Skip to content

Net-zero targets have hamstrung British prosperity

February 29, 2024

By Paul Homewood

 

 

What really powers industrial growth is cheap energy. That is where Britain, like Europe, is falling down.


Britain’s ‘net-zero economy’ is booming, creating more better-paid jobs than any other sector, but it is all being put at risk by the government’s reversal on policies on electric vehicles and heat pumps.
That, at any rate, is what the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) wants us to believe. In a report this week, these groups claim that the net-zero target has spawned an industry worth £74 billion, up 9 per cent in just a year. It has created 765,000 jobs which are 1.6 times as productive as the average UK job and which offer average wages of £44,600, compared with £35,400 for the rest of the economy. Yet, ‘at a time when the US and EU are ramping up investment and tax breaks in the pursuit of clean industries setting up shop on their soil, the UK has been chopping and changing’, with ‘mixed signals, policy U-turns and contradictory political rhetoric’ discouraging investment. In other words, never mind about such trifles as the 2,500 jobs to be lost at Port Talbot as the blast furnaces are closed, taking with them Britain’s remaining capacity for primary steel-making – there are better-paid green jobs out there for anyone who wants them.
This analysis falls at the first hurdle. The EU is doing pretty much the same as Britain in retreating from net-zero targets when they collide head-on with reality. Just as Rishi Sunak’s government put back the proposed ban on new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035, the EU – which never planned to ban them until 2035 in the first place – has revised its rules so that internal combustion engines will still be allowed after 2035 as long as they are capable of running on synthetic fuel. The German government, like Britain’s, was forced to water down proposals to ban gas boilers when it became clear how much it was going to cost households. As for the US, while Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act has made subsidies available for green energy projects, it has never imposed such tight targets for decarbonising the economy as Britain has. Indeed, America has more than doubled oil and gas output in the past 16 years as it sought energy security.
Moreover, the CBI’s claims are at odds with what is really happening to jobs in renewable energy in Britain and Europe. The Danish wind company Orsted – formerly Denmark’s national oil and gas producer – cut 800 jobs and suspended its dividend last month after losing £2.5 billion in the third quarter of 2023. In the past six months eight European solar companies have either gone bust or reported financial difficulties as China increasingly corners the market for clean energy. According to the Inter-national Renewable Energy Agency, 5.55 million of the world’s 13.7 million jobs in renewable energy are in China, and only 1.8 million in Europe. Why China? Because energy is a lot cheaper there, for one thing. But China certainly isn’t using clean energy to manufacture Europe’s wind turbines and solar panels – 60 per cent of the country’s electricity is still generated by burning coal.
Investment and jobs are welcome in clean energy, just as in any industry. However, there is little joy in celebrating the creation of ‘net-zero jobs’ if, overall, the target to achieve net zero is costing you many more jobs while you lose your remaining industrial base due to high energy costs and excessive regulation imposed by net-zero targets. Ineos owner Jim Ratcliffe warned last week that Europe will lose almost all of its remaining chemicals industry over the next 20 years, in a speech that was woefully under-reported by a media more interested in his plans for Manchester United Football Club. One of the reasons, Ratcliffe said, was that in Britain his company is paying five times as much for its gas and four times as much for electricity as it does in the US. At the moment, Ineos in Europe is paying £130 million a year in carbon taxes, but by 2030 that will rise to £1.7 billion. The German industrials giant BASF has already announced that it is to shrink European operations while investing £8 billion in a new plant in China, as well as investments in the US.
To claim that net zero has sparked an industrial boom in Britain, you have to be pretty inventive with the figures. The CBI’s report doesn’t identify all the 23,750 businesses it claims as part of the net-zero economy, but the five it does name include a company that makes electrical transformers– which are used throughout the electricity industry, regardless of how electricity is being generated – and the waste company Veolia. The latter has been included, it says, because it manages landfill sites, which involves separating organic waste and collecting methane gas from waste tips. Yet landfill sites operators have been collecting methane for decades, long before net zero.
Investing in clean technologies is a good idea. Many of them will fail but some will go on to become great generators of wealth. But as China proves, you don’t need a legally binding net-zero target to make money selling the technology to others. As the US is showing, what really powers industrial growth is cheap energy. That is where Britain, like Europe, is falling down.
 
Full editorial

40 Comments
  1. energywise permalink
    February 29, 2024 3:20 pm

    Net zero is regressing the UK and Europe, as planned by the globalist elites – mission poverty is on track

    • gezza1298 permalink
      February 29, 2024 5:22 pm

      If it wasn’t planned it is certainly proving to be the outcome.

      • March 1, 2024 8:58 am

        I think you can be sure it’s planned, as everything must be changed (regressed) because of ‘climate change’ so that when things are bad, they can step in, say they have the solution (world communism) for the bad situation (they created), and rake in the property and takings. It’s ALL about money and power.

      • Gamecock permalink
        March 2, 2024 11:45 am

        Not quite, ilma. It’s about power.

        The Soviets found it impossible to rule over a prosperous middle-class.

        So they killed them. Tens-of-millions of them.

        Pol Pot found it impossible to rule over a prosperous middle-class. So he killed them. Two million of them; half the population of Cambodia.

        What’s happening in England isn’t new. History is rhyming.

        The reason the government hates “climate deniers” is because they reject absolute government authority. They believe in freedom and liberty.

        “No, I’m not taking your damn vaccine.”

        Britain’s demand for EVs and heat pumps is totalitarian. The people are subjugated to government interests, not their own.

        “Climate change” is Big Brother. No science needed. Winston will change the science as needed.

        UK is going to be a dystopian mess, with rampant poverty. Think North Korea. Because that’s what your government wants. It is intentional. Note that arguing science with them accomplishes nothing. Because it’s not even about science. The Science is what they say it is.

        Denial is a limited time option. Labour is coming.

  2. micda67 permalink
    February 29, 2024 3:40 pm

    Ask what made Great Britain the beating heart of the Industrial Revolution- was it cheap plentiful labour or bloody big machines making use of cheap coal to power machines that were much more productive than any previous energy source allowed. Yes, the downside was “dark, satanic mills”, and yes, some of the industrial factory owners were considerate and built beautifully setup “model” villages.
    Everything revolves around Power, electrical and political- without electrical power absolutely everything stops – forget about modern life, it will be a miserable existence for the majority with a bit more comfort for a minority, political power will drive the future either to ease or drop Nett Zero and adopt Not Zero as a half way house behind maintaining current living standards and utilising all available energy sources – Coal, Gas, Oil, Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Hydro, Tidal and……….fracked gas/oil, all designed to drive energy costs down to levels unseen since the early 2000’s, increasing investment and industrial output, or, political power will continue to emasculate the industrial and commercial business base decreasing employment opportunities while not being able to develop “Green” employment due to unreliable energy production driving businesses to seek countries where energy is plentiful and cheap.

    Go Green, Go Broke

    Not Zero but Almost Zero

    • mervhob permalink
      February 29, 2024 8:56 pm

      As Mathew Boulton remarked to James Boswell when he toured Boulton’s Soho works, ‘I sell here what the whole world desires, Power!

      Indeed, and from those ‘dark satanic mills’ and the application of science grew the modern world, with its continuous power, clean water, improved agriculture, effective medicine and the massive growth in population.

      But, the bad old habits, born out of millenia of struggle between competing groups with leaders remarkable only by their mediocrity, soon returned. We had ‘trickle down’ which in practice meant ‘grab up’. We had the worship of ‘market forces’ when the only forces extent were those of speculative fraud. We had the ‘Management cult’ of the 1990s which far from equalling the success of those 18th century pioneers, failed to solve the productivity problems facing British industry. We had rampant overvaluation of property which led to the current desparate shortage of affordable homes – direct taxation of the property market would have burst that speculative bubble. We had the Dot.Con bubble which produced nothing of substantial value.

      Exactly why most economists cannot tell the difference between wealth transfer and wealth generation is an ongoing mystery. All we have had for the last 45 years is wealth transfer, via those very measures that the industrial revolution sort to supplant, with its massive increase in per capita productivity.

      Having worked in industry for over 40 years, I have considerable respect for the frontline workers who made the goods we sold, largely for export. However, as far as management and logistics are concerned, apart from those found in SMEs, we were our own worse enemies. And this is the culture, that now dominates, ‘Net Zero’ – a ‘nice little earner’ with little delivered in terms of real productivity.

      We sold our birthright from the industrial revolution because given the choice between working hard and making a difference, we chose, ‘buying cheap and selling dear’ – a commision based economy – nice and easy….. Innovation? -that is hard work, as the pioneers in the 18th century proved by their actions.

      So, don’t complain that countries in the third world are growing more rapidly than we are, such as Thailand. And don’t complain that services that we once considered ours by right are dwindling, due to our lack of income from productivity. Rudyrd Kipling’s, ‘Gods of the Copybook Headings’ are waiting to return with terror and slaughter!

      • Phoenix44 permalink
        March 1, 2024 8:18 am

        Sorry but this is pure nonsense. Economists are quite aware of what wealth creation is – it is higher productivity, as the well-known Krugman quote attests. We have had significantly higher productivity over the last 40 years and probably higher than we have measured as IT has shifted productivity to direct consumption. That you don’t know this and don’t understand how and why markets work simply shows you are ignorant Economics rather than Economics being ignorant. But then you believe high prices leads to a lack of supply…the complete opposite of how supply and demand works. As for a commission based economy you simply describe trading, not the vastly bigger service industry that underlies it. Your deified “industry” couldn’t exist without financing, foreign exchange, insurance, pensions, hedging and cash management, things you resound for some reason even though they are highly skilled and pay mote than bashing metal.

      • Gamecock permalink
        March 2, 2024 12:06 pm

        Correct, Phoenix.

        His “Having worked in industry for over 40 years, I have considerable respect for the frontline workers who made the goods we sold” sounds a lot like labor theory of value.

        “couldn’t exist without”

        I quite literally had union workers on the shop floor tell me that, “You couldn’t make this stuff without labor,” to which I replied, “We couldn’t make it without electricity, either.”

        The laborites are ignorant. Self-important. Their belief in their primacy is fallacious.

        But I actually supported the union. Because sometimes management did some really stupid things. And my great, great grandfather was one of the founders of the UMW. I have his UMW ring dated 1898.

  3. Sean Galbally permalink
    February 29, 2024 3:44 pm

    NET ZERO FOLLYAs most self respecting scientists know, man-made carbon dioxide has virtually no effect on the climate. It is a good gas essential to animals and plant life. Provided dirty emissions are cleaned up, we should be using our substantial store of fossil fuels while we develop a mix of alternatives including nuclear power to generate energy. There is no climate crisis, it has always changed and we have always adapted to it. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were many times higher during the last mini ice age in the late middle ages. There was no industrial revolution then to be the cause . The quantity of man-made carbon dioxide is insignificant compared with water vapour or clouds which comprise a vast majority of green-house gases. We have no control over the climate. The sun and our distance from it have by far the most effect. Most importantly, Net Zero (carbon dioxide) Policy will do nothing to change it. Countries like China, Russia and India are sensibly ignoring this and using their fossil fuels. They will be delighted at how the west is letting the power elites, mainstream media and government implement this Policy and the World Order Agenda 21, to needlessly impoverish us as well as causing great hardship and suffering.

    • March 1, 2024 4:06 am

      People keep writing this:

      Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were many times higher during the last mini ice age in the late middle ages.

      IT IS NOT TRUE! This takes away from an otherwise great posting.

      CO2 changes from about 260 to 280 parts per million over the recent ten thousand years until the modern increase. When CO2 more recently changed from around 280 to over 400, temperature did not have a correlating increase.

      Most of the recent ten thousand years was warmer than now with a lower CO2.

  4. February 29, 2024 4:21 pm

    Its not globalist elites, its western elites, those that control the USD and the US military and MIC to support the USD hegemony.

    From their perspective the cutting of any chance of Germany prospering by getting closer to Russia with its energy sources and the deindustrialisation of the EU is good business if it means it reduces competition. The fact that the ‘green’ party in German is the most hawkish ‘war’ party is not coincidence.

    The UK is suffering because in US terms its a rung lower than Puerto Rica, it has commonwealth ties but not citizen rights. It also has all the blow back from turmoil in Europe, which its ‘intelligence’ units are hardly exempt from instigating.

    The US economy is large enough to withstand the trials and tribulations of a multipolar world , the UK in comparison is a dwarf and will be buffeted by the winds of change. It is a price taker on the world energy scene, hard days are ahead.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      February 29, 2024 5:46 pm

      The UK us thd 5th/6th largest economy in the world and far wealthier than both India and China on a per capita basis. If we cannot stand then virtually every economy is worse. As for the tired Mercantilism, there is no point impoverishing those you wish to sell to.

      • March 1, 2024 10:24 am

        UK ranks 27th on a GDP per capita on a PPP basis.

        We have a very inflated view of our position.

      • mervhob permalink
        March 1, 2024 11:51 am

        Yes, we have an inflated view of our economic standing in the world. Despite claims of increased, ‘productivity’ the only significant growth in the last 40 year has been in ‘overheads’. Despite the technical changes in communication that allow us to talk to friends and relatives across the world at minimum cost, this speed of communication has been used to empower speculative trading on a vast scale. That this has required vast numbers of ‘bums on seats’ frantically tapping keys in huge office blocks, cannot be denied. Yet the ‘rewards’ have fallen into the pockets of the few, who like Baylonian priests, praying on their Ziggurats, can do nothing about the approaching Assyrian hordes.

        As the philosopher, Georges Santayana observed, ‘Those who do not understand their history are doomed to relive it.’ The difference between the first industrial revolution and the current claimed ‘capitalist’ and ‘communist’ systems was that it was the application of a genuine desire to see real economic change, based on a scientific increase in productivity. That the then ‘elites’ objected to the potential for the dilution of their power to control and fought tooth and nail to regain their premier position is a sad fact of history. There has never been, except for a brief period in Britian in the 19th century, a true ‘capitalist’ society, where money is lashed to the wheel of progress and its back whipped raw! And there has never been a true ‘communist’ society, although petty dictators and their sychophantic supporters have claimed such.

        In both cases, those systems have declined, from a promise of radical change, to the time-honoured control of a self-appointed elite, greedy for the ability to milk the system for every penny they can extract.

        Agents of change? You must be joking – these are merely the heirs and successors of those whose cities now lie under piles of mudbrick in Iraq and the Middle East!

  5. gezza1298 permalink
    February 29, 2024 5:23 pm

    The ECIU is surely an oxymoron as they show on intelligence whatsoever and shouldn’t the CBI concentrate of chasing women as they seemed to be good at that.

  6. Phoenix44 permalink
    February 29, 2024 5:42 pm

    765,000 jobs at £44,500/job is an annual cost to us of £34 billion, not a benefit. And their productivity is based on a wholly non-market value for the output and many of the salaries are dependent on subsidy, coercion and tax. It is very simple to make a worker more productive – force those who buy his output to pay more for the product. That is not actually higher productivity though.

  7. glenartney permalink
    February 29, 2024 8:23 pm

    Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit

    Richard Black’s (ex BBC) organisation. Wasn’t Mr Black the organiser of the secret meeting that banned any mention of Climate Change Scepticism on the BBC?

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      March 1, 2024 8:22 am

      I believe so, and having decided the science was settled, the BBC then also decided that meant what we should do was settled, a clear false assumption that allowed them to push the Green agenda without debate.

  8. February 29, 2024 8:49 pm

    Site logo imageNet-zero targets have hamstrung British prosperity

    THAT IS WHY THE MARXISTS ARE PUSHING THIS SCIENCE FREE RELIGIOUS BASED LUNACY!

  9. February 29, 2024 9:45 pm

    Um… Schadenfreude? Pity?

  10. mjr permalink
    March 1, 2024 6:19 am

    BBC’s Clive Myrie: I don’t like the term ‘impartial’ (telegraph.co.uk)

    in this interview he states “On other subjects, such as the causes of climate change, Myrie said there was no need to represent both sides of the argument equally because the vast majority of scientists agreed that it was man-made.”

    Myrie (who is the senior BBC news presenter) is also a lousy presenter of the dumbed down Mastermind

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      March 1, 2024 8:25 am

      I’m not so worried about the science. It’s that the BB agency use that as an excuse to claim we must fo whatever “scientists” say to prevent climate change. But this is wrong. We don’t have to do anything and what we do do can be done in lots of different ways. But the BBC says it doesn’t have to discuss that because the science is settled!

    • glenartney permalink
      March 1, 2024 9:46 am

      Re Mastermind on minor improvement on the Welsh windbag. Whose questions often reached 10 seconds in length during g which time you lost the will to live.

      it was one of my first complaints to the BBC that Mastermind was to display the contenders knowledge with short succinct questions not for the question master to show his by giving a synopsis of War and Peace. Naturally the BBC’s response was that there was no problem and everybody loved long questions.

  11. mjr permalink
    March 1, 2024 6:29 am

    Further, more inaccuracies from the Telegraph

    Climate change leaves 1.2 million more homes at risk of subsidence (telegraph.co.uk)

    Article opens with ”Over a million more homes face subsidence issues by 2050 thanks to climate change, making them harder to insure. Longer dry periods in the summer followed by sustained rainfall in the winter is causing the ground underneath homes to expand and contract, resulting in movement that damages properties.”

    That looks like “weather” to me rather than “climate change”. And the rest of the article quotes many insurers who do not make any reference to climate, but do refer to weather, and which alludes to large increase in building, new building on poor ground (“The extent of subsidence areas in the UK has meant that one in seven new build homes has faced issues, according to research from insurer Aviva.”)

    This article also links to similar article from last year where “climate change” is alleged to be pushing up premiums How climate change is pushing up the cost of your home insurance (telegraph.co.uk)

    Disappointing journalism

    • Nigel Sherratt permalink
      March 1, 2024 7:40 am

      Rules for foundation depths on shrinkable clays are straightforward. Building Control should enforce them. Either builders or BC at fault. Easy and free to look up ground conditions anywhere in UK on BGS site. No excuses really. Having said that much of London is on London Clay (the posh parts are largely on gravel) with 18″ deep Victorian foundations with no more than cosmetic (easily repaired, usually a bit of filler and possibly some repointing) damage in the occasional dry year. Major panic in late 70s and overreaction by insurers has mostly subsided(!).

      https://www.bgs.ac.uk/information-hub/bgs-maps-portal/

    • Nigel Sherratt permalink
      March 1, 2024 7:51 am

      Building on ‘brownfield’ sites is another issue of course not related to ‘climate’. Proper site investigation required in any case. If there hasn’t been one be very wary of buying a new house.

      • March 1, 2024 11:19 am

        There is the ultimate “Brownfield” site available in East Kent complete with its own mainline railway station. But who would want to build on the site of Snowdown Colliery!?

      • Nigel Sherratt permalink
        March 1, 2024 11:38 am

        Definitely a candidate for a thorough ground investigation!

  12. mjr permalink
    March 1, 2024 6:36 am

    and yet further… noticed news articles yesterday about stopping kids taking time out of school (and MSM mainly featured taking kids out for off peak holidays). telegraph article New guidance bans children from attending protests during school hours (telegraph.co.uk) which references Palestine protests but also refers to climate protests (as encouraged by the education “blob” 

    So thats one benefit … no more Greta fanclub parades although to be honest, Gaza now seems to be the “current thing” about which to warp kids’ minds

  13. mjr permalink
    March 1, 2024 6:40 am

    Europe’s consensus on climate is crumbling – New Statesman

    Interesting article especially as this is from a left leaning publication that one would expect be supportive of “green” initiatives. 

  14. mjr permalink
    March 1, 2024 6:44 am

    and another left wing publication admitting that politicians are acknowledging that the public no longer want COP related policies

    Right-Wing Politicians Are Riding the Backlash Against Climate Policies – Bloomberg

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      March 1, 2024 8:27 am

      Such a dumb headline. People are finally seeing it will cost them vast amounts and right-wing politicians are advocating right-wing policies.

  15. Nigel Sherratt permalink
    March 1, 2024 7:44 am

    Astonishing result at Swale Borough Council planning meeting on Wednesday night, BESS at Graveney (Cleve Hill/Project Fortress) not approved. Appeal incoming of course but possibly an indication of the end of the beginning.

    https://www.kentonline.co.uk/faversham/news/protest-planned-for-solar-farm-battery-safety-council-meetin-302555/

    • March 1, 2024 11:35 am

      Hopefully this will buy more time. The optimistic side of me sees signs that reality is kicking in and such ridiculous energy policies that currently prevail will be removed.

  16. March 1, 2024 8:59 am

    Net-zero obsessed governments unable to see that making energy super-expensive is a major problem aren’t fit to be in office.

  17. gfjuk permalink
    March 1, 2024 10:31 am

    Currently the Electricity price in the UK is the second highest in Europe (33 countries). Quite an achievement for a country with our natural resources.

    Price data — HEPI (energypriceindex.com)

    It must have taken quite an effort by the Government to drive us into this parlous situation. It also doesn’t say much for the UK public who’ve allowed this to happen.

    • March 1, 2024 5:25 pm

      Currently the Electricity price in the UK is the second highest in Europe

      It would be interesting to see comparison prices with an alternative UK grid with most baseload supplied by existing AGR nuclear, PWR (SXB) nuclear x 10 and coal-fired (several traditional, eg DRAX x 5, and several HELE).

      The above being a feasible mix that could have been installed over the last four decades by competent organisations.

  18. Kieran O'Driscoll permalink
    March 1, 2024 12:47 pm

    Lets not forget that the USA and the UK blew up the Nord-stream pipelines which has crushed the German economy and by extension the European economy as now they have to buy their Gas from the United states at a minimum of 5 times the price from the USA via cryogenic tankers shipping across the Atlantic … so much for the Bidens Green BS as the USA exports hit an all time high…. And we have no choice because the middle east gas exports from Qatar etc. are stifled by the escalation of war in the Middle East. Remember oil and gas prices are not set by oil companies but by governments, speculators/traders, finance houses and banks…

    • Nigel Sherratt permalink
      March 1, 2024 3:41 pm

      Russians blew it up with pigs to prevent any backsliding by oligarchs and to avoid liabilities for not supplying contracted gas after inventing issues with compressors etc. Hence surprising number of Gazprom executives falling out of windows and off balconies. NS2 was never operational, Germany denied certification just before Russia’s latest invasion.

  19. March 1, 2024 5:11 pm

    Should not the first para of the article start with a summary of net-zero costs?

    UK cost to date: perhaps now approaching one trillion £££ ?

    UK cost to achieve net-zero? I’ve recently seen an estimated cost of five trillion £££

    UK cost to maintain net-zero? I’ve recently seen an estimated ongoing cost of £8k per household per annum after net-zero has been achieved.

    All costs 2023

Comments are closed.