can’t help but wonder if someone should tell – “Sir Dave said “there are people lining up and down the street” to provide the £8bn of funding needed, and when the company recently tested the debt markets for the remaining £17bn of financing, it was “significantly oversubscribed”, he added.” To go ahead if that’s true, ED is not that mad, or is he.
LikeLiked by 2 people
dfhunter,
And then some. And then some more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Daily Sceptic had an interesting article yesterday by Eugyppius
about the Le Pen conviction. Its central point however is set out in this paragraph:
Perhaps in abandoning ‘climatism’ the EU is beginning to see, as Mark suggested yesterday, that that the plan is colliding with reality. Unfortunately however, as John C has reminded us, there’s no sign of that realisation affecting our Government.
LikeLiked by 2 people
df. Yes I’m ok and still read Cliscep each day. I don’t feel much of an urge to comment because of my declining memory get’s in the way (I am in my eighties) and because much that is being written does not discuss climate itself).
I also feel the cost of a TV licence to be good value and cannot understand the reluctance of those opposed to pay for it. Of even greater value is BBC Radio, which I listen to more and more.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Alan,
It’s good to see that you are a regular visitor, even though you comment less frequently than in the past. I send you best wishes from Cumbria.
LikeLike
The latest from Ed Hoskins:
“Analysis of “Renewable” power Germany – the UK – France in the European context 2024”
https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/analysis-of-renewable-power-de-uk-fr-in-the-context-of-europe-2024/
It’s difficult to argue with his conclusions:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Further to our various comments about public discourse on Net Zero in the UK, I thought it would be useful to recall some of what professor Mike Hulme (currently at Cambridge but formerly at UEA) wrote in his 2023 book “Climate Change isn’t Everything”.
At page 116 he wrote, “ ‘The end justifies the means’, the motto of all totalitarian projects. The danger then becomes that climatism squeezes out from public politics other traditional and important political values, such as liberty, equality, pluralism and self-determination.”
In the section entitled ‘Anti-democratic impulses’ that follows on from the quote above, Hulme continued, “This leads to a related danger. It is not just that climatism depoliticizes the issue of climate change. It also endangers fundamental democratic values. It is only a short step from failing to recognize, and thus to debate, competing values and interests with regards to managing the risks of climate change, to actively suppressing or censoring any public voice that challenges the dominant position. The danger here is that dissent is closed down. Climatism is totalizing not just in the sense of seeking to envelop all matters of public concern within a single master-narrative … Climatism also, at its most extreme, seeks to police the boundaries of what can and cannot be said about climate change, and by whom.”
By my count Hulme uses the word ‘totalizing’ (or similar) some 11 times in a book of only 166 pages (plus notes etc.). It is, perhaps, not surprising that Hulme wrote this book (apologia?) and used that word because, back in 2009, he (a scientist!) had written a political call to arms in his earlier book “Why We Disagree About Climate Change” at pages 340 – 341:-
“By approaching climate change as an idea to be mobilised to fulfil a variety of tasks, perhaps we can see what climate change can do for us rather than what we seek to do, despairingly, for (or to) climate.” So we were warned what the activists and anti-democrats might get up to. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Clisceppers might be pleased to know that I’m continuing my campaign to help out the Government and especially Rachel from accounts. For example the Speccie published an article this morning titled ‘Rachel Reeves could be Trump’s first tariff crash victim’. From its opening paragraph:
I commented thus:
It’s (blush blush) the most popular comment. I don’t suppose she – or Mad Ed – will see it. But you never know.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Apologies for the boast but I think it’s worth noting that it’s not only the top comment but it’s had almost twice the upvotes as the second highest. I mention this because it seems that more people than ever are beginning to recognise the utter inanity of the net zero policy.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Inanity or insanity? Or both?
LikeLike
Hardly any wind today. Leccy generation stats figures at 8:30 this morning: gas 51%; nuclear 14%; biomass 7%; wind 2%; sun 6%; interconnectors 18% and price £113.27/MWh
LikeLike
“Miliband’s net zero sprint at risk because green tech ‘too expensive’”
PwC’s new report comes as a surprise to no-one who has been paying the slightest attention.
Telegraph link.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin at 7.37,
It’s now (much) worse, as the sun has gone down. Gas is at 65%; wind 7.6%; solar 0% (obviously); interconnectors are at a net 3.5%, with French nuclear doing the heavy lifting, and the UK sending electricity to Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands. Presumably their wind farms are suffering from an anticyclone and low wind speeds too. The price is currently £110.43 per MWh. Thank goodness for gas, it would seem. Capping fracking wells, granting no new licences in the North Sea and buying our gas from abroad – that’s certainly showing those pesky dictators and rescuing UK energy security!
LikeLiked by 1 person
At 6:45 this morning wind not so bad – which is fortunate as interconnectors were negative: gas 55%; nuclear 17%; biomass 9%; wind 16%; sun 0%; interconnectors -1% and price £91/MWh
LikeLike
Jo Nova has a headline this morning that says it all:
The monster Green Tariffs we put on ourselves are worse than a foreign trade war Think of Net Zero Targets as a self imposed Carbon Tariff
Trump may be mad, but Ed is far madder.
https://joannenova.com.au/2025/04/the-monster-green-tariffs-we-put-on-ourselves-are-worse-than-a-foreign-trade-war/#comments
LikeLiked by 1 person
Further to the above – the concluding paragraph of a recent Ben Pile article:
LikeLiked by 4 people
A poster on WUWT is trying to get a petition going which calls on MPs, Lords, civil servants etc to lead by example wrt to Net Zero:
“If the Government wants us to set an example and demonstrate the way to Net Zero
All members of: The Climate Change Committee, The House of Commons, The House of Lords, Senior Members of the Civil Service must at their own expense: have their houses insulated to a minimum EPC B standard, replace gas with Heat Pumps and Electric Cookers, drive only Electric Vehicles
The UK governments say they wish the UK to set an example to the world by achieving Net Zero. To do this, politicians need to show that they are all committed to it by following the actions that are being proposed in the Carbon Budget. If they expect the public to make the proposed changes at their own expense, then they also must do likewise. The Houses of Parliament and Whitehall should show us how Net Zero can be achieved with heat pumps instead of using gas, and car chargers in the garages.
Sign the petition”
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722036/sponsors/new?token=p74YhZU8rXHBDsTA9U9k
It would be fun if a paper or two were to pick this up and start challenging ministers etc….
LikeLiked by 2 people
MikeH – thanks for the link- signed 🙂
LikeLike