The Tories are trapped by net zero legislation
By Paul Homewood
The Government is facing an uprising in its own Tory heartlands against a key element of its net zero climate policy. From 2026, it will be illegal to buy a new oil boiler, and households will be encouraged to switch to heat pumps. This is especially problematic in rural areas that are off the main electricity and gas networks. Old boilers needing to be replaced will be prohibited.
There is a straightforward libertarian argument to make: why is it the business of the state to decide how we heat our homes? Arguably, that pass was sold decades ago when smokeless fuel became compulsory in cities and the use of coal was restricted under the 1956 Clean Air Act.
But there was little cost to that switch, just a different fuel to be burned. People needing to replace their boilers may have to spend substantially more on heat pumps unless their price comes down. Has the Government made any calculations on the financial impact this move will have with less than three years to go?
A revolt is growing among Tory MPs representing many of the 1.7 million mostly rural households that are not connected to the grid and might be affected. More than 30 have written to the Prime Minister to raise the issue amid concern it could disproportionately affect Conservative areas. George Eustice, a former environment secretary, says that, instead of banning the boilers, owners could be encouraged to use environmentally friendly fuel.
The dilemma facing ministers is that they are bound by statute to meet certain carbon reduction targets and are searching around for ways to do so. The Climate Change Act requires the Government to set out a programme to reach legally binding objectives, which has led to a series of target dates being set for removing carbon-emitting products such as petrol cars.
If Tory MPs want the Government to push the deadline for boilers back or abandon the prohibition altogether, then ministers could be obliged to find the carbon savings elsewhere. The only answer would be to amend or repeal the legislation, and yet when it was passed by Labour in 2008 just five MPs voted against.
When in 2019, Theresa May, in one of her final acts as prime minister, made 2050 a legally binding net zero target, few objected and the ambition was reaffirmed in the Tory election manifesto. Now the MPs need to explain the costs of their decisions to their constituents.
The Government is facing an uprising in its own Tory heartlands against a key element of its net zero climate policy. From 2026, it will be illegal to buy a new oil boiler, and households will be encouraged to switch to heat pumps. This is especially problematic in rural areas that are off the main electricity and gas networks. Old boilers needing to be replaced will be prohibited.
There is a straightforward libertarian argument to make: why is it the business of the state to decide how we heat our homes? Arguably, that pass was sold decades ago when smokeless fuel became compulsory in cities and the use of coal was restricted under the 1956 Clean Air Act.
But there was little cost to that switch, just a different fuel to be burned. People needing to replace their boilers may have to spend substantially more on heat pumps unless their price comes down. Has the Government made any calculations on the financial impact this move will have with less than three years to go?
A revolt is growing among Tory MPs representing many of the 1.7 million mostly rural households that are not connected to the grid and might be affected. More than 30 have written to the Prime Minister to raise the issue amid concern it could disproportionately affect Conservative areas. George Eustice, a former environment secretary, says that, instead of banning the boilers, owners could be encouraged to use environmentally friendly fuel.
The dilemma facing ministers is that they are bound by statute to meet certain carbon reduction targets and are searching around for ways to do so. The Climate Change Act requires the Government to set out a programme to reach legally binding objectives, which has led to a series of target dates being set for removing carbon-emitting products such as petrol cars.
If Tory MPs want the Government to push the deadline for boilers back or abandon the prohibition altogether, then ministers could be obliged to find the carbon savings elsewhere. The only answer would be to amend or repeal the legislation, and yet when it was passed by Labour in 2008 just five MPs voted against.
When in 2019, Theresa May, in one of her final acts as prime minister, made 2050 a legally binding net zero target, few objected and the ambition was reaffirmed in the Tory election manifesto. Now the MPs need to explain the costs of their decisions to their constituents.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
If legislation that makes no sense can be introduced then it can also be removed. This Government needs to get a grip.
Exactly, no Parliament can bind its successor.
That used to be true. The trouble is that Governments have signed us up to various international treaty obligations and courts seem to increasingly view this as international law, to which we are bound. Environmental charities will take the Government to court and activist courts are more likely to find in their favour.
What binds us to international law? Who enforces it? With no enforcement it’s impotent. Treaties can be ignored or broken, ask Putin.
LeedsChris: there are no legally binding environmental treaties on climate change. The closest is the “Paris Treaty” but its got legal standing whatsoever.
It’s like the ECHR. No legal standing.
Just give them bird or, better, the two fingers and move on.
I beg to differ. Both Paris and Kyoto treaties are internationally binding treaties and although it is a new and developing field of international law, third parties could take legal action against the UK for failing to comply. In the last year or so the Australian government was found in a court to have breached these treaties in respect of climate change affecting the Torres islanders. You can expect Greenpeace, FOE and a range of others to try and bring any UK government to court if it now tried to ignore these treaties.
I beg to differ. Our True President, Donald John Trump, ‘walked away’ from the Paris accords with no ceremony, just a letter. What are they gonna do, send the Dream Police after you? It was only the machinations of the illegitimately ‘installed’ Barrator Beijing Biden that got the U.S. back into Paris and the IPCC. Treaty’s, like contracts, laws an marriage are made to be broken.
These cases are brought by government funded sock puppets to provide convenient excuses for and to suit the objectives of governments. Have Greenpeace or FoE had any success against China or against USA when DJT withdrew from Paris agreement or GWB from Kyoto?
It looks like they are trying another way to stop DJT get reelected in the next presidential election. Look at the “arraignments” that started happening this year.
>>Have Greenpeace or FoE had any success against China or against USA when DJT withdrew from Paris agreement or GWB from Kyoto
We can simply repudiate treaties, even if they have no formal exit clause. The only “enforcement” available is to not trust us any more (unlikely).
The legislation was introduced with barely any debate, and the implications, while understood by those in the know, were not shared with MPs or they people. Since then we have been repeatedly lied to about the cost of renewable energy. Given all the lies and deception, there is a good case to repeal the legislation and abolish the CCC.
Absolutely, and the sooner the better. We do not want to be beholden to the Chinese for the rare earths. As to those that attempt to frustrate the repeal of the stupidly introduced net zero legislation, I would just say ‘go away organismically’!!!
Parliament is sovereign. If they legislated something they can unlegislate it. The problem is they don’t want to. Much like all those ‘legally binding commitments’ MPs used to talk about when we were trapped in the EU. The LibLabConGrn uniparty need to be cleared out and replaced with populist parties that actually serve the British people. Whether that can happen with our rotten FPTP system is another question.
Absolutely. This was part of the pint of Brexit. The repeal (or at the very least, substantial amendment) of the CCA is long overdue. The Tories aren’t bound by anything that they can’t change if only they have the will.
Reform, Reclaim, Heritage Party; plenty of choice.
All three are more realistic than the Tinos (Tories In Name Only) and Labour, but the danger is splitting the vote so that the “climate” fanatics are still in power.
>>Reform, Reclaim, Heritage Party; plenty of choice.
RP, just what is the point of political parties – in the 21st century; have “we” not learned a damn thing since ~19th century?
What the people actually need is a vote on individual policies. Just because these are in the small print in the manifesto does not mean that people actually agree with them.
>>just what is the point of political parties
That depends upon these politicos to A) strong-arm the Civil Service to implement them, and B) for the same politicos to deliver. Neither do I trust, one iota, to do so. Indeed, with the unveiling of the extent of the Left/Marxist/Blob/ESG derived “values” Kultur as evidenced by Rose/NatWest/Sumup and a ton of others, the infiltration of these ideologues is far far greater – ergo it has been going on for years….”We need a bigger boat” is a massive understatement…imho.
The FPTP system is probably the only one capable of sweeping the old parties aside. The difficulty is with getting alternative parties established. It’s the Electoral Commission and the MSM and OFCOM and banks that are the real obstacles to that.
Internal reform of parties is an alternative route, but central control of candidate selection makes that almost impossible.
Chilli, I think you will find that “The People” are “sovereign” and Parliament can only “act” by virtue of the enfranchised population granting that right; I recommend “A Man for All Seasons”, a biography of Thomas Cromwell and C V Wedgwood’s 3 volumes detailing the English Civil War for some, I stress some, of the background – it appears we are still battling the fall out of Henry VIII’s bad marriages…
My property , a small bungalow in Mid Norfolk is one such heated by oil.
I am praying that my current old boiler keeps working as a heatpump is not an option realistically.If it goes pop a new oil boiler takes around 10 days but no idea how long a heatpump would take to install but will be no doubt longer.
Apart from the cost of the unit and installation , why are UK heatpumps so much more expensive that those in Canada for example , its the associated electrical costs .New wiring to to upgrade my property from the pole to house will cost around 4 k ,via National networks.Currently old low capacity set up .Oh and the village will need its supply upgrading as well longer term.
Then as its a late 50s property with wooden floors insulation plus radiator upgrades theres at least another 10 k .Then you also need a new electric hotwater cylinder 2-3 k as heatpumps apparently dont do hot water well .So lets say 30 k ish to be safe for a useless and expensive to run system.Luckily I have a woodburner , as does most of the village homes .
This is sheer madness in pursuit of a unicorn target agreed by the fairies for something that is not ” Agreed science” and if it were our 1% contribution does not touch the sides of continued Chinese investment is coal.
I am a touch annoyed to say the least .If an alternate fuel is doable that will at least reduce the pain short term.
Last time I enqu1red it would cost me 4K ish to renew my boiler with couple of new rads.We need a peoples campaign against this nonsense..
Entirely agree – I too have an an old oil boiler that my heating engineer keeps working. I live in a property built around 1800 and the upgrade cost will be beyond my reach. My only thought is in 2025 to buy a new oil boiler and leave it in mothballs until the time comes when it will be needed. £2500 against over £40000 makes perfect sense.
If this ridiculous boiler ban goes ahead, I will buy a new one in 2025 and store it in the garage until the current one fails. The current one is very efficient, well-made and is clean. It is well over 20 years old.
Yes PB, big uptick in boiler sales in 2025 seems most likely result.
There’s obviously an opening for enterprising boiler engineers to start rural (and not so rural) boiler repair operations.
Many countries have kept going using ingenuity when operating under sanctions. Cuba did it for decades.
3D printing and the Internet should make it easier.
I assume repairing and maintaining gas and oil boilers isn’t illegal?
“…repairing…isn’t illegal…”
It will be treated as a hate crime against the environment.
I am serious. Essentially, we now have blasphemy laws again,
and the protected religion is a crazy bunch of vague but vehemently held Pagan* and Fascist doctrines. The Police joyfully, violently, and triumphantly, push the boundaries:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/anger-as-seven-police-arrest-crying-autistic-teenage-girl-for-saying-one-looks-like-lesbian-nana/ar-AA1f8NbM
* Giving the real Pagans an undeserved bad name!
Maybe all is not yet lost:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/11/ban-installing-new-oil-boilers-2026-tory-mps-backlash/?WT.mc_id=e_DM189456&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_FAM_New_ES_Sat&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_FAM_New_ES_Sat20230812&utm_campaign=DM189456
But given the idiots in charge, I wouldn’t put money on it.
When will people understand that manmade carbon dioxide at 0.04% of greenhouse gases has no measurable effect on the climate? Reducing it to Net Zero will have zero effect on global temperatures Read what the hundreds of highly qualified CLINTEL scientists say in agreement. Net Zero will achieve nothing but poverty.
It’s not even as much as that. Even the alarmists admit that the “manmade” part is only 3% of that zero point zero four percent.
And the alarmists still cannot explain why the climate still changed before all the things they now want to tax, regulate and ban out of existence even existed or why the climate changes on the uninhabited planets.
>>When will people understand that manmade carbon dioxide at 0.04% of greenhouse gases
“Net Zero will achieve nothing but poverty.” “Nuff said” as Nigel Molesworth said once a long time ago.
Repeal the Act.
If repeal is not on the cards, the olitical wimps can simply change the dates to the year 3000. By this time the foolishness. costs and lies will be exposed. In the meantime see what technology comes up with, and if successful methods are proven, the people, as in the past, will adopt them by choice and not government diktat, all will be good. With this change, all so called so green initiatives and technologies will be frozen and government funding stopped. Only initiatives to be funded will be proven technologies, such as nuclear. As part of this package the CCC and all energy and science Quango’s will be abolished. In fact let all the useless Quango’s be abolished as they are a pox on society.
Can anyone clarify a point for me? I was under the impression that only new build properties will be banned from fitting new oil boilers from 2027. The proposed ban on replacement of existing oil boilers is not expected until sometime in the 2030s. Is this wrong?
If it is the case of banning replacements from 2027 then the tories can kiss their arses goodbye for getting re-elected.
Hi Ray , that was my understanding and that was confirmed as the understanding of my local MP G Freeman.I have emailed him about this apparent change .Its all Goves weasely doing as the original consultation took place in 2021 .Hmm not aware of it and there was something else going on at the time LOL.
Simon
This from a Homebuilding magazine
https://www.homebuilding.co.uk/news/oil-boiler-ban
So it doesn’t seem to be a done deal as yet. If enough rural householders lobby their Mp’s it could act like ULEZ in Uxbridge and cause a Govt rethink. Lets hope so but our Govt is out of touch and unfortunately nowhere near as clever as they think they are.
I know an oil fired boiler engineer in East Suffolk who looks forward to servicing such equipment indefinitely.
Thinking about the issue, it is clearly preposterous to pass effectively unenforceable laws. If your oil boiler breaks down simply repair it (not especially difficult) or import a replacement and fit it without notifying anyone.
Improbable? Well I rent out 3 properties all of which have EPCs, Gas Safe annual certification and Electrical Inspection certificates to meet legislation requirements.
Two years ago I reported to the appropriate authorities a “rogue” landlord who has none of the above on four occasions. So far precisely nothing has been done. I am now reporting him to HMRC for not declaring income paid in cash but I doubt even they will take action.
I really do not believe oil boilers are on the way out any time soon nor will any such attempt to ban them be possible without major dissent.
No, there is definitely a Govt proposal to ban ALL oil boilers, both in new houses and replacements in older houses from 2026. It’s only gas boilers that have the arragment you describe. I suspect that Governments thought that rural communities would be a soft touch and wouldn’t complain too much about the ban on oil boilers, so they could get away with this outright ban and gain “planet saving” brownie (or should I say greenie?) points. All the rural constituency MPs who have now finally woken up to this and fear for their seats at the next election were previously quite happy to wave all these measures through without any challenge, right back to Milliband’s climate change act in 2008 and Theresa May’s idiotic legal requirement to get to net zero by 2050. Only now that it might affect them personally are they starting to riase objections. Disgusting!
I suspect the authors of the plan didn’t realise how many oil boilers there are or where.
“No, there is definitely a Govt proposal to ban ALL oil boilers,”
Other than your word I notice you offer no verifiable evidence.
I am not convinced that the terms of this “ban”are actually the case. As far as I am aware there is no ban on replacing existing boilers enacted at present nor likely to be before the mid 2030’s.
There is a simple solution to the gas boiler ban – if you want certainty and your gas boiler is reaching the end of its life, replace it now. It’ll be a lot cheaper than fitting a worse than useless heat pump.
Anyone taking bets that the Government will have to backtrack on this idiocy?
Quote…
What is the proposed oil boiler ban?
The oil boiler ban is seeking to ban all new oil boilers in off-the-grid homes by 2026 as part of the government’s plans to meet their net zero emissions targets by 2050.
…End quote
https://www.homebuilding.co.uk/news/oil-boiler-ban
— published 2 days ago
More…
Should the ban proceed, a considerable number of rural households who rely on oil for their heating and hot water would either have to transition to a different heating method or modify their existing oil boiler to accommodate a more eco-friendly heating fuel.
But what is a new boiler? I believe there is an old Polish saying – This is my grandfather’s axe. My father replaced the blade and I replaced the handle.
Also, I heard of a 400 year old temple in Japan where, because of a local type of insect, no part of its construction is more than 30 years old because of the wood eating insects.
It’s like Trigger’s broom! It’s lasted 20 years, but has had ten new brushes and five new handles
To Oldbrew, surely the “Homebuilding and Renovating” article makes no sense at all. It states
“New oil boilers could be banned from rural homes in 2026, 10 years before oil boilers in other regions are to be replaced.” What the hell is that supposed to mean? What other “regions” other than “rural homes”?
I suggest the Journo doesn’t have a clue what he is prattling on about.
RS, imho, and I am an anarchist maverick with conviction, the Tories are gone for all money, with no coherent follow up plan for a successor. How can “we” go on talking about which party will replace the Tories when in the next breath “we” say there is a nanogossamer thick gap between these world class ideologues?
Starmer will have been kept fully up to date with so called pandemic strategy/tactics – he/LibDem/Greens/SNP wanted “more, sooner, longer” unless we forget; we are now seeing the depth of corruption in the UK political and public sector – there is imho more than one “Blob” – how these cretins of all descriptions have been brainwashed by WEF/WHO/Big Money from all quarters/Big State, i.e EU etc and THEN introduce the “cunning plans” they have been fed by Schwab/Soros/Gates/Tedros the population killer as their policy for their manifestos which don’t get fully spelt out. The ( University educated, sorry inculcated) Left have dummed down UK State education provision over decades robbing the GUJP of the capacity to think, replacing that ability with spoon fed bollux swallowed whole. It is for me a depressingly obvious tactic to continue the cult of the “politician” as someone to look up to – can anyone truly recommend a single figure from the current HoC – and no you can’t have Bridgen because I bagsy him..
Some might need “political parties” – I do not; the UK is being pushed towards dystopia and I wonder, genuinely and non ranty, how long the military will stand for that to happen.
Repeal the climate change act 2008.
The whole house of cards then comes tumbling down.
At some point its going to happen, its just a matter of timing.
For years I have been arguing we needed a face-saving solution for politicians so they can gracefully back out of these ruinous policies. I wrote to my MP Desmond Swayne and pointed out the Ukraine crisis gave rise to that possibility. Option squandered, they doubled down instead with drivel from LibLabCon of “energy security” in renewables!
I think we are now past the point of face-saving and instead are looking at, eventually, public revolt. It happened with Brexit via UKIP & Farage, this time the public anger will boil over if the Conservatives don’t change course quick. Its a vote winner for whoever jumps off the Climate Change Bandwagon first.
Otherwise, as public anger builds, it won’t be face saving that matters to MP’s, it will be a lot more serious than that. When the angry mob starts turning up with torches and pitchforks it has the benefit of focussing the mind. Think Sri Lanka.
Well said and spot on the money.I am beginning to feel quite revolting !!!
In the meantime the grandiose and self regarding organisations like the Global Wind Energy Council have the ear ( see today’s Times letters) of Whitehall — Legislators and Executive — and are deaf to the realities set out by GridWatch. As I recall the output from wind turbines is about 11% of installed capacity and some of that cannot be admitted to the national grid. Apart from private cars run at private cost I cannot recall a class of capital investment that is less cost effective.
To repeat myself we need a handbook or ready reference to collate the statistical gems that appear piecemeal in this columns. Starting with some of the climatic graphical history so often published by Paul Homewood.
The Act states “It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline.” The 80% figure can be changed to say 0% if, as the Act states “it appears to the Secretary of State that there have been significant developments in scientific knowledge about climate change”. He has to take into account the advice of Committee on Climate Change (which could easily be refuted). Well the scientific knowledge about climate change today is totally different from that in 2008, and so if we had a sensible Secretary of State the Act could be nullified. But it won’t happen.
D’accord, we fight back.
Total agreement, it is time to get serious, too many legs are being pulled off the centipede. The F_ckwit politicians are out of control, out of their depth.
Those on this page know what they are talking about.
They won’t do it.
Most of the MPs in all Westminster parties want Net Zero and all that goes with it. It does not matter they don’t understand climate or economics or secure energy. It does not matter that when Blair forst signed up he confused electricity with energy.
When the Climat Change Act was voted in Parliament there were almost no objectors. The Conservative PM Mrs May increased the CO2 replacement by Statutory Instrument that was not debated.
Any attempt to change or repeal the legislation would not pass the HoC or the HoL.
Well then, just reduce the size of the committee to four (including the Chairman) and then ensure the four agencies agencies which appoint the members appoint people who have no vested interest in extending its operation, and are prepared change policies to more appropriately deal with the nonsense.
It’s a pity that a single minister is not responsible for all appointments. That would certainly simplify the gutting.
Maybe not the Commons, but surely the Lords have more sense given their mostly older ages. Or would the infamous “Parliament Act get used?
>>Any attempt to change or repeal the legislation would not pass the HoC or the HoL.
The trouble is all the main parties are committed to Net Zero and all compete to be as tough on this as possible – so who do you vote for? Moreover the Climate Change Act and various international commitments mean no Government now has freedom to change things – green charities would use the courts to force compliance – so they’ve almost made it pointless to vote. We are now controlled by technocrats and Net Zero obsessives.
Its worse than you think – the three main parties actually signed a climate change pact in 2015.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/14/cameron-clegg-and-miliband-sign-joint-climate-pledge
Cameron the wet, Clegg the liar and of course Milliband the idiot who may yet still get back into office to continue his Marxist destruction of the UK on the back of his “Climate Change Act 2008” baby.
Milliband must be wetting himself with excitement at the thought of being able to “follow through” on his climate change lunacy. The dim-witted fool who brought you the “renewables are 9 times cheaper then gas” speech in the HoC. The man is a prize idiot.
And let’s not forget to give full credit to that incompetent May, with her legacy of making bad things even worse; throwing her toys out of her pram as she couldn’t stop Brexit
Yes there are some very stupid Jews – not me of course.
Cameron, Clegg and Milliband – sounds like some failed 70’s supergroup.
…green charities would use the courts to force compliance…
Not if you repeal the Climate Change Act 2008. End of story at that point.
No UK government can pass laws binding on future governments.
This is the problem, you couldn’t get a sheet of paper between the net zero policy of all the major parties. If the Tories want to differentiate themselves this is one way of doing it.
You have to remember that the majority of the Tory MPs are left wing and so all signed up to the climate change nonsense.
My thoughts exactly…and precisely why things will get very ugly in the UK…
If they were real Tories, they would immediately repeal the infamous Climate Change Act and reverse all the taxes and bans that has already caused not to mention the threatened ones already in the pipeline
So simply repeal that legislation.
>> The Climate Change Act requires
I concur. its only a bit of shouting across the house, repealed. Job done.
Great Britain is being forced ever closer to becoming a police state whereby ordinary people risk becoming criminalised for not being able to afford the new rules being imposed by the government.
Only the rich can afford to observe all these changes.
Having bribed the BBC and the Met Office, the newspapers and our Universities to endoctrinate the nation with their cascades of lies, China will now flood this country with cheap electric cars, heat pumps, wind turbines and solar panels and this nation will become totally dependent upon them.
Our proud record as one of the World’s leading and most innovative industrial powers will be allowed to wither until life as we know it will change beyond recognition.
Thankfully, people are beginning to wake up and we can only hope that a politician who is brighter than any of today’s shower will suddenly emerge and kick all the left wing open toed sandal brigade who have got us into this mess back into the shabby little holes they climbed out of.
In my imagination they have crawled out from under rocks
On “bribing the BBC” – there’s a little verse:
You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God – the British journalist.
But seeing what the wight will do, unbribed – there’s no occasion to!
Double whammy: The luke-warm water emerging from those heat pumps will never heat an older flat designed to be heated by HOT water. Put on a sweater and thank your MEP.
Has anyone done a long term comparison of the cost of heat pumps compared with resistive electric heating. An direct electric system would be much cheaper to install than a heat pump, would supply adequate instant heat and make no noise. How long would it be to break even?
“Has anyone done a long term comparison…?”
Of course they have. It rather depends on the fuel used to generate electricity.
However, we cannot afford any of the suggested measures to” abolish carbon” from our little country. By 2050 we, or rather our grand-children, will be shivering in a full-on return of the unfinished Little Ice Age. Any heat-pumps installed in the meanwhile will be rusted scrap by then.
‘The Tories are trapped by net zero legislation’
(correction)
“Every political party is trapped by net zero legislation”.
The legislation applies to ALL parties unless one of them has the guts to unpick it……..Can you see Labour doing that ?…. no, neither can I.
However, too many green fanatics, now drunk with power, plus those freshly brainwashed by constant MSM ‘nudging’ with selective reporting/non-reporting along with all our freshly ‘educated’ young people are following a ‘quest’ to save-the-planet.
(Cue ‘green-shirts’ video – fade in stirring marching music)
They are now committed, zombie-like, to this legislation and will rebel and glue themselves to everything, if there is any backsliding from their new ‘religion’; no matter which party thinks they are (nominally) in charge.
The creation of the CCC was the monster that let the green genie out of the bottle.
This country cannot exist while they exist, (along with all the quangos, focus groups and think tanks they have spawned)
They are keeping us deliberately in a death spiral down to anarchy, poverty and misery-followed, maybe, by ‘a unity-government by decree’ and a ‘you will comply’ mindset, let’s re-invoke that Covid spirit-(clapping optional) !
It’s for the good of the planet after all……
Either an, admittedly brave, government reverses this situation or, I fear, the people eventually will…….
Rant over for now.
2027 private sector boom industries –
Home wood alcohol (methanol) stills
https://sciencing.com/make-wood-alcohol-through-distillation-7762993.html
Syngas generators.
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/01/wood-gas-cars.html
And you can’t beat a good bit of charcoal.
https://www.smokedbbqsource.com/how-to-make-charcoal/#:~:text=On%20a%20basic%20level%2C%20charcoal,temperatures%20with%20very%20little%20smoke.
Back to the future….
Wouldn’t hurt to learn how to dry animal dung for fuel.
At least over your side of the pond the government had the decency to provide a manual on how to make a gassifier – our side didn’t have such forethought.
http://www.femagasifier.com/how-to-build-a-wood-gas-generator/
FEMA no less, makes you wonder what they are expecting doesn’t it?
Vote Reform UK if the new socialist conservatives won’t change tack on the green con nut zero crap – check their policies – the UK needs a clear out of the LibLabCon cabal
Problem there is no mention of actually repealing the Climate Change Act. Also worrying is the word “nationalise” in some places
But at least “remove a raft of stifling taxes” is good. The first that needs to go is the tax at point of sale on diesel and petrol. Inheritance tax and stamp duty are others that should never have existed.
>>Vote Reform UK
“Problem there is no mention of actually repealing the Climate Change Act.” So vote for the Reclaim Party instead. They have asmany MPs as the Green Party and more than the Reform Party.
They also have an exceptionally clear manifesto – i.e. “There is no climate emergency” and “The Public Sector should never account for more than 40% of the economy.”
https://www.reclaimparty.co.uk/manifesto
Reclaim and Reform have previously reached agreements to not compete against each other in recent Byelections so a national election campaign may follow a similar principle. Evenwithout a mass breakthrough they could hold the balance of power in ahung parliament.
I think they probably need to continue to do that to avoid splitting the vote and ensure that the other parties actually get voted out.
It would help a lot if there were a string of by-elections before the next general election and any of Reform, Reclaim and Heritage ousts the other parties.
>>Reclaim and Reform have previously reached agreements to not compete against each other
So even radical reformists accept “The Public Sector should never account for more than 40% of the economy.”
Call me crazy, but I’m thinking <10%.
I suggest that everyone should read the article on homebuilding.co.uk cited above in full. What it indicates is utter confusion in the mind of the journalist as well as well as those to whom he talked. Further, since the articles refers to regulations to be drafted under a bill that has not yet been submitted to Parliament, it is likely that even the civil servants are sure what is going on.
There are two different issues which can be stated more precisely. First, can an oil boiler be installed in any property after 2026? If not, those thinking of buying an oil boiler to install at a later date should think again, because almost certainly installers or homeowners would be prohibited from installing it under building regulations. Of course, these are often erratically enforced, but most installers would not wish to leave themselves open to prosecution. So, if you have an old oil boiler you should replace it within 2 years if this rule is passed.
Second, could the operation of an oil boiler be prohibited after 2026 unless fuelled by some environmentally-friendly oil substitute? Such a regulation is feasible because oil distributors would simply be prohibited from supplying heating oil to residential premises. There are bits of the article which imply that is being considered but this may be a political balloon that has backfired. It would be suicidal for the current government to introduce such a measure because they would probably lose every rural constituency at the next election.
While no one should underestimate the stupidity of both politicians and civil servants, it would be almost unprecedented to prohibit the use of a fuel with such short notice. The switch to smokeless fuel under the Clean Air Act was linked to a whole variety of transitional measures including supplies of smokeless fuel. In practice it took more than 15 years.
My reading of this article is that it is heavily influenced by sources who are trying to resuscitate the failed program to encourage the adoption of heat pumps. What it does show is that NetZero policies are reaching the point at which the costs involved are becoming extremely painful for any government. Labour and Liberals may hope to take advantage of this in the short run but they too will find themselves trapped between virtue-signalling and the rebellions prompted by the costs of real action. This is in context of a disastrous fiscal situation which means a direct choice between spending on health and education or on NetZero.
The uniparty of LibLabCon is not going to stop their globalist ordered policies of Netzero until the masses wakeup from their bread and circuses. That will happen when the sheep aren’t comfortable anymore e.g. ULEZ expansion, boiler ban, petrol/diesel car ban and the higher interest rates on mortgages and other loans.
Beer and sports can only distract for so long.
True. ‘Climate change’ is just a tool to get people to accept totalitarian, global rule.
The juvenile silliness of climate “scientists” proves it isn’t about the weather.
EVs, heat pumps, wind/solar are not solutions – they are the destruction.
Sadiq Khan is a snake oil salesman who hates the fact that he lives in ..England. he lies and distorts – OK , he is a Marxist Leninist apparatchik who knows, not thinks, he knows better. Why is he not being “bolted to a chair” and interviewed ad nauseam about the disastrous air quality of the London Underground, for which he is responsible as the Gauleiter for TfL – demonstrated to be massively more harmful than the air in London which appears to have improved equally massively over decades – about which he appears to have done…nothing? Gaslighting in the extreme by liar liar PoF Mayor Khan..
This may not be pertinent. In NewZealand the pursuit of Net Zero appears to be attached to a treaty which includes defence assistance from the United States. If the Democrats lose enough seats in their legislatures the whole structure of government departments, local and national may be affected in New Zealand. Maybe!
But if there is a Treaty including Climate with Regional Pacific Defence… ….. can it be abrogated. or are we stuck with it.?
Is this the case in the United Kingdom? Are you stuck with Treaties?
.A very bad move on the part of the current government started under the “Leadership” of Ms Ardern. lately PM , I think. There is an Election coming soon ,so political viewpoints CAN be debated ( we hope) in NZ. without being cancelled for wrong think.
Not being in the U K I don’t need to bring in a snide reference to the Russian Leader as you all do. 🙂
Just suspend treaty participation perhaps?
‘On 21 February 2023, Russia suspended its participation in New START. However, it did not withdraw from the treaty, and clarified that it would continue to abide by the numerical limits in the treaty.’
Budapest (1994) was just a memorandum of course so respect for ‘the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine’ easily ignored.
The Belovezha Accords (1991) too apparently despite ‘mutual recognition of and respect for State sovereignty’. Belarus has lost its copy apparently, not too much of a surprise perhaps.
Moana Loa has gone up 3ppm since June 2022. There is not the ghost of a chance that this will be checked by anyone’s Net Zero. So what’s the point of UK’s one per cent of global? We are ‘leading’ nobody. Why are our politicians so stupid?
Because competence in their job is not a selection criteria?
BBC/Guardian.
Democracy depends on an informed electorate. Instead, you have BBC/Guardian. It’s not MPs who must repeal the Climate Change Act, it is BBC/Guardian. They are in charge, and they are quite happy with stupid politicians.
Like the met Office, most national newspapers and our universities, the BBC will continue to promote the climate change propaganda because they are being paid millions of pounds every year by those who stand to gain from the removal of fossil fuels and ICE cars and the introduction of heavily subsidised wind turbines, solar panels and electric cars coupled with the increased cost of energy which will result in a total decline of Great Britain as an industrial and manufacturing nation.
The BBC now has at least 9 Climate Change reporters who scour the world for every opportunity to promote the same message. Every single news broadcast now includes footage of so called Climate Change disasters from all over the world, even more so over the past few weeks because we have experienced one of the most miserable summers we have seen for years. And all the more insulting when we are forced to pay the BBC an ever increasing annual licence fee!
Like the met Office, most national newspapers and our universities, the BBC will continue to promote the climate change propaganda because they are being paid millions of pounds every year by those who stand to gain from the removal of fossil fuels and ICE cars and the introduction of heavily subsidised wind turbines, solar panels and electric cars coupled with the increased cost of energy which will result in a total decline of Great Britain as an industrial and manufacturing nation.
The BBC now has at least 9 Climate Change reporters who scour the world for every opportunity to promote the same message. Every single news broadcast now includes footage of so called Climate Change disasters from all over the world, even more so over the past few weeks because we have experienced one of the most miserable summers we have seen for years. And all the more insulting when we are forced to pay the BBC an ever increasing annual licence fee!
I was clearing out some old electronics rubbish in my garage and came across a couple of old SCART cables – remember them? That got me thinking about just how stupid the CCA and other associated Acts are that legislate for particular technologies. Just imagine if the governments of the past had legislated that all connections had to be based on SCART technology.
They are doing that now with USB-C
As regards SCART, there are still functioning devices with SCART ports.
In fact I had to use an HDMI to SCART adapter to get sound out of the TV for one of my Android phones. The USB-C to HDMI adapter still works for getting a picture, but no way of selecting sound from the TV after one of the infamous “software updates”.
My iPad and its lightning to HDMI adapter for the same TV and with the same HDMI cable still works for both picture and sound on the TV despite the Apple software updates. The TV itself only has one HDMI input.
>>legislate for particular technologies
I enjoyed your comment, thank you. In a similar vein, years ago The Atlantic Magazine ran an article with picture of a floppy disk, a reel of magnetic tape, a typewriter, wooden print blocks and a stone tablet. It posed the question, “which is the most permanent for of memory?” The stone tablet was the answer, as there was no longer any devices that could use the other forms of storage.
Note the headline: “The Tories are trapped by net zero legislation”. I’ve recently run a thread on local social media covering the difficulties, specifically, on terraced properties. It was clear that most respondents were au fait with the issues, some naively felt that the policy wouldn’t be enforced, but very few of them were Tories. You won’t find the Guardian running a parallel story, though.
Near on two hundred years ago, the scientist Whewell wrote, ” Rightly to propose a problem is no inconsiderable step to its solution.” He wrote at a time, however, when Rationalism was in the ascendant. I am sure he assumed that if the problem were insoluble, either practically or theoretically, it would quickly become apparent to all involved, and the agreed “solution” would be, “Do not solve it!” Not, “Double down on Madness and ruin the World!”
Another problem which is probably making Whewell revolve in his grave* is “Fusion power.” That has been known to be absolutely, theoretically, insoluble, for at least fifty years. This does not stop people wishing otherwise, and wasting time and money on silly magnetic bottles.
*If he is keeping up-to-date there with the latest maths-strewn pseudo-physics.
I concur; repealing the Climate Grift Nightmare will be a tough row to hoe. Here in the U.S., our sock-puppet, Barrator Beijing Biden, has just introduce a CO2 Capture technology, funded by tax-payers of course. Joe wants us to “capture” CO2 and pump ot into underground “storage” cavity’s. The process is both expensive, and completely up-side-down from an energy standpoint–it takes tremendous amounts of electricity, generated by fossil fuels, to pump and store the noxious gas. Only in America, for now, but coming to a country near you soon.
It’s ironical that the standard criticism of democracy used to be that it encouraged short termism; politicians never looked beyond the next election. Now they have started looking to the future what they have done is rely on junk science to set a series of pointless, unworkable and poverty creating targets. I rather think we may have been better off in the old days when they only looked to the short term.
BWTM: The targets don’t do anything. EVs and heat pumps CANNOT GET YOU TO NET ZERO. At Net Zero, you have no EVs or heat pumps. I.e., there will be no reliable source of electricity. In 2040, they’ll be telling you to park your EV and their smart meter will turn off your heat pump (which won’t be that big of a loss).
Politicians declaring “Let them drive EVs!” implements a REDUCTION of emissions, not ELIMINATION of emissions.
So after you screw over your economy, you will still not be at Net Zero. The interim step gets you nowhere. It’s a fake “solution.”
Thank you for your insightful comment. I would add there is a decided influence from the CCP, under their Unrestricted Warfare Program, where they have use Elite Capture of the academy and news media, along with at least a partial capture of much of the U.S. and EU governance to use the Climate grift to hollow out the economies of The West from within. It is working nicely in this respect; c.f., the collapse of the German manufacturing base and the clearing of great swaths of the worlds most productive agricultural land to make way to house the immigrants flooding The West.
Cultural Marxism requires no external influence. It’s not an external problem; it’s an internal problem.
Brits are killing Britain, not the Chinese. If there were no China, you’d have the same problem.
Thank you for your reply. I was referring to actual, political, Chines Communist Party Marxism, –Unrestricted WARFARE–not what pronouns lefty’s use.
Well stated.
Reflecting on this issue of heat pumps as the only alternative to fired boilers I ask myself why not just use elecvtric convection heaters? Modern ones are reasonably efficient especially when the property is double glazed and cavity wall insulated (like mine, despite being 100 years old) . I know its not ideal economically but offset against the capital cost of heat pumps and the on-going electricity consumption its got to be a close run thing.
Critical sites shielded: Ofgem acts to avert blackouts
The regulator has accelerated measures to safeguard critical sites from potential blackouts by granting urgent status to a proposal that aims to prevent disconnections during emergency load shedding.
Obviously the concerns are rising.
Gamecock’s house is a critical site.
So entities will have to go to Ofgem, hat in hand, and explain why they are ‘critical’ and must be saved in blackouts.
We knew the march to Net Zero would be ugly . . . .
At least we now know why those smart meters were installed, so they can “shed your load” via telemetry, without so much as an **** you
Which is why I continue to refuse one to be installed in my house.
British Gas are offering me 5 hours of cheap electricity on Sundays if I allow them to fit a smart meter. I use about 1 MWh a year (and 10 x that for gas). They must think I’m as stupid as Ed Miliband.
The chooks are coming home to roost and there’s no room for them . .
“The Tories are trapped by net zero legislation” … they all nodded it through without the slightest cross examination … so they deserve every little bit of damage it does to them.