Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Breitbart; The British House of Lords has stated in a report that young people should shoulder the burden of net zero, because older people won’t benefit from the expenditure.
… Lord Hollick, Chair of the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee, said:
“The Government has set ambitious targets for net zero including a carbon-free power system by 2035; however there is no point planning a carbon-free energy future if you haven’t got a clue how you will get there or how it will be paid for.
“We now need urgent action from the Government to answer outstanding questions on issues such as how they will incentivise households to replace gas boilers with heat pumps – and what plans there are for the 6 million homes where heat pumps may be unsuitable – what funding mechanisms will be established to encourage investment in small modular nuclear reactors and how the upgrade of our infrastructure to allow the use of hydrogen for heating will be funded. These are basic questions that need to be answered before we will get the investment we need to get to net zero.
“The amounts that can realistically be raised via surcharges on energy bills is not enough. Bills are regressive as the poor pay more of their income on energy costs; it is also unfair to the current generation as we are asking current billpayers to cover the huge costs of something that is designed to mainly benefit future generations. The Government should look again at using greater public borrowing to fund what are huge and long-term infrastructure costs. That would give investors confidence to invest in new technologies and ensure the public aren’t hit immediately with higher bills at a time that many are already struggling with fuel poverty.
“While money is a key challenge it isn’t the only one. We need better co-ordination across Government and a real drive and focus to deliver net zero. This requires tackling highly sensitive, political decisions that affect all consumers and taxpayers. That is why we are calling for a new Energy Transformation Taskforce within government that will report directly to the Prime Minster and take the lead in setting and co-ordinating net zero strategy and policy across government.” …
Read more: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/517/industry-and-regulators-committee/news/161468/uk-will-miss-net-zero-target-without-urgent-action-warns-lords-committee/
The House of Lords report, which from my brief review appears to be a mixture of recommendations for communist price controls and a lot of handwaving, is available here.
Given the official UK public debt stands at 103.7% of GDP, I’m not entirely sure where the British Government plans to find creditors dumb enough to lend them the kind of money required for a serious attempt at Net Zero.
But whatever happens, it does make a kind of sense – young people mostly are the ones who believe climate action is necessary, so they should be the ones to pay for it.
Of course, to keep it fair, there should also be an opt out clause for young people who think Net Zero is a stupid waste of resources.
I wonder how many young Greta followers would choose to opt out of paying more tax?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In modern Progressivism, it’s always up to someone else to make the real sacrifices. Nearly everyone who cries about the “climate crisis” thinks someone else should pay for it.
Greta, who has always lived a top-tier 1st world lifestyle doesn’t have a clue. In private, I have no doubt that she’d complain vigorously about having to sacrifice any of her creature comforts.
No matter how governments decide to pay for their energy regression, ultimately the younger will get the bulk of the bill, one way or another. What I tell younger people as an older person is that they can tax away every penny of my accumulated wealth, but what is impossible to take away from me is the lifetime of economic opportunities, experiences and relative comfort that I’ve enjoyed for over half a century of my life. If they follow through with this plan, ultimately the only people they will really be punishing is themselves.
Lately I’ve often hear millennials hopelessly complain that they think they’ll never get to live the kind of life I get to live today. If they keep pushing for these kinds of agendas, they will be right.
We should never underestimate the power of “caring,” as we’ve taught recent generations. “Doing” is of little consequence.
Just as soon as they pay off those student loans…
How about nobody needs to “shoulder the burden” of a scam where the “solution” is less money and less liberty for the people, while the garbage elite get all the heat, light, power, gourmet food, limos, private jets, yachts, private security, and every other luxury they desire.
NOBODY should pay for Climate Action towards “Net Zero “.
There is a hugely negative economic value to these efforts.
CO2 is a wholly beneficial trace gas that all life depends on.
AOC’s chief of staff said that the “climate change” agenda is not about the climate. It is about changing the world’s economic system. With the invasion of Ukraine we can see the results of the “climate change” agenda – through energy a vile dictator pretty much controls Europe. Here in the USA we are seeing what the Green New Deal is doing – prices are going up and reliability is going down. We are hobbling ourselves to accomplish the impossible.
Here on this site most of the discussion is feeding into the socialist and communist’s agenda.
Net Zero pursuits are as effective as spending billions scooping out the ocean with tea spoons to offset supposed dangerous sea rise.
At the same time the lunatic climate crusaders are opposed to everything smart.
That makes then pretty dumb.
Far worse is their dishonesty in their agenda.
The world is not advancing any climate fight progress at all. Yet certain countries insist their populous must sacrifice to play climate warrior nation.
Is it bad to say I hate these people?
Climate action? Net zero? How long will this drivel and waste of resources go on for?
The Central England Temperature record gives temperature readings from the year 1659.
To entertain myself, I had a look at the averages for the summer months (June, July, and August).
No year in the entire record has ever reached an average of 18C for these months, and values between equal to or greater than 17C are seen infrequently. Here are the greater than or equal to 17C values , with the year.
1781 17.0
1826 17.6
1846 17.1
1911 17.0
1933 17.0
1947 17.0
1976 17.8
1983 17.1
1995 17.4
2003 17.3
2006 17.2
2018 17.3
Annual averages of more than 10C are however more common. Clearly there are reasons as to why this is so – changes in weather patterns or methodology perhaps.
Given that the CO2 level pre-1750 was 280ppm (so we’re told) and it’s now 410ppm, and given the fractional remperature variations seen in for example the UAH satellite record, it’s surely time we moved on from the ‘hockey stick’ for example and started to look at climate more broadly. There’s still dispute over the ‘hockey stick’ – a controversial paper from 1999 – frankly, in 2022 who cares? Since the IPCC was formed in 1988, we have 34 years of climate data from around the world. Where the detailed and truthful analyses of climate that sould be the subject of research? The endless wrangling over fractional temperature changes seems interminable. If the world’s climates truly are changing adversely, let’s have some other measured data for different regions – for example rainfall, sunshine, and vegetation.
As a long time resident in the UK (now age 73) I fail to see any changes of concern whatsoever in our climate. Net zero is in my view a farce being inflicted on UK residents by unquestioning politicians, few of whom have a scientific background. Consequently they lack the confidence and courage to challenge their advisors and also the climate scientists who claim that we must do something to regulate the planet’s temperature.
Everybody talks about
the weatherclimate, but no one wants to pay anything for it.Nice attempt, but FALSE. Most people don’t talk about the climate. If you think they do, it probably has something to do with who YOU spend time with.
I think there was a quote where, after Reagan’s landslide second election, some lady in NYC exclaimed: “I don’t know how he was elected, I don’t know ANYONE who voted for him!”
”…infrastructure to allow the use of hydrogen for heating…”
What could possibly go wrong?
I agree with your sentiment BUT, as I learned about 6 months ago on this site, the UK had Town Gas with hydrogen as a component before Natural Gas.
Of course they went to natural gas because it was, and still is, better
Perhaps you missed the “as a component” in that statement. They did not, and will not, have pure hydrogen for heating, cars, airplanes (seriously?), or anything else of major importance.
A very stiff beer tax for climate change mitigation should be tried. Remember to throw a beer party on Downing to celebrate.
I agree fully. They should work out the bill for 2021-2050 and send it to all young people starting with Greta. As soon as they agree they can start their climate engineering projects. After all a good builder does not get stuck in without making sure he has 1. the funding 2. the materials needed.
“That is why we are calling for a new Energy Transformation Taskforce”
Has no one in the UK paid attention to Germany’s Energiewende and how ruinous it’s been to the country?
Cue Scanners head exploding scene……..
“communist price controls”
I knew that Harold Wilson was some sort of socialist. I never realised he was a Communist.
Climate action should be completely voluntary until both sides have equal funding to prove or disprove their case. The way research is done you get funding to prove a premise so the case against is ignored or even deliberately concealed when discovered.