Skip to content

Majority of UK public back 2030 zero-carbon target

November 17, 2019

By Paul Homewood


According to the Guardian, the majority of the UK public now backs a 2030 zero carbon target.

Of course, it is always useful to see the exact question asked:


It might just as well have said "do you want to carry on living as you do now but with more trees?"

As Julia Hartley-Brewer suggested, a more pertinent question might have been:


But this and other polls highlight a much more fundamental disconnect between what the public believe on one hand, and reality on the other.

Much of this arises from poor, and often downright misleading, reporting from the media.

Net Zero

Firstly, the implications that decarbonisation will have for the UK.

Only crackpots would even think it feasible to achieve full decarbonisation by 2030. So what on earth are the 32% thinking, who want it to happen by 2025? One can only assume that they think it is easy to do, just build a few more windmills and so on.


In fact only about a tenth of our carbon dioxide emissions come from electricity generation. Phasing out of coal power has helped to reduce carbon dioxide in the power sector by 114 Mt, a quarter of the country’s emissions in 2010, but that was the easy bit.

No experts seriously suggest that the grid can run on intermittent renewables alone, without backup from reliable power, which essentially means fossil fuels.

But in the rest of the economy, little has changed since then 2010.

Transport accounts for a third of emissions, and there is still very little demand for electric cars, which so far this year still only account for 1% of new sales, as they simply are not fit for purpose for most people.

Millions of drivers, including those who do not have off street parking or who need cars for long journeys, would be forced to give up their cars.

Then there is the effect on the UK car industry, which would be decimated, as sales of all conventional cars would have to stop almost immediately, given average car life is around ten years.

Domestic demand for heating accounts for another fifth of emissions, so we would quickly be forced to abandon our gas boilers, and fork out £10,000 or more for much less efficient heat pumps.

Then there is industry, which produces another third of emissions. If companies are forced to invest in low carbon alternatives, the likelihood is that many will simply shut up shop and move their production abroad.

And, of course, a ban on petrol and diesel cars will spell the end for UK oil refineries and chemical plants.

As for the cost of all this, subsidies for renewable energy is already costing the UK £11bn a year, a figure which will carry on rising remorselessly for the next decade, as more low carbon power comes on stream.

But that is the tip of the iceberg. The Committee on Climate Change have estimated their Net Zero plan will eventually cost £50bn a year, about £1800 per household. Independent experts, including Philip Hammond believe this to be a gross underestimate.

Climate Change

But, I hear you say, surely we have no alternative, if we are to “save the planet”?

The problem here is that the UK’s emissions are only 1% of the global total, which continues to rise. In other words, whatever we do will have no effect whatsoever on the climate.


BP Energy Review

Yet so often we hear people saying we “must do something immediately”! And not just the likes of the Extinction Rebellion rabble. Rebecca Long-Bailey, who might be our Business Secretary next month, (no, please don’t titter), literally said in a speech last week that our chance to tackle climate change would be lost if we did not start investing in her climate plan next month.

In any event, the idea that there is some sort of climate emergency is absurd, regardless of your views on global warming. There is nothing in the data to suggest there is, or will be in the immediate future.

Even the IPCC reports say that the world’s weather is not getting more extreme. Contrary to popular myth, hurricanes, tornadoes and other storms are not getting stronger. Neither are there any overall changes in the frequency or severity of droughts and floods. Experts also tell us that wildfires burn much less land than they used to.

Global food production continues to steadily rise year on year, whilst the number of deaths from weather disasters has plummeted in recent decades.

Even the poor polar bears, who we are regularly told are under threat, are actually doing fine and increasing in numbers.

In the UK too, it simply is not true that our weather has gotten more extreme. In fact, apart from being slightly warmer than a century ago, our climate has changed remarkably little.

Remember the claims a few years ago from so-called experts that “children just aren’t going to know what snow is”, or that we would be soon be having Mediterranean summers every year? The good old British weather knew better!


But when do you ever hear any of this on the telly, or read about it in the papers? If you did, I suspect opinion polls would show rather different results.

  1. charles wardrop permalink
    November 17, 2019 5:03 pm

    Since the UK’s proportion of world’s manmade CO2 output is one rhird of 1%.
    We cannot significanly help with global decarbonisation, nor should we try.🏟

  2. Joe Public permalink
    November 17, 2019 5:07 pm

    The question should have been not ‘When should the government aim to be net-zero by?’; but how much of you and your family’s money are you prepared to spend NOW, to hope to get to net zero by (a) 2030 and (b) 2050?

  3. alexei permalink
    November 17, 2019 5:14 pm

    It just shows how unbelievably easy it is to brainwash a nation via the MSM. What will they try next?

  4. November 17, 2019 5:40 pm

    In order to achieve the Greenies’ insane objectives, the question would have to include the only means that could achieve the objective:

    1)Drastic reduction of UK population by any means necessary i. e. release of biotoxins, killing fields etc.
    2) elimination of a modern industrial economy and introduction of a stone age economy.

    • November 17, 2019 8:07 pm

      The most efficient way of reducing a population (without being accused of genocide) is remove healthcare & let nature take its course (or leave it to god’s mercy) ~ 5yrs should cut population by 90ish%.

      Now what’s that about NHS cuts !!!

  5. DMA permalink
    November 17, 2019 5:40 pm

    “But when do you ever hear any of this on the telly, or read about it in the papers? If you did, I suspect opinion polls would show rather different results.”
    This, I believe, is the crux of this whole farce. The truth is here on the internet but does not make it to the public that do not care enough to search for it. Like this article discusses, the horrors of the proposed net zero transition are not discussed and the benefits are hyped beyond any reason. Our local (Montana) newspaper has run a series on climate change that incorporated numerous errors of fact and logic over the last three months. I have tried to point out some of them in 4 letters to the editor none of which were printed. There have been several letters praising the series each week and not one pointing to the deficiencies in it.
    How do we get some facts, reason, and logic inserted into the general public knowledge?

  6. November 17, 2019 5:49 pm

    “The Committee on Climate Change have estimated their Net Zero plan will eventually cost £50bn a year, about £1800 per household. Independent experts, including Philip Hammond believe this to be a gross underestimate.”

    And guess where all that lovely munney will go? Well, fat cat and pocket come to mind…

    • spetzer86 permalink
      November 17, 2019 6:39 pm

      “Where will it come from?” may be a better question. After the power starts going on and off at random intervals and all the industry leaves, who’ll be ultimately paying for the programs?

  7. charles wardrop permalink
    November 17, 2019 5:54 pm

    It is vital that the politicians and public learn the impacts of these crazy, useless policies.
    How can that be achieved?

    • J Martin permalink
      November 17, 2019 6:57 pm

      The hard way. Social collapse, mass unemployment, black outs.

  8. Stonyground permalink
    November 17, 2019 5:57 pm

    This is part of a post at Samizdata about a different subject but I think that some of it is relevant here too.

    “It’s the fault of the popular belief that technology and services happen by magic. Everyone sees goods and services being provided in shops, and the shopkeepers charge them money for it. And they secretly resent the fact, the shopkeepers are getting all this money and doing nothing for it, because the goods just appear in their shop by magic…
    Nobody thinks about all the machinery behind the scenes that makes it work, and how it’s all interconnected. They never think about the cost, and how they will pay for it. Money comes out of a slot in the wall. Milk comes from shops. Fibre broadband just happens. Somebody else pays for that. The government. The rich. It never occurs to them that *they* pay for it. And it never occurs to them that when life gives them a kicking (or slow broadband) that they and their demands for services could be responsible.

    And that’s what Socialism sells. Don’t worry about it. You can have all the goods and services and luxuries you want, and not have to pay for any of them. The government will pay. The corporations will pay. The rich will pay.

    No. *You* will pay. And when you can’t get a decent service, it’s not because someone else is being greedy, it’s because *you* didn’t want to or couldn’t pay for it.”

    The kind of people who want net zero CO2 emissions by 2025 have no clue whatsoever about how the world works.

    • Stonyground permalink
      November 17, 2019 6:03 pm

      Sorry, I forgot to give a credit for the quote. It came from Samizdata commenter Nullius in Verba.

    • November 17, 2019 7:21 pm

      What’s more, everything that we have today is built on decades, and in some cases, centuries of research and development that was only possible because people were freed, through the exploitation of fossil fuels, from toiling in the fields to keep themselves and their families from starving. Our mobile phones didn’t appear in the shops by magic and they weren’t created in their current form and with their current capabilities without the contributions of millions of people over the last 100 and more years.

      • mikewaite permalink
        November 17, 2019 8:08 pm

        In my retirement I have had time to chase up my and my wife’s family history. We are talking about scores of people in the censuses going back to 1841 and parish records prior to that, for Berkshire, Worcestershire, and East Anglia. Up to 1851 all were “Ag Labs”. After 1851 none were involved in any agricultural activiy of any kind.
        Participating in the Industrial revolution, with all its horrors in the slums of Manchester and London, seemed clearly more desirable than the soul and body – destroying toil in fields for pittance.
        But the millionaires of Westminster , the city of London and the BBC want to send us, or rather our grand children back to that pre industrial misery.
        How dare they!

      • Stephen Bazlinton permalink
        November 18, 2019 5:21 pm

        Perhaps we will come under the power of a 21st century Pol Pot………….

    • JimW permalink
      November 17, 2019 9:27 pm

      Stoneyground, the problem you have is that there are two factors that mitigate against your logic.
      1) 2008 QE to infinity created money , vast quantity of wealth in assets held by the global elite. They want to use it to control the future for the benefit of themselves and families. Climate change provides them with a wonderful almost risk free vehicle for investment, with the risks held by the tax and utility payer. So they fund all the MSM/UN/ Green whackos.
      2) QE was seen to work. Negative interest rates and national currencies supported by the central banks allows MMT to exist and operate. Japan has nationalised over 50% of its economy through its CB with no ill effects on inflation or its economy. So ‘New Green Deals’ are supported by Dems in US, Labour in UK and across the EU. All to be financed through QE type arrangements. As long as the CB supports 100 year paper at nearly zero rates there is no blow back. If everyone does it, currency speculators have no-one to pick off, iternational bond markets are bypassed.
      In this tops-turvey new world what used to be referred to as ‘neo-marxist’ expenditure can proceed with little risk.
      The MSM control the minds of the population, CBs control the money. The elites get richer and more powerful. The ‘greens’ get orgasmic virtue signalling. And somehow the ordinary joe public carries on because payment for all this is pushed back and back and back……
      The fact that ‘hard economics’ says that its a waste of resources and destroys productivity is ignored and can be because in our new MMT economic world those concepts are worthless.

      • Stonyground permalink
        November 18, 2019 6:39 am

        My point, or rather Nullius’s point, is that these people think that we can just stop using fossil fuels, just like that, and nothing will change. This is because they have no understanding of what the consequences would be because they don’t have any idea about how stuff works.

  9. Coeur de Lion permalink
    November 17, 2019 6:50 pm

    The (so far) definitive paper on this subject is the annual lecture by Prof Kelly to the Global Warming Policy Foundation and their press release dated 11 November. He’s strictly an engineer and therefore applies rigorous logic. The decarbonisation plans are impossible. Full stop. His lecture is titled “Energy Policy Needs a Herd of Unicorns”. Do read it everybody.

  10. swan101 permalink
    November 17, 2019 6:56 pm

    Reblogged this on ECO-ENERGY DATABASE.

  11. Euclid permalink
    November 17, 2019 7:12 pm

    Pity the Committee on Climate Change haven’t read it!

  12. Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
    November 17, 2019 8:27 pm

    given average car life is around ten years

    Very likely this number can be doubled or more.
    Did not Cubans learn to fix and repair after the import of new autos ceased?
    Attempts to force certain types out of the fleet just consumes wealth, and makes used autos more expensive for those that can only afford a lower priced vehicle.
    The USA had deal called “Cash for Clunkers” [a report here: a stimulus fail

    • Stuart Brown permalink
      November 17, 2019 9:12 pm

      Yup, been there too in the uk, but here I think it was reasonably successful. I looked at it owning a 10 year old car at the time, but I just couldn’t see how getting a small amount off a new car that would lose at least that amount in depreciation as I drove it off the forecourt beat keeping my perfectly reliable (bigger) vehicle. Kept it for another couple of years or so until the original clutch was slipping a bit at 120K miles plus. Don’t think the guy who bought it was Cuban 🙂 just wanted a cheap car.

      When I was young cars couldn’t make it to 10 years/ 50k miles without serious love. Modern cars are generally way more reliable, and get replaced in the UK because a lot are leased on fixed contracts rather than bought or are ‘fashion’ items, like phones. My current car is a diesel, 12 years old and showing no need to be replaced (touch wood, and yes for pedants, the cars overlapped).

      What are these schemes about? Encouraging car sales or ‘reducing emissions’. I know which I think, and I think we’d agree. Zero carbon they ain’t. The public are hypocrites.

      • bobn permalink
        November 18, 2019 2:54 am

        How good will electric tractors be at low torque pulling? How good with heavy loads? I have a 4×4 to tow 3ton plus loads so need 3000cc at least diesel. What electric can compete? Big problem with elec is they can do the job for a short time then sudden and rapid fail. As long as the diesel tank has fuel it performs. batteries are fragile and very unreliable, just think of your battery elec drill – all fine and then plummets to nothing.

    • November 17, 2019 9:47 pm

      We still won’t be allowed to use them though!!

      • Steve permalink
        November 18, 2019 8:40 am

        Farmers will be ordered to buy tractors running on hydrogen. Trucks and shipping too. As it involves energy loss converting from natural gas, fuel will cost more than red diesel.
        Prof Kelly puts the cost of conversion of the older housing stock at £1-2 trillion for 20 million older houses. The cost of the proposed hybrid heat pumps will be similar to the fuel cell heaters with heat pumps available today. These are around £14k as opposed to a gas boiler and fitting, which costs me about £700.

  13. john cooknell permalink
    November 17, 2019 8:44 pm

    Energy demand has to somehow be met, or quite simply we will become extinct, there are far too many of us to live without energy.

    I have no idea whether the wind turbines and solar can be made to work, but the signs are not good. It appears we need technology that hasn’t yet been developed to solve this, but something might be round the corner who knows.

    Few predicted the smart phone as the device that would alter our civilisation, and the way we relate to other human beings, but it has. Computer Modelling of a virtual world is fast becoming what Science regards as the Truth, better than any reality.

    I must admit as an Electrical Engineer to not seeing LED lighting would take over so quickly, but unfortunately the consequential forecast drop in electricity demand has not surfaced, we still use more and more.

    My crystal ball has become cloudy of late, how is yours?

    • Steve permalink
      November 18, 2019 8:49 am

      Mine is clear. It’s going to be so expensive that it will bankrupt the country and result in lots of deaths from poverty and hypothermia. The only thing that I regret is that I will not be around to laugh at the brainwashed dumbos who think that the little horror from Sweden is our conscience and that real zero carbon by even 2050 is possible.

  14. GeoffB permalink
    November 17, 2019 9:18 pm

    The majority of people are thick i mean stupid. no further comment.

    • Stuart Brown permalink
      November 17, 2019 9:31 pm

      Duped would be kinder. If you really wanted to go carbon free by 2025 or whenever you would be a cave dwelling naturist smallholder using a hole for your early morning needs. You would have no children, but given the above that goes without saying 🙂

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      November 18, 2019 9:48 am

      We are all thick about something. Arguably most of us are thick about most things and, also arguably, the more complex the world becomes the “thicker” we get.

      Many years ago I argued that the hand that signs the cheque (we were talking about domestic rates, so that dates it!) is not the hand that puts the ‘X’ on the ballot paper — perhaps more precisely they are in different situations connected to different parts of the brain. So we see no dichotomy in voting for a Labour councillor while at the same time objecting to an “inflation-busting” increase in our council tax.

      We live in this sort of permanent state of semi-disconnect because probably it’s the only way we can function. Ask us a question and we will give an answer based on what the question implies. Do you want to save the planet? Yes! Do you want to give up reliable electricity, your car, your Sunday roast beef in order to reduce the earth’s temperatures by .001°? Do I ****!

      I remember James Burke in Connections talking us through what would happen if the lights went out and didn’t come back on again. Without electrical power our current civilisation completely ceases to operate and 99% of us no longer have the skills we would need to survive in that situation. The only survivors would be the Amish, a few primitive tribes, and the odd mountain man in Montana!

      • Athelstan. permalink
        November 18, 2019 11:55 am

        In my infant years, avidly I used to devour scifi, read books about Armageddon, civilization collapse ie, or the lack of electricity. Therein and the capability of mankind thereafter to survive such a calamity. Quite quickly I arrived at the solution, concluding that it would be best if, I was sitting waiting for the ‘nuke’ at ground zero.

        In this day of a society so utterly dependent on micro chipped everything, we’ll be doubly ****ed.

  15. Chaswarnertoo permalink
    November 17, 2019 10:36 pm

    Time to raise the IQ of an idiot ( too stupid to vote) to 125….

    • john cooknell permalink
      November 17, 2019 10:46 pm

      That would exclude most of the cabinet!

  16. November 17, 2019 10:58 pm

    How many trees would need to be planted to get UK to net zero by 2030?

    • TrevorC permalink
      November 18, 2019 7:22 am

      It doesn’t matter how many trees we plant. They take time to grow, so it will make little difference by 2030 or even 2050.

    • November 18, 2019 5:05 pm

      The entire product of the UK’s present extent of forestry is not sufficient to feed the Drax power station.

      A stat I could hardly believe when I first saw it, but having checked the figures, it is true.

  17. bobn permalink
    November 18, 2019 2:47 am


    lets also ask. Should UK eliminate all cancer deaths by 2030 or 2050?
    Answer from public 2030
    reality neither possible – prepare for mega disappointment!

    Of course because CO2 has no impact on climate you can go zero anytime you like – but it will achieve nothing but poverty and increased death from cold – whoopee you morons! You Greenpeas keep trying to kill people.

    • Tim the Coder permalink
      November 18, 2019 5:16 pm

      Eliminate cancer?
      Easy. Seen the film “Logan’s Run” ?
      Running the country on wind, sun and unicorn farts will have a similar effect.
      Only the young will survive, the ill and frail will freeze and starve. Result: cancer cured!
      What a cunning plan.
      Life without electricity?: read “Dies the Fire” by S.M.Stirling

  18. Stonyground permalink
    November 18, 2019 6:51 am

    Interestingly, one of the things being said by the cult of St. Greta was about not buying new stuff unless you have to. Further to the discussion about old cars, I have tended to practice this philosophy with regard to cars and other stuff as well. I grew out of wanting a car as a status symbol in my twenties, now I just want something practical and reliable.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      November 18, 2019 1:53 pm

      The car companies might change their production to produce just parts to keep the existing cars going.

  19. taylor361 permalink
    November 18, 2019 8:28 am

    By asking the right question the Guardia has got the answer they wanted. However, if the question had included Julia H-Bs points the result would have been different. it is also useful to remember there is a history of the British public wanting unusual mass responses. IN the 1930s the vast majority of people declared themselevs to be pacifist and against any future war while Churchill was thought of as a warmonger. ONce the British people realised the truth they quickly supported re-armament and changed their stance.

  20. Dan permalink
    November 18, 2019 8:49 am

    Even educated people are woefully lacking. at a recent Royal Society event in Swansea, the steel industry was referred to as an old industry that had to be moved away from. It did not dawn on several of the panel that the likes of steel and cement are vital to their lifestyle and thankfully one member of the panel duly put them all down. Though closing both Port Talbot and Scunthorpe would close the two biggest polluters in the country….

    Most people have no idea what de-carbonisation means. The “easier” net zero (which is not really a target as you cannot offset that amount) means significant lifestyle changes. No about of whataboutary will change that.

  21. tonyb permalink
    November 18, 2019 8:53 am

    Simply follow these cut out and keep guidelines for a low emissions lifestyle;

    Private cars need to be impounded and assuming journeys are necessary in the first place, travel only by bus, cycling, walking or train. For students, no parents taxi service. No flying except in an emergency so obviously no foreign holidays and forget ski-ing.

    No spring water in plastic bottles, No imported food or food out of season when there is a local alternative. No Burgers and little other meat, dairy or fish, no hot daily showers, an embargo on throw away fashion clothes and shoes, no cotton. Infrequent washing of clothes in tepid water and no artificial drying.

    Drastic reductions of energy guzzling internet and social media, with environmentally damaging smart phones and computers rationed to one a household and kept for years, and curtailment of consumer good purchases. Accept carbon rationing.

    Curtail consumption of habitat destroying coffee and forego endless home deliveries, whether fast food or shoes. Cease attendance at festivals or sporting events, especially overseas or with floodlights. . Boycott new content on tv or film especially when made overseas,

    Minimal home heating. No cooking or heating with gas, expect regular power cuts. Curtail vegan foods which have achieved mythical planet saving status, despite many vegan ingredients being imported –often by air-bearing huge carbon footprints.

    Presumably those believing in this ‘climate emergency’ have already taken their own drastic steps to try to prevent it by selflessly regressing to the 18th century and might like to inform the rest of us which measures they have personally implemented? Contributions from publicity seeking but hypocritical celebs and Royals especially welcome.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      November 18, 2019 9:21 am

      All of which will lead to mass (40% or more) unemployment, followed by mass land invasions as people try to feed themselves. If the young think their future is bad now, wait until we do what they think we should do.

  22. Phoenix44 permalink
    November 18, 2019 9:18 am

    The plan is simple. Ckaim its essential something has to be done. Pretend it can be done painlessly. Make it sound virtuous so people support it. Rush the plan into action.

    Then when it starts to bite, say it’s too late to change course. This time though they will cause utter disaster.

  23. ianprsy permalink
    November 18, 2019 9:27 am

    I’m sure I’m not the only one watching the current series featuring Sainsburys and thinking there’s no way the public is ready for Zero Carbon. Ignorance is bliss writ large.

    As an illustration of how clueless the populace is, my local council recently declared they’re going for zero carbon internally by 2040 and for the borough by 2045. Most, if not all the councillors voting on this did so enthusiastically, with a few suggesting “it” be done even sooner.

  24. November 18, 2019 9:38 am

    Trade union leaders say no…

    Labour abandons climate change plan for net zero carbon emissions by 2030
    The Independent•November 18, 2019

    • Steve permalink
      November 18, 2019 12:07 pm

      That’s quite a u turn. Only 90% of electricity or ‘power’ while the other 80% can carry on using gas and petrol? While the 90% of electricity will be from renewables and where is the backup coming from when there is no renewable in the middle of winter? Do they understand anything?

  25. November 18, 2019 9:45 am

    Judging by the comments sections in newspapers, on articles about the climate, most people see it for the hoax it is.

    • November 18, 2019 5:11 pm

      That is a curious situation. Because at the moment the only agitation is for more, faster, from the likes of XR – but like you I believe that a majority of people who have thought this through have seen it for the disaster it is.

      I suppose there is little chance of people blocking roads in order to demand the status quo. We’ll have to wait until the policies begin to bite first.

      Meanwhile there is a carefree rump of our population who will nod along with anything, sad to say.

  26. David Bains permalink
    November 18, 2019 11:30 am

    I understand this am that the Unions have prevented the Labour Party from putting this unrealistic goal in their manifesto.

  27. bobn permalink
    November 18, 2019 2:11 pm

    Of course zero carbon means no bonfires or fireworks, so the govt should ban them now. Our village loves its traditional 5 Nov bonfire. When the greens on the parish council suggested declaring a parish ‘climate emergency’ as the district council has just done, our astute chairman pointed out that if we did then we would also need to cancel bonfire night and fireworks. The Council numpties gulped, mumbled, and decided there was no emergency. Bonfire night trumps carbon-zero!

    • November 18, 2019 5:13 pm

      Our council (Norwich CC) has also declared a climate emergency, or is doing so. Whither then the fireworks and the Chrimbo lights? I mean to write to them to ask on what data they base their emergency, cos it certainly ain’t the IPCC.

  28. ianprsy permalink
    November 18, 2019 2:57 pm

    Barry Gardner claimed on the news this lunchtime that Labour’s Zero30 policy will be helped by the grid being 90% renewables by then.

  29. Jeremy permalink
    November 18, 2019 3:29 pm

    My faith in the intelligence of the British public is evaporating. No doubt the product of ignorance and indoctrination by the Beeb – the greatest single threat to UK prosperity. We get what we pay for.

    • ianprsy permalink
      November 18, 2019 3:52 pm

      Why blame the public? We employ politicians to run the country and they’re ALL hooked on the climate con. Most people I know are too busy having a life to spend valuable (to them) time and energy wondering whether they’re being lied to.

  30. November 18, 2019 5:26 pm

    The present angle is that our politicians are scrambling over one another to promise more anti-climate change actions than their opponents. They are doing this for appearances, not because they believe it. The climate emergency is today’s moral panic, and we have to do something, do anything, right now!

    The easy criticisms of this are not being made by our friends in the media. The Overton window has firmly moved from sense into nonsense. Why are our politicians not quizzed on the very things that Paul lists above? Their actions will:

    Probably bankrupt the country
    Lead to unstable electricity, if any available at all
    Have no discernible affect on global temperatures

    Why not ask them how much all this is going to cost, & then ask how many degrees of warming it is going to abate? A trillion quid for a thousandth of a degree by 2100, is a ballpark guess.

    The local Labour candidate’s posse called by & told me that they were planning umpteen thousand jobs in green energy. But, says I, you don’t measure the worth of your energy system by how many people it employs, you measure it by how much energy it provides per employee…

    No time to argue with you now, my caller said, and hastened up the road to join her colleagues.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: