Skip to content

Telegraph Wakes Up To The Cost Of Climate Agenda

April 22, 2021

By Paul Homewood


The Telegraph is finally waking up, but where have they been in the last few years? Asleep at the wheel, it seems.

They should have been shouting from the rooftops about this, long before Theresa May decided to go for Net Zero as her epitaph. The whole climate bandwagon might have been stopped in its tracks before it was too late.




Like Saturn, revolutions have a habit of devouring their children. Boris Johnson should beware: the biggest danger to his historic project to rebuild Britain in his image comes not from the useless Left, but from another potential populist insurrection from the culturally conservative Right.

So far, of course, he is safe: the Government is supernaturally popular, Nigel Farage has retired, the public believes that immigration is under control and anti-lockdown activists have made little impact. The PM has plenty of opposition from the Left – from Labour, cultural institutions, the blob – but little from the Right.

Yet some early hints of the sort of Brexit-style revolt he could eventually face can be spotted in the most unlikely of places: in London and other cities, large numbers of residents are up in arms against so-called Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. Invented by No 10 and backed by Sadiq Khan and other hopeless technocrats, these idiotic schemes have shut certain streets to cars without consultation in the name of reducing emissions, with the predictable consequence of ruining residents’ lives and horribly increasing traffic (and pollution) on other roads.

The fury is off the scale: one suburban Labour council, Harrow, has become the first to ditch these plans in their entirety, as well as its shockingly under-used cycle lanes, after it discovered that they were opposed by up to 91 per cent of residents. More councils will follow suit: passions are running even higher than Brexit.

For some reason, No 10 is tone deaf on this issue. It shouldn’t be. If Johnson mismanages his broader plans to decarbonise Britain, and sacrifices aspiration, consumerism, choice and mobility on the altar of greenery, the suburban, car-driving, jet-setting, home-owning, meat-eating coalition he spent so many years painstakingly assembling will quickly and pitilessly turn against him………………

There is one glaring exception to all of this, and that is Johnson’s greenery: he wants to slash carbon emissions by 78 per cent by 2035 compared to 1990 levels. They had fallen 44 per cent by 2019, driven by a two-thirds reduction in the power sector and the decline of manufacturing, in a shift all but invisible to the public. In the next phase, however, consumers’ lives will have to change drastically. There is no political upside here for the Tories and a massive potential downside.

The Conservative base wants a cleaner environment – who doesn’t? – and is moderately worried about climate change but those issues are low down their list of priorities. They certainly don’t want their lifestyles to suffer for it. It is equally true that a green agenda, however extreme, will not convert metropolitan Remainers or woke agitators to the Tory cause. But a botched anti-consumer green agenda will infuriate the very voters that propelled Johnson to No 10, and, paradoxically, create space for a late 2020s Ukip or Brexit-style Party focusing on a new set of issues.

The hair-shirt, hard-Left, anti-materialistic, anti-progress version of environmentalism would be toxic to the Johnson coalition. The real Tory version should be to electrify cars, not ban them; to greenify fuel, not restrict flights; to decarbonise central heating, not to force the public to freeze. But it is a gamble as to whether these technologies will be ready in time, and at what cost.

Simply wanting a technological solution isn’t enough: the push towards electrifying cars has begun, but so far consumers and industry are ahead of the Government. The Tories need to urgently expand electricity generation, and install millions of road-side chargers. As to air travel, the challenge is acute. Electric planes would require 50 kilograms of battery for every kilogram of kerosene they replace, McKinsey estimates. Planes would need to carry four times the volume of liquified hydrogen than kerosene. A better answer may lie in sustainable fuel such as vegetable oils, biofuels, waste oils or gasified rubbish, or synfuels made out of hydrogen and captured carbon.

One of these solutions may succeed, its cost may plummet and investors may stump up the cash to renew fleets and airports, all with a limited impact on consumers. Miracles sometimes happen. Shell is testing the use of hydrogen fuel cells for shipping. But what if it doesn’t work? Middle England understood the need to put their holidays on hold because of Covid; they won’t take lightly to the idea of never again being able to fly to Majorca or Dubai.

And what about carbon-emitting food? The consumption of meat could conceivably fall spontaneously by 20-30 per cent over the next few years, as consumers seek “healthier” proteins and the price of lab-grown substitutes declines. But what if people remain attached to their burgers and steaks? What if the only “answer” is a carbon tax that pushes up the price of meat, making it unaffordable to millions?

And who will pay for insulating 30 million homes? Who will stump up for converting gas boilers to electric heating or to heat pumps? Consumers won’t tolerate a green poll tax of £20,000 per home. If the Red Wall is Johnson’s River Styx, and Brexit his ambrosia, green utopianism is our Prime Minister’s Achilles’ Heel.

  1. Harry permalink
    April 22, 2021 5:27 pm

    The views expressed on the DT website overwhelmingly criticising this Green lunancy must have played a part in making the penny drop.

  2. Douglas Brodie permalink
    April 22, 2021 5:48 pm

    The stock boast of dissembling Tory politicians is “since 1990 we have cut emissions by 42% while our economy has grown by two thirds”. However over that period they have surreptitiously disregarded the foreign fossil fuel consumption used to supply our imports: “Hidden import emissions amounted to 46% of the UK’s overall carbon footprint in 2019, up from 14% in 1990”.

    In other words they have achieved next to nothing other than to export industries and jobs abroad.

    • April 22, 2021 5:57 pm

      And close down some ageing coal and nuclear plants without replacing them with anything useful.

      • xmbea permalink
        April 22, 2021 6:09 pm

        With Biden planning to cut US emissions by 50% by 2030 and Boris seemingly blindly pressing on with his aim of cutting 78% by 2035 there is as yet little if any realism of the implications of these crazy intentions. With India and China also saying today they won’t be setting targets any time soon either all the pain will be felt by western taxpayers! I see trouble ahead when the man on the street realises he’s being sold a pup!

      • Robert Christopher permalink
        April 22, 2021 7:22 pm

        xmbea: Congratulations to Allister Heath for talking about the ‘Climate Crisis’ crisis, but he doesn’t appear to understand just how so much is wishful thinking, though he does write, ‘Miracles sometimes happen.’, and, ‘But what if it doesn’t work?’

        Perhaps he is breaking the news gradually! 🙂

        Of course, everyone can have a view, but it appears that giving advice has been open to all, as long as they follow the correct narrative.

        Let’s hope the German Green Party’s lead in the polls for the Autumn federal election will encourage some realism.

      • Douglas Brodie permalink
        April 22, 2021 9:38 pm

        Willis Eschenbach calculates that to meet his 2030 target, Biden would need to build two 2.25 GW nuclear power stations every week from now to 2030 which is clearly never going to happen, see .

        He concludes: “… how the mighty have fallen. We used to fight and win real wars against actual enemies. Now we can’t even win fake wars against imaginary enemies.”

      • Sobaken permalink
        April 23, 2021 3:17 pm

        Douglas Brodie, while the amount of additional capacity required is indeed staggering, that article grossly overestimates it.
        First, it uses the primary energy value for 9 PWh of fossil energy that is being displaced (the total amount of energy that is released as heat when coal/oil/gas are burnt), and final energy value for the electric nuclear energy (the portion of the heat energy produced by fission that the steam turbine managed to convert into electricity). If all of those 9 TWh fossil primary energy were used for electricity generation, the number would be off by 3 times (typical efficiency of a steam turbine is around 35%).
        Second, a large portion of it is not electricity generation, it’s heating and transport, and here you can’t compare fossil to electric on a 1 to 1 basis either, due to the different efficiencies of combustion engines/heaters and electric analogues. Electric motors and heat pumps are much more efficient (EV uses 23% as much as an equivalent petrol car and 31% as much as diesel, while heat pumps used for space heating have a COP around 3).
        Third, it assumes that peak and reserve generation will be provided by nuclear overcapacity. Reducing emissions by half does not actually require it, you can still have plenty of gas generation as peaking/reserve plants and nuclear running only as base load. While keeping around gas plants with very low capacity factors would still increase the total costs, it’s much cheaper than using nuclear plants for that same purpose.
        So, out of those 9 PWh, a third could be achieved by replacing existing coal generation with nuclear. That’s 380 GW at a 90% capacity factor. Then the remaining 6 PWh could be achieved in replacing gas boilers and combustion cars with electric variants, which are going to require just 2 PWh of electricity to do the same job. That’s another 250 GW, for a total 630 GW. Using EIA estimate for new build nuclear, it would cost 3.8 trillion total in capital costs, or 140 billion a year over the course of its 60 year lifetime including capital, operation, maintenance, and fuel costs. Or 5 PWh / 140 bn$ = $36/MWh, which isn’t even expensive. That’s excluding the costs of EV and electric heating infrastructure, and the cost of gas peaking plants, of course, that I imagine is where the real problem is. And in the fact that 600 GW in 10 years is still building a reactor each weak, which won’t ever be done in the modern day US.

      • Douglas Brodie permalink
        April 23, 2021 4:07 pm

        Sobaken: Roger Pielke Jnr has done a similar calculation to Willis Eschenbach on the number of new nuclear power stations the US would have to build to reach net zero by 2050. He worked it out to be around one new 2 GW plant every day to 2050, see

        Tony Heller does a child’s play debunking of Joe Biden’s plan to cut US CO2 emissions by 50% by 2030 relative to 2005 levels in this video:

        He points out that such a cut would take the US back to the emission levels of the 1950s, except that the US population has doubled since that time and is projected to continue growing, fuelled in part by Biden’s encouragement of mass immigration.

        So in order to achieve Biden’s goal, per capita emissions in the US would have to drop back to 19th century levels. Yet Biden thinks he can do it using unreliable renewables, not nuclear power.

        Why doesn’t the supine mainstream media pick up on such obvious absurdities?

      • Sobaken permalink
        April 23, 2021 7:28 pm

        Douglas Brodie, the first article deals with achieving net zero by 2050, rather than a 50% reduction by 2030. Which is a rather pointless exercise anyway, since you cannot electrify/decarbonize some sectors without technologies that don’t not exist yet (and we don’t know if they will by that time), and you can’t build a 100% nuclear power grid either, at least with current reactor models. Although, I have to point out that the author again uses the value of primary fossil energy (1900 mtoe = 22 PWh), as if it would have to be replaced with nuclear electricity 1 : 1, and not 3 : 1. Out of that energy, you could realistically replace maybe 15-17 PWh with electricity, but that’s still going to require building a GW size reactor every two weeks. I’m just saying that those numbers are overstated (for dramatic effect, perhaps), and that critics can call you out on those inaccuracies, not that Biden’s plan is going to work (it obviously isn’t, though it would have been more realistic if it used nuclear over unreliables), or if it’s even necessary in the first place.

      • Douglas Brodie permalink
        April 24, 2021 9:27 am

        Sobaken: Here’s Pielke again on Biden’s 2030 target, saying that “more than 11 of the [USA] fossil fuel power plants … will need to be closed every month, on average, starting today until 2035”, see

        This and the other calculations quoted above are simple, “back of envelope” sums which any numerate layman could perform. They may not be spot-on accurate but they suffice show that the supposed “solution” to the climate alarmists’ non-problem is utterly infeasible. Yet the silence from the mainstream media is deafening.

  3. John Cullen permalink
    April 22, 2021 6:33 pm


    The cost of energy situation is very much worse when the ACTUAL costs of off-shore windfarms are compared to the political rhetoric and aspirations of the wind industry. This is brought out in the work of professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University; he has applied forensic accountancy techniques to some 350 UK and Danish wind turbine projects and found the following:-

    “The reality of what will happen to the costs of key renewable energy and other low carbon technologies is critical. The UK Government’s strategy for meeting its Net Zero target at an affordable cost rests on the core assumption that the costs of wind power have fallen – and will continue to fall. There is, however, a major problem with all of the projections produced by official agencies, academics and other organisations. Put bluntly, they are the product of wishful thinking applied to notional projects in the future with little or no connection to commercial reality.”

    “If wind farms do not receive offtake prices that are higher than the market price – or very much higher in the case of offshore wind – their expected revenues will not cover opex costs after 12 or 15 years. Operators will either cease production or drastically cut operating costs leading to closure within a relatively short period. There is no way out of this trap because opex costs are linked to reliability; the decline in reliability with age means that high opex costs must be incurred to maintain production. The consequence is that the assumption made by BEIS and many investors that the expected operating life of new wind farms will be 25 or 30 years is completely at odds with the underlying economic reality. Few modern wind turbines operate for more than 20 years and many offshore wind turbines are likely to be decommissioned before they reach an age of 20 years.”

    “There is a larger issue behind the story of individual project risks. This concerns the stability of the financial sector. In the UK and several other European countries governments, central banks and financial regulators have actively promoted green finance. They argue that banks, money managers and pension funds should increase their lending to and investment in wind farms and similar projects as part of their wider social responsibility. However, if many such projects are very risky – as is clearly the case – this pressure is a betrayal of their fundamental duty to protect the stability of the financial system. It is no different from urging financial institutions to finance speculative property developments at the beginning of a property crash.”

    “The likely response is that general advice does not override the obligation of lenders and investors to identify good and bad projects. That position highlights the central problem. There are no good offshore wind projects without either huge subsidies or much higher market prices. Government policy is based on assumptions that can be shown to be wrong with any reasonable amount of due diligence. Financial institutions that do their job properly are likely to be condemned for failing to support the shift to green energy. Most of them will prefer not to look too hard and to go along with the short term pressure.”

    “This is an old and disreputable story with only one outcome, so everyone should face up to what will happen. Financial institutions will do as they are told and join the party. In roughly a decade the likelihood of large future losses will become all too obvious and asset write-downs will jeopardise both loan security and investment returns. Governments will blame financial institutions for irresponsible behaviour. They will bail out all parties via a large increase in market prices. Apart from a few people who get fired – no doubt with ample compensation – the ultimate patsy in all of this will be electricity customers.”

    “So far I have focused on the costs and performance of wind power. There is an equally important issue concerning the economic value of the output produced from wind farms. It is well known that both wind and solar power give rise to significant system costs that are paid by customers in general …”

    “In stark terms a significant portion of wind output is expensive to produce and of no value in terms of its contribution to national wellbeing. Other than sheer ignorance there is no excuse for policymakers tolerating, let along promoting, this outcome.”

    “Bailouts of wind farms and financial institutions are inevitable. The Government is creating a situation in which it will have no option other than to bail out failed and failing projects simply to ensure continuity of electricity supply. There will be a game of pass the parcel over how the losses will be distributed but ultimately they will fall largely on taxpayers and energy customers. Any business investor outside the renewable energy sector should plan on the basis that electricity prices in 2030 will be 3-4 times in real terms what they are today.”

    “As a rich country, the UK can afford Net Zero by 2050 at the aggregate level. However, it will mean allocating the proceeds of 10 or 15 years of economic growth to that single goal. Past experience shows that the UK’s political system cannot handle the structural and redistributive consequences of following that path. A strategy that acknowledges the real economic costs and difficulties of trying to make the transition too quickly is much more likely to be accepted and implemented.”

    1. Forensic accountancy shows that there are no good off-shore wind projects without either huge subsidies or electricity prices which are 3 to 4 times current levels.
    2. Bailouts of financial institutions and wind farm projects are inevitable in about 10 years time when large asset write-downs destabilise part of the financial sector.
    3. Points 1 and 2 result from a major problem with all of the projections produced by official agencies, academics and other organisations. Put bluntly, they are the product of wishful thinking with little or no connection to the commercial reality revealed in audited accounts.

    Hughes calls this not a car crash but a motorway pile-up. Very apt terminology, I think.


    • Mike Jackson permalink
      April 23, 2021 9:32 am

      Excellent assessment by Hughes. It explains why politicians can’t get their heads round it. It took me two or three readings to grasp all the detail — and I’m onside with it to start with!

      The only angle that might — and ought to — work for a Conservative government is the behaviour of banks and other finance bodies. They have a duty and legal obligation to their clients/investors to get the best possible return for their investors as do companies for their shareholders. The current behaviour of some supposedly reputable financial institutions is on a par with “… a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is”, the famous satire on the South Sea Bubble.

      Any enterprise that aims to overturn tried and tested practices and relies on bribery (which is what the extortionate sums offered to landowners and local communities to “buy” their consent amounts to) and subsidy (from those very same people it has just bribed wearing their “consumer” hats) needs to be treated with considerable suspicion.

      In simple terms can anybody explain why the electricity user should be (unwittingly) subsidising Forest Green Rovers FC?

    • April 23, 2021 12:06 pm

      thank god that someone has seen the light last , thank you Sir. I am an aged Grammar School boy and I have rubbished the nonsense I see in the press. And what is worse is the BBC output, I doubt whether any one of them have Degree, I havent but I can see the flaws that come out every day 0f the week.

  4. John Cullen permalink
    April 22, 2021 6:57 pm


    Hughes’s results (see my earlier comments above) are consistent with those of professor Dieter Helm [Ref. 1]:-

    Helm says [Ref. 1, pages 7, 237, 251] that our current Kyoto/Paris/Glasgow-COP26 process is getting us nowhere, apart from offering grandstanding opportunities for politicians. After over two decades of trying CO2 emissions just keep going up and up!

    [pages 238, 245] After criticising the Sterne report elsewhere in the book (essentially for setting us on the wrong or fairy tale path) Helm writes, “… The fantasy is that it will cost us little or indeed nothing more than we would have paid anyway, and this is the deceit that lies at the heart of the failure to achieve much … decarbonisation cannot be done with zero pain. On the contrary, the sorts of investment programmes required could be very painful indeed” given that, as he indicates elsewhere, we will be replacing most of the world’s capital goods with new, low-carbon technologies.

    [page xi] My critics have failed to explain how yet more wind turbines, solar panels and biomass plants can solve climate change (with nuclear in retreat). They can’t, and they won’t.”

    [page xii] “… the future of the climate lies mainly with China, India and the US.” i.e. not with the UK.

    [page 22] “Politicians tell us that the solution to the economic crisis is ‘green growth’, and even that decarbonisation will reduce energy bills by 2020. The mantra about the sunny uplands of decarbonisation keeps on getting trotted out. It’s hard to take seriously – that the world’s carbon-based economy can be decarbonised in a few decades without economic pain; that we will all be better off. Even more surprising is that apparently intelligent people actually seem to believe it.” I think Helm is being rather harsh to ordinary people here given the morass of propaganda we have been exposed to in recent decades.

    1. Dieter Helm, “The Carbon Crunch”, revised and updated 2015, Yale.


    • Mack permalink
      April 22, 2021 9:16 pm

      Very interesting John. For the ‘sub prime’ financial debacle read ‘green prime’ for the next implosion. However, Dieter Helm’s belief that ‘the future of the climate lies mainly with China, India and the US’ is plainly absurd.

      The UK’s emissions are completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of global co2 emissions but, although much greater, the three named countries’ emissions are still minute in relation to those from natural sources. Aside from localised UHI effects, whatever industrial strategies these countries pursue will make little difference to global climate. Several decades and trillions of pounds worth of renewable investments, climate conferences, booms and depressions, Covid lockdowns etc etc have not made the slightest impact on the slow and steady rise of global co2 emissions since we emerged from the Little Ice Age nor the climate. India, China and America could down tools tomorrow and the co2 gauges in Hawai would barely register a hiccup whilst the world’s ‘climate’ wouldnt even notice. It will carry on doing what it’s being doing for millions of years regardless of human hubris.

    • April 23, 2021 2:58 am

      “It’s hard to take seriously – that the world’s carbon-based economy can be decarbonised in a few decades without economic pain; that we will all be better off. Even more surprising is that apparently intelligent people actually seem to believe it.”

      It’s not so surprising, really…

      • Douglas Brodie permalink
        April 23, 2021 9:08 am

        Clever people with a weak scientific education are particularly vulnerable to being taken in by fraudulent propaganda such as the “pseudo-scientific global warming fraud” [© Prof Hal Lewis]. This is postulated by Professor Richard Lindzen in a recent lecture and everyday evidence shows it to be true, not just for politicians but right across the population.

        He says that such people are sufficiently intelligent to be aware of their scientific ignorance which leaves them very insecure and willing to latch on to whatever simplistic, allegedly scientific narrative they are offered. They then parrot the narrative with confidence in the believe that they do actually understand “the science”. See (from 23 minutes in).

        I venture to suggest that we have seen the same vulnerability with the government’s anti-scientific Coronavirus messaging.

      • April 30, 2021 5:18 am

        @Douglas Brodie


        And, thanks for that Lindzen link. “Absurd narrative,” indeed!

        It’s one I don’t seem to have bookmarked. Starting off very well. Will finish watching after posting this.

        Here’s what I think may be the short version…

    • April 23, 2021 7:44 am


      if only the government and it’s advisors would bother to really assess the reality of this dreadful policy.

      I believe one significant problem is that electricity is one of those commodities that is always there and very few understand how it is made and distributed. That and the media’s uncritical reporting of wind, in particular, so the true costs are not apparent, even it seems to those who should be more diligent, i.e. the financial sector.

      I don’t think that I have seen a single media report about the technical deficiencies, operational difficulties are occasionally mentioned e.g. the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. which implies a binary situation which it is not. Batteries are suggested as being a solution which is ludicrous, if you just do some simple arithmetic of demand and time giving the required capacity making it unviable.
      The fact that we need alternative (reliable) capacity equal to maximum demand plus a margin,over and above all the installed renewable capacity is another cost that should simply not have happened given rational thinking.

      The GWPF is one voice but is drowned in all the media and government noise.

      It can only end in tears!

  5. heatherclad permalink
    April 22, 2021 8:40 pm

    In my optimistic moments I wonder whether it’s actually a good thing Boris is pushing so hard on the net zero agenda right now. If the media and the public can wake up and see the escalating future costs then there’s some hope of provoking a public backlash in favour of repealing the Climate Change Act.

    But repeal is not going to happen until the majority of those dumb MPs who voted for it in 2008 have been replaced. An MP who voted for the CCA is not going to want to admit they were wrong, whereas a new face won’t have quite the same degree of reticence.

  6. Thomas Carr permalink
    April 22, 2021 8:41 pm

    ” A large increase in market prices”. Demand is not inelastic and there is a fair chance that a large increase in the price of electricity will result in reduced consumption even to the extent that the revenue will barely increase. So the ability to “bail out”could prove to be un-attainable and business investors will take account of this. Not so much the need to secure supply as the market’s response to gouging.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      April 23, 2021 8:47 am

      And any large increase in electricity prices will kill both EVs and switching from gas for heating and cooking.

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      April 23, 2021 4:26 pm

      The problem for wind energy is that prices rise when it produces little and we have a shortage of dispatchable power, but when it produces close to capacity prices collapse and even go negative, and output has to be curtailed. Curtailment will become much more frequent as capacity expands, and the extent and frequency of surpluses rises. That means that costs will have to be recovered over less of the potential output. I calculate that with 50GW of wind, the marginal wind farm would effectively see 60% of its output curtailed, raising the effective cost 100/(100-60) or 2.5 times.

      In 2020, the average market value of the output from offshore wind getting CFDs was just £34.54/MWh, while the average subsidy paid was £128.11/MWh, for a total cost of £162.65/MWh.

  7. Curious George permalink
    April 22, 2021 9:08 pm

    A Brexit-style revolution? How about a Cromwell-style?

  8. StephenP permalink
    April 22, 2021 9:25 pm

    We are now up to two weeks with negligible wind generation and not a lot of wind is forecast for the coming two weeks..
    How long will it be before politicians realize the drawbacks to wind?

    • Ray Sanders permalink
      April 23, 2021 3:29 pm

      “How long will it be before politicians realize the drawbacks to wind?” God only knows! The problems are not only that they seem to refuse to see the obvious data, they also have no understanding of all the other issues. If you try explaining synchronous versus non synchronous generation, spinning inertia in terms of frequency management, voltage control and reactive power issues, even very basic aspects such as dispatchability, all are completely unknown to most politicians. They do not understand so obviously they feel they either do not exist or can somehow be magically sorted out.

  9. April 22, 2021 10:08 pm

    I don’t know whether the wind turbines will just become rusting monuments to a failed belief, I did work on developing wind and wave power many years ago at Lanchester Poly, we did make things that actually worked, after a bit of a struggle, but Thatcher pulled the plug. What difference did it make, not a lot!

    An historical perspective shows that It is the role of politicians to force through successful unachievable strategies, that then fail in implementation, that is what they do! They are very good at it, just look at Northern Ireland.

    It is the role of the populace to “just get on with it” as Phil the Greek advised, and pay no heed to the likes of Harrabin or Attenborough.

  10. April 23, 2021 2:34 am

    How much of that is an attack on the faux green agenda, and how much is it meant to hurt Boris. Priorities.

  11. Phoenix44 permalink
    April 23, 2021 8:54 am

    We are heading towards a 1930s size depression but with far worse consequences because we have such high, already unsustainable state spending. What politicians don’t seem to understand is that most tax revenues comes from “excess” income – we have to have enough to house, feed, clothe, heat ourselves before we can pay tax. This lunacy both increases those costs and reduces excess income for most. Tax revenues will shrink hugely when we cannot buy stuff so no VAT, when we cannot drive so no road or petrol taxes, when millions are unemployed. Perhaps when the government finds it can no longer borrow and has to cut spending by 25% the madness will end.

  12. Harry Davidson permalink
    April 23, 2021 10:07 am

    LTNs are a bad example to pick. The polls say that they are very popular, the fact that a few people get noisy tells you nothing about their electoral popularity. There is a growing view that through traffic really doesn’t belong in residential neighbourhoods. Cycle paths, passionately hated by the powerful motoring lobby, are also popular.

    That is a totally separate issue from the green blob.

    • StephenP permalink
      April 23, 2021 1:09 pm

      An interesting side to this is where Harrow Council, in London, had low traffic neighbourhoods and cycle lanes imposed on them.
      They have now been taken out as the traffic and associated pollution became much worse in neighbouring streets, and the cycle lanes were not used. In one case the cycle lane was only used by six bicyclists in a day.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      April 23, 2021 2:15 pm

      And in the Labour controlled rotten borough of Croydon the residents voted against the LTNs but guess what happened? And trust me, councils are also keen to retain as much of their dumb covid measures as possible by moving them to experiments. On top of that lots used experiments to put in measures for covid despite their being no legislation permitting that and should a High Court challenge be successful any experiment could be ruled invalid if the traffic volume is low.

  13. Mad Mike permalink
    April 23, 2021 10:47 am

    Perhaps the Alarmists have a point, although not the way they think, upping the insulation in our houses might be the correct thing to do if this article is right.

    Solar minimum on it’s way?

    • dave permalink
      April 23, 2021 11:57 am

      There is mere lip-service, everywhere. Possibly, this is the only thing that can save the country. The following farcical, foot-dragging, stuff is from the 2018-19 Annual Report of the Student Loans Company:

      “Climate Change Adaptation.

      SLC has eradicated the use of single use plastic cups at water coolers, and has
      purchased reusable water bottles and hot liquids flasks for every member of staff.
      The company will continue to monitor how its processes could contribute to climate
      change and take preventative action wherever possible.”

      Way to go, fighting climate change, SLC!

      My point, of course, is that – very sensibly – they are doing NOTHING.

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        April 23, 2021 4:30 pm

        The useful thing would be to stop doling out loans to those studying the climate agenda, rather than real science.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      April 23, 2021 8:03 pm

      The fact that the World Govs and BBC et al are doubling down on CC/AGW is because they know that the World is entering a cold sun phase. If they can’t win now then the cold years to come are going to make shivering people very sceptical. Can’t have that, can we?

  14. MrGrimNasty permalink
    April 23, 2021 6:39 pm

    There’s something increasingly not very stomachable about our PM Boris.

    Having delivered Brexit and issued a patriotic St George’s Day message, he has completely capitulated core matters of national sovereignty to a self-appointed global elite at the WEF, UN etc.

    He really is a total buffoon/scumbag/disappointment.

  15. Thomas Carr permalink
    April 23, 2021 7:10 pm

    “Europe endured hottest year on record” according to Ben Webster in today’s The Times. The graph displayed with the text starts at 1950
    It’s time that a briefing note was prepared based on what Paul has so carefully assembled on weather history for the UK , Europe, the US etc as records are available. Who can we/Paul approach publish these sources and authorities?
    The publication can be issues quarterly to Ben Webster , Roger H and the usual alarmists working on the media. Remember it needs to be simple.
    Otherwise we can be discounted as a fringe element of moaners who cannot achieve more traction than can be achieved by mutual cynicism and despondency.

    PS for more by Ben Webster read ” Cheap solar and wind power could supplant fossil fuels by 2050 ‘ on the next page. .

  16. Stuart Lawrence permalink
    April 23, 2021 8:27 pm

    Mr Homewood

    I don¹t know if you saw this, but I am losing the will to live in a World where this can be publishedŠ..

    Climate crisis has shifted the Earth¹s axis, study shows

    Best Regards

    Stuart Lawrence

    Phone: UK Mobile: +44 7545 066157 UK Office: +44 1604 864454 SA Mobile: +27 82 523 2907 SA Office: +27 21 469 9924 Email:

    From: NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT Reply-To: NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:20:19 +0000 To: Stuart Lawrence Subject: [New post] Telegraph Wakes Up To The Cost Of Climate Agenda Paul Homewood posted: “By Paul Homewood The Telegraph is finally waking up, but where have they been in the last few years? Asleep at the wheel, it seems. They should have been shouting from the rooftops about this, long before Theresa May decided to go for Net Zero “

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: