Guest essay by Eric Worrall
You would think a country with rapidly worsening rates of child poverty would have other priorities than worrying about what the weather will be like in 50 years time.
Climate change: UK ‘can cut emissions to nearly zero’ by 2050
By Roger Harrabin BBC environment analystThe UK should lead the global fight against climate change by cutting greenhouse gases to nearly zero by 2050, a report says.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) maintains this can be done at no added cost from previous estimates.
Its report says that if other countries follow the UK, there’s a 50-50 chance of staying below the recommended 1.5C temperature rise by 2100.
A 1.5C rise is considered the threshold for dangerous climate change.
…
Here are some of the report’s recommendations for individuals.
Home heating
We need to insulate our homes much better, probably with help from the Treasury. Some of us will use heat pumps, which are a sort of reverse refrigeration technology that sucks warmth from the ground.
…
The committee expects consumer bills to rise at first, then fall as a newer, cheaper electricity generators are introduced.
The report also has one controversial recommendation: to turn down the home thermostat to 19C [66F] in winter.
Flying
The aviation industry is trying to bring down the cost of making jet fuels from a variety of waste materials.
The CCC says this won’t be enough. It warns that the number of flights we take is increasing, and predicts that the government will have to find ways to constrain this.
…
Meat
The committee notes many people are already eating less red meat for the health of the planet and themselves.
It says that people can reduce their dietary emissions by 35% if they transition from a high-meat diet to a low-meat diet.
But it only predicts a 20% drop in meat consumption by 2050 – which it admits is a conservative assumption.
…
The report also says people can take the following steps to reduce their emissions:
- Choosing to walk, cycle or take public transport instead of a car
- Choosing LED light-bulbs and electric appliances with high energy efficiency ratings
- Setting the water temperature in their heating systems to no higher than 55C [131F]
- Eating a healthy diet, with less beef, lamb and dairy
- Eliminating food waste as far as possible
- Using only peat-free compost
- Choosing good quality products that last longer – and sharing rather than buying items, like power tools, that you use infrequently
- Checking your pension funds and ISAs to see if your investments support low-carbon industries
…
Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48122911
The UK Government Backed Committee on Climate Change Report is available here.
When I lived in the UK, well outside the London bubble, I personally witnessed shocking levels of poverty.
The people who produced this report have absolutely no idea how ordinary people live. The 37% of families with children who are living in poverty don’t have any spare cash to pay higher consumer bills. Sharing power tools is an easy way to lose them. The last thing poor people need is even less access to meat, less access to high calorie high protein food; thanks to soaring fuel poverty caused by those climate action inflated consumer bills, meat is already a luxury for some families in Britain.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Phoenix44 – you have preempted my comments. Well done – we agree again!
Relative poverty means earning less than 60% of median earnings, about £16,000 pa in UK at present. It is not exactly “Dickensian” as dear old Dame Emma Thompson said on the BBC Today programme last week.
What chance of getting our environmentalist friends to do some sums on their proposals? Just read the executive summary of the CCC report – we are all going to use hydrogen, it seems, instead of fossil fuels, but in the summary they forget to say where the hydrogen comes from, and what energy is used to liberate it from water. Much too difficult…
Every time somebody starts talking about hydrogen as an “energy source” I (after I stop laughing) explain to them that hydrogen will never be an energy source here on Earth since it is the “Elizabeth Taylor” of elements – always married to something else.
And the process of “divorcing” it to what it is “married” to, along with the cost of compressing it and attempting to store it without leakage (damn near impossible) will consume more energy then will ever be gotten from burning the hydrogen.
Ah, at last someone else who understands the second law of thermodynamics! Well done! I have been banging on about batteries and hydrogen not being a SOURCE of energy, but just a means of moving it around, for years. No-one in politics or the environmental movement seems to grasp it – certainly not the learned professors and others on the CCC!
UK can cash in on revolution for heating and cars to halt greenhouse gas emissions, say climate advisers
Landmark experts’ report calls for ban on petrol and diesel cars to be brought forward and for large-scale hydrogen production
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-report-greenhouse-gas-carbon-emissions-technology-electric-cars-a8893666.html
This report will change your life’: what zero emissions means for UK
“Make no mistake, this report will change your life,” says Prof David Reay at the University of Edinburgh. “If the meticulous and robust expert advice here is heeded it will deliver a revolution in every facet of our lives, from how we power our homes and travel to work to the food we buy.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/02/this-report-will-change-your-life-what-zero-emissions-means-for-uk
That’s the same Edinburgh University that published a report last year claiming that Shags in Scotland had changed their diet because ‘climate change’ had (likely) reduced the sand eel population which was previously their primary diet.
To make this headline claim (more climate change research grants please ??) they had to ignore published studies by both the Scottish Parliament and UK Government that had identified the sand eel population reduction was caused directly through over-fishing by Scandinavian vessels off the Scottish coast. They also had to ignore the rather inconvenient fact that there had been no change in sea surface temperatures and so no linkage to ‘climate change’ could be made.
When I contacted them and asked them to explain and retract their flawed conclusions they refused to have any further dialogue or correspondence with me on the subject.
“Make no mistake, this report will change your life”
Yes, it will ruin it…
There are a lot of references to Shell’s Sky Scenario
https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/scenarios/shell-scenario-sky.html
If this nonsense of zero carbon is achieved by the UK in 2050, what will be the point as we have all been told by the Swedish ‘Joan of Arc’ recently, that we are all going to be wiped out in 10 years anyway!
No doubt ‘Joan’ and her mates will have to get back the their computer models, to create another alternative plan if they are made to look the hysterical idiots that they are when nothing happens to us all in 2030!
I did wonder seeing little Greta, if the Maid of Orleans had pushy parents also 🙂
“The committee expects consumer bills to rise at first, then fall as a newer, cheaper electricity generators are introduced.”
And I expect the “committee” has the intelligence of an amoeba. Oops, I just insulted amoebas everywhere. Sorry.
James Lovelock has nailed it. I’m amazed, however, that the following got past the Guardian Gatekeepers!
What has changed dramatically, however, is his position on climate change. He now says: “Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” But isn’t that exactly what he did last time we met? “I know,” he grins teasingly. “But I’ve grown up a bit since then.”
Lovelock now believes that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact,” he goes on breezily, “I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”
…
Lovelock maintains that, unlike most environmentalists, he is a rigorous empiricist, but it is manifestly clear that he enjoys maddening the green movement. “Well, it’s a religion, really, you see. It’s totally unscientific.”
…
Lovelock had been trying to heat his old mill in Devon, where he lived for more than 35 years, inventing contraptions in a workshop that resembled a Doctor Who set. He and his wife recently packed up his life’s work and downsized to a remote cottage on Chesil Beach in Dorset, after the bill to heat the mill for just six months hit £6,000. “I remember George Monbiot took me up on it and wrote that it was impossible, that I had to be lying. But I wasn’t lying, I’ve got the figures.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/30/james-lovelock-interview-by-end-of-century-robots-will-have-taken-over
Lovelock offered to use nuclear waste as home heating fuel.
Greens guru offers to bury nuclear waste in his garden
“I have offered to take the full output of a nuclear power station in my back yard,” said Prof Lovelock, who lives on the border between Devon and Cornwall.
“I would be glad to have it. I would use it for home heating. It would be a waste not to use it.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1520658/Greens-guru-offers-to-bury-nuclear-waste-in-his-garden.html
“…remote cottage on Chesil Beach in Dorset…”
Nice place, if you can afford it.
You can get a place like that for between 200k and 400k pounds…. not extortionate by suburban or london standards…..
Carbon pricing policies: Driving economy-wide change to net-zero will require a robust,
predictable, and rising carbon price in the UK, to bolster market confidence, investment, skills
that industry and society need to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Advisory-Group-on-Costs-and-Benefits-of-Net-Zero.pdf
I bet these people have never sat in a living room on a winter’s evening with the temperature set to 19C.. it is B***dy COLD
They’ll all be at a conference in Bali.
This year is the 15th anniversary of the 2002 Bali bombings which many of my workmates were there at the time. The experience changed all their lives. One guy always wanted to be in TV/Radio/Media and was “stuck” in IT. As soon as he returned he did want he wanted to do. Another guy had someone die in his lap. This is an excerpt of the “other” side of Bali.
From the article: “The UK should lead the global fight against climate change by cutting greenhouse gases to nearly zero by 2050, a report says.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) maintains this can be done at no added cost from previous estimates.
Its report says that if other countries follow the UK, there’s a 50-50 chance of staying below the recommended 1.5C temperature rise by 2100.”
I would say those are not very good odds. Most other countries are not going to reduce their CO2 output to zero. The belief that the UK can save the world by their example is delusional.
While the citizens of the UK will be suffering under this onerous delusion, China and India will be building coal-fired powerplants as fast as they can and will quickly negate any UK reductions in CO2 output.
At some point the delusional politicians in the Western Democracies will figure out that their ambitions are impossible. They won’t get the cooperation of the rest of the world, and taking the actions they propose for the UK will have dire consequences for the people of the UK.
The UK politicians are so delusional they actually think they have done a good thing by declaring a climate change emergency. Tilting at windmills!
History is not going to treat these people kindly, even if it is written by the Chinese.
I thought they were expanding Heathrow?
And don’t fall for the heat pump con. It sucks money out of your savings account and pumps it to others.
GWPF Statement On The Proposed Net Zero 2050 Emissions Target
http://www.thegwpf.com/gwpf-statement-on-the-proposed-net-zero-2050-emissions-target/
“The committee expects consumer bills to rise at first, then fall as a newer, cheaper electricity generators are introduced. ” like build new gas and coal power stations.
Some are left too poor to buy food because of the zero-emissions mandates and food taxes? Let them eat insulation.
This is not going to end well if they attempt to implement it.
How about less government?
It seems we are in a race to see which bunch of idiot greens reduce the country they are living in to a state of mass poverty and economic catastrophe first. The U.K.’s green medievalists have taken a big step into the past with policies that may well destroy civilised life in Britain just ahead of Germany and Australia, but it could be close. Greedpeace UK also say that they want to stop emissions from the iron and steel industry, presumably they missed out cement production through ignorance rather than not wanting to stop all industry and house building.
If you want to know how seriously deranged these people are you only have to listen to all the vegan and veggie delusions that their faddy self-righteous diets are sufficient to maintain a healthy life or feed a modern nation’s large population. If they want to damage their own health fine, but please don’t inflict this abuse on children and other people. Back to the Middle Ages when only the wealthy ate decently is not progress, it is rank stupidity. I’m only surprised they haven’t advocated doing away with modern medicine yet, although that will follow as an inevitable consequence of their wish list.
Solely concerning the conundrum of “… diets … to … feed a … large population ….” A (2015) study of a European country “… assuming no import and export of feed & food …” resolves the issue.
Quote: “Land … used …. efficiently … derive 12% … protein from animals, especially milk …. Below 12 % … human-inedible products … wasted … above 12% … additional crops had to be cultivated to feed livestock … high population … land unsuitable for crop … necessary to meet dietary requirements ….” As per VanKernebeek’s team in Intntl. Journal Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 21:5 titled: “Saving land to feed a growing population: consequences for consumption of crop and livestock products”; free full text available on-line.
As a 50 year vegetarian who consumes dairy products I guess in theory my “non-meat” diet is in synchronization with the above findings for populations of “… 40 million or more.” Which is to say that “lacto-vegetarians”, like myself, apparently do not have so-called “… veggie delusions …” if we consider the cited above evidence that a productive country can “… maintain a healthy … large population…” sustainably (note: when sustainably refers to “… no import and export of feed and food”). Obviously I am not speaking for, or about, vegans (as I understand the term) here in any way.
Now, whether the cited example from the Netherlands can be extrapolated to every country with a large population I am tempted to say no, not directly. Probably the balance point regarding % of dietary protein from animals in some eco-systems will be higher & in other eco-systems might be lower – if one of the criteria is “… no import and export of feed and food.”
There is no discussion of climate change on British TV, because the BBC, Channel 4 and other TV stations will not allow it. They say “the science is settled”. So we have to put up with this global warming tripe, and nobody is allowed to put an opposing view.
Is it like that in other countries?
Anything that challenges the “consensus” on climate change is frowned upon in Australia.
“The majority of Britons are unwilling to significantly reduce the amount they drive, fly and eat meat in order to combat climate change, a Sky Data poll reveals.”
https://news.sky.com/story/majority-of-brits-unwilling-to-cut-back-to-fight-climate-change-poll-finds-11709486
They also d that everyone wore hair-shirts, and lashed themselves 50 times daily…….
RE
The UK govt has banned all sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2040, banned new houses from having gas central heating, and now this hysterical reaction tops it all. Oh – and no new power stations to generate all the extra electricity requirements
When will this madness stop? We keep getting told that 1.5 C warming (since (pre-industrial times) will be catastrophic. Yet the earth has already warmed by about 1 degree, and we have more food, better health, so what dangers can a further 0.5 C increase bring? Anyone?
Socialism at work… Good luck UK you are certainly going to need some.
“Eliminating food waste as far as possible.”
_________________________________________________
nature can be wasteful giving, nature can be a harsh mistress.
No way to command nature, just an advice :
“Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”
“It’s 31 years since I left the Dark Satanic Mills etc.” –
Still Very British.
https://youtu.be/x34NXudE5Lk
Eating less beef, lamb, and poultry is *not* “more healthy”. There are kids dying out there because they are getting too little – or no – animal protein.
They are killing people when they tell them to stop eating meat. Watch this video – pay attention to what he says about cholesterol, which is essential. There is an epidemic of Alzheimer’s disease. You have to wonder why. I’d bet that it’s because they’re not getting enough animal protein.
Cholesterol levels predicted mortality, cancer death, and infection. The people with the highest cholesterol had the lowest mortality, cancer mortality, and the least risk of infection were with the high cholesterol group. The lowest risk of stroke, hypertension, and heart disease were in those with high levels of cholesterol. The higher the cholesterol, the better your cognitive function.
“Medical knowledge is no longer the monopoly of physicians”
“Citizen scientists have more insight into issues since they can think outside the box”
Dr. Nadir Ali https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXtdp4BNyOg