The UK’s biggest climate problem is that the US and most non-Western countries – the source of about 85% of CO2 emissions and home to 86% of humanity – don’t regard emission reduction as a priority, focusing instead on economic development, poverty elimination and energy security. As a result, global emissions are increasing and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future whatever the UK (the source of only 0.7% of global emissions) may or may not do. It therefore makes absolutely no sense for Britain to continue its pursuit of the unachievable and disastrous net zero policy. The neo-colonial suggestion that we should be leading the world or setting an example is simply embarrassing.
Britain’s energy policy, the basis of our economic survival, requires a fresh start. We need to establish an optimum course in a world where we’re rapidly losing influence, where greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise and where our trying to prevent that from happening is futile. Instead therefore we should abandon net zero and similar policies – necessitating the repeal or radical amendment of the 2008 Climate Change Act – and come to terms with international political reality by: (a) prioritising a strong and growing economy, underpinned by reliable, affordable energy; (b) encouraging research into the development of technologies for delivering practicable, reliable and affordable low emission energy; and (c) focusing on adaptation to whatever climate change may occur.
Abandoning net zero would have immediate practical advantages. It would lift the terrifying threat of electricity blackouts – a threat to thousands of businesses and in particular to the well-being of hundreds of thousands of people, especially the poor and vulnerable. It would mean getting rid of many current – and avoiding future – ‘green’ levies and subsidies. It would enable people and businesses to continue to drive vehicles powered by the increasingly efficient and clean internal combustion engine. It would mean millions of households and businesses could retain their current gas heating appliances. It would mean we could continue to rely on the commercial aviation and shipping businesses that underpin our international trade and on the many other machines and products essential to our lives and well-being that require the combustion of fossil fuels or are made from oil derivatives. It would mean reducing many other ‘green’ pressures on industry and commerce – keeping costs down and improving productivity and employment. It would ensure that we didn’t increase our already dangerous dependence on China any further. Overall it would be a huge boost to national confidence and bring about a sense of freedom sadly lacking over recent years.
A concluding thought. All the above advantages of abandoning net zero are clear and obvious. And the disadvantages? There are none. Even if we face a ‘climate emergency’ – I suspect we don’t, but if we do – Britain’s pursuit of net zero cannot help us avoid it.
Climate Scepticism 
Short and to the point – well worth being updated for another outing. If only those in charge would read it and accept its logic.
LikeLike
Thanks Mark. The original of this was posted over two years ago and was I think my first contribution to Cliscep. I decided to update it because I’m involved in an exchange with someone who asserts that, instead of always being ’negative’ (i.e. realistic), I never say what I would do. I decided I’d respond to that by using the material I’ve used in this essay.
It would be very helpful if clisceppers reading this were to post comments and criticisms; and possibly to suggest changes and/or improvements. Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
Not necessarily an improvement to or amendment of your piece, but when debating with people who insist that a) China is transitioning rapidly to renewables because its leaders know they’re the future; and that b) energy security is to be found in renewables and not in utilising one’s own domestic supplies of fossil fuels, it might be worth referring them to a couple of articles I linked to in the comments under my last piece:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/09/chinas-coal-heartland-fighting-for-a-greener-future
…This year’s [Chinese] government work report pledged to “increase coal production and supply capacity”, something that many in China’s system see as essential to ensuring energy security.…
Also:
https://energyandcleanair.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/China-snapshot_2025-06_EN.pdf
In May 2025 [in China], domestic coal production rose by 4.2%.
…domestic natural gas production increased by 9.1%…
Crude oil production increased by 1.8%.
My comment:
The interesting thing here is that China’s fossil fuel imports have declined, while it increases its domestic output of oil, gas and coal, because it is concentrating on safeguarding its energy security. Perhaps someone should mention this to Mr Miliband.
LikeLiked by 2 people
One (of many!) problems with Net Zero is that it predetermines which technologies will prevail and stifles alternatives. For example the internal combustion engined car though effective is relatively inefficient – typically only 30% of the available energy in the fuel ultimately drives and warms/cools the car. What if somehow some of that 70% wasted energy (mostly as heat) could be utilised? Thermo electric generators (TEG) convert thermal energy (heat) directly into electricity without moving parts but whilst amazingly reliable* are currently also not particularly efficient. That could, however, dramatically change with developments in novel carbon allotropes vastly improving the conversion efficiency. The hybrid battery in a car could in future be charged with electricity derived from that otherwise waste heat. The 150 mpg family saloon is not as ridiculous as it may currently sound. Unfortunately outlawing combustion on ideological grounds severely restricts and even prohibits the necessary research as there is no money in it by political edict.
Such a car would realistically lower emissions (if that is really deemed a problem) far more readily than 2 ton battery trucks masquerading as cars ever will and continue mass convenient transport. This is just one of hundreds of technologies that are being thrown out with the bathwater by Net Zero lunacy dictated by technologically ignorant politicians. The dangers of leaving ourselves vulnerable to outside control are quite terrifying.
” The farthest flung human made vehicles are currently winging their way to the Oort cloud with transmitters powered by TEGs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin
I wonder what research you consider presently meets the requirements of new ‘technologies for delivering practicable, reliable and affordable low emission energy’. The first too criteria seem feasible, but the third one?
LikeLike
Hello harmlesssky (great work by the way!) There are technologies that can be developed as I mention in my post above regarding thermo electric generators. There are staggeringly large amounts of high grade thermal energy deliberately currently dissipated into the environment from all manner of existing energy use. Leaving aside the internal combustion engine take the example of Sizewell B nuclear power station. It produces 1.2GW of electricity from 3.6GW of thermal energy output, the balance is simply lost by warming up the North Sea. It could be used to drive a district heating system as a Beznau but that would be incredibly expensive to establish from a UK rural site
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Refuna_nuclear_district_heating
Conversely large scale TEG once established effectively runs for as long as heat is put in producing additional electricity for easy distribution. This is a personal frustration of mine. There actually are lots of technologies that could be developed and not at great expense but political directives are starving their development as everything follows the money especially the handouts/subsidies.
I could go on to other similarly stunted ideas notably thermo-chemical energy storage but space prohibits.
LikeLike
Apologies for banging on about this point but perhaps the current state of research should be explained. This abstract should give adequate understanding without having to suffer too much technical detail.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032121000952
Just utilising some of what we currently waste is a superb progressive option that is not blowing in the wind.
LikeLike
Robin, you asked for comments. I have two:-
LikeLiked by 3 people
Robin, further to my point 2 above regarding EROEI. The Turver/Weissbach EROEI figures show, IIRC, that current renewables have a good (i.e. high) EROEI value for off-grid applications where no back-up is required.
However, has anybody pointed out that off-grid applications of current renewables depend upon a decidedly on-grid advanced industrial society to produce those renewables in the first place? So even off-grid applications of current renewables are not entirely off-grid if you peep under the bonnet.
In short, is this more smoke and mirrors from the not-so-virtuous signallers of the Green Blob, I wonder.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ray, I’m anxious to keep this essay (aimed at alarmists not sceptics) very, very simple. And in that context I think my ‘technologies for delivering practicable, reliable and affordable low emission energy’ will suffice.
LikeLike
Robin, here are a few shortish quotes from the Introduction to prof. Dieter Helm’s book “The Carbon Crunch” [Ref. 1] for your consideration:-
[Page 7] “The British decided to push on with one of the most expensive ways of generating low-carbon electricity known to man – intermittent offshore wind – and, copying the Germans, found an even more expensive option: rooftop solar and solar ‘farms’ for its northern climate.”
“Moreover, what is the question to which offshore wind and rooftop solar are supposed to be the answer?” It can’t be global climate change – wind farms in the North Sea will make no difference to climate change.”
[Pages 8 – 9] “Getting a grip on the true nature of the problem is the first step to solving it. The next 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.”
[Page 11] “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 on wasting so much money to so little effect.”
Reference 1. Dieter Helm, “”The Carbon Crunch”, revised & updated, Yale University Press, 2015.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 3 people
John: I agree with each of those Helm quotations – especially the third (‘Getting a grip on the true nature of the problem is the first step to solving it‘). Having at the beginning of my career been the in-house legal advisor of a major UK aerospace company and then the Commercial Director of one of its subsidiaries, I became – over subsequent years – CEO of three medium-sized (300+ employees) high-tech businesses. Each was a failure when I joined it and a success when I left. And in each case the secret of that success was facing up to and coming to terms with reality.
And that is (I believe) the principal message of the above essay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Those advocating for emissions cuts, such as following the 1.5 °C pathway (more accurately the >50% of global average temperatures in 2100 being at or below 1.5 °C above those of the mid-nineteenth century), presume that the rest of the world will follow their lead. This is not the case. This means that with only a few countries following the 1.5 °C pathway, global average temperatures in 2100 will mostly be determined by the emissions of non-policy countries. In fact, if countries such as the UK & Canada completely ditched their net-zero policies global warming will be insignificantly higher than if they continued with their net-zero policies.
Being a slightly manic beancounter, I like to look at costs. There are two lots of costs to consider – the costs of policy and the costs of unmitigated climate change. Policy is applied to reduce climate change. Consider this Bjorn Lomborg tweet based on a paper (open-source DOI: 10.1257/pol.20170046) by Nobel Laureate William D Nordhaus.
This shows the trade-off between efficient global policies and the costs of the residual global warming. The optimum policy was to aim for 3.5 °C. But with a few countries pursuing the 1.5 °C to 2.0°C, AND with highly cost-inefficient policies, the optimal policy is no policy on greenhouse gas emissions whatsoever. Non, zilch, nada.
As for the costs of climate change, rather than hypothesizing a quadratic or cubic relationship between global average temperature and global GDP, let us assess the claims of future climate change costs over decades using the techniques of project accounting. Then we can look at how to drive down these potential costs into insignificance, either through challenging the underlying economic assumptions that underlie the high costs, or by creating the economic conditions where the real costs are massively lowered.
LikeLiked by 2 people