Manifesto For A New Prime Minister
By Paul Homewood
It is a fact that politicians very rarely make U-turns, once they have committed to a policy.
Boris Johnson made the huge error of enthusiastically embracing the Net Zero strategy, the poisoned chalice handed over to him by his useless predecessor, itself kicked down the road by her predecessors.
However, with a new leader coming soon, this is an ideal opportunity to reverse course, away from what Allister Heath has rightly described as a hard left eco agenda.
The public, of course, still seem to be in favour of Net Zero, but polls also show that they don’t want to pay the bill.
However, there is no need for a new PM to cancel Net Zero, something which would not get through Parliament anyway, given the loony green policies of Labour and Lib Dems.
Instead, all a new PM has to do is adopt the Manifesto which I published in January, and which I lay out again below:
MANIFESTO FOR 2022
Preamble
It is gradually dawning on the public just how ruinously expensive and suicidal the Net Zero project is going to be.
Sadly though Net Zero is embedded across all the main political parties, throughout the establishment and the media. There is therefore no realistic chance that it will be abandoned anytime soon.
However there are a number of things which could and should be done, that would effectively put the brakes on Net Zero and help to reduce some of the costs already being incurred by the public because of climate policy.
Fundamental Principles
All government actions regarding Net Zero should be consistent with two fundamental principles:
1) Policy should be affordable, both for the public and government finances.
2) Decarbonisation in future should not be at a faster rate than the rest of the world.
Policy Actions
The following actions are therefore proposed:
1) All Carbon Budget targets should be suspended.
2) The proposed ban on gas boilers should be postponed until alternatives are cost competitive
3) The proposed ban on petrol/diesel cars should also be postponed, until:
a) Alternatives are cost competitive
b) Solutions are found for the millions of drivers without off-street parking
c) A nationwide charging network is established, with sufficient capacity and at no cost to the public purse
d) The electricity grid and distribution network has been upgraded
4) Immediately abolish carbon pricing and the UK Emissions Trading System, which is already driving up power prices.
5) Implement an Intermittency Tax for wind and solar generators, so that they bear the cost of standby and grid balancing, instead of electricity consumers.
6) Implement a Windfall Tax on all recipients of Renewable Obligation Certificates, who currently benefit from high wholesale power prices in addition to ROCs, which currently cost consumers £6bn a year. The revenue to be used to offset ROC costs currently added to electricity bills.
7) End all constraint payments to wind farms
8) Put a stop to all new subsidies for renewable energy
9) Fully commit to a long tern future for North Sea oil and gas, necessary to encourage development. This must include a recognition of the need for substantial amounts of natural gas in the medium term.
10) End the ban on fracking, and lift all unnecessary restrictions which were previously in place.
11) Extend the life of existing coal power plants.
12) Fast track mini nuclear development.
13) Immediately approve the Cumbria coal mine
14) Guarantee that no new taxes will be raised, designed to “encourage” consumers away from high carbon consumption. In particular, no new tax on meat or gas.
15) Put an immediate stop on plans to force landlords to meet higher energy efficiency and low-carbon standards
16) Put an end to plans to ban mortgages for homes which don’t meet energy efficiency and low-carbon standards.
Financial Impact
Many of the above actions could be speedily introduced and would have an immediate impact on energy bills.
For instance:
- Carbon pricing – £1.4bn
- Intermittency tax – £2.0bn
- Windfall Tax – £6.4bn
- Constraint payments – £0.1bn
A total saving of £9.9 billion would reduce average household energy bills by £366 a year.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I agree that NZ won’t be repealed by the current HoC but the 2030, 2035 and 2050 deadlines can and should be put back to allow more time for adaption.
The EU have just moved the goalposts for nuclear and gas, so there’s no reason the UK can’t for NZ.
It all depends on technology. Currently the Green Blob and HoC are entirely to blame for pushing (fake) ‘solutions’ which literally cannot be delivered because the technology doesn’t exist!
Putting false time thresholds back 25 years or so is an obvious solution to the very real problem politician’s have created.
Scrapping endless silly demands like air source heat pumps, BTL rental EPC C and above and so on should also be easy amendments.
I’m afraid I don’t believe, any longer, that it’s the ‘green blob’: the West is now being run by a consortium owned by the WEF.
I firmly believe that Deben et al are key players in the scam. Let’s face it, this not for the betterment of the ‘people’: it’s for THEM. It will not end well no matter our encouragement for a different – though well-thought out manifesto.
Harry; yep I’ve become sold on the WEF / UN angle over the past couple of years.
When half a dozen different western leaders all spout the same Build Back Better and Net Zero lines then it’s staring us in the face.
WEF influence will be huge. There’s a reason they refuse to debate; they’ll lose. Hence they’ve just cut that step out of the process.
At some point their conduct might be considered criminal.
Coeur de Lion; agreed!
As usual, back to the UN Agenda 30 For Sustainability (the WEF is that in disguise). It seems to be un-stopable.
Carbon dioxide had no effect on the weather worth worrying about.
Just add that CO2 is not harmful – real greenhouses use up to 4,000 ppm and submarines to 5,000 ppm – low troposphere global temperatures have risen 0.13 C per decade over the last 42 years – thus hardly noticeable, so the whole GHG scare collapses and there is no need to limit CO2 emission or have any plans for Net-Zero. The IPCC scenarios are flawed and should be ignored.
And China, Russia, Indian and many other countries have realised this is an opportunity to catch up on the West. Never mind that the skills of the West to investigate, have ideas and develop them has been to the benefit of all mankind. Sure, some people have been left behind to some degree or another. Mostly this is due to despotic leaders who have pocketed (i.e. squandered the benefits of growth.
“Don’t cry for me Argentina and all that”
INstead, we fret about the torrid time many countries are having, when it’s their own leadership that is at fault.
Very reasonable and logical recommendations. Unfortunately politics is more about ideology and propaganda, where logic is often ignored in favor of emotional appeals.
Dream on.
Baker hasn’t a chance in hell.
All the others and labour continue reciting like robots; invest in renewables to solve the cost of energy, high quality well paid green jobs, climate crisis, extinction crisis, etc. etc.
Baker isn’t standing. He’s backing Braverman.
Suella Braverman has said it!
“In order to deal with the energy crisis we need to suspend the all-consuming desire to achieve net zero by 2050. If we keep it up, especially before businesses and families can adjust, our economy will end up with net zero growth. We don’t want to end up like the Germans, going cap in hand to Putin for heating and power.”
https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1637704/suella-braverman-conservative-party-leadership-boris-johnson-resignation-attorney-general
Yes he withdrew after I posted, thanks for the pointless correction. Confirms what I said, he had no chance. Now it’s Braverman has no chance. Makes no difference does it. Anti-renewables faction has very little support across parties, they’re all brainwashed/ corrupted.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/08/brexiteer-steve-baker-backs-suella-braverman-drops-leadership/
The OBR has said that NetZero will cost £185 billion.to start with. That could almost all be saved.
the
An excellent Manifesto for the energy situation. I would add a note somewhere that increasing carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but is highly beneficial to the planet.
As to the rest of the economy, a new Tory PM should recognise that the UK has been a socialist economy for decades. We all know that all socialist economies, with the attendant high govt. spending and so high taxes, always and everywhere, fail. Any Tory govt. worth the name should revert to its base of low spending and low taxes with as little govt. intrusion into people’s lives as possible. That intent should also be reflected in our free trade ideal for overseas policies.
At 2hmp-do you have a ref.for the net zero cost? Ta!
“Clean Green Energy’ and Net Zero are Fairy tails on Steroids . . .
For starters . . . There is no such thing as ‘Clean or Green Energy’ !
ALL Energy Production of ALL kinds . . . Pollutes Planet Earth . . . Somewhere, Somehow . .
Do Not be fooled . . . Wind Turbines . . . Solar Panels . . . Bio-Fuels . . . Electric Cars . . . ALL ARE BAD! They ALL have a Huge Carbon Footprint Hidden behind the Propaganda . . .
In the beginning, the goal for all ‘Right Thinking’ people on Planet Earth was to clean-up the disgusting mess humans have been making on Planet Earth since The Industrial Revolution. . . . What Ever it takes!
That Said . . . This is where Manipulation and Propaganda raise their Ugly Heads. We are ALL so focused on cleaning up the environment ‘At All Costs’ that we forget to ask . . . How Clean are the Alternatives?
So, I Ask . . . How Clean or Dirty are the Alternatives ??
THAT is a Dirty question . . . Does that make me one of those ‘Deniers’ . . . NO . . . I want the TRUTH!
This is where it gets Ugly, because ALL the Alternatives to conventional energy production are just as bad, or worse, than burning Fossil Fuels in conventional ways of producing Energy and / or Electricity !
For More . . .
https://www.academia.edu/76965285/Clean_Green_Energy_and_Net_Zero_Fairy_Tales_on_Steroids
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/270-energy/today/multiple-energy-types/world/3208-clean-green-energy-net-zero-fairy-tales-on-steroids?highlight=WyJqaW0iLCJsZSIsIm1haXN0cmUiLCJqaW0gbGUiLCJqaW0gbGUgbWFpc3RyZSIsImxlIG1haXN0cmUiXQ==
Read Alex Epstein’s ‘Fossil Future’. He makes the point consistently throughout that, yes, everything we do impacts the environment to an extent but that climate activists ONLY ever look at the negative side effects without considering the positives — mainly because they see humanity per se as being detrimental to the environment without thinking through the implications that if that is true we may as well just go ahead and trash the planet because what is the point of impoverishing ourselves in order to leave a planet to our children so that they can impoverish themselves in their turn?!
It was a few years ago that I watched one of these people caught on the horns of their own dilemma when they were arguing that we should leave fossil fuels in the earth “for our children” and was asked what they were supposed to do with them. He couldn’t answer without shooting himself in the foot!
How does one delete an axiom from the minds of many?
See Euclid for context.
These days in almost any program with child involvement, they all start reciting their green programming. Beech grove garden has been refreshingly free of climate bs but last now school kids believe they can fight climate change etc. by growing a few weeds.
When programs like country file mention climate change and associated catch phrases multiple dozens of times in an hour, when every news report of weather blames climate change, is it any wonder that the belief seeps into the public group think.
“every news report of weather blames climate change” Worse than that, today’s “red button” third news item was an NHS warning over current weather. “Heatwaves are becoming more likely and more extreme because of man made climate change” A few minutes later the “man made” was removed after a few complaints(!)
Clearly we should make non-Euclidean geometry part of the curriculum. Then perhaps people will learn to see around corners instead of following the straight path to climate perdition.
Education is indeed vital.
I have reached the age of 70 and have given up trying to bring logic into the climate change debate. No logic exists, just belief.
You cannot change people’s beliefs, it is who we are.
Another disappointing summer will pass but it will be believed that it is the hottest evah. However the harvest looks bountiful so in past times this would have been regarded as a good thing, but now it’s a crisis.
But the costs have to be paid by someone – it’s now the cost of the system. If you expect renewables operators to pay, that’s fantasy. They will not be profitable and will simply shut down. Most assets are in SPVs so they will cut their losses and let them go babankrupt. You cannot reduce the costs of a system simply by shifting who apparently pays – as politicians like Biden never learn. And taxes are taxes – move them from gas and they will reappear on incomes.
If we must keep Net Zero, a proper carbon tax is the way the vast majority of economists believe is the best way. If it is revenue-neutral then we can decide how to spend our money and markets can incentivise innovation – ICE manufacturers then will do all they can to make their engines fuel-effecient for example.
I read somewhere recently that Porsche have been developing a new carbon-emissions free fuel. Whether it’s viable or efficient enough I don’t know, but it would focus minds at TPTB.
Their objectives aren’t for more efficient expansion, they want fewer people which means less industrialisation. A fuel source that allegedly doesn’t contribute to ‘global warming’ but would allow unfettered vehicle use would put them in a bit of a bind.
The article may have been referring to these stories?
https://www.bing.com/search?q=porsche+developing+carbon+free+fuel&cvid=37a0de354e144f3f97d30d48a81c8f2e&aqs=edge..69i57.8961j0j1&pglt=41&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=U531
Dieter Helm (an economist) leaned quite heavily in favour of a universal carbon tax a few years ago. I believed this was a mistake. It is an example of the academic economist who thinks they have come up with the silver bullet, but hasn’t stopped to consider the practicalities.
The bureaucratic challenge for a new tax is immense. Especially if the tax is not based on financial transactions (that is, being able to rely on the bureaucracy already attached to financial transactions).
If a tax is to be imposed on physical transactions, we need practical and realistic means to define taxable events (usually a transaction of some form), combined with accurate quantification and record keeping, to ensure tax charges are fair and reasonable to the people who will be asked to pay them.
That’s what’s needed if taxation is targeted at physical transactions such as CO2. But it will be hideously bureaucratic and expensive to implement, to monitor/police and to enforce.
If the tax and the bureaucracy it creates are expensive, it only makes cheating more likely. We just end up with another black economy.
To illustrate what I mean, take the example of the steps needed to make sure that “offshoring” does not become a way to avoid the tax. What do we do about imports? The taxable event is the importation of goods or service. The quantification challenge is to estimate “embedded CO2” is an endless list of imported goods and services. It will take an army of bureaucrats to do this, and to keep it updated. And it’s a recipe for wrangling and disputes with trading partners who will have their own opinions on how much CO2 is embedded in their goods and services.
Even if some can see theoretical benefits to carbon taxation, it is a very bad idea in practice.
At least Dieter Helm recognises that unreliable energy doesn’t cut it. Here are some extracts from a recent article on his website.
“80 % of world’s energy comes from fossil fuels the same as in 1970”
“Salient facts: no progress has been made on denting the increase in carbon concentration in the atmosphere since 1990: that disaggregated, low density, intermittent renewables will not fill all the energy gap in place of the 80% fossil fuels that we currently rely upon and that biofuels, biomass and the burning of wood pellets are a very limited option, and quite often perverse”
“it is simply naive to think that wind turbines and solar panels could add up to the energy demand to replace 80% fossil fuels” and so on
Dieter Helm ‘The retreat from net zero’ 4th July 2022
http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy/climate-change/the-retreat-from-net-zero/
Furthermore . . . Producing all those ‘Magically Green’ Wind Turbines and Solar panels in China require more Fossil Fuels during production than they will ever replace during their entire productive lifetimes !!
https://www.academia.edu/71023588/Batteries_Renewable_Energy_and_EV_s_The_Ultimate_in_Environmental_Destruction
https://www.academia.edu/76965285/Clean_Green_Energy_and_Net_Zero_Fairy_Tales_on_Steroids
Magic . . . is Magic . . . there is Always ‘Slight of Hand’ somewhere at play . . . There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Free Lunch . . .
There seems to be a genuine fear amongst the main Greenies within the Conservative party that Boris Johnson’s successor will not be as green-leaning:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/08/green-tories-fear-lurch-away-from-progress-on-climate-after-johnson
Some quotes give in the article from the Conservative party’s Greenies:
Sam Hall, of the Conservative Environment Network, said green policies were always central to Johnson, not an add-on. “Despite the political turbulence caused by Brexit and the pressures of responding to the pandemic, the prime minister has delivered an impressive amount of new green policy domestically and prioritised environmental issues in international fora, such as Cop26 and the G7.”
Ben Goldsmith, a prominent green Tory supporter and brother to Zac, the Foreign Office minister elevated to the Lords by Johnson, said: “I have not seen a prime minister before who has placed such importance on the climate and nature recovery. It has been greater than we have seen from any previous government.”
Goldsmith emphasised Johnson’s genuine interest in nature and animal welfare issues, shared by his wife Carrie Johnson. “He has a sense of the sacred,” said Goldsmith. “Nature really matters to him. I’m not sure many political leaders share that.”
—-
I’ve heard it said about Boris Johnson that he has turned into a Greenie in the past few years mainly due to the influence of his wife Carrie, but I’ve never entirely believed it. After reading the reaction from the Conservative party’s Greenies to his departure, I think I’m glad he’s gone. The left-liberal UK news media may have done us all a favour in hounding him out of office.
Nature really matters to me as well. It’s why I have opposed wind and solar for the last 20 years!!
How anybody can condone the spoliation of the environment and the genuine pollution caused by the mining, manufacture, transportation, and installation of these things which at best are less than 50% effective and which have a lifetime of less than 20 years (and are themselves not recyclable at the end of their lives) is a mystery.
‘Green’ they are not unless you shut your eyes to every aspect of their existence except the actual generation of electricity and even then CO2-emitting backup is needed or the lights go out.
Well said !
Not just his wife Carrie but his father Stanley [ an avid aficionado of Extinction Rebellion ] We are told most of his family are environmentalists . Sam Hall, however, is fibbing and rewriting Boris Johnsons history. Green policies were not ‘always central to Johnson ” …In his time at The Spectator Boris was inclined to ridiculing radical greenies and anyone can peruse the Wayback machine to see this for themselves . Carrie and Stanley Johnson have influenced and manipulated Boris to the great detriment of his country . It must be remembered this road to green serfdom and energy insecurity started 33 years ago under another badly advised Tory Prime Minister who incentivized the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit at the centre of the Climategate controversy The BBC pulled quiet the revisionist trick in the portrayal of Phil Jones as some sort of persecuted well intentioned saint in the BBC series ” The Trick ” …
Boris Johnson was regarded as a sceptic of climate change and the Green agenda pretty much up to the point where he became leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister in 2019.
David King (one of the UK’s top Greenies) tried to influence the Conservative party’s leadership contest in 2019, claiming that Boris hadn’t shown enough commitment to the climate change cause when he had been Foreign Secretary to be a suitable PM:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/18/ex-chief-scientist-fears-for-uk-climate-plan-if-boris-johnson-is-pm
A few extracts from the article:
Prof David King, the former chief scientist, has expressed alarm at the prospect of Boris Johnson becoming prime minister because the Tory MP oversaw “devastating” cuts in efforts to tackle the climate crisis when he was foreign secretary and then wanted to hush them up.
King was serving as the UK special representative for climate change when Johnson was appointed foreign secretary. He told the Guardian that Johnson’s term in office coincided with a 60% cut in his team of climate attaches across the world from 165 to just 65.
King said there was a mismatch between Johnson’s commitments in private and his lack of public commitment on the climate crisis, which have continued in the current leadership campaign.
He said: “During his time in the Foreign Office, Boris Johnson never made a speech on climate change … There was a contrast between Johnson’s farewell speech to me and his action. I really tried to encourage him to make speeches on climate change and it never transpired.”
Multiply by 10 and it would still be an underestimate.
Paul Homewood for PM!
https://electroverse.net/german-professor-climate-change-is-delusional-nonsense/
I don’t think much will change until scientists like this Professor Harde are given more attention by politicians.
Great article !
The newly appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer N Zahawi has a science degree. some hope there, perhaps
viewed fom New Zealand where Net Zero is coming.,too.
Net zero is a relatively easy fix for NZ Already a lot of their energy comes from Geothermal and hydropower. In broad terms, they have a smaller population than SW England but slightly larger area. than the UK. (103 vs 81 sq miles) and with a warmer (i.e. potentially more productive climate)
More than 40% of the cost of building a dam is spent on fossil fuels . . . not to mention the environmental damage caused during and after construction . . . Ain’t no such thing as free !!
It is unpopular especially with the farmers. NZ is an food producing and exporting country.. Look up Ministry for Environment
and search for this
what-government-is-doing/areas-of-work/climate-change/emissions-reduction-targets/new-zealands-projected-greenhouse-gas-emissions-to-2050/
Forestry Farming Transport are all included in need for reform. Even local buses are having to become carbon neutral .
Power station and powerline repairs are continually in the news media.
try Otago Daily Times or The New Zealand Herald papers on line.
Other news media are not as good , being more influenced by the U S media.
Today.
https://www.metservice.com/towns-cities/locations/christchurch
Don’t get your hopes up:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/education-secretary-puts-climate-change-at-the-heart-of-education–2
Education Secretary puts climate change at the heart of education
Young people will be empowered to take action on the environment as part of new measures designed to put climate change at the heart of education.
My local friends and colleagues have come up with a manifesto that we would vote for:
• Abolish net zero policy
• Repeal Climate Change Act 2008
• Stop all decarbonisation policies and taxation based on the principle.
• Stop immediately all renewable subsidies which are in effect blatant theft of public funds, particularly to wind, biomass and solar companies and especially to companies like Drax Power plc.
• Adopt a common-sense energy policy and energy security based on greater energy independence for UK
• Remove taxes on fuel, heating oil, gas, petrol and diesel for transportation.
• Produce British coal for electricity generation and steel production and a myriad of other things.
• Raise domestic production of energy and manufacturing to counter imported goods.
• Ditch the Northern Ireland EU diktat.
• Stop illegal immigration and start mass repatriation.
• Stop building over the countryside.
• Set a 200-mile fishing limit.
• Cancel HS2 immediately.
• Double at least defence spending and invoke secure borders.
• Zero tolerance policing to be invoked by our woke police force.
• Abolish all identity politics, woke policies and political correctness from all walks of life, education, judiciary, society and culture. Treat everyone as equal.
• Abolish the corrupt climate change committee
I would add that to secure energy availability we should adopt the Ireland Alternative Fuel Obligation so that our utterly essential CCGT generators store and use liquid fuels. Gas turbines can run on any fuel except crude oil or fuel oil (they don’t like vanadium). They were designed for kerosene (aviation fuel). Its a hell of a lot easier to store liquid fuel than gas.
7) End all constraint payments to wind farms
The National Grid seems to have let the cat out of the bag this week…
ESO publishes Pathway to 2030 – major step to deliver 50GW of offshore wind by 2030
Co-ordinated approach means consumer savings of £5.5 billion or £2.18 per year for every British energy consumer versus uncoordinated design.
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/news/eso-publishes-pathway-2030-major-step-deliver-50gw-offshore-wind-2030
More specifically on constraint payments…
https://www.nationalgrideso.com/electricity-explained/how-do-we-balance-grid/what-are-constraints-payments
Last week I made a submission to the BEIS Select Committee enquiry on grid decarbonisation by 2035. I included this comment about National Grid:
It is perhaps no surprise that with National Grid having been in charge of the Future Energy Scenarios they came up with scenarios that require a very substantial expansion of their business in order to connect up all the various renewables and backup systems and provide capacity for peaky generators like solar, and recommend a large expansion in interconnectors that they have large shares in with their grid supply privileged position where they are exempted from grid charges. Much lower grid costs could be
achieved by having a largely dispatchable grid, for example one that depended on low cost nuclear as the French grid does.
Charles and family are grateful beneficiaries of the offshore lease sales by Crown Estates, they get a big cut. Baroness Brown of the Climate Change Committee, is a director of Orsted, in line for big offshore contracts. They pay her £40K a year, seems cheap for what they get.
I’d like a Prime Minister who could competently chair the cabinet, that would be a good start. I’d also like a Prime Minister who kept his/her speeches to a minimum; most communication to be in writing.
In terms of Net Zero and similar, I’d like a Prime Minister who frequently asked the question:
” Where is the proof that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change?” Policy to be determined by the reply of “There is no proof, it’s a belief.”
Eton -> PPE at Oxford should be sufficient to prevent an individual from being Prime Minister.
At least we are not – yet – at the levels of lunacy and fascism that they have in Germany. Consideration is being given to a fine on any property owner who has not fitted solar panels unless they can provide convincing evidence of why they can’t. And normal vehicle owners will also face fines for not buying a useless expensive battery car. At least we can enjoy the collapse of Germany as a modern nation.
An excellent manifesto Paul, and one that would indeed put the brakes on Net Zero. It is of course the western puppets of the World Economic Forum who are driving this NZ nonsense and, if it wasn’t for the BRICS the WEF would have completed almost 90% of their agenda by now.
But the BRICS are getting new members (Iran and Argentina) and there’s lots of interest from other nations (such as Turkey) on taking advantage of China / Russia’s Belt & Road Initiative for trade. Importing nations trading directly with supply nations, and thus cutting out utterly useless and non-productive middlemen such as the EU Commission, the EU Council, the EU Parliament etc would save billions.
I don’t believe Xi or Vladimir have much interest in NZ at the moment….
I think Vlad finds the EU’s infatuation with NZ profitable, and amusing. 🙂
China has that same power over ‘Clean Green Energy’ . . . they make over 90% of the components . . . but hey . . . Net Zero is good . . . Right ??
Perhaps the current riots in Sri Lanka and on the continent might cause a few thoughts about going too far, too fast.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10998091/Violent-protesters-set-Sri-Lankan-prime-ministers-house-fire-Crowds-force-leader-resign.html
https://twitter.com/Backup_fis/status/1545000255279841281
When will someone admit that carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide are both heavier than air? Yes, mixed in with warm air on a hot day it will rise, perhaps as high as 12,000 feet, but then, as the day ends and temperatures drop, will fall back down to earth.
So gas boilers, petrol and diesel vehicles and the various chemicals used in fertilisers can hardly cause a ‘greenhouse effect’.
Where a greenhouse effect can occur, is in the water vapour from aero engines, usually above 20,000 feet where the condensation trails form clouds, subject to wind direction and temperature. The Mauna Kea observatory, much-quoted by environmentalists, only really captures the CO2 emitted by the Hawaiian air corridors and emissions brought down by the Trade Winds from the US West Coast.
Whether ( ha! Ha!) this causes anything other than purely local cloud cover is debatable, but two things are certain, debate is not allowed, and if climate change could be proven to be an airborne problem, would our wealthy elites really forego air travel?!!
The one person that should be promoted for the post of PM is, unfortunately, residing in the wrong house; and that is Lord Frost who seems to bet one of thew few politicians who have got their heads screwed on.
Query. Can the PM only be from the Commons these days?
I used your manifesto to describe how it will inevitably apply in New York: https://naturalgasnow.org/net-zero-shenanigans-in-the-uk-offer-lessons-for-new-york/
Thank you!!!
Mr. Caiazza, I read your piece with great interest and full support. One cavate . . . Explain how more fossil fuels are burned building ‘Green Energy’ alternatives than they EVER will replace during their productive lifetimes. Wind and Solar components are all built in China. Also add that China will have control over our future as Russia now has over Europe. Both arguments outweigh the cost factor and the social disruption . . .
I agree that is a point I should include.
“Great Britains Second Industrial Revolution and a New Prime Minister”
The coming of a New Prime Minister got me thinking so here are some thoughts from an Englishman in the USA.
The United Kingdom is a GREAT country but looking at it from the outside for the last 20 years I now fear for the word GREAT in “Great Britain”.
My focus is on something we all use, we all need every day and is required to keep the world moving ……. “ENERGY”
Like in many other parts of Europe and the World it looks to me like crazies have taken over in the UK. Green policies and Net Zero Emissions are leading England into the madness of so called renewable energy. This is not a fanciful observation, UK and European radicals think that Solar Panels and Wind Turbines will power the future saving us from a mild manageable temperature increase which is absolutely no threat to any British person let alone mankind.
They cannot save us from a non existent threat and now Germany is in the midst of that realisation. Germany is the European poster child and has spent vast sums of money over may years to get just about nowhere. What they have ended up with are outrageously high domestic and industrial electrical prices, no Nuclear, dependence on Russian Gas and now the fact that digging up coal is about the only choice they have of keeping the lights on. If they really had been worried about Co2 emissions in the first place they would have followed the French down the Nuclear path and saved them selves a great deal of pain.
Back to the United Kingdom and its prospective new leader. None of them have yet to my knowledge mentioned Green Polices or Net Zero. The British population sits atop a vast potential supply of energy which is in the form of Natural Gas. In a similar way to the USA we could be Energy independent. We already have an existing Gas infrastructure and if we moved forward with Fracking the existing gas under our feet just think how far ahead of Europe and the World we could be in the next few years.
Residential electric bills could come down to sensible affordable levels, domestic heating costs would plummet. Industry could become competitive again which could potentially lead to new jobs. Cheaper fertiliser could be sold to our farmers and then around the world. Our food, our manufacturing industry, our population could flourish. Our people could take advantage of an amazing cost effective natural resource that is the GREAT BRITISH ENERGY of Natural Gas.
All this can be achieved NOW with current technology and in a relatively short period of time. It needs courageous leadership to get the GREAT back in Great Britain and move us forward into THE SECOND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
A small benefit would be potential reduction in the emission of British Co2 which currently only stands at about 1% so in reality not making a big difference to the world. If we did this and politicians saw the light it could be a transition to a cleaner Nuclear future, we already have the makings of small nuclear power with Rolls Royce. Has someone in our government the courage to pull the United Kingdom out of the “ Green Pit Of Doom “ and up into the Natural Gas Light of a Second revolution.
This energy revolution was achieved already during the last administration in the United States so it is a proven pathway to cheaper energy costs and energy independence. It is also plane to see that the current Green Progressive policies of the current American government have been an unmitigated disaster and do not work, sadly the USA is following the failed policy of Germany back into the pit of doom.
DO NOT let the UK follow like a lamb to the slaughter into the catastrophic madness of so called Green Technology.
WAKE UP and smell the GREAT BRITISH ROSE that is Natural Gas Energy and let it catapult us into a NEW INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
.
Mr. Bell . . . Great wisdom . . .
It’s the Media . . . They Rule . . . go against the ‘Madness’ of ‘Clean Green Energy’ . . . Yer done ! Go against the Fraud of ‘Net Zero’ . . . Yer outa here !
Globally . . . We have been had by the conspiratorialists like Michael Mann, the EPA and the IPCC since the 1990’s. They spend Billions of $$ of our money with thousands of employees on our dime . . . to destroy the western economies. All this Clapp Trapp about clean green energy is an out right LIE. More fossil fuels are burned producing these systems, mostly in China, than they will EVER replace in their entire productive lifetimes !!
Two Papers . . .
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/188-environment/man-made-global-warming-alarmists-viewpoint/north-america/3253-net-zero-the-scandal?highlight=WyJqaW0iLCJsZSIsIm1haXN0cmUiLCJqaW0gbGUiLCJqaW0gbGUgbWFpc3RyZSIsImxlIG1haXN0cmUiXQ==
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/217-environment/man-made-global-warming-organizations-discussing-all-positions/world/3334-false-protagonism?highlight=WyJqaW0iLCJsZSIsIm1haXN0cmUiLCJqaW0gbGUiLCJqaW0gbGUgbWFpc3RyZSIsImxlIG1haXN0cmUiXQ==
Keep up the good struggle . . . someone somewhere will hear the TRUTH . . .