Skip to content

Getting Industry To Go Green Will Not Come Cheaply–Telegraph Wakes Up At Last!

March 18, 2021

By Paul Homewood



One again we find the media finally waking up to the harsh realities of Net Zero. It’s a pity they did work it out for themselves years ago before we committed ourselves to this nonsense:





Britain’s factories produce 72m tonnes of carbon dioxide a year – 16pc of the UK’s total and a big barrier to hitting the “net zero” target by 2050.

The decarbonisation strategy announced by the Government on Wednesday aims to cut that by two-thirds by 2035.

However, cleaning up the factories and steelworks responsible for huge amounts of CO2 is going to be expensive. The strategy fails to take a stab at just how big the bill will be. That has left industry deeply concerned – particularly as it tries to recover from the economic hit caused by the pandemic.

Despite the £1bn headline figure quoted by the Government to “drive down emissions from industry and public buildings”, it is unclear whether the strategy contains new money.

Instead it details where previously announced funding will be put to work in areas such as eco-friendly heatpumps and insulation in buildings, research into making steel from clean hydrogen and directing business to swap to renewable power and adopt carbon capture technology.

That has got industry worried. “It’s a statement of intent rather than a policy package,” says Chemical Industries Association boss Steve Elliott. “It’s a lot of ambition. The next step would be workable, policy action.”

Apart from the expense of moving to new technologies, there will be other costs. The strategy talks about creating demand for products made in low-carbon ways, and potentially labelling those that are, and this could rack up expenses.

Initially such a system detailing the “carbon intensity” of items would be voluntary, but force companies to delve deep into their supply chains to understand products’ carbon footprint, potentially strangling them in red tape.

New customs controls resulting from Brexit showed business how difficult and expensive such work can be.

MakeUK, the trade body that represents manufacturers, is concerned about the implications. “Manufacturers have lengthy and complex supply chains so capturing carbon footprint data will not be without challenges,” says Verity Davidge, its policy director. “We’re behind net zero but companies are already juggling it with Covid’s impact and managing the new relationship with the EU.”

Steel is the sector most in the firing line. The strategy even singles out the Port Talbot and Scunthorpe steelworks, noting “these two sites alone produced 11m tonnes of CO2  in 2017 – 15pc of total industrial emissions”.

Two years ago the Government announced £250m to help the sector clean up, such as developing hydrogen-powered steel-making instead of traditional blast furnaces, alongside a £140m to boost hydrogen production.

However, this won’t be enough for the sector go green. Chris McDonald, chief executive of the Metals Processing Institute, estimates it would cost between £6bn and £7bn to decarbonise the UK’s steel plants, assuming they were replaced by new facilities. Eurofer says the entire EU and UK steel industry going green by 2050 would push up production costs by between 35pc and 100pc per tonne.

“It will be a huge challenge to fundamentally transform how steel is produced,” says Gareth Stace, director of UK Steel, warning his energy-hungry industry already faces higher costs than rivals in Europe.

Encouraging investment in clean steel in the UK would require solid policy support to ensure there is a market, such as reforming public procurement so domestically made steel was at the front of the queue for major projects in Britain.

Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng proudly trumpeted the plans, noting Britain was the “first major economy to put into law” plans to decarbonise, “and the first to take steps to have its own low-carbon industrial sector”.

But going first has risks. Although other countries are likely to follow, until new technology is developed and becomes cost effective, industries may avoid the UK for locations with looser regimes, and consumers may choose cheaper products made using more polluting methods.

The strategy acknowledges what is known as “carbon leakage”. It mentions “funding policies to reduce the cost of decarbonising”, systems to pass costs to consumers, and even border controls if other countries are slower to go green.

Officials are “sensitive” to carbon leakage, says  David Reiner, lecturer in technology policy at Cambridge University’s Judge Business School, but says the Government needs to stump up the cash as what is available now is only enough to fund studies. “The funding announced is just a down payment,” he says. “In the not-too-distant future there needs to be confirmation of what is actually on the table.”

But it might not be as bad as it seems, Reiner thinks: “Moving aggressively on heavy industry might have been risky a couple of years ago but as more economies commit to carbon neutrality  that makes it more likely others will try to learn from this process.”

What the Government hopes is that decarbonising drives its green industrial revolution, creating 80,000 jobs as industry realises that it has to invest, as soon no country will be allowed to escape tough environmental controls.

“The opportunities from green transition are massive,” says Greg Archer of lobby group Transport & Environment. “Every country is going down the same path, just at different speeds. We can get a competitive advantage by being first and selling our expertise internationally.”

It’s this hope that has turned prime minister Boris Johnson’s and Kwarteng into climate activists. A green industrial revolution may not be just a soundbite, but a business plan.

“It’s pragmatism,” says Roz Bulleid of the Green Alliance. “There’s strong public demand for decarbonisation so there’s a political incentive. Globally, we’re seeing decarbonisation so there’s a business motive too.”

Douglas McWilliams of economic think-tank the CEBR remains unconvinced. “It all makes a massive assumption that a country with just 1pc of the global population will come up with ways to solve these problems,” he says. “It might be more cost effective to let others do that and then nick the technology.”


Unsurprisingly the Green Alliance still prefers La La Land, but it is evident that those who actually understand economics and business are finally beginning to wake up to the dangers. Whatever way you look at it, the bill will be massive and somebody will have to pay.

Take the steel industry for instance. At Port Talbot which is owned by TATA, it has been estimated that reducing emissions, either by converting to hydrogen, bringing in carbon storage or changing to electric arc furnaces would cost at least £2bn in the site itself, plus huge sums on infrastructure elsewhere. Why on earth would TATA want to spend that sort of money on a business that is struggling to make a profit now. The same applies to Scunthorpe, owned by the Chinese.

And it is not just the colossal capital costs, which would be involved in any transition. Decarbonisation will inevitable add to operational costs of industry, putting it at a permanent disadvantage to overseas competitors.

As the article also points out, the problem of carbon leakage will also be highly problematic, and involve crippling bureaucracy in monitoring supply chains.

The report also highlights the extremely naivety of the media up to now, who seem to have assumed that all of this decarbonisation could have been achieved for a billion or two. As this blog has often pointed out, the billion quoted is no more than a bit of seed funding for pilot projects, R&D and the like. In particular, the media still have not woken up to the fact that hydrogen will cost several times as much as conventional energy sources.

There also appears to be wishful thinking that if we jump first, the rest of the world will come and buy our goods because they are “green” – “The opportunities from green transition are massive,” says Greg Archer of lobby group Transport & Environment. “Every country is going down the same path, just at different speeds. We can get a competitive advantage by being first and selling our expertise internationally.”

It is far more likely that our industries will simply migrate elsewhere, where costs are cheaper. Even a carbon import tax will have little effect on that.


More and more, the only justification offered by politicians of all parties revolves around all of these marvellous green jobs about to be created. But who will pay the bill for them?



Let’s finish by looking again at the statement from the guy at CEBR:

 It all makes a massive assumption that a country with just 1pc of the global population will come up with ways to solve these problems. It might be more cost effective to let others do that and then nick the technology.”

  1. Gamecock permalink
    March 18, 2021 11:31 am

    ‘However, cleaning up the factories and steelworks responsible for huge amounts of CO2 is going to be expensive.’

    Defamation is no way to get people to cooperate.

    • March 19, 2021 1:10 pm

      Gamecock, Expensive does not even clearenough, eventually the gree field wil disappear as the CO2 drops which it will. And there go all the greenery. Zero Carbon is the stupidest thing ever to come out of a politicians mouth, total lunacy,in spades.

  2. Tim C permalink
    March 18, 2021 11:36 am

    carbon neutrality is easy to achieve, providing you accept < 30% unemployment, crumbling infrastructure and another 2 or 3 trillion in debt.

    • John Cook permalink
      March 18, 2021 12:36 pm

      And the lights going out.

    • Duker permalink
      March 18, 2021 8:42 pm

      Yes the breakdown in the eastern bloc after the end of communism and the heavy industry that went with it is the previous example of a huge drop in CO2. Ukraine was one of the worst hit. And we know what happened there politically and socially and the rise of the robber class of bureaucrats and politicians

  3. Martyn Spence permalink
    March 18, 2021 11:39 am

    Meanwhile, in the real world I am today told this by my energy supplier.
    “We’re increasing our electricity unit rate from 15.780p to 17.724p per kWh and electricity standing charge from 20.952p to 20.958p per day. Our gas unit rate is increasing from 2.920p to 3.056p per kWh and standing charge from 20.444p to 25.158p per day. These prices all include VAT at 5%”.

    • March 18, 2021 5:33 pm

      Mine’s going up even more (SSE): Standing Charge (per day) 26.53p to 27.41p
      Standard energy (per kWh): 17.56p to 18.98p !
      Estimated annual increase £82.32. My pension is going up in April by about £1.15p per week. So that’s all right then…..

    • 1saveenergy permalink
      March 18, 2021 8:07 pm

      This is why we went for –

      Supplier Symbio Energy
      Tariff name Low Fair and Green 12M Fixed SE01 v22
      Tariff type Fixed
      Payment method
      Monthly Direct Debit
      Unit rate
      14.13580035p per kWh
      Standing charge
      15p per day
      Tariff ends on
      Fixed for 12 months
      Price guaranteed until
      Fixed for 12 months

      • Mad Mike permalink
        March 19, 2021 12:57 pm

        After reading many reviews on Trustpilot I’m not tempted.

  4. Spences permalink
    March 18, 2021 12:02 pm

    Headline: One again we find the media finally waking up to the harsh realities of Net Zero. It’s a pity they did work it out for themselves years ago before we committed ourselves to this nonsense:

    I’m sure you meant:

    ‘Once’ again. It’s a pity they ‘didn’t’ work it out.

  5. March 18, 2021 12:14 pm

    trst only

  6. March 18, 2021 12:20 pm

    If Britain’s factories produce 72 million tonnes of co2 per year that emission rate is 0.2% of global fossil fuel emissions of 36.8 billion tonnes per year with an uncertainty band of plus or minus 5%. These factory emissions don’t appear to be statistically relevant.

    • Broadlands permalink
      March 18, 2021 12:42 pm

      The Global CCS Institute tells us that their world-wide ability to capture, transport and store CO2 is about 40 million tons a year. That means they cannot even store what British factories produce in one year, never mind the total global emissions. Total waste of time and subsidized funding. But, Biden and Kerry want to increase it.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        March 18, 2021 2:09 pm

        I bet you’ll find many members of the Biden and Kerry families have their fingers in CCS ‘Government’ investment pies.

        I note that Biden is being threatened with court action in the US for cancelling the Keystone pipeline. This is on the grounds that only the Senate can vote such an action and it can’t be done by EO. Let’s hope the courts don’t protect him this time.

  7. March 18, 2021 12:30 pm

    “It all makes a massive assumption that a country with just 1pc of the global population will come up with ways to solve these problems. It might be more cost effective to let others do that and then nick the technology.”

    I wonder what we should call that?
    The Thief Strategy?

    • martinbrumby permalink
      March 19, 2021 8:20 am

      Philip Mulholland
      The normal Chinese Strategy?

  8. europeanonion permalink
    March 18, 2021 12:40 pm

    Was it David Millipede suggesting today that our iron and steel industry needed governmental support!! Astonishing! How many trees would it take to give a foundry purpose?

  9. Don B permalink
    March 18, 2021 12:48 pm

    It can’t be mentioned too often – whatever Britain or Europe or the United States do to try to limit carbon dioxide emissions, it will make no difference globally. All of the acceleration of global emissions is coming from China, India, and other Asian countries.

    • Cheshire Red permalink
      March 18, 2021 1:38 pm

      Exactly. UK is so small we’ll have zero impact on RoW, who aren’t playing low-emissions ball.

      No cut in global CO2 emissions
      = no reduction in human-caused global CO2 atmospheric concentrations
      = no possible abatement or reduction in potential ‘man made warming’
      = no possible reduction in human-influenced global temperatures
      = total failure of ALL main objectives is guaranteed.

      So based on assuming that the theory is sound, failure is already a certainty. Obviously the central theory is garbage but our Dear Leaders aren’t paying attention.

      Madness from start to end.

      • Chaswarnertoo permalink
        March 18, 2021 11:33 pm

        Not sure our beloved ‘leaders’ can do the math.

  10. Penda100 permalink
    March 18, 2021 1:04 pm

    The easiest way to achieve net zero from industry, agriculture and commerce is to offshore all production. Unfortunately it’s just not consistent with a population of 67 million people.

    • Gamecock permalink
      March 18, 2021 2:18 pm

      The people will leave as the industry leaves.

  11. Mack permalink
    March 18, 2021 1:15 pm

    Having flicked through all 170 pages of wishful thinking contained in the Decarbonisation Strategy, my first thoughts were ‘camel, eye, needle’ but, upon reflection, it is nothing more than an economically illiterate national suicide note. Much emphasis is placed on developing nations following our lead, without any evidence, alongside a firm belief that heavy industry won’t offshore, contrary to all the evidence to date, and blind faith in the wonders of new found technologies that are unproven and exorbitantly expensive to scale up. Did Comrade Harrabin write it perchance? If not the Business Secretary must have some very mischievous pixies working for him.

    • March 18, 2021 3:34 pm

      Retirement opportunity?

      BBC sends Roger Harrabin & Co off to Wales
      Date: 18/03/21 GWPF

      Setting the scene for a mass exodus of eco-journalists, the BBC has announced that it is to move its Climate and Science news team to Cardiff.

      • Paul R permalink
        March 18, 2021 5:26 pm

        Not necessarily a good thing – Cardiff University is a major player in the Climate-Industrial complex, particularly in the field of “climate change psychology”. I’m sure I’m not alone in finding their work chillingly reminiscent of the psychiatrisation of dissent in the Soviet Union. So there’ll be a welcome in the hillsides for Horrorbin, unfortunately.

      • Duker permalink
        March 18, 2021 8:51 pm

        Well believe it when we see it.
        The BBC will change the rules like it does for the non graduate and non journalist Harrabin when it refers to him as an ‘analyst’.- but he works like a journalist, talks like a journalist except his biases and partisanship go unchallenged.
        Hell just say hes ‘working from Home’ and will go into the ‘nearest office’ in London like he always does.
        Cardiff and Newcastle will be for junior ranks and those that are ‘pale and stale’

  12. Broadlands permalink
    March 18, 2021 1:32 pm

    Might it be time to reconsider why every policy-maker wants to decarbonize ASAP and take massive amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere at huge costs to meet some Net-zero goal? If atmospheric CO2 is not the “control knob” on the Earth’s temperature are they not making a massive error? This is total reliance on the accuracy of “settled science” climate models that predict a climate emergency. Yet these models could not even factor in the Earth’s natural variability to get the last 20 years right.

    • stevejay permalink
      March 18, 2021 8:28 pm

      My main fear for the Earth is that we might SUCCEED with Net Zero. According to Dr.Ian Plimer, CO2 molecules only stay in the atmosphere for 5/7 years. Over 140 million years CO2 levels fell to 180 p.p.m., only 30 p.p.m. above the death of plant life. Even if we were able to double CO2, it would still be below the optimum level for healthy plant growth.
      Do the goons at Westminster really know what they’re doing?

  13. Thomas Carr permalink
    March 18, 2021 1:34 pm

    Amazing.Today’s The Times says on the front page that the UK is halfway to hitting its carbon neutral target by 2050. This conclusion has been reached by an ” analysis of official data”. Mmm.
    Apart from being part of the run up to the COP26 summit there seems to be no merit in the article . Nor the double page feature on pages 16 and 17 ” We’re ready to become net-zero
    heroes ( but only if the price is right)”. ………. among the propaganda is some good sense until you encounter weasel words that say “significant re-structuring” will off-set the loss of 10M jobs.

    • bobn permalink
      March 18, 2021 3:42 pm

      I stopped buying the Times 10yrs ago when it drift to being a woke, leftie tabloid became unstopable. No daily newspaper now speak commonsense or sits right of centre (Telegraph is now slightly left of centre and Daily Mail n Express bought and sold out). Print media has abandoned the marketplace.

  14. John Cook permalink
    March 18, 2021 1:45 pm

    We need to stop calling hydrogen an energy source, we don’t make coal, oil, natural gas or uranium. It’s more akin to electricity which we make.

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      March 18, 2021 2:05 pm

      Agreed. Hydrogen and electricity are carriers, not energy sources. Batteries are not an energy source either – just a temporary storage container.

    • Robert Christopher permalink
      March 18, 2021 3:04 pm

      I remember, in the 1960s, our Geography teacher told us, with emphasis, that Electricity was not a fuel.

      That was when Geography teachers knew a thing or two.

  15. Harry Passfield permalink
    March 18, 2021 1:52 pm

    Yet, and yet, the editor falls back on the Boris-ism – that ridiculous jingoistic phrase: ‘…but there will be rewards for being first’.!!!

    ‘Being first’ means we will not reap any rewards; those that do will be the others coming up behind who will learn from our (costly) mistakes and benefit from lower costs as a result. And whose to say that we, having invested so very much in this most regressive act of societal vandalism, the rest of the world realises that there is no point in following suit so get to keep all the lovely money that was about to be wasted into the bargain.

    • StephenP permalink
      March 18, 2021 2:13 pm

      The compact disc was a typical example.
      Invented in the UK, but it took the Japanese about 15 years to produce the final product.
      UK finance wouldn’t stand for that length of time to develop it.

      • Gamecock permalink
        March 18, 2021 2:27 pm

        Nope. Invented by Phillips. Dutch.

      • StephenP permalink
        March 18, 2021 4:59 pm

        Sorry, as Rick says in Casablanca, ‘I was misinformed.’

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        March 18, 2021 7:19 pm

        The best story I heard about the development of the CD was that a certain Japanese CEO said he would only support it if the techies could get Mahler’s Resurrection Symphony (#2) on one disc – 74 minutes.
        The fact that this is probably my favourite piece of music – which has taken years to understand and enjoy – made it all the more relevant – and the fact that they did it.

      • Duker permalink
        March 18, 2021 9:03 pm

        “only support it if the techies could get Mahler’s Resurrection Symphony (#2) on one disc – 74 minutes.”
        Reminds me of one the stories about those pop singles from the late 50s and 60s. The radio stations would only play singles that were under 3 mins. One well known record which became a hit tried everything for its time to get under the 3 mins but were a few seconds over. So they put it out for distribution with the music time on the label saying 2 min 63 seconds.

      • John Peter permalink
        March 19, 2021 10:00 am

        “The best story I heard about the development of the CD was that a certain Japanese CEO said he would only support it if the techies could get Mahler’s Resurrection Symphony (#2) on one disc – 74 minutes.”
        The version I heard years ago about this was that it was Ludwig van Beethoven’s 9th symphony that had to fit on to one CD.

    • MikeHig permalink
      March 18, 2021 5:06 pm

      Rewards for being first…..
      The early bird might catch the worm but it’s the second mouse that gets the cheese.

      • Gamecock permalink
        March 18, 2021 9:47 pm

        Hah! I noticed that phenomena a few years ago. Caught a mouse in a trap. Stone dead. Yet, all the cheese was gone. So I created one of my favorite quotes,

        “Fred, you gonna eat that?”

  16. ThinkingScientist permalink
    March 18, 2021 2:04 pm

    Create 80,000 green industry jobs.

    With HMG currently considering whether to stop all further UK oil & gas licensing rounds, there are 270,000 oil industry jobs alone at risk in the UK. Highly educated, highly skilled, highly paid. What are they all going to do once their jobs are destroyed?

    I own a small Geoscience consultancy. I had hoped I could sell the business and retire. Looks the government is on track to trash the entire value of my business and destroy the value of the last 20 years of hard work and personal financial risk at the stroke of a pen, based on utter folly.

    Call me slightly ticked off.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      March 18, 2021 2:15 pm

      Ah….the ‘Ticking Scientist’ then. 🙂

      (I hope you don’t have to lose it all….)

    • Mack permalink
      March 18, 2021 2:32 pm

      Create 80,000 green jobs? Is that on top of the 400,000 ‘productive’ green jobs that Gordon Brown promised us within 8 years back in 2009? Aside from useless bureaucrats with ‘low carbon’ job titles how did that plan work out? Good luck for the future TS.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        March 18, 2021 5:00 pm

        In the Democratic Republic of America apparently being a green activist is considered to be one of the green jobs. You couldn’t make it up – or maybe you can.

  17. StephenP permalink
    March 18, 2021 2:06 pm

    With the premise that hydrogen is intended to be the major energy source for steel, (cement?)
    making, as well as domestic heating and cooking, given the inefficiencies in making, storing and transporting hydrogen, how is it proposed to make the vast quantities of hydrogen?
    Electrolysis? Needs a massive increase in wind electricity generation.
    Steam reforming? Produces a lot of CO2.
    Also whereas hydrogen burnt in pure oxygen produces only water, all these uses will be burning the hydrogen in air, with the concomitant production of nitrogen oxides.
    I have yet to see any figures published on this side of hydrogen use.

    I can see all the green jobs consisting of people employed to prevent carbon leakage by monitoring the source of imports into the UK.
    ( Car made in China? Sorry sir, it will have been made with steel from a conventional steel plant. You have to send it back or pay 100% carbon tax. /s.)

  18. Vernon E permalink
    March 18, 2021 2:16 pm

    So many of these articles – and they are becoming more frequent throughout the MSM – refer to CCS as a key player, a given, just a bit costly. Will they never even understand that we don’t have the technology yet. I was designing acid gas removal plants back in 1960 using amine solutions but they removed CO2 from a 50% mixture with hydrogen on a much smaller scale than would be needed for flu gas treating, plus flu gas has only 20% CO2, the rest being nitrogen. Even those early plants (the technology is still used today where appropriate) needed very large equipment and were thermally inefficient. They also “carried over” amine solution into the atmosphere. Its all fantasy – ain’t going to happen.

    • Broadlands permalink
      March 18, 2021 2:57 pm

      Vernon… “So many of these articles – and they are becoming more frequent throughout the MSM – refer to CCS as a key player, a given, just a bit costly. Will they never even understand that we don’t have the technology yet.”

      No, they will not. The Global CCS Institute doesn’t even realize that their global storage of only 40 million tons a year would take 195 years to store just one part-per-million. Obviously just one ppm would not even be noticed at the Mauna Loa measuring site.
      One ppm of CO2 is equal to 7,800 million metric tons (CDIAC). It ain’t gonna happen is right!

      • Mack permalink
        March 18, 2021 3:43 pm

        And with global co2 emissions currently rising at the rate of @ 2ppm per year according to Mauna Loa, with or without, anthropogenic contributions, you are looking at well over 15,000 million tons needing to be sequestered annually. But, it’s ok, according to HMG’s Decarbonisation Strategy the UK will be ‘aiming’ to capture and store 3 million tons by 2030. The planet won’t even notice, unlike the poor British tax payer.

    • Steve permalink
      March 18, 2021 5:18 pm

      Natural gas steam reformation produces hydrogen and carbon dioxide and these can be separated. The CO2 would be liquefied and pumped to North Sea. All told, if industry, heating and transport are to be hydrogen powered, the amount of methane necessary will be greater than that used today and the energy lost will triple prices. No wonder the oil companies are keen on the idea.

  19. st3ve permalink
    March 18, 2021 2:33 pm

    Unfortunate timing …A year ago a £trillion or so of extra expenditure would have seemed ridiculous, but recent expenditures on Covid have alas condition the public to these ‘eye watering’ amounts.
    Joe Public has yet to realise that they & their grand/kids will be needing to pay this all back in taxes at some point , on top of the extra expenses (not to mention less convenience) of having to use electricity to heat their homes.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      March 18, 2021 5:14 pm

      Something else Joe Public, the media and politicians are seemingly unaware of is the true costs of lockdown have yet to become clear. Hundreds of thousands are in rent arrears and a large number face eviction having seen a huge hit to their income. Many small companies are propped up on furlough but won’t be viable when it stops. Normal life won’t return as many will stay homeworking so many city centre businesses will never reopen and won’t even transfer their business locally. Who needs suits dry-cleaned when you work at home for example? And to make it worse we have Boris’s Brexit disaster that will be gathering speed as exporters can’t compete in the EU and cease but then find that their EU business kept them afloat and so collapse without it.

  20. Ian Miller permalink
    March 18, 2021 2:48 pm

    The Entire Political Class fell for it!
    We are told that CO2 is causing ‘Climate Change’. How many people know the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere? Very few. Tell them that it is about 420 ppm (parts per million). Blank look. An actual percentage: (0.04%). Better.
    But this works:- 100 years ago for every 10,000 molecules in the air about 3 were CO2. Now it is about 4. That change causes ‘Climate Change’ !!
    Then consider this:- CO2 is a weak green house gas absorbing infra-red in 2 narrow ranges. Water vapour absorbs over a much wider range and, on average, it is about 3%. i.e. about 60 times the concentration of CO2.
    ‘Climate Change’ due to CO2 is a myth

    • Gas Geezer permalink
      March 18, 2021 10:16 pm

      “The entire political class fell for it !” this perhaps explains why I’m often asked to fit a co2 alarm as opposed to a co alarm .

    • Mike Cross permalink
      March 20, 2021 10:09 am

      It is therefore incumbent upon the UK to reduce the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere to 50% within 10 years. We expect Boris Johnson, chief scientist, to lead the charge ably assisted by the green brigade.

  21. markl permalink
    March 18, 2021 3:08 pm

    In the US there’s constant communication between the military and industry to ensure manufacturing capabilities in time of war. America’s most valuable contribution during WWII is arguably its’ material contributions to the allies war efforts. Cripple industry and you cripple the military. Instead of bombing ball bearing factories after the fact it would be much easier to put them out of business before the war even began.

    • StephenP permalink
      March 18, 2021 4:56 pm

      An interesting TV series about industrial production in WW2 called the War of the Factories covered this subject and is well worth watching.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        March 18, 2021 5:07 pm

        It is an excellent series and worth watching and I would add The Cost of Empire to that which also showed the vast difference in the supply chain backing a US soldier and a Japanese soldier. Only ever going to be one winner.

        The Vickers programme shows how great we used to be as our industry ramped up production of aeroplanes, tanks and ships. A key point was that our great leaders then decided that a Soviet style managed economy was the way forward ignoring that without western food supplies via the Arctic convoys the Soviets would have starved due to their incompetence. That signalled the death knell for our industry as all the innovation and flair of the 30s disappeared and left us with strike-ridden poor quality nationalised industries.

  22. bobn permalink
    March 18, 2021 3:34 pm

    All fantasy dreaming again. 80,000 jobs! thats just the number of jobs lost in the first year of the green agenda. then another 80,000 lost for every year this idiocy continues.

  23. Ken Pollock permalink
    March 18, 2021 3:50 pm

    I heard the CEO of a large company say yesterday that it would cost about £30,000 per home to convert to heat pumps (they make them) and change the necessary insulation. He thought there would be about 26 million homes in need of this switch. That makes £780 billion as the overall cost – and that is just within the homes.
    Who says those people can afford it? Who says it is worth doing? What catastrophe are we seeking to avoid?
    When will the politicians twig?

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      March 18, 2021 4:55 pm

      Ken, about 10 years ago I was visiting, fairly regularly, an old friend who lived in a small village in Warwickshire: Tysoe. At the time the village (PC, I guess) had decided that most of its council-housing stock should be fitted with solar panels and GSHP. I think there must have been 40-odd properties I saw as I visited from time to time. It was a huge undertaking as these were rows of 1930s-ish houses and drilling for the GSHPs was quite a sight.
      Anyway, as I say, this was ten years or so ago and now, seeing items like this I often wonder how it went. I tried googling Tysoe but can’t find any info on it. If anyone on the blog is from Warwickshire and knows what happened there it would be interesting to see if the heating/solar made any difference. My bet is that it was expensive.

    • Dave Andrews permalink
      March 18, 2021 5:13 pm

      On top of the cost where are they going to find all the qualified workers to retrofit these homes? Already the UK building industry is reliant on mainly European workers and if every country in Europe is going down the same road that just makes the problem worse. I can see lots of dodgy cowboys rubbing their hands at the thought of a bonanza.

  24. MrGrimNasty permalink
    March 18, 2021 3:56 pm

    In a similar vein at GWPF

  25. Gerry, England permalink
    March 18, 2021 5:27 pm

    People need to remember when reading these things that the government has no money other than that taken from the public in taxes. So when sums are thrown out left and right it is our money being wasted.

    • Gamecock permalink
      March 20, 2021 12:26 pm

      Not so, Gerry.

      1. Government creates money. And they are not averse to inflation.

      2. Debt. Government gets money by borrowing. UK approaches 100% of GDP in debt. The US passed it with all the stupid Covid Relief bills. Debt is a tax on the unborn.

  26. Coeur de Lion permalink
    March 18, 2021 10:16 pm

    No discussion yet about our 1.2% of global CO2 nor any mention of recent ECS studies with low numbers for temp increase at a doubling of atmospheric CO2

    • Cheshire Red permalink
      March 19, 2021 10:07 am

      ECS is obviously low going on worthless, and maybe effectively 0.00C. That of course is a problem, as it kills all and any climate change action, including the money, power and influence that goes with it, stone cold dead.

  27. Don1 permalink
    March 18, 2021 11:10 pm

    “One again we find the media finally waking up ….” should be:
    Once again we find the media finally waking up

  28. March 18, 2021 11:31 pm

    Wednesday extraordinary hyperbolic slick BBC Look North local news item
    claiming £34m spending on Humber hydrogen projects is going to solve Net Zero
    Bookended by the studio presenter reading this from a card twice
    40% of the UK’s *total* pollution emissions come from the Humber region
    at the end he added “that’s unbelievable that our areas emits 40% of the UK’s CO2”

    WTF of course it’s unbelievable, it’s not possibly true
    I checked and it seems they omitted the words “Industrial/factory” and added Drax into the Humber area
    I guess Humber/Drax could be 40% of UK total industrial emssns at a stretch

    Public impact on Twitter/FB was minimal
    BBC keep spitting this BS, one earlier tweet claimed Humber hydrogen projects will generate 49,000 jobs.
    “morally just” was one phrase used in the report.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      March 19, 2021 11:02 am

      Nonsense, it’s definitely 49,007 jobs.

      Weird accounting with the eco-loons isn’t it.

      Social cost of carbon, but no social benefit of carbon.

      A mirage of Green jobs ‘created’, but no count of real value-producing jobs destroyed.

    • Gamecock permalink
      March 20, 2021 10:28 pm

      I’ve hated Drax since he killed Corinne Defour.

  29. Jan de Jong permalink
    March 19, 2021 12:10 pm

    A ‘not’ missing in the headline…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: