Cost Of ‘Net Zero’ Will Be Astronomical, New Reports Warn

From The Global Warming Policy Foundation

  • Date: 24/02/20
  • Press Release, Global Warming Policy Foundation

Price will top £100,000 per household

The cost of reaching the government’s “Net Zero” target will be astronomical for the UK economy. That’s according to analysis by two new reports published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The reports find that decarbonising the electricity system and domestic housing in the next three decades will cost over £2.3 trillion pounds. The final bill will surpass £3 trillion, or £100,000 per household, once the cost of decarbonising major emitting sectors like manufacturing, transport and agriculture are included.

This is the equivalent of a £100 billion HS2 project every single year.

According to the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) the costs for Net Zero in 2050 are ‘manageable’: “…we estimate an increased annual resource cost to the UK economy from reaching a net-zero [greenhouse gas] target that will rise to around 1–2% of GDP by 2050.”

Yet, the CCC has resisted attempts to have its calculations disclosed under FOI legislation. Even more remarkably, it has admitted that it has not actually calculated a cost for the period 2020–2049. The decision by Parliament to undertake the complete decarbonisation of the UK economy is thus uncosted.

According to GWPF director Benny Peiser, the two new studies represent the first meaningful attempts to pin down the cost of net zero:

“Although the Committee on Climate Change claims that net zero can be achieved at modest cost, they have now quietly admitted that they have not actually prepared any detailed costing. Unfortunately, Parliament seems to have taken them at their word, and we are now embarked on a project that risks to bankrupt the country.”

Note for editors:

GWPF has today released a series of papers on the cost of Net Zero.

The Future of GB Electricity Supply: Security, Cost and Emissions in a Net-zero System, by former grid engineers Colin Gibson and Capell Aris, reports on a detailed costing exercise based around National Grid’s low-carbon scenarios, which deliver emissions close to net zero by 2050. The estimated cost of this project alone will be over £2 trillion.

Full article here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 25, 2020 6:14 am

What about the fact that it’s impossible to achieve?

Andy Espersen
Reply to  Scissor
February 25, 2020 6:52 am

Exactly, Scissor. That is the crucial fact. That simply means that net-zero will not happen – period. So we can all relax. And laugh. And forget about it all.

Reply to  Andy Espersen
February 26, 2020 6:06 am

I wouldn’t laugh, the enviros are serious. It will be achieved by you suffering, you will have to give up:
1) Your car, electric or not
2) Your clothing, you have too much
3) Your household appliances, they take to much energy
4) Your household heating, wear one of your 2 sweaters
5) Your job, you will have to live withing walking distance to work (public transport, yeah right, it is already broken in the UK and maxed out)
6) Your diet, the catch phrase is already there “Red meat is a treat once a week”
7) Your pain free butt, toilet paper will be limited/gone
8) Your house, it’s too big, move to a small apartment, which you will need to do anything in order to get a job close enough to walk to.
9) Your vacation, air travel is just verboten
10) on demand electricity, your smart meter will ensure you follow the ration rules

and the list goes on. It is not my list, the enviros openly publish all this and they are the ones in power or with close access to power.

2020 is the year of action, I’d stop laughing, they are deadly serious.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Scissor
February 25, 2020 7:02 am

Unfortunately, it will take something over 10 years and cost over £1 trillion for the ruling elite to come to that conclusion.

Andy Espersen
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
February 25, 2020 7:17 am

Gordon Dressler – Boris and his new parliament will not take 10 years to figure that out.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Andy Espersen
February 25, 2020 10:56 am

It will unless Boris gets rid of the traitor in his camp – his Greenie girlfriend. Amazing what love or lust can achieve!

Andy Espersen
Reply to  Mike Lowe
February 25, 2020 3:25 pm

Naive, unscientific, sincere Greenies are so sweet and cute.

Reply to  Mike Lowe
February 25, 2020 4:55 pm

So are polar bear cubs. However I would not recommend trying to sleep with them.

R Taylor
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
February 25, 2020 9:47 am

The ruling elite will never come to that conclusion because it is not in their interest to have a market-driven economy.

Old England
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
February 25, 2020 1:26 pm

And when the effects of a rapidly cooling Atlantic Ocean are felt in land temperatures – as they inevitably will be in the UK – the realisation that global warming is a scam may come sooner rather than later.

Atlantic cooled by around -2C between 2008 and 2016:

Reply to  Old England
February 25, 2020 4:38 pm

If cooling occurs yosu have to know that the heavily publicized response will be
“See, it is already working, Forward march!”

Reply to  AndyHce
February 25, 2020 4:57 pm

Sort of like banning CFC’s has had no impact on ozone levels.

Reply to  AndyHce
February 26, 2020 3:17 am

MarkW – TBF, a ban only works if everyone cooperates. Commu-Fascist China is, as always, an ass.

Mike Jonas(@egrey1)
Reply to  Old England
February 25, 2020 7:42 pm

There is one possibility that no-one seems to have considered:-
Maybe Boris and the UK Government have absolutely no intention of ever doing anything towards their stated net zero “carbon” target. They state it because their perception is that they have to, but instead they intend to quietly look after the UK’s best interests.

I’m not stating that as fact, just raising it as a possibility.

Now I don’t think that is a particularly good strategy anyway, but given that “politics is the art of the possible” it is at least understandable. The rationale would be (well, could be) that until the “scientists” change their tune, the government is trapped. If they go against the stated “science” they can be called everything under the sun from arrogant to stupid and beyond. If they quietly look after the UK’s interests, letting the other side make wildly expensive statements, then they win the next election – and the nation wins too of course.

I don’t claim that the game is being played as suggested, but it is surely possible, and in light of political realities, maybe it’s even commendable. I really don’t like it, but I totally prefer it to what the other side would do.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 26, 2020 1:59 am

Mike Jonas, I too have considered that possibility. It might conceivably be that they are feeding zealots (like UK FIRES) with money to produce proposals that are obviously unworkable, and will get a backlash from the general public. That might also tally with the hands-off policy towards Extinction Rebellion, which seems to be coming down from the top. Give them enough rope, and…

…But I’m not convinced. The arrogance, selfishness, callousness and recklessness of politicians is so great, that in all probability Boris and co are serious about trying to do this, regardless of consequences. Just as their predecessors have been ever since the time of Thatcher.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
February 25, 2020 11:28 pm

Too true! That £1,000,000,000.00 (modern trillion) will come from guess who? Yes that’s it, the Guvment!!! Yipee, halleluja, praise the Gorecal, he will lead us all to his ricehness, errr, very sorry, our salvation from original Carbon sin!!!! The only issue I can take with this argumentis that………………Guvments don’t have any money, it’s ALL taxpayers money (NOT the ruling elite’s)!!!!The truth is, the Ruling Elite, are sick & tired of being rich to little avail, when every Tom, Dick, & Harriet, can afford to fly to exotic holiday locations that used to be their preserve!!!! It’s simples, they just don’t like mixing withthe hoi poloi, the Plebs, the ordinary working people!!!

Reply to  Scissor
February 25, 2020 7:49 am

. . . and have no effect on the global temperature whatsoever.

Reply to  Goldrider
February 25, 2020 9:08 am

Net zero carbon = net zero effect.

I’m sure we could make a decent slogan out of that!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
February 25, 2020 9:47 am

It’s not only impossible, it’s unnecessary.

Old England
Reply to  Scissor
February 25, 2020 1:21 pm

This article below shows how and when UK airports will have to close as air travel has to be abandoned, shipping and imports reduced etc etc as we move backwards in time ….. the graphic shows it all

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Scissor
February 25, 2020 4:34 pm

“Impossible to achieve”

And whats more, with 70% of world population to rely on coal, to bring themselves out of poverty and into prosperity, we will still eventually have ~600ppm in the atmosphere, although the rate of planetary greening may level this off to a plateau of~500ppm, whether EU/ UK do anything or not.

Having been working on feasibility and mine development as a consultant for many years, a lithium mine (hardrock) capital costs with battery chemical plant comes in at $1 -1.3 billion for 30,000Mt/y battery chemical production. Your grid is going to need battery storage and replacing ICE cars and trucks (globally, 96 million units in 2018).

Andre Lewis
Reply to  Scissor
February 25, 2020 5:03 pm

What about the fact its completely pointless in terms of affecting the climate in any meaningful way?

February 25, 2020 6:18 am

“The decision by Parliament to undertake the complete decarbonisation of the UK economy”

That sounds like absolute zero. Why do they call it net zero? Net of what?

Reply to  chaamjamal
February 25, 2020 6:45 am

Chaam: re:
“The decision by Parliament to undertake the complete decarbonisation of the UK economy”

To quote from the introduction to the GWPF report by Prof Kelly:
-“In May 2019, the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) presented a report:Net Zero – TheUK’s contribution to stopping global warming.It was taken up within the month by the thenPrime Minister, Theresa May, who rushed an amendment to the 2008 Climate Change Actthrough Parliament adopting its main recommendation, namely to target a net-zero-carboneconomy for the UK by 2050. No cost-benefit analysis has been published, either by the CCCor by the Government, and indeed the costs involved remain a secret. Nor has there been any indication of the amount by which global temperatures will be reduced as a result of achieving the target. “-
It was a decision of the previous parliament.
I think that I am right in saying that no parliament is necessarily bound by the decisions of its predecessor. So the current parliament could remove the amendmant to the CCA , remove the CCA itself or amend the amendment to something more realistic.
Whether the PM’s live-in girl friend would permit this is of course another matter.

Old England
Reply to  mikewaite
February 25, 2020 1:32 pm

What the CCC, under its very controversial and arguably highly conflicted Chairman. did not point out was that if the UK went ‘Carbon Neutral’ tomorrow it would be replaced by the ongoing Increase in China’s emissions in less than 6 months.

All the Pain for the UK and No Gain for the World….. although it would benefit China greatly.

China plans 300 new domestic coal-fired power stations between 2020 and 2025 and a further 300 in the developing world through its Belts and Roads program in the same period.

Reply to  chaamjamal
February 25, 2020 7:47 am

PC (Planned Carbon) after PP (Planned Parenthood/Child, Planned Parent etc.) and other voluntary PC (Population Control) schemes.

Mike Jonas(@egrey1)
Reply to  chaamjamal
February 25, 2020 7:53 pm

Under “net zero”, you can use one LED light for an hour per week if you plant a tree, fill in the forms, and wait a year or two for bureaucratic approval. Under “absolute zero” you can’t.

Did I mention that certain others – but not you or me – under “net zero” conditions can pay someone to say they will plant a tree (known as “carbon credits”).

Reply to  chaamjamal
February 26, 2020 9:29 am

What is the UK going to use for fuel to operate their vast military?
Should be interesting to see.

February 25, 2020 6:33 am

It’s time to emphasize this means no cars, refrigeration, plumbing, medicine, sufficient food and all the other aspects of life dependent on fossil fuels and the affordable energy they provide.

Carl Friis-Hansen
February 25, 2020 6:43 am

Nice graphics in the article. We need a high resolution to make posters from. Then hang them in every super marked.

Why don’t the government demand that we use free energy by 2050. There are loads of Youtube videos showing how we can get free energy👍

I still do not understand the motivation for destruction of the British landscape and bankrupting investments, when it does not change the temperature in any measurable way❓

February 25, 2020 6:49 am

But hey at least you’ll have a nice shiny Greta Award to show for it.

February 25, 2020 6:55 am
shortus cynicus
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 25, 2020 7:24 am

Radke became some sort of star after accusing FfF for covering pedophiles preying on children involved in.

Now he left the sect and is being attacked by state sponsored terror organization Antifa.

He is young and apparently intellectually not mature yet. We will see how he develops in the future.

February 25, 2020 6:59 am

Politicians are utterly clueless, maybe time for a complete rethink, Are they still importing wood to burn at Drax, another idiot idea, does nobody take these people to task.

Reply to  fatherup
February 25, 2020 7:22 am

There are two parties that can get elected, and they both support the ‘Green’ nonsense. So, no, nobody can take them to task.

IMHO, it will take something truly catastrophic before they drop this garbage. And, by then, it may be too late to turn around without some serious pain; you can’t just turn power stations back on after you demolished them.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  MarkG
February 25, 2020 8:12 pm

MarkG: Oh, Trump proved that there are alternatives to the eatablishment. Enough desperation and other parties will be handy to be elected. Recall Republicans were anti Trump. Even now Kasich’s campaign team is assisting Biden! (That ought to finish Biden off, although he seems to have is own ways to fail, thank you very much).

Trump was chosen by desperate people, not by establishment party (The swamp has pretty much as many Repubs as it has Dems.) . If Republicans can take their lead from Trump and remake themselves, they will be running the country for a generation or more intil Dems remake themselves (new blood, essentially).

Reply to  fatherup
February 25, 2020 7:29 am

British politicians are, almost without exception, innumerate and utterly devoid of any understanding of Physics, Chemistry, or Engineering. The more educated among them only have Law or PPE degrees.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  fatherup
February 25, 2020 10:03 am

You may be surprised to learn that the greens don’t like burning wood at Drax. But, as a forester, I think it’s a great idea. Wood is a renewable resource. The reason I like it has nothing to do with climate change- because I’m a climate skeptic, but I like markets for American wood products, including wood pellets.

Jonathan Ranes
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 25, 2020 8:37 pm

If you don’t take the money a true believer might get it. Carry on until you receive further instructions

David Wells
February 25, 2020 7:24 am

I submitted an FOI request to Lord Deben estimating the full cost of Net Zero in excess of £4.3 trillion. It was rejected as vexatious. The BBC Panorama identified a 3 bed semi fitted out with a full ground source heat pump system at a cost of £30,000/house. This price – apparently – includes full under floor heating because ground source heat pump systems are inadequate for radiators and drilling a 90 metre hole in the garden for all of the fossil fuelled piping needed for the system to work. I have asked CCC how we can fit a ground source heat pump system in a 2 bed terrace in Huddersfield and a 25 story concrete tenement in Beijing I have not received a reply.

The killer is multi fold. To make a ground source heat pump system viable BBC Panorama made clear you need complete insulation which for an existing house demands the outside is completely cloaked in insulation which they said would cost £85,000/house. Most houses in the UK have a ceiling height of 7’6″ but installing underfloor heating would reduce that to 7′ and you would need to rip out the complete ground floor
and what happens to the 1st floor I don’t know because there is no room whatsoever to install underfloor heating for the first floor even if that is viable.

Then what happens when we get flooding which would ingress the underfloor heating and most likely damage it or render it useless. Because ground source heat pumps can only raise water temperature to 50C which is inadequate for central heating you would need to install two inefficient electric boilers at £2k each to replace one gas boiler at £900-00. Then you need to pay the cost of electricity to run the system and all of the cables from the grid to your house would need to be upgraded to cope with the load. Then if you need to charge an EV the burden on the grid would dramatically increase.

Lord Deben has already intimated that an all electric UK could boost the maximum demand beyond 150GW’s whereas now its about 45GW’s. We cannot do this with wind because there is insufficient land mass to cope and as they only last maybe 20 years and go into epic decline at 15 years I doubt the greenness of this exercise because by 2050 or 2100 the task is impossible. We don’t have the infrastructure, we don’t the engineers and labour to start. If nuclear impossible and you cannot ramp nuclear or wind or solar so you would always need coal and gas. The question Deben refuses to answer is the how much Co2 would be emitted in the process of transition and how much would the climate be influenced if indeed the process was completed.

The reason why Deben refuses to release costs is because he doesn’t know what the costs are. This mishmash of ideology was dreamed up by an economist basically they threw darts at a wall to identify ways in which superficially it was possible to be net zero Deben never has and never will get in to the detail because CCC’s function is to throw darts at a board predicated upon belief CCC does not do detail.

The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.

To replace 1.3 billion petrol and diesel cars on the planet with lithium ion batteries for EV’s you would need to dig a minimum of 97.5 billion tons of stuff out of the ground and ship it across the planet consuming copious volumes of fossil fuels. Then every 8 years you would need to incinerate 13 trillion toxic lithium ion cells – because they are not recyclable and land fill is not an option – and dig another 97.6 billion tons of stuff out of the planet to repeat the cycle.
Lord Deben of CCC has already admitted that for the UK to be all electric peak winter load could be as high as 150GW’s four times current peak winter load. Panorama, one ground source heat pump system for a normal 3 bed semi £30,000, insulation to make that ground source heat pump viable £80,000. There are about 29 million homes so the cost to the UK is about £3.3 trillion. The Green Party say £100 billion a year and make all fossil fuels unviable in ten years. That means most of the UK would die in the first winter. And this is a party which says it cares about people, what absolute bollocks. Normal cold kills 17 times more people than occasional warm. But the Green party like Attenborough believes that humans are a plague for the planet but never appear to understand that being human they are including themselves but addle brained hypocrisy is typical of the green ideology.
• Hinkley 2 x 1.6GW’s, 100GW’s at £11.25 billion /1.6GW’s is £703 billion, that is 62.5 new nuclear generators by 2050
• 50GW’s of wind at 2.5MW X’s 20,000 at £3,000,000 is £60,000,000,000 plus x 4 because turbines at best are 24% efficient. Therefore £240 billion.
• An army of peaker plants coal or gas to provide hot spinning backup to keep the lights on at £1 billion/GW X’s 90% of non dispatchable supply
• £18 billion.
The cost of just the UK being Net Zero by 2050 tops £6 trillion and could be more for the planet maybe £700 trillion. But Greens never care to account for all of the Co2 emitted in process of transition for obvious reasons because it would be more than we are already emitting therefore the argument is vacuous infantilism.
For the planet to be Net Zero Co2 by 2050 we would need to build 16,972 1.4GW nuclear plants at a cost of £190 trillion or 34 million 2.5MW wind turbines which at 1mw/50 acres would consume 4.25 trillion acres of land and cost £102 trillion, but because wind and solar are weather dependent and therefore not dispatchable you would need to build an army of peaker plants running on fossil fuels to keep the lights when the wind didn’t blow. That means 3 Nukes every 2 days and 1500 wind turbines every day. One wind turbine demands for the following raw finite materials to be imported from across the planet. iron ore, metallurgical coal, neodymium, petrochemicals and petrochemical products, complex carbon fibre composites, chromium, brass, aluminium, beryllium, copper, vanadium, nickel, gold and without what you consider to be dirty oil you cannot do any of this because without oil you cannot prospect, mine, refine, ship, manufacture, assemble, transport, construct maintain and service any mechanical product. And then there is concrete, and you cannot produce cement for concrete without emitting huge volumes of Co2.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  David Wells
February 25, 2020 12:16 pm

The longer Deben can stall, the longer time he has to make money from the scam. He doesn’t care for the environment or people, he merely wants to make money – the thought of which, my teachers instilled in me – is the root of all evil.
I rejoice in the thought that he has no control over his longevity, which will, I think, coincide with mine. Notwithstanding my loved ones, I care not my loss to history; far less for his.

Reply to  David Wells
February 26, 2020 2:12 am

Thank you for attempting to hold Lord Deben and the CCC to account. I hope you will continue to do so. I intend to provide my Conservative MP with a copy of your post above and ask why we cannot be provided with a proper costing for Net Zero.

Michael in Dublin
February 25, 2020 7:25 am

What is the difference between the UK PM, Boris Johnson, and the failed Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, on climate policy? I think Corbyn would not have wasted as much time destroying the UK economy but that both, if they get their way, will cause enormous harm. I hope that the voices of engineers, who are practical people who get things done and who recognize what is affordable, will drown out the voices of politicians and activists. GWPF are to be commended for their publications and attempts to bring common sense into the climate debate.

David Wells
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
February 25, 2020 8:11 am

Boris’s partner works for Bloomberg but in respect of belief neither Boris or Corbyn have any recognition of data facts science reality they are both politicians and liable to believe anything that might win votes across the board to give the impression that they are making our lives better.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, (UN, UNFCC, UNEP, IPCC, WHO, World Bank, Greenpeace, WWF & FOE). The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals – C.S.Lewis”

The number of times I have heard politicians say that they reason they entered politics was to make my life better. C.S Lewis was ahead of his time like George Orwell but this takes the biscuit:

Quoting from Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic, and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state.”

“Let me control the media and I will turn any nation into a herd of pigs.” BBC? The BBC was created by government because it was afraid that allowing the media freedom to raise issues without any challenge from government might allow the media to interfere with and undermine government by revealing what they wanted to keep secret.

I must have echoed these sentiments a thousand or more times to the media politicians and practitioners like Prof Myles Allen who now says it isn’t emissions per se its the total of emissions emitted that changes the climate. I must assume that he has changed tack yet again because he has noticed that in reality it isn’t hardly warming. Therefore climate change now has little if anything to do with Co2 influencing temperature but everything to do with how much Co2 has already been emitted.

Jim Al Khalili Life Scientific interview with Prof Myles Allen 30 minutes of undiluted codswallop verbal gymnastics suitable for the next Olympics. As Dr Don Easterbrook has said so many times “it doesn’t matter how much data and evidence you provide which substantially and easily contradicts belief(s) it makes no difference whatsoever”.

Once these guys have crossed the threshold between Alice in Wonderland fantasy world fiction and reality they are a lost cause. And the reality is that belief is so easy so ingrained and allows them to embark on yet another pointless but supposedly worth crusade they don’t care and if the pay is beyond what most people could earn end of story.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  David Wells
February 25, 2020 9:49 am

Dorothy Sayers’ comment in 1947, while speaking of education, expressed real concerns. Imagine how disturbed she would have been if she were alive today and could see the lack of coherent, cohesive and cogent reasoning. If clear and careful logic is absent an argument is probably worthless. Perhaps that is why many who shout loudest about “extreme weather” are most reticent to engage in debates and have their views questioned? Perhaps this would have disturbed her most – intellectuals, academics and the media not even wanting to debate about climate change! We need a new generation of thinkers like CS Lewis and Sayers.

“Have you ever, in listening to a debate among adult and presumably responsible people, been fretted by the extraordinary inability of the average debater to speak to the question, or to meet and refute the arguments of speakers on the other side? Or have you ever pondered upon the extremely high incidence of irrelevant matter which crops up at committee-meetings, and upon the very great rarity of persons capable of acting as chairmen of committees? And when you think of this, and think that most of our public affairs are settled by debates and committees, have you ever felt a certain sinking of heart?”

February 25, 2020 7:26 am

Net Zero supporters should off themselves.

You will enjoy this:

Steve Case
February 25, 2020 7:30 am

After short search, the Democrat positions on “Climate Change” boiled down are:

Bernie Sanders: $16.3 trillion: Zero emissions by 2030 and criminal prosecution of Exxon Mobil and others

Pete Buttigieg: $1.5 to $2 trillion

Amy Klobuchar: $2 to $3 trillion

Joe Biden: $1.7 trillion & full electric vehicle by 2030

Tom Steyer: $2 trillion in federal investment over 10 years

Bloomberg: $25 billion a year.

Elizabeth Warren: No price tag quote

Reply to  Steve Case
February 25, 2020 7:51 am

You forgot Trump: Don’t bother! 😉

Steve Case
Reply to  Goldrider
February 25, 2020 8:42 am

Goldrider February 25, 2020 at 7:51 am
You forgot Trump: Don’t bother! 😉

President Trump won’t be running as a Democrat.

Reply to  Steve Case
February 25, 2020 8:19 am

Bernie wasted over a million in carbon taxes by using a private jet, just so he can punish the citizens of the usa for using fossil fuels

Reply to  Steve Case
February 25, 2020 1:22 pm

Criminal prosecution by Sanders. Dear God alive.

Whatever downsides from FF – and every energy source has downsides, FF have skyrocketed economies and living standards around the world, and kept untold hundreds of millions alive every winter.

The idea of prosecuting Exxon and others is a genuine disgrace.

Reply to  CheshireRed
February 25, 2020 5:08 pm

Aren’t you forgetting the outstanding success lesson of Mao Zedon’s great leap forward?
Wipe out everyone who was successful before yourself. This reduces that great evil: competion.

Reply to  CheshireRed
February 25, 2020 5:09 pm

Those on the left have a long history of criminalizing all dissent.
The more power they have, the more they criminalize opposition to themselves.

Forrest Remick
February 25, 2020 8:03 am

What is the meaning of net-zero carbon or net-zero greenhouse gases? Does it mean zero additions to the environment, or does it mean that an equilibrium point will be reached where additions are no more than deletions?

Steve Z
February 25, 2020 8:31 am

“The decision by Parliament to undertake the complete decarbonisation of the UK economy is thus uncosted.”

Has the Parliament actually voted on this? This sounds like Nancy Pelosi’s “Vote for [Obamacare] so you can see what’s in it” from 2010, which led to Democrats losing the majority by November of that year.

Unfortunately, neither the American Congress, nor the British Parliament, nor any other elected legislature can repeal the laws of thermodynamics. The devil is always in the details, and somebody has to evaluate the cost, and if the money isn’t there, it won’t happen.

It seems amazing that the British Parliament would choose to blunder away all the economic advantages of Brexit (several times over) chasing some illusion about “decarbonization”, which wouldn’t have any effect on the climate, since even if the UK eliminated all its CO2 emissions, the increase in Chinese CO2 emissions would overwhelm the decrease from the UK.

The British Parliament would be better off listening to the Beatles: “So don’t you know that it’s a fool who plays it cool by making his world a little colder?” (from “Hey Jude”).

David Wells
February 25, 2020 8:32 am

The question that no green even dares to comprehend or answer is how much climate change will be mitigated how much weather will be extinguished and of Co2 is warming the planet uncontrollably presumably mitigating to much Co2 might cool the planet uncontrollably. I have asked Lord Deben to tell me what happens to the global climate if all 65 million people in the UK decide to commit suicide next Tuesday to mitigate 1.16% of global Co2? the response vexatious.

Prince Charles has give some more precious seeds to the seed bank to preserve in case of future mass extinction.

I will write again to Prince Charles and ask him what happens if we succeed to his demands and mitigate all Co2 how will the seeds that he is so preciously storing will grow in an atmosphere without Co2?

Prof Jim Al Khalili said on BBC Quantum Physics “oxygenic photosynthesis generates 16,000 tons of new vegetation of every single day”. What he did not say – BBC contractual obligations – is that without Co2 there is no photosynthesis. Apparently any presenter who works for the BBC is presented with a large document which lists everything they are allowed to say and specifically what they are not allowed to even think.

Mishal Hussain Norwegian Oil and Gas and the BBC. Opinions, due impartiality and bias. BBC presenters are not allowed to voice an opinion to avoid criticism of the BBC’s commitment to impartiality. This is why they ask the right questions of the right participants to ensure that they answers given reflect the opinions of the BBC. So in reality the presenter and the BBC are inherently partial biased and prejudiced they just manipulate the status quo which enables them to claim they are impartial conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation. This is not accidental.

“We were masters of the techniques of promoting our point of view under the cloak of impartiality. The simplest was to hold a discussion between a fluent and persuasive proponent of the view you favoured, and a humourless bigot representing the other side. With a big story, like shale gas for example, you would choose the aspect where your case was strongest: the dangers of subsidence and water pollution, say, rather than the transformation of Britain’s energy supplies and the abandonment of wind farms and nuclear power stations. And you could have a ‘balanced’ summary with the view you favoured coming last: not “the opposition claim that this will just make the rich richer, but the government point out that it will create 10,000 new jobs” but “the government claim it will create 10,000 new jobs, but the opposition point out that it will just make the rich richer.” It is the last thought that stays in the mind. It is curiously satisfying to find all of these techniques still being regularly used forty-seven years after I left the BBC.” (Sir Anthony Jay)

“I absorbed and expressed all the accepted BBC attitudes: hostility to, or at least suspicion of, America, monarchy, government, capitalism, empire, banking and the defence establishment, and in favour of the NHS, state welfare, the social services, the environment and state education. But perhaps our most powerful antagonism was directed at advertising. This is not surprising; commercial television was the biggest threat the BBC had ever had to face. The idea that television should be financed by businessmen promoting their products for profit created in us an almost spiritual revulsion. And when our colleagues, who we had thought were good BBC men, left to join commercial broadcasters, they became pariahs. We could hardly bring ourselves to speak to them again. They had not just gone to join a rival company; they had sinned against the true faith, they were traitors, deserters, heretics.

This deep hostility to people and organisations who made and sold things was not of course exclusive to the BBC. It permeated a lot of upper middle class English society (and has not vanished yet). But it was wider and deeper in the BBC than anywhere else, and it is still very much a part of the BBC ethos. Very few of the BBC producers and executives have any real experience of the business world, and as so often happens, this ignorance, far from giving rise to doubt, increases their certainty.” (Sir Anthony Jay)

February 25, 2020 8:53 am

Those figures may be accurate as of today, but advaced molten salt small modular reactors , due out within 10 years, render the figure woefully inaccurate. The cost of building the reactors for the British isles would likely not exceed one half a trillion pounds and not take that long – molten salt reactors are built in factories and installation does NOT require elaborate site preparation – these can rapidly replace existing power generation plants and the cost of producing power by a molten salt reactor is low – cheaper than virtually any other power generation technology and much cheaper than any renewable technology. And molten salt reactors can load follow, eliminating the need for peak power generators. We want lower emissions, but should object to the idea that renewables is the way to achieve it.

Reply to  ColMosby
February 25, 2020 1:08 pm

All well and good but the UK government has given precisely NO indicator of rolling out nuclear or new tech’ molten salt. They’ve not indicated how they plan to generate the extra electricity for thousands of new EV’s either. Clueless.

Reply to  ColMosby
February 25, 2020 5:13 pm

Please let me know when the first commercial units actually go online.

February 25, 2020 9:08 am

Seems to me the UK would be put at a competitive disadvantage with sunnier places that are close to the equator, if net zero was forced upon all countries.

David Stone
February 25, 2020 9:21 am

I am an Engineer and have been writing about this on the Institution of Engineering and Technology website. The whole idea of a CO2 free electric system with wind and solar, and virtually no nuclear is simply not possible. It is exceptionally expensive, and anything but green during the ENORMOUS construction phase. Batteries are simply not good enough for storage on a big scale, and have very limited cycle lives. However none of this is the important part because it is a waste of time, and effort. India and China are not going to do anything, and the UK is only 1.5% of the alleged problem, which does not exist anyway. Thermodynamics says that CO2 cannot cause significant heating, supposed back radiation is very tiny, and many other faults in the “global warming” alleged science. We cannot get the politicians to listen at all, except Trump, and all the people pour hate on him for it. The problem is brainwashing of some of the population, just like Greta. Cold kills people, species and plants, not a degree of warming so where is this dialogue coming from? It is the people who want everyone else dead and to live in a subsistance stone age. Actually they want life as it is, at no cost to themselves. Why not just keep quiet, live and let live!

Joseph Zorzin
February 25, 2020 9:57 am

Off topic, sorry but I felt a need to post this- it’s interesting to me if nobody else.

Regarding tree ring analysis for climate studies- I was reading articles and discussions on and asked about tree rings and somebody recommended a recent paper called, “Concord and discord among Northern Hemisphere paleotemperature reconstructions from tree rings” which you can read and download at It seems there are debates over the subject. They don’t have tree rings as temperature proxies down to a perfected science. They once thought they did until they discovered “the divergence problem”. They claim of course there are other and better temperature proxies such as ice cores, corals, shells of ocean invertebrates, etc. But it’s quite possible they’ll find problems with those too. This is why some of us are skeptics- Climate science isn’t nuclear physics or ordinary every day chemistry. Like the paper indicates in the title, there is “concord and discord”- not fundamentalist faith and perfect agreement.

Joseph Zorzin
February 25, 2020 10:16 am

Many states in the US northeast are planning on being carbon net zero by 2050. I keep asking politicians here in Massachusetts how much it will cost to make the transition. Who will pay for it? How many hundreds of thousands of acres of fields and forests will be destroyed to install wind and solar “farms”. I get no replies. Here, the greens hate all fossil fuels, hate biomass, hate nuclear, hate pumped storage and many now even hate industrial wind and solar. A solar “farm” was built near my home. It destroyed rare and endangered species habitat. It was next to a river (which is supposed to be illegal). It’s next to several vernal pools. It’s on the local watershed for the town water supply. It comes within feet of many homes. I made an amateur video of the construction of this solar “farm”:

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 25, 2020 11:13 am

Actually, what the Greenies hate is “people”! So perhaps they will not be too concerned at the forthcoming electricity-less northern winters.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 25, 2020 5:19 pm

Joseph, we have an 87 mw solar farm on 310 hectares a few kilometers from our house and built over two waterways. An additional 816 hectares of solar panels are planned to go in nearby. We have been in drought here in Australia but we were lucky enough to have had a 150 mm of rain so far this year. Not enough to break the drought here but enough to partially fill a lagoon that forms nearby. We took photos last week of a flock of pelicans on the water.

One of the proposed solar farms would be partially inundated by the lagoon when we have significant rain and that same solar farm would be across the road from the town’s water treatment plant. Much of our water is from bores and our whole area has a huge aquifer underneath it.

The ignorant alarmists believe the total propaganda being fed to them on a daily basis and are too lazy to do any research of their own. Your video alone shows that their are huge amounts of fossil fuels used just by what they are looking at. The vehicles themselves required mining and manufacturing, let alone the diesel used over months to run them. The steel and or aluminum infrastructure required mining, manufacturing and transport. That doesn’t even take into account the rare earth mining, a highly toxic and dirty form of mining and manufacturing and transport of panels. None of these processes use renewable energy.

On top of all that there is almost no wind and solar renewables recycling plants anywhere in the world. No one wants to do it because the cost of setting up the equipment is very high and the returns are low. Added to that, some types of panels require the use of acids and other toxic chemicals which is difficult to dispose of. What is happening to the panels that are destroyed in extreme weather? I see an ecological disaster looming.

What is happening now around the globe is nothing short of criminal, and in the name of saving the planet.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Megs
February 26, 2020 1:10 pm

Here’s a mind blowing video of the construction of a wind “farm” in western Massachusetts. It’s time lapse.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 26, 2020 4:18 pm

Great video Joseph, you cannot deny the amazing feat of engineering!

Funny isn’t it, a climate alarmist would watch that and consider all the free energy that will be produced and how clean the air will be as a result.

I watch it and take a few steps back, my mind is filled with images of vast mines, exploited children, poisoned lakes. The trucks, cranes, bulldozers and other associated vehicles themselves came from mined materials. The fuels used in all these processes and transport would be astronomical. And the hypocrisy, when Australia is supposed to take responsibility for the coal used outside of Australia and the alarmists think that their precious wind and solar renewables grow in farms! They take no responsibility at all for their carbon footprint.

When you ask Extinction Rebellion how they think it’s possible to achieve their (fairytale) goals by 2025 they say it’s not up to them, that’s up to ‘the scientists’. They are obviously talking about fairytale scientists too. They take no responsibility for doing some simple research either.

I am not naive, the lifestyle we lived before wind and solar renewables required these practices, still does. I understand that the use of SF6 at this point is a necessary and useful product but it is ending up in the atmosphere at an alarming rate directly because of wind and solar renewables. It is 22,500 times more potent than CO2 as a cause of GHG! The number of different mines that are in operation is growing at a rapid rate too, and all for nothing. We are continuing to rape the planet unnecessarily in the name of saving the planet!

Young people should be shown videos like this one in schools and then be asked to write a paper on the necessary resources require to make it happen, I’ll bet they leave out most of them.

February 25, 2020 12:28 pm

Being unaware that CO2 is not a pollutant and is required for all life on earth is science ignorance.

Failure to discover that CO2 has no significant effect on climate but water vapor does is science incompetence.

Changing data to corroborate an agenda is science malpractice.

February 25, 2020 12:46 pm

The linear trend of measured TPW (water vapor) is increase of 1.47 % per decade.
Applying this rate to the stated water column for Standard Atmosphere in MODTRAN6 with no change in CO2 and adjusting the surface temperature to achieve the same TOA radiation flux as in 1970 requires a surface temperature increase of 0.37 K. This accounts for all of the average global temperature increase attributable to human activity.

February 25, 2020 1:00 pm

The ‘Net Zero’ part refers to the average IQ of UK politicians who buy into todays hysterical ‘climate change’ theory. They’re impervious to reason, logic or contrary evidence and literally cannot be reached by any rational means.

Our government (for whom I voted only 2 months ago!) has completely lost the plot.

February 25, 2020 1:15 pm

In politics in the West, in environmentalism and Media, the Lunatics (Ruling Elite) is in charge of the Asylum. Fortunately, costs are stacked against them and in the East China & India have not yet lost its Marbles.

February 25, 2020 4:39 pm

The Australian Labor Leader has just committed Australia to net zero emissions by 2050.
We are told net zero emissions does not mean there will be no carbon emissions nor does it mean the end of Coal on which Australia’s national Budget is so heavily reliant.
It means balancing out the emissions produced with the emissions absorbed or taken out of the atmosphere.
We are told 73 countries have committed to be carbon neutral by 2050.
However only 5 of the G20 countries are so committed with 15 hesitant.
Perhaps because they understand they will pay the trillions involved.
How can it be logical to produce increasing volumes of CO2 both domestically and internationally and then pay billions to remove it from the atmosphere?

%d bloggers like this: