In October 2008, Parliament passed the Climate Change Act requiring the 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 remaining 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 Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to increased global temperatures.
1. It’s unachievable.
1.1 A modern, advanced economy depends on fossil fuels; something that’s unlikely to change globally until well after 2050.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
1.2 Wind is our most effective source of renewable electricity – because of our latitude solar makes only a small contribution. Nonetheless wind has significant problems: (i) the substantial costs of subsidising, building, operating, maintaining and replacing (when worn-out) the turbines needed for Net Zero – all exacerbated by high interest rates; (ii) the complex engineering and cost challenges of establishing, as required for renewables, an expanded, stable and reliable high voltage 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 vast 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 for current needs by 2030 let alone for the mandated EVs and heat pumps and for the energy requirements of industry and the huge new data centres being developed to support for example the Government’s plans for the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI).vii
1.3 In any case, we don’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 exacerbated by the Government’s plans for massively increased house building.viii
2. It’s potentially disastrous.
2.1 The Government aims for 95% renewable electricity by 2030, but has not yet published a fully costed engineering plan for the provision of grid-scale back-up and network stability 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 the problem may be resolved by the provision of new gas-fired power plants ix or 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 a solution, electricity blackouts are likely, potentially ruining many businesses and causing dreadful problems including serious health risks for everyone, particularly the most vulnerable. And note: the blackout in Spain on 28th April (the result it seems of over reliance on solar power and lack of ‘grid inertia’xi) caused 7 deaths.xii
2.2 Another major Net Zero problem is its overall cost and the impact of that on the economy. Because there’s no comprehensive plan for the project’s delivery, it’s impossible to produce an accurate estimate of overall cost; but, with several trillion pounds a likely estimate, it could well be unaffordable.xiii 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 problemsxiv, could further jeopardise Britain’s vulnerable international credit standing and threaten its economic viability.
2.3 But Net Zero is already contributing to a serious economic concern: 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.xv The additional costs referred to elsewhere in this essay – for example the costs of establishing a 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.
2.4 Net Zero’s pursuit increases our dangerous reliance on other countries. For example, the closure of North Sea oil and gas means an increase in uncertain imports of natural gas; likewise, our dependence on China is exacerbated by its effective control of the supply of key materials (e.g. lithium cobalt, graphite, nickel, copper and so-called rare earths) essential for the manufacture of renewables. There’s also major concern about communication devices (so-called ‘kill switches’) found in Chinese-built power inverters.xvi
2.5 Moreover, the UK is becoming increasingly vulnerable to sabotage of or attack on its increasing numbers of offshore wind turbines and numerous undersea cables. Another concern is how offshore wind turbines can interfere with vital air defences.xvii
2.6 The vast mining and mineral processing operations required for renewables are already causing horrific 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.xviii The continued pursuit of Net Zero will make all this far worse.
3. In any case it’s pointless.
3.1 It’s absurd to regard the closure of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting activities here and their ‘export’ mainly to South East Asia (especially China), to plants commonly with poor environmental regulation and powered by coal-fired electricity – thereby increasing global emissions – as a positive step towards Net Zero. Yet, because of efforts to ‘decarbonise’ the UK, that’s what’s happening; it’s why our chemical and fertiliser industries face extinctionxix and why the closure of our remaining blast furnaces would end our ability to produce commercially viable primary steel (see endnote 3). These concerns apply also to most of the machines and other products listed in the first paragraph of item 1 above.xx It means that Britain, instead of manufacturing or extracting key products and materials itself, is increasingly importing them in CO2 emitting ships from around the world. A related absurdity is our importing vast amounts of wood for the Drax power plant; a fuel that emits more CO2 than coal.xxi
3.2 The USAxxii plus most major non-Western countries – together the source of over 80% of global 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 economic and social development, poverty eradication and energy security.xxiii 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 0.7% of global emissions any further emission reduction it makes (even to zero) would make no discernible difference to the global position.xxiv
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.
Guenier is a retired, writer, speaker and business consultant. He has a law degree from Oxford, has 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 member of the Court of the IT Livery Company, 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: http://tiny.cc/xli9001
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
v http://tiny.cc/b9qtzz Also see paragraph 2.4 above.
vi For a comprehensive view of wind power’s many problems, see this: https://watt-logic.com/2023/06/14/wind-farm-costs/.
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: http://tiny.cc/0mm9001
ix See this report by the Royal Academy of Engineering: http://tiny.cc/qlm9001 (Go to section 2.4.3 on page 22.) This interesting report contains a lot of valuable information.
x These reports on CCS are relevant: http://tiny.cc/emi9001, and https://heimildin.is/grein/24581/. Re hydrogen see this: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-2-14-when-you-crunch-the-numbers-green-hydrogen-is-a-non-starter.
xi An energy specialist reviews the facts and risks here: https://watt-logic.com/2025/05/09/the-iberian-blackout-shows-the-dangers-of-operating-power-grids-with-low-inertia/
xii See http://tiny.cc/lh7j001 (in Spanish).
xiii 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
xiv An interesting summary here: http://tiny.cc/nli9001
xv For international price comparisons see Table 5.3.1 here: http://tiny.cc/axah001. Note that the UK’s industrial electricity price is well above that of our international competition. Also note, from Table 5.7.1, that the UK gas price is about average. And see this comprehensive report: https://watt-logic.com/2025/05/19/new-report-the-true-affordability-of-net-zero/
xvi See http://tiny.cc/6nm9001 and http://tiny.cc/0gvj001. And re unauthorised communication devices found in power inverters in Chinese-built solar panels and batteries see: http://tiny.cc/vgvj001
xvii For examples of vulnerability concerns see these: http://tiny.cc/9ruf001, http://tiny.cc/xau9001 and http://tiny.cc/r73j001. Also this essay by Dieter Helm (Professor of Economic Policy at Oxford) is covers vulnerability and much else considered above: http://tiny.cc/dtyf001
xviii See http://tiny.cc/gtazzz and http://tiny.cc/unx8001. And harrowing evidence is found in Siddharth Kara’s book Cobalt Red – about the horrors of cobalt mining in the Congo: http://tiny.cc/nmm9001. And for a more detailed view of minerals’ environmental and economic costs: http://tiny.cc/klz9001.
xix As explained here: http://tiny.cc/chg5001
xx A current example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70zxjldqnxo
xxi See this Public Accounts Committee report: http://tiny.cc/qpwh001
xxii 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
xxiii 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.)
xxiv This comprehensive EU analysis provides detailed information by country re global greenhouse gas (GHG) and CO2 emissions: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2024?vis=ghgtot#emissions_table
Climate Scepticism 
Not much to say about this. Various small updates (to text and endnotes) and, in particular, a new paragraph numbering system that should make references easier.
LikeLike
Let me be the devil’s advocate – or more relevantly, Greta’s advocate. The planet will undergo a massive extinction event if the global average temperatures rise more than 3°C above pre-industrial levels. All the tipping points described in Lenton et al 2008 “Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system” will be crossed in the 2-3°C warming range. Any sacrifices made in the name of achieving net zero will pale into insignificance beside the apocalyptic future that will await future generations.
Inspired by Robin’s last update in April I have done some research and some really manic beancounting, that I am currently writing up. In particular, I have done some calculations based upon IPCC AR6 WG3 SPM “Table SPM.2 | Key characteristics of the modelled global emissions pathways” on pages 18-19, with CO2 emissions data by country (Fossil fuels and Land-Use changes) from the Global Carbon Budget 2024.
AR6 bases its 2020-2100 pathways on 2019 CO2 emissions, derived from the Global Carbon budget and about 43 GtCO2. Stripping out the uncertainties, the “limit warming to 1.5°C (>50%)” pathway requires just 520 of emissions to net zero in 2050 and -190 of emissions in 2050-2100. (Not many people know that in both AR6 and AR5 the 1.5°C and 2.0°C emission pathways required net negative emissions later in the century, or that the warming targets are for global average temperatures in 2100)
A simple baseline to compare policy against is constant 2019 emissions through to 2100. By extrapolation, this would give “limit warming to 3.5°C (>50%)”. But, as Robin as often pointed out the obligation to cut emissions is only for Annex 1 countries. Yet the largest Annex 1 country is USA, where President Trump excited the Paris Agreement in January. The remaining Annex 1 countries had just 14.9% of emissions in 2019. With these countries pursuing the 1.5°C pathway and the rest of the world have constant emissions, average temperatures will be 3.18°C in 2100, still above the threshold of the climate apocalyse. If Britain had exited the Paris Agreement in 2019, the 2100 figure would rise by 0.02°C to 3.20°C. If you include just some of the data and forecasting uncertainties, UK net zero is orders of magnitude below, making any statistically significant impact on global warming, hence climate change.
A table of my wider calculations is below.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I’ve had another success with the Speccie this morning. It published an article titled ‘Britain is racing towards a fresh cost-of-living crisis’ which, starting with a note about the increasing amount of unpaid council tax and ballooning welfare payments, commented that ‘our politicians are only prepared to take public spending in one direction’ and noting that ‘if spending only goes up, so too must tax’.
My comment (the most popular):
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kevin: thanks for a most interesting post. A couple of points you may consider relevant:
(i) According to the EDGAR database, in 2023 the emissions of Annex I countries (excl. the US) were 19% of the total. However that includes emissions from Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan all of which are ignoring their Paris Agreement obligations. Their emissions were 7.62% of the total.
(ii) As I demonstrated HERE, if the IPCC’s 2018 report got it right, it’s clear that the Paris Agreement’s 1.5ºC target will be substantially exceeded and warming of over 2.0ºC is essentially a certainty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“We must heed the warning of Spain’s Net Zero blackouts
The Spanish government is in total denial about the recklessness of its green-energy obsession.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/06/26/we-must-heed-the-warning-of-spains-net-zero-blackouts/
…the Spanish government has finally produced its explanation for the outages. A report released last week pins much of the blame on the grid operator and on private energy providers, both of which it accuses of miscalculating how much power was needed that day. However, it refuses to confront the actual underlying cause – namely, Spain’s dangerous reliance on wind and solar power. Indeed, at the time of the blackout, 70 per cent of Spain’s electricity came from renewables, which are notoriously unreliable. This was not a coincidence.…
…The blackouts in April ought to have been a major wake-up call. Here we saw the delusions of the green agenda colliding with reality. The dangers of relying on renewables were exposed for all to see. Yet it seems Spain is determined to remain on the same course that brought it to the brink of disaster. We cannot say we have not been warned.
LikeLike
I see the UK’s still leading the world (sarc):
“EU rollback on environmental policy is gaining momentum, warn campaigners
Observes shocked at scale and speed of deregulation drive they say is watering down European Green Deal and laws”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/26/eu-rollback-on-environmental-policy-deregulation-european-green-deal
The European Union’s rollback of environment policy is gaining momentum, campaigners have warned, in a deregulation drive that has shocked observers with its scale and speed.
EU policymakers have dealt several critical blows to their much-vaunted European Green Deal since the end of 2023, when opinion polls suggested a significant rightward shift before the 2024 parliamentary elections. Environment groups say the pace has picked up under the competition-focused agenda of the new European Commission.
The most striking examples are the “omnibus” packages that water down sustainable finance rules, some of which have been put on hold even before they came into force, and which member states proposed diluting further on Monday. The European Commission has promised more simplification measures to “radically lighten the regulatory load” on people and businesses.
In the first six months of the new European Commission mandate, the EU also delayed a law to stop deforestation in supply chains by one year, gave carmakers two extra years to meet pollution targets and downgraded the protection status of the wolf...
The political tensions reached a high this week after an anti-greenwashing law was seemingly killed in the final stages of negotiations….
LikeLike
Robin. Thanks for responding. I do not think that your points are not that significant to my argument. Why?
The major point I am trying to make is that even if you strip out all the data and modelling uncertainties in the IPCC AR6 emission pathways, active Annex 1 countries will not make a significant difference to future global warming. There are two criteria to show from my tables that Annex 1 countries pursuing 1.5°C policies will be insignificant. First, a significant policy impact will be to constrain global warming to well within 3°C. It does not. Second, to show that the actions of the Annex 1 countries have at least a comparable impact than the range of baseline scenarios. In the constant emissions scenario Annex 1 countries (excl USA) reduce warming from 3.5°C to 3.18°C. In the 1% emissions growth scenario Annex 1 countries (excl USA) reduce warming from 4.7°C to 4.18°C.
The lesson to understand here is that those pushing climate mitigation make the tacit assumption that they control the world, or will do if they make that final push at the next COP. They don’t.
I have used the Global Carbon Budget CO2 emissions figures for 2019 as this is what was used AR6 WG3. How they have modelled other greenhouse gas emission reduction pathways is a mystery I have not fathomed. I am aware of the EU EDGAR database. This is a run down the rabbit-hole of trying to reconcile the EDGAR figures with various UN agency ones.
The EDGAR database estimates global GHG emissions at 52962.90 MtCO2e in 2023, compared to 49327.54 in 2020 and 48808.77 in 2015. The UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2024 headlined that 2023 GHG Emissions hit a new record of 57.1 GtCO2e, compared to 53.7 in 2020 and 51.0 in 2010. From a graph it would give 2019 emissions of 54-55 GtCO2e. Yet the IPCC AR6 WG3 Figure SPM.1 Gives 2019 emissions of 59 GtCO2e and 2010 emissions of 53 GtCO2e. Back in 2014 AR5 estimated 2010 emissions at 49 GtCO2e. The EGR 2020 page IV gives a clue to some of the reason different estimates.
“Global GHG emissions continued to grow for the third consecutive year in 2019, reaching a record
high of 52.4 GtCO2e (range: ±5.2) without land-use change (LUC) emissions and 59.1 GtCO2e (range: ±5.9) when including LUC.”
The official UK GHG emission figure for 2023 was 0.385 GtCO2e, down from 0.458 in 2019.
LikeLike
Thanks Kevin. Most interesting. I particularly liked (and agree with) this:
LikeLike
David Turver has published another first class article this morning:
Physics First Energy Policy
Physics first delivers cheap abundant energy and is kindest to the environment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ross Clark has an article in the Speccie about the alleged ‘record-breaking’ heatwave.
He concludes with this:
Although hardly relevant to the topic, I posted this comment:
Rather to my surprise (as I said it’s off-topic) it has attracted (by far) the most upvotes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see the UK’s climate “leadership” is going well. First the USA under Trump has turned its back on the “climate crisis”, and now it looks as though the EU is following suit. Does that leave any country emulating the UK?
“EU’s proposed 2040 emissions target signals its retreat as leader on climate action”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/02/eu-2040-target-proposal-analysis-france
…Mohamed Adow, the director of the Nairobi-based thinktank Power Shift Africa, said: “The EU using carbon credits in its 2040 target is a huge concern and will undermine trust at a time [when] we need Europe to be stepping into the void left by the US. Carbon credits are a mirage, an accounting trick to let the rich world keep on burning fossil fuels whilst pretending climate change is being tackled somewhere else in the world.”….
...Emmanuel Macron has suggested the 2040 target could be delayed, by separating it from the EU’s discussions on a fresh target on emissions under the Paris agreement, called a nationally determined contribution (NDC), covering the next decade. The UN secretary general has asked all countries to submit NDCs in September, after most missed a February deadline, to allow them to be presented at a crunch climate summit, Cop30, this November in Brazil.
The EU’s NDC, pegged to 2035, is supposed to be derived from the 2040 proposal. Allowing them to be separated would give more time for debate on the later goal – debate demanded mainly by those who wish to weaken it.
European centrist leaders face a populist threat, and backlash against green policy. Macron’s stance, and Hoekstra’s comments on EU leadership, must be seen in that context….
So there we have it – the UK “dealing with” the “climate crisis”, alone.
LikeLike
Ed is not for turning, whistling in the wind will be his next climate stunt I predict.
” whistle in the wind -to engage in a fruitless or hopeless task; to try to produce an effect or influence something with noreal hope of succeeding.to engage in a fruitless or hopeless task; to try to produce an effect or influence something with no real hope of succeeding.”
LikeLike
oops – needs duplicate bit deleted
LikeLike
This morning the Speccie published an interesting, but I thought rather disjointed, article about Labour’s current travails. It was based on a memo written a year ago for his boss by Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s chief of staff. In particular one extract from the memo caught my eye:
If Labour’s members and supporters really regard ‘climate breakdown’ as one of their three ‘most precious’ causes and the leadership is determined to ‘deliver’ it, their party is utterly doomed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Conversation has just published an article that allows comments. So I posted one. For anyone who’s interested – or may wish to join the fun, it can be found HERE.
LikeLike
John C: I was amused to see your contribution at TC. Anyone else?
LikeLike
Robin – just looked at TC thread. See you got your wrist slapped for going off topic somehow –
“This article is about positive tipping points, not about the misinformation comments from Robin and Ian. Perhaps comment on the article rather than use the comments facility to provide energy source misinformation. Facts, transport costs are rarely a signicant cost of manufactured goods. China has more PV solar installed than the rest of the world put together. They also one highest ranking countries for EV use. Making many of these products in other countries would not reduce their Carbon Footprint.”
The stupid AI bot will not tolerate “misinformation” infecting a “pure” Academic rigour, journalistic flair article.
If it’s a real person, they need to get out more.
LikeLike
As usual at The Conversation, it’s not much of a conversation. No sign of the authors. Perhaps the points raised by Clisceppers in the comments are too difficult for them to respond to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Energy sector set to discuss how National Grid can meet AI demand
The group is made up of energy providers, tech companies, energy regulator Ofgem, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and Tech Secretary Peter Kyle.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/ed-miliband-national-grid-ofgem-peter-kyle-kyle-b1235529.html
Energy firms are set to discuss how the National Grid could be upgraded to cope with the future demands of AI at a meeting with ministers on Monday.
The AI Energy Council are set to discuss how much power will be needed to cover the increase in computer capacity that is expected in the next five years, as the AI sector grows….
LikeLike
“Gas imports soar as domestic production slumps, sparking call for North Sea revival
UK gas imports up 19% as domestic production continues to decline”
https://www.energylivenews.com/2025/06/30/gas-imports-soar-as-domestic-production-slumps-sparking-call-for-north-sea-revival/
New government data has revealed a sharp rise in gas imports, driven by falling North Sea output and poor renewable generation, reigniting debate over domestic energy security.
The UK energy trends report for January–March shows gas imports rose 19% year-on-year, with liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports up 42% – despite the NSTA stating LNG is up to four times more polluting than UK gas. Domestic gas production has dropped 20% compared to 2019.
With wind speeds at their lowest for a first quarter since 2010, wind power output fell 13%, while gas demand jumped 8.5% – the highest for any quarter since 2021.
The UK’s overall energy import dependency now stands at 47%...
So much for energy security.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, those stats won’t be of any concern to the govt, not when their minister is saying delusional things like:
“No ‘material difference’ between oil and gas imports and North Sea production, UK energy minister says. Michael Shanks defended the Labour government’s energy policies in a Westminster committee appearance.”
Here’s the story, for those with strong stomachs:
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/575560/no-material-difference-between-oil-and-gas-imports-and-north-sea-production-uk-energy-minister-says/
LikeLiked by 2 people
That TC article developed quite nicely – with one of the authors joining in. It’s just been closed with John C managing to sneak in with an excellent final comment. I had one ready but the axe fell just as I was posting it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin – thanks for the update & prompt to read reply comment by John C to Ashton, with his/her “Don’t think I would want to be in the trenches with you…” last putdown comment.
Had to google John’s parting riposte – “Who was it said, “C’est magnifique mais ce n’est pas la guerre””
Charge of the Light Brigade – “The futility of the action and its reckless bravery prompted the French Marshal Pierre Bosquet to state: “C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre.” (“It is magnificent, but it is not war.”) He continued, in a rarely quoted phrase: “C’est de la folie“—”It is madness.”[21] The Russian commanders are said to have initially believed that the British soldiers must have been drunk”
No wonder that ended the “Conversation”!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
An outstanding article by Tilak Doshi:
The Economic Illiteracy of UK Energy Policy is a Sight to Behold
Ed Miliband’s under-secretary claims there is “no material difference” between the country importing oil and drilling for it itself
Two extracts:
A must read.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin – thanks for the links –
Energy Minister claims there is no ‘material difference’ between oil and gas imports and North Sea production
“Since coming into power a year ago, Labour has increased tax on North Sea production to 78% and followed through on its manifesto pledge to ban new licences. The industry is now losing thousands of jobs, and one operator – Harbour Energy – is currently in the process of making a quarter of its North Sea workforce redundant, directly blaming the UK fiscal regime.
Meanwhile, energy imports – which do not pay UK tax, do not support jobs and which can be up to four times more carbon intensive – have soared to record levels. The latest UK energy trends report for January-March 2025 shows imports of gas increased by a 19% annually, while domestic production is down 20% compared with pre-pandemic levels (2019).
Asked whether the UK economy would benefit from prioritising domestic production, which supports around 150,000 UK jobs, over imported oil and gas, Mr Shanks said he did not “think it makes a material difference”.
“We don’t own what’s extracted from the North Sea, it’s owned by private companies who trade on an international commodity market and who trade based on what the international price, which is not set by Britain, is for anything they extract from the North Sea,” he said.
“So although the receipts that come from offshore extraction obviously contributes significantly to the treasury, I don’t think it makes a material difference in that long-term trajectory.”
“The truth is that much of the gas that’s extracted from the North Sea is exported, and so what we’re trying to build towards is a stable power system that removes gas from the system.”
What can you say, 150,000 UK jobs (estimated), and Mr Shanks thinks he’s helping to “build towards is a stable power system”.
Shanks’s pony more like, the way things are going in the UK.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Emissions Analytics – they of No Smoke Without Tyres – on the problems of a future grid, electric vehicle charging, vehicle-to-grid backup, etc. An interesting read, but I don’t agree with all of it. [Primarily, the premise that we need to get to Net Zero; it also overlooks the materials intensity of the future described, replacing today’s more carbon-dioxide intensive world.]
LikeLike
More common sense from Nils Pratley in the Guardian (yes, really):
“Zonal pricing is dead. Now Miliband should be less absolutist on his 2030 goals
The imperative ought to be to bear down on costs for consumers, starting with a more pragmatic approach to generation targets”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2025/jul/10/zonal-pricing-energy-ed-miliband-2030-targets
…Miliband is reportedly under pressure from Downing Street to show how his project for clean power by 2030 will bring down bills for ordinary consumers. So he should be.…
“Stepping back from zonal pricing does not, in itself, constitute a strategy,” commented Kate Mulvany, of the research firm Cornwall Insight, calling for reforms of the national pricing setup to be bold. “Presently, consumers face the worst of both worlds: paying wholesale prices that are still driven by volatile gas markets, and premium costs to replace gas in the power system with renewables,” she said. “We cannot assume they will be willing to pay like this for ever. Households and businesses care about affordable, reliable energy above all else. If reform fails to deliver that, the legitimacy of the entire system will be called into question.”
In a similar vein, Marc Hedin, of Aurora Energy Research, said: “We need to act quickly to minimise the cost of managing network congestion ahead of 2030, which is a sword of Damocles that could severely hurt bills and the whole credibility of the current framework.”...
LikeLiked by 1 person
Given the failure of renewables to supply much electricity during winter, I rather assumed that today must be close to the best conditions for renewables – middle of the day in high summer, with the sun high in the sky during an apparent heatwave. The actual electricity generation statistics right now are therefore quite revealing.
Gas: 16.1%
Solar: 37%
Wind: 2.8%
Interconnectors: 23% (net).
Price: £68.61 per MWh.
Is this as good as it gets?
LikeLike
The worm is turning, and the Guardian is worried:
“An enormous scar’: the battle over solar farms and pylons as Reform UK takes aim at net zero
In the fourth part of a series, we look at how climate orthodoxy is coming under fire in Lincolnshire”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/13/an-enormous-scar-battle-solar-farms-pylons-reform-uk-woos-lincolnshire
LikeLiked by 3 people
From the Guardian this morning:
Ed Miliband to tell MPs who reject net zero policies they are betraying future generations
Referring to those evil MPs, he said:
I hope all clisceppers understand just what thoroughly bad people they are.
LikeLike
There’s an article in the Speccie this morning – How political ideology corrupted science – that makes an interesting observation. It seems that Ella Al-Shamahi, the presenter of a new BBC science series titled Human, has said: ‘We do have to be a little honest, to many, it seems like left-leaning atheists have a monopoly on science.’ (And that’s on the BBC!).
The article’s author, Patrick West, comments:
A lot of readers were quick to respond with various observations and examples, especially re Covid and ‘gender-identity’. Here’s mine:
It’s currently the most popular.
LikeLiked by 3 people
From today’s FT:
Climate change
How magical thinking came for net zero critics
Badenoch shows the temptation of just putting all this climate unpleasantness behind us
I hope you’ve all got that: it’s we who are indulging magical thinking.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“UK’s clean electricity growing too slowly to meet climate targets, report says
UK’s energy system operator forecasts emissions a third over target by 2035, in second official warning in a month”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/14/uks-clean-electricity-growing-too-slowly-to-meet-climate-targets
LikeLike
Hmm … only a third? That’s pretty good.
LikeLike
Did anybody hear professor Myles Allen this morning on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme at about 1 hour 40 minutes in (i.e. at about 0740hr)? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002fvk6
He seemed to me to transition rather quickly from discussing the science to promoting his own Establishment-aligned views; but did I mishear or misunderstand him? And when were his views challenged? Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Good grief, what were they thinking?
“Council votes to scrap net zero pledge“
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5vje4dzljo
LikeLiked by 1 person
O/T – I watched that “Humans” doc with high hopes it would expand my knowledge of early human evolution. Sadly not. Just a rehash with moody drone footage of the presenter most of the time (same crew that film deep thinker Brian Cox “English physicist and musician” I assume).
LikeLike
I may have mentioned the Quadrature Climate Foundation before: https://www.qc.foundation. It’s another obviously well-heeled activist unit with great ambition. It tells us that ‘climate reality demands unprecedented climate action’ and claims to be ‘Confronting humanity’s greatest threat’.
I emailed them a couple of weeks ago asking them about their plans for dealing with the many countries out there that show no sign of prioritising emission reduction. No reply – so yesterday I tried again:
I wonder if I will.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
I don’t imagine for one moment that you’ll hear from them (though I will be very interested in their response in the unlikely event that they do deign to respond).
However, I give you great credit for continually taking the battle to the ramparts of the enemy.
LikeLike
“FES Phantasmagoria
Future Energy Scenarios 2025 is an uncosted dreamlike fantasy.”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/fes-phantasmagoria-future-energy-scenarios-2025
The National Energy System Operator (NESO) has recently produced their new Future Energy Scenarios report (FES 2025).
It reads like the authors have been on an ayahuasca trip and produced this report as a phantasmagoria of hallucinogenic dreams. Their plans are not costed, they want to force consumers to flex demand and rely on uneconomic and unproven technologies.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the Future Energy Scenario fever dream is that NESO treats the costs of their pathways as an afterthought…
…FES 2025 is a conceited phantasmagoria of fever dreams and delusions. It is absolutely shocking that nobody in NESO sought to moderate these fantasies by applying some basic cost constraints. NESO joins the ever-growing roll call of the official bodies foisting Net Zero upon us that should be disbanded.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A devastating article this morning by David Turver about the next Allocation Round auction of renewable energy capacity (AR7). Headed Miliband to Wreck the Economy with AR7, it concludes with this:
Worth reading in full. My only criticism is that Miliband has almost certainly wrecked the economy already.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, I think Rachel from Accounts has played her part too, but we wouldn’t want to cause the poor woman to burst into tears again, so maybe it’s best we just blame Miliband, who is a thick-skinned ideologue and certifiable moron.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This morning I saw an ad published by the World Land Trust (worldlandtrust.org) saying: Climate action can’t wait for politicians – there’s no time to delay. The website includes an invitation to submit questions so I sent them this:
I don’t expect to get a reply. But you never know.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin, further to David Turver’s article to which you referred above, I would like to quote from our old friend prof. Dieter Helm as it seems that our political class, media and Civil Service have largely forgotten what he wrote roughly a decade ago[Ref. 1]:-
“Economic illiteracy is at the heart of the failure so far to tackle the climate change problem, and although it can be solved, it won’t be if we go wasting so much money to so little effect.”
A little earlier in the Introduction professor Helm wrote, “The next [step] is to understand why almost everything the developed countries (and especially Europe) have been doing has not, and will not, crack the problem. Current renewables … and current energy efficiency policies (based on current technologies) will not close the gap.”
So it is clear from Helm that the current UK government (following on from many previous ones) is barking up the wrong tree and wasting prodigious quantities of taxpayers’ money to no good effect on the UK economy – quite the reverse in fact! But many offshore companies/countries benefit hugely; for a simple example see one of our Cliscep articles [Ref. 2] where the vast majority of the wind farm’s income came, not from selling electricity but from top-ups (or subsidies) from the Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme. And note where the beneficiaries of this particular tranche of UK taxpayers’ largesse are living! Not in Tunbridge Wells … although I can imagine that the residents there are well and truly disgusted by it all – as am I.
References
LikeLiked by 2 people
Matt Ridley has an article in the Daily Mail, but apparently they’ve messed it up and printed it wrongly. here is the correct version, according to Matt on X:
My response:
https://x.com/Janine511484078/status/1948642677848760418
LikeLiked by 3 people
Long comment by me awaiting moderation. I removed the links but it seem that they were made active again!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry! It’s free now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This article – The Frightening Cost of Net Zero – by Paul Homewood is very good.
His conclusion:
A recommended read.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Matt Ridley on Net Zero etc with Brendan O’Neill. Climate section starting at the bookmark, previous half hour mostly on Covid.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Andrew Montford on X quoting a recently published Substack article:
Another quote which I found (of course!):
https://x.com/aDissentient/status/1949011251759382848
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin, perhaps matters are even worse than Paul Homewood estimates when he writes, “Maybe some new technology will come along eventually or maybe the cost of renewable energy will tumble.”
We know from 2013 work by Weissbach (reviewed on David Turver’s substack) that current renewables technology has very poor “energy return on energy invested” or EROEI ratios which makes it unsuitable for a modern economy (unless one is trying to ruin that economy!). Thus current renewables can never by suitable for UK grid application unless we are paid handsomely by foreign powers to take them away! [Off-grid applications have very different EROEI parameters and are thus justified (at least in principle).]
Hence we should return to the drawing board and develop a new generation of renewables that have adequate EROEI and financial returns. And we should not let those new renewables escape from the lab and pilot projects until they have proven their economic and technical viability.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, here we are in the middle of a sunny and breezy day in the middle of summer. Conditions could scarcely be more favourable for renewables. This must be close to being as good as it gets. Electricity in the UK is currently being supplied as follows:
Wind: 15.2%
Solar: 15.9%
Gas: 15.1%
Nuclear: 16.8%
Interconnectors: 28.9% (net).
Price: £91.33 per MWh.
Mr Miliband’s plan isn’t working (unless his plan is to wreck the UK economy, in which case everything is going swimmingly).
LikeLiked by 3 people
What happened in the 6th century BC to give rise to science?
LikeLike
Jit,
Indeed. Although aspects of scientific thinking can be traced back as far as the works of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians (which takes us back to the 2nd and 3rd millennia BCE) most historians would say that science as we know it today didn’t get going until the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries. I can only think that he was thinking of Greek philosophers such as Pythagoras, who I think were operating around the 6th century BCE, and were starting to look for natural rather than supernatural explanations for stuff. A necessary foundation, maybe, but nothing that I would call the birth of science.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit,
Thales of Miletus happened, although none of his actual writings have survived. He demystified and rationalised the works of the earlier Babylonians and Egyptians and is widely regarded as the inspirational founder of Western science and philosophy.
2600 years of progress in science, engineering and technology and all we’ve got to show for it here in the UK is Mad Ed’s unhinged, bulging-eyed rantings about a ‘climate crisis’ and how weather dependent windmills and solar panels made in China are the answer to saving the planet!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jaime,
Yes, but when you look at the work of philosophers such as Pythagoras and Thales there was nothing in their approach that one would recognise as the scientific method. Yes, they were instrumental in discarding certain habits of thinking that were an impediment to the development of a truly scientific approach, and if you want to say that makes them ‘inspirational founders’ then I guess you would be far from alone. But I think similar cases could be made for other ancient thinkers. What about Lucretius and his atomism, for example? Or what about Aristotle, yet another geezer who has been nominated as the first scientist? That said, I agree with you that those carrying the torch for Thales and his contemporaries will have put in enough promotional effort as to make it more than likely that their work is the thing that ‘happened in the 6th century BC’ to which Demetris Koutsoyiannis alludes. I can’t think of anything else that fits the bill.
As for Mad Ed, I don’t think anyone who shares his Marxist dreams will care a jot for the lessons mankind has learnt in the past 2600 years.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Following on from my comment at 1110hr today, if all those many actors who strut upon the world stage and profess to be fighting the rise in CO2 while also promoting current renewables for widespread grid applications then we and they have a very large problem. Current renewables are, by Weissbach’s work on the EROEI parameter, not fit for purpose; they waste CO2-producing energy in prodigious quantities, albeit the wasting occurs largely on the other side of the world where it is both out of sight and out of mind.
Why have none of these oh-so-caring actors sounded the alarm in response to Weissbach’s work? Are they ignorant or wilfully ignorant of his work? Or, as many (sceptical) people have commented, was it never about the science and climate justice but, perhaps, about an altogether different agenda? If so, what could that agenda be, I wonder.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
John C, I have never believed in a conspiracy theory regarding the deployment of renewables – but there is increasing evidence of wilful blindness on the part of M. Miliband et al. The origin is no doubt the seductive fallacy that:
Wind is free, therefore wind power is cheap
A moment’s thought shows why this cannot be the case. A similar mistake would be:
Wind is free, therefore sailing across the Atlantic is cheap
==
Bertrand Russell tells me that Pythagoras founded a religion whose rules included abstinence from beans and a ban on letting swallows nest in your roof. He also believed in the transmigration of souls. Quoting Cornford, he says “The School of Pythagoras represents the main current of that mystical tradition which we have set in contrast with the scientific tendency.”
On Thales, he says little, as little was known (probably still the case). He has more praise for Anaximander, another of the Milesian School.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit: while it’s true that Miliband et al appear to be exhibiting wilful blindness, I don’t think that’s a truly accurate description of what’s driving them. The behaviour of some activists can of course be explained by stupidity, by selfish greed or by fear of looking foolish if they recant a previously held strong view, but in my opinion those at the heart of this absurdity have been caught up by a fanatical cult – and fanatical cults, inspired by belief, are impervious to logic, fact and reality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin,
That is an excellent point regarding Pythagoras. When one looks back at the ancients, there is a tendency for us to cherry-pick apparent modernity, whilst ignoring the weird sh*t they promoted. For example, this is what Google’s AI Overview says about the scientific credentials of Pythagoras:
The mathematical principles of the human soul, indeed! I think the Encyclopaedia Britannica sums it up nicely when saying:
https://www.britannica.com/science/Pythagoreanism
But let us not forget the fact that even those who have the greatest claim to inventing modern science were still able to believe nonsense. For example, Isaac Newton was an alchemist who was convinced he had been specially chosen by God for the task of understanding biblical scripture. And this tradition of scientists believing in woo woo lives on. Would you believe that there are scientists today who still believe that the UK can ward off global climate catastrophe by achieving Net Zero?
LikeLike
John R, although I suggest few rational people are really surprised about the contradictions exhibited by the most erudite of the ancients, I think it’s important and interesting to bear in mind how Newton entertained such nonsensical beliefs. As for today’s scientists who believe in the efficacy of Net Zero, none are even remotely of a calibre equivalent to Newton’s – indeed many of them probably cannot properly be described as scientists.
LikeLike
Robin, you wrote, “… fanatical cults, inspired by belief, are impervious to logic, fact and reality.” These cults can also have, if Hannah Arendt is correct [Ref. 1], a “… marked inability to see things from the standpoint of others …” This may help to explain why a so-called Labour government is set upon raising energy costs while simultaneously claiming to be laser-focussed on economic growth and yet seems to be unaware or unbothered by the fact that higher UK energy costs destroy UK jobs and make the cost-of-living crisis worse for everybody – which is a double whammy for those made redundant by those self same energy price policies.
You should not be able to make this stuff up! But as Dieter Helm said, “Economic illiteracy is at the heart of the failure so far to tackle the climate change problem …” [Ref. 2].
Illiteracy and the tunnel vision of the latter day government fanatic are making life very difficult for UK residents. When will this change?
References
1. Dana Villa, “Hannah Arendt: A Very Short Introduction”, OUP, 2023, chapter 5.
2. D. Helm, “The Carbon Crunch”, revised & updated, Yale, 2015, page 11.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 3 people
John C, I believe that for the hard-core fanatics (Miliband et al) any price is worth paying if you’re saving the world. But there can surely be little doubt that other Cabinet ministers are seriously worried by this. But, as past believers who are reluctant to admit their error, they are unable to see a way of solving the conundrum. So they do nothing. For now.
LikeLike
A good piece by Kathryn Porter the conclusion of which reads directly across to my reply to John C above. Titled – ASPs for AR7 prove renewables are not cheap – it notes how the Contracts for Difference have ‘been extended from 15 to 20 years, but the new maximum strike prices, the highest in over a decade, are eye-watering’.
Her conclusion:
As Kathryn says: ‘We can but hope’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
I fear it’s a forlorn hope. I remain of the view that Miliband, although enthusiastic about his role, is doing Starmer’s bidding.
LikeLike
Mark: perhaps it’s not an entirely forlorn hope. Consider the facts:
Miliband has been directly involved with climate issues since at least 2008 when he was the Secretary of State for Energy and responsible for the Climate Change Act. But he was exposed to climate issues well before then. Before becoming an MP (in 2005) he was an adviser to Gordon Brown and must have been aware of, if not involved in, the emerging importance of climate issues. This would have been especially true just after his election in view of Brown’s particular involvement with the 2006 Stern Review. Then in 2007 he became Cabinet Office Minister and thus involved with the 2007 Energy White Paper. When he was appointed Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (2008) he was immediately involved with the development of the Climate Change Bill and then of course with the Act itself. In other words, he’s been involved with the issue for at least 20 years – for many of which he was in a senior position and was a strong public advocate for ‘climate action’.
In contrast, Starmer didn’t become an MP until 2015 and before then and for several years thereafter showed no particular interest in climate matters – being focused almost exclusively on Brexit and human rights. It was only after becoming Labour leader in 2020 that he began to emphasise the importance of the climate issue – e.g. by appointing Miliband as shadow energy minister and supporting the aim of making Britain a ‘clean energy superpower’. But he seems to have been careful not to make the issue a personal crusade and, since the election, has treated it as no more than one part of a political policy spectrum. Note for example his overruling of Miliband re Heathrow expansion and continuing existing oil and gas licences In other words, he’s a climate pragmatist rather than a fanatic.
In view of the above and in view of Net Zero’s increasingly obvious challenge to the Starmer’s economic growth priority, I would suggest that it’s not entirely impossible that he might decide to replace Miliband.
LikeLike
Robin,
I sincerely hope you are right, but I think there are too many net zero zealots on the Labour back benches to enable Starmer to ditch Miliband and row back on net zero. That would be a U-turn that would cause him great damage. Plus he is nervous about leaching votes to the Greens.
LikeLike
Perhaps so Mark. However I’m not suggesting that he might abandon net zero altogether but that, re Miliband, he might, as Katheryn put it, ‘install a more moderate replacement who will re-set energy policy based on evidence rather than ideology.’ After all, the total destruction of the economy which is where current policies are headed would cause him immense personal and political damage and future infamy.
LikeLike
There you go again, Robin. You and your common sense!
LikeLike
I admit to being a little puzzled. If Sir Keir Starmer is not a climate fanatic, why did he appoint Ed Miliband to SoS DESNZ in the first place given the latter’s form in these matters? A priori, it was a very risky appointment which is, as we are all experiencing, blowing up in our faces. And to what or whose benefit? Or was it simply (misplaced) loyalty to a chum and former leader of the party, the party which, once upon a time, was renowned for its support of ordinary working people? Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
In other policy areas Starmer is already inflicting upon himself immense personal and political damage and current infamy, even as he inflicts his policies upon the British people. I really don’t see that he will be that concerned adding to his infamy by continuing with Net Zero policies until they do destroy the economy (providing Rachel doesn’t beat him to it). Just look at the decisions of the last couple of weeks; he’s crucifying himself, but he just keeps digging, deeper and deeper, finding ever new buried seams of utter loathing and contempt for the British people. You are assuming he is a ‘normal’ politician. He is not a normal politician. No normal Prime Minister would be overseeing this (X thread):
https://x.com/StarkNakedBrief/status/1949897721529106919
LikeLike
Jit (27 Jul 25 at 9:48 am), thank you for raising the potentially thorny issue of climate conspiracy.
Several of my Guardian-reading climate-catastrophist friends insist that I must believe in conspiracy or conspiracies. However, I totally reject such suggestions for the following reasons.
While I have no doubt that senior politicians hobnob with well-connected billionaires from time to time and that some of their conversations may relate to how climate/energy policy could or should evolve, I do not feel that such encounters have the air of secrecy that the word “conspiracy” conjures for me.
I feel that the Green Blob (for want of a better term) operates much in the manner of a very effective trade association, one that has attracted much political support in the West from naive but well-meaning non-STEM trained MPs (or local equivalents) as well as from highly influential international organisations such as the UN and its subsidiaries. Much of the political support has been in the form of very public “virtue signalling” for which the secrecy of conspiracy would have been completely self-defeating.
And that political support has unlocked a huge amount of financial support such that the Blob is able to both promote its own interests and attempt to crush opposing or different messages. Hence, several sceptics say, “Follow the money!” but the money has simply followed upon the heels of political support i.e. the support came before the money. Once again, much (but not all) of the financial support is done in the open in order to signal one’s virtue – and so once again conspiracy would be self-defeating.
Thus while I reject conspiracy I can still see the many and various parts of the Blob working in concert much in the manner of a huge flock of starlings wheeling hither and thither above a reed bed in the dusk of late autumn. The flock gathers size as it dances above the reeds jinking first this way and then that way. The human observer of this ornithological phenomenon cannot tell which direction the flock will go in next; but s/he can be sure that, eventually, the flock will sink rapidly into the reed bed to roost and thereby disappear completely from view until tomorrow.
Similarly with the Blob; each (bad) actor follows their own trajectory which is similar to (but slightly different from) that of the other (bad) actors. But we all know which reed bed they will eventually head for – the one that maximises their gains from the public purse. But there was/is no conspiracy as such – just a diminished public purse and a growthless economy.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When did this word “conspiracy” gain such traction (JFK) & now is regarded as worthy of the MSM repeating the word to shut down comments/free thinking ?
LikeLike
Replies to John C and Jamie.
First a reminder: the message I was trying to convey above was that, contrary to Mark’s view, I thought that Kathryn Porter’s comment that ‘we can but hope’ that Starmer might see sense and replace Miliband was not entirely forlorn. No more than that.
John C, I think the answer is that Starmer was, until he became leader of the Labour Party in 2020, primarily a human rights lawyer who believed strongly that Brexit was a serious mistake but who otherwise had no in depth understanding of some of Labour’s key beliefs – one of which was the need to ‘tackle climate change’. In Miliband he had someone who had been seriously involved with that issue for over a decade and obviously (to Starmer) thoroughly understood it, knew what had to be done and in any case was very popular with the Party. So appointing him as shadow energy secretary and subsequently Secretary of State was a ‘no brainer’.
Jaime, you and I will of course disagree about this as we always do, but I don’t think Starmer really understands the seriousness of the harm he’s doing to Britain. However, it seems to me that even he may be beginning to see that net zero is seriously undermining his number one priority of achieving economic growth (and therefore destroying Labour’s and his own prospects) and that replacing Miliband with someone who could take a more pragmatic approach to the issue would be desirable. Of course it’s most likely that he doesn’t see this. But in my view it’s not impossible.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Although I try to keep up with non-climate news, I sometimes think I might be becoming a climate obsessive. So this morning I decided to say something about Starmer’s Palestine announcement yesterday. The Speccie had two articles about it and I posted a comment on each of them. And amazingly both my comments have got, by far, the most upvotes. Here’s one:
I hope my comment about Starmer means this is not wholly off-topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
The situation in Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel, with rights and many wrongs on both sides, is much too complex for me to attempt here to offer any meaningful thoughts.
I will confine myself to observing that the latest idiocy from the UK Labour government merely confirms me in my view that our country is being run just now by some extraordinarily stupid people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My comment here may be vaguely relevant:
https://cliscep.com/2025/07/22/slow-on-the-uptake/#comment-161528
LikeLike
And back with energy and net zero:
“New Zealand government votes to bring back fossil fuel exploration in major reversal
Ruling right-wing coalition votes to reverse ban, a move it believes will alleviate energy shortages and high prices”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/31/new-zealand-government-votes-to-bring-back-fossil-fuel-exploration-in-major-reversal
New Zealand’s government has voted to resume oil and gas exploration despite an outcry from the opposition and environmental groups who argue the reversal will lay waste to the country’s climate credentials.
In 2018, the Jacinda Ardern-led Labour government banned the granting of new offshore oil and gas exploration permits as part of its plan to transition toward a carbon-neutral future.
Environmental groups hailed the ban as a milestone in the fight against climate change, and commended New Zealand for standing up to “one of the most powerful industries in the world”.
But on Thursday afternoon, the ruling right-wing coalition voted to reverse the ban after the third and final reading of the crown minerals amendment bill – a move it believes will alleviate energy shortages and high energy prices. The bill passed by 68 votes to 54…
It seems that almost everywhere in the world we have reached peak net zero, with most countries and blocs now back-tracking – some stealthily, such as the EU and Canada, some openly, such as the USA and NZ. When will Starmer and Miliband get the memo?
LikeLike
Starmer’s alleged ‘thinking’ on Palestine is as opaque as obsidian. Or is it? France, the UK and now Canada have said they will recognise Palestine as a state. It looks like another lockstep process whereby supposedly ‘independent’ national governments all come to the same conclusion at the same time. So the supposed justification for such a policy is in some respects irrelevant; it matters only that the announcement is made. Who’s next I wonder? Germany? Australia?
LikeLike
“The dark future for renewables”
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/dark-future-renewables
An interesting piece by Andrew Montford. His conclusions:
…For the country, a return to growth will become an existential necessity rather than the vague aspiration it has been under most recent Prime Ministers. At that point, the Government will have to face the two simple facts. Firstly, there will be no growth without cheap electricity. Secondly, there can be no cheap electricity from a grid dominated by wind and solar power. This is a matter of thermodynamics rather than – as politicians and civil servants think – a communications problem. The Westminster Village Idiots are now starting to realise that you can fool the population for some of the time – by lying about the cost of renewables, for example, as ministers and officials have done for 10 years – but not all of the time. As the legendary physicist Richard Feynman noted, ‘for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled’. And nature is currently causing the facts to show up very clearly in your electricity bill, now 50% higher in real terms than it was ten years ago. Ofgem data shows that blame for almost all of the increase can be laid at the feet of Net Zero policies.
Renewables operators, and their investors and lenders, meanwhile, will suddenly find that they have become the bad guys. Across the country, personal finances will have taken a big hit; lives and livelihoods will have been ruined. In those circumstances, the public is likely to take a deeply jaundiced view of the billions handed to wind and solar farms in subsidies each year. To their owners, the monthly payment may therefore soon look less like a financial asset and more like a death warrant.
An unpopular industry, raking in subsidies from hard-pressed consumers at a time when the country desperately needs to get back to growth is not an industry that can survive for long. Wind and solar farms imagine their positions are protected by their contracts with the Government, but they are likely to find themselves corrected. Parliament remains sovereign, and can legislate away any contract it wishes. In a recognised emergency, the courts, and perhaps even the rest of the investment community, are likely to accept the overwhelming public interest. In an emergency, desperate measures become necessary, but they also become possible, and even accepted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David Turver’s latest:
“What if we Ditched Net Zero?
It’s the energy stupid: how low could energy prices go if we ditched Net Zero?”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/what-if-we-ditched-net-zero
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes Mark, another good article by David Turver. My response is quite popular:
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Ditching Ed Miliband’s Net Zero Madness Could Save Every Family £1,000 a Year”
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/08/03/why-ditching-milibands-net-zero-madness-could-save-every-family-1000-a-year/
LikeLike
Thanks again Mark. And my response there is also quite popular:
LikeLiked by 3 people
Robin – the phrase “bread and circuses” springs to mind. Maybe updated to “fast food & soaps/reality shows” ?
LikeLike
“Ditching Ed Miliband’s Net Zero Madness Could Save Every Family £1,000 a Year”
… Seven and a half cents doesn’t mean a helluva’ lot,
seven and a half cents doesn’t mean a thing,
but give it to me every hour, forty hours every week trala
H/T the musicale The Pyjama Game.
LikeLike
Via WUWT, this article at The Conversation may be of interest:
“Why the US is letting China win on energy innovation”
It is as delusional as you might expect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes Jit, it’s absurdly delusional. I wish I’d seen it – I would have enjoyed getting involved. I did get involved in THIS, but on a far less substantial issue.
LikeLike
“Reform UK tells energy bosses to end reliance on net zero”
Telegraph link.
That’s great, but it takes a long time to build a nuke these days. Plus, I still put the chance of Reform winning next time as <10%. Although they might be an influence in a hung parliament. Who knows?
LikeLike
Given that one of the points Robin makes is about the incompatibility of AI’s energy demands with Net Zero, this is interesting:
“UK’s AI ambitions clash with its climate goals
Minutes from the U.K.’s AI Energy Council show ministers are being pushed to use gas to fuel the country’s data center buildout.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-ai-energy-council-climate-change-gas-data-centers/
Tech giants must be allowed to burn more fossil fuels if the U.K. is to become a global AI leader, British ministers were told this summer.
The warning was raised at a meeting in late June between Technology Secretary Peter Kyle, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and executives from leading U.S. tech firms.
The suggestion — that on-site gas fuel cells could provide an “interim measure” to get around lengthy waits for a connection to the electricity grid — exposes the tensions the U.K. faces as it tries to be both a climate leader and an “AI maker.”
Achieving the latter relies on rapidly increasing the number of energy-intensive data centers for AI on British soil.
But Kyle has said the government is “clear-eyed … on the need to make sure we can power this golden era for British AI through responsible, sustainable energy sources.”…
…Ministers were further told that “high wholesale electricity prices, long lead times for grid connections, and energy pricing are challenges to data center investment across the U.K.” at a second meeting in June, days after the government promised new measures to speed up grid connections in its Industrial Strategy.…
...“Temporary on-site generation, including natural gas fuel cells, was raised as an interim measure to meet power needs during grid connection delays,” according to the June readout, noting the “limitations of batteries for backup.”
DESNZ said the government is considering a range of options, but indicated it is not planning to authorize on-site gas cells. A spokesperson repeatedly declined to rule it out on the record.
However, a recent report by the Tony Blair Institute warned that “bridging measures” will be needed to meet the U.K.’s short-term demand for AI infrastructure until adequate clean energy, including nuclear, is brought online.
It urged the government to permit developers to site data centers close to both existing gas plants and purpose-built “modular” gas fuel cells....
LikeLiked by 2 people
“The hidden net zero tax crushing British industry”
The Telegraph on the carbon tax that first killed off coal power and is now killing manufacturing.
The government’s choice of what to deploy in the right to reply begins:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the link to the AI article Mark. It’s already included in the endnotes of my latest version of The Case Against.
Jit: if our government really believes that ‘accelerating to net zero’ will boost growth (and I suspect it does) we really are doomed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I posted a comment on a Speccie article about wind power this morning using essentially the arguments I used in paragraph 1.2 of the header article. Ive had a detailed response from someone called ‘DrChris’ who says this:
I’m going to respond. But it might be very useful if anyone reading this were to comment on any of the points made above. But it would have to be within the next hour or so if it’s to augment or illuminate anything I might say. Thanks!
LikeLike
Stand down everyone, I’ve replied. Not easy as he raised so many disparate issues. If anyone’s interested, my answer can be found here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-britains-wind-power-gamble-about-to-backfire/.
LikeLike
Apologies, Robin. I have spent much of the day on the car park known as the M6 and found your request for help too late to respond.
LikeLike
It’s a weak position that has to do “Wall of ****” style of argument. Stitching these together makes a weak tapestry.
The answer is quite obvious: yes, you can have your wind, but you must contract to deliver firm power as required, with draconian fines for non-delivery. The uncertainty is then on your side, not ours.
It might also be an idea to draw a line through curtailment payments. And reconfigure the wholesale auctions so that a generator only gets the price they offered, not the cut-off price.
LikeLike
Jit: foolishly perhaps I gave in to his ‘wall of ****’ approach and responded to each of his disparate arguments. It was a complex operation and probably a total waste of time: he hasn’t replied and hardly anyone seems interested.
I divided my reply into three parts. If anyone was interested I suppose I could post each of them here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark: does your ‘like’ mean you think I should post my three comments?
LikeLike
Robin, yes, please post your 3 comments as I am interested in developments. Thanks. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Okay John, although they don’t include much if anything that might be described as a ‘development’. Here’s the first:
LikeLiked by 4 people
Here’s my second reply:
LikeLiked by 4 people
Here’s my third reply:
LikeLiked by 4 people
I would only add that volatility means that sometimes gas is cheap – and that the “cost” of carbon is mostly an illusion created by taxes, and that those carbon taxes are driving energy-intensive industries out of the UK.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Another counter-argument is one based simply on real-world data. Here we are on a hot summer evening, and the contributions of renewables to electricity generation is pathetic:
Gas: 41.8%
Solar: 13.4%
Wind: 10.5%
Interconnectors: 13.6% (net).
Price: £103.59 per MWh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Later in the evening…
Gas: 56.8%
Solar: 2.3%
Wind: 12.3%
Interconnectors: 5.3% (net).
Price: £122.59 per MWh.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark: more useful data exposing an absurd situation and demonstrating just how much we rely on gas. Surely Ed’s determination to cut right back on gas and massively increase renewables is utterly irresponsible?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin – your 3 punchy replies should floor ‘DrChris’, but bet he is back in the corner getting advice for the next round.
LikeLike
Still the electricity generation statistics make uncomfortable reading for renewables enthusiasts, just before 8am on a hot, sunny summer morning:
Gas: 46.9%
Solar: 6%
Wind: 6%
Interconnectors: 18% (net).
Price: £91.17 per MWh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s an interesting article – The era of reckless bets on net zero is officially over – in the Telegraph this morning about the woes on the Danish company Ørsted. An extract:
For how long can Ed keep this going? Possibly more to the point: for how long will the Chancellor continue to support him?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I realise that I am something of a broken record about this, and it’s getting boring, but the point does bear repetition until those in authority wake up and understand the reality of the situation. On a hot, sunny, summer day, with the sun high in the sky and demand for electricity relatively low, electricity generation includes the following sources of supply:
Gas: 30.1%
Solar: 26.5%
Wind: 5.5%
Interconnectors (net): 19.9%
Price: £84.66 per MWh.
Renewables are supplying neither cheap electricity nor energy security. In winter, during a dunkelflaute, the situation will be very much worse.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This morning I came across another well-heeled activist organisation – Nvalue. A recent piece in their ‘blog’ is titled ‘Why climate action can’t wait for politics to catch up’ (https://nvalue.com/sustainability/why-climate-action-cant-wait-for-politics-to-catch-up/). It was followed by a ‘Contact us’ box where I quoted the comment that ‘the window to limit warming to 1.5°C is narrowing’, pointing out that unfortunately it closed some time ago. I supported that with this analysis (an updated version of something published on Cliscep a little while ago):
I suggested that they should adjust their policy to take account of this uncomfortable but critically important reality.
Interestingly I’ve already received a response saying that my email has been passed to the article’s author who should be available to reply to me next week. Could be interesting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Climate Sceptic has published another excellent article by Tilak Doshi. Titled ‘The Folly of Climate Leadership: Britain’s Net Zero Masochism and the China Mirage’ it sets out an argument that’s well understood by Clisceppers:
Familiar stuff – but worth reading in full.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ron Clutz has made me aware of a judgement last month by the International Court of Justice at The Hague. Chatham House says of the judgement
and
and
But there is a problem in the reasoning. The actual judgement does not say anything new. For instance take Paragraph 179
The judgement goes into greater detail later in the document. However, from it backs up Robin’s and my own findings. For instance, the Paris Agreement 2016 Article 4.1 states
Similarly, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 1994 states in Article 4.7
To put it bluntly, it is only developed countries that are obligated to reduce their emissions drastically in the foreseeable future. If the US is excluded, these countries had less than 13% of global CO2 emissions in 2023 (compared to 15% in 2019 and 27% in 1990) according to the Global Carbon Budget (used by the IPCC in AR6 2022). This judgement means that a few countries are legally obligated, under international law, to tackle a future claimed problem (that cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt under common law principles) with policies that can only be successfully achieved if every country (or nearly every country) adheres to them.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Paul Homewood has published an interesting article : India Cancels Offshore Wind Tender–Due To Lack Of Interest (https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/08/13/india-cancels-offshore-wind-tender-due-to-lack-of-interest/#more-88177)
His concluding comment is particularly interesting:
LikeLike
Kevin: it’s really quite simple. Under Article 4.7 of the UNFCCC, Article 10 of the Kyoto Protocol and Article 4.4 of the Paris Agreement, developing countries are exempt from any obligation to reduce their emissions. An ICJ advisory ruling cannot override that. As Russia, other ex-Soviet countries (all developed countries) and now the US (and probably Canada) will simply ignore the ruling, only the EU, Australia and the UK are left as its potential targets. Yet these countries are the source of less than 8% of global emissions – meaning that in global terms the ICJ ruling can only have very limited impact. Of course that won’t stop our lawyer-led Government from believing that, as it has to set an example to the world, Britain must accept whatever punishment the ruling might cause to be imposed upon us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin – your above statement made me reread it –
“Of course that won’t stop our lawyer-led Government from believing that, as it has to set an example to the world, Britain must accept whatever punishment the ruling might cause to be imposed upon us.”
I like link to bands/songs that spring to mind after comments like that –
tied to the whipping post allman brothers – Search
LikeLike
this link may work better – The Allman Brothers Band – Whipping Post | Live at Fillmore East (1970)
LikeLike
“Data centres to be expanded across UK as concerns mount”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyr9nx0jrzo
The stupidity of those in positions of influence in the UK government knows no bounds. First they are going to “decarbonise” the grid at the same time as trying to make us dependent on electricity for almost all of our needs driving, heating, cooking, etc. Then they are going to make the UK “an AI superpower”.
According to the National Energy System Operator, NESO, the projected growth of data centres in Great Britain could “add up to 71 TWh of electricity demand” in the next 25 years, which it says redoubles the need for clean power – such as offshore wind.
To cap it all, the plans mostly involve building them in high-population areas, far removed from the wind turbines they believe will provide the necessary electricity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Today’s Spectator has a little side-panel on our carbon emissions – the total figures, not just domestic output. In millions of tons for the first quarter of each year:
2019 – 161
2020 – 157
2021 – 149
2022 – 146
2023 – 142
2024 – 144
2025 – 145
Looks like we are flat-lining but, had we not offshored so much of our industry, we can speculate that the figures would have been lower….
LikeLike
Mike H – very interesting indeed. But as sceptics we should ask why they quoted only the first quarter figures rather than all year figures. It might make no difference, but I would like to know whether it does.
LikeLike
Mark, I can only guess that the figure for Q1 of this year has just been published so they compared it to the equivalents from previous years. Unfortunately they don’t provide the source for the data which would have made it easy to look at the full-year numbers.
LikeLike
MikeH / Mark: yes, by using Q1 figures they were able to produce an up-to-date comparison. As for the source, here’s what ChatGPT says:
They clearly sourced the ONS quarterly residence-based emissions estimates, specifically the experimental but official-statistics series:
These are modelled estimates published roughly four months after each quarter, using a Chow-Lin regression-based temporal disaggregation method drawing on ONS Environmental Accounts and BEIS’s Energy Trends data
Office for National Statistics GOV.UK.
They cover quarterly emissions on a residence basis, meaning they account for GHG emissions globally attributable to UK residents and UK-registered businesses, not just emissions generated within UK territory GOV.UK Office for National Statistics.
The specific Q1 series through 2025 is available in the ONS bulletin published 5 August 2025.
LikeLiked by 1 person
However ChatGPT goes on to say this:
The ONS notes that the uncertainty is relatively high for recent quarters—especially for Q1 2025 and all of 2024—because the model is constrained by the final 2024 annual estimate, which won’t be published until June 2026.
That means while Spectator’s figures are well-founded, they come with the caveat: these are provisional, modelled estimates, not final validated data.
The methodological note clearly states they used Chow-Lin modelling and data from Energy Trends, demonstrating transparency about the approach.
LikeLike
And when I asked if residence-based emissions include territorial-based emissions, it said this:
Good question — the distinction can be a bit slippery. Here’s how the ONS defines it:
Emissions physically produced within the UK’s geographic borders.
This is the standard measure used for UK carbon budgets and international reporting to the UNFCCC.
Example: A German-owned factory in Birmingham → its UK emissions count as UK territorial emissions.
Emissions produced by UK residents and UK-registered businesses, whether they occur in the UK or abroad.
Examples: That German-owned Birmingham factory: excluded (owner isn’t UK-resident). A UK airline’s flight to New York: emissions included in full, even though most CO₂ is released outside UK airspace.
LikeLike
To confuse things further ChatGPT added this:
Consumption-based emissions (just for completeness)
These assign emissions to UK final consumers of goods and services, wherever in the world the emissions occurred in production.
This is the “carbon footprint” measure often cited in debates about outsourcing emissions to China, etc.
LikeLike
This – generated by ChatGPT – suggests that the Spectator’s residence-based data may not be very useful:
• Territorial emissions: Greenhouse gases released within UK borders, regardless of ownership.
• Residence-based emissions: Greenhouse gases from UK-resident entities, whether in the UK or abroad.
• Consumption-based emissions: Greenhouse gases emitted anywhere in the world to produce goods and services consumed in the UK.
LikeLike
On 13 August at 11:48 AM I referred to an email I’d sent to an organisation called Nvalue. I’ve had a reply:
Of course the reality is far worse than that as the Paris Agreement’s ‘well below 2ºC’ target is also unobtainable. It will be interesting to see how Iglika Hristova responds when I advise her of this. If of course she does. Iglika BTW is Nvalue’s Senior Manager Climate Markets & Policy Analysis – based in Bulgaria.
LikeLike
Of course, for NValue, it’s all about the money. Their website lists as “climate solutions” the following: Energy Attribution Certificates; Energy Efficiency Certificates; Biogas Certificates; Carbon Credits; Compliance Market; Ecolabels. In a sane world, all as much use as a chocolate teapot, but great for “compliance” and box-ticking, and NValue will get paid for enabling the boxes to be ticked. It’s not in their interest to see the “climate crisis” being downplayed or their efforts being shown to be futile, but it’s nevertheless interesting that they have responded to your email.
Don’t you just love carbon credits?
Nvalue operates as an expert and trustworthy partner, with an extensive network in the field of carbon credits. Thanks to our expertise, we fully grasp the challenges associated with selecting and acquiring credits from carbon projects, allowing us to guide you effectively in the voluntary market. We collaborate with organizations of all sizes to realize a multitude of climate strategies. With our international carbon network, we support you in overcoming the complexities of the carbon offset market, and we develop a tailored plan that respects your budgetary constraints and sustainability ambitions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s my reply to Iglika:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yesterday The Conversation published a daft article illustrated by an equally daft picture. Both the authors are affiliated with ‘Scientists for Extinction Rebellion’.
Interestingly most of the comments are critical. This seems to happen whenever TC allows comments on climate related articles. Unsurprisingly that doesn’t happen very often.
LikeLike
I would comment on the piece aforementioned, but I fear that first I’d be obliged to read it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I settled for reading the comments – not going well for The Conversation!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kemi Badenoch: No more net zero – extract every drop of North Sea oil
Pledge to abolish green restrictions on fossil fuel industry is Tory leader’s ‘drill, baby, drill’ moment
Badenoch continues to say the right things (or some of them – there’s no mention of fracking):
Here’s what she said:
It’s unfortunate that, after May’s imposition of net zero and Boris’s ‘Saudi Arabia of wind’ boast, few people trust the Tories on this – or anything.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Perhaps I was prescient after all:
https://cliscep.com/2024/11/08/a-new-broom/
But, as Robin asks, will the voters trust this policy shift from the party that brought us net zero? A real conversion, or cynical politics, recognising the threat from Reform UK?
LikeLike
Mark: apologies for missing that thread. As for your questions: (1) with the Conservatives at only 15% in a current poll, it seems voter support for the Tories may be disappearing altogether; and (2) I tend to admire Kemi and think her efforts are genuine – i.e. she truly does believe Net Zero is a disaster. But with Reform at 35% in the same poll, she seems to be fighting a lonely battle – probably with only limited support from within her own Party.
LikeLike
No worries, Robin. We have all written so much that there are many places where it might be appropriate to add a comment.
I think you have probably hit the nail on the head – many Tory MPs (well, not that many – there aren’t that many left!) and certainly Tory establishment grandees remain wedded to net zero. Badenoch may well be sincere (but if so, it would have been better if she hadn’t supported net zero in the past), but I doubt if she has her party’s backing for this policy shift. That makes it a hard sell to voters. Reform UK, on the other hand, is leading the way in its opposition to net zero, and whatever I or the electorate think of them generally, it’s difficult to argue that their opposition to net zero isn’t firm.
The choice faced by electors hostile to net zero is vote Tory and worry whether they will row back on their policies after the election. Or vote Reform and know that if they are elected they will “do a Donald” and start rapidly to dismantle net zero.
I no longer support any political party, and I have never been a Tory, but even I feel a small amount of sympathy for Mrs Badenoch in her invidious position, which is the fault of her predecessors.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is also Badenoch Strikes a Blow!
As Mark notes, the Conservative MPs are somewhat greenish in hue, and won’t take this lying down. Under Badenoch Strikes a Blow, we commented on reports – Telegraph, Guardian – trying to big up Cleverly and his attempt to draw the sting of Reform by advocating rejoining the Uniparty on Net Zero.
Rumours swirl of a backstab after the Tory conference.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In his Substack today Matt Goodwin has a most interesting guest post by Maurice Cousins, campaign director of Net Zero Watch. Cousins argues that ‘Net Zero policies are not only damaging the UK economy but becoming key to the political realignment and the next election’. I find that most interesting because to date Net Zero has rarely, if ever, been at the top of the political debate – although Badenoch may be trying to change that.
An extract:
But he points out:
And:
His conclusion:
Is all this likely to at last make Net Zero a key issue? I think it probably does. Although the whole thing could well be swept aside by Britain’s total economic collapse.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I have always thought that net zero would rise towards the top of the political agenda when it started to affect people, in a direct and adverse way. That is now happening – the low-hanging fruit was picked a long time ago, with the result that net zero is now increasingly difficult and expensive to achieve. For the first time, the 2029 UK general election should give the electorate a meaningful choice on this issue. I await, with a degree of fascination, the choice they will make. I rather assume Mrs Badenoch has seen which way the wind is blowing on this issue (pun intended).
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s important to keep in mind that not many people are as engaged in this debate as much as we are, and that there is a tremendous amount of gaslighting going on re: the cause of high power bills.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s true Jit. But I think people are noticing that Miliband’s much publicised £300 saving is far from happening, that EV and home heating mandates make little sense and that Low Traffic Zones etc. are a serious nuisance. And in any case the findings of opinion polls as reported by Maurice Cousins (see my post above) and previously discussed here do reflect the views of ordinary people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The gaslighting (aka lying) about the cause of high electricity bills is a problem, but for the first time some politicians and others are stressing that net zero subsidies and on-costs are the cause. Furthermore some parts of the media are actively reporting about net zero costs. Also, an astonishing number of people now get much of their news from social media, where these issues are now gaining traction.
The worm may be turning at the rate of a super tanker, but it is turning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, Ben Pile (formerly of this parish) seems to have his doubts about Badenoch’s ability to ensure a genuine reversal of net zero by the Tories, but unfortunately it’s behind a paywall in large part:
“Can the Tories’ Junking of Net Zero Be Trusted?
The wet-green wing of the party that brought us the fracking ban and windfall tax is still at large”
https://www.climateskeptic.org/p/can-the-tories-junking-of-net-zero
LikeLike
Or there’s spiked’s take on this story:
“The phoney climate consensus is breaking apart
Kemi Badenoch’s call to ‘drill, baby drill’ is a long-overdue blow to Net Zero penury.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/09/01/the-phoney-climate-consensus-is-breaking-apart/
...No doubt this growing public scepticism is what has fuelled Kemi Badenoch’s plans to ‘drill, baby, drill’. The burden of Net Zero is now impossible to ignore. Households and industries have reached breaking point. A deep well of anger has effectively forced Badenoch’s hand. Sticking with a policy that demands ever more sacrifices from the public was always unsustainable.
For years, voters were treated as mere bystanders while stringent Net Zero policies were agreed on above their heads. That is now over. The revolt against the climate consensus is just getting started.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark: I think Spike’s take is more interesting than Ben’s. And that’s because the Tories are most unlikely to regain power so the antics of their green-wets doesn’t matter. But what does matter is the fact that Badenoch is reflecting a growing public hostility to net zero.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is interesting. As I have often said, Nils Pratley is one of the few Guardian journalists (there are others) for whom I still have respect:
“Oil and gas imports are a problem. Labour should rethink its North Sea stance
Rachel Reeves could make geopolitical, economic and environmental case for limited boost in production”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2025/sep/02/oil-and-gas-imports-are-a-problem-labour-should-rethink-its-north-sea-stance
If the chancellor is looking for a pro-growth, pro-jobs, tax-raising policy that would be popular with major trade unions and might even be noticed by the bond markets, here’s one: boost production of oil and gas in the North Sea. And make the argument that the UK’s current over-reliance on imported supplies isn’t doing anything to help the climate emergency.…
Is the Overton window shifting here too?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes Mark – but why does he have to refer to ‘the climate emergency’?
LikeLike
Robin,
…but why does he have to refer to ‘the climate emergency’?
Because he wouldn’t get his article past the Guardian editors otherwise!
LikeLiked by 2 people
“UK cement production drops to lowest levels since 1950s”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyryzpx7g5o
UK cement production has fallen to its lowest level since 1950, putting the government’s house building plan at risk, a trade body has warned.
Cement is the key binding ingredient in concrete, which is the most widely used material in the construction industry, and mortar.
The Mineral Products Association (MPA) said production levels were “increasingly under threat” due to high energy, regulatory and labour costs.
The Department for Business and Trade said it recognised challenges in the sector and its Industrial Strategy was increasing help for energy-intense companies, which include cement manufacturers….
…The MPA said production had fallen due to rising costs and changes to carbon taxation, which reduced market competitiveness and was a major concern to the sector. [My emphasis].
It also highlighted the growth of cheaper cement import sales nearly tripling over the past 16 years, from 12% in 2008 to 32% in 2024….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh no … what about the bases of all those planned wind turbines and pylons? This is dreadful news.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ben Pile’s article appeared on the Daily Sceptic this morning:
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/09/02/can-the-tories-junking-of-net-zero-be-trusted/
He makes a very strong point about what has to be done to actually enact Kemi’s pronouncements and raises serious doubts about the Tories’ willingness, perseverance and capability to make anything happen.
Cynical old me thinks that Ms Badenoch is fully aware of all these issues, given that she was hands-on with many of them, and is just mouthing platitudes knowing that they will never be implemented, at least by her rabble.
LikeLike
Well MikeH your cynicism may be justified. But I think that’s irrelevant as the Tories are most unlikely to regain power in 2029 – if ever. But what is relevant is that she’s decided to make the announcement at all. And that, as I said above, is because she’s reflecting a growing public hostility to net zero.
LikeLike
BY the way, the BBC opened up to a “Have Your Say” the article about declining UK cement production. The most popular comment, by a mile, is:
The farce that is Uk energy policy.
When will people wake up and realise the self harm Uk is doing to itself. The policy is causing greater imports more carbon emissions and fewer jobs just so some spreadsheet target of virtue signalling politicians can be achieved. It is biggest scandal of 21st century and massive self harm to Uk…
I think net zero and energy policy combined really are going to be a huge electoral issue next time round, and it isn’t going to go well for the government.
LikeLiked by 2 people
How the government responds to this will be very interesting:
“New climate assessment for Jackdaw gas field”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99g0vyrzmlo
The oil company Shell has submitted a fresh environmental impact assessment for the controversial Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea.
The company was forced to produce a new assessment after a successful legal challenge by the environmental group Greenpeace.
The courts ruled that emissions from burning the oil and gas must be considered by ministers when deciding whether to give projects the go-ahead.
It means the consent previously granted was ruled unlawful.
The Jackdaw field – 150 miles east of Aberdeen – will be capable of producing 6% of the UK’s gas needs.
Construction is well underway for the production platform for the gas field.
However Shell has been told it cannot begin production until a fresh decision has been made by the UK government....
LikeLiked by 2 people
The BBC today: “Angela Rayner has admitted she underpaid stamp duty when buying her £800,000 flat in Hove“. Starmer tried to defend her at PMQs … but has little choice at this stage – I suspect he’s frightened of her. Were she a Tory cabinet minister she’d probably have resigned by now. But she’s not so she hasn’t. And she’s one of the “good guys” so will probably be spared the unrelenting media pile on that would have happened were she a Tory minister who, in keeping with the evil nature of Tories, had underpaid tax. However her remaining in post would be a dreadful and continuing embarrassment for the Government, so it’s hard to see how she can avoid resigning eventually. And, if she does, who is most likely to replace her?
Step forward Ed Miliband.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The video at the end of this article is more than a little embarrassing, and may prove fatal He (or she) who lives by the sword, dies by the sword, and all that:
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/09/03/rayner-must-be-sacked-after-admitting-underpaying-tax-on-second-home-demands-badenoch/
As more information emerges, I don’t think the story is as bad as first appeared to be the case. However, it really isn’t a good look, and I suspect we’ll see the usual thing here, whereby the PM will defend her, defend her, defend her…then ditch her when the pressure becomes too intense.
I don’t think Miliband will become deputy PM. He’s too valuable to Starmer acting as a net zero lightning conductor. But of course I could be wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suspect it might not be entirely up to Starmer. I’m not wholly conversant with Labour Party procedures but I think Rayner was elected by the NEC and that that would apply also to her successor. And Miliband is by far the Party’s most popular cabinet minister.
LikeLike
Ed is the most popular cabinet minister among Labour members. Angela Rayner is second most popular. Least popular, in reverse order, the PM, the Chancellor, and Liz Kendall. The latter’s failed attempt to stem the bleeding has seen her fall to the position of least popular cabinet member.
LikeLike
More on the green MPs badged as blues:
“Tory Net Zero push undermines Kemi Badenoch”
Cleverly and others in the Conservative Environment Network have contributed to an essay collection that shows they have learnt nothing. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a backstab, and Cleverly is installed, and we are back to Uniparty vs Reform in the Net Zero stakes.
Worth reading David Rose’s report on UnHerd. He quotes some quite chilling language.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The net zero zealots will never give up. This Guardian article relates to Australia, but it’s very relevant in the UK:
“Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue rejects ‘credibility’ of business council modelling on 2035 emissions target
BCA member criticises climate modelling commissioned by lobby group that ‘underplays’ economic opportunities and does not factor in cost of inaction”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/04/australia-needs-530bn-capital-to-meet-70-climate-goal-business-council-claims-ahead-of-new-2035-target
A fight over climate policy has broken out within a major Australian business lobby, with mining billionaire Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue sharply criticising the Business Council of Australia over its modelling of the costs of making emissions cuts.
A report released by the business council on Friday claimed Australia would need up to $530bn in capital investment and to potentially curb coal and gas exports to achieve a 2035 emissions target of 70% or more.
The modelling does not factor in the cost of not acting on the climate crisis nor measure the economic benefits of new clean investment….
There are two obvious points here. First, the “benefits” seem slow to appear, whether in Australia or in the UK, so it’s not unreasonable to discount them. Secondly (and much more importantly), there are two problems with throwing “the cost of not acting on the climate crisis” onto the scales. Those costs are themselves highly speculative, and are never qualified by countervailing benefits – the underlying assumption is that every single aspect of climate change is relentlessly bad, when patently that isn’t the case. But crucially if (as is obviously the case) if the rest of the world stands on the sidelines while a handful of countries “take action”, then such costs as are associated with climate change can’t and won’t be avoided. Action taken by a handful of countries results in the worst of all worlds – the costs of taking ineffective action added to the costs (whatever they are) of climate change that carries on regardless. This is such a basic and obvious point that the claims about the costs of not taking action really need to be put firmly back in the box. Such arguments are nonsense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jit, regarding the popularity of Ed Miliband, perhaps the ground is shifting. “Among the root and branch, Miliband is hated with a passion” is a quote from Net Zero Watch’s recent post https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/labour-loses-union-rank-file
If the ground is indeed shifting then the prime minister may feel he can dispense with Ed’s services and change the course of energy policy – well, a chap can dream, can’t he? Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unfortunately, John C, net zero runs deep among Labour politicians, and Starmer is a true believer. Miliband will stay in post because he is Starmer’s lightning conductor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, Big Ange has resigned as Deputy PM and Housing Secretary. She’s also resigned as Deputy Leader of the Party. And filing that role requires a Party members’ election. As Starmer’s position looks increasingly precarious, the position of Deputy Leader (and potential Leader) will be seen by ambitious ministers as a huge opportunity. Surely Ed will be interested?
LikeLike
If Ed becomes deputy leader and/or Deputy PM, then that really will make net zero a stark dividing line at the next general election.
LikeLike
It seems that Starmer is thinking of getting rid of the post of deputy leader so as to avoid a divisive election. It would require NEC approval but he has a majority of supporters there.
Miliband just now on X: “Angela Rayner is one of the great British political figures of our time“.
LikeLike
It’s just been reported that David Lammy has been appointed as Deputy PM. So we can forget about the implications of Miliband being so appointed.
LikeLike
The Climate Skeptic has just published a powerful and impressive article by Tilak Doshi:
The Tide is Turning Decisively Against Net Zero
From Trump’s counter-revolution in Washington to Badenoch’s embrace of North Sea oil, the writing is on the wall
However he doesn’t think the war is over. Far from it. Here are his concluding paragraphs:
A call to action – hopefully not needed by Clisceppers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin at 3.19pm.
Yes, Miliband one of the few to avoid being re-shuffled. Doesn’t surprise me really. As I keep asserting here, Starmer is a true believer in net zero, and Miliband, as a net zero zealot, is just the man for the job so far as Starmer is concerned. And, as I also keep repeating, he’s a useful lightning rod for Starmer.
The interesting (and concerning) thing is that this a rudderless government utterly lacking in principle, but the one thing they won’t ditch is net zero. The country is being run by a cult.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, Tilak Doshi is surely correct to write, if only on energy (EROEI) grounds, that “Net Zero is not merely dead-on arrival; it was always a fantasy.” However, I am still intrigued to understand how such a delusion captured (and continues to dominate) the public space for so long, so easily and so completely.
Yes, the billionaire funding helped enormously, as did the unquestioning support of the MSM (which loves a scare story), and the suborning of many of the larger national and international organisations, especially, to their shame, many of the world’s larger and more important science institutions and journals. However, to me, such explanations, are only part of the story.
Is there not a very much wider problem in that much of the Western world (i.e. the seat of this delusion) is not adequately versed in the STEEM subjects of science, technology, engineering, mathematics and ECONOMICS? If I recall correctly, prof. Dieter Helm in his book ‘The Carbon Crunch’ tells us that a poor understanding of economics is at the root of the failure to ‘tackle climate change’ and that, in effect, we in the West have wasted much treasure to very little effect.
Nevertheless, as Tilak says, the war is far from won. Many battles remain. But, at last, we are no longer on the back foot and it is possible to imagine a more rational energy future for the West as a whole. As Arthur Hugh Clough wrote, “And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light,
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly,
But westward, look, the land is bright.”
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43959/say-not-the-struggle-nought-availeth
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It increasingly looks as though net zero will be one of the big issues at the next general election:
“‘Drill baby, drill’: Reform UK zero in on Ed Miliband’s climate policies
From fracking to North Sea drilling, party’s leaders and members give climate solutions the cold shoulder at conference”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/06/drill-baby-drill-reform-uk-zero-in-on-ed-milibands-climate-policies
...Cousins said the country needed a “resistance against what Ed Miliband and this government is doing to rush to go further and faster on net zero”.
Drilling seemed popular, too: in fact, Reform’s energy policy seems to largely comprise drilling for as much gas as possible, whether it is under the ground in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Lancashire, or in the North Sea, a strategy emphasised by the Lincolnshire mayor, Andrea Jenkyns, who strode on to stage clad in a glittering jumpsuit and promised to “drill baby, drill”.
There is a certain nihilistic sense that in fact, it’s pointless trying to mitigate against the climate crisis in any way, as if humans are helpless in its face, despite being responsible for it. As Radomir Tylecote, a former special adviser for Jacob Rees-Mogg, said at a panel later: “Our left-leaning, permanent bureaucratic class, seems to have decided that through taxes with these reassuring acronym names they can somehow adjust the global climate like a thermostat.” In other words: drill, baby, drill.
LikeLike
This is interesting:
“GB Energy boss warns Aberdeen ‘haemorrhaging’ energy jobs as he supports oil and gas future
Government appointed Jurgen Maier said he is an “all energy advocate” despite Labour’s ban on new North Sea drilling.”
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/business/local/6844415/gb-energy-boss-warns-aberdeen-haemorrhaging-energy-jobs-as-he-supports-oil-and-gas-future/
LikeLike
“Offshore Wind Decommissioning Timebomb
No evidence that offshore wind investors are creating a ring-fenced cash pool to cover decommissioning liabilities”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/offshore-wind-decommissioning-timebomb
Conclusions
Offshore wind decommissioning is a topic that is not discussed enough. Detailed analysis of the accounts of these companies shows they are not creating pools of ring-fenced cash to cover future liabilities. They are effectively relying upon parent company guarantees, a method that is supposedly frowned upon by the Government. While the risks of default from diversified companies like RWE and Scottish Power may be low, Orsted’s recent rights issue announcement and subsequent share price bloodbath shows that the risks inherent in renewables pure plays are much higher than previously thought.
The funds like TRIG and UKW that hold stakes in these windfarms represent a particular risk. UKW looks to be playing fast and loose with asset lives and both do not appear to be properly funding future decommissioning liabilities. Yet, they are distributing hundreds of millions of pounds to shareholders through dividends and share buybacks. This is the offshore wind decommissioning timebomb – a disaster waiting to happen.
The Government should tighten the rules surrounding funding offshore wind liabilities. Companies that hold stakes in these windfarms should be forced to create ring-fenced cash pools that grow to cover the full liability before the subsidies run out.
LikeLike
Mark, is this not a topic (i.e decommissioning costs) that we have long been aware of? The “renewables” market is (and always has been!) a rent-seekers’ paradise, essentially low risk profit for the rent-seekers and, in return, limited-life unreliable & hugely expensive “renewables” for gullible UK governments.
Surely, with such a set-up the rent-seekers would not give a moment’s thought to decommissioning costs; that tab is for those gullible governments to pass on to their electorates via taxes and even higher electricity costs.
P.S. I am not making any criticism at all of David Turver and his excellent work; he cannot deal with all topics at once. I am just pointing out that I don’t think anybody should be surprised by the appearance of yet another “renewables” cost that has been conveniently sidelined from public debate until now. In short, the UK’s political class has been well and truly asleep at the “renewables” wheel and we will all bear the costs for many years to come. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Telegraph on an opportunity missed:
Mad Red Ed has now employed Vallance to head DESNZ and a former Fiends of the Earth and World Wildlife Fund Campaigning activist as Parliamentary under-secretary. Net Zero is going to the wire and Britain is going to hell in an electric handcart.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Robin, the subtitle of your thread is “Unachievable Disastrous Pointless”. Thus, although it is from last month, I think this quote from a David Turver article makes a nice contribution to why Net Zero is DISASTROUS for ordinary people – however, you will note that our old friends from about 2008 (i.e. the bankers) do very well from the arrangement:-
“Offshore wind farms are a lose-lose deal for both developers and consumers. The only winners are the banks that lend the money. Only Governments could organise such an epic destruction of wealth.” https://davidturver.substack.com/p/orsted-leaves-investors-consumers-twisting-in-the-wind?utm_source=publication-search
The phrase, “Only Governments could organise such an epic destruction of wealth”, has for me a certain ring; it ought to be in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations or, perhaps, form the title of a Cliscep thread. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hilarious:
“Starmer ‘tried to strip Ed Miliband of Net Zero brief’ in panicky reshuffle to counter Reform threat as allies admit climate push IS holding back growth”
Mail story.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit,
The Daily Mail offers no back-up for that story, so far as I can see, and I have little doubt that it’s rubbish. However weak Starmer is, he is Prime Minister, and if he wanted to move Miliband out so as to prevent him from wrecking the economy (alongside Rachel Reeves) he could do so. I strongly suspect it never even occurred him to move Miliband – as I regularly opine here, I have little doubt that Starmer is fully signed up to net zero, and Miliband is very happy to do his bidding.
LikeLike
I think it is more than plausible that the PM wanted Ed to move, but the latter refused. The usual move would indeed be to be shown the door – but Ed has a power base in Labour that cannot be underestimated.
Downing Street did not deny the story, right? Perhaps more information will leak out in due time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, my pet theory about Starmer being a full-on net zero zealot may be proved to be wrong, but I remain to be convinced otherwise. If Starmer did want to move MIliband to a department where he might do less harm to the UK’s growth prospects, but was too weak to insist on it, then he’s toast, surely?
LikeLike
Mark: my view is that Starmer – apart from the pre-eminence of international law – has no fixed views about anything. Just consider all his changes of direction over the last 14 months. And in a rather feeble way I think he’s a pragmatist. So he will I think be increasingly aware of how net zero could undermine his administration. Hence his probable wish to move Ed to another department. But Ed is a fanatic who is determined to pursue his agenda whatever the obstacles. And Starmer is at heart a coward who is unable to stand up to a strong opponent. So he gave in.
So yes he should be toast. But he’s not (or at least not yet) because Labour MPs and members don’t want to force a situation that could lead them to losing power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
I would say that your theory and mine are both possible. Whichever theory is correct (assuming one of them is) it reflects badly on Starmer.
LikeLike
This from Kamal Ahmed in today’s Telegraph – no link as it’s from Pressreader:
LikeLiked by 1 person
On the front page of the Times today:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit, nonetheless that means that 75% of voters do not agree that concerns are not as justified as scientists have said. Although I expect quite a lot simply don’t know.
LikeLike
The Daily Sceptic has picked up on that story now:
“Global Warming Exaggerated, Say Soaring Number of Britons”
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/09/10/global-warming-exaggerated-say-soaring-number-of-britons/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jo Nova on this topic, with figures.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Green energy entrepreneur calls on UK to subsidise North Sea oil and gas firms
Dale Vince urges ministers to ‘optimise’ resources in fossil fuel basin to help smooth transition to renewables”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/sep/11/green-energy-entrepreneurs-urge-uk-allow-new-north-sea-oil-gas-projects
One of Britain’s leading green industrialists has called on the government to offer subsidies to North Sea oil companies to help support a “just transition” to renewables.
Dale Vince, a Labour donor, urged ministers to “optimise” the remaining resources of the declining oil basin as the UK reduces its reliance on fossil fuels….
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve no wish to boast (er … not really true) but I have the most up-votes on two of yesterday’s Speccie articles: HERE and HERE
LikeLike
Mark – regarding the Guardian article you quote, I notice it has added this at the end –
“The headline and introductory text of this article were amended on 11 September 2025 to clarify what Dale Vince is urging the government to do. We regret that an earlier version said he was calling on the government “to allow new North Sea oil and gas projects”; in fact, he was calling for a guaranteed minimum price for the oil and gas produced by existing North Sea fields.”
Maybe I’m thick, but what does he mean by “a guaranteed minimum price for the oil and gas produced by existing North Sea fields.”? windfall tax is mentioned?
Can only assume he means after exploration/construction/extraction costs/overheads/etc + windfall tax, North Sea oil and gas is dead in the water.
LikeLike
“Google’s huge new Essex datacentre to emit 570,000 tonnes of CO2 a year
Exclusive: Planning documents show impact of Thurrock ‘hyperscale’ unit as UK attempts to ramp up AI capacity”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/15/google-datacentre-kent-co2-thurrock-uk-ai
A new Google datacentre in Essex is expected to emit more than half a million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year , equivalent to about 500 short-haul flights a week, planning documents show.
Spread across 52 hectares (128 acres), the Thurrock “hyperscale datacentre” will be part of a wave of mammoth computer and AI power houses if it secures planning consent.
As Robin says , how on earth is this consistent with net zero?
LikeLiked by 1 person
From that link –
“The British government does not believe datacentres will have a significant impact on the UK’s carbon budget because of its ambitious targets for electricity grid decarbonisation. Rather it is worried that without massive investment in new datacentres, the UK will fall behind international rivals, including France, resulting in a “compute gap” that “risks undermining national security, economic growth, and the UK’s ambition to lead in AI”, according to a July research paper from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.”
Seems another “lead the world” ambition fantasy, with dire potential consequences for the UK electricity grid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Guardian reporting from Australia – with a comment that could translate directly to the UK:
“Nationals MP Michael McCormack sheds no light on Coalition net zero discussions”
heguardian.com/australia-news/live/2025/sep/16/australia-news-live-sydney-airport-social-media-ban-anthony-albanese-chris-bowen-climate-crisis-carbon-emissions-png-treaty-ntwnfb
Michael McCormack, the Nationals MP for Riverina, will not be drawn on whether the Coalition’s position on net zero would lead to another split in the party.
He said it was possible the Liberals and Nationals could land on different positions regarding climate policy. He told the ABC about a possible split:
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Headlines: September 2025”
https://irinaslav.substack.com/p/headlines-september-2025
LikeLike
“Britain’s industrial disaster”
https://mailchi.mp/5bd1d833ed00/britains-industrial-disaster
By John Redwood, for the GWPF.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Two weeks ago the Spectator published an what I thought was an excellent editorial titled ‘All at sea’ about Britain’s energy policy. Somehow missed it. I think Clisceppers should be able to access it HERE but, in case not and to give a flavour of it, here are its first two paragraphs:
I’d be interested to hear what others think of it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think it’s very good. It contains no fresh insights, but it’s an excellent summary of much that is wrong with the current government’s energy policy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did anybody today hear BBC Radio 4’s programme ‘World at One’ and specifically the article concerning the UK’s continually poor productivity performance? Several commentators were asked for their opinion. However, I did not hear one person mention energy or EROEI – did I miss something? Or was the BBC simply ‘on message’ as usual? Where is BBC Verify when you need it? Missing in inaction again? Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I thought some might enjoy this extract from a report in the Spectator by Madeline Grant on today’s House of Lords debate on the Assisted Dying Bill:
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/this-peers-assisted-suicide-speech-was-truly-bonkers/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lord Brooke’s speech can be found here:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2025-09-19/debates/2f7a37c6-f89a-4ddd-ab12-d6c10825fd43/LordsChamber
I confess to never having heard of him. A little digging tells me he’s a Labour life peer. His speech ran to just five short paragraphs. He managed to insert climate change into it twice. Reading it felt a bit like listening to the BBC – at least one or two mentions of climate change are obligatory in every programme, however irrelevant to the subject matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What a waste of time and money the Lords is, like how it ends –
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip
(Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it has been a long day at the end of a very long week, at the end of this September sitting, when we have made good progress on the legislation before the House. I thank the usual channels and all Members for that most sincerely. As we adjourn our proceedings, I am sure all noble Lords will join me in thanking the catering staff, the attendants, the clerks, Hansard staff, the broadcasting unit, the security staff, the police and the doorkeepers for their excellent support in keeping the House operating and keeping us safe. I recognise, as Government Chief Whip, the pressure that this places on the staff of the House, and I will continue my discussions across the House to ensure that proper support is always in place when we return on 13 October.
I wish everyone a well-deserved break as we move into the conference season. For everyone attending a party conference, whether that be in Bournemouth, Liverpool, Manchester or elsewhere, I wish them an enjoyable time. For those who are not attending a party conference, they probably have the best deal, and I also wish them well.”
Seems almost feudal to me. They may serve a purpose in UK politics, but I struggle to see how.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you can access it, you’ll find that this interview with Kathryn Porter is really excellent: https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/09/22/why-britain-is-heading-for-another-energy-crisis/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin,
Spiked is readily accessible, not being behind a paywall. I recommend that piece too, but more than that, as it represents only edited highlights, I also recommend watching the video of the interview (it may be that’s what you were recommending anyway). I watched the video a few days ago, and regard it as essential viewing for anyone who cares about these issues.
LikeLike
Yes Mark, it was the video to which I was referring. As you say essential viewing.
LikeLike
“‘Companies will go bust’: metal industry warns Reeves as energy fees double”
https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/uk-metal-industry-energy-fees-double-factory-closures/
Manufacturers supplying Britain’s defence, automotive, aerospace and construction sectors have warned that businesses will collapse after government-approved energy charges are set to double.
From October 1, standing charges and levies on industrial electricity bills will begin to rise sharply, with the full increase landing in April. Energy brokers said non-commodity costs – the fees for using the grid and funding subsidies – will make up as much as 65% of firms’ total bills, regardless of how much electricity they consume.
For a company paying £300,000 a year for power, standing charges will jump from £32,000 to £64,000. Businesses will also be hit with a new levy from November to fund construction of the Sizewell C nuclear plant.
The Confederation of British Metalforming (CBM) warned the hikes would wipe out firms already under strain. Stephen Morley, the group’s president, said: “We will end up getting to net zero by having no industry. We will lose companies over this, without a doubt. They cannot afford this increase.”
While heavy industries such as steel and ceramics benefit from the Energy Intensive Industries subsidy, thousands of other firms in heat treatments, forgings and sheet metal manufacturing are excluded. Those businesses form crucial links in national supply chains but are left shouldering costs that subsidise competitors.
Tim Jewitt, who runs Sheffield-based Footprint Tools – the UK’s last dedicated drop forge for hand tools – said his bills had nearly doubled even before the hikes. “Sixty per cent of our energy costs are not paying for electricity itself. That is wrong. This is driving manufacturing offshore and making us uncompetitive globally,” he said.
The government insists the charges are necessary to fund vital grid upgrades and secure Britain’s energy future. A spokesperson said: “We are protecting energy-intensive businesses from volatile fossil fuel markets. The only answer is clean, homegrown power to bring down bills for good.”…
For how long can this appalling government continue to ignore reality?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“We will end up getting to net zero by having no industry.”
Sums it up nicely.
LikeLike
Completely off topic but interesting. The online petition, “Do not introduce Digital ID cards”, has got over 2 million signatures – the third highest signature count for a UK petition, after “Remain in the EU” (6 million – August 2019) and “Call a General Election” (3 million – May 2025). It’s been live for four days.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, the government spokesman is utterly delusional. We know from the EROEI parameter that current renewables are not clean (although British politicians can pretend they are ‘cos “China wastes energy so we don’t have to!”). Nor is the energy homegrown since much of hardware is made outside the UK. And, since we will always need fossil-based/nuclear back-up power systems to run during those inevitable dunkelflauten, nor will they ever bring down bills for good.
We are simply exporting wealth and making our own industry less productive and less competitive. Oh! And we are making the consumer/tax payer foot the bill for the privilege of all this monumental stupidity. As I recall, in the introduction to his book ‘The Carbon Crunch’ prof. Dieter Helm says that economic ignorance is at the heart of the failure to tackle the so-called climate crisis effectively. Or as Robin puts it in the subtitle to this thread: unachievable, disastrous and pointless. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin,
I have always been opposed to ID cards, but lately I have started to wonder if I was right to do so. But digital ID, when there are still a few million people who don’t have smart phones or access to the internet?
I neither like, nor trust Starmer. I suspect that his intent is serious and well-intentioned rather than sinister, but like everything he does, it seems to be half-baked and not thought through. It certainly won’t achieve the objects he claims are the reasons for introducing it. That being the case, maybe his intent is sinister (it’s the reintroduction of a favourite Blair policy, and he’s a man I certainly don’t trust). I don’t know, but I suspect, like most things he does, it’s another gift to Farage.
Meanwhile, I see he is labelling Farage as “grubby”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0xzdgyx0do
Whether or not Farage is grubby, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. In my eyes, a wealthy man who was supposed to be setting high ethical standards, while taking huge amounts of free gifts when he was Leader of the Opposition, is pretty grubby too. Starmer should take a look in the mirror.
LikeLike
Mark, it’s claimed that Euan Blair (Tony’s son) is CEO of one of the companies that would be involved in the implementation of the digital ID scheme.
LikeLike
You might not call this a hot take, but if it comes to pass, digital ID is going to be a disaster. There will be errors in the database – all databases have errors. How do you prove who you are to begin with? With existing ID. Then why do we need digital ID? It’s going to be a hacker’s paradise – and I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire system gets compromised. What then when the hackers promise to publish tranches of data until we pay their ransom (as has been happening this week with hacked data on at the Kido nursery chain)? What about lost phones. Stolen phones. Broken phones. Bugs in software. Scams (e.g. as at present when unsuspecting individuals scan malicious QR codes.
And that’s before even getting onto the technotarian dystopia it’s going to set up. Papers please is not the British way.
Starmer has at least managed to wrest the headlines away from Reform’s policy announcements, which I presume was at least half the purpose of his move.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t like the idea of digital ID. However I’m not especially worried by this proposal as I doubt if it will be introduced. I (then chair of the IT livery company’s healthcare committee) was a vocal critic of Tony Blair’s planned IT programme for the NHS. Largely because of management failures, serious database uncertainties and security worries as well as getting almost no support from the medical profession, it was a hopeless failure: way over budget (more than £10 billion wasted) and desperately late, it was eventually abandoned. I think digital ID is very likely to suffer a similar fate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Verordnung über Kennkarten” July 1938.
LikeLike
Grid stats at 7.00 AM this morning:
Gas 68%, Wind 7%, Sun 0%, Nuclear 10%, Biomass 13%
Interconnectors -1%, Price: £95.69/MWh
Hmm … not so good – does Ed know?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, you ask whether Ed knows. Perhaps, rather in the manner of Kathryn Porter, we should also ask whether he cares.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for that link John. I watched it all (it’s very long) and, as always, she’s very good. So long that is as she sticks to her specialist subject. I thought she was waffling towards the end and she was wrong to claim that Brown’s Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (2010) makes the civil service independent of government ministers. It doesn’t.
LikeLike
Grid stats at 6.00 PM this evening:
Gas 57%, Wind 10%, Sun 2%, Nuclear 8%, Biomass 10%
Interconnectors 7%, Price: £126.34/MWh
Hmm … at least Drax is making a useful contribution.
PS: the online anti ID card petition has now got more than 2.5 million signatures.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As an electrical engineer it made me sick to my stomach to read Sir John Redwood’s article for the GWPF, but I am very glad he wrote it:-
https://thegwpf.org/britains-industrial-disaster/
The article describes government-driven wealth and societal destruction as a matter of policy – economic warfare against the UK and its people (self-harm) undertaken in the name of Net Zero and the CCA ideology. A tragedy of such enormous range, scope and depth; it makes me shudder.
What would once have surprised me is that this bomb- and bullet-free war is being directed by a Labour government, a Labour government that (apparently under the ‘woke’ doctrine of inverting traditional politics i.e. to now favour the margins and denigrate the centre) has lost all sense of its roots in standing up for ordinary people. It seems to me that the party of ‘protect and defend’ has become the party of ‘seek and destroy’. The next general election cannot come a moment too soon for both me and the battered economy.
Regards, in sadness and disgust, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John,
Net Zero = our government response to the ‘climate crisis’.
It is exactly the same animal as the government’s response to the Covid ‘crisis’, yet even more destructive and deleterious, if that can be imagined.
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/09/22/the-covid-response-was-not-a-mistake-it-was-just-wrong/
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is to me astonishing that, given the well-known history of the 20th century and its conflicts, that the current Labour government should appear to have such little regard for the welfare of ordinary people; its lack of empathy is both appalling and, I suspect, will be seen ultimately as deeply shaming in the history books. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
“Due to the scale of the plans, permission will be decided by Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband.”
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/09/30/reeves-signals-support-for-north-sea-drilling-as-union-boss-calls-for-miliband-to-be-sacked/
...Sir Keir Starmer must sack Ed Miliband over his approach to Net Zero, the boss of the Unite union has demanded.
Sharon Graham called the Energy Secretary’s Net Zero plan a “disaster” and accused him of being “completely irresponsible” with Britain’s energy security....
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is not as though empathy with working people was a new concept that the Labour Party was getting to grips with. Here is Adam Smith back in 1776 in Book I, chapter VIII (Of the Wages of Labour) of ‘The Wealth of Nations’ [Ref. 1], “No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who food, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.”
Perhaps I forget, however, that our current prime minister has expressed his preference for working in Davos rather than in ‘the tribal shouting place’ that is Westminster [Ref. 2]. Elitist or what?
References
1. Adam Smith, “The Wealth of Nations Books I – III”, Penguin Classics, 1999, page 181.
2. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DDzgpjPgWL7/
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
To complement the largely UK-centric views expressed above it is interesting to read:- https://dailysceptic.org/2025/09/30/climatism-in-europe-is-dying/
The link above gives a predominantly German perspective on (i) how president Trump’s 2018 and 2025 speeches at the United Nations were received very differently, (ii) how climatism in Germany is now greatly declining in popularity. The writer, Eugyppius, concludes, “In retrospect, I think climatism was an ideology crafted for a world bereft of concrete villains – a world where industrial processes and gases were the only conceivable enemies. We’re not in that world anymore, and that is why climatism is finished.” I am not entirely convinced by the reasons advanced for climatism’s decline. Nonetheless, as an engineer, is I hope the decline is terminal. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This morning (BBC Radio 4 “Today” programme) did I hear Sir Kier Starmer in interview expose more of his profound lack of empathy with and for working people, including trades union members at his Labour Party conference? …
Did Sir Keir speak to the effect that ‘Everybody knows there is an energy transition happening’? If so, does Sir Kier know that there is currently no energy transition to be had on energy grounds (because of EROEI), nor on economic grounds (because of monstrous subsidies to renewables), nor even on CO2 grounds (because of China’s monstrous emissions and the UK’s tiny ones). That leaves only political grounds, Sir Kier, for an energy transition in the UK. That may suit your pals in Davos, Sir Keir, but, given your job title, should you not care just a little about British workers and British industries and even about the needs of British trades union members? Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The answer,
on expedient grounds, is
No. ‘
LikeLike
There’s an article by Matthew Lynn in the Speccie this afternoon about Mad Ed’s conference speech. Headed “Ed Miliband can’t ban fracking forever” here’s his opening paragraph:
Indeed.
LikeLike
I have just heard Caroline Lucas (ex-leader of the Greens) being “light-touch interviewed” on BBC Radio 4’s “PM” programme regarding energy policy. She speaks well and fluently to make her case, which she did for several minutes almost uninterrupted by probing questions. While I am happy to hear her make her case it is necessary for both impartiality and audience information reasons to have her views challenged. If “PM”‘s Evan Davis cannot do it (for whatever reasons) then the BBC should invite contributions from the likes of Kathryn Porter or David Turver etc.
This one-sided nonsense is not acceptable in my view. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, I caught the tail end of that, so don’t know how long it went on for. But the bit I heard was long enough. At the end, I took note of the way that Evan sheepishly said that they needed to find out what Reform’s view actually was, rather than allow the ex Green leader to caricature it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Note: Evan Davis did not use the words I did above. My words are what his implied to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This article (linked below) highlights Labour senior ranks’ lack of empathy (antipathy?) towards ordinary people as well as the party’s political drift. The article also points out the prejudices of the BBC in this matter – the Beeb likes the status quo and is fearful of major upheavals that Farage may bring. https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/10/01/starmers-feverish-faragephobia-reveals-his-hatred-of-the-masses/
A couple of quotes will give a flavour:-
“Labour’s deployment of the ‘Hitler Youth’ slur confirms this government has completely run out of steam.“
“We know the real reason you [i.e. the BBC] dread Farage is because of that army of ‘dogs’ whose interest in politics has been rekindled by his campaigning. You hate Farage but it’s that rabble you truly fear.”
Labour, in my view, just seems to go from worse to very much worse. In historical terms it is a tragedy that the party (once of working people) has largely given up on the working class in favour of elitist ‘wokeism’; it will probably reap the whirlwind at the next general election. And, in its current policy straightjacket, it will thoroughly deserve the thrashing. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin posted an O/T comment here about digital ID, but it’s his thread, so that’s fine! Picking up on that, this piece in the Guardian is hilarious!
“‘Reverse Midas touch’: Starmer plan prompts collapse in support for digital IDs
Net public backing for scheme has fallen to -14% after prime minister’s announcement, according to polling”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/01/keir-starmer-labour-collapse-public-support-digital-id-cards
Public support for digital IDs has collapsed after Keir Starmer announced plans for their introduction, in what has been described as a symptom of the prime minister’s “reverse Midas touch”.
Net support for digital ID cards fell from 35% in the early summer to -14% at the weekend after Starmer’s announcement, according to polling by More in Common.
The findings suggest that the proposal has suffered considerably from its association with an unpopular government. In June, 53% of voters surveyed said they were in favour of digital ID cards for all Britons, while 19% were opposed.
Starmer set out plans to roll out a national digital ID scheme on Friday, saying it presented an “enormous opportunity” for the UK that would “make it tougher to work illegally in this country”.
Just 31% of people surveyed after Starmer’s announcement over the weekend said they were supportive of the scheme, with 45% saying they were opposed. Of those, 32% said they were strongly opposed. More than 2.6 million people have signed a petition against introduction of the IDs.
Advocates of a national digital ID scheme are frustrated at the way the policy has been presented and believe that now it may never be implemented....
LikeLike
Mark: and the petition ‘Do not introduce Digital ID Cards’ has just passed 2.7 million signatures, making it the third highest Government petition – catching up with the ‘Call a General Election’ petition earlier this year that got just over 3 million.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
LikeLike
Robin, typo! I think you meant 2.7 million, and currently increasing at over 3,000 signatures per hour. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Thank you John – corrected.
LikeLike
An interesting read, making some basic common sense points:
“Solar panels on schools is Miliband’s silliest idea yet
Labour is set to spend hundreds of millions on a pointless act of green virtue-signalling.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/10/02/solar-panels-on-schools-is-milibands-silliest-idea-yet/
LikeLike