Skip to content

The Sixth Carbon Budget

December 10, 2020
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 image

https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/sixth-carbon-budget/

 

The Committee on Climate Change, the quango headed up by our old friend John Gummer. has just published its latest cunning plan to bankrupt the UK. The Sixth Carbon Budget lays out how we should meet our decarbonisation targets, with specific emphasis on the period 2032-2037.

For the first time they have included estimates of what all of this might cost us in the 2030s. Dressed up in percentages of GDP, talk of green jobs and claims of the economic growth it will all spawn, the CCC have attempted to obscure how much we are all actually going to have to fork out.

They reckon that their plan will involve spending around £50bn annually by 2030, which equates to nearly £2000 for every home in the country. But, as we shall see, even that figure is based on some highly optimistic (some would argue unrealistically so) assumptions.

They say that the £50bn could be marginally offset by savings on electric cars. But it turns out that these are based on a combination of Enron style accounting, and absurdly fanciful assumptions about falling prices of electric cars.

There is, of course, much jam promised tomorrow, or more precisely 2050, when half of us will be dead. But it’s not what might happen in thirty years time that matters to people, it’s the here and now.

 

But what will all of this mean to the man in the street?

As we already know, the sale of conventional petrol and diesel cars will be banned from 2030. According to the CCC, Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) currently cost a third more than conventional cars, typically a premium of £6400.

However, the CCC grandly assume that by 2030 BEVs will cost no more; all of this on the basis that the cost of BEV batteries will drop by two thirds in the next ten years, for which there is not the slightest evidence. Of course, if BEVs do become a lot cheaper, drivers will be queuing up to buy them, and the government won’t need to ban conventional cars!

The CCC also dishonestly include something called “carbon costs” in their running costs for petrol/diesel cars, which amounts to £200 a year per car, or £7bn for the country as a whole. There is, of course, no such a thing as a “cost of carbon”, which is included only to make low carbon alternatives appear more competitive.

When these factors, along with doubts about the second hand value of BEVs, are taken into account, most of the CCC’s fictional savings disappear. All the more significant, because those drivers who are forced to use public chargers are already finding their cars to be dearer than petrol ones to run.

 

We then come to heating our homes, with proposals that sales of gas boilers are banned by 2033. For most homes this will mean replacement with air source heat pumps, which typically cost around £10,000 to install and require thousands more to be spent on insulation if they are to work effectively.

Quite where ordinary families are expected to get this money from is not explained! To make matters worse, because electricity costs five times as much as natural gas in terms of energy, householders will find that their heating bills double as well.

And if we choose to carry on using our old gas boilers? Simples – we will have a stonking carbon tax added to our gas bills instead.

Not only are we expected to pay thousands out to meet carbon targets, but we are also told we must eat a third less red meat and dairy produce, drive our cars less and take fewer flights. Not that we will be able to afford any of these pleasures after the CCC have done with us.

Eating less meat and dairy will of course cause great damage to British farming, as well as pushing up food bills for poorer families.

And how will we actually power all of these new electric cars and heat pumps? By 2035, we will need nearly twice as much electricity as now, two thirds of which will be coming from wind and solar power, according to the CCC. This is four times the amount of power they generate now.

And when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine? We will have to fall back on gas power stations, with the proviso that they can capture and store the carbon dioxide produced, even though nowhere in the world has managed to do this at scale.

Central to the case for wind power, is that the cost of offshore wind has fallen so much that it is now competitive. However, independent experts, who have looked at the published accounts of companies building these wind farms, maintain that these so-called falling costs are illusory, and that the real costs could be triple those of conventional power generators. If they are right, this would add another £20bn a year to the CCC’s plan.

No longer are these plans decades in the future. Within the space of a very few years, people will begin to experience the financial pain inflicted on them by these proposals, if they are allowed to go ahead.

 

And all for what?

The UK only accounts for 1% of global emissions, so whatever we do will have no effect at all on the climate. Meanwhile, despite COVID, this year China has continued to build new coal power stations, increasing its generating capacity by 3%. In the last two year’s the rise in China’s emissions of carbon dioxide has exceeded our total emissions.

98 Comments
  1. cajwbroomhill permalink
    December 10, 2020 4:40 pm

    The purposes of Government in a democracy devolve down to getting the best deal for the voter.
    Does anyone believe that the CCommittee is trying to do that, given the neggligible greenhouse gases the UK puts out, much less than 1% of the planet’s total? put out.

    • Allan Shelton permalink
      December 10, 2020 9:23 pm

      But, the most important thing is that CO2 does not cause global warming.
      The alarmists steadfastly refuse to look at the proof that the GHG Theory has been debunked.

      • cajwbroomhill permalink
        December 12, 2020 10:19 am

        Agreed, but could you please give a reference to the “debunked” published work.
        My own view is AGW is not at all proven, but is predicted by GIGO fouled computer programs.

  2. December 10, 2020 4:45 pm

    So, this started as a work of fiction…where are we now exactly with the embellishment of the Emperors clothes?

  3. December 10, 2020 4:50 pm

    I have said this before but it needs to be insisted upon that the numbers are presented as GUARANTEED number of units of planetary warming/ climate change avoided/acceleration reduced per £ million wasted, (sorry, spent).

    If they cannot deliver any guarantee of actual planetary benefit then there is no argument whatsoever to then embark on this ruinous endeavour.

  4. mjr permalink
    December 10, 2020 4:54 pm

    Paul – just picked this up from a post on lockdownsceptics.org
    https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html
    in case you havent come across this one

    • mjr permalink
      December 10, 2020 5:11 pm

      just realised it is over a year old. I thought it was new . ignore me !!!

      • December 10, 2020 5:46 pm

        But still very relevant, and illustrates the total scientific shambles that is AGW!

      • Ariane permalink
        December 11, 2020 8:33 am

        mjr, no problem if the piece is a year old. The CCC is using rubbish published over 20 years ago and our government is meekly following.

  5. GeoffB permalink
    December 10, 2020 4:58 pm

    I think we have to be careful in using the argument that UK only contributes 1% of CO2 and China is continuing to build coal power stations which increase their CO2 output. While true, it implies an acceptance that CO2 is the driver of the alleged climate change emergency.
    In fact it is the benevolent creator of all of our food, its contribution to global warming is just a theory and there is evidence that it is wrong. The other thing that is in dispute is just how man made CO2 ties in with the natural carbon cycle, does it get reabsorbed?

    • cajwbroomhill permalink
      December 10, 2020 5:35 pm

      Agreed,GeoffB, but the whole edifice of climate Greenery is based on such unproven hypotheses, including the wild guess that reducing the atmospheric pCO2 might influence the climate. There is no evidence, let alone proof for that proposition.
      That (very probably) myth is what notionally attracts the money, even though darker, political motivations may be operating, with an anticapitalist intention.

    • Gamecock permalink
      December 11, 2020 12:48 am

      “I think we have to be careful in using the argument that UK only contributes 1% of CO2 and China is continuing to build coal power stations which increase their CO2 output. While true”

      Dammit, Geoff, it’s NOT TRUE! You are off by 2500%.

      Nature is the source of over 96% of CO2 emissions. UK only contributes 1% of CO2 allegedly generated by humans, hence UK contributes <0.04%. C'est ne rien. De nada. Nyet. It is nothing.

  6. Nancy & John Hultquist permalink
    December 10, 2020 5:12 pm

    I will note that the sub-title of the report is:
    “The UK’s path to Net Zero”

    The “Net Zero” is a reference to the well-being and wealth of the citizens and society of a once great nation. By 2037 the shape of this path will be clear. Several different measures could be used.
    Likely not as steep as this one: Future of the UK

    I suppose some of the measures might showing dipping into negative territory.

    • December 10, 2020 5:33 pm

      https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/all

      The link has two articles that explain why lithium batteries WONT continue to fall in price. Presumably the CCC aren’t aware of it.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        December 10, 2020 6:07 pm

        There is such a thing as ‘willful ignorance’ which no doubt affects the CCC.

  7. A Man of No Rank permalink
    December 10, 2020 5:36 pm

    The comments page in the Mail-on-line covering Steven Glover’s article about Gummer’s impractical ideas are worth a read. The gormless Tories don’t seem to have a lot of support right now!

  8. December 10, 2020 5:51 pm

    Geoff. I think pointing out the Chinese Herd of Elephants is valid regardless of the naughtiness of man released CO2 finding its way back into the atmos and Carbon Cycle or not. Simply the sanity argument goes that regardless of the claims about CO2, why are we knackerating our economy when China will more than replace our savings? MOST of the claimed saving will of course be by weasel number juggling tricks anyway and you will have new billionaires created who trade in whatever new BS carbon Certificates the weasels come up with.

    As for the reabsorbtion of CO2 I have set myself the task of putting numbers to known issues. It is already admitted that not all the claimed human released CO2 ends up as part of the atmospheric ppm value. It should I am told ( I have not verified the numbers) be higher. That alone should ring alarm bells. Claims are being made that magic man released CO2 hangs around in the atmos for a long time. Based on what exactly? Nothing I can tell you! There is as much foundation to that “negative” story as there is to the 1.5 or 2.0 warming limit. It is just numbers pulled out of the air. It is deliberately left vague as to where the starting point for this may be and it has worked! It is actually “pre industrial” as the starting point/coincident with the end of the Little Ice Age. Taking that starting point the planet is already there and doing just nicely thank you very much!

    Add that to the known and established fact from geological history that atmospheric CO2 proportion has been declining in pretty much a linear fashion for 160 million years we can see that without you and me driving our SUV’s the level would be simply critical. CO2 is one of the three ingredients of the process of photosynthesises which is severely compromised at 160ppm.
    During the first part of the current Ice Age atmospheric CO2 levels fell to around 180ppm. Put another way, the planet came to within 20ppm of a mass extinction event. If the 160million year trend is extrapolated forward ( without the very temporary uptick caused by our SuVs which will soon disappear) then the CO2 line is set to meet the 160ppm line in a tad over 1 million years….or sooner if the ecoloons have their way. The problem and I will not bore you with the full details is, that 160 million years ago marine organisms evolved which sequestrate CO2 to combine with Ca, Calcium to make shells of calcium carbonate(CaCO3). That they have been stupendously good at this is made testament to by the humongous volumes of organic carbonaceous limestones around the world. This is all CO2 removed from the Carbon Cycle and locked away in rocks. Funny do you not think that those who wish to “influence” us never talk about the amount of CO2 removed and in rocks the volume of which outweigh the total CO2 content of the oceans and atmos combined…..by many orders of magnitude. The rocks really do “have it”.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      December 10, 2020 7:38 pm

      Forget CO2. We might just as well set up a committee to ban an even worse GHG caused by gaseous Di-hydrate-monoxide (to follow the precedent set by calling Carbon-dioxide, ‘carbon’ I figure to call D-h-mo, Hydrogen: what does it matter if we confuse basic elements; it’s the proles we want to confuse).
      If CC, caused by a minimal change in CO2, was such a problem, the idiots led by Gummer should really seek to ban water vapour. Arrgghh!

      • cajwbroomhill permalink
        December 17, 2020 11:15 pm

        Mr Passfield, the motivation of the CCCsounds more and more like a combination of corruption of their minds by gullible group think and, perhaps, even more by corruption of their morals and wealth by greed. The CCC’s Chairman has evidently been been found out corrupt but not, of course, put out.
        As de Gaulle said about suggestions to root out all Nazi collaborators in France after WW2, that would be a “projet vaste”!

  9. December 10, 2020 5:56 pm

    So economic growth is now supposed to benefit from making electricity much more expensive and unreliable. How is that going to work?

  10. DMA permalink
    December 10, 2020 6:05 pm

    “The UK only accounts for 1% of global emissions, so whatever we do will have no effect at all on the climate.”
    Emissions do not correlate to temperature or any other metric of climate. Emissions do not hardly change atmospheric CO2. These facts must be taught widely to counteract the false beliefs that we can and must change our emissions to control the climate. Get everyone to read “Climate Miracle” as a start.

    • Broadlands permalink
      December 10, 2020 7:59 pm

      DMA: “Emissions do not hardly change atmospheric CO2.” ??? I think perhaps what you meant to say was LOWERING emissions does nothing to what’s in the atmosphere. Lowering the atmospheric amount can only be done by permanent capture-and-store technologies and they are woefully weak. About 40 million tons per annum. Trivial.

      • tom0mason permalink
        December 10, 2020 8:08 pm

        Broadlands,
        “Lowering the atmospheric amount can only be done by permanent capture-and-store technologies and they are woefully weak.”
        WRONG!!!
        Nature, not humans, controls how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere. And NATURE does this by balancing and adjusting the amount of CO2 available between the atmosphere and the seas and oceans.
        HUMANS DO NOT CONTROL THIS PROCESS!

  11. Devoncamel permalink
    December 10, 2020 6:06 pm

    Paul, your last paragraph says it all. Why on earth would the UK bother with any of this nonsense? Once again it’s poor old Blighty bearing all the costs and none of the benefits.
    The rest of the world or 99% of CO2 emitters won’t be joining in. Meanwhile a football pitch lump of the Amazon rainforest is disappearing every minute. This must be true, I got it from the BBC.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48827490d

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      December 10, 2020 7:28 pm

      Spot on!! That’s what Gummer and Dumber (and his girlfriend) need to answer. Why us??!!

  12. Chaswarnertoo permalink
    December 10, 2020 6:12 pm

    Can we start hanging politicians yet?

  13. wilpretty permalink
    December 10, 2020 7:04 pm

    Chaswarnertoo – Politicians need a crisis so they can provide leadership.
    This is better than them instigating wars.

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      December 10, 2020 11:35 pm

      Doesn’t stop me wanting to hang the bleeps.

  14. December 10, 2020 7:13 pm

    At least Tesco is doing its bit:
    “Located in Inverclyde, Scotland, the site consists of eight wind turbines and has a total capacity of 24 MW. The clean energy produced will displace more than 18,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually. Earlier this year, Tesco Stores Ltd signed a 15-year power purchase agreement as the energy off-taker, thereby contributing to the retailer’s commitment to use 100% renewable electricity across the Tesco Group by 2030.”
    https://www.lesprom.com/en/news/James_Jones_%26_Sons_funds_acquisition_of_Scottish_windfarm_96708/

    I’d love to know what the frequently quoted tonnes of emissions are based on. Pity they don’t know anything about CO2.

    • Ariane permalink
      December 11, 2020 8:43 am

      Inverclyde is one of the poorest communities in this part of the country and yet lies a few miles away from what has been described as the biggest oil field in the world but Scottish Ministers and Members of Parliament obey the Greens and leave the oil where it is. Atleast Tesco has put up some wind turbines. ‘Every little helps.’ ?

    • Gamecock permalink
      December 11, 2020 12:25 pm

      ‘the retailer’s commitment to use 100% renewable electricity across the Tesco Group by 2030.’

      Nonsense. They’ll still get their electricity from the grid. You can’t run stores, or much of anything, directly from a wind farm.

      • December 11, 2020 7:02 pm

        Sorry this is a bit late but I should have made clear I was being sarcastic. A while ago Mars bought a windfarm in Scotland and said it would give all their UK branches “clean” energy. Trouble is reporters believe them without question and seem quite unaware that these companies are getting the same mixture from the Grid as everyone else.

      • Gamecock permalink
        December 12, 2020 10:47 pm

        10-4, Brenda.

  15. Harry Passfield permalink
    December 10, 2020 7:16 pm

    In order to get an image that millions can relate to we need to get people to imagine Coronation Street being re-engineered to accommodate AS/GS Heating and massive house insulation. I’s pay to see Gummer’s solution to that – not to say, what he thinks the likes of the Barlow family or Metcalf’s will end up paying. (No that I follow CS that much!!)
    I know it’s fiction (just like the CCC carbon budget and CC anyway) but it’s a good simile for what the population will face.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      December 10, 2020 7:18 pm

      I’s = I’d. Metcalf’s – Metcalfs. Sheesh!

  16. CheshireRed permalink
    December 10, 2020 7:19 pm

    The only way out of this nightmare of biblical stupidity is to VOTE THESE CLOWNS OUT.

    All three main parties (if you include the Lib Dems as a main party) are signed up to this insanity, so there’s likely to be only one option: Nigel Farage’s Reform party.

    If they stand, vote for them, otherwise you’re supporting this nonsense.

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      December 10, 2020 7:35 pm

      When I first was in England there was a political party called (rough recall) Monster Raving Loony Party. I very occasionally wondered what happened to them but now I realise they have taken over the main parties.

      • Devoncamel permalink
        December 10, 2020 8:12 pm

        Last I heard now led by Baron Von Thunderclap. Is he also Lord of extreme weather?

      • Stuart Brown permalink
        December 10, 2020 9:53 pm

        Loonyparty.com

        I don’t think these people are serious but given the competition it’s difficult to tell.

      • Devoncamel permalink
        December 10, 2020 10:53 pm

        Oops, my mistake. BVT was their candidate for mid Sussex. One of their policies was giant hamster wheels for joggers to generate electricity. Genius.

      • wilpretty permalink
        December 11, 2020 11:06 am

        An ex work colleague used to stand for election as an MP for that party.
        https://g.co/kgs/TcA33u

    • Vernon E permalink
      December 11, 2020 10:25 am

      Richard Tice has recently committed the Reform Party to the Climate Change Act, so forget that way to salvation. But, and its only a possibility, the best way to achieve change may well be to put pressure on Farage – he certainly doesn’t believe in this rubbish.

  17. tom0mason permalink
    December 10, 2020 7:53 pm

    The CCC and it’s 6th Carbon Budget is the

    set-up to finish-off the UK as a political, financial, and manufacturing nation of any importance. The CCC is hell bent on ensuring that the UK sinks to 3rd world status in as short a period of time as possible. Ratchet-up the borrowing while undermining all manufacturing. CCC all cost, NO benefit!

  18. cajwbroomhill permalink
    December 10, 2020 8:15 pm

    This bankrupting carbon wildgoose trail is being, to me, incomprehensibly adopted by so many Western governments, scientific bodies etc., who compel manufacturers, e.g., motor to switch to electric cars at enormous cost, for no benefit to anyone.
    Why are such utter, unquestioning fools in charge of parties and science so subject to group think.
    Dissenters are vilified and by the BBC etc etc not allowed to put their case, in the UK at least.

    It makes no sense. lndeed, it is a plague of madness costlier and more ruinous than Covid.

    The exceptions are in China, India, Africa and the Orient, who are, sanely, avoiding ruining their industrial, domestic and public life.
    What on Earth can be done, at least in the UK, to get away from this utter fiasco?

  19. Broadlands permalink
    December 10, 2020 8:24 pm

    “We will have to fall back on gas power stations, with the proviso that they can capture and store the carbon dioxide produced, even though nowhere in the world has managed to do this at scale.”

    Indeed! Carbon fuels will be required to construct the many CCS facilities and the pipelines to transport and store all that CO2 under pressure. Renewables cannot do that. Is there any chance they may finally see the light on what NET-zero really means?

    • jack broughton permalink
      December 10, 2020 10:00 pm

      We’ll import all of the plant: exporting jobs (and CO2) to China, Germany and the USA. The UK has more or less lost its large-project engineering and fabrication skills, so the jobs and CO2 will be created in other countries as we preen ourselves about how green we are – sadly the wrong type of green!.

      The report takes fantasy engineering to a new level, as do the ESO reports.

    • cajwbroomhill permalink
      December 10, 2020 11:55 pm

      No chance during their lifetimes or ours.
      Loss of face matters more than letting us all down, in too many cases.
      They won’t listen to dissenters, even Nigel Lawson (88).

      We need a fearless, strong PM, a new WSC.

  20. Bill permalink
    December 10, 2020 8:45 pm

    This is clearly in line with the Pope and the Inclusive Capitalists direction of travel.
    What’s not to like?
    https://www.inclusivecapitalism.com/

  21. Mack permalink
    December 10, 2020 9:14 pm

    Had a quick flick through the report and supporting documents, many seemingly authored by troughers making themselves very rich on the green gravy train. Didn’t notice any proper cost/benefit analysis nor a description of the wonderful climate we will enjoy in the U.K. once we reach year, sorry, net zero. Have given the document a berth in the family bookcase, right next to Grimm’s Fairy Tales and the biography of Pol Pot. Seems an apt placement.

  22. December 11, 2020 12:14 am

    Bottomline for each £50bn UK has spent so far
    how much have we reduced global temperature 0.0001C or something ?

    “Their plan will involve spending around £50bn *annually* by 2030,
    which equates to nearly £2000 for every home in the country.”
    Yes EACH YEAR, even tough its an underestimate

    BTW there are 27.6 million households so it it slightly less

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      December 11, 2020 9:07 am

      Let’s say £30,000 for a decent job so £2,000/household is 1/15th of a job. Say 30 million households for ease is therefore 2 million decent jobs lost because of that.

  23. December 11, 2020 12:28 am

    The Green PR army has been deployed

    – Emily in the Times has put out articles which get a kicking in the comments & under her tweets
    – Natalie Bennett & Dale Vince have been advanced to media studios
    NB got a kicking from JuliaHB
    Vince has also appeared at least twice on TalkRadio
    ..One thing is the presenter put to him that he should debate a Climate Skeptic
    to which he replied “yehhh” in a tone that seemed like no
    but he did tweet later he was up for the challenge.

    DV was as ever a slippery salesman
    The Presenter opened with a quote from Emily’s article that the action the CCC wanted on boilers and home insulation would cost £250bn which was put at £8K per household
    DV smoothly said “ah that amount is wrong you see cos it’s spread out over 30 years so only £250 per year”
    That’s BS cos you’ll need to install a heatpump in the next 15 and it will be an upfront cost
    not spread over 30 years
    and BTW Dale’s maths division under counted the annual cost by 9%.
    And anyway we know the CCC costs are basically made up numbers
    like they estimated the smart meter costs an now it’s 3 or 4 times over budget.

    I posted notes earlier today on BH unthreaded

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      December 11, 2020 9:04 am

      The cost per household is the the cost per household. It might be that it takes a number of years for all households to be converted but that doesn’t change the cost per installation.

      What we need now is not to challenge the science but the politics. We need to show that these costs are utterly fradulent and will cost everyone tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds and with that millions of jobs.

      • cajwbroomhill permalink
        December 11, 2020 9:15 am

        Governments are supposed to be shrewd and discerning.
        If the UK Gov. wants to spot this obvious fraud and con. trick, why have they not done so?
        .?ignorance, ?corruption, ? group think stupidity, since the stakes are boundless, especially as our Oriental industrial competitors as well as Pres Trump have seen through this Green cr@p?

  24. Gautam Kalghatgi permalink
    December 11, 2020 7:23 am

    People on this thread might find these articles of interest-

    Click to access The-Battery-Car-Delusion.pdf

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/u-k-net-zero-emissions-target-costly-little-gain/

  25. December 11, 2020 8:53 am

    Carbon budgets for any given target level of warming are of course for global emissions with each nation allotted or (volunteered) to take a share of it but not to construct carbon budgets. Or so I had thought. But maybe this is a different kind of a budget.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/11/climate-action-101-the-carbon-budget/

  26. Phoenix44 permalink
    December 11, 2020 9:01 am

    I hope half of us haven’t died in 30 years time! As a rule of thumb it’s about 1%/year.

    If this was a prospectus issued by a business it would be fraud. It’s that simple.

  27. Gamecock permalink
    December 11, 2020 12:41 pm

    Climate Change™ is the Universal Cause. It has nothing to do with weather. It is the path to global socialist government. A strong, independent UK is a barrier to global socialist government, and must be brought down. The goal is the destruction of UK (and US). They invoke Climate Change™ to get the people to accept their own demise.

    • Ariane permalink
      December 11, 2020 12:45 pm

      Gamecock, the people never want their own demise. They want cheap electricity. It is the very wealthy globalists who want to control the people. That isn’t socialism. That is fascism.

      • Gamecock permalink
        December 11, 2020 4:37 pm

        The difference between socialism and fascism is who owns the means of production. BOTH support strong, autocratic central control of the economy.
        “Very wealthy globalists who want to control the people” has nothing to do with whether socialist of fascist.

        Global socialist government proponents want government ownership of the means of production. Hence, socialist.

      • Ariane permalink
        December 11, 2020 5:18 pm

        State control of the means of production is fascism whether or not those with the control think of themselves as socialists or capitalists or communists or liberals or scientists or conservatives or environmentalists. What is important is not what people think about themselves but what their position is in the power structure. Global governance is even worse than the types of fascism experienced till now.

      • Gamecock permalink
        December 11, 2020 11:04 pm

        Sorry, Ariane. I can only argue using the English language. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

      • Ariane permalink
        December 12, 2020 9:23 am

        In whatever language you like, a vastly funded intense international campaign to end anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions with the inevitable consequences of industrial ruin, unemployment, huge increases in energy costs to be borne by ordinary families and the stalling of development in developing economies – is a campaign originating at wealthy globalist and unelected levels like the UN agencies. The campaign has nothing to do with increasing working people’s control over the means of production and, infact, has the very opposite intention: – to deprive working people of any control over their ability to survive and prosper. Thus, the campaign is globalist and fascist.

  28. Stuart Brown permalink
    December 11, 2020 6:16 pm

    Meanwhile, in the UK we are currently getting more electricity from coal than wind and solar combined. Again.

  29. stevejay permalink
    December 13, 2020 10:32 am

    By 2032 I shall be 85 years old, so dead, past caring or both. Just glad I’ve had most of my life before this insanity broke out.

  30. Robin Guenier permalink
    December 14, 2020 12:04 pm

    I’ve been having an interesting exchange with Professor Piers Forster who is a member of the CCC: https://theconversation.com/for-a-carbon-neutral-uk-the-next-five-years-are-critical-heres-what-must-happen-151708.

    I pointed out to him yesterday that it was clear from the ‘climate summit’ on Saturday that there’s no realistic possibility of the world making the 50% cut in emissions required by the UN (and Alok Sharma). I asked if he agreed that, if this wasn’t resolved by COP-26 (highly unlikely of course), there’d be ‘no point in the UK proceeding with its expensive and potentially damaging net-zero ambition‘. Here’s his response:

    ‘My direct answer is that even if we were the only country decarbonising it would be worth it. Our CCC report estimates that doing so can create jobs and drive economic growth. It will also lead to better air quality, greener spaces and healthier diets and lifestyles with more comfortable homes. Just like 200 years also the UK found great economic advantage from the industrial revolution, we can do this again. … If you read our report on the finances we estimate an economic uplift from doing this. There are very few downsides if we do it right.’

    I’m rarely lost for words. But this time I’m struggling to compose a polite reply.

    • Robin Guenier permalink
      December 14, 2020 6:58 pm

      I’ve replied.

    • Ariane permalink
      December 14, 2020 7:13 pm

      Robin Guenier, CCC members are both top enablers and perpetrators of crimes against humanity and against the natural world (wind turbines and biomass killing machines.) It is too late to be polite or to imagine they don’t know what they’re doing so forgive them. Members of the CCC are criminals and when this vicious and deceitful plot is exposed and understood by the public, they will be tried in an international court and punished accordingly.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        December 14, 2020 8:12 pm

        No Ariane – it’s always best to be polite. Being rude or abusive is a recipe for getting nowhere. Look at my exchange with Professor Forster – by polite expressions of opinion I’ve got to the quite extraordinary situation where member of the CCC actually says that going ahead with the UK net zero project would be worthwhile <i<even if it had nothing to do with saving the planet.

        BTW there isn’t the remotest prospect of members of the CCC being ‘tried in an international court and punished accordingly‘.

      • Ariane permalink
        December 15, 2020 9:47 am

        Robin, I wasn’t advocating rudeness but just that the time for discussing the merits or otherwise of the CCC programme is over. For years, professionals have been analysing the costs of decarbonising and analysing the huge problems with renewables but without the slightest effect – because none of these approaches is appropriate when they do not raise the issue of the underlying ideology and criminality of the intention to decarbonise. BTW nobody knows what will happen in the future.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        December 15, 2020 10:16 am

        Have a look at my exchange with Piers Forster: https://theconversation.com/for-a-carbon-neutral-uk-the-next-five-years-are-critical-heres-what-must-happen-151708

        You’ll see I’m not saying anything about ‘the merits or otherwise of the CCC programme’. What I am saying is that, as most non-Western countries (the source of 75% of global emissions) are either unconcerned about climate change or don’t regard it as a priority, there’s no point in our proceeding with the CCC programme – unless these countries have completely reversed their climate policies by COP-26. And, in view of the outcome of Saturday’s ‘climate summit’, that seems most unlikely.

        What I find extraordinary is that Forster – a member of the CCC – responded by claiming that the continuation of the programme would be worthwhile even if the UK was the only country decarbonising.

      • Ariane permalink
        December 15, 2020 8:53 pm

        Robin, I looked over the link but couldn’t find anything from you, just the piece by Forster. The CCC and the UK Climate Assembly and the Citizens Assembly are all a runaway train with no brakes. Whatever anybody tells them: decarbonisation costs too much, renewables are hopeless, wind turbines kill eagles, CO2 emissions don’t cause global warming or climate change, the sea isn’t going to turn acidic, nobody outside Europe wants to decarbonise, it’s all a plot started by Maurice Strong to ruin Western industrial civilisation which is nasty, neo-Malthusians push for it because they want to reduce populations which is nasty too, polar bears aren’t dying, UK low income groups will be the worst affected by decarbonisation etc. etc. whatever else you may use to reason with them – NOTHING WILL HAVE ANY IMPACT because they are so brainwashed that decarbonisation has become their God, or because they’re getting paid to push for it. The runaway train has no brakes which is why climate legislation must be repealed altogether. Only legislation will stop the train because it will divert the funding and change the paradigm. The difficulty is not trying to stop the runaway train, because nobody can, so there is no point in trying. The difficulty lies in getting the CC Act and all subsequent ‘climate’ and ‘decarbonisation’ laws repealed. The repeal should be a demand of all constituents to their MP. ‘If you don’t press for a repeal….I won’t vote for you.’

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        December 15, 2020 9:08 pm

        Open the link I provided, scroll down to the bottom of the page and (after it’s loaded) click on ‘show all comments’. There are 28: 11 from me. I’d be interested in your views.

      • Ariane permalink
        December 15, 2020 9:38 pm

        I have read all your comments. My perspective is entirely different since I do not see CO2 emissions as a problem whereas you seem to want them reduced but only when all nations can do it, and when they can’t then why should we try, you seem to be saying. Maybe this is just your way of engaging with Forster. As for Forster, it seems he believes there is some Physics behind the claim that CO2 emissions cause global warming. You could ask him what is the actual percentage of anthropogenic CO2 in the Earth’s total atmosphere. If he’s justifying it all because of the science, let him prove the science does actually justify it all..

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        December 16, 2020 7:41 am

        You haven’t read my comments very carefully Ariane. I’m a lawyer with no scientific training and am agnostic about the science. Therefore I don’t have anything useful to say about whether or not emissions should be reduced. But I am very interested in the international politics of climate change. And they are becoming increasingly clear: global emissions are most unlikely to be reduced whatever we in the West might do or say. We need to get used to it.

        If you’d like to determine Forster’s view on the science, I suggest you go to his article and ask him directly. It’s not often that there’s an opportunity to engage directly with a member of the CCC. Go for it.

      • Ariane permalink
        December 16, 2020 10:38 am

        I understood from your 11 comments to Forster that you are arguing that the CCC’s ambitions are futile given the rest of the world isn’t going to reduce their CO2 emissions. I also understood from these comments that you are not arguing against Forster’s scientific justification for the CCC’s ambitions. My point was: however you argue and whatever arguments you use you cannot stop the runaway train BECAUSE they don’t won’t can’t accept anything that challenges their position – a position backed by the stupendous power and finance of the UN (which doesn’t mean they are right but means we need to understand why the UN wants to put money into a camapign that impoverishes working people and stalls economic growth in developing countries.)

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        December 16, 2020 10:46 am

        UN wants to put money into a campaign that … stalls economic growth in developing countries.

        If that’s true the UN cannot succeed. It’s increasingly obvious that most developing countries haven’t the slightest intention of allowing their economic growth to be impaired.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        December 16, 2020 11:03 am

        The point is to find out WHY the UN shouts ‘climate emergency’.

        If so, what do you propose to do about it?

      • Ariane permalink
        December 16, 2020 12:20 pm

        Do about what? Finding out or changing the UN?

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        December 16, 2020 12:21 pm

        Find out.

      • Ariane permalink
        December 16, 2020 12:39 pm

        I have found out.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        December 16, 2020 12:46 pm

        Well done. So why does the UN shout ‘climate emergency’?

      • Ariane permalink
        December 16, 2020 12:55 pm

        Ah, may be it’s time for you to work that one out. Good luck.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        December 16, 2020 1:08 pm

        I don’t think so. Here’s what you said:

        The point is to find out WHY the UN shouts ‘climate emergency’.

        You went on to say that you’d found out why. Not unreasonably I asked you to tell me what you’d found out. Over you you.

      • Ariane permalink
        December 16, 2020 1:46 pm

        Robin, of course it isn’t ‘unreasonable’ for you to ask me to tell you what I’ve found out about why the UN shouts ‘climate emergency.’ Like the runaway train the UN began, our local authorities and governments shout it also, as well as those ‘climate’ quangoes and assemblies, the CCC etc. What’s much more useful, though, is if you do the finding out for yourself. I think I read that you are a lawyer so you may find the discovery and assembling of the picture in its deological and historical time frame interesting and even morally repugnant.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        December 16, 2020 1:51 pm

        Happy Christmas Ariane.

      • Ariane permalink
        December 17, 2020 6:47 am

        Michael Hart’s ‘Hubris’, Bernie Lewin’s ‘Searching for the Catastrophe Signal’ and, of course, Christopher Booker’s ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster’ can give you the WHY much better than me. You are a barrister, not a lawyer, My apologies. And a Very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2021 to you, sir.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        December 17, 2020 8:16 am

        There are two kinds of lawyer in the UK: solicitors and barristers.

        These articles illustrate why I’m agnostic re climate change science:

        http://blog.dilbert.com/post/155121836641/the-illusion-of-knowledge
        http://quillette.com/2016/12/25/in-praise-of-ignorance/

        R

      • Ariane permalink
        December 17, 2020 9:14 pm

        It has nothing to do with climate change science. That you are agnostic is irrelevant.

      • cajwbroomhill permalink
        December 15, 2020 11:26 pm

        Agreed, the whole UK (incudinng Scottish) governments are crazily irresponsible and unscientific in setting up a CCC, unbalanced by omittled AGW sceptics to allow balance of discussion and policies. Perhaps the influence of Ed Milliband and other thoughtless, dud
        politicos was accepted without reflection by people in power subject to group think and unscientific, careless stupidity. No sense, financiaĺly, scientifically or politically.

        The result is an outrageous fiasco for the UK and u hapless taxpayers, to be forced to pay out vast sums, something for absolutely nothing at a time when the UK is in unimaginable debt, or at any time.
        The discussion with Prof Forster tells all we need to kow about the CBC.

        How on earth could this lunacy be averted?

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        December 16, 2020 7:48 am

        The discussion with Prof Forster tells all we need to know about the CCC.

        I’m glad I was able to help.

      • cajwbroomhill permalink
        December 16, 2020 9:07 am

        Fully agreed.
        Other main points are negligible greenhouse gases from UK and their theories speculative as is proposed “remedy”, so an unanswerable case for “wait and see” for at least several decades, if not centuries!
        Western policies completely misguided, indeed disastrous, insanely unwarranted, as D.J.T. established.
        If only the rest would recognise their folly.

        There is certainly no need for. “action” by us yet, as the Orientals agree.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        December 16, 2020 10:30 am

        Maybe you’re right. But the truly extraordinary thing is that he believes that the continuation of the programme would be worthwhile even if the UK was the only country decarbonising. If that’s a view shared by other members of the CCC we hopelessly lost.

      • Robin Guenier permalink
        December 16, 2020 1:09 pm

        Over TO you.

  31. cajwbroomhill permalink
    December 14, 2020 1:42 pm

    Forster is unsuitable as a CCC member, but then they all are so, whether as unhinged zealots, corrupt or both.
    Disbandment of the CCC is essential, particularly as the UK is more broke than ever.
    Group think and gullibility must be blamed, along with the greed of the corrupt.

    Who are the politicians who could oppose these “traitors” to the national interest?

    • Ariane permalink
      December 16, 2020 12:53 pm

      Professor Forster is very suitable as a CCC member because he is thotoughly soaked in the green-washing. Also the ts and cs of the Conversation where his article is published and where he has exchanges with Robin are clear about not publishing any query seeking justification for the CCC’s policies. Anyone wishing to register and participate is told firmly:

      “Be on-topic

      Keep comments relevant to the article and replies relevant to the initiating post. We reserve the right to delete off-topic comments to keep threads on track.

      For example: in an article about the policy response to climate change, comments about the science of climate change will be considered off topic.”

      So ruinous policies can’t be questioned, because, presumably ‘the science is settled.’

  32. cajwbroomhill permalink
    December 17, 2020 10:05 pm

    We can only infer that the CCC and those who put them there are completely unsuitable to hold their responsible jobs by reason of stupidity, uncritical acceptance of obvious snake oil or corruption in various combinations.
    The mystery is how very widespread this scam has become in the Western world’s “great and good” since an iota of scientific common sense , which they cannot posess, would urge, nay demand, a very protracted delay of decades or centuries or milennia for careful observation.

Comments are closed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: