A few days ago I published here a short article about how Britain might escape from net zero. But, as I suggested in a comment, any thought of actually doing so meant a trip into dreamland. The principal reason for saying that was that it would require a Government with a substantial overall majority of MPs most of whom fully supported the need for action; and that doesn’t seem likely to happen for a long time, if ever: the Tory party appears to be dying and, although Reform’s prospects may look good, they are only polling about 32% – not enough for a substantial overall majority. In any case, it’s unlikely that there will be a general election until 2029. So the chances of escape would seem to be minimal.
But are they? There is I believe a possible solution – one that, although it may at first sight seem utterly fanciful, is I believe not entirely unrealistic. It’s this: that the present Government, which has certainly got the necessary majority, decides to cancel Net Zero and reverse its energy policies. Why might that happen?
Well, it’s a Government facing serious problems. Some examples: (a) unable to counter continuing Islamic atrocities, physically frightened by many of its Muslim ‘supporters’ and anxious to appease the rest despite that leading to an undermining of its promised rape gang inquiry and to the probable publication of a widely criticised ‘islamophobia’ definition; (b) threatened by a growing Reform party that’s attracting many of its traditional supporters (especially the so-called ‘Red Wall’ voters), by newly assertive Conservative politicians and by extreme left-wing parties such as Zack Polanski’s Green party and the new Corbyn/Sultana party; (c) worried by escalating closures of many essential industries with concomitant job losses; (d) concerned about the complete failure of its ‘principal mission’ of increased economic growth; (e) struggling with an appalling debt problem; (f) unable to deal with serious increases in the cost of living; (g) failing to control a huge immigration problem, especially uncontrolled illegal immigration; (h) seemingly helpless in the face of a dysfunctional Civil Service and an NHS plagued by increasing problems; (i) unable to cut massive welfare costs; (j) failing to counter damaging civil unrest; (k) unable to do anything much to help a weak and demoralised military; (l) facing numerous costly infrastructure failures; (m) in thrall to ‘woke’ attitudes such as hugely unpopular ‘trans’ beliefs; … and more. All this must be hugely demoralising for most Labour MPs.
So how might cancellation of Net Zero and reversal of its energy policy help the Government resolve any of this?
Well, several of the above problems would be directly affected: for example, it would immediately demolish a basic Reform and Tory criticism; but, more significant than that, it would destroy the principal reason for much industrial failure and for associated job losses, thereby meeting one of the concerns of erstwhile Red Wall supporters. Moreover, by ending many Net Zero costs, it would contribute to a cut in the cost of living (especially heating bills) and, by cancelling a host of climate-related regulations, contribute to the resolution of many infrastructure failures. And, arguably most significantly, it should at least help to resolve the Government’s failure to achieve economic growth.
Incidentally a useful advantage of this would be that, unlike other possible policy changes, it would almost certainly not upset Muslim voters who have shown relatively little serious interest in climate issues.
But what could even turn out to be the most important outcome of a U-turn of this magnitude would be that it would attract massive media attention – initially no doubt much of it critical. But, assuming it was sufficiently prepared, the Government should be able to deal with that and, in the process, start the national debate that has heretofore been hopelessly lacking – at last Labour’s media supporters such as the BBC and the Guardian would have to take arguments against Net Zero seriously. And I’ve no doubt the Government would get substantial, well-informed, authoritative and sympathetic help from quarters that have so far been intimidated into not speaking out. Moreover demonstrating its ability to change its mind on such an important and prominent issue could work to the great credit of the Labour Party.
But of course there would be a massive obstacle: the huge and long-lived ethos within Labour about the critically important need to ‘tackle climate change’; an ethos epitomised by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and his devoted supporters. Is there any possibility that they might be bypassed? I believe there is. And that’s because I suspect many Labour MPs, including Cabinet ministers, must – in view of the many problems listed above – be increasingly worried about their own and their Party’s future. If I’m right about this, I think they would support a bold, unexpected and even painful initiative that would almost certainly be widely welcomed in Britain as a practical step towards the resolution of some of the country’s most serious problems.
Three straws in the wind: (1) a reported possibility that, in an attempt to revive the U.K.’s flagging economy, the Government is considering a proposal to scrap the oil and gas windfall tax; (2) the recent announcement that Labour grandee, Lord Glasman, is to deliver this year’s Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Annual Lecture (on ‘Why it is good to be warm: energy as a common good’) – the GWPF is regarded by many climate activists as an organisation for climate deniers; and (3) the Tony Blair Institute’s recent recommendation that the Government should abandon its ‘clean power by 2030’ pledge.
Robin Guenier October 2025
Climate Scepticism 
I love the optimism, Robin. However, I fear that Labour MPs are – if anything – even more zealous about net zero than are most Cabinet ministers (Miliband excepted, of course).
Still, if it becomes obvious, as the next general election approaches, that net zero is a vote-loser, then perhaps attitudes might change. Nine Labour MPs, all in seats gained at the next general election, have a majority of less than 500 votes. 51 Labour seats were won with a majority of less than 5% of the vote. There must be a lot of Labour MPs who know they are vulnerable. But even then, the problem is – as you identify in your article – quite a few are vulnerable to Greens or perhaps Lib Dems, and those MPs will probably feel they need to double down on net zero if they are to stand any chance of keeping their seats.
Still, it’s a fascinating analysis, and if Starmer (assuming he is still PM by then) applies some common sense, then we may see a change. And I very much agree about today’s straws in the wind.
Fascinating times ahead.
LikeLike
Thanks Mark. But I don’t think my ‘not entirely unrealistic‘ can really be regarded as optimism.
LikeLike
Robin, you wrote, “And I’ve no doubt the Government would get substantial, well-informed, authoritative and sympathetic help from quarters that have so far been intimidated into not speaking out.”
Please could you expand as I do not understand. Why would those who are already on-message be intimidated from speaking out? Thank you.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Tony Blair is ahead of you. Essentially, he is endorsing the Coutinho approach without admitting it.
https://www.cityam.com/tony-blair-calls-on-labour-to-ditch-key-net-zero-target/
This is an illustration that sound opposition based on truth can actually be very effective, even in the face of an apparent large majority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry Robin, I think your “possible solution” is entirely unrealistic. The Labour Party is never going to cancel Net Zero because it’s above their “pay grade” to take such a decision. In fact, I think their destructive polices are deliberate. The same applies to the Conservatives who after so many years of pushing “climate change” now can’t bring themselves to go beyond saying that Net Zero is not possible by 2050. The Lib Dems, SNP and Greens are utterly unhinged on “climate change”, like the done-for Dems in the USA and the idiots in the EU.
The climate change hoax has been hard-baked for decades into every aspect of our society and economy to the extent that it cannot suddenly be stopped by an untrustworthy Uniparty U-turn. It will need a mini-revolution akin to the Trump revolution in the USA (like a proper Brexit).
It pains me to say it but the people of the UK have brought this dire state of affairs upon themselves by being so gullible and complacent for so many years. Try suggesting to the average brainwashed member of the UK general public that there is absolutely no point in trying to save CO2 emissions or that so-called renewables are a technological disaster which are on course to wreck our energy infrastructure and you will be greeted with total incomprehension and disbelief.
Having railed against the climate change hoax for about 30 years I am more sceptical and downright cynical than most on the ulterior motives of the globalist so-called elites. They have “let the cat out of the bag” on many occasions that Net Zero has nothing to do with climate but is a mere pretext to the imposition one-world governance. They showed their true colours through their Covid “plandemic” when they tried, and thankfully failed, to digitally shackle the entire populace on vaccine passports.
Arch-globalist Tony Blair now realises that the climate change monster he and his fellow globalists have unleashed has been a big mistake, but only because of the unanticipated consequence that its ruinous impacts will let “populists” into power and scupper all the globalist grifts hitherto facilitated by the treasonous Uniparty.
Blair is now pushing for mandatory digital ids (cf. Covid vaccine passports) which puppet Starmer plans to enforce on the intelligence-insulting pretext of stopping illegal immigrants from working. Blair obviously sees this a much easier way to enslave the populace than starving them of energy and food and impoverishing them through the climate change hoax. DO NOT COMPLY!
Unfortunately for the technically ignorant Blair and Starmer it is now far too late to avoid the UK lights going out due to the 8-year lead time on commissioning new gas power stations (and even longer for nuclear) caused by the high global demand for more power. Like a giant tanker trying to change course, the climate change hoax cannot now avoid the inevitable painful crash with reality which realists have been predicting for years. STOCK UP ON ESSENTIALS!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin – I would agree with you that the brakes on the NZ juggernaut are now being slowly applied as the reality & false promises begin to be exposed to UK public through MSM outlets (some more than others).
But a U-turn under Labour without booting out Ed? no chance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Politically, IMO, it is very difficult to get Labour to change. They are currently competing with the Greens and the Lib-Dems on the belief that UK net zero is concerned with saving the planet for future generations. Many people I know hold onto this belief, as (I believe) do the vast majority of MPs. What is needed is a gestalt switch in thinking amongst the vast majority of the honourable members as great as occurred on the slavery issue between 1790 and 1850. That switch resulted in great resources and the naval might of the greatest power on earth, driving out slavery in much of the world as well.
The false belief is in the tacit assumption that the rest of the world thinks and acts as they do. The reality is that greenhouse gases are well-mixed, so it is irrelevant where in the world emissions originate. Each tonne emitted of a trace gas will have an equal impact as any other. UK policy can only have a very marginal impact on climate, and any possible benefits of UK net zero are spread across the globe. The “saving” of future generations of British people is almost entirely from the rest of the world. But (as Robin tirelessly points out) the UK is part of a group of countries with less than 15% of global emissions who are obliged under international law to reduce their emissions, AND who are aggressively reducing their emissions.
So even if the costs of efficient uniform global policy were a small fraction of the costs of unmitigated catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, the costs and burdens of current policies of UK policies on the British people as a whole are many times the CAGW costs mitigated. Further, nobody would be able to discern the climatic difference of British policy.
The capability of the UK government, with regard to climate mitigation, is only about whether or not they impose useless burdens on the vast majority of the British people. Climate science is irrelevant.
LikeLike
I think Kevin’s belief about the mindset of a huge proportion of MPs is borne out by this article:
“Expansion of airports put climate targets at risk, MPs say”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62exx578lzo
…The report from the cross-party Environmental Audit Committee said the government had also “not demonstrated” that the negative climate impact of expansion would be outweighed by the economic growth created.…
…The Environmental Audit Committee said the only prospect of meeting net zero would be if airport expansion was “accompanied by a serious strategic approach to increasing the pace of decarbonising aviation”.…
…On Wednesday, the Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander told Parliament that Heathrow’s expansion plans “must align with our legal, environmental and climate commitments”.
A spokesperson for the DfT said: “We have been clear that airport expansion will only go ahead if it aligns with our legal obligations on climate change, including net zero, and we will be seeking advice from the independent Climate Change Committee to inform the ANPS review.”…
LikeLike
John C, you ask why people who understand the issues would be intimidated from speaking out. I believe the answer is that there are, most unfortunately, numerous people (especially in academia, scientific institutions and the public service) – and particularly people at the start of their careers who have young families and mortgages – who would have good reason to fear that classification as a denier, could destroy their chances of promotion, access to funding – even lead to dismissal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
dfhunter, you say ‘a U-turn under Labour without booting out Ed? no chance.‘
I agree. But in any case I suspect that, as soon as he saw that attitudes were changing irrevocably, he’d resign.
LikeLike
Kevin, I agree that it’s difficult to get Labour to change. That’s why I introduced my piece by saying about my ‘solution’ that ‘although it may at first sight seem utterly fanciful, is I believe not entirely unrealistic.’ But I think there’s something happening now that’s probably unprecedented for a political party: after little more than a year in office Labour is facing an extraordinary number of problems – see my third paragraph. Add to that Tony Blair’s intervention and this morning’s news that they’ve suffered a humiliating defeat in the Caerphilly by-election. They must be close to desperation. And that must mean that they’re looking for a solution – any solution. And in these circumstances dumping net zero could be attractive for the reasons I spelled out in my piece. I think the Daily Sceptic put it quite well this morning:
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was Dr Samuel Johnson who said that nothing more wonderfully concentrates a condemned man’s mind than the sight of the gallows.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on taste, we have now put that sort of barbarity/efficiency behind us and modern fashion is to dispose of the great and the good by way of the ballot box.
I suppose that makes the modern equivalent of the scaffold the thought of standing on the stage on election night and hearing the returning officer announce that the voters have decided that, henceforth, your seat on the gravy train will be occupied by the well-padded bottom of someone other than yourself.
So Robin’s qualified optimism may be justified after all.
LikeLike
Robin, you wrote, “… numerous people (especially in academia, scientific institutions and the public service) – and particularly people at the start of their careers who have young families and mortgages – who would have good reason to fear that classification as a denier, could destroy their chances of promotion, access to funding – even lead to dismissal.”
How did this climate of fear come about, I wonder. I also wonder whether anybody or any organisations are responsible, either morally or legally, for this unhappy turn of events.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
“How did this climate of fear come about, I wonder. I also wonder whether anybody or any organisations are responsible, either morally or legally, for this unhappy turn of events.”
Try the main stream media, and specifically the BBC and their clandestine meeting many years ago where it was agreed that any reporting of information contrary to the “climate science” would be suppressed.
LikeLike
John C, you wonder how the climate of fear I described came about. I think unpopularity for disagreeing with the orthodox view has always been true of human organisations. Not so many years ago it could be fatal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think it will happen. Labour MPs are equally, if not more cowed by the Green Blob as they are scared of Islam. The Green Blob may not be as prone to violent retribution as radical Islam, but its tendrils run very deep inside the corridors of power and no doubt its agents have many ways, both fair and foul, to convince politicians to stick with The Plan.
LikeLike
Not forgetting that Muslim politicians are increasingly aligning themselves with the Green Party and the environmental lobby, no doubt with the intention of infiltrating it and taking over once they have dispensed with the mask of environmental concern. It’s no coincidence that Mothin Ali is now Deputy Leader of the Greens, so by dropping Net Zero targets, Labour might be upsetting a fair proportion of Muslim voters and politicians who view environmentalism as a convenient shoe-in to get hold of the levers of power; certainly a good way to attract funding which they might struggle to do otherwise.
LikeLike
I don’t see the Labour Party and MPs changing their minds on Net Zero. Some will be thinking that saving the planet is necessary whatever the cost. Some will not want to admit they have been fooled – as Mark Twain said : “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.” And for some the destruction of the economy and national security is their goal. The end of Net Zero can only come about via a new administration with a GE mandate to cancel Net Zero plus a referendum to counter the HoL, the Civil Service, academia, the MSM and very importantly, the judiciary etc. This is assuming a peaceful end of Net Zero.
LikeLike
Interesting & relevant – We Can’t Stop Climate Change, So We Need to Prepare for It – WSJ
To be honest It’s nothing new. Partial quote –
“For too long, the debate over climate change has been framed as a battle between denial and ambition, between doing nothing and doing everything. It’s time to embrace a third way: clear-eyed realism. We must acknowledge what humanity is and isn’t willing to sacrifice and plan accordingly.”
LikeLike
You forgot spoiler clout. Obama laughed at the idea of the Dems making a move to stop shooting people over cannabis, remember?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTrrqEdrI8
Then the 2016 libertarian candidate got 4 million votes covering the DEM-GOP gap in 13 states casting 127 electoral votes. Hillary lost. Next thing ya know, weed is legal in over a dozen states and there’s Prez Biden saying nobody should go to jail for marijuana. Libertarians help voters defeat the worst of the entrenched Kleptocracy candidates and change policy by showing them what voters effectively demand.
LikeLike
John Brown, you say: ‘I don’t see the Labour Party and MPs changing their minds on Net Zero‘.
That’s why I introduced my piece by saying about my ‘solution’ that ‘although it may at first sight seem utterly fanciful, it is I believe not entirely unrealistic.’ And that’s because there’s something happening now that’s probably unprecedented for a political party: after little more than a year in office Labour is facing a quite extraordinary number of serious problems – see my third paragraph. Add to that Tony Blair’s intervention re the net zero policy and this morning’s news that they’ve suffered a humiliating defeat in the Caerphilly by-election. They must be close to desperation. And that must mean that they’re looking for a solution – any solution. And in these circumstances dumping net zero (and Ed Miliband) – although very painful and even contrary to their instincts – could nonetheless be attractive for the reasons I spelled out in my piece.
LikeLike
Robin,
I enjoyed your article, and I accept that you concede such a change of Labour policy is a long-shot. I take on board all that you say about the mess that Labour finds itself in. However, I wonder if the election of Lucy Powell as Deputy Leader doesn’t argue against the desirable outcome you hope for? This BBC report:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg924nrgd3o
had her saying:
…she would use her role to “bring voices” who believe the government is not being bold enough “to the heart of our party”.…She said the party could not win support by “trying to ‘out-Reform’ Reform”.….
That suggests to me that party members have just voted for doubling-down, not for changing direction. Certainly, reversing net zero would be a serious attempt to ‘out-Reform’ Reform.
On the other hand, I think the result of the CfD AR7 could be of critical importance. As I have just emailed to my friend, my discussion with whom triggered my last article:
…the outcome of AR7 is very important… If it surprises me and comes in with plenty of offers at the price the government has set, then it will be a “success” in the government’s terms. Locking in to those prices (with indexation) for 20 years might not be too bad a thing if technological advances mean that the grid can cope, back-up can cope and all at improving costs (fingers firmly crossed). But if the renewables industry gives a big thumbs-down to the prices on offer, then one of two things will happen. Either [Miliband] will be allowed to offer absurdly high prices to keep his plan on track, and that will be a national disaster. Or he will be forced by saner voices in the Cabinet (assuming there are any) to abandon his 2030 plans, and to accept that we need to effect the transition more slowly. That will be a very good thing. So, depending on the industry’s response, we have three possible outcomes – one very good, one acceptable, and one very bad. I await the outcome with bated breath.
I think we will have a clearer picture when we have the AR7 results and when we know the government’s reaction to that process.
LikeLike
Thanks Mark – an interesting perspective. But I still think a U-turn on net zero is possible, if unlikely. The election of Lucy Powell brings yet more misery for Starmer and what must be unwelcome comment in much of the media. As I said in my piece, cancellation would directly resolve several of their problems as well as scuppering a major Tory and Reform criticism; and undermining Reform is now an important Labour priority. But, above all, I suggest it would create a huge media distraction, taking attention away from many of their current problems.
LikeLike
Robin,
Cancelling net zero would in many ways be a brilliant move for the government, since it would solve so many pressing economic problems, and would also pull the rug from under the feet of what are arguably the two main opposition parties (Reform and the Tories). On the other hand, it would be yet another broken manifesto promise, it would play very badly with the (deluded) party faithful, and it might drive many of their few remaining supporters into the arms of the Lib Dems and Greens.
It would be a bold but high-risk strategy. I don’t think Starmer’s up to “bold”. On the other hand, he might not be PM for much longer at this rate!
LikeLike
Mark,
I think they’ve pretty well given up on abiding by the manifesto. And, yes, it would almost certainly drive some of their MPs (and probably supporters) into the arms of the Lib Dems and Greens. But they can afford to lose a few MPs and I’m dubious about supporters and the Party faithful, many of whom might be encouraged to see the Party taking a bold, positive and imaginative step at last.
But I agree with you about Starmer. However, as I said in my reply to John Brown just now, he (and his Cabinet) must be desperate and desperate people can embrace almost anything that might relieve their pain.
LikeLike
As previously mentioned, I have an academic friend who is a member of the Labour Party, self-identifies as a socialist, and is a Guardian reader. During the week I received an e-mail from him recommending that I watch Ed Miliband’s interview on last week’s Kuensberg show as it showed a minister on top of his brief. The top minister in the cabinet, no less – the other front-runner being Bridget Phillipson, I was told.
So I watched the section relating to energy and our Ed was, as ever, still spouting the same nonsense about gas being to blame for our high electricity prices. This was debunked by prof. Dieter Helm months ago. Specifically, in mid-March Helm wrote, “If asked why the cost of energy to the energy-intensive industries in the UK is the highest in the industrial world, the Secretary of State would no doubt point to the “high and volatile gas prices”. In doing so, he should perhaps think a little more: other countries use gas too, but their prices are lower.” https://dieterhelm.co.uk/publications/defence-and-the-retreat-from-net-zero/
I had told my friend some time ago about this complete debunking but received the non-sequitur reply that Helm is keener than ever on decarbonisation.
I deduce from this sample of one fervent advocate/supporter (who has struggled and still struggles with energy concepts) that our Ed is not for turning and not for dislodging either – science, engineering and economics count for nothing in that world. The delusional narrative is the thing.
Sorry I cannot be more positive but that is my message from the Labour supporter’s front line.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David Turver’s latest is in a similar vein to Robin’s article:
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/high-energy-bills-fuelling-revolutionary
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, I’ve just been reading the full report to which Turver refers. It’s HERE and it’s most interesting. It’s been well understood for a long time that the cost of living is top of most people’s concerns but what the report shows very clearly is that it’s energy costs that are understood to be the root cause of the problem. This emphasises your suggestion that for the Government to cancel net zero could be a brilliant move.
LikeLike
John C, it might be interesting to send the link to David Turver’s article to your academic friend, asking him for his view.
LikeLike
Robin, thank you. I have not yet replied to my friend but the thought had already crossed my mind that Turver’s article (indeed much of his oeuvre in due course) might make disturbing/dystopian reading for him.
We started e-mailing on such matters back in 2019, but I don’t think the reality I presented to him has moved him more than a jot. Indeed, he has often disputed my reality e.g. by contesting the wind energy costs deduced from audited accounts by prof. Gordon Hughes.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
I have a sort of ‘end of days’ feeling today. Because of this rudderless government and its most wooden of wooden leaders? Because of its destructive energy policies? I do not know. Anyway, Kipling’s poem “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” has come back to me again today, just as it has many times these last couple of months. https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_copybook.htm
A few choice quotes and mis-quotes to set me on my way as I fire up my noisy vacuum cleaner:-
In the [post-]Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man There are only four things certain since Social Progress began. That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John C,
If I were responding to your friend I think I would use a serious version of the comment I just posted – very much tongue in cheek – on Mark’s latest article ‘The Korean Conundrum’. I’d say something on the lines of this: ‘OK assuming your understanding is correct, do you think Britain’s net zero policy can make a useful contribution to resolving the problem?‘
LikeLiked by 1 person
As I’ve said, I think it’s unlikely the Government will take the bold step of cancelling net zero despite the many advantages of so doing. And it’s surely absurd to think they might do so now. But just think of how much it would help Rachel Reeves as she struggles to compose her November budget.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, when I last spoke to (as opposed to e-mailing) my friend on this matter, some 2 years ago, he said that the UK had to be an example to China in order to show that a low energy lifestyle is achievable.
When I further challenged him as to when he was going to lead by example, he replied “in a couple of years”. I think, by his own reckoning, that his time may be up by now.
Thank you. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark Hodgson @ 24 Oct 25 at 7:36 am
The BBC has a number of stories under it’s climate section that will, empirically, have zero impact on global warming. That is if you round any warming impact to two or three places of decimals. The article refer to on UK airport expansion does not give any estimates of the additional CO2 emissions so no estimates can be made. However, there was article on the 15th October
Controversial UK oil field publishes full scale of climate impact
The “climate” impacts are a figure of 250 millions tonnes of carbon dioxide from the usage of its estimated lifetime output. But no effort to estimate the warming impact, but at least a figure to work with if we make the unlikely assumption that the output will be an addition to global output, not partly or fully replacing output that have occurred elsewhere. I used data from the 2021 IPCC WG3 SPM to calculate that the oil field would increase global average temperatures by around 0.00015 °C. It would have zero impact on climate, before the uncertainties are considered.
https://manicbeancounter.com/2025/10/27/the-insignificance-of-the-rosebank-oil-field-on-climate-change/
LikeLiked by 4 people
Manic, I made a calculation on this topic back in February. I got 0.000092 K.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jit, we are actually fairly close. I started with 2.36 times the CO2 (250 MtCO2 v 106 MtCO2) to come out with 1.63 times the warming. You have tried to work from scientific principles, whereas I have used the the data of others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bill Gates is suddenly skeptical: pivots away from climate doom and renewables « JoNova
Which links to – A new approach for the world’s climate strategy | Bill Gates
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly, Robin, here’s the answer:
“UK unveils ‘carbon budget delivery plan’ to get back on track for net zero targets
Ed Miliband says pushing for renewable energy and lower emissions will reduce household bills and boost economy”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/29/uk-unveils-carbon-budget-delivery-plan-to-get-back-on-track-for-net-zero-targets
It seems the zealots are doubling-down:
The UK government will go “all in” on clean energy and climate policy, the energy secretary has said, as he unveiled plans to put the UK back on track to reach its net zero commitments.
In the face of intensifying attacks on climate policy from the poll-leading Reform UK party and the Conservatives, the government insists that pushing for renewable energy and lower carbon emissions will reduce household bills and boost the economy....
And as I have always argued, Starmer is also a net zero zealot. I think those who pin this all on Miliband and who believe Starmer will see sense are profoundly mistaken:
…The prime minister, Keir Starmer, has backed the blueprint, called the “carbon budget delivery plan”, published on Wednesday afternoon, by which the government has reaffirmed its commitment to decarbonise the UK’s electricity supply by 2030 and reduce greenhouse gas emissions drastically by 2037.…
It seems Labour is determined to gift the (likely) 2029 general election to Reform:
...Recommitting to climate action is a calculated political gamble. Reform has made scrapping net zero and climate policy, and pushing for an increase in fossil fuel use, a centrepiece of its policy offering. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, has also vowed to repeal the Climate Change Act and push for more gas.
Some within the Labour party want Starmer to follow suit by abandoning the pledge to decarbonise electricity and allow for more fossil fuel use. The former Labour leader Tony Blair’s thinktank has pushed for such a U-turn several times this year….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, I disagree about that being an answer.
It’s been suggested that, with Cliscep’s agreement, I might write an expanded version of the header article for The Daily Sceptic. So far I’ve only written a first draft of the opening paragraph. But, in doing so, I decided to refer to today’s ‘doubling down’. Here’s what I said:
As for Starmer being ‘a net zero zealot’, I suggest he’s only a zealot for whatever position he’s persuaded is currently appropriate: a U-turn on increasing income tax today could well be succeeded by a U-turn on net zero tomorrow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
I love your optimism, but I fear it’s based on rationalism, and I think that’s in short supply in the current Labour government and on its back benches. Still, you might be interested in this (it’s in the Telegraph, but the link below gets past the paywall):
“Miliband will not achieve net zero, public believes
Confidence in Britain’s ability to hit green targets has fallen, according to the Government’s own polling”
https://archive.ph/59WZ1#selection-2127.4-2131.110
LikeLike
But Mark, as I’ve said before, the Government must be getting desperate – and desperate people can do anything however painful if they believe it might help them to avoid a dreadful outcome. And, if that Telegraph report is accurate, the chances of them executing a net zero U-turn are surely increased?
An extract from the report:
LikeLike
Robin,
We agree about so much, but not about this.
I have no doubt that Starmer has given up on attracting votes from the centre right, and feels his best chance is to set himself up in opposition to Reform (and the Tories) over net zero, an area where he is desperate to avoid leaching votes to the even greater net zero zealots in the Lib Dems, Greens and Your Party (whatever that is). The latest opinion poll has the Greens just 1% behind Labour, and I am sure that Starmer is looking nervously over his shoulder at them.
The other point is that I am equally sure that he actually believes the net zero rubbish spouted by his government. It’s hard to persuade a true believer to change tack, even where there own interests suggest it’s a good idea. Religious zealots tend not to be amenable to reason.
LikeLike
Well Mark, you may well be right. You’ll recall that from the outset I’ve been clear that it it was unlikely – ‘not entirely unrealistic‘ – that Labour would abandon net zero. However I don’t think it’s impossible. As for Starmer, I believe that people in extremis can do surprising things and I don’t think he’s an exception. He probably hasn’t reached that stage yet, but I think he must be getting close.
LikeLike
Speaking of net zero zealots:
“Boris Johnson tells Tories to stop ‘bashing green agenda’ or risk losing next election
Former PM says he has not seen party ‘soaring in the polls as a result of saying what rubbish net zero is’”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/30/boris-johnson-conservatives-green-politics-election
LikeLike
Mark, you wrote, “It’s hard to persuade a true believer to change tack, even where there own interests suggest it’s a good idea. Religious zealots tend not to be amenable to reason.” Your words reminded me of a quote from Gray’s book on totalitarianism that I used in my On Totalitarianism thread:-
QUOTE
[page 17] “Totalitarian governments will often engage in, and maintain, policies that look irrational (or even borderline insane) when viewed from the outside … Indeed, it is rare to find a totalitarian government that does not engage in at least some activities that seem irrational.”
END OF QUOTE.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
John C,
As the (not yet totalitarian) Government’s climate policies are much the same as those of most other Western governments (except now the US’s) I don’t think most observers would regard them as irrational.
LikeLike
Robin, thank you. The issue of (ir)rationality is precisely the point I want to take up. However, I will do it on the Net Zero Democracy thread as my comments will draw upon a long comment I had recently made there. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
From Australia:
“Nationals members vote to ditch net zero target from party platform”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/nov/01/nationals-members-vote-to-ditch-net-zero-target-from-party-platform
LikeLike
“Sadiq Khan calls on Reeves to bring ‘authentic’ Labour budget that boosts green investment
London mayor says government should stay true to its beliefs and face down those who claim net zero adds to cost of living”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/02/sadiq-khan-calls-on-reeves-to-bring-authentic-labour-budget-that-boosts-green-investment
Net zero is hard-wired into Labour, I’m afraid.
LikeLike
“Starmer affirms UK commitment to climate action ahead of Cop30 summit”
https://www.aol.com/news/starmer-affirms-uk-commitment-climate-223013681.html
...The PM also argued that the green transition is “more than just an obligation” but comes with “massive opportunities for us”.
“As we move to, for example, renewable energy, that is a good thing for our planet, but it’s also a really good thing for the jobs of the future, and sustainable way in which we want to grow our economy,” he said….
Utterly deluded.
LikeLiked by 2 people
From the Guardian yesterday:
As you say Mark utterly deluded. And no chance of that bold U-turn.
LikeLiked by 3 people
When you’ve invested so much of your credibility in “saving the world”. From setting up climate change act 2008 thru to “Prime Minister Boris Johnson says he wants to make a “big bet” on renewables, turning the UK into the “Saudi Arabia” of wind power.” to the Mad ED today, you have no way to get out of the hole that only gets deeper.
LikeLike
“‘Giving up would be a betrayal’: Miliband says 1.5C target still alive before Cop30
Exclusive: Environment secretary says global tipping points are possible as he rejects far-right climate ‘defeatism’”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/07/ed-miliband-says-climate-target-still-alive-before-cop30
Tackling the climate emergency is one of the key issues that could turn the tide against hard-right populists across the world, the UK’s energy secretary has said.
Speaking on the eve of the UN’s climate summit, Ed Miliband said it was the cause progressives could rally around, because most people recognise populist parties have got it wrong.
“We’re not going to give up and the progress that we’ve already made should give us heart,” he said. “Giving up would be a total betrayal. Defeatism never took a single of a fraction of a degree of global warming. It never created a single job. It never did anything.”...
…“We’ve got to be the bearers of hope,” Miliband said. “We can fight back. Climate is a strength [in the battle against hard-right populism] not a weakness. We’re about giving a better future for people’s kids and grandkids.”
He warned that populists wanted people to slip into gloom and defeatism over the prospects of climate breakdown. Progressives must make the climate their core rallying cry, as most people around the world want climate action, he said.…
Definitely a true believer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘a true believer‘
… and always will be.
LikeLike
Climate crisis cultists:
“Oh no! The Net Zero/climate change consensus is falling apart. We’ve tried the burning world, heatwaves, droughts, deluges and hurricanes, the disappearing coral reefs, the disappearing ice and the disappearing polar bears. It’s time to deploy the new climate variant – tipping points!”
William was prattling on about tipping points too. They’re obviously getting very desperate.
LikeLike
Mark, the question of betrayal is most pertinent, I think. But betrayal of what and of whom?
Perhaps they mean the betrayal of the working class by the one-time party of labour that is now increasing energy prices so as to destroy working class jobs. Or perhaps they mean the despoilation of the UK’s bit of Gaia by covering the land with enormous solar farms, or covering the land and the sea with bird, bat and insect chopping wind turbines- how green is that?
I could go on, but I have said enough for now. I am disgusted. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Europe’s Green Energy Rush Slashed Emissions—and Crippled the Economy – WSJ
Quote –
“European politicians pitched the continent’s green transition to voters as a win-win: Citizens would benefit from green jobs and cheap, abundant solar and wind energy alongside a sharp reduction in carbon emissions.
Nearly two decades on, the promise has largely proved costly for consumers and damaging for the economy.
Europe has succeeded in slashing carbon emissions more than any other region—by 30% from 2005 levels, compared with a 17% drop for the U.S. But along the way, the rush to renewables has helped drive up electricity prices in much of the continent.
Germany now has the highest domestic electricity prices in the developed world, while the U.K. has the highest industrial electricity rates, according to a basket of 28 major economies analyzed by the International Energy Agency. Italy isn’t far behind. Average electricity prices for heavy industries in the European Union remain roughly twice those in the U.S. and 50% above China. Energy prices have also grown more volatile as the share of renewables increased.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
As mentioned by John C here, Jo Nova has a piece on this story.
LikeLike
It seems embattled Labour doesn’t want a solution. Instead, it is likely to double down on the problem:
“Starmer to Push Britain into Stricter Net Zero Targets Under EU Deal”
https://dailysceptic.org/2025/12/24/starmer-to-push-britain-into-stricter-net-zero-targets-under-eu-deal/
…The EU’s demands emerged in a document placed without fanfare on the Cabinet Office website. The plan is both technically challenging and politically sensitive because it would make UK energy policy subject to EU jurisdiction.
It stated: “The Electricity Agreement should… set an indicative global target for the share of renewable energy in the gross final consumption of energy in the United Kingdom. To ensure a level playing field, the global target should be comparable to that of the European Union.”
The EU’s target is that 42.5% of all its energy should come from renewables by 2030, with an aspiration to reach 45%.This is roughly double the UK’s current level of 22%.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
A comment by David Turver about the EU target quoted in that Daily Sceptic article:
Yet that may be precisely where we’re heading.
LikeLiked by 1 person