What Will Net Zero Cost You
October 31, 2021
By Paul Homewood
Lawrence Fox has an excellent video on Net Zero and how democracy has been bypassed:
40 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
Gamecock on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… JohnAM on Storm Ravages World’s La… energywise on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… energywise on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… Gamecock on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… Gamecock on Biggest Solar Farm In Wales… energywise on Taxpayer-backed net zero group… energywise on Taxpayer-backed net zero group… energywise on Taxpayer-backed net zero group… energywise on Taxpayer-backed net zero group…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Synopsis of Glasgow Cop 26
China will continue to build coal-fired plants through 2030 (and beyond)
China has a net neutral target of 2060 not 2050 (which it will ignore)
Russia will not do a thing (sensibly) and keep drilling for gas
India will not agree to goals (and keep building coal power stations)
Developing countries will demand but not receive more money (and thus do nothing)
Greta, will give a jibberish speech on the end of the world within 15 minutes.
Much symbolic wailing and bullpooing will be done.
No-one will measure how much carbon will be released by all those jetting around the world to attend this useless summit.
COP26 will be the biggest waste of energy yet.
But hey, Greta and other luvvies and commies will get their pictures on countless newspapers and magazines.
yep.
Putin promised them 80% reduction from 2020 levels by 2050, and net zero by 2060.
Well, Putin himself didn’t go, but they’ve sent quite a bunch of high ranking officials from various state agencies (deputy prime minister, ministers of economic development, natural resources, ecology, head of hydromet, etc).
There’s a new document apparently, under the title of Low-carbon Development Strategy 2050, but I couldn’t find it, only mentions of it in the media like this
https://tass-ru.translate.goog/ekonomika/12588889?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=nui
It’s not exactly clear what they are trying to achieve at COP, but it looks to be about evading Europe’s potential green border tariffs, reforestation “carbon offset” trading, and nuclear power exports.
https://www-rbc-ru.translate.goog/politics/29/10/2021/6177e56b9a79471edf7f26dd?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=nui
And also there is continued bargaining over sanctions and NS2
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-21/russia-will-seek-sanctions-relief-for-climate-projects-at-cop26?sref=fgHqaWRV
So it’s not “Russia will not do a thing and keep drilling for gas”, but more like “Russia will pretend to do something in order to keep drilling for gas”.
Russia will have to keep drilling for gas because Germany is dependent on NordStream 2 to provide it with baseload power for all those times that their abundant wind turbines have no wind.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/finland.aspx
Finland is building a Russian reactor with Siemens turbines to be operating in 8 years at a cost to the partners of 50 euros/MWh. Their Hinkley type was a disaster and is years late with cost overruns. Ours will cost over double thanks to the brilliance of our business and energy ministry. We could have homes heated like the French for the past 50 years without any heat pumps that don’t work.
OK. I’m a great fan of Fox. I think he is a very good actor – and one with a brain. Unfortunately, as well-polished is his video, I really think his delivery was far too rushed: his message could have benefitted from a more measured metre.
Agreed. A decent argument, delivered without conviction. Fox just doesn’t sound as though he believes his own message. For a man who is a trained actor, this is a very poor delivery.
It’s 7 minutes. Probably too long for many attention spans. But it does cover the essential ground. I’m sure a 1 hour 40 epic like Planet of the Humans (12 million views on Youtube alone) might eventually rack up a lot of views, as well as allowing space for issues to be examined in greater depth, but that is a whole different level of production. I thought it was a good balance avoiding being too superficial, and also avoiding descending into a shouty rant. It was about packing a lot of information into those 7 minutes, and keeping the watcher engaged by bringing up topics before they could get bored.
Personally it didn’t feel like that to me. It was short so he had to focus on just one drawback. Perhaps he could do another on electric vehicles.
People watching may agree the costs are absurd but they will also say we have to do something.
So my only criticism is that he did not highlight that all this green crap is an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist.
Now that would be a useful: Historical context, Milankovitch cycles, et al.
I am guessing they don’t teach photosynthesis anymore; probably call it a conspiracy theory.
Over to you
28 Dunstan Street Sherborne DT9 3SE
01935 817588

>
Thanks for that video !!
On July 18th, 2011 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), declared, in Scientific American, that more than 50% of the heat that keeps planet Earth warm in the Universe, comes from the fission reactor at the Earth’s core that is 6,000 degrees C. Not one climate change forecast includes this understanding of how Planet Earth works. All the studies look to the Sun for answers. The old formulas from the 1980’s & 90’s rule . . . still.
100% of the forecasts and computer models use information modeled from the mid 1700’s up to the present – no exceptions. There are thousands of papers that fall within the same ‘Pre-Industrial’ to present time line. None directly compare The Roman Warming Period or The Middle Ages Warming Period to our current Warming Period. There is the odd reference to the North Atlantic Oscillation, something that lasts 20 to 30 years. A distraction to readers away from viewing any of the previous Warming Periods, averaging about 500 years each. As a result, credibility declines based on Historical and Scientific findings None produce ‘Warming Period to Warming Period’ comparisons. Detailed, skilled, scientific research requires a comprehensive analysis that examines at least the last 2,500 years. Science 101.
Today in what is described as ‘An Inter Glacial Period’, The Holocene, we are having a reprieve from the incessant Violence brought upon the World by Volcanoes. Planet Earth is warm for only the second time in 250 thousand years. This Warming Period permits Food Production in the Prairies, Europe and China. Places where 10 kilometers of Ice usually would stand. For little more than 10 thousand years Humanity has had it good. Life for 7 billion people is possible. A mere 25 million souls occupied Equatorial regions of the Earth when Volcanoes and Ice Ruled the World. Let us learn to give thanks to Global Warming and learn to respect Nature as the Supreme Ruler of our Climate and of true Climate Change on our Little Blue Planet.
Yes. Your comment makes much more sense than those from the con-artists gathering in Glasgow.
Only England is a totalitarian state. So nothing you say or do will be heeded.
In fact it may lead to incarceration or worse.
Think Julian Assange.
Assange deserves all he gets. People may have died so he could satisfy his pathetic attention seeking ego.
David G-J. Have you always worked for the CIA? Why do you hate the people hearing the truth of the crimes the authoritarians commit? Assange was only a journalist revealing how PEOPLE DID DIE at the hands of US Govt criminals. But you hate the truth.
First class!
The biggest problem is that there is no real difference between our parties and they all agreed on “Remain” and now all agree on “Climate Change”. What they forget, again, is that the people are not entirely under their control. Hopefully a new party will appear soon to take on the foolish establishment that is letting us all down so badly.
The Conservatives don’t agree on Remain. Most are unequivocally against the EU.
Then why did the party – including virtually all Ministers at the time – campaign for Remain? The official policy of the Conservative government in 2016 was Remain.
Laurence has my vote!
The same problem remains. By definition, NET-zero requires that the world capture and store at least as much CO2 as has been emitted. Having emitted about 40 billion metric tons in 2020, that’s simply impossible going forward. No country or collection of rational people can expect to live without the carbon fuels for transportation that got their lifestyles and standards of living where they are. Time to push the “reset” button?
I hardly dare to pass this on from R T a Russian online news site which should be approached with caution. and a sackful of salt
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/538751-great-reset-fake-utopia/:
It mentions Prince Charles views.
Lawrence Fox needs to go back to school, The British Constitution is worth saving even if HRH is one of the elite mentioned in the article. Fortunately the succession to the throne is not a popularity contest or we would have all the news papers taking sides. The powers of a constitutional monarch are limited so he won’t take the country with him on his green flights of fancy unless he mounts coup!
RT to be approached with caution? I would say the same for the BBC and the Guardian. Both worse in my view.
IMPORTANT
Many posting here have questioned the net zero policies of the UK government.
Now there is something you can do about it. You can register a vote to hopefully force a referendum on the issue. Rather than just accept an edict on which no party has saught a mandate, you can add your weight behind a movement that will allow your voice to be heared.
Vote here, now. If 100,000 are registered, a debate has to happen and its possible a referendum will be called.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599602
I would rather see a petition calling for a proper impact analysis of net zero policy. Only when the public are better informed can they vote sensibly in a referendum. I suspect that it would then not be necessary to hold one anyway, as the destructiveness of net zero policy would be evident and not an electoral platform.
Although it is a call for a referendum IDAU, it will not immediately lead to a referendum. Nobody really wants a referendum at this stage, although the message from this petition would put pressure on the government that the electorate is growing impatient and restless with NZC.
IT would help tell the politicos that the empty vessels (e.g. the ones glued to roads) are getting too much attention, and seem to be setting the policy agenda. Other views need to be considered. And there is an appetite among a significant segment of the population for better debate and consideration of cost/benefit. I heard Richard Tice on Talk Radio saying (words to the effect) that the lack of debate and a confirmed mandate for NZ is intolerable. These views are already being aired.
Worth recalling how UKIP stalked the Tories for years, and UKIP vote peaked at 4 million when it provoked the the proposed EU reform and referendum. The Tories will have learned lessons from the experience of Brexit and will be more sensitive to signs of voter dissatisfaction with NZC.
If this petition gets the 100k votes, it will not immediately leap to a referendum on the back of a first petition. Most likely, it will get you what you are looking for. And if things don’t change, there would be better prospects for dissatisfied voters to “do a UKIP”.
Signed!
A voice of reason –
“It’s foolish to think that we can run away from oil and gas.”
Alister Jack MP supports Cambo development and the UK has to be realistic that it is still needed for imported products.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/31/controversial-oil-field-should-100-per-cent-get-go-ahead-says/
Neil Oliver gave an excellent appraisal on Saturday. Starts at 5.15 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr3XYdsPm2I
Anybody who thinks Biden, Macron, Johnson and the rest actually care how much it costs or what the effects will be is being naive. They are kings and we are serfs, and Net Zero is a way of demonstrating that. The White House, Chequers, the Elysee will never be cold, never suffer a black-out. These people will never have to choose between heat and food nor suffer any of the consequences of their laws.
The UK is vulnerable to drought as no new reservoirs have been built since 1991 but population has exploded from 57million to 67million.
Net zero doesn’t solve this, and with reliability of all utilities decreasing Net zero policies will increase our vulnerability to extreme weather.
So we pay to make sure that climate change is a problem.
81 million. AFAIK.
One has to ask if you hadn’t shown this video, who would?
Fox had a fine line to draw between holding the viewers interest and getting the extended message across and I think he does that quite well. I doubt it will ever be shown on the BBC
I think he might well get another Farage interview though.
O/T: Boris this morning “We are at one minuet to midnight with the climate”.
BTL on the Daily Mail “A minute to midnight? Cancel the boiled egg, I’ll just have one bread soldier”.
I thought it was funny.
Excellent video, full of incontrovertible facts and not over-sold, as one might anticipate from a class actor. I have to agree with those above who say there is no way the MSM and especially the BBC will ever give credence to these views. It all feels like an enactment of Orwell’s vision of 1984. Good luck to Lawrence in trying to rally opposition in some political forum. Not sure it will succeed, but it is very much needed.
Without our energy resources, British manufacturing is dead. Because everything in the economy depends on energy, the rest is not far behind.
Newly published evidence is excellent justification to save our future. Lawrence should add Figure 9 of Part 2, which truly undresses the Emperor:
https://scc.klimarealistene.com/2021/10/new-papers-on-control-of-atmospheric-co2/
I think it was a pretty good video. I think he will get my vote too (and not just because he smokes ‘rollies’ using what looked like liquorice papers – the same as me – as seen when he was on GB News the other week!).
My own angle and what I am just going to tell my MP when I email telling him I’ve signed the petition for a Net Zero referendum is as follows:
If you ignore the FACT that ‘climate change’ (AKA Global Warming) remains a theory – as it has not and cannot be falsified apart from in lab conditions and entered into man-made and heavily-biased computer models, man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions are ~4% of total CO2 emissions (meaning 96% are natural). This means that protest groups such as ‘Insulate Britain’ are completely and utterly misinformed when they claim that 16% of emissions are caused by poor insulation of housing. The REAL percentage (for UK housing stock) would be 16% of 1% (acknowledged as being emissions from the UK against world-wide anthropogenic emissions) of 4%. Which works out at 0.000064% !
So for all their disruption to traffic around London – stopping ambulances, deliveries of goods to supermarkets, people going to work, people taking children to school etc – they want to trash the economy and return us all to living like pre-industrial peoples all for the sake of saving 0.000064% of CO2 emissions.
Your post prompts me to quote another gross fabrication from “Insula\te Britaiain”. I recently heard their spokesperson on TV claim that there are ninety million homes in England needing insulation (and it will cost three quarters of a trillion pounds). Hang on – the entire population is less than seventy million. Facts: there are 27 million homes in the UK, 24 million in England. Of these fourteen million are already insulated. Of the remainder I bet over half are old and won’t meet the Building Regs requirement that there must be two courses of bricks showing below the DPC. There is no reality in any of this discussion.
Re the referendum debate I have already argued against it because of the inevitable age dispute and the impossibility of framing the question, but there will be a referendum soon, called a general election. Although there is nothing to chose between any of the parties they will, never-the-less, want to win and vote-winning may drive some sanity into the subject.
From the beginning the Universe & in particular this ‘World’ has experienced perpetual change.
Without climate change we would not exist.
Now we are here, some cannot accept that change will continue & there is nothing to stop the ever progression of evolution.
Man’s ego has no bounds in thinking he/she/shehe/heshe/unknown-pronoun is able to change the course of the Universe.
Sit back & enjoy your brief life span.
Excellent job Lawrence. I’ll send my next £50 to reclaim instead of reform.