Rishi Sunak Waters Down Net Zero Pledges
By Paul Homewood
So he did it!
Net Zero targets are to be watered down, as long as the Cabinet approves it.
The key points are:
- Petrol/diesel ban pushed back to 2035
- Transition to heat pumps switch will be forced only when buying a new boiler, and from 2035.
- Upcoming property energy efficiency requirements scrapped.
- No ban on oil and gas in the North Sea.
There is of course loads of the usual waffle about green jobs, extreme weather and so on. That was inevitable, given the political outlook.
But the PM has at last recognised the huge costs to ordinary people, and has decided to go for their vote.
Watch from about 5 mins in. He emphasises that we have already cut emissions more than most, that we only account for 1% of global emissions, that current plans are far too costly, and that the public have never been given a choice.
I was particularly impressed with his comments about the 5-year carbon budgets. The last apparently had just 17 minutes debate in the Commons, before being voted through without any consideration of the costs. He now wants to see Parliament consider how such budgets can be met in future.
It’s a small beginning, and is probably no more than a bit of political manoeuvring, but it’s a sign of how things might develop after the next election.
As far as I know, there are no legal obstacles to what Sunak has laid out – that is, I don’t believe they need any vote in Parliament. There are, however, some threats from treacherous Tory MPs, who may bring down the government with a vote of confidence.
As with Brexit, such traitors may get a shock if they go against the will of the people. In any event, the Tories would go into an election with a populist agenda, which is probably Sunak’s plan, after the ULEZ revolt against Labour in Uxbridge.
The most likely scenario is that Labour will win the next election whenever it is held, but will then have to take the blame for reintroducing unpopular policies. This could open the door to real change in the election after that.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
This is just the first round of pull back. Soon the rewards will point clearly to further pull backs on NetZero
I regret I do not agree. This is a short term swerve in a attempt to avoid some of the electoral consequences. Badly executed and obviously insincere.
Agree with Epping Blogger.
If you think any politician is “sincere” you must be very young. Politicians want to get into power and then stay in power. That’s all.
And they will happily lie and tell you white is black in pursuit of their goals
Well whatever the actual reason to pull back, I think you are correct EB, it is a step in the right direction, the knee jerk reaction to unproven theories was always a political not scientific or rational decision.
Given the timing of this announcement, just before the party conferences, where Stammer has to follow his party policy of ever more damaging Nut Zero, what this amounts to is wrong footing Stammer who has attempting to mirror all substantial Tory policies so that there is no substantial difference between Liebour and sTory … except Liebour portray themselves as the “nice party” (to bankers).
So, basically, this is creating a distinction between Liebour and sTory for the soon to be general election.
Does it actually amount to anything? All the sTories have to do to win on Nut Zero, is to be less willing to destroy the economy, attack the wealth of people or curtail freedoms on the altar of the Green cult. Given how Totalitarian the Green Cult has become, sTories can easily portray themselves as not as willing to commit economic suicide … whilst still committed to committing economic suicide.
So, in itself this policy “U-turn” is worthless. But, what is important, is if the sTories now think this Nut Zero is an election loser for Liebour. And, better still, if they start finding its an election winner for them. For there is nothing quicker to change the mind of a politician about to be kicked out by the voters, than finding a policy that might stop him being kicked out.
and now how do you think that will impact us here in Scotland … ..capital of … Alice down the Looking Glass may be a good starting point.
“The most likely scenario is that Labour will win the next election….”
Don’t be too sure…
Wasn’t Labour predicted to win in 2019?
If not no one predicted a Tory landslide. I very much doubt this will be repeated next year but they may well get in with a very small majority or have to rely on the DUP to govern.
Snap election shortly? … just HAVING to listen to UK news about … awww that beeb propaganda machine.
Historically a majority of that size would be hard to overturn in one go.
Assuming the Conservatives want to get re-elected and they at least partially remember that principles are fine but you need to be in power to implement them, that they avoid obvious banana skins, that they make some effort to implement the right (sensible) policies (most of the electorate understand that being right is better than simply being popular when the two clash), then look for a Conservative majority of about 25 in a May election next year.
How they handle the media will be key. In their position I would ban every minister from appearing on the Today programme which is only looking for a ‘gotcha’ to provide headlines for the rest of the morning and implement a daily televised news conference run by a government pro and open to all accredited reporters. Tough questions, yes; but every government has the right to put over its plans and policies to the electorate before the media vultures start picking away at it — especially the BBC ones!
Depends on how this handled. If Labour decry this change of course Sunak could throw it back to them as the party that wants to bankrupt the country and cost voters incredible amounts of money. Is that what you are proposing Mr PM in waiting. Let the voters know just how much your policies are going to cost them. And while you are at it tell them why abolishing a diminishing 1% of global emissions will save the planet.
Sunak could pull this off if Starmer and co are fool enough to fall in to his trap.
Yes, it might well open up a debate on the economics of Net Zero Suicide, which if handled well would only see Labour lose. For example the Labour lot have been on GBN claiming that it will cost us money which as we know here is rubbish. Everything greenie is worse and more expensive.
As you rightly say “would only see Labour lose” but to paraphrase, ‘Would’ and ‘only’ should be applied to the Tories as well. Not withstanding then that we also do NOT want the other 3rd -and-a-half parties to win either. After all, let us NOT FORGET that pretty well the Entire House Voted on al these issues ( & COVID nonsense too)
One per cent! One per cent! One per cent! He’s unleashed a tiger! Why should I suffer for nothing! The BBC must be mortified – they’ve kept it a secret for years!
Voters are caught between a rock and a hard place, Both the “Conservatives” and Labour are “climate”, “green” and “net zero” fanatics. Neither deserve to win any election.
Nigel Farage is licking his lips over Lampadusa.
Yes he may be licking his lips: so does our dog… but if there’s no food coming his way? Just getting dehydrated. The Sheople have not tried the coffee yet. Been too used to the other 3-4 varieties and it has poisoned the tastebuds.
Honestly don’t know how to get that point across and Sell the Reform or ( think there’s a similar party – and that’s the problem – ‘they’ can’t organise themselves)
For me the most probable scenario is that Labour will win the next election but it will then take one to two years for the public to realise that they don’t have a clue what to do about the problems besetting our country, This will give way to the anarchy that is just waiting to be released on us. It is already being felt in the breakdown of law and order, public services etc. I wouldn’t like to be young today but its all self-inflicted. As someone writing in the DT a couple weeks ago wrote, everyone under fifty should leave the counntry. Not wrong.
Aye, the breakdown of law and order …. seems like Supermarkets are already feeling that…. doing kwik searches / inspections of baskets after self-checkout. Isn’t that what the Shops wanted – to save labour costs. Brought THAT ONE on themselves, aided & abetted by a woke police force.
No ‘U’ turn just a short delay ….just to get through the next election
I’ll live with that for a start. Every journey begins ….
Don’t you believe it. This statement put the Net Zero way back. Sunak couldn’t just abolish it. That would be political suicide. I don’t think he wants to abolish it but he does want to win the next election. If he does he will be a big hero and make his position unassailable within the party. As time goes by the need for haste will be seen as unnecessary and his change might seem wise. Let’s see how Labour tells the electorate that they would bring back policies that would globally be ineffective but would ruin our industry and cost us a packet. Well played Sunak.
Not just the next election, but the one after as well since the targets are going back to 2035 – assuming election next Autumn and then 2029.
Sunak will come under enormous pressure as the requirement to reach Net Zero by 2050 is written in law. He says that this doesn’t affect reaching that target but that will probably be challenged in law by the Alarmists. However, he has just announced that he wants to cut red tape that forces the Grid to adhere to a first come first served waiting list to connect projects to the Grid. It can be years for ready to go projects to receive permission to link to the Grid. Sunak plans to let the Grid decide who comes first which should enable large scale projects to add to the existing stock of renewables quicker. He could easily use that change to justify his claim that the government is still on track to reach the statutory target.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/20/rishi-sunak-plan-free-britain-electricity-national-grid/
Unless the climate change act it rescinded the rush to renewables will/cannot change. I doubt that any of the main parties would take that step.
And the idiot Starmer has just pointed a great big shotgun at his own feet by threatening to reopen the Brexit negotiations.
The problem with the Starmer – Macron love-in is that the legacy media lack the intelligence and knowledge to know that the Brexit agreement can’t be fundamentally changed. So there is unnecessary hysteria from the ultra Brexit crew. On the other side, what Starmer is presenting is not possible either. The agreement allows for refinement based on experience over time which makes sense given the huge scope of our involvement with the EU. Sad to hear the same old tired points being made such as if – very unlikely – we rejoined the Single Market we would be a rule taker which ignores that over 70% of the CRA rules are world rules and that as a non-EU member we would have a bigger voice.
Exactly. Brexit is law. It would need another law to even get to a point where it could be changed. And I’m sick and tired of interviewers and featherbrained MPs (that’s you, Lucas!) Talking about BREXIT as if its a house rule in a Bingo hall.
The TCA within its provisions allows for it to be reviewed regularly to consider whether any improvements can be made. Any changes would not need any law to do so.
And what form would the ‘review’ have to take and would its results be binding.
Article 776 of the TCA is short and to the point: ‘The Parties shall jointly review the implementation of this Agreement and supplementing agreements and any matters related thereto five years after the entry into force of this Agreement and every five years thereafter.’
So a review is due to start on 1 May 2026 but as yet there is no agenda for what will be discussed. From the UK side the pro-EU lot hope for major change but the EU will not countenance that as they view it as a time to make minor changes. It is possible that some changes might be made ahead of 2026 as for example the problem of Rules of Origin for battery cars since as we know, it is uneconomic to make batteries in the UK due to energy costs. Likewise in the EU. Notwithstanding that China controls most of the supply of cobalt and lithium anyway.
Starmer (and labour) nolonger has any policies to help the british working class
Election tactics.
We all know all the major parties have been signed up to what the globalist NGO’s have demanded
“They” may well be signed up to some globalist NGOs but Sunak and allies are members of an alternative set of NGOs
Krishnan Guru-Murthy was apoplectic on C4 News this evening.
Everyone interviewed was very critical of the move -watching it you would think 90% of the population are behind net zero when we know that 90% are dubious to say the least.
If the eco-dingbats at C4 are unhappy then you can be sure it’s a good policy.
Aren’t they all animated on the News, Ha ha ha. Much Jaw exercise.
Announce first.
then seek cabinet approval
It was leaked to the BBC – deliberate? – and so the announcement was rushed in order to control the story.
Sunak has been briefed on how Net Zero is unpopular across the country. The
UK may well be “ahead of the emissions game” but at what cost and what benefits? Those countries not playing the emissions game are well ahead of the UK .
The outcry against Sunak will allow voters to identify the eco-loons in the Tory Party and hopefully they will suffer the same fate as the anti BREXIT mob of Soubry, Grieve, Stewart et al
It’s the flat snout floppy ears and piggy eyes that betray them – and an inability to fly.
Yet another naïve fool, trying to justify the race to solve a problem that patently, provably does not exist!
There is no Climate Crisis, Simple!
There’s only greed, graft and reward, but never for me and thee!
Repeal the 2008 Climate Act or be destined to ignominy!
Hear, hear! The first politician to say that NZ is BS will win bigly.
The best way to help developing countries would be to stop trying to prevent access to affordable energy.
Well I COULD agree, but: the Media and woke populace may still swing against you, or try their utmost to hold back the Pendulum. Trouble is, if you like, we have to walk on the Swamp to grab that Pendulum, or find a way to demolish the tower it hangs from. Yes, May be, just maybe, “Build back Better” will take on a better meaning – they will rue the day they thought they were so smart.
It’s a smart move. And don’t forget that big unions such as the GMB see Net Zero as a problem too.
Starmer has been finessed and is now caught between a rock and a hard place. Winning may be a poisoned chalice.
Labour may win the next election but the margin just got a lot smaller. It may even turn into a John Major 1992. Everyone said the Tories would lose that one.
“It’s a smart move…”
Maybe politically for one party, but for the benefit and well being of UK citizens?
No, for once I think the majority have finally seen through the political charade, some are even looking at the actual laws of physics and drawing their on conclusions!
I will have no truck with any politician who thinks this is a smart move to finesse the opposition. Time is running out, homo sapiens needs to get back to what has made them successful, facts! and shun ‘feez’
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”
And the biggest step is to repeal the CCA 2008.
It would be historic for Labour to overturn the current majority. I can’t see them winning but by the same token I can’t see much of a majority, if any, for the Tories. I guarantee that I won’t be voting for Sushi’s Bimbo and will see what else is on offer. Sadly I see Coutinho getting back in as this is still deep blue country. And don’t forget that we have local elections next May which may be a guide.
I got 7/1 on Major at the betting shop the day before the election. Wish I had put a £100 on. Reform et al may deliver a shock to the unaparty next time around.
I am now of the view that the Conservatives will win the next election but only partly because of this change. There are numerous issues at election time and the Labour Party and the trendy MSM simply can’t see they are the wrong side of public opinion. All those “people with a cervix” over the age of 18 (including some Labour MPs) are very concerned at having pervs in the WCs with them.
As you say even Gary Smith (GMB) will agree with this energy policy.
I am also reminded that John Major is the only PM ever to get over 14million votes whilst Tony Blair managed the lowest ever popular vote to win.
Turnout is key.
Rushing intuit said “Able to”, NOT “Allowed to” buy ICE cars. There IS a subtle difference. So WHICH Company is going to be making ICE cars for sale in the UK ( LH Drive has added cost).
As for Change of tack to suit the Party: Probably yes: Even the Motor trade are now apparently ( According to Lazystream Media) against this turnaround. THe Gravy Train for them all has stopped and dropped off some wagons to go on a Detour. Next election? Best way forward is vote for PEOPLE ( in a party?) who will END all this nonsense of a fairy tale world.
The LH/RH drive economic argument is largely nonsense. About 30% of countries and 35% of the global population drive on the left side of the road including major economies such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and UK. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh too plus Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and a large chunk of Africa including RSA, Namibia, Botswana, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya.
Fair comment so this looks like ? https://www.worldstandards.eu/cars/list-of-left-driving-countries/ and where are most cars made?
I am wondering where he is gong to get his electricity from. It sure is NOT by wind or sun or wind and sun. Not enough energy from those two to get the job done.
More part-time electricity can be had by connecting up completed renewables projects much quicker, maybe easier said than done.
According to Bloomberg research, there is more than 200GW of renewable energy awaiting connection to the UK grid – around four times the total capacity of renewables added since 1992.
In 2022, 164GW of new connection requests were received in the year to October, as per figures from the Energy Networks Association (ENA), with wait times of up to 15 years quoted for some parties.
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/in-depth/a-boom-with-a-queue-tackling-the-uk-renewables-gridlock
Rumours that first-come first served connection priority will be scrapped soon.
NB a lot of that 200GW won’t get built and is just speculative queue placement.
And here it is.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/20/rishi-sunak-plan-free-britain-electricity-national-grid/
It might be behind a paywall but the gist is Sunak is going to alter the rules that compel the Grid to administer a first come first served list for projects wanting to connect to the Grid. It’s stopping lots of big renewables projects from joining for years even though they are ready to go. Changing the rules will allow the Grid to pick and choose projects to join the Grid.
We never had a problem with the capacity of energy in the UK before net-zero …remember the good old days when we had abundant amounts of coal, gas & oil …that was just a decade ago
The public have been force fed climate nonsense for so long that Sunak is sensibly taking it slowly to a complete withdrawal from NetZero. Next steps are to make the Climate Change Committee impotent and then close it down
and meanwhile. in the interim, when the Children behave as spoilt brats …
Mayhem on the streets AGAIN.
If this is the means that those in the Tory party have decided is the way to open a proper debate about Net Zero, it is a good thing. Politicians are going to have to bring out REAL numbers (not computer modelled estimates) regarding how much it will cost each household (£50,000), what difference it would make to global CO2 (0%) and how much it would change global temperature (0c)
Re real numbers.
“The government has unveiled a plan without answers to key questions of how it will fund the transition to net zero…………The government has no reliable estimate of what the process of implementing the net zero policy is actually likely to cost British consumers, households, businesses and government itself”
“HM Treasury witnesses were reluctant to be drawn on the future costs of achieving net zero cautioning that the Climate Change Committee estimates contain ‘heroic assumptions’ with errors potentially compounding over very long periods”
‘Achieving Net Zero: Follow Up’ House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (April 2022)
“Despite another 1000 pages explaining Net Zero Strategy there is no credible plan to get from here to there” Prof Dieter Helm, Oxford.
https://dieterhelm.co.uk/publications/the-net-zero-2035-target-for-electricity-is-not-credible/
… and NOT to forget how the costs, nowadays, always seem to Grow like Topsy, no, like Edinburgh Trams, – could have DUALLED the A9 in its entirety on that alone + our FERRY Fiascos, or HS2, ( the TSR2 & later Nimrod replacement) etc etc £8Mill per DAY for Full Board … U-KNOW-WHO SPIRALLING, even.
Let’s not forget the Conservatives were the ones who legislated for the NZ 2050 target. The Conservatives banned coal fired generation, directly causing the loss of a large fleet of valuable power generating assets we would have really benefitted from during (what is now being called) the “energy crisis”. The Conservatives are still introducing a draconian Energy Bill to enforce NZ.
He peddled the myth that offshore costs dropped by 70%: what other myths were slipped through?
Sunak just stated he is not giving up on NZ 2050. Therefore, to vote Conservative is a vote in favour of the NZ 2050. Who knows what mistakes will be waved through Parliament as a result.
Don’t fall for it. Don’t vote for it. Judge the Tories on their record, not their promises.
i.e. if you’re not “FOR” us, you are AGAINST us …
” Sunak just stated he is not giving up on NZ 2050. ”
Not yet !
Now is a good time to publicise the true financial cost of Net Zero.
Sunak only entered HoC in 2015. This is politics, the Conservative party has seen the writing on the wall: their base will abandon them. A lot of Conservative support is older, angry people who probably don’t believe in climate change, along with the trades/Brexit supporting demographic. They are very pissed off.
He’s has pitched it very carefully including not offering an opportunity to be called a “climate denier” and putting the LAbour party in a very difficult position.
Like Brexit, this does not fall on traditional party lines and politicians who make the mistake of thinking it does will be toast at the next election.
Now we can have an honest debate. Irrespective of “the science” and the failings of computer models the arguments to keep repeating in my view are:
1. UK is < 1% of global CO2 emissions
2. UK total CO2 emissions are less than the annual increment added by China
3. If the UK went to no emissions how much would it change global temperature by 2050 and would it be measurable?
4. Do politicians believe they can control the weather?
These clearly highlight that all these Net Zero efforts are pointless in terms of "saving the planet" or "climate" or "weather control"
The answer to the last one was calculated by John Christy (and Lomberg) assuming the USA stopped all GHG emissions in 2012 and running the climate predictions to 2050 and comparing. The answer is the difference in the modelled temperature would be 0.08 degC. That would not be a measurable difference by any known or likely future technology.
The UK GHG emissions are 1/14th of USA. So if the UK had vanished all GHG emissions in 2012 the modelled impact on global temperature would be….0.006 degC.
6 thousandths of a degree lower temp in 2050 if our emissions disappeared in 2012. That's less than the atmospheric lapse rate difference from ground level to 90 cm above the surface of the earth, the height of a toddler.
“4. Do politicians believe they can control the weather?”
One of my favourite questions – with a high qualifier:
It is agreed by IPCC that climate is an aggregate of 30 years of weather, so, do the promoters/believers in MMCC think that it is possible to control that weather for 30 years such that at the end of that period there would be a noticeable – and beneficial – change to ALL the world’s climate?
It’s a slight glimmer of hope, but no more. He is still hell-bent on the unscientifically justified net zero and no sign of reversing the ban on shale gas which he introduced on his very first day in office and looked rather like petty pique in undoing the one sensible action by Liz Truss.
Remember they both agreed to fracking during the hustings. Truss was still supportive when she was replaced by Sunak who went back on his word before he stepped over the threshold of number ten. That showed he wasn’t interested in cheap energy, which is absolutely essential if the country is to recover economically. He lost my vote at that moment.
And mine – I joined the Reform Party that day.
Dito
Amazing that allowing us to choose what sort of car or boiler we buy is seen as some extraordinary political event. How cowed and oppressed we are.
Exactly. Here most people are arguing over the minutiae of dates and technologies whilst the whole thing is complete bollocks. “Cowed and oppressed”, well the “person with a cervix” that I married and had three children with assures me that politicians trying to suppress and cow us can FO!
Agreed. I was hoping he’d say he’s not in the business of banning things, rather than arguing about when they should be banned.
Or did they realise we could presumably just buy cars via Northern Ireland dealerships in 2030-2035, Windsor framework and all that…
Maybe, just maybe, this is the first sign in years that there is some sort of brain in Westminster. We can but live in hope.
‘ some sort of brain in Westminster’ – that’s what the teacher would ask us if we w rote a load of rubbish…. English literature … Probably Shakespeare really was on dwugs.. as I think folk are sussing out now.
Too many things are “NO-Brainers” but the Eto-Oxbridge buffoons can’t see it. (never could?) and that’s why we have this situation.
All MPs should be required to state whether they have saved the planet by “investing” in an EV or a heat pump and if they have, whether they paid for it themselves, or charged it to expenses. It’s time for THEM to put THEIR money where their mouth is.
There was stuff about access to the grid and national planning. Quite a lot to unpack there.
Clare Coutinho decides to talk to voters like children:
“Storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires are an increasing part of our lives and I am in no doubt that man-made climate change lies behind this.
Our world is heating due to rising levels of carbon in the atmosphere and we must act to avoid irreparable harm, both to our communities and the natural world.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/20/claire-coutinho-net-zero-changes-pragmatism/
Well I’d forgotten already, whois Clare Coutinho … Kwik gargel said it all on the Iffiicki site. aha! say no more. Continue gargling.
Slightly off topic but I see that our ‘green’ King flew to Paris for his state visit when there’s a perfectly good city centre to city centre electric train service.
“Do as I say not as I do, you serfs”
Maybe he’s practicing his Byding Step Tumble … may come in handy Oneday.
and is this what the Car aftermarket thinks: https://www.catmag.co.uk/article/2030-ice-ban-delay/
Do you support the latest rollback of the UK’s net zero plans? 2/3rds of Laughable “Engineers” do NOT https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/weekly-poll-is-rishi-sunak-s-climate-backpedalling-good-or-disastrous-for-uk-business
Doesn’t the ‘Car Aftermaket’ remember the brilliant Government advice, and consumer bribes, to switch drivers from poisonous petrol cars to that nice clean diesel fuel?? That worked out well didn’t it 🤣
That has only happened for electric cars and “hybrids” but never any assistance whatsoever for proper cars with petrol and diesel engines.
>>consumer bribes
Oh? so where did all the Diesel Sales come from , for City fowk?
More miles per gallon, engines last longer, better for towing and diesel in almost every country in the world is less expensive than petrol.
>>so where did all the Diesel Sales come from
NOT SO SURE ABOUT … diesel in almost every country in the world is less expensive than petrol.
TONIGHT in Germany (TV NEWS there ), Diesel is around 2 Euros whilst petrol is FROM 1.76 up to around 2 Euros as well. AND in the UK? check it out.
As for engines last longer, better for towing …. hmm, been around any Garages lately? I wouldn’t have any of these diesels now if I did shortish or longish SLOW street runs – it kills them. Towing ? what’s that got to do with it? My neighbours have some old Petrol & TVO tractors – Petrol was very popular in the States until late on in the last Century ( B I G ) tractors as well as probably their trucks.
Take a look at the TAX element of the actual price at point of sale. European politicians actively hate their own populations.
And of course hammering diesel with taxes increases the price of _everything_.
>>Diesel is around 2 Euros whilst petrol is FROM 1.76 up to around 2 Euros as well
Yes. ? hammering diesel with taxes and petrol to a point too … I’ve lost you whilst in agreement.
Battery-electric vehicle (BEV) owners experience more problems with advanced technology than owners of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, according to the J.D. Power 2023 U.S. Tech Experience Index (TXI) Study. The study focuses on the user experience with advanced vehicle technology as it first comes to market and is an early measure of problems encountered by vehicle owners.
He sounds more slimey than Blair if that’s possible. Don’t get thinking this is a back down, the punishment beatings will continue until moral improves in the Gulag.
What is the point of a General Election when the choice is largely twixt two avidly socialist parties. Socialism always fails, as is clearly seen in UK this century.
Sunak and almost all MPs are still committed to all the impractical expensive nonsense and a high percentage of the population has been persuaded by the propaganda than the mild warming is accelerating and caused mainly by the increasing CO2. Labour has said it will reverse the 5 year delay.
I came across a slick video showing how historic global temperatures are calculated and inevitably it showed the usual graphs used by Michael Mann at the turn of the century to start the green industry and capture of governments. These of course eliminated the previous warm periods and little ice age, which were put down to local North Atlantic weather.
I was looking for the true historic temperatures and came across an article written around the time of the Mann takeover of climate science in which the whole fraud is taken apart. 14 pieces of research from every part of the world are listed which prove the existence and dates of the warm periods and the little ice age.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
Oh Look ye here now: on our Scottish ITV ( local News) Rishi is seen talking to the Sheople …. how Freudian. and he said that we have OVER Delivered on Kabon stuff … so it makes sense to slow down, … . Uh huh.
Meanwhile our Wholly Rude people are catching their bits in the twisted garments Ha ha!
The ‘5 year delay’ for EVs isn’t what it seems…
Four in five cars sold must be electric by 2030 despite petrol ban delay
The [zero emission] mandate will require 22pc of cars sold by manufacturers to be electric from next year. By 2030, the quota will gradually rise to 80pc.
Carmakers that cannot hit the annual targets must either sell more electric vehicles in future years, purchase credits from rivals, or pay a fine of £15,000 per car.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/09/21/four-in-five-cars-sold-electric-2030-petrol-ban-delay/
Disgraceful. Punish manufacturers because actual customers don’t want the less practical electric cars.
>>
Carmakers that cannot hit the annual targets must either sell more electric vehicles in future years, purchase credits from rivals, or pay a fine of £15,000 per car.
In February this year the AA surveyed 15,000 people and found 18% were planning to by an EV as their next car – down from 25% in 2022.
If people are not willing to buy EVs the politicians will be forced to change their targets