Skip to content

“Winging it” for Net Zero is a catastrophe waiting to happen- -Steve Baker

October 11, 2021

By Paul Homewood

 

Steve Baker writes the first article for the new Net Zero Watch, an eminently sensible piece:

 image

The UK’s plans to decarbonise the economy are a classic example of the ancient political strategy of “winging it”. Hard though it is to credit that idea, it’s true; the “experts” in Westminster have been basing your future and mine on a plan that relies, to a very great extent, on a collective crossing of the fingers.

Governments of one shade or another, Whitehall bureaucrats, and their advisers in the Climate Change Committee have been working on such plans for well over a decade now, and it’s fair to say that they still have little or no idea how Net Zero can be achieved, beyond a vague idea that we should electrify everything and have lots of energy from windfarms.

That’s no more than a starting point, of course. There are enormous practical difficulties (and eye-watering costs) to be dealt with, but such nitty-gritty issues seem of little interest to the experts in Westminster. “Things will become cheaper…” they say “….we’ll invent something”.

Expert handwaving of this kind has been enough to convince the media and most politicians, but as the legendary physicist Richard Feynman once pointed out, Nature cannot be fooled, and it looks very much as Nature is going to lay her cards on the table this winter.

One of the key problems is that we don’t have any way to store electricity on a large scale for when the wind isn’t blowing. That can be a few weeks in a normal year, or months in a bad one. The problem has always been there, and we have had no firm answer from the “experts”. We don’t have enough suitable sites for pumped hydro; batteries and hydrogen are far too expensive. As was pointed out in a letter to one of the national newspapers last week, enough batteries to see us through a wind lull lasting just ten days would cost £150,000 per household at current prices.

The Climate Change Committee says that we can get electricity through interconnectors from other countries when the wind doesn’t blow here. This is something of a “magic solution” for them, because they can simply claim that we’ll build as much interconnector capacity as we need. However, it again ignores the practical difficulties, such as the fact that if the wind isn’t blowing here, it probably isn’t blowing in most of western Europe either, so assuming (as the “experts” in Westminster do) that everyone follows us down the decarbonisation path, we are all going to get in a bidding war for the few megawatts of power that are left. There is also a national security problem with interconnectors, as was recently brought sharply into focus by French threats to cut the UK off if we didn’t play ball over fishing rights.

The CCC also says we can get a bit of power from gas-fired power stations equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS). However, the practical problems are again fairly stark; nobody has yet made a success of CCS – a series of pilot projects have tested the waters on the easier ground of coal-fired power stations, and each has been closed as an economic failure; the power they produce is simply too expensive. And nobody has yet got the technology to work at all for gas-fired power stations.

The other problem with planning for gas and CCS to deliver us from the perils of intermittency is that it appears unlikely we are going to have any cheap gas to feed them with – successive governments, egged on by the CCC, the renewables industry, and the green movement have told us we must “keep fossil fuels in the ground”. This was seen in part as a way to encourage the second part of the decarbonisation strategy, namely for people to “invent something”. In other words, if we have no gas and no way to balance the grid, well, someone will come up with some way to fix the problem. So we first made the electricity grid unwelcoming for gas-fired power stations, then we neutered the nascent shale gas industry with absurd regulations, and then we banned it completely.

Which brings us to where we are today, with the whole country crossing its fingers and praying that someone will “invent something”, or at least find us a way to make it through the winter without the lights going out.

For twenty years, the vested interests have had their say, and public relations have taken precedence over engineering and economics. But, to return to Professor Feynman, Mother Nature really cannot be fooled, and when she reveals her hand, the results are likely to be horrible.

Is catastrophe coming? I fear so, unless ministers get a grip and liberate the private sector to go for gas, right now.

By Steve Baker MP

63 Comments
  1. Peter Barrett permalink
    October 11, 2021 11:30 am

    No, Steve, it’s not “waiting to happen”, it’s already started.

  2. Terry Breverton permalink
    October 11, 2021 11:30 am

    One MP down, only another 600+ needed to adjust their brains to the real world…

    • matt dalby permalink
      October 17, 2021 9:08 pm

      Sadly he hasn’t adjusted his brains to the real world. He still seems to think that we need to get to net zero, and is just questioning the government’s plans for doing so. What we really need is politicians that question the entire assumptions behind climate change and the need for net zero. So far it seems as if Steve Baker isn’t prepared to go that far.

  3. Harry Passfield permalink
    October 11, 2021 11:43 am

    I’ll give it a big cheer when I see this article in the Guardian.

    • Alan Taylor permalink
      October 11, 2021 5:55 pm

      Hell will freeze over before the Leftist Guardian prints truth or anything factual.

  4. Ian Magness permalink
    October 11, 2021 11:57 am

    This is all excellent stuff and not before time. The brick wall the warmists will erect, however, will be along the lines of “whatever the costs now, the climate emergency will cost far, far more so we HAVE do eradicate fossil fuels now etc etc”.
    My point is that any discussion of the energy considerations should be framed in the context of “there is very considerable scientific doubt that the climate is in any sort of crisis at all”. “If the climate isn’t changing materially and what changes that are occurring are not down to mankind and fossil fuels, then why are we even beginning to consider these economically ruinous net zero policies?”
    I strongly believe that, whilst the growing economic crisis is the key to start unlocking the door to leave the AGW dreamworld, we must not avoid tackling the flaky science at the same time. You cannot separate the issues because one leads on to the other.

    • Robert Christopher permalink
      October 11, 2021 12:07 pm

      You mean we need to investigate any evidence for the Sun/Cosmic Rays affecting our Climate, not dismiss it as ‘Climate Denier’ stuff:

      • magesox permalink
        October 11, 2021 12:51 pm

        Yes Robert – solar, oceanic, geological, atmospheric and so forth studies incorporating disciplines like physics, chemistry, statistics etc etc. The list is endless and study of any part of it throws out numerous queries about the validity of the AGW theory.

  5. Barrie Emmett permalink
    October 11, 2021 11:57 am

    A most welcome piece, let’s hope the green disciples listen.

    • T Walker permalink
      October 11, 2021 12:30 pm

      NO they are ordering CCS from Unicorn farts Barrie

      • Barrie Emmett permalink
        October 11, 2021 12:51 pm

        Well said

  6. Ian Mortimore permalink
    October 11, 2021 12:00 pm

    Missing the basic point. There is no evidence that a small amount of man made CO2 causes climate change. So Net zero is a fools errand irrespective of the eye watering costs..

    • In The Real World permalink
      October 11, 2021 2:40 pm

      There is no evidence that any Co2 has any measureable effect on the climate .
      And the 18 months since lockdown started have proved that a massive reduction in travel / transport / flying have had no effect on global CO2 levels .
      And if you consider that the total amount of CO2 produced by the UK is just 0.000012% of the atmosphere , it becomes obvious that the whole net zero idea is just a massive scam to take money from western economies .https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/22/the-u-n-s-global-warming-war-on-capitalism-an-important-history-lesson-2/

      • Cheshire Red permalink
        October 11, 2021 6:40 pm

        In The Real World

        Precisely. That’s exactly what this is about. The CO2 line fails all over the place. How many times must it be falsified?

        To counter the obvious failings in the front story the UN invented the IPCC to become the ‘gold standard’ of climate science.

        In turn to counter the inevitable pushback they declared the science is ‘settled’ and the debate ‘over’, thus justifying their on-going refusal to debate. (ie having to defend the indefensible.)

        Corrupted ‘scientists’ have penned endless rubbish, while the peer review process has been ruined and a century of data adjusted to cheat reality.

        These insane policies wouldn’t have a cat in hells chance under normal circumstances, so the tactic is to scare the world senseless to secure guilty compliance.

        Gullible liberals buy into this at every turn, partly because they’re stupid and partly because salaries and career advancement are on the table. Funny that!

        The West is having its pockets picked by the East and undeveloped nations, under the guise of ‘Saving the Planet’ from a non-existent threat. Madness.

      • George Lawson permalink
        October 13, 2021 12:45 pm

        You make a very good point. In order to show that we listen to every point of view, I wonder whether we might invite Lord Deben to write an article giving his response to the accusations that the article levels against the Climate Change Committee. I’m sure Paul would be only too happy to give him whatever space he needs!

  7. October 11, 2021 12:03 pm

    My thoughts entirely, except that I would have added that UKGov appears to think you can ‘wing-it’ with nuclear as well, which of course you cannot.
    The approach to COP26 seems to have brought back much arm waving again, and with that again a lack of focus on detail. We are still with the ill-assorted pair of renewables and nuclear, and a lack of close focus on the economic realities of storage and backup for renewables.

  8. Jack Broughton permalink
    October 11, 2021 12:04 pm

    The note is a good summary of the situation for the uninformed. It is great that at least one MP is on the case at last.

    What continues to amaze me, as a modern socialist, is that the left-leaning press have continued in their support for the mad climate policy that is destroying good jobs and exporting UK manufacture at an alarming rate, all based on half-baked science. I sometimes think that I’m metamorphosing into a Tory, until I look at the government and am re-assured.

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      October 11, 2021 2:16 pm

      I think the answer to your dilemma is that the modern Labour Party is not socialist. Its full of woke idiots who think that gender and saving the climate justice breakdown is more important than improving the lot of the poorest and working class in society.

      The Conservatives, bless ’em, are at least not woke. They are just idiots.

      I keep thinking we have reached peak climate hysteria and insanity but it just keeps going on up. Well past 11 now and with COP26 imminent it will only get worse! (Seems impossible doesn’t it?)

      GB News is doing a great job of revealing the truth about the costs of net zero etc. British Steel were on – their electricity costs are 80% higher than Germany (where the pain is inflicted more on the consumers rather than industry). Once every industry is destroyed or the government is paying subsidies to everyone – the renewable operators, the consumer, the energy companies, the heavy industries – will that stop the madness?

      But everyone they speak to has to pay the lip service to the “god exists” meme of climate change science. Until that changes, the madness will continue. Not even GB News dare to suggest the science is bollocks – they know that to do so will allow everyone to scream at them “climate deniers” and label them all right-wing-racist-facist-homophobic-xenophobic-fruitcakes or whatever.

      The only hope now is for the costs to keep going up and the government to anger so many of the electorate that eventually Conservative back bench MPs realise the writing is on the wall and the public simply won’t have it. Then you might see change. The collective long term economic damage being inflicted on the country by deliberate government policy is simply unsustainable. It just beggars belief how such insanity can take grip of an entire nation such that its leaders begin to willfully destroy it on a fool’s errand.

      Meanwhile, didn’t Teresa May play a blinder by crippling her own party (and the country) with the poisoned chalice of Net Zero cast in law?

      • T Walker permalink
        October 11, 2021 2:25 pm

        Spot on TS

      • Cheshire Red permalink
        October 11, 2021 6:46 pm

        Maybot scored a hat-trick of disasters.

        1. Net Zero
        2. Wrecking Brexit with her insane ‘Withdrawal Agreement’. (Paved the way for the hopeless ‘deal’ Boris got)
        3. Signing the Barcelona Agreement migrant treaty. (I think that’s what it’s called. It wasn’t debated) The joys of which we see on a daily basis on England’s south coast.

        How one person can wreak so much chaos on the country beggars belief. In a sane world she’d be in jail.

      • Tammly permalink
        October 12, 2021 8:01 am

        I cannot understand why such an incompetent who was so politically inept as to refer to ‘the nasty party’ ever held high officei

    • T Walker permalink
      October 11, 2021 2:21 pm

      Jack, well I don’t know what a modern socialist is, but Bozo is beginning to get to the left of many folks who were Labour supporters, which is beginning to make Labour irrelevant.

      The Tories are a total mess. There are some good people in there (like Steve Baker) but not many, and as for Labour, they get stranger by the day.

      Surely at some point the Tory party will have to move Bozo on, but too many MP’s are playing the wait and see game – more interested in not disturbing the career path, than doing what is right and representing their constituents.

      • Phoenix44 permalink
        October 12, 2021 9:35 am

        For as long as the Tories see Johnson as a vote winner, he will stay. MPs are utterly venal. What is needed is a Clinate UKIP that will take sufficient votes in sufficient constituencies to force Tories to move away from this lunacy. UKIP never needed to win a seat, it just needed to make it hard for the Tories to win an election. And as with UKIP, I suspect Climate UKIP would threaten a fair few Labour seats too.

      • Barrie Emmett permalink
        October 12, 2021 5:26 pm

        Well said, sad but true

  9. October 11, 2021 12:38 pm

    We in the UK can be energy independent and we should be. That’s what it poor excuse for a government and equally deficient Civil Service should be concentrating on.
    For a start, they should be permitting and encouraging the construction of new coal fired power stations.

  10. Dave Gardner permalink
    October 11, 2021 1:03 pm

    On Steve Baker’s opening line “The UK’s plans to decarbonise the economy are a classic example of the ancient political strategy of “winging it””, I’ve never heard of that being an ancient political stategy. The idea of having a political aspiration with no real idea of how to achieve it is more like a modern political strategy of the past 30 years or so, possibly linked to the proliferation of ‘pressure groups’ in the modern era.

    The traditional political strategy is doing the opposite of ‘winging it’, it is that “politics is the art of the possible”.

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/424187-politics-is-the-art-of-the-possible-the-attainable

    “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best”

    Otto von Bismarck

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      October 11, 2021 10:50 pm

      Perhaps the classicists in the Government would care to rename it The Icarus Project?

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      October 12, 2021 9:39 am

      They have always winged it in the modern era. Central government can do nothing else. Privatisation, the NHS, the Welfare State, all central diktats that had no idea what would happen or how to then control them. All horrible failures. Blair’s immigration policies or university “reforms”, the Iraq and Afghanistan reconstructions, Brown’s vast increase in spending with no plans…the list is endless.

  11. Malcolm Bell permalink
    October 11, 2021 1:03 pm

    Exactly so.

    Steve Baker has the whole thing exactly right.

  12. T Walker permalink
    October 11, 2021 1:28 pm

    Anyone who has looked at GB News over recent weeks knows that they are at least willing to raise these issues. They had Bob Ward on “Farage”, and gave him far too much credence – the appearance was given once again that he is a climate scientist, whereas we know he is just a PR propaganda wonk. Nigel Farage did then have Benny Peiser on but while Benny did well, NIgel didn’t really ask him the right questions and gave too much of his own opinion (which is sceptical but not sceptical enough IMHO)

    It needs somebody with more grasp of the figures than I, but we need to prompt GB News to ask Benny Peiser or you Mr Homewood, about Feed-in tariffs, cfd and subsidies in general.

    My understanding may be out of date but is not true that –

    25% of our energy bills are used to pay subsidies to ruinables?

    That onshore windfarms and solar get twice the cost of the electricity through those subsidies? We the mugs pay double the price.There was an outcry when we signed up to pay double the cost of electricty for Nuclear.

    That offshore windfarms effectively get paid tree times the price of electricity?

    That the governments strategy (Green driven) is to make Gas more and more expensive, so that ruinables begin to look a reasonable priced option? Bozo has announced this openly this last week, after government has denied this for years. Government (at least the civil service) will see the current rise in the price of gas as good news.

    GB News allows you to email the Farage programme and a couple of people warmly suggested tidal energy and Nigel was vaguely supportive, but there was nobody to tell him that tidal subsidies make wind look chump change. (is it still 6 times the price of the electricity plus other subsidies)

    Steve Baker has a grasp because he is an engineer, but he needs to convince others of the reality of energy.

    AND of course there is the question of whether CO2 has any significant effect.

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      October 11, 2021 2:21 pm

      GB News – Farage this last week used the OfGen figure of 23% for renewables costs in our bills.

      Don’t forget Farage and the rest of GB News have to play by OfCom rules – and they keep saying so at times on air.

      GB News On the Money today interviewed an economist politely pointing out (a) the Climate Change Committee and government numbers are wildly optimistic and (b) MPs voted for May’s Net Zero act based on misleading costs.

      GB News are getting there. Email them – they do reply and they want to listen. Just send brief, accurate points that they can research. They are making a difference.

      • Luc Ozade permalink
        October 12, 2021 6:01 am

        TS

        I agree with what you say. I am a great supporter of GB News and follow it daily – especially the excellent Nigel Farage – but although I have written to them (on GBViews@GBNews.UK) two or three times, I haven’t received one reply!

  13. Broadlands permalink
    October 11, 2021 2:06 pm

    What Richard Feynman actually said: “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”.

    The reality is that there is nothing practical that can be done to lower the Earth’s temperature. CCS technology cannot operate to remove and store just one ppm of CO2.
    And Net-zero, by definition requires that.

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      October 11, 2021 2:23 pm

      And for climate science itself, nothing could be more apt than Feynman’s famous quote:

      “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

      • T Walker permalink
        October 11, 2021 2:45 pm

        Brilliant TS – Have you read his books?

      • ThinkingScientist permalink
        October 11, 2021 2:49 pm

        T Walker,

        Yes quite a few of his books, as well as the “minority report” on the Challenger disaster.

        As a scientist myself, Feynman is my hero.

    • T Walker permalink
      October 11, 2021 2:43 pm

      Yes and of course Bozo thinks we will need NO fossil-fuels at all to build wind turbines or electric cars or trains or airports or……………………………..

      The best estimate for electric cars suggests that they will perhaps save 25% of the CO2 emissions of a FF vehicle over their life (and nothing at all for the first 5 years). I bet that will be an exaggeration. My last diesel did 130,000 miles in 10 years and could have gone on but I moved to a Euro 6 diesel which emits little particulate matter and almost zero Nox. Long before 10 years most EV’s will need new batteries, and while they might be expensively recycled, they are half the cost of the car!!!!??

      Net zero can never exist – Bozo Johnson appears to be too stupid to understand that – OR he thinks we are. Answers on a postcard please.

  14. ThinkingScientist permalink
    October 11, 2021 2:28 pm

    The fundamental issues for MPs are:

    (a) They are continuing to cheer on these policies. When in hole, stop digging.
    (b) They cannot question the science of climate change as they will then be labelled deniers.

    So in order to turn around the situation MPs need to save face and not admit they were wrong. So they need to construct a “get of jail free” policy direction that they all can all start to support that reverses the insane policy direction whilst still saying climate change is real.

    So instead of putting our efforts into picking the holes in the science, we might be more successful in saving the economic future of our country by constructing arguments that allow MPs to be let off the hook without losing face.

  15. booky matelot permalink
    October 11, 2021 3:07 pm

    The best one I have seen this week was Gardeners World, attempting to show what effects CO2 levels predicted for the 2050s would have on a broadleaf forest. By releasing CO2 from 3 pressurised tanks (No-one seemed to mind all this extra CO”) into he canopy I think they intended to show what detrimental effect it would have. In the event, greater leaf cover, accelerated trunk girth growth, increased root fungal activity showed how beneficial the experiment was! Of course the caveat “What will happen if CO2 keeps rising after 2050 is not known” was mentioned at the end, we must keep the BBC manufactured panic alive, mustn’t we!

  16. roger permalink
    October 11, 2021 3:19 pm

    Dr. Constable’s comment “Loading the Net Zero costs on to home heating would cause a dramatic increase in fuel poverty and deep and justified political resentment” is an understatement.
    Boris seems to have forgotten the sudden fall from grace of Mrs Thatcher as she tried to railroad through the hated poll tax and was swiftly dethroned by the party grandees as her stock with the voters plummeted in direct proportion to the depth of her hand in their pockets.
    Just as Maggie owned the poll tax, so has Boris and the ludicrous Princess Nut Nut taken on the green tainted mantle of the CC Act and the poorly supported COP 26 gabfest where none of the major polluters will be in attendance and just a hundred or so supplicant nations will hold out their begging bowls for the underfunded aid.
    I am sure Socrates had a word for it in the symposium – just a shame he had neither pen nor paper handy at the time.

  17. nucart permalink
    October 11, 2021 4:18 pm

    Completely agree with all of that, except that the answer is not just to go for gas! The answer has to be a mix of fuels, including gas, but also most importantly nuclear, which can provide the baseload, with other fuels and renewables topping up as necessary. The government decision not to back the Swansea tidal scheme should also be reconsidered. The energy debate must also address our current reliance on overseas companies and governments to invest in our energy supply industry. We are currently dependant on the French government (and the Chinese) to fund Hinkley C, and Sizewell C if that finally goes ahead. Why is the UK government willing to invest in HS2, but NOT the power stations needed to power the trains!
    We need more high profile influential people like Steve Baker and Lord Lawson to start raising these issues and force our politicians to explain themselves.

    • Phil O'Sophical permalink
      October 11, 2021 8:31 pm

      I do agree that a broad mix is the obvious answer so that interruption of no one fuel can cripple the system, and no one fuel can hold others to ransom to ramp up the price.

      But I am sure I saw somewhere that whilst nuclear could provide a solid reliable proportion it is not agile, not nimble enough to react quickly for balancing baseload.
      Perhaps someone can confirm or correct this for me.

      As to Baker and Lawson being influential, you can only influence people with open minds and no political or financial skin in the game. And that rules out pretty much all our political class.

      • ThinkingScientist permalink
        October 12, 2021 8:48 am

        Nuclear is baseload. Gas can respond quickly to demand (which is why its critical with so much wind penetration into the grid).

        Coal is what we should use for baseload though. Its cheap and effective, you can stockpile it easily (as Thatcher did). And you can’t do much else with it – its inefficient for transportation.

        Gas should be used for home heating and cooking. But we do that already. Except the stupid government wants to rip it all up.

        Gas as LPG is also a good choice for transportation, it burns very clean so good for urban air quality. And easy and relatively cheap to convert petrol vehicles to run LPG. That would have been an easy win for government. But too many idiots conflate CO2 emissions with air quality with “pollution”.

    • October 12, 2021 7:53 am

      Nucart,

      I agree in part, the part I don’t is renewables and even worse tidal or wave by their very location in the sea.
      Renewables, including tidal and wave are all asynchronous generators which broadly means that they are uncontrollable feeding a system that requires tight control. They are also short lived compared to real generators.
      Do not consider them as an equivalent to conventional generators.

      Phil,
      yes nuclear is not flexible, although small modular reactors are claimed to be. They are reliable and provide baseload power, balancing is done these days mainly by efficient gas generators, coal, hydro and biomass (About the only positive from biomass Drax) also are flexible.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      October 12, 2021 9:59 am

      Why do you object to the French investing in the UK? They can’t move the asset to France.

      • nucart permalink
        October 12, 2021 1:57 pm

        I don’t object to the French government investing in UK power, but I do question why the UK government will not invest. In addition I believe that power supplies are an essential resource which our Government should be in greater control of, and not rely on external sources. Interconnections were originally introduced with the objective of two way transfers to manage peaks and short term issues. Our government now regards them as a way of avoiding installing the power generation facilities in our own country. Hope this helps.

  18. Diogenese10 permalink
    October 11, 2021 5:16 pm

    How many dead is acceptable ?

  19. October 11, 2021 6:07 pm

    Your still on the anti Carbon Dioxide band wagon this will be the Conservative party’s swan song.
    I and many other life long supporters will not vote Tory again I will abstain unless another party that looks at the science comes along.
    Carbon Dioxide has increased crop yields everywhere the planet is getting greener and it is not a greenhouse gas.
    I have seriously looked at the science and your betting on the wrong horse and
    Spending billons if not trillions on false
    And altered data.

    • October 12, 2021 7:59 am

      Mr Fellows,

      I wrote to my M.P. asking if he was intending to support Steve Baker in his Net Zero policy scrutiny.
      I also suggested to him that ballot papers have a ‘None of the above’ box as that indicates to parties that their policy is not desirable as opposed to abstaining which can be taken as apathy.

  20. xmbea permalink
    October 11, 2021 6:14 pm

    Anyone who has half a brain together with a half decent education should be aware that climate change in one form or another has been happening since the earth first formed. Hence the concept of climate denial is the real “fake news”. Maybe if MP’s would robustly use this as a starting point they might get more of a hearing and use it also as a starting point for constructing the required arguments.

    • Mike Beaumontxmbew permalink
      October 11, 2021 6:16 pm

      Above comment was meant as a reply to ThinkingScientist comment rather than a standalone comment

  21. M. Fraser permalink
    October 11, 2021 7:25 pm

    Ah ha, the ‘Barcelona agreement’, signed by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, under the radar alright, I don’t know anyone who’s heard of it. Essentially lets relocate the North African population to Europe! Good old Teresa, clueless with no idea about how to deal with Brussels, and then net zero! Mrs Thatcher would turn in her grave.

  22. Tony Walker permalink
    October 11, 2021 7:41 pm

    One has to ask why mother nature provided natural resources? Surely, not to be left in the ground!
    Just what will it take for the political; elite to wake up to the fact that they are being hoodwinked by the ‘experts’? Before the stop knee-jerking to the eco=loon vocal minority?
    How damage will they allow before realising that St Greta is a child with no scientific/climatology qualifications?

  23. Phil O'Sophical permalink
    October 11, 2021 8:15 pm

    Sorry, but sensible this piece by Baker is not.

    He accepts the basic lie that something needs to be done and merely challenges the clear absurdities and impracticalities of the proffered solutions.

    If he had said there is NO dangerous climate change and that a gentle steady warming plus more CO2 would be beneficial in so many ways, and that nothing man can do will change that anyway, but that that is all irrelevant as we head into a cooling phase with minimum sunspot activity, and may end up longing for a bit of warming, that would have been sensible.

    Or the could have just said that the whole purpose of the scam is to wreck the West to allow the Great Reset.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      October 12, 2021 9:42 am

      And then the vast majority of people would ignore him and he would be written off as a Denier.

      There’s no point in arguing about the science when that argument has been lost.

  24. October 11, 2021 9:38 pm

    Net Zero is a successful political strategy that is failing in implementation.

    Boris told us that we have to get on with it, he and his chums provide unachievable policies and expects us all to sort it out. I have no idea what the Labour Party would do, as they don’t know either.

    Lockdown is looking like a picnic.

    • roger permalink
      October 11, 2021 11:15 pm

      Net zero will be as successful as the poll tax when this winter bites and the poor, elderly and vulnerable succumb to the cold.
      Not only the tory Party but also the fool Prince of Wales who doubled down today on his association with the whole frightening mess will be held culpable for the misery they have brought upon us.
      It was never a good look to kill granny.

  25. Neil Turner permalink
    October 12, 2021 7:43 am

    I like Baker, but he avoids the two most important most important points:
    What global warming, and man made CO2 has virtually no impact on climate.
    Too many opponents of the madness of carbon zero concede this ground to the greenists.

  26. Farmer Sooticle permalink
    October 12, 2021 8:06 am

    I think that famous philosopher Mike Tyson summed it up when he said “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” I think the British public, or more hopefully the Government, is going to get metaphorically punched in the mouth this winter.

  27. Phoenix44 permalink
    October 12, 2021 9:45 am

    “The intellectual, by his whole disposition, is uninterested in technical details or practical difficulties. What appeals to him are the broad visions, the specious comprehension of the social order as a whole which a planned system promises.”

    Hayek, 1949

  28. Micky R permalink
    October 12, 2021 6:10 pm

    There must surely be a contributor here who has Steve Baker as an MP. That’s a route into asking searching questions in the House of Commons.

Trackbacks

  1. Prince Charles’s Chinese charm offensive ignores human rights - Independence Daily

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: