Skip to content

Climate pledge on gas boilers for 2023 ‘vanishes’

November 23, 2020

By Paul Homewood


Another blatantly biased article from Harrabin:




The prime minister’s pledge to ban gas boilers from new homes by 2023 has been withdrawn.

The promise first appeared on the Downing Street website this week attached to Mr Johnson’s climate plan.

But the date was later amended, with the PM’s office claiming a “mix-up”.

The original statement from Number 10 announced this goal; "2023Implement a Future Homes Standard for new homes, with low carbon heating and world-leading levels of energy efficiency.”

That means no room for gas central heating, which is a major contributor to the emissions over-heating the climate.

The latest version of the 10-point climate plan on the Number 10 website includes the line: "Homes built to Future Homes Standard will be ‘zero carbon ready’ and have 70-80% lower carbon emissions than those built to current standards."

Crucially there’s no target attached to the new version of the policy – the 2023 date has disappeared.

A Downing Street spokesperson told BBC News there had been a “mix-up”, saying: “The government wants to implement the measures under the Future Homes Standard in the shortest possible timeline.

“We’ve consulted on introducing this by 2025 and will set out further details in due course.”

Wind power

But Andrew Warren from the British Energy Efficiency Federation said: “It’s unbelievable to think there would have been a ‘mix-up’ on a really important prime minister’s document like this.

“Are we expected to believe they can’t tell the difference between a 3 and a 5? Here we go again.”

Mr Warren harked back to 2015, when the government was preparing to introduce a zero-carbon home standard.

At the last minute, the home-builder Persimmon lobbied the Chancellor George Osborne to get the measure scrapped.

Persimmon said the standard would make homes unaffordable, but engineers said better-insulated homes saved money on bills.

If homes are well insulated they can also use low-energy electric heat pumps, which suck warmth from the surrounding ground or air – a bit like a fridge in reverse.

Hydrogen will also be used to heat some low-carbon homes, although it’s expensive, so it’s not ideal for poorly insulated houses.

Again, this is just another thinly disguised attack on the Tories, which we see every day from the BBC. After all, why even mention what George Osborn did in 2015?

As for the “2023 pledge”, as Harrabin himself already wrote last week this was not even in the PM’s 10-Point Plan, published last week. The plan was much less specific:



The only mention of 2023 was on the No 10 website, and  these sort of mix ups are not unusual.

But beyond all of this, Harrabin in typical fashion fails to give his readers the full facts – only his green tinted version.

For instance:

  • Why is there no mention of how much extra heat pumps cost to install?
  • Why is there no mention that they can cost three times the cost of a gas boiler to run?
  • Why is there no mention of the cost of all of this extra insulation Harrabin is so keen to see added to the price of new houses?

Instead he includes the opinions of eco-nutters, such as the Architects Climate Action Network, whoever they might be.

Just another shoddy article from Roger Harrabin, which we are so accustomed to seeing.


  1. Bertie permalink
    November 23, 2020 11:08 am

    Princess Nut Nuts won’t be happy.

  2. Harry Passfield permalink
    November 23, 2020 11:22 am

    I read somewhere that the extra insulation needed for walls could be 150mm thick. Assuming that would mean the inside of external walls wouldn’t that have effect of making rooms considerably smaller? Of course, on the up side, smaller rooms will take less to heat. 🤔

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      November 23, 2020 1:53 pm

      That’s a foot off both the length and the width.. Many modern bedrooms might no longer accommodate a double bed. As for the bathrooms…

  3. Harry Davidson permalink
    November 23, 2020 11:24 am

    That was a interesting PR battle, wasn’t it? Carrie and her side had all the PR expertise, their stuff was much better done, better argued, but they lost. They did not appreciate that in a public spat (which it was) a really good insult is trumps, and it was backed up by one substantial, entirely believable, killer accusation “We spend all day in meetings, it’s all agreed, then Boris goes home to the flat and by 9pm we start getting WhatsApp messages changing everything”.
    It cast the exchange in brutal terms, is it better to have Cummings and his blokes guiding policy, or Carrie and her girls? The PCP seem to prefer Carrie, Conservative voters prefer Cummings. But then Conservative voters don’t generally like woke greenery, as Boris will eventually understand.

    • Harry Davidson permalink
      November 23, 2020 11:29 am

      That was a reply Bertie, except “Computer says no”.

  4. Alan permalink
    November 23, 2020 11:33 am

    Is a heat pump what I would call a reverse cycle air conditioner?

    • Joe Public permalink
      November 23, 2020 1:09 pm

      Or a refrigerator.

      • Aaron Halliwell permalink
        November 23, 2020 2:29 pm

        Aren’t we going to need air coditioners as well in those scorching summers?

  5. David permalink
    November 23, 2020 11:42 am

    Rooms in small houses can’t get much smaller. I recently looked at a new house where the only place to put a bed was along a six foot long wall. Take another foot off that and people would be sleeping in five foot cots!

    • Peter Yarnall permalink
      November 23, 2020 12:13 pm

      Do you know “Get ’em out by Friday” by Genesis?

  6. Mad Mike permalink
    November 23, 2020 12:11 pm

    Its all very well committing the Government to something 10 or 20 years ahead. It’s like committing to lose 2 stone. When the day of the diet comes close you realise the enormity of the task and might take the easier and more realistic option of going for 1 stone starting next month. Suddenly HMG and Boris has realised what they are doing and the fact that they might still be in power after 2023 and have to answer questions over their actions. Best to put it off and I fully expect the same will happen to the deadline for banning the production of ICE vehicles and then hybrids. In the meantime of course that can bask in the approval for doing something Green without actually doing anything. Humphrey would approve.

    • bobn permalink
      November 23, 2020 4:19 pm

      Yes. This is all empty virtue signalling and wont happen. All these silly timetables will slip into the far distance because they are unachievable fantasies (like the fusion reactors we were going to build 20yrs ago but now are promised again in 20yrs). Hybrid cars will still be on sale in 2050 and full ICE cars still sold in 2040. Gas boilers will heat houses in 2050. Yes in 2050 many houses will be better insulated and heatpumps will be used where effective. There will be electric and ICE cars and the majority likely hybrid in 2050 because fuel of all types will be silly expensive. But all this ‘target’ setting will slip away and be kicked into a fantasy future, just like our arctic ice loss which isnt melting to the elitists timetable. Its all fantasy fiction and thus can be ignored, however it will likely take a few major power cuts to get them to admit to the failure of the fantasies dominating the illogical elitists.

  7. November 23, 2020 1:00 pm

    Much of the government’s stupidity relies on the false assumption that carbon dioxide is somehow very, very bad. If the dumbos would get an education and realise that more CO2 is good for most everyone and everything, then the world would be a much more green and prosperous place.

    • November 23, 2020 10:09 pm

      Well said, the above just showes up the absurdatey of our Politicains. As far as I can see our “politicians” are illiterate and totally lacking in how things happen or get made. It is a mistake to blame CO2 for anything, it is purely Plant Food, long may it last!

  8. November 23, 2020 1:26 pm

    Spend 10mins watching these clips –
    They accurately show whats going on.

  9. john cheshire permalink
    November 23, 2020 2:08 pm

    I would vote for any Political party that committed to repealing the Climate Change act.
    And withdrew from the UN Compact on Migration.

    It’s interesting that not even Mr Farage is promising either of these actions if he managed to win power.

    • Mad Mike permalink
      November 23, 2020 2:45 pm

      As 70% of the UK public believe that CC is down to human behaviour, he is very unlikely to launch Reform with an agenda going against this. He is cherry picking the issues and keeping to the most promising. I don’t know his feelings on CC but I suspect he won’t be going along with established opinion. If he gets in to anywhere where he has power to influence things he is likely to go along the drip, drip method of swaying public opinion. The one the BBC and Government has used to good effect, keep mentioning events etc. and throwing in the “fact” that Man Made CC has influenced and then is the cause of all these changes. It can easily be done in reverse given enough power and resources.

      • bobn permalink
        November 23, 2020 4:30 pm

        Nigel has become a political realist. 10yrs ago he was on a platform of zero immigration, however he listened to wise council and moderated his view to be campaigning in 2015 for an Australian style points system (a policy then stolen by conservatives). Likewise he doesnt believe in manmade climate change but in natural CC. Again 10yrs ago the UKIP policy was to dismiss AGW outright. UKIP didnt win many votes taking this path. At the 2019 election nigel’s Brexit party sidestepped the climate issue wherever possible because they knew that to tell the truth was to lose votes. They came up with vague platitudes to appease the majority greenie public but made no commitments to green policies. In politics its no good being right if you lose votes. You have to win before you can afford to be honest. Such is the tragedy of democracy; it promotes lying and deceit – just look to the USA!

      • Dave Gardner permalink
        November 26, 2020 12:39 pm

        If I had to guess what Farage’s position is on the climate change malarkey, it’s probably the pre-2010 UKIP position, which was to regard Green technology as being not fit for purpose, but they had a preference to stay out of the debate over whether climate scientists know what they’re doing.

        In the 2005 General Election, UKIP was the only UK political party that was opposed to wind energy, as described in this extract from the 2005 manifesto:

        “It is hard to see how wind power can ever be viable. Given the capital costs of supply and installation of turbines, windpower is several times more expensive than power from conventional sources, it could never supply more than a fraction of our demand for energy and it is intermittent – no wind, no power. No other renewable sources are showing any signs of making a significant contribution.”

        “Put an immediate stop to the erection of wind turbines.”

        Farage stood down temporarily as leader of UKIP before the 2010 General Election in order to concentrate fully on trying to win a parliamentary seat. His replacement as leader was Lord Pearson, and Christopher Monckton then convinced Pearson that UKIP should become a fully fledged climate change sceptic party which criticised climate science as well. This WUWT blog post by Monckton gives more details (though he seems to miss out the fact that the BNP, which was doing fairly well in 2010, was also a climate change sceptic party):

        When Farage returned as UKIP’s leader after the 2010 General Election, Monckton’s career within UKIP went downhill and Farage eventually sacked Monckton as the leader of UKIP Scotland in 2013.

        I suspect Farage associates criticism of climate science with eccentric people like Monckton, and a political party doesn’t really get any votes out of it.

  10. Jason permalink
    November 23, 2020 7:55 pm

    Why is a threat described as a promise?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: