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; this refers to CO2 and ‘other targeted greenhouse gases’. Only five MPs voted against it. Then in 2019, by secondary legislation and without serious debate, Parliament increased the 80% to 100%, creating the Net Zero policy, under which remaining emissions must be offset by equivalent removals from the atmosphere.i
Unfortunately, this policy is unachievable, potentially disastrous and pointless –irrespective of whether or not Britain’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions influence global temperatures.
1. It’s unachievable
1.1 Fossil fuels are essential. Modern industry and infrastructure depend on fossil fuels or oil derivatives for a vast range of productsii. Examples include: ammonia for fertilisers, cement and concrete, primary steel, plastics, insecticides, pharmaceuticals, anaesthetics, semiconductors, lubricants, solvents, paints, resins, adhesives, insulation, tyres and asphalt. Many vehicles and machines – used for example in agriculture, mining and quarrying, mineral processing, building, heavy transport, shipping, aviation, the military and emergency services – cannot operate without fossil fuels. Commercially viable alternatives have yet to be developed.iii
1.2 Shortage of skills. Britain lacks the necessary technical managers, electrical, heating and other engineers, electricians, plumbers, welders, mechanics and other skilled tradespeople required to meet the 2030 target required for Net Zero; all exacerbated by the Government’s house building plans.iv
2. It’s potentially disastrous
2.1 Wind power limitations. As Britain’s latitude limits solar power, wind is the most practical renewable energy source. However it faces serious constraints e.g.
- the high costs of subsidies, construction, operation and maintenance, especially with high interest rates;
- the complex engineering and planning challenges of expanding a stable high-voltage grid by 2030;v
- intermittency (see 2.2 below).viii
These difficulties and others described below raise serious doubts about Britain’s ability to generate by 2030 sufficient electricity for today’s needs let alone for EVs, heat pumps, industry and in particular the data centres supporting AI.ix
2.2 Back-up and storage challenges. The Government aims for 95% renewable electricity by 2030 but has not published a fully costed engineering plan for grid stability when there’s little or no wind or sun; a problem exacerbated by the likely retirement of elderly nuclear and gas power plants. Proposed solutions – new gas-fired plants with carbon capture and underground storage (CCS)x, ‘green’ hydrogen and batteries – face long lead times, high costs and unproven commercial viability.xi xii Battery storage is limited by short duration, degradation, safety risks and high cost.xiii Yet, without reliable back-up, electricity blackouts are likely, bringing major problems for business and serious health risks for everyone, particularly the most vulnerable. The blackout in Spain on 28th April 2025 (probably the result of lack of ‘grid inertia’xiv) caused at least 8 deaths xv; a UK winter blackout could be far worse.
2.3 Overall cost. As there’s no comprehensive delivery plan, it’s impossible to produce an accurate estimate of the project’s overall cost. However estimates indicate a likely cost of several trillion pounds.xvi The borrowing and taxes required to fund this would put a huge burden on households and businesses and, particularly in view of the economy’s many current problems,xvii would further stress Britain’s already fragile economy.
2.4 High energy prices. Renewable system costs – including subsidies, carbon taxes, grid balancing, grid expansion, constraint payments and back-up – have contributed to Britain having the highest industrial and amongst the highest domestic electricity prices in the developed world.xviii The additional costs of for example grid upgrades, investment in ‘green’ hydrogen and CCS will make this even worse, undermining the Government’s key mission of increased economic growth.
2.5 Dependence on foreign suppliers. Policies restricting North Sea oil and gas increase uncertain reliance on imports and on European electricity. More critically however Britain’s dependence on China’s goodwill, exemplified by its effective control of the supply of key materials (e.g. lithium, cobalt, graphite, nickel, copper and so-called rare earths), poses strategic risks including potential Chinese control of supply chains and embedded vulnerabilities such as ‘kill switches’; this dependence poses a major risk to Britain’s entire economic security.xix
2.6 Infrastructure vulnerability. Britain’s growing number of offshore wind turbines and undersea cables are becoming increasingly vulnerable to sabotage.xx Likewise a growing and complex grid infrastructure offers an obvious target for hostile hackers aiming to destroy our energy and economic security.xxi
2.7 Environmental and social problems. Renewable energy expansion is mineral-intensive: the vast mining and mineral processing operations are causing severe environmental damage and human suffering throughout the world, often affecting fragile ecosystems and the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.xxii Note also that renewables’ increasing demand for key minerals for which demand exceeds likely supply may well threaten their future viability.xxiii
3. It’s pointless
3.1 ‘Exporting’ emissions is senseless. Closing GHG emitting activities in Britain and importing the relevant products from countries that have weaker environmental regulation and often use coal-fired electricity – thereby increasing global emissions – makes no sense. Examples include chemical, fertiliser and primary steel industries that face extinction.xxiv xxv Importing vast amounts of wood for the subsidised Drax power plant, Britain’s biggest emitter of CO2 – burning a fuel that emits more CO2 than coalxxvi – is a related nonsense.
3.2 Britain’s impact is marginal. The USAxxvii plus most non-Western countries – together the source of over 80% of global GHG emissions – 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.xxviii As a result, global emissions are increasing (by 62% since 1990) and are set to continue to increase for the foreseeable future. Britain is the source of only 0.7% of global emissions; further reductions would make no discernible global difference.xxix
Summary: Net Zero means Britain is legally obliged to pursue an unachievable, disastrous and pointless policy – a policy that imperils our national security and could result in Britain’s economic devastation.
NOTE: Nothing above addresses the ‘Net’ in Net Zero because offsetting residual emissions via GHG removal is highly controversial and uncertain. In particular it would require comprehensive international agreement about for example environmental risk, possible leakage, national transparency and third party verification – an outcome that evidence from international climate negotiations suggests is most unlikely to happen. xxx
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
Also see this: https://co2coalition.substack.com/p/climate-faithful-admit-need-for-fossil
iii Regarding steel for example see the penultimate paragraph of this interesting article: https://www.construction-physics.com/p/the-blast-furnace-800-years-of-technology.
iv A detailed Government report: http://tiny.cc/bgg5001 See also pages 10 and 11 of the Royal Academy of Engineering report (Note 10 below). Also see: http://tiny.cc/0mm9001
v https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/02/09/orgem-net-zero-backlog-risks-grid-target/
vi See Andrews & Jelley, “Energy Science”, 3rd ed., Oxford, page 16: http://tiny.cc/4jhezz
vii See paragraph 2.5 above. Also: https://energydigital.com/sustainability/mckinsey-2030-battery-raw-material-outlook
viii For a comprehensive view of wind power’s many problems, see this: https://watt-logic.com/2023/06/14/wind-farm-costs/.
ix Re the AI dilemma: http://tiny.cc/axxy001 and http://tiny.cc/ikty001
x 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.
xi https://watt-logic.com/2025/12/30/offshore-pipeline-closure-risk/
xii Re CCS: http://tiny.cc/emi9001, and https://heimildin.is/grein/24581/. Re hydrogen: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-2-14-when-you-crunch-the-numbers-green-hydrogen-is-a-non-starter.
xiii Why batteries are not the solution: https://nenpower.com/blog/what-are-the-main-challenges-in-integrating-battery-energy-storage-with-renewable-energy/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
xiv 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/
xv See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Iberian_Peninsula_blackout.
xvi A report published by the Institute of Economic Affairs says that net zero could cost at least £7.6 trillion between now and 2050: https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Cost-of-Net-Zero-Turver-1.pdf And in this presentation Professor Michael Kelly also indicates how the cost would amount to several trillion pounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkImqOxMqvU And re continuing uncertainty: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/02/17/miliband-miss-net-zero-targets-unless-spends-extra-75bn/
xvii A worrying view of the current state of Britain’s economy: http://tiny.cc/nli9001
xviii For international price comparisons see Table 5.3.1 here: http://tiny.cc/9kbt001. Note that the UK’s industrial electricity price is well above that of our international competition. And note, from Table 5.7.1, that the UK gas price is about average and from table 5.5.1, that domestic electricity prices are exceptionally high. Also see this comprehensive report: https://watt-logic.com/2025/05/19/new-report-the-true-affordability-of-net-zero/
xix See http://tiny.cc/0gvj001. An article by Richard Dearlove (ex-head of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6)) on national security risk and net zero: http://tiny.cc/wbev001/. Re ‘kill switches’: http://tiny.cc/vgvj001.
xx Re vulnerability concerns: http://tiny.cc/9ruf001 and http://tiny.cc/xau9001. This essay by Dieter Helm (Professor of Economic Policy at Oxford) covers vulnerability and much else: http://tiny.cc/dtyf001
xxi Re hacker risk to the electric grid: https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/power-at-risk-uk-energy-grid-cyberattack-threat-rpWxY_2/
xxii See http://tiny.cc/gtazzz, http://tiny.cc/unx8001 and https://eia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/EIA_US_Wind_Turbine_Timber_Report_1024_FINAL.pdf. And harrowing evidence is found in Siddharth Kara’s book Cobalt Red : http://tiny.cc/nmm9001. For more detailed views of minerals’ environmental and economic costs: http://tiny.cc/klz9001 and http://tiny.cc/qj0u001
xxiii A problem that’s reviewed here: http://tiny.cc/6dzq001
xxiv As explained here: http://tiny.cc/chg5001
xxv A current example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70zxjldqnxo
xxvi See this: https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/drax-is-still-the-uks-largest-emitter/. And this Public Accounts Committee report: http://tiny.cc/qpwh001 And note the irony of castigating ourselves for not planting enough trees in Britain: https://www.itv.com/news/2026-01-07/uk-risks-missing-climate-targets-without-rapid-tree-planting
xxvii Note: The fact that Trump is 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
xxviii This essay explains how over the past 30 years non Western countries have taken control of international climate negotiations: https://cliscep.com/2025/12/08/the-west-vs-the-rest/
xxix This comprehensive EU analysis provides detailed information by country re global greenhouse gas (GHG) and CO2 emissions: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2025
xxx This report sets out many of the issues: https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-112823-064813
Climate Scepticism 
Perhaps I should apologise for imposing this on people again. But this time I’ve made some substantial changes: making the old 1.2 the new 2.1, sharpening up the text with a reduction over 400 words, introducing new sub-headings, adding a note about the ’Net’ in Net Zero and including some new end notes. I hope it’s an improvement.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin,
Common sense is never an imposition.
LikeLike
Mark, I am surprised that you are still taking wind seriously in the face of wind droughts that can be observed by checking the local grid dashboard regularly.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/will-windpower-heat-your-breakfast
Years ago Germany and Britain bet the farm on wind power, especially offshore wind, and they lost.
Nobody bothered to notice the severe and prolonged wind droughts observed for 60 years on the oil and gas rigs in the North Sea.
The North Sea is a valley of death for wind power!
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/a-curious-tale-of-the-north-sea-winds/
Paul Burgess is onto it as well.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-180089713
LikeLike
Rafe Champion,
I’m not sure why you think I am “taking wind seriously”.
I campaign against it, and I have on several occasions drawn attention to wind droughts and to overall declining wind speeds!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“SNP Ministers attacked by own commission over ‘deindustrialisation'”
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-just-transition-scottish-government-net-zero-oil-and-gas-workers-5603698
…Ministers have been warned there is “no just path to net zero through deindustrialisation” and criticised for a lack of progress providing a transition for workers in a scathing report by the Scottish government’s own commission.
In its final report, the commission has made clear that progress is “falling short of what is needed” in order for a just transition for workers to take place….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark “There is no just path to net zero through deindustrialisation.”
Funnily enough, I used a similar form of words in my response to the SNP’s recent Net Zero consultation: There is nothing “just” about your wrecking-ball “transition” to energy penury.
See https://metatron.substack.com/p/dissecting-scotlands-economy-wrecking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Extracts from a mini-essay in draft:
The establishment plan to impose deindustrialisation dates from 1977, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrRc1hYMfwo and this “Fascism with a democratic face” follow-up post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-YUb8BBYvM.
It’s not just muppets like Miliband and the other Uniparty climate zealots in their unfathomable push for ruinous Net Zero that we realists are fighting against. It’s actually a very powerful, deeply entrenched, deeply destructive, remorseless, implacable, post-imperialist, deep-state, Europe-wide (with exceptions), USA-infiltrated system of power-mongering and forever war-mongering (shades of The Terminator in reverse: “And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until …”).
LikeLike
Excellent summary, yes, again! Until the majority of the public and their representatives understand, it needs to be repeated over and over and over.
LikeLike
An amendment. I’ve redrafted the concluding ‘NOTE’ and linked it to a more relevant end note (xxx).
LikeLike
“How Miliband’s net zero folly choked Aberdeen’s property market
Jobs are disappearing and people are fleeing the area, leaving a glut of properties behind”
https://archive.ph/sipeh#selection-2215.4-2219.94
Just over a decade ago, Aberdeen was thriving.
It was the gateway to Britain’s North Sea oil and gas industry. Average weekly earnings were higher only in London and it consistently ranked among the top UK cities for business and jobs growth.
At £215,000, property prices were nearly double the Scottish average, having risen 165pc in just 10 years as the area boomed.
Following the scent of oil and gas, new arrivals appeared in their droves to fill highly paid positions. Between 2004 and 2015, the population jumped by nearly 20,000 and local businesses flourished.
The picture is starkly different today. Tumbling oil prices, punitive taxes and the underwhelming advance of renewables have tipped the North Sea energy industry into a spiral of accelerated decline that is taking Aberdeen’s property market down with it.
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband’s pledge to deliver a net zero transition for the area – in which jobs in oil and gas are replaced by ones in clean energy – has also fallen flat.
Rather than a renewables energy boom, some of the biggest companies in the region have scaled back investment or withdrawn entirely, seeking more profitable opportunities in other places as far-flung as the Persian Gulf.
Many of the most skilled workers have gone with them.
Around 18,000 jobs have disappeared from Aberdeen since 2010. Without intervention, the local economy will lose the equivalent of 1,000 workers a month between now and 2030, according to trade association Offshore Energies UK….
LikeLiked by 1 person
The only plan for excess wind is to keep paying the power providers to switch off. More wind power = more constraint payments every time supply exceeds demand.
LikeLike
Wow! Headline in the Guardian/Observer online today:
“High energy prices threaten UK’s status as manufacturing power, business groups say
CBI and Energy UK report finds 40% of firms have cut investment as electricity costs remain far above pre-Ukraine levels”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/feb/22/high-energy-prices-threaten-uks-status-as-manufacturing-power-business-groups-say
The UK is at risk of losing its status as a major manufacturing centre after a sharp rise in energy prices that has forced about 40% of businesses to cut back investment, according to a report by the CBI and Energy UK.
In a stinging message to ministers, the report said British businesses – from chemical producers to pubs and restaurants – were being undermined by a failure to cap prices and upgrade the UK’s ageing gas and electricity networks.
A far-reaching review of outmoded regulations that govern the sale and supply of energy is also needed to spur investment and boost economic growth, the report said.
Energy UK, which represents more than 100 electricity generators and retailers, said business electricity costs remained 70% higher than before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while gas prices were 60% higher.
Without a reduction in energy bills, “the risk of job losses, production cuts, plant closures and offshoring will increase,” the report said.…
Regrettably, however, the blindingly obvious conclusion (scrap net zero, which is causing these high costs) is missed:
…The CBI and Energy UK said ministers needed to join forces with industry to conduct a comprehensive review of the UK’s energy needs and how they can be met during the transition to net zero.…
There’s much more about the dramatic and dire effect high energy prices are having on business and manufacturing in the UK. One might almost say we’re at a “tipping point”.
...The government had made significant progress on reducing domestic energy costs, she said. But the help on offer for some industrial users was not only “a sticking plaster”, but it was also being funded by other bill payers.
She added: “Lowering prices for all businesses is fundamental to the UK’s growth story.”
She said the initial report showed “how high energy costs are holding back the UK economy, and the limits of existing support”.
“But our aim will not be just about how to reduce bills. It will be the first of its kind to take a fundamental look at the energy market and the regulations to see how it can become more effective,” she said.
I wonder if they’ll remove the blinkers and spot the elephant in the room?
LikeLiked by 3 people
A most interesting, clearly written and thought-provoking article by Gordon Hughes:
Reversing scorched earth policies in the electricity sector: Part 1
There’s a lot of important stuff here and I find it difficult to produce a good summary. But this I believe is his key observation:
Well worth reading.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also mentioned by John C here.
LikeLike
Yes Jit – and I see that I liked it. It seems I may be getting forgetful in my old age. But I suggest it’s worth mentioning twice.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Energy UK, which represents more than 100 electricity generators and retailers, said business electricity costs remained 70% higher than before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while gas prices were 60% higher.”
My bold. If I read that right, how is it we were/are told the costs went up because of the Russian invasion. Was that just a defection tactic from the harm NZ was already doing to the UK ?
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
Francis Menton on what happens when a country achieves Net Zero:
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2026-2-22-cuba-becomes-the-first-country-to-reach-net-zero-shouldnt-we-be-celebrating
Why isn’t Miliband using it as the poster-child for his policies? Oh, wait…….
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve just posted a comment on this TC article: https://theconversation.com/net-zero-will-transform-britains-economy-our-map-reveals-the-most-vulnerable-places-275604. I know a lot of Clisceppers think that commenting on The Conversation is waste of time. I disagree believing that it’s always useful to get another point of view into areas (in this case academia) where alternative views are rarely – if ever – heard. So I hope I can persuade some to join me.
In fact this article is quite interesting Titled ‘Net zero will transform Britain’s economy – our map reveals the most vulnerable places‘, it shows that the authors believe that, although welcome, Net Zero does have serious downsides.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see one of the authors has already replied to an “on-message” comment. I wonder if he will respond to you?
LikeLike
MikeH – thanks for the link, funny but sad at the same time.
LikeLike
“Miliband says climate impact of data centres is uncertain”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2drxgz7x8o
I suspect data centres will have no climate impact at all, but they could play havoc with his net zero plans:
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has said the impact of the rapid expansion of data centres on the UK’s efforts to lower carbon emissions to net zero is “inherently uncertain”.…
…The UK government wants the country to be a world leader in AI and is seeking to attract investment in data centres to achieve this goal.
But there are concerns about the large amounts of water and electricity needed to run them, including from gas-powered generators.
Dozens of new data centres, many funded by US tech firms, are being planned and environmental campaigners fear this could significantly increase emissions.…
LikeLike
Mark, the other author (Professor Sean Fox) has replied in detail to my post (and to Jit’s). I’ve been (and still am) rather distracted by the by-election result. I hope I have time to reply.
LikeLike
More sense (as always) from Gordon Hughes:
“Reversing scorched earth policies in the electricity sector Part 2”
https://cloudwisdom.substack.com/p/reversing-scorched-earth-policies-cc0
LikeLike
There’s plenty to attack in the happily friendly but arguably inaccurate response from the co-author of the article. I would weigh in, but I’m going to be busy all day doing other things.
LikeLike
Mark, I’ve replied in detail to Professor Fox and he’s responded very quickly on two specific points: (1) historic and per capita emissions and how they justify ‘action’ and (2) his obsession (shared with Miliband and other activists) that it’s ‘over-reliance on natural gas, and the way prices are set in the market, that has resulted in high energy prices’. I can easily deal with the first but, although I’m sure he’s wrong about the second, I’m going to have to do a lot more work to produce a clear and satisfactory response. Therefore I’d welcome any advice/help that might be provided soon – note in particular his link to this HoC select committee report: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmselect/cmesnz/736/report.html and the (to me) rather confusing extract he cites.
LikeLike
I’ve now replied to both Professor Fox’s points.
LikeLike
An interesting Q&A with Kathryn Porter & Lord Frost at IEA:
LikeLike
Well done, Robin – I’ve just caught up with your conversation at The Conversation.
There are two aspects to your debate there that I can see. The first is a real debate about things like whether or not renewable energy is cheap, whether it’s expensive in the UK only because UK electricity prices are linked to the price of gas and/or because of the massive subsidies renewables enjoy, whether net zero is good for the economy or damaging it etc. There are real issues there where facts should win out.
The second aspect is with regard to the vague assertion that we (the UK) must in some way make amends for our historical emissions regardless of the fact that our current emissions are extremely low – combined with tendentious suggestions that UK per capita emissions are high (as you amply demonstrate in your reply, they’re not), that China is rapidly decarbonising (it isn’t – it might be big on renewables, but it’s also big on fossil fuels) and that we therefore just have to do something (even though that “something” is irrelevant in terms of climate change).
I have to say, I expect better from academics than such pearl-clutching, devoid of logic as it is.
LikeLike
I haven’t followed the debate but, just on the point about our historical emissions, let’s not forget that we were the workshop of the world back then. So a large proportion of our emissions should be attributed to the countries which were our customers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Datacentre developers face calls to disclose effect on UK’s net emissions
Campaign groups write to technology secretary amid concerns that sites could double overall electricity demand”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/01/datacentre-developers-energy-greenhouse-gas-emissions
…Ofgem, the energy regulator for Great Britain, recently published a calculation that the amount of power being sought by new datacentre projects would exceed the current peak of national electricity consumption. Ofgem said in a consultation this month that about 140 proposed datacentre schemes, driven by the use of artificial intelligence, could require 50GW of electricity – 5GW more than Great Britain’s current peak demand.…
LikeLiked by 2 people
An important message from Liam Halligan:
With the oil price spiking, will Rachel Reeves now ease the North Sea energy profits levy? Crude prices have spiked 12% overnight after US attack on Iran, and are now up 35% over the last two months, seriously complicating the UK’s energy crunch.
Four extracts:
Well worth reading in full – if possible.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“A Europe of clean, green cities and resurgent industry is a fantasy – unless we get really creative”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/mar/05/europe-clean-green-cities-resurgent-industry-fantasy-creative
…Europe banished much of its industry, but we continue to enjoy its fruits: globalised manufacturing chains provide us with cheap goods that arrive in neat packages. And while our cities are beautified with good intentions, they are being reduced to markets for the consumption of that beauty: streetscapes fill Instagram feeds, as surely as homes become Airbnbs. Meanwhile the average resident, faced with dwindling employment outside the tourism industry, is increasingly priced out of their own home town. When heavy industry was offshored, so was its labour.
Today, a dizzying amount of products that Europe consumes are made elsewhere. China represents upwards of 80% of global solar manufacturing and a majority of global wind turbine installations in figures from 2023. Meanwhile, much of the vital digital infrastructure that enables productivity and leisure originates on the west coast of the US. Bitterfeld’s Solar Valley has sadly fallen on hard times, its start-ups overwhelmed by subsidised competition from abroad. The reality today is that European “quality of life” has become a subscription offered by third parties, fuelled by mountains of coal in Xinjiang and energy-guzzling datacentres in Virginia….
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Spectator‘s leading article this week is headed ‘Ed Miliband must go‘.
An extract:
The article concludes with this:
An interesting read.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My comment on the Spectator leader is turning out to be quite popular:
LikeLiked by 3 people
Is this what energy security looks like?
“Huge ship carrying wind farm parts docks in Leith”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crm88mkl87ko
A 228m (748ft) long ship has docked in Edinburgh ahead of the construction of components for a wind farm off the Angus coast.
The heavy lift vessel Hua Yang Long arrived at the Port of Leith from Zhuhai in southern China on 24 February carrying 18 jacket foundations intended for the proposed Inch Cape site east of Arbroath.
The ship, which was built in 2015 and sails under the Chinese flag, is around two football pitches in length and as wide as five double decker buses.…
The article includes lots of press release-like quotes from Inch Cape Offshore. What it doesn’t mention is that Inch Cape Offshore is a joint venture between Irish company, ESB Energy and “Edinburgh-based” Red Rock Renewables. The latter, in fact, is owned by SDIC Power Holdings, a major Chinese state-owned energy company based in Beijing. Red Rock has stakes in several UK renewable energy developments – as well as Inch Cape there are Beatrice Offshore Wind Farm, Afton Wind Farm and Benbrack Onshore Wind Farm. In addition, they They are actively looking to expand their portfolio of assets as both an investor and owner-operator in the UK and wider European market.. I’ll bet they are!
LikeLiked by 1 person
At 7pm today, the price of electricity in the UK is £156.99 per MWh. Gas is supplying 56.8%, wind 13.5% and solar nothing (it’s after sunset). 13.8% is coming through the interconnectors. Mr Miliband needs to understand that when it’s cold and the sun isn”t shining and the wind isn’t blowing, it doesn’t matter how many solar panels and wind farms the UK has, we’ll still need gas (or be dependent on the greed or generosity of foreigners via the interconnectors). Doubling down on renewables, while still needing gas, but refusing to grant new gas exploration licences and blocking fracking wells with concrete isn’t contributing to the UK’s energy security. Quite the opposite, in fact.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The breathless BBC article about the “Huge ship carrying wind farm parts docks in Leith” from China almost makes me weep. So Scotland with it’s rigs experience, has … I’m lost for words, sorry.
LikeLike
Second thoughts, were the rigs made in Scotland, or elsewhere & towed into place?
LikeLike
dfhunter,
Some of the stuff is coming from China:
https://www.inchcapewind.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Inch-Cape-Newsletter-Summer-2025_FINAL.pdf
The mix of 18 jacket and 54 monopile foundations was selected due to site conditions, and the engineering design has pushed the depths that fixedbottom foundations can be deployed. The longest monopile foundation will be 107 metres in length, with the tallest jacket foundation extending to 83 metres above the seabed. The foundations, including transition pieces, are being fabricated at six yards in China and will be transported to a marshalling yard at Forth Ports’ Port of Leith from where they will be installed. The first shipment of foundations is due to arrive at the port in late 2025 with installation from early 2026.
Vestas is supplying the turbines:
The various elements that make up the turbines – including blades, towers and nacelles – will be manufactured at a number of facilities across Europe, with pre-installation to take place at Forth Ports’ Port of Dundee from 2026.
Smallish parts of the project are being manufactured in the UK:
At the heart of the wind farm will be the substation, which in Inch Cape’s case is a Siemens Energy Offshore Transformer Module (OTM®) with a 68-metre jacket foundation – both fabricated at Smulders yard in Newcastle. A multitude of UK suppliers were involved in the fabrication of both including Sarens UK for lifting, Eastgate Engineering for electrical pre-assembly and Clerkin Elevation for crane hire.
The newsletter tries to make out that this is big for UK jobs and spending:
To date Inch Cape has utilised more than 315 UK suppliers, including at least 120 Scottish companies, and spent more than £700 million to get the project to this offshore construction phase.
What it doesn’t say is where the £700M has been spent, and I suspect (but don’t know) that the bulk of it went abroad. Then there’s this:
Having secured the contract to deliver Inch Cape Offshore Wind Farm, Forth Ports announced it will invest £50 million in infrastructure at the Port of Leith. The investment will be used to enhance the port’s marine access, infrastructure and vessel assets and includes plant and equipment that will be used to deliver Inch Cape, its largest ever offshore wind contract. It will also create up to 50 new and upskilled green energy jobs to support the project.
Would the £50M investment have gone ahead without the Inch Cape project? I don’t know. The newsletter doesn’t tell us. The last sentence also sounds like marketing bullsh!t. Up to 50 could be any number. How many of them are new and how many are “upskilled” (i.e. existing jobs re-labelled)? We aren’t told.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the answer, “£50 million in infrastructure at the Port of Leith“.
It’s funny how you loose perspective about what that amount of money means.
LikeLike
An outstanding piece by David Turver this morning:
Net Zero is the Road to Serfdom Futile virtue signalling is pushing up energy costs and destroying the economy
He begins with this question:
He answers it by looking at energy prices, energy consumption, fossil fuel and import dependency, energy use per person, electricity generation, impact on economic performance and GHG emissions.
Two of his conclusion:
Of course Clisceppers know all this. But Turver puts it particularly well. Worth reading.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” was published in 1944. Hannah Arendt wrote on the tyranny of bureaucracy in her book “On Violence” in 1970. The version of the latter in AZ Quotes is:-
“the greater the bureaucratization of public life, the greater will be the attraction of violence. In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one can argue, to whom one can represent grievances, on whom the pressures of power can be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless we have a tyranny without a tyrant.” ~ Hannah Arendt
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Francis Menton in New York relates the increasingly dangerous energy situation there:-
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2026-3-6-new-york-climate-policy-approaching-the-cliff
Delusional green (or should we call it pseudo-green?) thinking seems to be a commonplace in the West. Fortunately Menton thinks that peak delusion in New York may be nearing, but whether the fall will be graceful or catastrophic is in the balance. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve commented at Eigen Values, with a note that half the UK’s emissions are now imported. The Net Zero-relevant number is just not relevant to climate change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit, I covered this briefly but I hope adequately in item 3.1 of the header article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I mentioned Arendt at 9.07hr because the name of Hayek is likely to make persons of a certain sensibility switch off instantly. Their Overton window is probably open to Arendt but shut tight against Hayek. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
John Cullen – thanks for that Francis Menton link. Think the end quote from 29 Democratic State Senators & his thoughts about the situation are worth repeating here –
“”In reality, rolling back the CLCPA will not save our constituents money because it is not the cause of increasing costs. It is the fossil fuel status quo that has created the affordability crisis New Yorkers are now suffering from, and it is bold action to deliver renewable energy and energy efficiency that will give them relief, saving money for individuals in the immediate-term and for all utility customers in the medium- and long-term.“
They are completely delusional. However, nothing but an actual disaster, if that, will ever convince them that they were wrong. We have to recognize that if we successfully take a somewhat graceful off-ramp from the green energy delusion, these people will go on believing that the CLCPA would have worked if only it was really tried. (Like Socialism.). So maybe we are better off going off the cliff.”
That reminds me of comments/posts here, where the only way things will change is when we have rolling blackouts, no gas, Industry shut down, diesel gens fired up, etc…
But even then, the public will be told (altered quote) – “It is the fossil fuel status quo that has created the crisis“.
Reality & facts can smack them in the face (Ukraine/Iran war for example) but they are to committed to say “sorry, we fu*ked up”.
LikeLike
“Will we ever wean the elites off their Net Zero addiction?”
Andrew Tettenborn at Spiked.
Maybe – it’s certainly less confident than it has ever been, thanks to the gradual rise in the number of people willing to publicly oppose it.
LikeLike
“Lincolnshire council approves AI datacentre despite emissions warnings
Campaigners say campus near Scunthorpe could generate emissions close to those from all UK domestic flights”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/mar/12/council-approves-lincolnshire-datacentre-despite-emissions-warnings
…The council concluded that, despite the “large absolute energy demand” of the development, the impact of emissions was not significant due to the datacentre’s proximity to clean energy sources in the Humber region.…
...Concerns remain about the feasibility of this level of power generation. A separate AI project by the tech firm Nscale was meant to build a datacentre that could provide 50MW of AI capacity – with a view to upgrading to 90MW. However, a Guardian investigation has found that, nine months before it is due to be completed, it remains a scaffolding yard in Essex….
LikeLike
Powerful stuff from Kathryn Porter:
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/scotland-energy-crisis
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark: that Porter lecture is quite brilliant: complex but readable, scary but inspiring. I urge everyone here to read it. I’d love to send it to Mark Maslin but I suppose he’d dismiss KP as another ‘climate change denier trying to appear a reasonable discussant‘.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
I found Kathryn Porter’s speech to be compelling, perhaps because I was predisposed to do so. What concerns me is that unless she’s wrong, then we seem to be sleep-walking into a serious problem by going hell-for-leather for renewables.
Is she wrong? Or is she correct, and do the engineers at NESO, National Grid etc understand this? Or, worse, do they not understand it? Unless there is nothing in what she says, then the Milibands and Monbiots of this world can pontificate all they want – we’re staring blackouts in the face, and it’s the fault of them and people like them advocating for renewables without, apparently, understanding the implications.
LikeLike
I suggest that this from Paul HOmewood is also relevant in this context:
LikeLike
Mark, I was in video-link discussion with NESO engineers last year about the time of the Spanish blackout because I was/am very concerned about, among other things, the lack of real inertia on the UK grid.
They understood the problem technically but, IIRC, were working under a policy that meant that they had to try all other alternatives (e.g. synthetic inertia) first. I left the meeting feeling that their hands were tied and they were dutifully following the anything-but-real-inertia route to grid reinforcement. Very frustrating for me, but – much more importantly – the grid is being left woefully vulnerable to small distrubances that, once upon a time, would not have troubled it at all.
Hang on to your hats … and keep a torch to hand. Dangerous stupidity is at the wheel …
https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-131/poems-churchill-loved-the-clattering-train/
Quoted in reference to 1930s appeasement in The Gathering Storm. WSC s great memory recalled it from Punch, 4 October 1890, following a train wreck blamed on a sleeping crewman.
“Who is in charge of the clattering train?
The axles creak, and the couplings strain …
And Sleep hath deadened the driver’s ear;
And signals flash through the night in vain.
Death is in charge of the clattering train!”
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
An article by Chris Morrison on Climate Skeptic linked to an analysis of Antarctic ice core data which is well worth a read. The conclusions provide very strong arguments against “the science”:
“The Vostok Ice Core data contains numerous interesting features which can be confirmed by any- body as the data is open. We can conclude the following:
– A rise of 1.1°C in a century is not unusual in the current interglacial. In fact 16% of the centuries since the end of the last Ice age show a rise at least as big as the current century and none of these could have been affected by anthropogenic action.
– A rise of 1.1°C in a century would have been considered unusual any time more than 200,000 years ago. For some unknown reason nothing to do with us, the temperature has become more volatile in century on century changes in the last 200,000 years. Whether this is a physical effect or an artifact of isotopic smoothing with time is unknown although there is no evidence for the latter on the peaks of the last four interglacials and there is an abrupt change in mag- nitude of about 4°C in between the last 5 interglacials and the preceding 4 which is atypical of a continuous smoothing process.
– The current interglacial is nothing special. It is currently still more than 3°C cooler than the peak of the last one about 130,000 years ago (which was by assumption entirely free of an- thropogenic effect) and the degree of variability in this data is much the same now as then.
Given then that a rise of 1.1°C is quite commonplace in this current interglacial and that none of the earlier occurrences could have been affected by anthropogenic activity, this raises the question of why we are trying to attribute the current rise to anthropogenic effects as if it was unusual.”
The full paper is here:
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Vol.6.1-Hatton.pdf
LikeLike
“One of Britain’s last major chemical plants at risk as energy prices surge
If costs stay high for the next three months, US owner Peter Huntsman says he will close the site on Teesside”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/mar/15/energy-price-surge-britain-chemical-plant-risk-huntsman
The American owner of one of Britain’s last major chemicals plants has said he will close the site if energy prices remain at their current levels for the next three months.
Peter Huntsman, whose family built Huntsman Corporation into a global chemicals empire, said the recent jump in gas prices fuelled by the Iran conflict was “another nail in the coffin” for European heavy industry.
“If today’s economics were to stay in place for the next three months, I would shut down my [UK] facility and I’d be importing product from China or the United States,” he said….
LikeLike
Our old friends at The Conversation have published an article that cries out for comment – ‘Would more North Sea drilling lower UK energy bills? Our analysis says no‘.
Unfortunately my life at present is focused on dealing with a family emergency so I haven’t got time to get involved. Perhaps someone else here might like to do the honours? Although two commentators – Paul Hunt and Norman Rides – are already doing a pretty good job re costs, I’d like to see some fact-based comment about the critical importance of energy security.
These extracts with give you a feeling for the authors’ position:
PS: Mark won’t I think be surprised that the authors are based at Oxford University.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
My worries for our alma mater grow deeper. What a poor article, and what poor reasoning (or lack thereof). No need to intervene – Paul Hunt and Norman Rides are doing a very good job. I wonder if the authors will respond?
LikeLiked by 2 people
This week’s Spectator has an article by its editor, Michael Gove, titled ‘Keir Starmer has surrendered to Ed Miliband – and we are all paying the price’.
Some extracts:
I’m not a great fan of Gove (remember his fawning over the doom goblin) but I think he’s probably right about this.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin,
Maybe Miliband’s as well, but there are definitely other players, far less visible, who have got their hands and arms right up Starmer’s jacksy where his spine should be. Winnie the Flu might be one, among several.
LikeLike
I think Gove’s wrong. IMO, Starmer firmly believes in the net zero crusade. The policy is his. He finds it useful that in Miliband he has an equally zealous ally, and better still (for Starmer) Miliband takes all the flak.
LikeLike
Have you any evidence for that Mark? Whereas Miliband is fanatical about net zero, I doubt if Starmer is fanatical about anything – except perhaps staying on as PM and the overriding importance of international law. And he’s willing to compromise on the latter if it threatens the former.
LikeLike
Evidence, Robin? Well there’s this:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-at-the-united-nations-cop30-summit-6-november-2025
You might argue that this is just Starmer doing what Prime Ministers do, enjoying strutting about on the world stage, but I think it’s too ideological to be dismissed:
…Providing goods and services for global net-zero transition could be worth £1 trillion by 2030.
So look – my message is that the UK is all in.
Because we know…
You don’t protect jobs and communities by sticking with the status quo –
You don’t meet a challenge like climate change by standing still…...
And this (I’m sure are plenty of other examples):
“Britain will accelerate push to net zero, Starmer tells energy summit
Speech made clear prime minister sees renewable energy as core to UK’s future prosperity and national security”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/24/britain-will-accelerate-push-to-net-zero-starmer-tells-energy-summit
Britain will go “all out” for a low-carbon future and accelerate the push to net zero instead of slowing down as some have demanded, the prime minister said on Thursday.
In his strongest declaration yet of support for the net zero agenda, Sir Keir Starmer told a conference in London of more than 60 countries that tackling the climate crisis and bolstering energy security were “in the DNA of my government”.
He said: “This government is acting now, with a muscular industrial policy, to seize the opportunities [in low-carbon technology] to boost investment, build new industries, drive UK competitiveness, and unlock export opportunities. That is the change we need. We won’t wait – we will accelerate.”…
I also have anecdotal evidence, and you can make of it what you will. A friend of mine, who has been a Labour Party member for half a century or more, and who once (unsuccessfully) stood as a Labour candidate at a general election knows Starmer a bit (I don’t imagine their paths have crossed since Labour won the election and Starmer became PM). Once, at a social event he discussed with Starmer prospects for the then forthcoming election and suggested to Starmer that net zero wasn’t a wise policy, that would be both economically damaging and electorally unpopular. He got short shrift.
LikeLike
“How Europe sleepwalked into yet another energy crisis”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24de9e97vno
It’s by Katya Adler, who I rate more than many BBC journalists:
…Norway is now the EU’s largest gas supplier, essentially taking the place of Russia, providing a third of the bloc’s annual gas consumption and half of the UK’s.
Norway has also made clear that it is already operating close to maximum output. This presents a dilemma for the EU because increasing supply would require new exploration and investment.
Oslo suggests the EU is shooting itself in the foot with plans to put an end to oil and gas development in the European Arctic as part of a push to mitigate climate change. It points out that Russia has huge plans to expand liquefied natural gas production in the Russian Arctic.
Norway is lobbying Brussels hard to change its policies. This is just one of a host of ways environmental decisions are being sucked into the vortex that is Europe’s energy debate….
… in the EU, division is everywhere. Supporters and opponents of Green policies and alternative energy supplies are all using the Iran war to support their distinct point of view, for example.…
…Elsewhere in Europe, soaring energy costs provoked by events in the Middle East are being used as yet another argument to weaken the EU’s two decade old Emissions Trading System (ETS).
The ETS forces industry to pay a carbon price for polluting practices. [Note to Katya – CO2 is not a pollutant]. It is designed to wean companies off using fossil fuels in the long-term.
A raging row is expected at Thursday’s EU leaders’ summit between countries that want to maintain the ETS and those that want to weaken or abolish it….
…Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, said last week: “With the outbreak of the crisis in the Middle East, the issue of energy prices has clearly become even more important, which is why, at European level, we are also calling for the urgent suspension of the application of the ETS to electricity production.”…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, if something is too expensive, it seems perfectly rational to tax it heavily to make it even more expensive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark: re Starmer and NZ I’m still inclined to believe that on this occasion Gove his right.
LikeLike
Mark: re the Adler story here’s a headline in today’s FT: EU agrees on review of emissions trading system as energy crisis bites MARCH 20, 2026 by Henry Foy
LikeLike
Robin,
We do polite disagreement at Cliscep, unlike The Conversation!
I suggest we monitor Starmer’s sayings and doings. Just because he doesn’t say much on the subject doesn’t mean he’s not a true believer. When he does talk about it, I think the evidence is strong. Net zero is obviously harming the UK’s finances. Ditching it would be a quick win. Reeves must know this. The fact that instead of ditching it the government is doubling down on it, suggests strongly to me that it has support at the very top of government. I don’t see how Miliband could exert such influence on his own.
LikeLike
Mark – remember that Starmer tried to shuffle Ed into another role. What was said between them we do not know but may assume included a threat of resignation, which Starmer was in no position to weather. The attempted reshuffle may be evidence that Starmer’s attachment to Net Zero is not entirely dogmatic. Whatever its merits, Net Zero is still popular among his support base, and in principle more widely, even as its practical effects have the UK in an ever-tightening vice.
LikeLike
The Guardian has published an article this morning headed:
Rightwing narrative fuelling false belief UK public oppose net zero, study finds Reform, Tory and some media rhetoric runs contrary to poll showing far more voters for net zero than against it
Three extracts:
Of course a ‘progressive thinktank’ will be completely unbiased in its interpretation of the data. And it would be helpful if Damian Gayle, the author of the article, had provided a link to the analysis and to the referenced polling. But he didn’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, you wrote, “Net zero is obviously harming the UK’s finances. Ditching it would be a quick win. Reeves must know this. The fact that instead of ditching it the government is doubling down on it, suggests strongly to me that it has support at the very top of government.”
Your observation seems to confirm what I wrote recently elsewhere on Cliscep that this government does not really have a strategic plan in the sense of building on and enhancing the UK’s wealth creation and wealth maintenance process. Ideology wins yet again, it seems.
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
John C, but, as Michael Gove said in the Spectator article to which I refer above, ‘the very top of government’ consists of Mad Ed.
LikeLike
Robin, it may indeed be Mad Ed at the very top of government, but I fear it is “Mad Eds all the way down” (if I may steal a creation myth from page 1 of Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time”). In short, I fear that present climate/energy policies are likely to continue for (at least) as long as this government lasts. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
John C, as Ed will almost certainly continue for as long as this government lasts, the issue is most unlikely to be put to the test.
LikeLike
Robin, I fear you are correct! Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Nothing we don’t essentially know already but there’s some interesting detail in this Spiked article:
Fossil fuels are the stuff of life The Iran War is a stark reminder of how much our civilisation relies on oil and gas.
An extract:
And the conclusion:
True.
LikeLiked by 3 people
As well as the products mentioned in the article which Robin linked, there are others which are essential to modern life but get little or no recognition.
Probably the most important is sulphuric acid is critical to a myriad of chemical processes, including the manufacture of phosphate fertilisers which consumes around 70% of the world’s production of the acid. Virtually all of the sulphur used to make the acid is derived from processing “sour” oil and gas. So worldwide agriculture is massively dependent on oil and gas – not only for methane to make nitrogen fertiliser but also for the sulphur by-product to make phosphates.
There’s a touch of irony about another one. Batteries are crucial to much modern tech. The electrodes are typically made from high-grade synthetic graphite which is produced (virtually 100% in China) by purifying and treating “petcoke”, the bottom residue of oil refining.
It’s hugely frustrating that the oil & gas industry has done such a poor job, over decades, of raising awareness of how its products underpin modern civilisation.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Thanks Mike – interesting, important and useful. Here’s the latest version of paragraph 1.1 of the header article:
Is anything important missing, misstated or wrong?
LikeLike
MikeH, you wrote, “It’s hugely frustrating that the oil & gas industry has done such a poor job, over decades, of raising awareness of how its products underpin modern civilisation.”
Your remark expands upon my comment (20th March, 9.54am) about government not having a strategic plan for the UK. Your comment shows that industry too has failed to address effectively its own strategic concerns.
Wow! A double whammy. Strategic failures by both government and industry. Anybody with this lack of vision might have thought that wealth grew on trees! And perhaps it almost did … back in 19th century Britain when the Empire shipped a lot of its wealth to Blighty.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
A few more things come to mind: fabrics, perspex, glass- and carbon-fibre, surfactants, polysilicon…..
However, a list of just the more significant ones might be over-long for your purposes: where to stop?! Long lists may be off-putting but how to convey the sheer breadth of our dependency?
A quick glance on the web found this quote popping up several times: “Petroleum products are derived from crude oil and include a wide range of items such as gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, lubricants, and asphalt. In total, over 6,000 everyday products, including plastics, fertilizers, and personal care items, are made from petroleum.”
Perhaps it would be worth quoting “over 6000 products” and limiting the list to the most significant ones and/or those which are most familiar with an more extensive list as a footnote?
LikeLike
Maybe also substitute “pesticides” for “insecticides” as the latter are a small fraction of all pesticides.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MikeH, I’m anxious to keep this straightforward and confined to four pages of A4, including the endnotes. So I think I’ll substitute ‘pesticides’ for ‘insecticides’ as recommended by Jit – unless there’s anything that’s crying out for change.
LikeLike
Robin,
Fair enough. Maybe just squeeze in the “over 6000” to give the scale? It’s always tricky keeping things concise while packing in as much info as possible – you’ve done a great job!
John C,
Yes, with hindsight, I’m sure there are many major industries which wish they had spent some effort informing the general public. That would have given some perspective on their value to society which would provide some counterbalance to the relentless mud-slinging by the media et al.
I’ve worked with petrochem, nuclear and the water industry, amongst others. All had their faults but they were overwhelmingly decent folk trying to do a good job. Now it’s too late, of course.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MikeH: I’d like to add the ‘over 6000’ but that would mean another endnote as I like to support all claims with evidence. And there’s hardly room for another endnote, so I’ll leave it as it is. But many thanks for the useful data.
LikeLike
Robin, Might be worth adding a simple pie chart as a footnote – In a barrel of oil – Energy Education
LikeLike
dfhunter: that’s most useful. I’ve added the link to endnote 2. Thanks.
LikeLike
MikeH,
Yes, it weould have been good to inform the public about how our various industries help to keep humans (or ‘The Naked Ape’ as ethologist Desmond Morris called us in his 1967 book) warm and otherwise enhance our human well-being:-
Food keeps us warm from the inside, and fossil-fuel energy keeps us warm from the ouitside [Caveat: other energy systems are now available].
However, the main thrust of my argument was that industry needed (and still needs) to team up with government to create a national strategy to sustain and promote wealth creation – including a knowledge of such matters in the school curriculm would have been/would be useful.
I also note in passing that the tertiary educational sector has been very, very successful in teaming with government and thereby extracting lots of funding. Unfortunately, much of that funding has been on anti-CO2 projects and has therefore been antipathetic to much of the rest of the economy! Or as the subtitle of this thread so eloquently puts it “Unachievable Disastrous Pointless”.
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Leccy generation during the rush hour (7:25) this morning: gas 45%, wind 6%, sun 6%, nuclear 13%, wood 9% and interconnectors 18% (saved by France and Norway). Price: £151.85/MWh
LikeLike
Yesterday’s Daily Sceptic cited an article in the Sun by Henry Tufnell, a Labour MP. An extract:
Any chance that Miliband will listen? Silly question.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very silly question, Robin! Here’s your answer:
“Ministers rebuff trade body’s call to boost North Sea oil and gas production
Government emphasises need to ‘get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets’ in response to Offshore Energies UK”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/mar/24/ministers-rebuff-call-north-sea-oil-gas-production-offshore-energies-uk
The UK government has dismissed a warning from an energy trade body that failing to produce more homegrown North Sea oil and gas will leave the UK increasingly reliant on imports at a time of rising global instability.
The industry group, Offshore Energies UK, has said the UK “urgently” needs a greater supply of domestically produced energy or consumers will be left “more exposed to global volatility and higher emissions”.
The warning came as the war in the Middle East entered its fourth week. The escalating conflict has triggered the biggest oil and gas supply shock in the history of the market and caused UK gas prices to more than double in under a month.
But the industry’s call for more support to help slow the decline of the North Sea as a provider of energy was rebuffed by the government. A spokesperson said: “Issuing new licences to explore new fields cannot give us energy security and will not take a penny off bills.”…
Which is rubbish, of course. In an emergency the Government could legislate to take control of home-produced oil and gas. Even if (which isn’t correct) having our own oil and gas couldn’t reduce the price domestically, the extra tax revenue could be used to subsidise energy prices in the UK.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Currently the most popular article on the Spectator’s Coffee House blog is titled Wind power’s dirty secret. It’s quite good – here’s an extract:
I hesitate to boast – no you don’t! – but mine is the most popular comment:
‘What’s commonly overlooked is that the ostensible reason for installing these ‘renewables’ is to enable Britain to contribute to global efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But, as Britain is the source of only about 0.5% of global emissions, whatever reduction we may achieve would not make the slightest practical difference to the global situation. In other words, the whole net zero policy is utterly pointless. Yet it’s a policy that imperils our national security, is wrecking our economy and has dreadful and worsening environmental consequences. No one in their right mind could possibly support such an absurdity.’
LikeLiked by 4 people
Some evidence today for those who think Starmer is MIlband’s puppet:
“Starmer: It’s Up to Miliband Whether We Drill in North Sea”
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/03/25/starmer-its-up-to-miliband-whether-we-drill-in-north-sea/
LikeLiked by 1 person
More good stuff from Kathryn Porter:
“The truth about the energy transition and the need for affordable secure energy with exploration & production to fill the gap”
https://watt-logic.com/2026/03/26/oil-and-gas-strategy/
...we’re actively suppressing domestic [oil and gas] production, sending a clear signal to investors that the North Sea is closed for business.
This creates a black hole at the heart of policy, because we’re locking in continued demand for hydrocarbons while dismantling our ability to supply them. The inevitable result is a greater reliance on imports, higher exposure to international markets, and loss of control over a critical part of our energy system.
That’s not a transition, it’s a deliberate choice to increase vulnerability. [my emphasis].
At the same time, this approach is already having visible economic consequences, particularly in the oil and gas sector where the pace of decline is not gradual or managed but abrupt and increasingly damaging.
We’re seeing around a thousand highly paid, highly skilled jobs being lost each month in regions where alternative opportunities are limited and where the energy sector has long been a cornerstone of the local economy.
These are engineers, geoscientists, offshore technicians… people with decades of accumulated expertise. Once those skills are lost they are extraordinarily hard to rebuild.
The idea that these jobs will be replaced by equivalent roles in renewables does not stand up to scrutiny. Almost all the jobs in the renewable energy supply chain are located overseas, and the few based here attract much lower wages than typical oil and gas jobs….
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s heartening that Kathryn Porter is these days speaking so plainly about this desperately important topic.
LikeLike
A disappointingly lightweight article from the BBC:
“UK forecast to see biggest hit to growth from Iran war out of major economies”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgk0j71g417o
Other than talking vaguely about energy costs, it makes little or no effort to analyse why the OECD is predicting, as it is, that the UK will take a bigger hit from the Iran War than will most economies. Advocates of more renewable energy will say this makes their case, while those of us who worry about expensive renewables can point out that the UK has a higher penetration of renewables than most countries, and while correlation is not (necessarily) causation, this fact alone suggests that the mad dash to renewables isn’t protecting our economy. Then there are things like this, from the article:
...chief executive of UK retailer M&S, said “policy costs” on the company’s energy bill had “skyrocketed” in recent years, and were unsustainable for businesses.
“These are the tariffs that government place on our bills to fund their policies,” he said on LinkedIn, and “have nothing to do with the price of oil and gas”….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kathryn recognises that the policy of closing down the North Sea, whilst having no benefits, causes huge harm to the economy and increases our vulnerability. She recognises that it is not, as promised, a transition to ‘clean energy’ but a deliberate act, and quite obviously a malign act.
LikeLike
Jaime: I’m a great fan of KP but I’m sure she’s wrong to say that, in indicating to investors that the North Sea is closed for business, the Government has deliberately chosen to increase Britain’s vulnerability.
LikeLike
Robin, I am somewhat puzzled by your comment. Are you saying that, in your view, from the government’s perspective NZ trumps everything and therefore an increase in British vulnerability (through closing down the North Sea) is simply collateral damage? Regards, John C.
LikeLike
John C, I don’t understand your point. I’ve no doubt that telling investors that the North Sea is in effect closed for business thereby increasing Britain’s vulnerability was an act of extraordinary foolishness. However the entire NZ agenda is a matter of extraordinary foolishness that increases Britain’s vulnerability. And, in my view, its purpose isn’t the the increase in vulnerability but the overriding need to save the world.
LikeLike
Robin, thank you. I think we are saying much the same thing. The primary purpose, as you interpret the government’s policy, is to save the world; the increased vulnerability is a side effect or, as I might put it, collateral damage. Either way, it is extraordinarily foolish … and very destructive to the economy and to many people’s livelihoods. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes John, it that seems we are. But it’s interesting that the hugely perceptive KP regards the vulnerability as a ‘deliberate choice‘. Although upon reflection I suppose a side effect, if recognised, could be could be regarded as a deliberate choice.
LikeLike
Tilak Doshi had an excellent piece in the Climate Skeptic on Thursday:
The Biased Oxford University Report That Claims Renewables Are Cheaper Than Gas Massaging the numbers by ignoring anything inconvenient
From his conclusion:
But what’s particularly pertinent here is my exchange with him in the comments.
I said:
He replied:
Interesting. And I think accurate.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Italy prepares to keep coal power stations open for another decade
European nation will continue burning fossil fuel in at least one plant until 2038″
https://archive.ph/qvb4Y#selection-2241.4-2245.86
...In a significant reversal, the country will now continue to burn coal in at least one, and possibly up to three, power generation plants until 2038.
Italy’s move comes as countries around the world, including Japan, South Korea and Germany, are turning back to coal to alleviate the spiralling energy crisis.
Italy had planned to be one of the first countries in mainland Europe to phase out coal, with a deadline of 2025 to shutter all its coal-fired power plants and replace them with gas….
...Italy’s move means that nine of the 30 European countries that use or have used coal power now have a phase-out deadline beyond 2030, according to the website Beyond Fossil Fuels.
Another nine still have a pre-2030 deadline, as Italy used to, while six have not set any target.
Britain is among the half-dozen countries that have already closed all their coal-fired power plants, shuttering the last ones in 2024.
The German government, which has a 2038 target, has prepared a law that could bring 6.5 gigawatts of reserve coal capacity back into service if the crisis drags on....
LikeLiked by 1 person
And the UK sits on it’s hands, as ED strums. What a joke we are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Asia ramps up use of dirty fuels to cover energy shortfall triggered by Iran war”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/01/iran-energy-crisis-asia-dirty-fuels-coal
South Korea will delay the shutdown of coal-fired plants, while the Philippines also plans to boost the output of its coal-burning plants…
...Across the region, from Bangladesh to South Korea, governments are trying to compensate for a drop off in imported energy, much of which comes from the Middle East.
South Korea said it will delay the shutdown of coal-fired power plants and has lifted caps on electricity from coal, while in Thailand, the government has increased output at the country’s largest coal-fired plant. The Philippines, which has declared a “national energy emergency” as a result of the war, also plans to boost operations of its coal-fired power plants.
In South Asia, India, which relies on coal for nearly 75% of its power generation, has asked its coal plants to run at maximum capacity and avoid planned outages, while Bangladesh increased coal-fired power generation and coal-fired power imports in March.…
This is causing the inevitable melt-down among the usual suspects:
…Governments should not allow a return to coal to become baked in to the energy system in the long term, she added. “We need to learn that this is the moment to break that cycle of responding to short-term fossil fuel induced shocks with investments in fossil fuels, because they’re never short-term – they’re always long-term infrastructure investments of sorts.”
“It’s not sustainable to rely on coal,” added Dinita Setyawati, senior energy analyst for Asia at thinktank Ember, who is based in Jakarta. “Homegrown renewables are definitely the way to go to improve more energy security and resilience.”…
Unfortunately, many countries in the UK don’t have “homegrown” renewables, but are dependent on foreigners for theirs – the UK probably most of all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quote from that article –
“The move has triggered warnings from climate experts who point to coal’s devastating environmental impact, and say the energy crisis should be a wake up call for governments to invest in renewables, which can offer a more stable supply that is not exposed to price shocks.”
How many times have “climate experts” trotted out this nonsense. Renewables need back up & will never deliver “a more stable supply that is not exposed to price shocks”.
Seems the rest of world has finally/always woken up to this hard fact, and is acting rationally to keep the lights on.
The UK, dimwits have a vision & it doesn’t bode well for us.
LikeLike
Europe Scrounges for Gas Supplies in Wake of Iran War – WSJ
“Fears about the U.S.’s reliability arose once more this week when the U.S. ambassador to the EU urged the bloc to quickly ratify a trade deal with the U.S. or risk losing “favorable” access to U.S. gas. “This is unacceptable blackmail,” said Christophe Grudler, a centrist member of the European Parliament. “The only durable response is to end our dependence on imported fossil fuels.”
That process will take years, analysts and officials say. Until then, the bloc is expected to remain heavily dependent on LNG, a fuel that is more expensive than pipeline gas because of the need to transport it in special tankers that can cool natural gas to a liquid.”
LikeLike
Another thought-provoking piece by Tilak Doshi:
Europe’s Hormuz Armageddon This is not merely an energy crisis. It’s the moment the post-war geopolitical illusion ends – and the real world, cold, hard and unforgiving, begins
His concluding paragraph:
Well worth reading.
LikeLiked by 3 people
We had a windy, sunny day the other day, which saw renewables enthusiasts waxing lyrical about the “success” of the renewables story. They have less to say on the many days when that isn’t true. Right now, for instance, the price is £122.45 per MWh (and has averaged £113.80 over the last 24 hours). Wind is generating 28.5% of our electricity, and solar just 2.2%, while we’re dependent on gas for 36.9% and biomass for 10.1%. Not such a success story today, then.
LikeLiked by 1 person
History is rarely kind to civilisations that mistake ideology for economics. The usual blunt-brained dullards – Mad Ed chief amongst them – are trying to argue that drilling for our own oil and gas in the North Sea will not reduce energy bills for domestic and business consumers. Kathryn Porter sets the record straight:
https://x.com/KathrynPorter26/status/2039683439683662285
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Google to tap into gas plant for AI datacenter in sharp turn from climate goals
Texas power plant would emit 4.5m tons of carbon dioxide per year, more than that of the entire city of San Francisco”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/02/google-ai-datacenter
Google’s plan for a partnership with a natural gas power plant that could provide energy for one of its datacenters in Texas was unearthed by new research and confirmed by the company. The move is part of an ongoing about-face for the tech giant, which once pledged to be carbon neutral by 2030 and has long been seen as a pioneer in clean energy.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
According to an article by Ross Clark in the Spectator‘s Coffee House blog, ‘The Times is reporting that Ed Miliband has given way and is poised to announce that he will, after all, grant a licence for extraction from the Jackdaw gas field 250 miles east of Aberdeen.’ I’ve searched but cannot find any confirmation that the report is accurate. Can anyone else?
As Clark says:
Clark’s conclusion:
Unfortunately true. And it’s hard to see how the CCA could be repealed for a long time. If ever.
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/ed-miliband-north-sea-jackdaw-gasfield-iran-war-zzg6fh30c
LikeLike
BBC news need to get the verify team to have a word with Ed, as so far it seems to be rumours !!!
LikeLike
According to today’s Telegraph Miliband has not changed his position on North Sea drilling:
Miliband expected to block North Sea oil drilling Energy Secretary said to be unwavering in his opposition despite impending fuel shortages and surging oil prices
And that, it’s reported, includes the Jackdaw gas project. It seems The Times (and Ross Clark) may have got it wrong.
LikeLike
Robin, I wonder whether Rachel from Accounts (and friends) had been flying a kite in the sure and certain knowledge that the government’s current financial trajectory is dire and that therefore a change in policy direction, if only it could be achieved, might bring a crumb of comfort to everybody except the diehards. Or am I more than usually delusional? Regards, John C.
LikeLike
I wish I knew John. We’ll have to wait and see. R
LikeLike
“Coal Not Cold
The energy crisis calls for pragmatic solutions to keep us warm and the lights on.”
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/coal-not-cold
I’m convinced, but then I didn’t need convincing.
…The UK has a lot of coal.…
...Having a fleet of coal power stations alongside gas-fired generation would encourage price arbitrage to keep electricity prices low and reduce reliance on gas with a reliable energy source.
Coal can also be used to produce liquid fuels. For example, China uses about 400Mt of coal annually in the Fischer-Tropsch process to produce petrochemicals and liquid fuels such as petrol and diesel. This diversifies China’s fuel supplies and reduces its reliance on oil imports, particularly important at a time of constrained oil supplies. With a change of regulatory regime, the UK’s vast coal resources could potentially be used to offset oil and refined product imports….
…Diversification of fuel supplies also leads to stronger energy security.…oal can be stored in stockpiles near the power plant very cheaply and does not need to rely on long and fragile global supply chains – homegrown, secure energy.…
…[The UK] will become increasingly short of firm power capacity and it is therefore critical that new firm capacity is built quickly. One answer might be to build new gas-fired generators. However, there is an eight-year lead time on new gas-fired power plants meaning that if we started building today we would not get new capacity online until 2034. This leaves coal as a viable alternative because it should be possible to build quicker, with construction times in China as low as 20 months. It is becoming inevitable that we will need new coal-fired electricity generation capacity to keep the lights on.…
…One of the reasons why China is so competitive is that coal is the backbone of its electricity generation. Coal-fired generation is cheap – cheaper than gas and intermittent renewables – if carbon costs through the Emissions Trading Scheme and Carbon Price Support mechanism are removed.
Coal-fired generation is also reliable and flexible. Coal-fired power plants are not subject to the vagaries of the weather which is why most coal is generally used as constant baseload power. However, newer plants can operate at lower minimum loads and can flex up and down in response to changes in demand and changes in the output of intermittent renewables.…
LikeLike
A remarkable analysis at the Guardian, with a perceptive recognition of reality I never expected to read there:
“How Trump’s Iran war could make the world more reliant on coal
The energy crisis sparked by the war is making some countries consider ramping up their use of dirty fuels”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/apr/05/coal-reliance-iran-war-fossil-fuels
…doubling down on coal is cheaper. Faced with looming energy shortages, countries around the world will turn to that dirtiest of fuels.
Renewables do not, in fact, insulate the energy supply from international upheaval. Notably, wind turbines and batteries require critical minerals that come overwhelmingly from China, which has demonstrated its willingness to leverage this dominance as a geopolitical weapon. More critically, at the moment, the conflict in Iran has raised an additional hurdle to investing in renewable power generation capacity, by pushing up inflation and interest rates around the world, raising the cost of capital.
Coal is just too easy. Consumption worldwide has increased by about 1.3bn tons since 2020, to 8.8bn tons. While this has largely been driven by breakneck demand for energy in India and China, it has also been propelled by crises like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which compelled Europe to stop buying Russian gas.
Despite the rising concerns over climate change and pollution more generally; as world leaders flocked to global climate summits in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, Kyoto in 1997, Paris in 2015, coal has largely prevailed at the top of the energy supply. In the year 2000, coal supplied 23% of the world’s energy. By 2023 it accounted for 28%.
Indeed, changes in energy policy sparked by the war in Iran could unravel much of the progress the world has made toward decarbonization in recent decades, which has been aided by the switch from coal to cleaner gas in power generation. With 20% of the natural gas supply stuck behind the strait of Hormuz, countries in Asia and even in Europe are likely to switch some back.
In Asia, the region most affected by the blockade of oil and gas from the Middle East, Japan, India, Bangladesh, the Philippines, South Korea, Thailand and Taiwan have either already ramped up their use of coal or are considering doing so within weeks or days. In Europe, the region most committed to the battle against climate change, Italy said it would postpone the shutdown of its coal-fired power plants for all of 13 years. Germany is also considering switching back on some idled coal plants….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Mark. As you say, remarkable.
However it doesn’t of course mean that the Guardian has changed its mind about ‘tackling climate change’ and how it’s all Trump’s fault. Here’s an extract from an earlier part of the article:
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Guardian end quote from Robin – “As an extra incentive, this rationale dovetails nicely with the project to wean the world economy from fossil fuels to slow climate change. Unfortunately, sensible though it appears, the proposition is unlikely to prevail“
So the “project” is not on track as most sensible people/countries never signed up for NZ madness.
LikeLike