Skip to content

Sadly we cannot afford Net Zero right now – we HAVE to put Britain first – JOHN LONGWORTH

August 5, 2022

By Paul Homewood

And in a similar vein from another leading Brexiteer:

 

 

 image

Like all revolutions Brexit was not completed the moment it took place and no doubt the battle will go on and on. We have seen this before in our long island history and outcomes are never pre-ordained but require effort. The reason for this is of course that many people will oppose what is not in their personal interests, despite the fact it may be in the national interest. The most powerful of these people is the establishment elite. There are also blockers that are accidents of history.

Net Zero, or at least the Government’s response to it, stands in the way of post Brexit growth and prosperity and is the key contributor to the UK cost of living crisis.

The campaign for Net Zero, ostensibly to prevent a climate emergency, has become almost religious in its zeal, with any naysayers treated in the way that someone claiming the earth was round would have been treated in the 16th century.

The commitment to the climate emergency mantra has developed perfidiously over the decades and has a particularly strong hold now on society and political thinking, I suspect for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the idea of environmental responsibility being paramount and immediate has permeated our education system with an entire generation or two being taught at school that climate change is a fact and that we must act immediately to prevent it or we will all die.

Symbolic of this is the voice of youth embodied on earth by Greta Thunberg.

This process began even when I was at school and university, except then it was all about the ozone (what happened to that?), minerals running out by the year 2000, as predicted in ‘Blueprint for Survival’ (which never happened) and of course global warming  – rebranded climate change when warming stopped.

Secondly the idea of climate activism is rather convenient for virtue signalling,  left liberal greens, who have captured the media commentariat, in particular the BBC.

Because, after all, who could argue with the saintly David Attenborough?

The chattering classes can manage lightweight, quasi science at the dinner table, look responsible and do not have to get too involved as would be required if they had to address levelling up, the life chances of white, working class boys, poverty, or other difficult, and frankly unfashionable, social issues.

Thirdly, climate change also gave certain badly advised (albeit well-meaning) Royals -who would otherwise have been slightly redundant – a reason, a purpose.

The power of patronage should not be underestimated, I have seen it personally, even top business people will go to great lengths for garden party invites, DIT sponsored Palace receptions and, of course, gongs.

Whatever the cause of the hold of Net Zero on the psyche of the elites and whether or not climate change is occurring, or indeed driven by humans, it is no reason to cause the British economy to fail or to impoverish our people.

Government, particularly politically appointed officials in departments like BEIS and for that matter No 10, have pushed a ruinous agenda resulting in almost all of the cost of living crisis to date.

Green levies have racked up energy costs. A reliance on unreliable and expensive sources of energy has led to fuel poverty and taxpayers are also subsidising uneconomic energy sources, contributing to Britain’s highest tax regime since the Second World War.

All this in order to go the extra mile to set an example to the world.

Does the world care? It seems not. In any event the U.K. could be 100 percent emission free and barely move the dial on global carbon emissions.

Russia, China, India and others continue to pump out carbon dioxide to make cheap goods. Meanwhile while we have exported well paid manufacturing jobs from the regions making us reliant on autocratic and dangerous regimes. Hypocrisy writ large.

Germany continues to buy Russian gas and to burn the very dirtiest fuel, lignite.

At the same time we have under our feet an abundance of clean British Natural Shale Gas, cheap energy, enough for a hundred years and certainly enough to last until we develop home grown nuclear reactors. We must frack now.

Post Brexit Britain has everything it needs and the self-determination of independence, in order to build a prosperous, growing economy, transition to Net Zero at the least cost and have low cost energy security.

We can deal with the symptoms of climate change as they occur, or not.

But we desperately need the Government to get a grip and be prepared to see off the fanatics. 

https://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/1650412/great-global-warming-swindle-Britain-s-Net-zero-climate-change-Boris-Johnson?mc_cid=1aa9951c06&mc_eid=4961da7cb1

55 Comments
  1. jimlemaistre permalink
    August 5, 2022 9:53 pm

    Net Zero . . . The Scandal . . .

    The whole ‘Net Zero’ system is about ‘Appearances’ . . . NOT the clean up of pollution. We take industries that ‘Appear Clean’ by ignoring their implicit ‘Embodied Energy’ and allow them to sell ‘Carbon Credits’, also known as ‘Carbon Allowances’, that work like ‘Permission Slips’ for companies that Pollute Excessively.

    Then these ‘Excess Polluters’ who buy ‘Carbon Offsets’ get to continue polluting, unabated without spending a single dime on removing the REAL pollution going up their smokestacks . . .

    This is a game of ‘slight of hand’, a ‘Magician’s Trick’, trading 4 quarters for a dollar . . . when it comes to cleaning up the Air we Breath or the Water we Drink . . . It LOOKS amazing . . . on paper . . . while in practice . . . It improves NOTHING . . . it is no better than moving the deck chairs on the Titanic from one side of the deck to the other . . . hoping that the list will be corrected . . .

    Net Zero . . . is a 1 Trillion $$ per year Fraud . . . perpetrated on the well-intentioned masses around the world by the Scientific Ignorance of Environmentalists intent on destroying the Fossil Fuel industry.

    What Planet Earth needs is Scrubbers and Electrostatic Precipitators and Nitrous Oxide Burners on EVERY smokestack NOW . . . Oops . . . that would mean that Environmentalists would have to ‘Crawl into bed’ with the dreaded fossil fuel industry and Industrialists to implement systems that Actually Work at cleaning up the Planet. These systems remove up to 97% of the ‘Foul Effluent’ coming from the smokestacks . . .

    Oh My . . . Actual Clean-Up . . . No No No . . . We must destroy them all . . . We won’t need the clean-up . . . They will all be gone . . . no need . . .

    Environmentalists have a Magic Trick . . . ‘Net Zero’ . . . let’s try that . . . Our Buddies in the ‘Clean Green’ energy world will help us sell that and they will get rich at the same time . . . Elon Musk Anyone ??

    Oh . . . The Media doesn’t understand Science either . . . ‘They will help us sell this’ . . . Good! . . . Well Done!

    Complete Madness . . . the innocent masses continue to suffer the world over . . . buried in smog and real pollution . . . because REAL solutions are NOT advocated . . .

    For the ‘Honest Report’ please read the following paper . . . The Devil is in the Details . . .

    https://www.academia.edu/76965285/Clean_Green_Energy_and_Net_Zero_Fairy_Tales_on_Steroids

    Clean Green Energy – Net Zero – Fairy Tales on Steroids (allaboutenergy.net)

    Education is what we ALL need . . . Not Hyperbole !

  2. Sean Galbally permalink
    August 5, 2022 10:08 pm

    You can drop Net Zero NOW. It achieves nothing but poverty. Only the sun affects the climate.

    • jimlemaistre permalink
      August 5, 2022 10:11 pm

      On July 18th, 2011 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an agency of the United States Government, declared, in Scientific American and also in Nature Geoscience on July 17th, 2011, that more than 1/2 of all the heat that keeps planet Earth from freezing in the cosmos comes from the fission reactor at the Earth’s core. The other half of the heat that keeps life possible on Earth, comes from the Sun. The earth’s core is said to be 6,230 centigrade . . . Equal to the temperature of the surface of the Sun. Scientists described the core of the Earth as a Fission reactor producing more than one half of all the heat needed to survive in the Universe as we careen through space at 107,000 kilometers per hour circling around the Sun.

      https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-earths-heat/

      • August 6, 2022 12:30 pm

        The fission reactor at the Earth’s core theory is fringe science at best.
        The article does not support a fission reactor. It is simple radioactive decay that provides the heat.
        The 44TW output is a tiny fraction of the 174,000TW received from the sun. Without the sun, the planet surface would be so cold the atmosphere would freeze out on the surface. The geo output would not prevent this.

      • jimlemaistre permalink
        August 6, 2022 3:33 pm

        More input . . .

        https://www.nature.com/articles/srep37740

        https://www.oakridger.com/story/news/2020/10/05/earths-magnetic-field-powered-nuclear-reactor/3633365001/

        https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jgg1949/45/5/45_5_423/_article

        Abstract
        Ideas have previously been advanced suggesting the possibility that uranium exists within the Earth’s core. In. the present paper, evidence is presented for the existence within the Earth’s core of substantial quantities of uranium and thorium. The concept of an accumulation of uranium in the core of the Earth functioning as a nuclear fission breeder reactor is presented. Means for concentrating actinide elements within the Earth’s core and for separating actinide elements from reactor poisons are disclosed. Nuclear reactor feasibility is demonstrated by Fermi’s k∞ in excess of unity for times in the geological past. The concept that the Earth’s geomagnetic dynamo is driven by nuclear fission energy is discussed as is the concept that the frequent, but irregular, polarity reversals of the geomagnetic field have their origins in intermittent nuclear reactor output.

        Although great uncertainty exists in estimates of the abundances of the actinide elements in the core of the Earth and in details of the chemistry of the core, the results of the present paper indicate if uranium and thorium exist in the core of the Earth as elements or compounds, as evidence indicates, the actinides: (1) would be the most dense matter in the Earth; (2) would tend to concentrate at the center of the Earth; (3) would tend to be separated on the basis of density from less dense reactor poisons; and (4) if accumulated 3000 million years ago, would be able to initiate self-sustaining nuclear fission chain reactions which may continue to the present through fuel breeding reactions. The magnitude of available nuclear fission energy release throughout geological time is of major geophysical importance and is more than sufficient to power the geomagnetic field.

        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1019331615020070

  3. Up2snuff permalink
    August 5, 2022 10:25 pm

    Amen, baby, and goodnight.

  4. Liardet Guy permalink
    August 5, 2022 10:26 pm

    Let’s all keep very calm. CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to rise at c 2ppm a year for the foreseeable future. Low ECS means it doesn’t matter. Welcome the greening and relax

  5. markl permalink
    August 5, 2022 10:52 pm

    We need more people like this to pull back the curtain.

  6. Alex Emodi permalink
    August 5, 2022 11:29 pm

    The Ozone hole decreased to a normal size once aerosol gas use was limited through legislation. Not sure that supports this argument, which overall is good.

    • bobn permalink
      August 6, 2022 12:49 am

      Err no. The Ozone hole still waxes and wanes with the antarctic winter. The hole is still there. It is driven by sunlight and temperature. There is still no evidence that banning CFC gases had any effect, or that they caused any change in the ozone layer in the first place. The theory is still unproven but bans were implemented on the famous ‘percautionary principle’. According to this principle no-one should ever get out of bed in order to reduce the possibility of being run down by a bus.

    • August 6, 2022 10:07 am

      Alex

      I am surprised you would write that on a sceptical blog without checking first. The BBC made a great fanfare when there was a relatively smaller hole several years ago but mysteriously omitted to mention that last years hole was one of the largest in the record. As others write here it waxes and wanes and we seem to have little impact on it. It is very likely that it has always existed

      • Phil O'Sophical permalink
        August 6, 2022 11:46 am

        Indeed. It’s a bit like the old joke: Are by indicators working? Yes; Oh, no they are not; Ah, yes they are; Oh wait, no they are not….

        I heard that the great and good (self-proclaimed) held a grand dinner towards the millennium, to celebrate their ‘success’ with shrinking the ozone hole by banning CFC’s. But they simply and cynically chose the low point of the cycle, and now it’s back up again.

      • Philip permalink
        August 7, 2022 1:43 am

        Is your car blinker working, ,yes no yes no yes no.

  7. August 6, 2022 12:40 am

    The sadder choice would be to continue the crazy net zero fiasco.
    It would be happier to stop and end all decarbonisation indefinitely.

  8. August 6, 2022 2:07 am

    Well said John Longworth. Bravely so.

  9. Graeme No.3 permalink
    August 6, 2022 5:37 am

    If the aim of Net Zero is to keep the atmospheric level of CO2 below 500 (or whatever) p.p.m. then it will fail because two thirds of man-made CO2 is being (and will be) emitted by those who have no intention of stopping. And why should they? Not if it is in their interest.
    If the aim of Net Zero is to keep the temperature from climbing below 2℃ then it is an unnecessary waste of effort and money.
    The Beer-Lambert Law shows a negative exponential effect of increasing CO2, or put another way, its heating effect becomes less as the concentration increases.
    “Beer’s law also describes the attenuation of radiation through the Earth’s atmosphere.”
    Guy Callendar in 1938 used this in his prediction of future temperatures which has been found to be reasonably accurate. He estimated that 600 p.p.m. would struggle to raise the temperature by 1.5℃. Higher levels would have limited effect, which might explain why large (warm blooded) dinosaurs didn’t expire from heat stroke even when the CO2 level was above 2,000 p.p.m.
    So we are safe from CO2 induced heat death until the next century or later, by which time we may have changed technology or the climate may have changed.

    • August 6, 2022 12:45 pm

      As the average range of an IR photon is reduced by increasing the CO2 concentration, more of the heat is absorbed closer to the surface. So the lower atmosphere is warmed and the upper atmosphere cooled.

      • Graeme No.3 permalink
        August 8, 2022 6:35 am

        Not necessarily. Increased heat in the lower atmosphere results in more radiation, restoring the balance.

    • daveR permalink
      August 6, 2022 5:47 pm

      G3, whilst not touching on hot- or cold-blooded, here’s a recent top video presentation from Dr Neil Clark,Hunterian Museum Glasgow. Essentially, it’s about Skye dinosaurs and ancient sediments, about an hour

      https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/shared/Videos/CSRGTracking%20Dinosaurs%20in%20Scotland10112020.mp4?la=en

      • Graeme No.3 permalink
        August 8, 2022 10:21 am

        Thanks daveR: but the link doesn’t work. Apparently access barred.

    • catweazle666 permalink
      August 7, 2022 7:06 pm

      It makes zero difference to the atmospheric CO2 concentration no matter how much anthropogenic CO2 is produced.
      Despite anthropogenic emissions dropping 6.3% in 2021 as a result of lockdown, the Mauna Loa CO2 trace never so much as twitched.

  10. Stephen H permalink
    August 6, 2022 7:33 am

    Now that China has ended engagement with the US on climate matters, our commitment to NZ is even more pointless. Does anyone seriously believe they (or India) would act in a way contrary to their economic interests? Let’s hope this provides an opportunity for a turning point.

    • August 6, 2022 4:39 pm

      Economic interests? I’m sure you meant to type “keeping the current regime in power.”

      • Stephen H permalink
        August 6, 2022 6:57 pm

        To a considerable extent they are synonymous

  11. August 6, 2022 7:40 am

    I do find it encouraging that more and more writers in main stream media are saying how wrong it is to pursue our current path to net zero.
    What I now look forward to is some of these writers questioning whether net zero is even necessary. I’m not sure how long that will take given the ineria that belief has.

  12. August 6, 2022 9:05 am

    Paul (and everyone sharing links)

    It might be as well to strip out tracking information when sharing links. You might think I am acting all tin-foil-hatty, and you are probably right. In the link to the article given in this and the previous blog entry, the tracking codes are (I’ve changed the code slightly to anonymize):

    mc_cid=edb4ed0a81

    This represents a Mailchimp campaign ID (see what they did there?). It refers to a particular bulk email that was sent out. From the documentation:

    You can add tracking parameters to e-commerce orders to track purchases that result from a campaign or product recommendation, and to monitor how much you are selling with Mailchimp. Data from orders with a campaign_id parameter will also appear in the Campaign Report.

    When you send a campaign with e-commerce tracking enabled, any links in that campaign’s emails will contain additional tracking parameters that can be used with the e-commerce API.

    “Purchases” in this instance means clicking the provided link. The second tracking code is:

    mc_eid=4961aa7cb1

    From the documentation:

    The mc_eid parameter is a unique Mailchimp ID that identifies the recipient’s email address, which you can use to associate orders with a contact.

    To find a contact’s email address, make an API call to the Members endpoint with the mc_eid as the value for the unique_email_id parameter. For example, if your subscriber’s link contains the tracking parameter mc_eid=18d3c1adfe, you can find that customer’s email address by making a GET request to /lists/{list_id}/members?unique_email_id=18d3c1adfe.

    One would hope that there is no possibility of cross-tracking between mailing lists, so only the list owner could identify your email from the code.

  13. August 6, 2022 9:08 am

    [The first version went into the sin bin. Please ignore the spare if this appears.]

    Paul (and everyone sharing links)

    It might be as well to strip out tracking information when sharing links. You might think I am acting all tin-foil-hatty, and you are probably right. In the link to the article given in this and the previous blog entry, the tracking codes are (I’ve changed the code slightly to anonymize):

    mc_cid=edb4ed0a81

    This represents a Mailchimp campaign ID (see what they did there?). It refers to a particular bulk email that was sent out. From the documentation:

    You can add tracking parameters to e-commerce orders to track purchases that result from a campaign or product recommendation, and to monitor how much you are selling with Mailchimp. Data from orders with a campaign_id parameter will also appear in the Campaign Report.

    When you send a campaign with e-commerce tracking enabled, any links in that campaign’s emails will contain additional tracking parameters that can be used with the e-commerce API.

    “Purchases” in this instance means clicking the provided link. The second tracking code is:

    mc_eid=4961aa7cb1

    From the documentation:

    The mc_eid parameter is a unique Mailchimp ID that identifies the recipient’s email address, which you can use to associate orders with a contact.

    To find a contact’s email address, make an API call to the Members endpoint with the mc_eid as the value for the unique_email_id parameter. For example, if your subscriber’s link contains the tracking parameter mc_eid=18d3c1adfe, you can find that customer’s email address by making a GET request to /lists/{list_id}/members?unique_email_id=18d3c1adfe.

    One would hope that there is no possibility of cross-tracking between mailing lists, so only the list owner could identify your email from the code.

    • August 6, 2022 4:46 pm

      Ultimately, nothing done on the internet is anonyms for any agency that cares. Enjoy your porn; who cares?

  14. 186no permalink
    August 6, 2022 9:40 am

    Has anyone wondered why so many data tracking “entities” revealed if you can be bothered to dig into the “GDPR” privacy notice when it is enabled to give you that opportunity…..are German businesses?

    I read “Germania” a while ago – nothing much changes over ~1000 years or so.

  15. August 6, 2022 9:52 am

    Sadly we cannot afford Net Zero right now

    Sadly?

    • Cheshire Red permalink
      August 6, 2022 10:14 am

      There’s an unwritten code to preface any anti-Net Zero piece with ‘reluctance’, ‘frustration’ or ‘sadness’. It’s designed to project empathy with NZ itself while protecting the critical writer from Green Blob pushback.

      A similar thing happens every time Biden is compared to Trump, who is portrayed as a bully, tyrant and all-round unpleasant man before the author admits he was a far superior POTUS.

      It’s a sad reflection on our cancel culture world.

  16. Mike Jackson permalink
    August 6, 2022 10:34 am

    I’ll go for that!
    Question is: will government have the courage to?

  17. stevejay permalink
    August 6, 2022 3:46 pm

    A welcome, sensible article but once again, it misses the most important point. That CO2 does NOT and has NEVER controlled the climate. Making ‘carbon taxes’ unnecessary and fraudulant. Why are so many people afraid to come out and say this?

    • jimlemaistre permalink
      August 6, 2022 4:09 pm

      Volcanoes cause Climate Change . . . Cold Climate Change . . . NOT CO2 . . .

      NOT burning fossil fuels and NOT the Cycles of the Sun . . .

      VOLCANOES . . . right here on Planet Earth.

      My research ignores ALL references prescribed by any existing analysis of Climate
      Change . . . I have asked ‘What Caused Climate Change, Historically?’
      . . . The answer I get . . . Going back at least 130,000 years . . . Massive Volcanoes !

      What is it going to take for the minds of Humanity to return Nature to its rightful place as
      Ruler of the World?

      How many people will Nature have to destroy . . . all at once . . . before the Human Race gets it? Hurricanes, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, and Plagues have mostly been resolved by Human Ingenuity. Even Heat Waves and Extreme Cold have been resolved by technology using insolation and thanks to heating and cooling systems that put Nature back in her place as little more than an annoyance. What’s left? . . .Volcanoes !

      Nature has not offered up one of the Big Ones between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn in 143 years.

      The Volcanic Eruption Index is logarithmic. A VEI 5 is like 10,000 $. A VEI 6 is 10 times more, like 100,000 $ A VEI 7 is 10 times more yet again, like a million $.

      When nature gets really angry, she pulls out one of the Big Ones like a 6.5 or a 7.1 . . .
      Let’s see how Civilization deals with one of these ?!

      Throughout the Holocene, every Warming Period has been ended by one of these Monster Volcanoes followed by a whole series of them bringing 300-500 years of Cold Climate Change. Let’s see how humans deal with 3 – 5 consecutive years of crop failure, Globally. Let’s see how we feed 7 billion people when there isn’t enough food for all of us to eat??
      From . . .

      https://www.academia.edu/82800338/The_Power_of_Nature_The_Ignorance_of_Humanity

  18. Sylvia permalink
    August 6, 2022 6:50 pm

    SADLY ???!! we cannot afford net zero ! I think this is a bloody good thing. It is totally unaffordable, totally without any scientific proof it would do any good and therefore totally a WASTE OF MONEY !!!! The climate has always changed – look at our summer now – it was the same in 1976 (FIFTY YEARS AGO) Did we blather on about climate change then and throw all our money at useless ways to stop the climate from changing !!???? We pathetic little humans are incapable of stopping or changing our climate permanently, no matter what we do. THE SEAS ARE PROBABLY MORE ABLE TO CHANGE THE CLIMATE – WHY DON’T YOU ASK THEM ???!!!!!

    • jimlemaistre permalink
      August 6, 2022 7:19 pm

      Well said . . .

    • catweazle666 permalink
      August 6, 2022 8:07 pm

      “it was the same in 1976 (FIFTY YEARS AGO)”
      It was a damn sight better actually, it didn’t just last a couple of days, it went on for months, by great good fortune I was in a position to make the most of it too, riding around on my BSA A10!
      I’ve been waiting for another as good ever since!

      • that man permalink
        August 6, 2022 11:52 pm

        …..and I had my (own-built) Triton 500.
        Then along came Denis Howell and spoiled it all.

  19. Richard Bell permalink
    August 6, 2022 9:02 pm

    “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 many 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 themselves 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 already achieved 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.

    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
    .

    • jimlemaistre permalink
      August 6, 2022 9:10 pm

      Here Here !!!

    • dennisambler permalink
      August 8, 2022 5:37 pm

      Spot on, but our politicians have been seduced by the idea of a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” https://www.weforum.org/focus/fourth-industrial-revolution

      https://www.weforum.org/impact/first-movers-coalition-is-tackling-the-climate-crisis/
      “The World Economic Forum is partnering with the US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry and over 50 global businesses to invest in innovative green technologies. These financing commitments will ensure new technologies are available for scale-up by 2030 and make a critical contribution to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

      Since it was launched at COP26, the First Movers Coalition has brought together global companies with supply chains across carbon-intensive sectors. They range from major consumer goods firms that ship, truck and fly their products, to renewable energy companies that use steel to build wind turbines.

      The companies – whose collective market value exceeds $8.5 trillion across five continents – have sent the largest market signal in history to commercialize emerging clean technologies by making advance purchase commitments by 2030 for near-zero carbon steel, aluminium, shipping, trucking, and aviation as well as negative emissions through advanced carbon dioxide removal technologies”.

      • August 8, 2022 8:34 pm

        And what mechanism will be used to enforce these “advance purchase commitments” in 2030? There also needs to be firm estimates of the various methods to commercialize these “emerging clean technologies.”

  20. Ray Sanders permalink
    August 6, 2022 9:55 pm

    There is an amusing website (aping Leo Smith’s excellent Gridwatch) compiled by a Dr Andrew Crossland entitled MyGridGB. He is a full on greenie and the website majors on CO2 emissions. Now here is the amusing part, he has logged CO2 emissions from electricity generation since 2016 when he claims it was 308g CO2 per kWh generated. Over the years it has fallen i.e. 2017 – 277g, 2018 – 263g, 2019 – 245g then Covid 2020 -222g but then going up 2021 – 235g.
    Now though with the GB grid exporting electricity to Europe as well as the loss of Dungeness B, Hunterston B and Hinkley Point B the picture looks massively different. Since early April (poster It Doesn’t Add Up has some excellent graphics on this) emissions have spiralled up to over 2017 levels at 286G CO2 per kWh. Furthermore the remaining 9 operational nuclear reactors (mostly on their last legs) are outperforming wind turbines.
    http://www.mygridgb.co.uk/last-28-days/
    So, demonstrably, all this net zero is achieving nothing other than actually “worsening” what it is allegedly supposed to be reducing. Given that only a miniscule fraction of transport and space heating is provided electrically, the pursuit of forcing us into Battery EVs and Heat Pumps can only further stress a grid that is progressively emitting more and more.
    Never mind though, the grid will not be capable of handling current demand for this coming winter so to quote John Laurie “we’re all doooooomed”
    Me I’ve got several tons of logs.

  21. Harry Passfield permalink
    August 7, 2022 10:46 am

    I heard that it was all about CFCs going out of patent and the need for some carpet-baggers to make money on their replacement.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      August 7, 2022 10:48 am

      Hmmm…that was meant as a reply to Alex further up the page….

  22. August 7, 2022 1:55 pm

    Not only is NetZero unaffordable right now – it will NEVER be affordable. It is a one way ticket to penury.

  23. arfurbryant permalink
    August 7, 2022 1:57 pm

    Why sadly? The whole idea of net zero is ludicrous since it is impossible for CO2 to have any significant effect on global temperature and the planet is already net zero anyway!

  24. Sylvia permalink
    August 8, 2022 4:45 pm

    I hope we NEVER can !!! “Net Zero” is a complete waste of time and money. We should make sure the people who are a fan of this nonsense are the ONLY ones PAYING FOR THIS DRIVEL.

  25. dennisambler permalink
    August 8, 2022 5:24 pm

    “..climate change also gave certain badly advised (albeit well-meaning) Royals -who would otherwise have been slightly redundant – a reason, a purpose.”

    It also promises future income:
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/18/wind-power-crown-estate-opens-new-bids-for-seabed-rights Sept 2019

    “The crown estate has opened the first leasing round for offshore windfarms in a decade to usher in a new generation of wind projects expected to eventually generate an investment of £20bn.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/17/offshore-wind-auction-could-raise-millions-for-queen
    Industry experts expect the complex bidding process to raise record sums, which could increase energy bills and hand a windfall to the crown – potentially generating hundreds of millions for the Queen.

    The Crown Estate, which manages the monarch’s property portfolio, holds exclusive rights to lease the seabed around the British Isles for wind and wave power. Its profits go to the Treasury, which then sends 25% back to the royal household in the form of the sovereign grant.

    The sovereign grant was increased two years ago, from its previous level of 15%, in order to pay for extensive renovations at Buckingham Palace. It is to stay at 25% for a 10-year period, meaning the royal household should benefit directly from the money raised from the new leases.

    The Crown Estate does not make its forecasts public. However, if the government’s 2030 target is met, the Queen [or King Charles, or King William] could be collecting more than £100m a year within a decade.”

    All without lifting a finger, or investing a penny…

  26. catweazle666 permalink
    August 8, 2022 10:17 pm

    Slightly off topic, but this is what we have to look forward to:

    Click to access Absolute-Zero-online.pdf

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: