When will our leaders admit that achieving net zero will cost trillions and is unachievable?
By Paul Homewood
h/t Philip Bratby
It was only a matter of time before the green bandwagon of pipe dreams crashed into the Jones family’s 12-year-old internal-combustion-engine people carrier with an almighty bang. The net zero target has vast social and economic costs, costs so dizzying, so deleterious to our way of life that few of its proponents have bothered to find out what they are. Well, I have, and it’s terrifying.
You may have missed it, but at the G20 summit, Rishi Sunak just breezily wrote a £1.62 billion cheque from the UK to the Green Climate Fund to “support the world’s most vulnerable to deal with the impact of climate change… And this government will continue to lead by example in making the UK, and the world, more prosperous and secure”.
Was there really nothing better at home to spend that money on, Prime Minister? You know, all those special needs children whose funding your government just cut by 20 per cent, or are 1.9 million kids struggling with talking/understanding language insufficiently “vulnerable”? How about building a couple of new hospitals and creating bursaries for 1,000 desperately-needed nurses? Or maybe put up some new houses to deal with the pressure of the 606,000 immigrants you allowed into our country last year against the very specific wishes of the majority of the population?
Sorry, you’ll have to forgive me for not understanding how our gravely indebted country can afford to splash the cash on grand, almost certainly corrupt and futile, international eco-projects: maybe helping British people during a cost of living crisis doesn’t earn sufficient greenie points with Sunak’s globalist mates?
Honestly, I wanted to slap him. No, Prime Minister, “leading by example”, as you call it, will not make the UK more prosperous and secure. The credulous pursuit of net zero by 2050 will leave us exposed and vulnerable, and very cold. We are already far too dependent on energy from other countries who are busy fleecing us for our folly. The UK pays Norway a deafening £14 billion a year for gas while our PM struts on the world stage, boasting that Britain is leading the world in “decarbonising”. Like a man snipping the cords of our last remaining parachutes while bragging that we’ll hit the ground before anyone else.
Yes, Marjorie, I’m aware that most of this stuff is deadly dull and we’d really rather not think about hydrocarbons, whatever they are. But we absolutely have to focus now before the eco-zealots who have captured almost our entire political class do irreparable harm. Take a recent report from Offshore Energies UK which warns that, by 2030, unless a fortune is invested in new North Sea exploration and production facilities, the UK will be reliant on other countries for 80 per cent of our gas and 70 per cent of our oil. In what world is that secure? It sounds criminally stupid to me.
It gets worse. Steven, a Telegraph reader who has worked as a geologist around the North Sea for a quarter of a century, says that new investment has been scared off by the EPL (Energy Profits Levy, the additional 35 per cent on oil and gas profits imposed by Chancellor Jeremy Hunt). “Before the EPL, my company ranked the UK below Pakistan on the above-ground (political) risk,” says Steven, “Not any more. Our economic models play out over 20 years. You simply cannot change taxes halfway through the game.” Steven says the UK is now “completely uninvestable”. Bountiful natural resources beneath our silver seas remain untapped so the clever fellows on the Climate Change Committee can pat each other on the back.
Boy, it really is going to be squeaky-bum time in 2030. That’s also the date when the UK bans the production of cars and vans that use petrol and diesel. “Madness,” according to Karl McCartney, the Conservative MP for Lincoln and a long-time member of the Transport Select Committee. “The Government’s electric vehicle (EVs) target is unrealistic and dangerous,” he says. “It needs to be scrapped – and fast.” (The EU has already pushed back its target to 2035 while President Macron says “France has done enough”.)
I interviewed Karl for this week’s Planet Normal podcast and he explained how government policymakers have been “led by the nose by green zealots and the metropolitan elite – the EV evangelists, as they have been called”. Karl, a delightfully sensible chap from Ellesmere Port, points out that there are 35 million vehicles on the road, a very small proportion are electric, and they’re not all going to be replaced in seven years’ time. Not when the average salary of Karl’s constituents buys them an eight-year-old diesel or petrol Ford Mondeo instead of a Tesla, and not when there’s no place to charge it even if they could afford an EV. There is already a shortage of electricity in Lincoln. People down South, the MP reckons, have no idea how much those in areas with very little public transport rely on the private car.
“I have spoken about this to senior colleagues and they know it’s madness,” Karl says. Even some members of the Cabinet are concerned, but no one dares challenge the sacred consensus. “It seems our government’s policies are based on green virtue-signalling and oneupmanship,” he despairs.
Karl had a big hand in the Transport Committee’s Fuelling the Future report which was published in March. “We remain concerned that the Government has not fully thought through, or properly responded to, our scepticism about expecting ordinary motorists to bear the financial burden of transitioning to all-electric vehicles,” the report said, “We maintain that it is realistic and fair to expect a significant number of motorists to continue using hybrid or conventional-engine cars for years ahead. Synthetic low-carbon fuels that can be used in these engines without expensive modifications should be supported as a halfway house for a significant number of private car owners.”
There was a “woeful response” to that report from the Department of Transport. According to Karl, this was “an opportunity for the Government to climb down and save face,” but realism and practicality – a grasp of the impact of your deluded, undeliverable policies on millions of lives – are unwelcome in the net zero Cloud Cuckoo Land where much of our ruling class snoozes. They’ll wake up soon. The vandalism of Ulez cameras in London will be as nothing compared to public anger when people realise the bill for net zero will run into trillions.
Even if you believe, as most of us do, that a transition to cleaner greener energy is highly desirable and will surely come in the long term (the end of the century seems a realistic goal), you can still be alarmed by this crazy groupthink and its wilful blindness to looming consequences. Covering half of Lincolnshire in solar-panel farms, and paying American firms huge subsidies to produce electricity when we should be producing food on good, productive land – who voted for that?
Not very long ago, this country went into Covid lockdowns without a proper cost-benefit analysis and with politicians bamboozled into believing there was only one possible course of action, instead of listening to a range of possibilities. I’m afraid we are in great danger of repeating that historic error. The Government should repeal the net zero legislation and switch its focus to achievable adaptations over a longer timeframe instead of coercing and bullying the British people into altering their lifestyles in order to hit a meaningless, unattainable target.
A bold change of tack may well yield electoral dividends, giving disillusioned Conservatives something we can actually vote for. “My polling suggests scepticism of expensive net zero commitments unites the 2019 Tory coalition,” says Prof Matt Goodwin. So both Red Wall and Blue Shires have well-founded doubts about the green bandwagon of pipedreams; they’ll be sticking with their internal combustion engines, thanks.
At the G20, the Prime Minister said he wanted the UK to be a world leader. Marvellous, Rishi, but who wants to be a world leader in shooting ourselves in the head?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/09/12/net-zero-will-cost-trillions-and-is-unachievable/
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Hopefully the Net Zero bubble is bursting now as people see how dangerously stupid it is to destroy our economy while our competitors laugh at us. We, in the UK, can do so much more for the planet and its people from a position of general prosperity.
“I’m afraid we are in great danger of repeating that historic error.”
We started down that path a long time ago.
She’s right of course on that topic as far as she goes, even though she accepts the fake narrative: “Even if you believe, as most of us do, that a transition to cleaner greener energy is highly desirable and will surely come in the long term.” By cleaner and green in that context she accepts that CO2 is pollution.
But just like the release of the China Spies story it is all designed to distract from, to give the press a reason not to report, the BIG story; that the G20 agreed full steam (iconic use) ahead for worldwide digital IDs and CBDCs.
https://www.ntd.com/g20-announces-plan-to-impose-digital-currencies-and-ids-worldwide_941560.html
I am sure that caveat gets put in to avoid getting blanked and it really is not sincere.
I don’t disagree with her position that “cleaner, greener energy” is preferable to the dirtier stuff. It’s a question of how you go about it or what your socio-political aims are.
Gas is cleaner than wind taken over the entire lifetime of the equipment needed to provide an equivalent amount of the end product — ie electricity. I don’t know the equivalent for nuclear but given the lifetime of a power station could be anything up to 60 years I suspect that also would be cleaner.
So no argument there.
Electricity is nowhere near as efficient at driving transport (railways excepted) or for domestic heating or cooking. So until something as efficient as gas/oil is found (hydrogen is a red herring) for those purposes those remain the obvious options. All of these things can be made “clean and green” enough to satisfy all but the fanatics and they don’t give a damn because their objective is not clean energy, it’s less energy.
Quote by Paul Ehrlich: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Other similar quotes are available!!
Read between the lines. The caveat is deliberately ambiguous but it’s in all these DT articles somewhere.
It covers the DT while still allowing the writer enough journalistic licence to choose their words carefully depending on their position.
I suspect the editor is terrified of DT being labelled a ‘denier’ rag, hence they play the dance.
The DT walks the tightrope pretty well in my experience. As long as there are two sides to a debate (and there are two sides, regardless of how “wrong” each believes the other to be) a reputable newspaper will at least make sure that neither side is totally blacked out.
The idea that — for most purposes — electricity ought to be produced via some form of nuclear means seems hard for most people, even this head-on-straight writer. Almost all of my electricity (an all-electric house) comes from hydro -dams on the Columbia River Washington State, and the nuclear Columbia Generating Station (since Dec. 1984).
While natural gas has many advantages, it is quite useful in other ways, but being available in excess from petroleum production, it ought not to be wasted {see: routine flaring}.
A sensible idea would be to follow the French nuclear build with a modern and well-executed ‘Messmer Plan’. (Young folks may need to do a search-up on that. 🙂
The irony is that of those 57 reactors built and commissioned in just 15 years under the Messmer plan, not one of them would actually pass the current operating standards. So despite hundreds of perfectly safe reactor operating years they are now technically considered “unsafe”.
New designs are hugely safer still such as ones that cannot melt down and are passively safe, ones that consume previous waste and render it harmless in decades, ones that can produce peaking bursts of power, ones that can genuinely produce hydrogen economically etc etc.
And yet Greens and others would rather burn coal (Gerany shutting down perfectly good nuclear operating plants) than consider nuclear.
This design is joint Anglo Canadian.
https://www.moltexenergy.com/reduces-waste/
Ray S: does that comment stand now that EdF have nearly completed their massive programme of refurbishment and modernisation? They are spending about €1 bn per reactor under the “Grand Carenage” project with the aim of extending their working lives by up to 20 years. The work includes extensive safety upgrades as well as replacement of worn-out kit, including steam generators.
An excellent article. However, Allison could have pointed out that the EU have agreed that ICE vehicles can continue to be manufactured after 2035 providing they are capable of using low carbon eco fuels, which many already are. Why have the UK, alone in the world, decided to ban the manufacture of ICE vehicles from 2030—5 years earlier than anyone else!
Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels are going to be incredibly expensive. They can only be any use for rich peoples’ playthings.
So being allowed to use ICE vehicles provided they use synthetic fuel is no solution for ordinary people.
There is a major difference between “capable of using eco fuels” and being forced to use such. The ICE vehicles need to be able to run on both petrol and its associated “eco fuel”. Same analogously for diesel.
Boris Johnson!
On behalf of Carrie Antoinette
Because Boris Johnson – no doubt persuaded by his new wife – thought it would look good at the Glasgow COP. Since he proudly “doesn’t do detail” he gave no thought at all to the practicalities of this imbecillic measure.
Another absolute mauling both above and below the line.
Matthew Lynn has also put another piece in the DT regarding heat pumps. He’s worth following; very much across the NZ risk.
Indeed —and I must say that DT articles on these subjects help to make my subscription worthwhile.
Re DT subs…I was paying £19.95 (?) with a price hike to ~£25 imminent.
I rang to cancel my subs (‘not worth the money’) and after preparing to cancel the nice girl casually offered me 6 months at £5 per month!
It reverts to £25 after 6 months, accept it won’t as I’m not paying that much for the DT. Hope this helps.
Try disabling Javascript for a specific website e.g. here in Chrome – chrome://settings/content/javascript
CheshireRed,
When the local paper where I live – a much lesser thing than the DT – got to that level of cost, I canceled. I pay for a computer and a web connection where most of the news appears. I suspect print news will be mostly gone by 2030.
Allison’s article, sadly, is an excellent description of the sheer stupidity of this —and undoubtedly future— government’s policies.
There is no rational explanation for it, except possibly in the biblical context —Deuteronomy 28, 29: “The Lord will strike you with madness and blindness and confusion of heart. And you shall grope at noonday, as a blind man gropes in darkness….”. Pretty well sums up an entire appalling situation which should be abundantly obvious to anyone with eyes to see. And then there’s the trans idiotology….
Some believe that “TheClimate”™ has replaced The Lord and this transition has produced the sheer stupidity of elites and politicians. Deciphering such things is above my pay-grade.
Perhaps on another thread the whole political topic could be opened up. I see lots of posters here commenting along the lines of “who else do we vote for” or even opting to not vote/spoil papers. Most, but I doubt all, who post on here will be of a political right or centre section of modern politics but certainly not of a green persuasion. I personally feel there is no longer a mainstream party that genuinely reflects a range of my views in practise and I no longer retain the little trust I used to have. Most of all, I am appalled that a so called”Conservative” government has adopted social policies somewhat to the left extreme socialism.
It’s getting nearer to an election so it might be an opportune time to gauge views.
There is a view that the next election will be the ‘stay at home’ election where Tory voters can’t stomach voting for them again and neither can they vote for Labour. Those that switched last time might be of the same view so it could be a low turnout.
Let’s hope that Reclaim / Reform make some serious effort to stop the rot. But they have to be careful not to split the vote. They need to come to some agreement that there is only one of the two parties in any constituency.
>>‘stay at home’ election where Tory voters can’t stomach voting for them again and neither can they vote for Labour
No, g1298, If people “stay at home “ it will be assumed that they are happy with either outcome. They MUST go to the polling station and, in the absence of a “none of the above “ box, spoil their voting paper. This way it will be counted and will demonstrate that they are not satisfied with any of the parties.
Tones, in our last local election they didn’t tell us how many ballot papers were spoilt like they used to. I don’t know if the returning officer has an obligation to count and publish spoilt papers. It would be interesting to find out.
@Tones
That’s my intention, if there’s nobody on the ballot paper that I can support then I have a slogan with which to spoil mine
“say no to junk science” springs to mind immediately.
>>I have a slogan with which to spoil mine
I can see the argument for spoiling the ballot paper – I did it for the crime commissioner as the job is a waste of our time and money, and cynically they linked it with the council election to avoid the embarrassment of a low turnout. But that does show that low turnout is a concern as it undermines the legitimacy of those elected. I doubt that either party would take it as any form of endorsement if people stayed at home.
Good article.
I received a leaflet from SP Energy Networks who probably maintain the Grid in this part of North Wales. It is titled “Preparing for a power cut”. As you might guess, they emphasise that power cuts are and will be rare but there is a national plan whereby the country is divided in to “blocks” which will take it in turn to be switched off for 3 hours if there is a need. The National Grid Electricity System Operator is responsible for handling of any shortage or emergency and they will instruct the various networks accordingly.
They mention the need for balancing the Grid but do not mention what is likely to be the cause of any fluctuation in supply or demand. Clearly they realise that existing and more renewables will cause instability in the Grid so have taken the precaution of setting up a system that will allow rationing. The population should now know the future.
It’s nice to know that we are fully prepared for shortages and are not sleepwalking into a bad situation.
Sounds like the government “nudge unit” is in action, softening up for the possibility of powercuts
notify comments
‘Synthetic low-carbon fuels that can be used in these engines without expensive modifications should be supported as a halfway house for a significant number of private car owners.”’
‘Even if you believe, as most of us do, that a transition to cleaner greener energy is highly desirable’
Ms Allison’s declarations of orthodoxy reveal she’s on board with the Green Mob, she just wants UK destroyed more slowly.
Allison mentioned being cold but that might not be the half of it. NOAA have come up with predictions about sunspots which they say may disappear entirely after 2035 leaving us with a very cold period indeed. If they are correct, we are being set up with a perfect storm where we have a depleting and dysfunctional energy system together with a new ice age. Apparently the solar maximum we are enjoying now will peak in 2025 and then it’s all downhill after that. I thought that the Net Zero document was about economic suicide but it might actually be about human suicide.
https://electroverse.info/noaa-zero-sunspots-2035-through-2040/
I’m by no means the only one that has said we are in graver danger of being caught looking the wrong way when the next downturn comes than we are of being overcome by runaway AGW.
And human nature being what it is our leaders will still insist that “global warming hasn’t gone away just because we’ve had 24 record cold years …”
We are at what looks like the maximum level for SC25 but if you look at the history of the cycles, this level shows that we are, and have been, in a period of low solar activity for over a decade. The terms ‘solar maximum’ and ‘solar minimum’ apply over all the cycles and not just one cycle. And while SC25 has shown more activity than SC24 we are not able to be certain that we have seen the solar minimum yet.
No Mike Not suicide but planned mass murder
Nothing out of the ordinary regarding the Sun, except there are more spots now than were predicted.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
The article mentions both : “The net zero Cloud Cuckoo Land” and “The Climate Change Committee”. It would be simpler to rename the latter as the former. Unfortunately the Cloud Cucckoo-land Committee rules in the UK.
CCC is politicised. George Soros is represented on the Climate Change Committee by a guy called Stephen Fries from the Institute for New Economic Thinking, (INET), set up by Soros in 2009 with $50 million and its subsidiary at Oxford Martin School, set up in 2010. Fries was group chief economist at Shell (2006–11; 2016–21) and chief economist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change from 2011–16, when he went back to Shell, but is now at Oxford INET.
https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/institute-economic-modelling/
03 April 2010
First chairman of the CCC, Lord Adair Turner, is currently a “senior Fellow” at the parent Soros think tank.
https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/experts/aturner
He left the CCC in 2012, ostensibly to devote more time to the Financial Standards Authority, of which he was also chair, but he joined Soros soon after, in 2013 when his FSA term ended and he became chairman of INET.
On February 5th 2009, FSA diary records show that Lord Turner had breakfast with George Soros. Later that year Soros announced at the Copenhagen Climate Conference that he would invest $1 billion in clean-energy technology and create an organization to advise policy makers on environmental issues, according to a Bloomberg report at the time.
The government is obligated to take advice from the “independent” Climate Change Committee on how to impoverish us even further by the ideological pursuit of the chimera that is Net Zero.
Soros was a member of Ban Ki Moon’s “High Level Climate Finance Panel” in 2010, along with Lord Stern, Chris Huhne, Christine Lagarde (was IMF, now ECB), Jens Stoltenberg (former Norwegian premier, currently NATO head) and a collection of third world dictators and international financiers, details here:
Click to access climate_finance.pdf
They were looking to garner $100billion per year for what became the Green Climate Fund, to which Rishi has so generously donated on our behalf:
When will our leaders admit that they’re (knowingly) taking us into the abyss?
They won’t. They’re all puppets.
The government better act bloody quickly as all their green zealotry is written into the National Planning Policy Framework and therefore into Local Plans. The National Association of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty has a declaration on the Climate Emergency, etc, etc. It has seeped into all walks of bureaucracy and institutions and it will be nigh on impossible to row back from, IMO. I am not optimistic at all.
Sadly, the Zero Carbonites think they have already comprehensively won the day.
There seems no way back from their disastrous policies that are slowly but surely ruining this country.
My wife thinks that people will eventually rebel against it all but the way the general public accepted all the Covid impositions has confirmed once and for all what a push over we are when it comes to following government diktats.
It is now impossible to watch any news programme, read any newspaper, attend any university, go to any council or political meeting without being bombarded with propaganda about climate change.
The legislature covering climate change obligations is already in place and it is highly unlikely that this legislation is ever going to be abandoned or even diluted.
We already have no option but to obey this legislation and I can’t see any political party having the nerve to do anything about it.
All we can do is keep our gas boilers and our ICE cars until they too are forced out of existence- fortunately both of mine could see me through the rest of my days.
In the meantime we will all continue to buy everything from China which now has such a vast surplus of income that it will eventually own everything anyway. It has now infiltrated almost every aspect of the Western world and our dependency on it will only continue to grow until we can no longer do anything about it. Maybe some brave government will one day start doing something about this, but don’t hold your breath!
Achieving Net Zero using our current plans was never going to work and will always be an impossible pipe dream and our only hope is that eventually technology will provide an alternative solution- it usually does and we must continue to hope that it will here.
Not only the UK. Also all the EU countries. It is self-inflicted for the UK. The spineless governments in EU countries just do what they are told by the EU Commission.
>>There seems no way back from their disastrous policies that are slowly but surely ruining this country.
What do you mean “slowly”?
“only hope is that eventually technology will provide an alternative solution”
Agree what you say above, but we don’t need a solution to a non-problem.
“ China – – – will eventually own everything ”
I can remember when (1986-1991) that was said about Japan.
When will our leaders admit that achieving net zero will cost trillions and is unachievable?
When icebergs are seen floating around UK shores?
Lots of icebergs N and W of South Georgia at latitudes that match parts of the UK.
https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?v=-3000613.840584225,2428450.0539203454,-1871639.6520138758,3919973.357955049&p=antarctic&e=EONET_6355,2023-09-01&efs=true&efa=true&efd=2022-08-15,2023-09-12&efc=seaLakeIce&l=Reference_Labels_15m,VIIRS_SNPP_DayNightBand_ENCC(hidden),Coastlines_15m,MODIS_Terra_Sea_Ice(hidden,disabled=1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10),MODIS_Aqua_Sea_Ice(hidden,disabled=1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10),VIIRS_SNPP_Brightness_Temp_BandI5_Night(hidden),VIIRS_SNPP_Brightness_Temp_BandI5_Day(hidden),VIIRS_NOAA20_Brightness_Temp_BandI5_Night(hidden),VIIRS_NOAA20_Brightness_Temp_BandI5_Day(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_Brightness_Temp_Band31_Night(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_Brightness_Temp_Band31_Day(hidden),MODIS_Terra_Brightness_Temp_Band31_Night(hidden),MODIS_Terra_Brightness_Temp_Band31_Day(hidden),BlueMarble_NextGeneration(hidden),VIIRS_NOAA20_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor&lg=true&t=2023-09-12-T00%3A00%3A00Z
Little Rishi in line to be a word leader in the one- legged arse kicking championships and that is the extent of his leadership
They will never admit they are wrong because ‘They’ consider themselves to be the ‘Chosen ones’, led by our unelected. shoo-in, multi millionaire PM who loves spending our taxes so cavalierly, whilst driving our once Great Briton into the third World?
It’s extraordinary that this misguided obsession with Co2 has bedazzled a large part of the world’s politicians. It has now become self-fulfilling, as no-one wants to admit they have been misled by ‘the science’ and no-one wants to look foolish or credulous.
For climatologists, if they don’t agree with the presumptions, they don’t get published leaving their career in tatters, so there is a strong compulsion to go with the flow, and politicians can only act on what they’re told by the scientusts.
The remedy so far is unrelaible, costly and intermittent wind and solar with no effecive storage Where is the electricity to power the millions of battery cars, or provide adequate charging points.In exchange for cheap and reliable gas and oil, we are to get ineffective and costly air pumps, which nay wirk in modern, well-insurlated homes, but don’t in our mass of 1930s semis. RR SNRs could hve been fully operational by now-why has the government effectively done nothing to commission them?
It would be a bad joke, but unfortunately the greenies are obsessive and won’t be deterred.
published
pupublished, leaving their career in tatterrs, so there is a strong incentive to shut up.
We only produce one per cent of global CO2 which in any case has little effect on the weather. China 31%. I have just written a study of the Parliamentary Defence Committee’s report on Decarbonising the Military for our quarterly Naval Review (not yet posted as am abroad). In many years of military staff work I have never met such raving drivel, spiced with bias and gross ignorance and unrealism. Conversely the Public Affairs Committee savagely derided the governments Net Zero strategy “Neither the private sector nor the civil service have skills to deliver Net Zero “
Nobody has. Because in the real world it’s not deliverable.
“bedazzled a large part of the world’s politicians”: yup, they are out-thought by a woman. Worse, by a middle-aged, blonde journalist.
(I put it in terms that even the thickest of MPs can follow.)
“Even if you believe, as most of us do, that a transition to cleaner greener energy is highly desirable and will surely come in the long term.”
Oh dear. She has to get the bogus green energy fantasy quote into her criticial article on netzero. At this point, the only thing which will change government policy on energy is a reality check, which could be coming this winter if it’s cold and gas is in short supply from LNG and the remaining Russian pipelines.
We the people need some lifestyle re-education it seems. ‘Environmental psychologists’ working for the CCC report the need for all to make ‘greener choices’. Don the hairshirt now!
SEPTEMBER 12, 2023
Government leadership needed to support Net Zero lifestyle changes, says UK review
https://phys.org/news/2023-09-leadership-net-lifestyle-uk.html
Working well tonight 3 units on full load at Ratcliffe highest coal output in over 18mths and still just Summer. Also wind being constrained off the system all because Europe is short so i/c’s not contributing except Norway. This is what these numptys don’t understand its not possible to ever get to net zero 24/7/365 but im happy for them to be cut off by their smart meters when the renewables are down and out.
What “impact from Climate Change” are these nitwits referring to?
Since 1987 we’ve been bombarded with predictions of: Melting Arctic Ice – ice-free Arctic. No such thing.
Dangerously rising sea levels – no acceleration in the already mundane sea level rise going on since the end of the little ice age. New York was suppose to be underwater by now. Miami isn’t even flooded yet. It’s fraud top to bottom.
How can anyone in their right mind think any of these idiotic gvt policies are going to “fight the climate”.
And Anchorage Alaska is going down ho ho!
Further to my post about the Parliamentary Defence Committee’ lunatic report, I’d just like to say that if these crapulous idiots get their hands on military carbon emissions we can kiss goodbye to our already pathetic defences
I think one of the most oft said comments in the next election is going to be something along the lines of: “of course I’m all in favour of the … but just at the moment what really concerns me and is going to cause me to decide who to vote for is ”
And one of the most frequent comment of politicians as they step from behind their social media devices which supposedly show them what the public are saying is going to be this: “I never imagined there were so many people with such strong feelings about “
Oops its deleted parts it should read:
“of course I’m all in favour of the … (bbc brainwashing) but just at the moment what really concerns me and is going to cause me to decide who to vote for is (one of the serious and detrimental impacts of bbc brainwashing)”
And politicians will be saying “I never imagined there were so many people with such strong feelings about (insert something else that big business pays social media to filter so politicians get an entirely distorted view of public opinion)“
“ There was a “woeful response” to that report from the Department of Transport.” Nobody should be surprised or expect anything else from Grant Shapps.
Hi Paul – another partially related but great letter here to the P&J newspaper https://www.facebook.com/groups/221782186918238/posts/325429136553542/