Net Zero budget ‘a hammer blow’ aimed at public
By Paul Homewood
By Andrew Montford
Jeremy Hunt’s budget was symptomatic of the problems with the Conservative Party, giving the impression of a government that is all but directionless because of the division in its parliamentary ranks between, on the one hand, the green blob and, on the other, a rump of old fashioned Conservatives, desperately trying to stop their colleagues from driving the party and the country into oblivion.
So on the one hand we had what was claimed to be a dramatic backtracking on the boiler tax and on the other hand a new ocean of subsidies for renewables.
On closer examination, there is rather less to the boiler tax retreat than meets the eye. The policy will remain in place, but the fines on boiler manufacturers, without which it is toothless, will not be introduced in next twelve months.
Insiders, we are told, are saying that the necessary secondary legislation will not even be brought before Parliament this year, and thus almost certainly not under the current administration. Whether this amounts to a hill of beans is hard to say. Is it all a ruse to kick the policy into the long grass, while allowing Green Blob ministers Graham Stuart and Lord Callanan to save face? Or is the Green Blob assuming that Labour’s Ed Miliband will simply do the dirty on the British public in 2025? We will have to wait and see.
The contrast with the new wave of subsidies is astonishing. With the government having awarded astonishing price increases to the sector last year, a total of £1.4 billion of new subsidies is expected, a total that amounts to around £50 per household. This is another hammer blow aimed at the hard-pressed public. 
It can’t go on of course, but it is surely beyond doubt that the damage being done to our way of life by such irrational policies will be catastrophic.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I doubt if even rolling blackouts will stop the onward march of unreliable and intermittent renewables. The greenblob will just demand more subsidies to build more unreliable renewables and both major parties are scared to face reality.
I’m not sure they are scared. I am reminded of the collapse of Communism. If you read Gorbachev’s biography, he was utterly shocked when he realised how the Politbuto had been lied to and even more shocked when he saw how much people hated their leaders. Ceascescu believed he was beloved right up to the moment he went on the balcony to “stop” the protests. Ministers live in a similar bubble these days.
All too true, no sign that they will realise any time soon
Phillip, I learned today of yet another huge solar (ex) farm of 196 acres being planned for my Warwickshire area! Apart from the length of time it takes to get these solar farms on grid it us surely a waste of time and, ironically, energy?
It is difficult to persuade a suicidal cult to change direction,
NET ZERO FOLLY As 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. In the Ordovician ice age atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were 4000 ppm and have been 15 times higher than now. There was no industrial revolution then to be the cause . The present 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.
It may be trite to say so but this is surely, NZC Lolly.
Tice was boasting on GB News that he will save £70 billion by dumping the net zero agenda. I doubt it but there is room to radically reduce subsidies to renewables operators but I expect they will just put prices up to recoup the profits. Jim Dale was also spouting lies and when challenged about the tiny percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere claimed that a few ppm of arsenic in water is fatal and CO2 will poison the atmosphere in the same way. This is outrageous lying because poisoning is a chemical reaction (just as CFCs are in the atmosphere) but CO2 only contributes microscopically to physical absorption. Claims like these must, somwehow, be punished.
Tice was boasting on GB News that he will save £70 billion by dumping the net zero agenda.
Is not the current estimate approx five TRILLION £££ to achieve net-zero, and then approx £8k per annum per household to maintain net-zero ? All £ at 2023 value
There is a mistaken idea amongst many, that just because CO2 is at very low concentration it can’t have a significant effect.
I assure you that is simply not the case. The average range of an infra red photon in the atmosphere is about 100 feet, due only to the CO2 and H2O absorption. If there were no CO2 or H2O, the atmosphere would be as transparent to IR as it is to visible light.
The claim that CO2 and H2O raises the average temp of the planet by 30K was produced by Arrhenius. He had no data, only theoretical calculations. Sadly for him the moon has a very similar surface temperature hike over against theoretical calculation. NASA released this data very quietly.
If there were no CO2 or H2O
We all know it’s mostly H2O with a dash of CO2 on top. ‘If there were no CO2’ photosynthesis wouldn’t happen — not recommended.
If there were no CO2 or H2O
We all know it’s mostly H2O with a dash of CO2 on top. ‘If there were no CO2’ photosynthesis wouldn’t happen — not recommended.
“I assure you that is simply not the case.”
And I assure you it most certainly is.
CAGW does not exist, as shown by Happer & Wijngaarden whose calculations on the real atmosphere, including water vapour, unlike the IPCC models, show a negligible increase in GHG when atmospheric CO2 is doubled as a result of IR saturation. Solving the equation of transfer, originally developed by astrophysicists to calculate the radiation loss from a star such as the sun, their results, the ultimate test of any scientific work or theory, match the observed data so impressively well they can even show, correctly, that atmospheric CO2 actually cools rather than warms above Antarctica. Go to the CO2 Coalition website or YouTube ‘CO2, The Gas of Life, William Happer’ for the details :
I’m aware of Happer et al’s work. I doubt hardly anyone in the world is capable of fully understanding it, however they admit there are still lots of approximations in their calculations.
It does not affect the point I was making, which is that many sceptics say that because CO2 is in trace concentration it can’t have much effect on anything. I am simply saying this does not do the cause any favours, because it is easily shown to be erroneous.
As should be obvious, Happer et al shows this belief to be erroneous. How can the CO2 bands be already saturated if CO2 does not absorb much IR?
If you want to be taken seriously, don’t say it.
Guys ***BOT ALERT***
“this does not do the cause any favours,” ”THE CAUSE”??????
Bots are getting way above themselves these days.
Water vapour does not significantly absorb long wave IR radiation, it scatters it! And the total spectral absorption due to CO2 over the Planck curve is too small to account for the predicted 3deg temperature change. On a clear night in the Sahara, it gets cold very quickly, as the CO2 atmospheric content is too small to make a significant difference to the rate of change of temperature and the water vapour content is low although not negligible..
You claim that few people in the world can understand what are standard equations whose limitations are well explained by Happer. The wavelength dependence of scattering in a diffuse pure dielectric, such as rain or fog is well understood. Scattered long wave IR radiation cannot escape into space, it raises the local temperature in the medium, as is easily observed on hot humid nights. Scattering and absorption are fundamentally different physical mechanisms.
I would rather accept the conclusions of a real physicist, backed up by physical data than the prognostications of a computer programmer who accepts algorithms he does not really understand and transforms them into code.
The discussion was about whether the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has a significant effect on infra red radiation escaping to space.
Some sceptics appear to think that because there is not much CO2 present, it can’t have much effect. This is the only thing I am addressing.
The Happer et al papers clearly show there is a massive effect on IR absorption in the atmosphere due to the (small) CO2 content.
You can’t believe BOTH Happer AND that CO2 has no effect. It’s mutually contradictory.
No one is claiming that CO2 has zero effect, only that its effect is very small compared with water vapour and other scattering media. The concentration of water vapour depends on temperature and the existance of concentration nuclei in the atmosphere. These have hugely increased due to the fact that the amount of particulate deposited in the atmosphere is due to the vastly increased burning of low grade coal in the Far East. As Happer points out, the major cities in China have a smog problem as bad as we had in the 50s.
Claiming that the sole cause of ‘climate change’ is due to the level of CO2, might seem an easy solution, but the problem is much more complex than can be accurately described by a simplistic, ‘steady state’ model based on linear algebra. To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail.
Climate change is a problem in dynamics – to attempt to model that using mathematics that deliberately avoided that challenge at the end of the 18th C, is unlikely to give the right answer. And predicting the future, based on an accepted ‘group-think’ model has a poor record in recorded history, both socially and in science.
In my lifetime, world population has increased from under 3 billion to over 8 billion. Largely due to the benefits science and the industrial revolution brought to the world. Yes, we need the means to keep that support in place. But that cannot be brought about by solar panels and windmills. The Romans had a better grasp of the limitations of windmills than we seem to have.
You can’t believe BOTH Happer AND that CO2 has no effect.
My view is that non-believers are not required to believe anything, which is a similar context to atheism.
Logically, believers should be required to support their belief (their “cause”) that humans are responsible for dangerous AGW by providing proof that humans are responsible for dangerous AGW.
Other posters might have differing views.
A bit late with my comment I know, but still want to ask the question. If you think that 3% of man made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can have an effect on the climate, do you think the 97% natural carbon dioxide has the same effect?
That wasn’t what I was discussing. I was making a very narrow point about the concentration of CO2 is sufficient to make a big difference to IR absorption. From that point of view it is irrelevant where the CO2 has come from.
That wasn’t what I was discussing.
Are you claiming that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change?
Scroll back to the Vernon E post to see what I was replying to.
The only point I was making is that the apparently small concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is enough to make a big difference to the absorption of infra red radiation.
That is all. I never said anything else. I am saying this because a certain fraction of people seem to disbelieve it.
I am saying this because a certain fraction of people seem to disbelieve it.
Perhaps people can disbelieve whatever they want to disbelieve? Or is belief mandatory?
You can believe there are fairies at the bottom of your garden if you want. You are completely free to believe that, but don’t expect anyone else to take you seriously, that is all.
You can believe …
You’re confusing “believe” with “disbelieve”, there is an important difference.
Ok let’s change it to, “you can disbelieve there are not fairies at the bottom of your garden. Just don’t expect to be taken seriously.” Happy now ?
Ok let’s change it to …
A logical approach that avoids the illogical nonsense of beliefs and causes is:
There is no proof that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, just as there is no proof that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change.
No that’s not what I said. I was discussing the atmospheric absorption of infra red radiation by CO2. That is all.
I don’t know why you all have to take the wrong side on this, even though many of you know full well I am correct.
Bots never give up do they?
even though many of you know full well I am correct.
You’ve resorted to the usual believers’ strategy of argument by assertion.
I don’t believe you.
After Capt. Kirk argued with the computer for a few minutes, it would burst into flames. I think our bot is getting close.
If subsidies are removed then the non-renewable generators must be allowed to generate as much as they can and undercut renewables. The worst that can happen is the owners then have to write off most of their investment and they can offer generation at prices to match gas.
A scam within a scam …changing the schedule isn’t the same as changing policy
“…£70 billion…five TRILLION £££…£8k per annum…”
“It’s accountancy Jim, but not as we know it…”
https://www.google.com/search?q=star+trekkin+by+the+firm&rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB1085GB1085&oq=star+trekkin+by+the+firm&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCggAEAAY4wIYgAQyCggAEAAY4wIYgAQyBwgBEC4YgAQyCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjIICAQQABgWGB4yDQgFEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyDQgGEAAYhgMYgAQYigXSAQg4NzgxajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:56db4673,vid:FCARADb9asE,st:0
O/T perhaps, but the Budget also introduced taxes on various aspects of vaping, a policy that will undoubtedly lead to fewer people quitting smoking and thus more people dying. This is justified as a “public health” policy but seems to be, like so much of government these days, nothing more than a dislike of vaping by various busybody activist groups. It’s really utterly pathetic.
We don’t actually know what the end result of 40 or 50 years of vaping is. It’ll be a couple of decades before early deaths due to vaping show themselves. They may well be more damaging to health than smoking.
Why would they be? Just a baseless assertion.
Why would inhaling a mix of chemicals and flavours of unknown origin everyday for forty years have no effect on lungs? Long term inhalation of most things causes some sort of lung impairment.
Although I have heard rumours it can prevent you becoming a grumpy old man
I stopped smoking tabs 40 years ago, but it still annoys me to see a smoker enjoying a fag.
If it moves, tax it!!
“We don’t actually know…may well be more damaging…”
This seems to be an instance of the formal logical fallacy of non sequitur, because, according to standard references:
“You use ‘actually’ to indicate that a situation exists or happened or to emphasize that it is true” (Collins Dictionary), and so the first part is saying how LITTLE we know about vaping, while:
“If you say that something may well happen, you mean that it is likely to happen.” (Cambridge Dictionary), and so the second part is saying or taking for granted that we know MUCH about vaping.
It is obvious that our present ruling caste, who adore the idea of socialised medicine, hate with a passion any example of ordinary individuals doing something to improve their health which is not the result of an instruction or official ‘nudge’ from the NHS.
“What is not compulsory is forbidden!”
“Animal studies have [shown]…e-cigarettes are much less hazardous than cigarettes.”
From:
https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1113/jp278366
I have no strong bias as I have never used either product. I did once take a huge puff of my father’s cigarette – when I was six – and this put me off for life. Perhaps there is an anti-addiction lesson in this.
beyond doubt that the damage being done to our way of life by such irrational policies will be catastrophic
Not a bug. The intent.
It’s so difficult to get across the simple facts; you cannot decarbonise electricity generation: nobody knows what Net Zero is: UK produces under one percent of global CO2: whether’natural’ or Asian coal fired power plants there is not the chance of a celluloid rat in hell that the Keeling Curve will be checked. So relax.
Once you accept that the country is going to be destroyed by Nut Zero … you’re expecting the worst … all the craziness gets quite funny … like watching a comedian banging their head against a brick wall trying to break it down.
Vote Reform, they’re scrapping net zero, or as they name it, net stupid
Easy to waste vast sums on so-called ‘carbon capture’ under the net zero banner…
Dutch CO2 storage project nearly three times over budget
The first large CO2 storage project under the North Sea is nearly three times over budget. The Porthos project launched in 2018 with a price estimate of 400 to 500 million euros. The costs have now risen to 1.3 billion euros, NRC reports after speaking to those involved. The project has also been delayed due to legal proceedings.
https://nltimes.nl/2024/03/08/dutch-co2-storage-project-nearly-three-times-budget
kzbkzb and Mickey R
There is no difference between believing there are fairies at the bottom of the garden and believing that the sum of a series of derivatives can exactly equate to zero. Both require a ‘closed’ view of the problem, which Happer rails against.
I suggest you open your copies of Isaac Newton’s ‘Principia Mathematica’ and search (in vain) for such a physically unrigorous idea.