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
  • its vast scale requiring increasingly scarce space, materials and components vi vii;
  • 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

49 Comments

  1. 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.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. 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

    Like

  4. 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!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. “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….

    Liked by 1 person

  7. 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 …”).

    Like

  8. Excellent summary, yes, again! Until the majority of the public and their representatives understand, it needs to be repeated over and over and over.

    Like

  9. An amendment. I’ve redrafted the concluding ‘NOTE’ and linked it to a more relevant end note (xxx).

    Like

  10. “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….

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Pingback: The Case Against Net Zero | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

  12. 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.

    Like

  13. 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?

    Liked by 3 people

  14. 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:

    In 2025 the GB electricity system could have operated without any contribution from solar and wind generation plants. It would have had a sufficient margin of dispatchable generation capacity over the amount of generation capacity used in each period. The minimum reserve margin including battery storage and demand-side response would have been greater than 15% in all periods.

    Well worth reading.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. 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.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. “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 ?

    Like

  20. 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.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. I see one of the authors has already replied to an “on-message” comment. I wonder if he will respond to you?

    Like

  23. “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.…

    Like

  24. 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.

    Like

  26. 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.

    Like

  27. 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.

    Like

  30. 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.

    Like

  31. 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.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. “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.…

    Liked by 2 people

  33. 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:

    Fossil fuels still matter. For all the talk of net zero and the growing share of renewables in electricity generation, oil and gas remain crucial to the global economy, including the UK. Oil remains vital across numerous sectors, not least transportation – think trucks, aviation and shipping – and the manufacturing of industrial chemicals, plastics and asphalt among other hugely important materials. Gas still generates around a quarter of the world’s electricity and is used to make fertiliser – sorely needed to grow enough to feed a fast-expanding global population.

    The world used 55 million barrels a day in the early 1970s but now uses 105 million now, with demand set to rise significantly into the 2030s and beyond. Oil – and gas – remain absolute necessities to any form of modern life, across a fast-industrialising world.

    Yes, the UK used 2.2 million barrels daily half a century ago, and that’s fallen to 1.4 million today – in part due to efficiencies and renewable energy, but mainly because our manufacturing sector has shrunk from over a fifth to less than a tenth of our economy. But North Sea drilling operations are now much diminished, not least because of punitive taxation and endless net zero regulation – so Britain is a net oil and gas importer.

    As a net energy importer, with policies that are now seriously curtailing our own oil and gas production, the UK is particularly vulnerable to oil and gas price spikes, losing out twice – paying more for our supplies without gaining the profits and extra taxation reaped by energy exporters when prices are high.

    Well worth reading in full – if possible.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. “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….

    Liked by 1 person

  35. The Spectator‘s leading article this week is headed ‘Ed Miliband must go‘.

    An extract:

    UK gas prices have doubled since the US-Israeli operation in Iran. Fossil fuels remain the indispensable ingredient for growth, yet our government continues with its quasi-religious commitment to forgoing the energy riches under our feet and beneath our seas.

    Ed Miliband … has banned all new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. The Energy Secretary’s fatwa against fossil fuels owes more to fundamentalism than any rational assessment of our national interest. The name of his department puts ‘energy security’ ahead of ‘net zero’, yet in his pursuit of the latter he has sabotaged the former.

    Last year, for the first time since the 1960s, not a single new exploratory oil or gas well was drilled in the British sector of the North Sea. Yet, across the maritime border, -Norway continues to exploit its resources to the full. Our Scandinavian neighbour extracted some £50 billion in oil and gas last year – enough to pay for the Royal Navy five times over.

    The article concludes with this:

    There is a limit to what the UK can achieve in the Middle East, not least given our shrunken military and diminished diplomatic leverage. The one thing the government can do is insulate our citizens and our economy from geopolitical uncertainty. But instead of putting Britain first, Miliband is elevating his outdated ideology above all our interests. Rather than decommissioning oil and gas production, the Prime Minister should decommission Ed Miliband.

    An interesting read.

    Liked by 2 people

  36. My comment on the Spectator leader is turning out to be quite popular:

    It’s very simple. Net Zero means that Britain is legally obliged to pursue an unachievable and disastrous policy – a policy that imperils our national security, is wrecking our economy and has dreadful and worsening environmental consequences. Yet as Britain is the source of only about 0.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions the whole thing is completely pointless. No one in their right mind could possibly support such a total absurdity. But this Government – not only Ed Miliband – is treating it as a key priority.

    Liked by 3 people

  37. 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!

    Liked by 1 person

  38. 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.

    Liked by 2 people

  39. 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.

    Like

  40. Second thoughts, were the rigs made in Scotland, or elsewhere & towed into place?

    Like

  41. 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.

    Liked by 2 people

  42. 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.

    Like

  43. 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:

    In his book Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek warned of the dangers of the tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning. The UK energy system is certainly hamstrung by central government control, so what has it done for our energy security and the performance of our energy system? Just how far are we down the road to serfdom?

    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:

    We have by some measures the most expensive energy in the developed world. As a result our overall energy consumption, electricity consumption and generation are all declining. This is particularly evident in the industrial sector where energy consumption has declined over 40% from the peak. Hours worked in the productive sectors of the economy have declined too, indicating severe industrial contraction.

    The notion we are doing this to demonstrate some sort of climate leadership is for the birds. Our absolute emissions are but a rounding error in the global scheme of things and we already emit less per person than the world average. The world is not following our example and they are reaping the benefits of cheap and abundant energy. Net Zero is simply futile virtue signalling, yet Starmer wants to sign us up to even more stringent EU Net Zero rules. Who would have guessed that rigid state control of energy would lead us down road to serfdom? We must reverse Net Zero policies before it is too late.

    Of course Clisceppers know all this. But Turver puts it particularly well. Worth reading.

    Liked by 2 people

  44. 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.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. 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.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. 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.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. 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.

    Like

  49. 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”.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.