BEIS Respond To Net Zero Petition

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

DECEMBER 1, 2021

By Paul Homewood

There has been demand building for a referendum on Net Zero. A petition was organised a few weeks ago, but because of virtually no publicity, it has only collected 19000 signatures.

(You can sign up here)

As it got above 10000 signatures, the government had to issue a response:

National referendums are a mechanism to endorse major constitutional change; debates about national policy are best determined through Parliamentary democracy and the holding of elections.

The government made a key manifesto commitment to reach “Net Zero by 2050 with investment in clean energy solutions and green infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions and pollution”. It was one of the top six pledges in the government’s manifesto, alongside policy commitments to help achieve the target. The net zero target was passed into law by Parliament with strong cross-Party support.

It is clear that public concern about climate change is high, having doubled since 2016, with 80% of people in the UK either concerned or very concerned (BEIS Public Attitudes Tracker Wave 37, 2021). We also know that people and businesses recognise that change must happen – 80% of respondents in a recent survey believe the way we live our lives will need to change to address climate change (BEIS, Climate change and net zero: public awareness and perceptions, 2021). In the same survey, after being provided with information on net zero, 78% of all participants said they strongly or somewhat supported the net zero target.
Moving away from fossil fuels and towards net zero gives us the unprecedented opportunity to:

– Create and secure thousands of well-paid, quality jobs across the UK, helping to level up the country. Tackling net zero will create thousands long-term jobs in our reindustrialised heartlands.

– Build a more secure, home-grown energy sector based on nuclear, wind, hydrogen and solar that is not reliant on imported fossil fuels, providing consumers with affordable, reliable energy for warmer homes and workplaces.

– Reduce harmful pollution which contaminates our air and our natural environment to improve our health and wellbeing, as well as that of future generations.

– Attract investment into UK businesses and industry, revitalising our industrial heartlands while driving down the costs of key technologies – from electric vehicles to heat pumps – to reduce bills and give the UK a competitive edge. Since the launch of the Prime Minister’s Ten Point Plan we have secured £5.8bn in green foreign investment.

Recent volatile international gas prices have demonstrated that we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. We need to protect consumers and businesses from global gas prices by increasing our domestic energy security through clean power that is generated in the UK for the people of the UK.

Taking action on climate is also crucial to strengthening the UK’s place in the global economy as we Build Back Better from the pandemic. The whole world is trying to capitalise on the benefits of going greener, investing in innovative new technology, building new industries, and creating quality jobs in sustainable sectors.

Our transition to net zero we will be tech-led using the best of British technology and innovation – just as we did in the last industrial revolution – to help make homes and buildings warmer, the air cleaner and our journeys greener, all while creating thousands of jobs in new future-proof industries.

Transitioning to net zero is not about telling people what to do or stopping people doing things; it’s about giving them the support they need to do the same things they do now but in a more sustainable way.

We must seize the moment to get a head start on this worldwide green industrial revolution and ensure UK industries, workers and the wider public benefit. Taking action now will put us at the forefront of large, expanding global markets and allow us to capitalise on export opportunities in low carbon technologies and services.

Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599602

The nonsense they have written actually proves just why a referendum is needed!

“National referendums are a mechanism to endorse major constitutional change; debates about national policy are best determined through Parliamentary democracy and the holding of elections.

The government made a key manifesto commitment to reach “Net Zero by 2050 with investment in clean energy solutions and green infrastructure to reduce carbon emissions and pollution”. It was one of the top six pledges in the government’s manifesto, alongside policy commitments to help achieve the target. The net zero target was passed into law by Parliament with strong cross-Party support.”

There is no law that I am aware of that says referendums should only be used for constitutional change. Coincidentally, only yesterday Michael Gove announced that local referendums would be held on planning issues.

As for elections, the electorate has never been given the chance to make a decision, as all the major parties have the same Net Zero policy. Indeed, the Net Zero Act, as well as the 2008 Climate Change Act, were never even included in any party’s manifesto beforehand, and therefore lack any democratic accountability at all.

“It is clear that public concern about climate change is high, having doubled since 2016, with 80% of people in the UK either concerned or very concerned”

Since when were opinion polls a substitute for democracy?

In any event, polls also consistently show that the majority of people are not prepared to pay the cost of Net Zero.

“Moving away from fossil fuels and towards net zero gives us the unprecedented opportunity to:

– Create and secure thousands of well-paid, quality jobs across the UK, helping to level up the country. Tackling net zero will create thousands long-term jobs in our reindustrialised heartlands.”

Experience shows that governments cannot “create green jobs”, and that many more jobs end up being lost as a result.

All of what the government is claiming is in any event highly speculative. But what we do know for sure is that many jobs, maybe hundreds of thousands, will be lost directly as a result of Net Zero.

“- Build a more secure, home-grown energy sector based on nuclear, wind, hydrogen and solar that is not reliant on imported fossil fuels, providing consumers with affordable, reliable energy for warmer homes and workplaces”

Renewable energy certainly is neither affordable or reliable. As for home-grown, solar panels are largely made in China, as are the batteries and rare earths needed for electric cars and renewable energy.

Furthermore the only source of bulk hydrogen available in the foreseeable future is steam reforming. This requires massive amounts of natural gas, far more than would be needed if we used the gas itself instead of hydrogen. We would, in other words, be even more dependent on imported fossil fuels than we are now.

Finally heat pumps certainly won’t provide the “warmer homes” promised. In fact the reverse is true.

“- Reduce harmful pollution which contaminates our air and our natural environment to improve our health and wellbeing, as well as that of future generations”

Air quality in the UK has improved dramatically in recent decades, and continues to improve year by year.

“- Attract investment into UK businesses and industry, revitalising our industrial heartlands while driving down the costs of key technologies – from electric vehicles to heat pumps – to reduce bills and give the UK a competitive edge. Since the launch of the Prime Minister’s Ten Point Plan we have secured £5.8bn in green foreign investment.”

Electric cars, heat pumps, hydrogen and renewable energy will increase bills, not reduce them. As a result, UK industry will be at a massive competitive disadvantage.

The BEIS talks as if foreign investors were doing us a favour. They are not; they will expect a nice fat return on that £5.8bn, subsidised by bill payers and taxpayers.

“Recent volatile international gas prices have demonstrated that we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. We need to protect consumers and businesses from global gas prices by increasing our domestic energy security through clean power that is generated in the UK for the people of the UK.”

Volatile gas prices, and ultimately supplies, reinforce the need for increasing domestic gas production, both from the North Sea and fracking. They also highlight the huge mistake in shutting down coal power, which should be giving us an alternative.

Even official scenarios confirm that we will still require gas and oil for many years to come, as wind and solar power are too intermittent to rely on.

Transferring dependence on imported fossil fuels to dependence on China for rare earths is foolish in the extreme.

“Taking action on climate is also crucial to strengthening the UK’s place in the global economy as we Build Back Better from the pandemic. The whole world is trying to capitalise on the benefits of going greener, investing in innovative new technology, building new industries, and creating quality jobs in sustainable sectors.”

No, the whole world is not interested in going green, as COP26 made absolutely clear, largely because there are no “benefits”.

“Our transition to net zero we will be tech-led using the best of British technology and innovation – just as we did in the last industrial revolution – to help make homes and buildings warmer, the air cleaner and our journeys greener, all while creating thousands of jobs in new future-proof industries.”

The last industrial revolution was technology led and consumer driven, not the product of government diktat.

Net Zero will lead to higher bills, colder homes and the loss of thousands of jobs.

“Transitioning to net zero is not about telling people what to do or stopping people doing things; it’s about giving them the support they need to do the same things they do now but in a more sustainable way.”

Not about telling people what to do? But that is precisely what it is about. Banning the only cars that most people want, banning gas boilers and telling people they should fly less, eat less meat and use public transport.

Notably there is not a single mention of how much this will all cost us, the elephant in the room.

Apart from the red herring thrown in at the start about referendums, the whole response boils down to the belief that politicians know better than the rest of us, and that these matters are far too important to be left to us to have any say.

But that, of course, is precisely why the public should be given the ultimate decision.

4.6 16 votes
Article Rating
139 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Case
December 2, 2021 2:17 am

Build a more secure, home-grown energy sector based on nuclear,
_____________________________________________________

That’s not what is actually happening.

griff
Reply to  Steve Case
December 2, 2021 2:49 am

It is difficult to say, isn’t it?

The plans still show 17GW of new nuclear plus 2 GW of SMR in 2035.

However Wylfa and Moorside still can’t be funded, though there’s a new finance scheme and US involvement being floated…

Sizewell depends on Chinese money, which we now apparently don’t want on strategic issues… Bradwell would be entirely Chinese… same issue

SMR is still entirely to be developed. Hinkley will be late.

would you bet on any of this arriving?

fretslider
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 3:01 am

Funny you should ask about things arriving. You’re a heat pump fan, right? Green heating and all that.

Swaffam Prior, Cambridgeshire

Does that ring any bells, griff? It should. If it were not so expensive it would be hilarious.

“Village heat pump scheme that has cost £250,000 per house: Damning report slams abandoned project to transform 600,000 homes with insulation and eco heating systems”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10265093/amp/Swaffham-Prior-village-heat-pump-scheme-cost-250-000-house.html

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
Redge
Reply to  fretslider
December 2, 2021 4:16 am
griff
Reply to  fretslider
December 2, 2021 9:47 am

Yes, it failed.

Early iterations of new technology often do.

Drake
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 10:06 am

Insulation and heat pumps are VERY OLD technology grif.

If you are talking of new technological/political scams, this is also very old politics/technology.

ScarletMacaw
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 10:31 am

“New technology”? Heat pumps have been around for about a half a century. So have electricity-generating windmills. If you can’t develop a useful and economical technology in 50 years it’s time to conceded defeat.

Oldanalyst
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 2:37 pm

Heat pump tech has failed for 15 years. How many iterations can we expect before it is commercially viable without gov subsidy?

Panicky
Reply to  fretslider
December 2, 2021 11:04 pm

I live on northern Vancouver island, we recently replaced our old electric furnace and installed a Mitsubishi heat pump, it cost $24,000CA, it works great. We live small town, 200km from nearest bigger centre so we don’t have the luxury of nat gas. Yearly storms and heavy precipitation late fall and winter energizes us to have a full woodshed and a backup generator, helps us through road closures from flooding and slides and power outages. We’re pretty happy with our heat pump in any case.

Steve Case
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 3:08 am

Plans For New Reactors Worldwide (51)

Most are in Asia 57%

Two reactors each for the U.S and U.K

griff
Reply to  Steve Case
December 2, 2021 9:49 am

Well there are 4 sites identified for new UK reactors and one reactor actually building.

It would be fair to say that the govt is actively trying to get either Wylfa or Moorside started and the planning process for Sizewell is in progress.

Drake
Reply to  Steve Case
December 2, 2021 10:11 am

Pretty crappy list there, no mention of NuScale in Idaho.

alastair gray
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 5:15 am

My goodness Griff Did you forget your Koo-lade oday. You may even become a skeptic one day
HOW DARE YOU CAST ASPERSIONS ON BORIS AND NUT-NUT’S WONDERFUL TOUCHY FEELY GREEN FUTURE

griff
Reply to  alastair gray
December 2, 2021 9:46 am

I believe in looking at the evidence, and that’s the position on nuclear, as far as I can see.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 9:46 am

Maybe I am missing why griff is getting down-votes on this comment.

When he stops making ridiculous comments and posts something thoughtful and non-controversial, it seems to me that we shouldn’t discourage him.

Drake
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 2, 2021 10:14 am

SMR reactor design by NuScale in the US is approved and may be in operation by 2030, if the OBiden and his gang don’t find a way to stop it.

So SMR a long way off is BS, thus my down vote.

Reply to  Steve Case
December 2, 2021 3:13 am

Steve,
One of the most telling things that I observed when working for an international oil company was the cultural difference between the British and the Americans when faced with a resource crisis. The Brits response was to buckle down and make do with less. The Cousins response was to go out and find more resources. The difference between the British small island inward looking mentality of surfdom and the American continental outward across the horizon view of new opportunities for a free people was very apparent.
It is not an accident that in Britian you regularly hear the refrain “You can’t do that because”.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Philip Mulholland.
December 2, 2021 3:23 am

the once Great Britain will soon be tiny England

bonbon
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 2, 2021 3:27 am

BoJo anointed Global Britain recently. Looks like a retread….

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  bonbon
December 2, 2021 1:35 pm

you misspelled retard

bonbon
Reply to  Philip Mulholland.
December 2, 2021 4:18 am

What about this :

2l-image-Cambo-Oil-Field.jpg
fretslider
Reply to  bonbon
December 2, 2021 5:21 am

Salmond: Yes

Sturgeon: No

bonbon
Reply to  fretslider
December 2, 2021 8:38 am

Craig was finally freed.

R Taylor
Reply to  Philip Mulholland.
December 2, 2021 6:26 am

Surfdom was mostly an American development.

R Taylor
Reply to  R Taylor
December 2, 2021 6:31 am

Enabled by the invention of the Fender Telecaster.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  R Taylor
December 2, 2021 9:45 am

Along with skateboards.

griff
Reply to  Philip Mulholland.
December 2, 2021 9:50 am

Well isn’t the case here UK says we can do Net Zero – look, here we are doing it, while the USA hasn’t even got any offshore wind farms

Bill Everett
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 12:00 pm

Why do net zero when the human activity contribution to atmospheric CO2 level was only about 1/10th of one PPM per year from 1960 until 2020? All the turmoil will produce no noticeable change in Global temperature or climate.

Oldanalyst
Reply to  Bill Everett
December 2, 2021 2:42 pm

Bill, And your comment concedes that CO2 is actually a contributor to global temperature increases which is not scientifically proven.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Oldanalyst
December 3, 2021 7:33 am

To be a contributor to any global temperature increase that could be observed, the results of the contribution of CO2 must be large enough to be detected by the temperature measuring devices employed. Any temperature change that resulted because of the microscopic human CO2 contribution is far too small to be detected by currently used devices.

BCBill
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 3:23 pm

Perhaps the US has a stronger real environmental movement protecting wildlife affected by windmills? At any rate, by converting coal to natural gas power production the US has been far outperforming the UK in reducing CO2 emissions. When dozy Joe Biden’s recession kicks in, they will move even further ahead. In a race to an impossible finish the one who goes the furthest is the winner.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Steve Case
December 2, 2021 6:40 am

It is actually. Boris just ordered 12 mini nukes from rolls royce.

alastair gray
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
December 2, 2021 10:53 am

Which will total about 5 GW. and Rolls Royce may get round to building them in 2035. Our present day electricity consumption is 40 GW Our total energy requirement if all our transport and heating were electric would be at least 150 GW. So we are off to a roaring start. The BEIS and the lamentable Kwarteng (Their boss) actually believe they are doing just great, They are not . They are hastening a total collapse of the UK economy in a very short time frame. Then Lights out Frezze, rtarve and die in the dark

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  alastair gray
December 3, 2021 1:08 am

Actually four years to commission them, they are off the shelf, a very quick lead time. That 5 GW is doubling our nuclear capability, and pretty much the same output as wind is capable of.

OK, it should have been done years ago, but it is a good start towards a serious energy policy.

Oldanalyst
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
December 2, 2021 2:43 pm

Finally.

December 2, 2021 2:19 am

There is no law that I am aware of that says referendums should only be used for constitutional change.

Quite so, this obfuscation is straight out of the Sir Humphrey Appleby playbook from Yes Minister.

Reply to  Philip Mulholland.
December 2, 2021 2:40 am

Recent volatile international gas commodity prices have demonstrated that we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels food.

Dodgy Geezer
December 2, 2021 2:28 am

I can’t see what the point of a referendum would be. The government/media side hold all the cards, and any disagreement with them is simply removed from all media as ‘misinformation’.

Under those circumstances, how can a population gather sufficient data from both sides to make their minds up?

Joao Martins
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 2, 2021 3:02 am

You may have a point!… Allowing the Brexit referendum was a huge mistake… (/s, for those that did not see the “/s” from the start)

Dodgy Geezer
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 2, 2021 3:55 am

I would love to

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 2, 2021 6:21 am

Under those circumstances, how can a population gather sufficient data from both sides to make their minds up?

That is why they tried to stifle GBnews, and muzzle the social media companies.
But they can’t muzzle everyone on the Internet.

In fact the fact that the petition got as far as it did, is effective in that it sends a clear signal to the government, As Donald Trump did as well.

The report to a Lords committee that I linked to elsewhere shows that there is a contrarian voice: Public perception is still broadly that climate is a serious problem, but is becoming suspicioius as to exactly how serious it really is, and, most definitely whether the cost of Britain making zero difference with a net zero policy that cannot be achieved by renewables alone is worth it at all.

The way to take down a wall of propaganda is one brick at a time, when all you have are your bare hands…

Oldanalyst
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 2, 2021 2:49 pm

The wall should be demolished with urgency like the Berlin Wall

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 2, 2021 10:03 am

Dodgy, the point is to get the facts out in the open. Even the Catholic Church that imprisoned Galileo for his heresy against geo-centrism couldn’t persuade anyone who had actually seen Jupiter’s moons through a telescope.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 2, 2021 11:45 am

Presumably realistic cost estimates would be performed. Then again, maybe not.

Oldanalyst
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
December 2, 2021 2:47 pm

There is no “both sides”. Government cannot ever substitute for free market forces to allocate capitol Never. Not ever. Let the market play out without gov interference and without gov subsidies. You will ALWAYS get the cheapest solution.

griff
December 2, 2021 2:46 am

Every ‘response’ above is completely inaccurate.

Obviously if only 19,000 people respond it isn’t just ‘lack of publicity’. People in the UK are behind fighting climate change – only a fringe driven by their political opinion are against this (though a lot of people are worried by alarmist nonsense about being forced to change boilers)

UK air quality has only improved as fossil fuel use has declined. air quality due to ICE engines is very poor in major UK cities.

As production and take up increases, costs will drop. That’s basic economics… and the investment is already going in.

There is massive UK investment in ‘green hydrogen’, we are opening lithium mines in Cornwall and building battery factories and in other domestic supply and infrastructure.

I won’t even dignify the nonsense about ‘intermittent’ with a response, given the basic lack of understanding displayed.

There are already thousands of green jobs, notably in areas where other industry has declined and where N Sea gas work is declining as fields expire.

and of course this is necessary, as climate change already impacts the UK.

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 3:04 am

griff, when are you going to publish your next utopian novel?

Richard Page
Reply to  Joao Martins
December 2, 2021 7:23 am

I reckon Griffy gets his inspiration from political writing as well as the Grauniad. It’s badly written, including the abysmal abuse of the word ‘and’ as well as being the most concentrated collection of outright lies since the last Labour Party manifesto. I tried to find one, really I did, but there isn’t a truthful statement anywhere in Griffy’s diatribe – truly he’s dived headlong into the deep end, he may be divorced from reality and sanity forever; pity the poor lost soul as he slips beneath the murky waters of madness.

griff
Reply to  Richard Page
December 2, 2021 9:51 am

I’m not a professional writer. I shall take your advice on my prose style on board.

griff
Reply to  Joao Martins
December 2, 2021 9:51 am

When I finish my first one…

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 10:58 am

Can’t wait!

fretslider
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 3:05 am

“UK air quality has only improved as fossil fuel use has declined.”

You must be pretty young griff to make howlers like that

Once the air was full of car exhaust with added lead, there were many houses using paraffin heating. Water was carried in lead piping etc.

You have no idea how much better things are today.

Some might even label that as ungrateful.

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
Tom in Florida
Reply to  fretslider
December 2, 2021 4:31 am

Keep in mind that Griffites believe CO2 is air pollution.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 2, 2021 9:12 am

Tom,
Could there be a place griffiti in the world?
You know, young people writing, or painting, stupid or asinine statements on buildings!

griff
Reply to  Tom in Florida
December 2, 2021 9:55 am

CO2 certainly has a negative impact.

Drake
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 10:19 am

On plant growth??

Joao Martins
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 11:04 am

You are not a professional writer but that word “certainly”, with its ambiguity of meaning, sure was very well chosen!…

Oldanalyst
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 3:00 pm

And we know this how? Oh yeah, because the models say so. Bwahahha!

Tom in Florida
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 6:48 pm

And what negative impact would that be?

griff
Reply to  fretslider
December 2, 2021 9:55 am

The shut down of coal has improved UK air quality.

I’m not aware lead water pipes affected air quality.

Drake
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 10:20 am

Drax wood fired generation is MORE polluting than the coal fired Drax was.

fretslider
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 11:49 am

But you have heard of leaded petrol?

Climate believer
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 3:20 am

People in the UK are behind fighting climate change”

No they’re not. The question in these polls is always asked with “pollution” and “environment”. Climate change has not the same concern for people.

It is very dishonest.

observa
Reply to  Climate believer
December 2, 2021 4:47 am

You have to sympathize with griffonomics here. It’s just that Marketing are doing a really poor job of explaining the necessary transition period to the dunderheads before they reach Utopia and enjoy all that free energy from Gaia-
EU countries struggle to find joint response to energy price spike (msn.com)

Laertes
Reply to  observa
December 2, 2021 8:22 am

“Price caps or switching to a different system of setting national power prices could discourage electricity trade between countries and undermine incentives to add low-cost renewable energy to the system, the countries said.”

What a blatant, stinking lie. So keeping prices from rising will swamp LOW-COST renewable energy??? If it was truly low cost, reliable and available, it would SOLVE the current crisis, not exacerbate it.

“Ministers will also on Thursday assess progress in negotiations to set tougher EU targets to improve energy efficiency and expand renewable energy this decade.”

So the plan is to limit the peasants’ access to electricity altogether. Lovely.

griff
Reply to  Climate believer
December 2, 2021 9:58 am

Broad public support for tough action on climate change – poll | Evening Standard

‘The Government has a strong foundation of public support for tougher, swifter action on climate change, according to a recent survey.

Polling by Ipsos Mori found Britons want to see increased investment in renewable energy, a ban on products linked to deforestation and more ambitious plans to help cut global emissions.’

And in a later survey:

‘Climate change, environment and pollution is the British public’s number one pressing concern, a poll has found.
Four in 10 people said they were the major issue for Britain, the highest ever score for the topic since it was included in October 1988 – double the amount who thought the economy was the biggest concern.’

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/climate-change-uk-public-concern-085200883.html

Climate believer
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 2:24 pm

Yay! IPSOS magic opinion polls, here’s another 20,000 people this time, from all over the globe……. as in global.

They add…..

“Further down in our issues ranking, one in five (21%) also say that Healthcare is a big issue facing their country today. Next in the list are Inflation (18%), Taxes (17%), Education and Climate change (both 16%).”

what-worries-the-world-top-5-in-november-2021.png
Thomas Stewart
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 3:24 am

People are not behind fighting a fake man made climate change delusion.
CO2 makes up 0.04% of the air of which they estimate 0.0014% is man made and this will destroy the planet.
Figures show air quality changed little during Covid
Off course you cannot answer the intermittent issue of unreliables so called renewables which require 24 hour fossil fuel back up and £12 billion in subsidies plus an additional £1.4 billion on the grid.
There will never be mining of toxic lithium in Cornwall and battery cars with their energy and required in production are not green.
Green hydrogen is 4 times the cost of natural gas
The thousand of green jobs are bought at huge cost by subsidies and cost real jobs due to carbon taxes and high energy costs.
The green economy will crash — our CO2 reduction is obtained by outsourcing our manufacturing to China. Our green future will be no jobs, no heating and poverty.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Thomas Stewart
December 2, 2021 10:05 am

There will never be mining of toxic lithium in Cornwall …

What do you mean by “toxic?” The ‘lithium’ in Cornwall is in the form of a relatively inert silicate. It is only if refined to elemental metallic lithium or a soluble form such as lithium carbonate that there need be any concern. However, that is no different from most other industrial elements such as beryllium, chromium, cadmium, sodium, etc.

Last edited 1 month ago by Clyde Spencer
observa
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 4:09 am

 People in the UK are behind fighting climate change 

Too true. The only problem for griffonomics is they expect the Gummint and Biz to handle it all and not cost them anything because it’s all run on free energy from Gaia.

Mark BLR
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 4:09 am

People in the UK are behind fighting climate change …

Cook et al, 2013 : “No opinion” abstracts = “Ignored”.
Result : “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

Lynas et al, 2021 : “No opinion” = “Endorsement of the AGW hypothesis”.
Result : “Our estimate of the proportion of consensus papers was 1 − (4/2718) = 99.85%.”
NB : Of the 2718 papers considered, 4 were “rejectionist” and 1869 were “4a: No position”.

“I didn’t sign the Net Zero referendum petition” does NOT equal “I want to install a heat pump on my farm, replace my series III Land Rover with a Tesla X, and have a vasectomy”.

Laertes
Reply to  Mark BLR
December 2, 2021 8:25 am

So that’s just 31% of “consensus”. The mainstream media lied again.

Jo Ho
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 4:28 am

(and of course this is necessary, as climate change already impacts the UK.)

Griff,

I have lived in the UK for almost 75 years and have witnessed many ‘weather’ events, including snow when I was a child and, of course, within these last few days; an event that was predicted that children would no longer witness!

The beach I visited 60 years ago and that which I see today has not changed one iota and the Sea Level is almost identical. The temperatures today compared to yesteryear would need to be highly sensitive to note any Global Warming or Cooling. The records I keep show weather variations (ups and downs) but certainly no indication, that we here in the UK, will need to make any changes any time soon. That said, I have felled some old fruit trees in my orchard and, normally, I would give these logs to friends. Not today! I have doubled the size of my log store.

I’m not going to say much about wildfires in the UK. Too many nutters about with matches!

So my question to you, in your opinion, how has Climate Change impacted the UK in your lifetime?

Reply to  Jo Ho
December 2, 2021 6:28 am

So my question to you, in your opinion, how has Climate Change impacted the UK in your lifetime?

The seas are covered in windmills, houses are covered in solar panels, I am not allowed to drive my car into London and the cost of electricity is now 5 times what it was 20 years ago.

Apart from that, the square root of Sweet Fanny Adams: I lost all my tender plantings in the winter of 2004 IIRC.

The 1980s and early1990s were slightly milder in winter, but since then its back to normal out here in the country. The main difference is that the towns are all 2°C degrees warmer than they were in the 1950s due to traffic and central heating.

Climate believer
Reply to  Jo Ho
December 2, 2021 6:31 am

Grifter will tell you that rain is wetter, and grass has been seen growing in November, and if all the leaves don’t fall off the trees it’s obviously because climate change, but wind is windier, the heat is hotter, the floods are floodier, and all manner of weird signs that show that we are living in end times, and you should be terrified.

griff
Reply to  Jo Ho
December 2, 2021 9:59 am

Then you’ll have noticed the increase in floods and storms and related damage to infrastructure this century

Drake
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 10:21 am

Provide 100 year record justifying that lie.

Thanks in advance.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 11:57 am

How many people were living in the UK and what was the value of infrastructure in 1920? Read some of Roger Pelkie’s peer reviewed studies on normalized damage from weather events from 1900. At least you would know the facts of what you are lying about.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 2:01 pm

All reputable sources show no increase in floods or storms (IPCC states low confidence, your people!!!), but related damage has increased from average storms because of expanding bullseye effect.
Zip doodle to do with “climate change”.

Right Griff?

Trying to play nice here

Mark BLR
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 5:16 am

I won’t even dignify the nonsense about ‘intermittent’ with a response …

The only use of the word “intermittent” in the ATL article was in the following :
“Even official scenarios confirm that we will still require gas and oil for many years to come, as wind and solar power are too intermittent to rely on.”

Since September the “installed / nameplate capacity” of wind turbines and solar farms on and around the island of Great Britain have not changed much (if at all).
The theoretical capacity has remained, to a first approximation, constant.

The graph below shows the actual combined contributions of those installations to the GB electricity grid over the last 3 months.

… given the basic lack of understanding displayed

Wind and solar “are” (present tense, or “are currently” if you’ll permit the pun …) indeed “too intermittent to rely on” as we enter the last month of 2021.

Wishful thinking about purely theoretical future advances in technology, or dreams about “large and rapid” reductions in the grid-scale deployment costs of those technologies, will not resolve these all too real issues in the near-term (or even the medium-term).

GB-Electricity_Wind-Solar_Sept-Oct-Nov-2021.png
Oldanalyst
Reply to  Mark BLR
December 2, 2021 3:08 pm

Griff meant unreliable I’m sure.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 5:31 am

The fact that nobody knows about the petition does not explain the reason why so few people have signed up.

If support for unreliable energy is so broad and vast, why does the news media feel the need to hide the existence of this poll?

Do you have any data on your claim that air quality has improved and it’s the getting rid of fossil fuel plants that is responsible? Or is that just another fact that you have made up on the fly?

I see the socialist claims to understand basic economics, but manages to get even the basics wrong. Whatever decline in costs that you might expect from increased production, has already occurred. Of course griff is completely ignoring the other half of the equation whereby increased demand increases costs.

Green hydrogen is even more expensive then intermittent power.

The reason why griff won’t talk about intermittency is because he can’t. All of his excuses have been refuted and he hasn’t been assigned any new ones.

Only a socialist would think that hiring twice as many people to do the same amount of work is a good thing.

The so called impacts of global warming exist in griff’s mind alone.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
DaveS
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 5:38 am

I won’t even dignify the nonsense about ‘intermittent’ with a response, given the basic lack of understanding displayed.”

Do you have any mirrors, Griff?

Richard Page
Reply to  DaveS
December 2, 2021 7:26 am

Exactly, ‘can’t’ not ‘won’t’. Griffy is to the field of science as Diane Abbott is to mathematics.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DaveS
December 2, 2021 10:11 am

Do you have any mirrors, Griff?

Are you suggesting that he might not see a reflection of himself? 🙂

leowaj
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 5:50 am

As production and take up increases, costs will drop. That’s basic economics… and the investment is already going in.

Costs don’t drop because of production and take-up increases. There is no relationship that models production volume to costs.

Costs drop because capital flows into a new market because there is demand for the product which means there’s a good chance capital is repaid with healthy interest (“I’ll give you $1 today if you pay me back $5 next week at this time”). At some point, someone has to find a way to widen the profit margin to gain a competitive edge. Investors are happy to give more money… for a higher return. So market producers and suppliers find ways to reduce costs and entice more consumers to purchase their product.

The problem here is that government investment is basically starting in the middle of the equation. There is an assumption (by the government bureaucrats) that if they dump a bunch of capital into a tiny market that demand will rise. False. Production will rise because producers can make a quick buck. Producers would be dumb not to take tax payer money. And sometimes the government goes the extra stupid mile and promises to buy a certain percentage of production in order to “spur demand”. “Hey, here’s some free money to make widgets. Oh, and I’ll pay you top dollar for 30% of your widget inventory for the next 5 years”, say the bureaucrats. Great, producers make money for the next 5 years… and the market collapses right on schedule. Because consumers didn’t buy it nor did they ever want to buy it.

The only difference here is that the UK government is going to manipulate the market by outlawing perfectly suitable alternatives. In this case ICE-powered vehicles and machinery. So Robert and Sara, who don’t want or need to be rid of their ICE vehicles and machinery, must now give up said vehicles and purchase electric vehicles that do the job half as well. Thanks, Big Daddy Government. You know best. /sarc

Last edited 1 month ago by leowaj
Lrp
Reply to  leowaj
December 2, 2021 7:16 am

You just described the workings of a socialist economy

leowaj
Reply to  Lrp
December 2, 2021 8:48 am

Exactly. Socialists just move quicker: it’s brought up, “debated”, legislated, signed, and implemented. Sometimes within 24 hours.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 6:26 am

Griff,

I reply to each of your points in turn.

You say,
Obviously if only 19,000 people respond it isn’t just ‘lack of publicity’. People in the UK are behind fighting climate change – only a fringe driven by their political opinion are against this (though a lot of people are worried by alarmist nonsense about being forced to change boilers)”
I answer.
My experience is that most people I meet do not support “fighting climate change”. They jump at the chance to say how much they do not believe in the scare when I tell them that – depending on viewpoint – I am called a climate realist, or a climate denier, or the Spawn Of The Devil.
And there was no scare about “being forced to change boilers” but there was a government U-turn in response to public outrage when the cost of replacing them was revealed: I anticipate a similar U-turn when the government tries to implement its policy of enforced replacement of internal combustion engines with electric cars.

You say,
“UK air quality has only improved as fossil fuel use has declined. air quality due to ICE engines is very poor in major UK cities.”
I answer
UK fossil fuel use increased while UK air quality was improved by cleaning up fossil fuel usage in response to the Clean Air Acts.

You say
“As production and take up increases, costs will drop. That’s basic economics… and the investment is already going in.”
I answer
The small energy intensity in wind and solar means they cannot provide as cheap an energy source as fossil fuels. That’s “basic economics” which caused the displacement of wind and solar when the greater energy intensity in fossil fuels became available to do work initially by use of the steam engine.

You say
“There is massive UK investment in ‘green hydrogen’, we are opening lithium mines in Cornwall and building battery factories and in other domestic supply and infrastructure.”
I answer
I commend you to read the explanation of your error concerning a ‘hydrogen economy’ which Paul Homewood explains in his above article.
I live in Cornwall where the government says it will subsidise trials of a novel method for lithium extraction because Cornish lithium ores are not sufficiently rich for them to be mined. Government also keeps subsidising trials of ‘hot rocks’ in Cornwall because politicians accept claims of scammers and cronies that ‘hot rocks’ is akin to practical geothermal energy extraction.
These government subsidies are not “investment”: they are cronyism which is properly called corruption.

You say
“I won’t even dignify the nonsense about ‘intermittent’ with a response, given the basic lack of understanding displayed.”
I answer
The display of ignorance is from you. I commend you to read
The 2006 Annual Prestigious Lecture to The North of England Institute of Mining and Mechanical Engineers and The Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (North East) held on Thursday 26th October 2006
which I had the honour to provide
It can be downloaded from several places including https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/windfarms-cannot-meet-uk-governments-renewable-energy-target/
Titled “A suggestion for meeting the UK Government’s renewable energy target because the adopted use of windfarms cannot meet it” its Synopsis says: 
This paper suggests the use of windfarms cannot make significant contribution to reducing the emissions and suggests the construction of tidal coffer dams instead. Windfarms for power generation provide intermittent power so they merely displace thermal power stations onto standby mode or to operate at reduced efficiency while the thermal power stations wait for the wind to change. They make no significant reduction to pollution because thermal power stations continue to use their fuel and to produce their emissions while operating in standby mode or with reduced efficiency that can increase their emissions at low output. And this need for continuously operating backup means that windfarms can only provide negligible useful electricity to electricity grid supply systems. But the large scale use of windfarms requires upgrading of an electricity grid, more complex grid management, and operation of additional thermal power stations to protect against power cuts in time of supply failure. These effects increase the cost of electricity supplied by the grid in addition to the capital, maintenance and operating costs of the windfarms themselves. And the windfarms cause significant environmental damage. Tidal coffer dams would not have these problems and could provide continuous and controllable power supply at similar cost to off-shore windfarms.

You say
“There are already thousands of green jobs, notably in areas where other industry has declined and where N Sea gas work is declining as fields expire.”
I answer
Yes, much desperate ‘make-work’ is being provided as replacements for real jobs that have been lost because traditional industries have been exported to other countries and natural transitions from e.g. coal to natural gas have occurred..

You say,
and of course this is necessary, as climate change already impacts the UK.
I answer
It is politically necessary to provide the ‘make-work’ jobs because high unemployment costs votes, but there is no evidence that climate change already impacts the UK”; n.b. no evidence, none, zip, nada.

Richard

bonbon
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
December 2, 2021 8:36 am

I think we should all crowdfund a LUNAZ electrified Austin Martin DB6 for the most active greeny here.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/saving-dinosaurs-startups-drive-electrify-fossil-fuel-cars-2021-12-02/

Then he can parade around wit a told-you-so.

These auto retrofitting firms are going to make a bundle. Bet there is even government support. Electro-woke – even makes a Tesla look passee! Elon where are you?

michel
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 6:40 am

People in the UK are behind fighting climate change – only a fringe driven by their political opinion are against this

The problem is that net-zero is not a way of fighting climate change. If you think it is, just say how much effect it will have on global temps.

Or say just how much you think it will reduce global emissions.

This is the fundamental problem with much green thinking and advocacy. It is always, do X because climate. When, according to the theory, X can have no effect on climate because of simple physics and math.

Its like your earlier argument, lets make gas 20% hydrogen. Because climate.

Now explain how much effect on climate it will have, if the British do make their gas supply 20% hydrogen.

None. But you want to do it anyway. Just like you want to get to net-zero anyway.

This is not about global warming. Its about virtue signalling and group membership signalling. No-one would be more appalled than you by the real world consequences of a serious effort to get to net-zero.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 7:03 am

All lies and propaganda from you griff

Laertes
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 8:18 am

“I won’t even dignify the nonsense about ‘intermittent’ with a response, given the basic lack of understanding displayed”

Because you cannot respond, you won’t? What’s not ‘intermittent’ about solar and wind energy on a -20 Celsius cloudy, winter day with no wind? Maybe the fact that energy storages for more than a day don’t exist yet? Are they physically possible with the current technology?

I’d wonder how the “I won’t even dignify the nonsense with a response” would play out to the people getting a nation-wide electricity blackout during winter… when all of their heating sources have been converted to electricity?

Oh, wait, that was the plan, wasn’t it?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 9:55 am

UK air quality has only improved as fossil fuel use has declined. air quality due to ICE engines is very poor in major UK cities.

There are technological alternatives to abandoning fossil fuels. However, one cannot probably expect rational responses from a country that is even afraid of anything with a sharp edge or point. I’m surprised that you Brits haven’t been asked to butter your toast with your index finger. If you are, I expect you will comply without a complaint.

alastair gray
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 12:32 pm

oh dear oh dear oh dear Grifff In view of your last post I had high hopes of you, but I see you have now had your Koolade and are back to normal

alastair gray
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 12:39 pm

If you consult the DEFRA website on air quality you will see that everywhere in the UK NO2 and particulates have declined every year since 1960 and that period 1960-2020 corresponded to a growth in fossil fuel use so we were actually doing pretty well for air quality before diesel became demonised.
https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/data_selector

H B
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 12:53 pm

Griffy do the world a favor stop your own carbon emissions it saves on food bill , electricity bill and rent . Go on it’s painless

Oldanalyst
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 2:50 pm

Show me a single stat that supports your assertion that fossil fuel use has declined.

Oldanalyst
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 2:58 pm

“Intermittent” is a real issue but not as important as capacity availability. A 2MW wind turbine generates at about 25-28% of stated capacity. Thus, once you have paid the higher upfront capital cost of duplicating your total generating capacity, fossil fuel backup is still required. Hence much high costs. Good luck Brits. There will not be enough sweaters to go around!

Ken Irwin
December 2, 2021 2:49 am

As a British subject, I signed the petition and received that response.

Only 19000 – I was shocked.

In the words of Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the hyper-galactic planning council –

“Energize the demolition beam. I don’t know, apathetic bloody planet, I’ve no sympathy.” 

griff
Reply to  Ken Irwin
December 2, 2021 2:50 am

Because in the UK we actually back the science and net zero and renewables.

M Courtney
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 3:04 am

You are right to list those three as separate things.

fretslider
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 3:07 am

No we don’t, griff. They have turned science into a consensus religion.

It’s a one-sided debate – navel gazing.

Stop fibbing.

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
Bill Toland
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 3:44 am

Griff, it is precisely because I back the science that I am against net zero and renewables.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 5:40 am

Computer models aren’t science. If the country was behind net zero and renewables as you claim, you wouldn’t be afraid to have a national discourse on the subject.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 7:18 am

You’re so unique

michel
Reply to  griff
December 2, 2021 9:19 am

You need to explain exactly why ‘the science’ leads you to favor net zero in the UK.

Do you think it will reduce global emissions? If so, by how much?

Or do you think the British force of example will lead to others reducing? If so, who, when and by how much?

The same question about renewables. What renewables do you want to see, in the UK, and how much effect will installing them have on global emissions.

You notice something about climatism and climatarians? The danger is always global. Its dire, its pressing, we have only a few more years, its a turning point…. Its scale is 37 billion tons a year.

And then, what we have to do because doom is small, local and amounts to a couple of hundred million. If that, when you get the accounting straight.

So tell me again, why do you want to do things that will have no effect on what you think the problem is?

fretslider
December 2, 2021 2:53 am

As a signature on the petition I received the email.

The email is supposedly a response to the petition, which with >100,000 signatures should trigger a debate in the House of Commons, but I’m betting in this case it will not. Even if it were debated nothing would change, the other parties are even more gung ho for net zero than the green Tories.

It’s a very long sales pitch with lashings of falsehoods such as:

“It is clear that public concern about climate change is high”

Nobody I know or have encountered has the climate on their mind, they’re worried about real things in real everyday life. Only the well-off can afford to waste everybody’s time protesting about an imaginary crisis.

At the end of what I can only guess is an attempt to change my mind on the matter is the knub of the matter:

“The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.”

The petition system is a clever means of containing dissent. You get the signatures and they might – if you’re lucky – have a talk about it.

The Parliamentary dictatorship is sold hook, line, sinker and copy of the Angling Times on net zero. 

“We must seize the moment to get a head start on this worldwide green industrial revolution and ensure UK industries, workers and the wider public benefit. Taking action now will put us at the forefront of large, expanding global markets and allow us to capitalise on export opportunities in low carbon technologies and services.”

There will be no referendum, of that I’m absolutely certain. Maybe this winter might help to focus minds a little. We live in hope – well, some of us do.

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  fretslider
December 2, 2021 3:29 am

“the other parties are even more gung ho for net zero than the green Tories”

It’s sad to see a once great nation in its death throes.

Oldseadog
Reply to  fretslider
December 2, 2021 3:40 am

Yep, I got the same email reply the other day.

Chas
December 2, 2021 3:10 am

The deadline is 27 April 2022 so there is still time yet.
Most people I know are grumbiling about the stupidity of ending ICE engines and gas boilers 🙁

bonbon
Reply to  Chas
December 2, 2021 4:04 am

See post above on LUNAZ.

bonbon
December 2, 2021 3:35 am

Switzerland had more than 3 referendums in the last few months. The latest, a COVID issue passed well. However that is a completely different democracy to Britain’s – and Biden decides who has a democracy at his latest pantomine, right?
So call in Obama, as did the remainers with Brexit, and look what happened.

bonbon
December 2, 2021 4:02 am

Missing the point.
Listen carefully to UN Climate Finance czar, ex-Bank of England chief, Marc Carney interviewed at FLOP26 by Bloomberg (6min) :
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-11-01/net-zero-a-ruthless-relentless-focus-for-gfanz-carney-video
Look up GFANZ very quickly!

Carney says they have already retooled and changed finance plumbing, and only Bloomberg customers could possibly understand.
Next he pops the rabbit out of the hat – it is a $100 TRILLION green bubble that is at play (elsewhere says 120-150 trillion).
Now imagine Number 10. The City of London desperately needs this boondoggle , cost what is may.
So do talk costs, but talk FINANCE, seriously!
This must be taken head on, or loose yer bangers….

P.S. Why worry about autos – LUNAZ is here to electrify your bangers!
Saving the dinosaurs: Startups drive to electrify fossil-fuel cars
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/saving-dinosaurs-startups-drive-electrify-fossil-fuel-cars-2021-12-02/
Pictures of Aston Martin DB6s awaiting electrification for a shoddy 1 million pounds only….

Last edited 1 month ago by bonbon
fretslider
Reply to  bonbon
December 2, 2021 4:24 am

Buy bitcoin

bonbon
Reply to  fretslider
December 2, 2021 4:32 am

The other part of Carney’s Great Reset is CBDC’s : lookup this report :
¨The Pandora’s Box of Central Bank Digital Currencies¨ and note what is says about inflation. The Central Banks will control this and use them for their purposes.

fretslider
Reply to  bonbon
December 2, 2021 4:41 am

Nullus in verba

You don’t understand how it works. Central banks cannot control it [BTC]. Do some reading.

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
bonbon
Reply to  fretslider
December 2, 2021 5:22 am

Wanna bet on it? Go ahead… It’s your prime numbers…

fretslider
Reply to  bonbon
December 2, 2021 5:41 am

You don’t understand how it works.

And it’s clear you don’t want to. Your choice.

bonbon
Reply to  fretslider
December 2, 2021 8:29 am

Better check this. The conclusion is limited to China, then hear exactly what Carney said. The wild tales of central bank independence are tales from the crypt-o.
Quantum hackers can bring down Bitcoin: expert
https://asiatimes.com/2021/12/quantum-hackers-can-bring-down-bitcoin-expert/

Last edited 1 month ago by bonbon
Paul Buckingham
December 2, 2021 4:03 am

This response from Government, combined with the evidence I have gathered from all relevant Government departments, means that I have made request for criminal investigation to the police and the CPS. Obviously both are avoiding any action, but when a Government is demonstrably lying, this is fraud, and when their lies result in deaths (energy poverty), this is a criminal matter. Happy to work with others to force this criminal investigation.

Smart Rock
December 2, 2021 4:06 am

Create and secure thousands of well-paid, quality jobs

What they don’t say, is that those jobs will be for civil servants, bureaucrats and quango administrators.

Last edited 1 month ago by Smart Rock
observa
Reply to  Smart Rock
December 2, 2021 5:01 am

This should be interesting as they’re getting cocky at local level-
Auckland’s new climate tax is ‘utterly insane’ (msn.com)

Redge
December 2, 2021 4:23 am

Isn’t it time we mounted our own peaceful protests against this nonsense?

Isn’t time fossil fuel companies fought back?

Isn’t time the naïve, gullible people of the UK, and the rest of the world faced up tot the fact that a modern world with healthcare, roads, trains, bicycles, computers, the internet, fashion, make up, lights, heat, cooling, phones, etc, etc, etc, simply can’t exist without fossil fuels?

Fight back (peacefully)!

Vive la révolution

bonbon
Reply to  Redge
December 2, 2021 4:39 am

XR have stolen the thunder of peaceful protest – that sure looks like their role from the start.

December 2, 2021 4:28 am

Lithium prices are rising steeply – as was obviously predictable – as car electrification starts to make its baleful transition from dream to reality

Rising lithium prices risk pushing electric car dreams off the road (msn.com)

bonbon
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
December 2, 2021 4:36 am

Why worry about autos – LUNAZ is here to electrify your bangers!

Saving the dinosaurs: Startups drive to electrify fossil-fuel cars

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/saving-dinosaurs-startups-drive-electrify-fossil-fuel-cars-2021-12-02/

Pictures of Aston Martin DB6s awaiting electrification for a shoddy 1 million pounds only….

Now that is car electrification with a twist!

Climate believer
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
December 2, 2021 6:47 am

Oh but I had been reliably informed by a Grifter that…

“As production and take up increases, costs will drop. That’s basic economics…”

Wrong again eh, how can one person be so consitently dumb?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Climate believer
December 2, 2021 10:22 am

By looking for evidence to support their pre-conceived beliefs.

Tom in Florida
December 2, 2021 4:46 am

In the same survey, after being provided with information on net zero, 78% of all participants said they strongly or somewhat supported the net zero target.”

Wow, where do we start on this one.
What information was provided? Was it accurate? Was it simply propaganda? From what is quoted in the article, it all seems like government speak for baffle them with bullsh*t.
But the real insult is coupling those who strongly support with those who somewhat supported net zero into one category. What is the real number who strongly support? Putting them together reeks of desperation to hide the real number who only strongly support.

December 2, 2021 5:21 am

My own petition has just been launched: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/600685

“The Government should ban MPs from taking payments from organisations and individuals to lobby on their behalf…”

Joseph Zorzin
December 2, 2021 5:45 am

There has been demand building for a referendum on Net Zero.”

I’d like to see such a referendum here in The People’s Republic of Massachusetts.

Matthew Sykes
December 2, 2021 6:39 am

I wouldn’t trust the UK public on this. They have been so brainwashed by BS from Attenborough and the BBC they actually think there is a crisis.

December 2, 2021 7:17 am

Net zero with respect to fossil fuel emissions is just a crazy idea in the political war on the producers. The tropical oceans emit twenty or more times CO2 than all anthropogenic emissions. Nature has it’s own net zero in that, within a year, all those emissions are either returned to local surface or absorbed by cold polar water sinks. There is no accumulation beyond a year. All the sinks that are absorbing natural emissions are effectively doing the same with fossil fuel emissions. Emissions of CO2 from a power plant stack only has to travel to the nearest clouds or any body of cold water. Cutting all anthropogenic emissions will not stop the natural rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

richardw
December 2, 2021 7:45 am

Whoever proposed this petition in the first place needs their head examining. It’s like choosing to fight a battle before you have an army. With the mainstream narrative censoring sceptic views, neither is the population capable of making a balanced judgement, nor would any campaign be fairly covered. Not even Farage will jump on board.

Those publishing sceptical views should, in my opinion, start campaigning to be interviewed in the alternative media so at least the more curious and enlightened citizens who may not have particular views on climate change can be exposed to the arguments. This media segment seems to be growing quite quickly at the expense of the mainstream.

Last edited 1 month ago by richardw
Peta of Newark
December 2, 2021 7:48 am

All those things were said about the Dot Com bubble 20 years ago
It created no new jobs yet was successful, so much so they need to tax ebay and Amazon etc etc while all UK High Streets are now deserted of shops, people and life, even before C19 arrived

All those things were said about the installation of solar panels and small wind turbines 10 years ago
Legions of cowboys turned up, milked the (Feed in Tariff) system for all its worth and vanished.
Yet Global warming rages on

All those things were said about the installation of home insulation, both cavity-wall and loft.
A reasonbly well established company moved in to do the job and (The Mark Group) and promptly went bankrupt, throwing all their installers and administrators onto the jobs scrapheap

and so they try again, recycling the same old blandishments that have failed so successfully over the last 20 years and cost incalulable amounts of money
Even before the cavity walls filled with damp and now has to be removed and insulated lofts filled with rats and mice
sigh

Clyde Spencer
December 2, 2021 9:39 am

… 80% of people in the UK either concerned or very concerned

I would consider myself “very concerned” about so-called ‘climate change’ — however, not in the way implied by the way the terms are being used!

Chris Nisbet
December 2, 2021 11:18 am

“It is clear that public concern about climate change is high”.
If true (which seems doubtful), this doesn’t prove much other than that having lies and half-truths thrust at us from politicians and MSM for decades actually has an impact.
I suspect that claim is just one more lie to add to the pile.

James Bull
December 3, 2021 2:37 am

Democracy only works when the proles vote for what the leaders want.
This is all modeled on the EU’s pattern if they don’t vote for what you want they have to keep voting till they do or the number who turn out to oppose it are small enough for the vote to go through or you can always use the 2020 US ‘election method’.

James Bull

%d bloggers like this: