(This article was partly prompted by Mark’s recent thoughts following his discussion about UK energy policy with an old friend)
Because of 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 and maintenance of so-called ‘renewables’, China has a potential stranglehold on our energy systems; and that’s a serious threat to national security – in my view an unacceptable risk: it must be ended. But is that possible?
I believe it is and that a pragmatic Government concerned about Britain’s future would implement the solution immediately. And that would inevitably mean the cancellation of the current net zero policy; an action that a pragmatic Government would surely be considering anyway as it’s a policy that’s unachievable, potentially disastrous, absurdly expensive and pointless – and could result in Britain’s economic destruction. In other words, net zero is a policy that for two critically important reasons simply has to go. But, although it’s doable and could bring huge advantages and opportunities, cancelling net zero would not be easy; nor would it be cheap. So, how might it be done?
Well, most obviously the 2008 Climate Change Act has to be repealed. And an immediate consequence of that would be the winding up of the Climate Change Committee and the cancellation of the Carbon Budgets and the various actions it has recommended. A further consequence would be the termination of all plans for further wind turbines, solar panels, batteries etc. And that should mean a substantial reduction in current plans for an expanded high voltage grid. Other important consequences would include the cancellation of carbon taxes, the end of giving renewables grid priority and the cancellation of the bans on gas boilers and on vehicles powered by the internal combustion engine. Furthermore this would be an opportunity to terminate expensive, controversial and unproven developments such as carbon capture and storage and plans for ‘green’ hydrogen.
Of course we’d still have huge numbers of so-called ‘renewable’ energy plants everywhere. Although it might be possible to get rid of a few of these, it would surely be hopelessly impractical for the great majority which would have to be retained together with most if not all of their associated costs (e.g. subsidies etc.) – not perhaps altogether a bad thing as retaining a modicum of renewable capacity might even have some advantages. A problem, however, would be that they would require maintenance and repair and a major and difficult challenge would be finding ways of dealing with this that are not dependent on China – e.g. wherever possible by the acquisition and storage of critical materials, components and products from countries unaligned to China.
Other important actions would include the commissioning of a fleet of new gas-fired power plants (to replace those that are nearing retirement), exploiting all current sources of gas and oil, reviewing the potential for the exploitation of domestic shale gas via fracking and considering the potential for making use of our substantial coal reserves. Moreover we’d have to focus on speeding up the completion of current nuclear power projects and doing so without China’s involvement; and on putting greater impetus into the development of small modular reactors.
As I’ve said, none of this would be easy; some of it might even be painful. But, if we’re to escape from the dreadful effects of net zero and from China’s terrifying influence over our energy and therefore our national security, it’s essential.
Robin Guenier October 2025
Climate Scepticism 
In writing this I was perhaps living in dreamland: we don’t have a pragmatic Government nor are we likely to have one for a long time – if ever. No, really it’s an attempt to list what what could be done in practice to escape from the terrifying jaws of Net Zero – in the process negating a serous Chinese threat to our national security . A checklist if you like. And, as such, I’d be most interested to see what readers might wish to add or subtract from it.
LikeLike
Well done, Robin, for your concise and irrefutable (says a non-lawyer) arguments against the Uniparty tyranny of Net Zero, without even suggesting that the never-validated (pseudo)-scientific hypothesis of alleged man-made global warming might be a non-problem or even a massive hoax.
Here’s my simple argument that unilateral UK Net Zero is utterly pointless. The latest Statistical Review of World Energy gives the world’s dependency on indispensable fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, coal) for its primary energy supplies as a showstopping 86.6%, still barely off the Net Zero start line. That dependency ratio and the extreme divergence between the world and UK trendlines of annual CO2 emissions prove conclusively that UK Net Zero is utterly pointless.
Meanwhile, dare I say delusional PM Kier Stramer plans to fly off to COP30 in Brazil to support his globalist overlords “to accelerate Britain’s efforts on pursuing net zero and driving green growth”: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-pm-starmer-attend-cop30-135642778.html.
It is difficult to disagree with Lord Monckton’s view that, as you suggest, the Labour Party deliberately wants “to wreck the British economy” (90-second clip): https://x.com/benonwine/status/1979661223743664350.
LikeLike
Robin, thank you for an excellent wish list – right on the money/renminbi.
IIRC, prof. Helm suggested that for accounting purposes all renewables should be put in a separate section of the national accounts in order to distinguish these current stranded assets from the new assets (e.g. GTs and nuclear) going forward.
In addition there needs to be a complete stripping out of the personnel in the electricity supply industry that have led us to the current juncture. A similar process needs to happen in large parts of academia, but that will be much more difficult unless the sector is rewarded for promoting national energy security rather than, loosely speaking, the ‘woke’ agenda of NZ destruction from within.
In haste. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Can Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station be saved from demolition, or is it already gutted of its turbine generator string, boiler etc? It could provide power and inertia at the centre of the grid.
What can be done to improve Drax in the short-term and the long-term? More power and more inertia to be had?
Change market rules to allow dispatchable plant (e.g. gas) first dibs at supply.
New GTs will take about 8 years from placing of order to first moment of generation . Hence much renewable plant will have to be maintained until this new plant is on line.
Renewables firms will ‘walk away’ from contracts so expect taxpayer to pick up tab for decommissioning those renewables.
It is a very bad situation but has to be faced soonest as a national shoulders-to-the-wheel, shared pain project.
John C.
LikeLike
Trillions of dollars spent worldwide on wind and solar have delivered more expensive and less reliable power with serious environmental impacts.
The elephant in the room is the impact of severe wind droughts or dunkelflautes over continental areas, causing gaps in the delivery of windpower to the grid, that Paul Miskelly and Anton Lang documented in Australia over a decade ago.
Dirt farmers are alert to the threat of rain droughts, but the wind farmers never checked the reliability of the wind supply.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/we-have-to-talk-about-wind-droughts
Wind droughts become an existential threat to thousands or tens of thousands of people when the wind drought trap closes on a windless night during extreme weather conditions. See Texas in February 2021! Fluctuations in solar and wind input pose the same threat in the daytime where grids lack inertia, see the pain in Spain, 2025.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/defusing-the-wind-drought-trap
It that is not enough to convince you, then there is the problem that wind and solar are parasites, living on more efficient sources of power.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/wind-and-solar-the-energy-thieves-a0c
LikeLike
Getting shot of net zero is only part of the job. Do we have an equivalent with the same toxic omnipotence as climate change for those who run utilities, businesses and public institutions to use when things don’t go to plan? And what can we offer teachers and academics to replace the sweet nectar of righteousness from their belief in a man-made end time; the joy of building on that belief; and the satisfaction from sermonising to pass it on down the generations.
LikeLike
I guess the question is, would removing grid priority from existing renewables effectively make them commercially unsustainable, so collapsing under their own weight without more public money being spent, or are there so many guarantees built into their contracts that we’re stuffed whatever?
LikeLike
Reform UK have begun a programme of rescinding “Climate Emergency” declarations at Councils where they have a majority: https://cw50b.wordpress.com/home/ccre/
I have no doubt that this will continue apace as they gain control of more councils next May. It gives me hope that the CCA & CCC will be abolished if they form the next government.
p.s. if you enjoy the sound of Green wailing and gnashing of teeth, watch some of the webcast council meetings. They know they have lost but still keep up the lies and and ad hominems.
LikeLike
I have a dream today …
That in Belem the prime minister and the Chinese representative will jointly announce both an ambitious (and totally unrealistic) new NDC for China and that, in return, the UK will buy lots and lots of Chinese whirligigs and solar panels to be installed and maintained by a reliable Chinese workforce working out of a brand spanking new embassy in London. These Saudia-Arabia-of-Wind investments will be be paid for with most advantageous loans from Chinese banks.
Affordable Net Zero nirvana at last. What could be better? What could possibly go wrong?
National sovereignty is so terribly old fashioned, don’t you know! It’s all about “the rules based international order” now, you old fuddy duddy.
I have a nightmare today.
LikeLike
If we want the UK to be self-sustaining in electrical energy, then coal needs to play a part. Modern Coal fired thermal power station using critical and super critical steam are very efficient. Also the Uk has huge reserves of coal [last estimate 3.5 billion tonnes]. At least 25 million tonnes to my knowledge could be accessed within 3 months of being required. Also the lead time for a gas turbine plant is current 7 years, for a coal fired plant it is only 3 years.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Totally agree totally! The demonisation of coal is the greatest scam of the entire Net Zero/climate crisis scam. In the UK, we have an order of magnitude more coal (ancient, highly concentrated solar power) deposits than gas and oil and they could become economically recoverable using modern gasification techniques. But what has happened? Our politicians have delighted in closing down and even blowing up our coal-fired power stations – because coal combustion emits lots of CO2 and CO2 is what causes ‘climate breakdown’, innit!
LikeLiked by 3 people
High Efficiency Low Emissions (HELE) coal:-
https://www.futurecoal.org/sustainable-coal/high-efficiency-low-emissions-hele/
Claim of at least 47.5% efficiency cf. global average of 37.5%
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unfortunately repeal of the CCA only has limited effect – and is in any case insufficient to neutralise our international commitments.
Carbon Brief have provided a handy guide to the Climate Change Act and the lawfare that can be expected when it is repealed.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-the-climate-change-act-does-and-does-not-mean-for-the-uk/
After a recital of the political origins of the Act with much credit given to Gummer/Deben, it points out that the act doesn’t dictate how targets are to be achieved, and the CCC doesn’t have the final say on what the target should be. That reinforces the point I have made several times that the Act can be neutralised simply by declaring a new target that we passed long ago.
After more virtuous waffle we get more to the heart of the matter:
First, the government has until the end of October 2025 to publish a new plan for meeting the sixth carbon budget (CB6), covering the five-year period from 2033-2037. (This is because previous attempts were deemed inadequate by judicial review). Coming real soon now….
Second, the government has until June 2026 to legislate for the seventh carbon budget, covering the period 2037 to 2042. This legislation will be subject to a vote in parliament.
In February 2025, the CCC advised the government to set this budget at 87% below 1990 levels.
It notes The government would need to introduce a new bill in parliament just to repeal the act.
This process would involve seeking approval from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords before receiving Royal Assent to become law. Within the make-up of the current UK parliament, it is likely that such a bill would face significant challenges. which means you’d need Lords reform first
The lawfare
“In short, repeal of the Climate Change Act without any replacement commitments of a similar type would be in breach of the UK’s international obligations under: the climate change treaties (so UNFCCC, Kyoto and Paris); international human rights law and customary international law, as well as specific sources like UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.”
Any move in breach of international laws and treaties could be vulnerable to legal challenges, particularly in light of a recent opinion on climate change by the International Court of Justice.
Repealing the Climate Change Act could also put the UK in opposition with its international trade agreements.
The most recent trade agreement between the UK and the EU states that each party “reaffirms its ambition of achieving economy-wide climate neutrality by 2050”. It also contains rules on “non-regression” in relation to climate protection.
I think that the lawfare will prove a trifle ambitious when it comes to it, but it will still be a nuisance to be reckoned with. It will help if the UNFCC blows up: an early intention to follow Trump and leave would be helpful.
But regardless of those obstacles, the first things that have to be halted are the plans decided by NESO/OFGEM/DESNZ in accordance with the Energy Act 2023, the CFD Regulations 2014, and other legislation and OFGEM decisions that result for their role as delivery body for Net Zero. The programme of legislative reversal is complex and interlinked. It does not fall by repealing the CCA, which is only advisory. The advice of the CCC can be ignored or refuted by a future energy minister.
LikeLiked by 2 people
IDAU:
As I said in the header article, net zero would not be easy. However, although it might be irritating, I can see nothing in the Carbon Brief note that could not be overcome – and much of it is inaccurate and much else little more than waffle. And, although repealing the CCA may have limited legal effect (although I’m unconvinced of that), it would I suggest have significant effect as an important indication of the Government’s intention. As for your observation that the House of Lords would be a problem, that may be so but blocking a HoC Bill is usually an annoying but temporary problem – especially if the subject matter was part of the Governing party’s Manifesto.
LikeLiked by 1 person
idau,
Thanks for the analysis, and for the link. However, I take anything produced by Carbon Brief with a large pinch of salt. This sentence is borderline hilarious:
The government would need to introduce a new bill in parliament just to repeal the act.
Yes, that’s how it works in Parliament. Waving a magic wand doesn’t suffice.
The suggestion that repealing the CCA will leave the UK needing to introduce new legislation to comply with international treaties does raise a relevant issue, but one that I don’t think is quite so problematic as Carbon Brief suggests (though I accept that it isn’t entirely unproblematic). For instance, neither Kyoto nor Paris contain any legally binding obligations nor any enforcement mechanism for breach. Much depends, I suggest, on the determination of any future government seeking to make progress in this area.
One worrying aspect highlighted by Carbon Brief, however, is how deeply the establishment has endeavoured to embed net zero. For instance, I regard this as nothing short of disgraceful:
...The most recent trade agreement between the UK and the EU states that each party “reaffirms its ambition of achieving economy-wide climate neutrality by 2050”.
It also contains rules on “non-regression” in relation to climate protection….
Any new government seeking to ditch the CCA and net zero will certainly have to be on its mettle. The rearguard action fought by the pro-EU establishment in the wake of the Brexit vote was something to behold. I suspect that will be as nought compared to the reaction that will be provoked by any attempt to ditch net zero. Lawfare, whether with any legal merit or not, will be rife.
PS Apologies for the delay in your comment appearing – I don’t know how long it languished in spam before I spotted it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought it was most generous of Carbon Brief to lay out the ground on which the establishment might try to fight back, and also kindly to point out that the CCA is not quite as all-encompassing as many like to pretend. However, really my main point is that so long as the CCA can be easily sidelined (and it can, even without repeal) the real job of unpicking the net zero system is vastly complex and involves lots of other legislation that has to be repealed or modified/replaced and lots of regulatory rules ditto, done carefully in an order that keeps the lights on. It’s not a trivial task, especially when some of it is tied to things like the Windsor Framework for Brexit, and the practicalities of French pique that they will use to threaten to cut us off from the Gravelines nuclear complex, etc.
It will take people who understand how it all works much like having a good car mechanic to keep it running safely while we reconfigure it. They’ll need to know about alternative spare parts and how to fit them. They’ll need to understand that you need to tread carefully: take this from the Oct 15th ESNZ Select Committee:
Chair: I am going to ask one more question, because we have a lot of questions. We will get to each member of the Committee in the next hour and a half or so. Richard Tice wrote to some, if not all, of you warning that a Reform Government may not honour contracts for difference awarded in the current auction round. To what extent does that concern you and what effect might such political pronouncements have on energy prices in the three or four years we have until the next election, which is when a Reform Government might be elected?
Duly answered with sentiments like this:
We plan to invest £24 billion between now and 2028 to answer the challenge that the Government have put on the table. That investment, like any investment in the UK by any company, is built on a return, a guarantee and an agreement. If that agreement was to be breached, that would be wider than the electricity and gas market in the UK. That would be a bad signal for the whole of the UK if we break that agreement.
For me, some of the plus points at the moment are that at least some people with more public profile are gaining some understanding (or have gained a much more public platform for their understanding – for example, Kathryn Porter’s TRIGGERnometry podcast now has nearly 700,000 views. Even those at that ESNZ Committee hearing were daring to criticise the net zero programme. We have to get them to think it through though. They’ve only got part way so far.
LikeLiked by 2 people
idau,
No disagreement from me there. Profuse apologies for the delay in your comment appearing. I don’t know what WordPress has against you, but it relegated your comment to spam, where I have only just seen it lurking.
LikeLike
Not honouring the contracts is one thing, but as has been mentioned here and elsewhere, there is always the possibility of a windfall tax.
LikeLike
Speaking of (different) windfall taxes, I will believe this when I see it. If it comes to pass, the times really will be changing:
“UK considers scrapping oil and gas windfall tax in bid to boost growth
Treasury officials are searching for ways to boost U.K. growth ahead of November’s budget.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-treasury-oil-gas-windfall-tax-growth-november-budget/
LikeLike
For Jit:
CFD contracts are specifically protected against additional taxes under Qualifying Changes in Law clauses that would trigger immediate compensation payments. It’s why they were excluded from the Generator Levy that was put in place in the latter stages of the energy crisis.
If you want to reduce payments to CFDs you do it by making it more difficult for them to produce and earn subsidies. Delaying grid build out is one way.
LikeLike
Sorry, idau, WordPress really doesn’t like you, for some reason. I have set your comment free again.
LikeLike
And cancelling the requirement that renewables have grid priority would presumably be another.
LikeLike
Grid priority is really only more or less formal for embedded generation not signed up to the Balancing Mechanism. They can only be disconnected in emergencies under GC0147. It operates otherwise in practice through the way that the market and subsidies interact. For generation on ROCs they are entitled to bid for curtailment based on the level of subsidy they enjoy on top of market prices (which may be negative). That means that those on multiple ROCs are effectively shielded with grid priority unless there is an unavoidable need to curtail because of no transmission alternatives. For those on CFDs there are slightly different rules, partly depending on which round their CFD belongs to. The oldest CFDs, which pay high strike prices, will make good up to the strike price (but not more when market prices are negative), and thus are as well protected as those on multiple ROCs. The next tranche has the same conditions, unless day ahead market prices are negative for 6 or more contiguous hours, when they get no CFD payment for the whole period of negative pricing, which then renders them interested in self-curtailment, or trying to get paid to curtail. All the more recent CFDs pay no subsidy for any hour where the day ahead price is negative, which renders them more vulnerable to curtailment. Additionally, those with the lowest strike prices are more vulnerable to curtailment otherwise, leaving all the more costly generation to add to bills and subsidy costs.
Thus there is no formal grid priority rule – it operates by allowing them to claim for loss of revenue inclusive of applicable subsidy if they are curtailed.
LikeLike
Idau: are you saying there is no method of taxation that could not address this? There is a carbon tax. What if there was a grid-instability tax? It would have nothing to do with the CfD.
LikeLike
Yes, taxation is not the route for CFDs. You have to be much more inventive. I do have some ideas, but I am a little reluctant to put them all in the open, as that might encourage early countermeasures. I don’t mind talking about cutting the grid buildout, because that is already garnering wider support as a way to cut net zero costs, with the Big 6 explicitly mentioning it to the ESNZ Select Committee.
Note that cutting ROCs is fair game – as announced by Coutinho. Moreover there is case law that would undermine attempts at judicial review of such a choice. It has the benefit that offshore wind ROCs are costing us £150+/MWh in subsidy and overall the ROC bill this year is expected to be £7.7bn, which is much larger than CFD subsidy payments.
I hope you are getting the idea that fixing things isn’t as simple as it might be. I wish I saw that Reform were also getting that message. It would be a tragedy to see them elected and then fall down because they were ill prepared, like Truss.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Mitigating the Risks of Ending Net Zero
The Tories’ and Reform’s commitments to end Net Zero contain risks that need to be mitigated.”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/mitigating-the-risks-of-ending-net-zero
Some interesting observations regarding the difficulties and possible solutions associated with ending net zero. Worth a read, IMO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Financing the electricity system: Part 2 Hotel California and the cost of reform”
https://cloudwisdom.substack.com/p/financing-the-electricity-system-a0e
This is an excellent and informative article from Gordon Hughes. Too long to paraphrase, but well worth a read. A couple of paragraphs are, however, worth highlighting (though I urge reading the whole article):
…The costs of system balancing and the capacity market have grown rapidly over the last decade and are likely to grow even faster in future. In my assessment of the costs of the current government’s Clean Power 2030 I estimated that these items alone would increase from a total of about £4 billion in 2024 to about £15 billion in the Clean Power 2030 scenario. The costs are recovered by a levy per MWh on energy suppliers that is passed on to electricity consumers with a predicted average levy in 2030 of about £44 per MWh at 2024 prices.
It should also be noted that the structure of charges to cover balancing costs was changed in 2023-24. Up until then the costs were calculated on a half-hourly basis and were split between electricity generators and electricity consumers. The change in 2023-24 transferred all the costs to electricity consumers and the costs were averaged quarterly. This was a deliberate effort to benefit renewable generation as well as to obfuscate the extent to which the increase in intermittent renewable generation was increasing the costs borne by consumers….
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Was 2025 the year that business retreated from net zero?
From retailers to banks, carmakers to councils, the bold pledges for carbon-neutral economies are being watered down or scrapped”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/dec/20/was-2025-the-year-that-business-retreated-from-net-zero
An interesting summary – rather surprising to find it in the Guardian. Perhaps the net zero zealots are getting worried now that reality is starting to bite.
LikeLike