Original image author Chris Potter, http://www.stockmonkeys.com, image modified

UK High Court: Net Zero Policy Violates the Climate Change Act

Essay by Eric Worrall

The UK High Court has ruled the government is not providing enough detail on how they plan to cut CO2 emissions. But the plaintiffs, Friends of the Earth, for once might have done us all a favour.

Climate change: Campaigners hail ruling on ‘net zero’

Campaigners have hailed a High Court ruling that the government’s ‘net zero’ strategy breaches its obligations under the Climate Change Act.

The strategy commits the UK to slash emissions of the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet to reach ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050. 

The court ruled there was not enough detail on how the target would be met.

The judgment during the UK’s first red alert for heat ordered the government to deliver a new report to Parliament.

The government said in response that its net zero strategy was still official policy and noted that the strategy itself had not been quashed by the court.

The campaigners said that the judgement meant the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) would have to update its climate strategy to include a quantified account of how its policies will achieve climate targets. 

Read more: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62223551

This British high court ruling echoes the 2019 ruling, in which the Dutch High Court ruled the Netherlands government was in breach of its own climate laws.

I personally love these kinds of rulings, because they penalise political climate hypocrisy.

In my opinion the British government did not provide details of how they plan to achieve emissions cuts, because they have no idea how to achieve their own climate goals. I believe British politicians passed the climate change act as a smokescreen, to help fool voters into thinking they intend to do something about CO2 emissions.

By ripping away the smokescreen, Friends of the Earth has done us all a favour, by bringing forward the day when politicians will be forced to admit they have no real intention of doing anything to significantly reduce CO2 emissions.

5 33 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 20, 2022 6:03 pm

“UK High Court: Net Zero Policy Violates the Climate Change Act”

They actually ruled that the lack of Net Zero Policy violates the Act.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 21, 2022 1:07 am

Also involved – The Good Law Project which, if you remember, featured (headed up by) the guy who bragged on Twitter about beating the fox that was bothering his chickens, to death with a baseball bat, on New Years Day, whilst he was dressed in his wife’s Kimono.

This is the important bit though:

……and noted that the strategy itself had not been quashed by the court.

So nothing has really changed. Our government will continue to blunder its way through its own uncosted law like the proverbial Fox in the Hen house.

However, has anyone ever known a British politician to ever have been prosecuted for breaching a political law?

It just can’t happen. Who would be blamed in 2050 (a generation away) when the UK fails to achieve its objectives? Then the wasteful inquiry would take another 10 years. We have had three PM’s over the last 6 years or so, how many will we have had by 2060?

The answer is, no one will ever be prosecuted or punished in any way, which is why it’s all political theatre. Nor has it been mentioned by any candidate for the job of PM as a priority. In fact it’s been condemned by both Suella Braverman (the current Attorney General) and Kemi Badenoch, who were both unsuccessful for their bid, but at least one of which are likely to be in the next Cabinet.

We might also watch out for Steve Baker being on the Cabinet. He’s a smart guy, good organiser and a member of the GWPF.

NetZero will get shuffled into the long grass as time goes on because no one has a clue what to do about it when there are more pressing financial priorities to be dealt with first.

And those just keep coming, like defence. Liz Truss has pledged 3% of GDP to it, which is enormous, and represents 1% over what NATO requires of its members and what we have historically committed.

If you want to know which way the wind is blowing, keep an eye who is on the next Cabinet rather than who the next PM is.

John H
Reply to  HotScot
July 21, 2022 2:04 am

There is a law in Scotland that says no patient of the SNHS should have to wait more than 12 weeks for treatment after a diagnosis. Since its introduction its been breeched 100’s of 1000’s of times including myself who waited 15 months for my treatment. Prosecutions nil.

Reply to  John H
July 21, 2022 3:00 am

You make my point beautifully. It was only thanks to covid that my surgery was delayed by several months, but 15 months is outrageous. I live in SE England and it’s blindingly obvious there is a two tier NHS operating between England and the regions.

Were politicians held accountable for their failures Sturgeon would have been sacked years ago, in fact the day following the referendum along with Salmond!

Last edited 2 months ago by HotScot
Reply to  HotScot
July 21, 2022 5:30 am

However, has anyone ever known a British politician to ever have been prosecuted for breaching a political law?”

I suspect they are effectively immune from such prosecution. When John Major was ramming the Maastricht Treaty down our throats there was an attempt to prosecute the two ministers who signed the treaty for a form of treason – the legal argument being along the lines of them knowingly signing up to a treaty that drove a coach and horses through elements of British constitutional law. The case was never heard, it being struck down on the basis that they were acting in their capacity as government ministers. Rowan Atkinson’s lawyer brother Rodney co-wrote a book about the case:


Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 21, 2022 4:20 am

I’d rather they were hypocrites and did nothing. The alternative is Sri Lanka and the Netherlands, God help them (and us)

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 6:39 pm

So is this the beginning of Policy vs Reality?

That is, an establishment Western government being called upon to put hard legislation in place to match their electioneering?

I hope a silk is being briefed to appear before an empowered court to ask –
what exactly IS “net zero”

It seems to be a term that is trotted out with gay abandon in “progressive” announcements, but so far no explanations of how modern civilization is going to produce the

  • food
  • fuel
  • housing
  • electricity
  • health care
  • transport
  • communications

from wind, solar and batteries alone.

You’re over all these challenges, Nick.

Please enlighten us.


Reply to  Mr.
July 20, 2022 9:02 pm

Those essentials u list and no doubt there are any more such as fresh clean water , proper education , standard of living , financial advancement , rubbish clean up and recycling/disposal of the expired wind and solar monstrosities after their short life terms , etc etc .
All pale to insignificance as to the CO2 climate emergency in the minds of our MASTERS.

Reply to  george1st:)
July 21, 2022 5:52 am

One important item missing from your list;- Toilet paper!

Reply to  Jollygreenman
July 22, 2022 12:34 am

Have you tried the Guardian? It’s a bit rough but it works.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Mr.
July 21, 2022 2:21 am

Besides the flawed science, alarmists regularly cover this up by not defining their terms and their devious use of language. Those who reject this climate alarmism usually have the clearest statements of their position in contrast to the sloppy and sensational use of language by the alarmists – calm reason vs agitated emotions.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 6:55 pm

OT – Nick, did you go to the movie?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 7:09 pm

And there is a lack of policy because they have no details on how to accomplish their “goals”.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 20, 2022 10:46 pm

The UK High Court said the government will have to update its climate strategy to include a quantified account of how its policies will achieve climate targets, based on a realistic assessment of what it expects them to deliver. Additionally the Court said that the minister for business, Greg Hand, didn’t have the legally required information on how carbon budgets would be met even though he approved the strategy. The Court went on to say that the net zero strategy “lacked any quantitative assessment of the contributions expected to be made by individual policies to reductions in (greenhouse gas) emissions” and the report did not reveal that the analysis put before Hands left a “shortfall” against the required reductions, or of how that shortfall was expected to be met.

On top of that, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) had previously said that the current strategies are simply not enough for the UK to achieve net zero by the stated 2050 goal. Furthermore, it said that greenhouse gas removal technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, cannot be relied upon to fill gaps in failed policy initiatives.

The irony of it all, Nick, is that any realistic assessment of the technical and economic feasibility of Net Zero in the UK will reveal it is a physical and political impossibility. The proposed Net Zero Policy did not have the legally required specificity because, had they included such information, there would be a rebellion by the voters. A true attempt to quantify the steps required for UK Net Zero will result in the rescinding of the provisions of the insane Climate Change Act. Bet me.

Reply to  Dave Fair
July 21, 2022 12:24 am

Not only impossible, also entirely pointless. The UK does about 450 million tons a year of CO2 out of a global total of 37 billion. No UK emission reductions can have any effect on global temperatures. And they are anyway, small as they would be, wiped out in a couple of months by Chinese and Indian increases.

That’s the direct effect. And anyone who thinks the rest of the world is going to be persuaded by the UK example is deluded.

But I would not be so sure that the Climate Change Act is going to be rescinded. There is a long record of cultures driving themselves to disaster, including in some cases extinction, by idiotic decisions. Net Zero is a modern equivalent of the great Xhosa cattle slaughter of 1856-7.


The really worrying sign is that the Climate Change Act was passed with an almost unanimous vote in the Commons. And yet, at the time, they had no idea how to reach the targets they were setting, or what it would cost, or what good if any if would do.

Reply to  michel
July 21, 2022 1:27 am

Act in haste, repent at leisure.

The CCA and NetZero Laws were passed as politically expedient to appeal to voters, that’s all.

There are MP’s in Westminster with their heads in their hands wondering just how they can make political mileage out an impossible policy. They all know it’s a money black hole and a complete luxury now the cost of covid and Biden’s reckless behaviour is about to hit them broadside.

Personally, I think Biden is doing a smashing job of discrediting the whole NetZero/Build Back Better/Great Reset/Green New Deal project.

We may all be broke and starving by the mid-terms, but at least we’ll have that monkey off our back when the financial reality of it hits the ‘middle class’.

And of course Commissar Josef Bidinsky has just announced that he doesn’t give a damn about Democracy. I don’t think that will go too well for him.

Reply to  HotScot
July 21, 2022 5:36 am

I recall Rishi Sunak being skewered in a TV interview in his early days as Chancellor on the question of costs of Net Zero. He had no idea.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 21, 2022 5:56 am

The bureaucracy looked at the components of the CO2 ‘problem’ and realized transportation was the hardest nut to crack, so they went gangbusters on electrical generation to appear resolute, busy and confidenr. They handwaved changing transportation energy – yeah EV cars, trucks, ships, airplanes, trains… the tech will be there, blah blah.

Abject failure of their ‘easy part’ was a huge, massively destructive shock to the economies and very lives of their citizens, and the citizens of the world when you consider the fallout of policies that damaged the fossil fuel industry setting off a chain of rapidly rising costs for everything. (I know they don’t admit the failure – because pitchforks and torches!)

Blaming the Russian Ukrainian war for the monster they alone have created is a proxy admission that Western leaders were criminally wrong in this marxist madness. The trillions wasted will cost 10s of trillions more to the world and untold tragedies. Even the war would not have occurred had the West not crippled themselves and made adventures by Russia and frightening boldness by China and others.

The blame has to be shared in no small way by a broken, purloined MSM, the NGO establishment, corrupted universities, the billionaire profiteers – the list is large. Many trolls who rail at such sites as WUWT are hapless victims of their education, but not so thousands of prominent climate scientists who have known since the failure of forecasts in the middle of the 1st decade of the new millennium. That they had to change the goalposts and fiddle data to cling to the ‘CO2 Control Knob’ and block publishing of authors with alternate views is incontrovertible proof of their guilt.

Politicians will slip away. Will the alarmist scientists hang in there to be shamed.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 21, 2022 7:30 am

“They handwaved changing transportation energy”

And when Network Rail came forward, late 2021, with a £30 billion plan for electrifying large parts of the UK rail network the Treasury said thanks but no thanks.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 21, 2022 2:17 am

Get the popcorn people as politicians try to cobble together a policy AND GET ELECTED 🙂

I think the UK pollies are just starting to work out they have blown there own leg off.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  LdB
July 21, 2022 6:23 am

It wasn’t their leg they blew off!

Reply to  Nick Stokes
July 21, 2022 2:37 am

The “lack of Net Zero policy” violating the Climate Change Act to which you refer was a failure to honour Sections 13 and 14 of the Act, as His Honour pointed out.
See particularly Paragraphs 235,236 and 252-254 of the Judgement.
Under Sections 14 and 19, the Department was required to provide an explanation to Parliament as to how the Secretary of State’s policies are intended to meet the targets.
“ I do not accept that those obligations could properly be discharged without any quantitative explanation being provided to Parliament”.( Justice Holgate at para.235 and final orders).
According to the BBC, the advice given to the Parliament in 2019 when The Climate Change Act 2008 ( 2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019 was legislated was that the cost over 30 years was £1.4 trillion.
The 2019 Order had an Explanatory Note tellingly stating that “A Full impact assessment has not been produced with this Instrument”.
Two Parliamentary Committees, one in the Commons and the other in the Lords, found in March that there appeared to be no clear pathway and no reliable costing for Net Zero.
As The Lords’ Committee Chairman, Lord Radcliffe remarked,
”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 a clue how you will get there or how it will be paid for.”
This Judgement was entirely predictable.

Reply to  Herbert
July 21, 2022 4:41 am

Interesting letter I received from The Department for BEIS last week. After the usual waffle and nonsense is the revelation that the remaining UK coal power stations have been giving a temporary reprieve in order to keep the lights on. Perhaps the impossibility of “Net Zero” is beginning to dawn on those ruling over us

Thank you for your email of 30 June, to the Rt Hon Kwasi Kwarteng MP, about energy
security. The Secretary of State is grateful to you for having taken the time to write. I have
been asked to respond on his behalf.

Energy security is an absolute priority for the Government. National Grid Electricity System
Operator (NGESO) is responsible for balancing electricity supply and demand in real time, and
we are confident that it has the tools needed to operate the electricity system reliably,
including during periods of low wind and solar generation. NGESO can call on range of
technologies to balance the grid, including gas generation, batteries, interconnectors and
demand-side response. Great Britain benefits from a diverse electricity mix, which ensures
that households, businesses and industry get the energy they need.

In light of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, we are continuing to explore a wide range of
options for further bolstering our electricity security and domestic supply. This includes
temporarily extending the operation of certain coal-fired generation units which would
otherwise have closed later this year. Two coal plant operators have already agreed to
temporarily extend operations, and discussions with a third operator are ongoing.

Thank you again for your email. I hope you find this reply helpful.

Reply to  Martin
July 21, 2022 5:44 am

Energy security is an absolute priority for the Government”

Hmmm. From a government that has actively reduced strategic gas storage capacity, actively prevented fracking, dithered over nuclear, pressed for the closure of coal-powered power stations etc. etc. . Why can’t these dingbats be honest and admit that their priority has been net-zero virtue signalling?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Herbert
July 21, 2022 7:57 am

In their report ‘Achieving Net Zero’ (2nd April 2022) the UK Commons Public Accounts Committee said

“The government has unveiled a plan without answers to key questions of how it will fund the transition to net zero, including how it will deliver policy on and replace income from taxes such as fuel duty or even a general direction of travel on levies and taxation. The Government has no reliable estimate of what the process of implementing the net zero policy is actually likely to cost British consumers, households,businesses and Government itself.”

It noted that Treasury witnesses “were reluctant to be drawn on future costs of achieving net zero cautioning that the Climate Change Committee estimates contain ‘heroic assumptions’ with errors potentially compounding over very long periods.

“The Government has no clear plan for how the transition to net zero will be funded – “vague performance measures”, “lack of overall budget”, limited assessment of the cost impact on consumers”

And much more in a similar vein.

July 20, 2022 6:04 pm


“Microwave radiation emissions are known to increase thermal temperatures, contributing to the climate change challenges and life-threatening effects of raising temperatures in cities. Heat island impacts are defined as large urban areas that are affected by increases in city temperatures …”

Carlo, Monte
July 20, 2022 6:22 pm

Another genius at work: Brandon’s “climate advisor” sez Brandon will move forward with “every power available to him” to get rid of fossil fuels.



Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 20, 2022 6:51 pm

Let the litigation begin. If the EOs Joke Biteme plans on implementing are unconstitutional, and they will be, they will be challenged in court. Possibly, SCOTUS will need to rule on the legality of whatever the administration puts forth.
And, just in time for the mid-terms. Amazing. Should be interesting.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 20, 2022 7:47 pm

Every kind of power except for brain power.

Reply to  Scissor
July 21, 2022 5:59 am

I like what you just said/stated/wrote. No copyright on that I hope.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 21, 2022 5:08 am

What’s Joe going to fly around in?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Ron
July 21, 2022 5:46 am

A wheelchair?

July 20, 2022 6:42 pm

Be careful what you wish for.

Given the amount of damage the governments of US, Britain, Canada, EU have done in the last 3 years in the name of COVID, climate change, Ukraine, I’m not sure they aren’t willing to do more damage to meet net zero. The suffering of their own citizens does not seem to matter.

Reply to  tgasloli
July 20, 2022 9:09 pm

The suffering of their own citizens…”
The collapse of our ‘free’ societies is their goal.

Reply to  tgasloli
July 20, 2022 10:40 pm

The farmers insurrections will look like baby showers if they actually try to implement Net Zero, because Net Zero is a fiscal and physical impossibility.

Reply to  Felix
July 20, 2022 11:11 pm

Net zero is a very stupid idea and anyone who believes in it should stop exhaling CO2, right now!

Reply to  tgasloli
July 21, 2022 3:47 am

Put Australia and New Zealand on that list as well . Gotta hav some from suthn hemisfear

July 20, 2022 6:45 pm

With Carrie leaving 10 Downing Street, maybe climate sanity can return to British politics. Maybe. Unfortunately, I’m not sure if any politician understands anything at all about what they are dealing with. On the plus side, Rishi Sunak, who looks likely to be Britain’s next PM, has said that he will open up North Sea development, but then he has also imposed a “windfall profit” tax on North Sea producers. Like I said, I’m not sure if any politician understands anything at all about what they are dealing with. What I am hoping (an impossible dream??) is that in the final vote between Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss, the Conservative Party members will put a line through them both and write in Kemi Badenoch.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 21, 2022 4:04 am

I think they pale into insignificance besides e,g. Siemens who make wind turbines and pour billions into the Party. The ‘Renewable Obligation’ is an EU invention.

But in the end, a government that gets voted out cannot use government for corrupt purposes, which is the point of Brexit. There is now a little democratic control over the party and the government.
The Rishi/Truss duo are going to the party members, and the party members are hard line Brexiteers and hard line economic libertarians. So my expectation is that Truss will be next PM.
She then faces the overweening issues of getting the party re-elected. And the Eco cat is out of the biologically degradable bag. Net Zero is pointless, can’t in practice be achieved, and is going to cost the tax payer trillions. At a time when energy prices are impoverishing the masses at the lower end of that living standards bell curve.
The next PM will have to balance voter outrage at the price rises he/she is being subjected to, and the imposition of unsuitable cars and home heating kit on them at prices they cannot afford to pay, using quantities of scarce minerals and metals that are simply not available, against the political desire to jump on the eco bandwaqgon and be seen to be DoingSomething™.

And if that person has the courage to repeal the ClimateChange Act – imposed by the EU as a Directive – and ditch the Reneweable Obligation in favour of a sensible costed policy that actually does reduce dependence on Russian and Arabic oil and gas, then electoral victory beckons.

In short frack baby frack, for gas, and get building mini nukes on a production line, and then let the market dictate how things go as fossil prices rise.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 21, 2022 8:07 am

Ex PM David Cameron’s wife’s father reportedly receives around £500,000 a year in rent for the two windfarms on his estate.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
July 21, 2022 3:48 am

Too late mate. Liz is gonna win, like it or leave it. At least she has a bit of a brain and heavy libertarian tendencies.
Rishi is a proven liar of political expediency. I trust him about as far as you can throw Micahael Mann.

Reply to  Leo Smith
July 21, 2022 5:48 am

That far? 🙂

Reply to  DaveS
July 21, 2022 12:31 pm

Remember, you have to throw him while you are sitting in front of your desk at home, using only the power of your mind.

John V. Wright
July 20, 2022 7:54 pm

Interesting Eric. There is currently a massive failure of journalism in the U.K. (I write as a former journalist). Journalists used to be inquisitive creatures, always asking questions. With Net Zero, not a single reporter appears to be asking the hard questions – it’s almost as if they have simply accepted the Government’s ‘truth’ about manmade CO2 causing catastrophic global warming and the Net Zero policy as a response to it.

And yet there is a potentially massive story waiting to be broken. As I understand it, total CO2 in the atmosphere amounts to 0.04% (roughly 400 parts per million). If manmade CO2 is some 4% of that, that equates to 0.0012% of the atmosphere. Now according to the latest BP survey (just out) the UK contributes 1% of manmade CO2. Which seems to indicate that the UK is responsible for just 0.000012% of manmade CO2 in the global atmosphere.

So – that’s the start point of Net Zero isn’t it? If Net Zero is where we are heading, 0.000012% – an amount that is probably not actually detectable (?) – is the start point. Isn’t it?

Surely there is a science correspondent somewhere in the UK who can ask the Government these questions and put this story together. Here’s another way of looking at it. The UK has three working coal-fired power stations and contributes 0.000012% of manmade CO2 to the atmosphere. China has 1,100 coal-fired power stations and is building another 240 THIS YEAR. Now – of these two nations, which one has committed to a policy of Net Zero?

Obviously the BBC and the Guardian will avoid this story like the plague. But surely there is a science reporter on the Daily Telegraph or the Daily Mail who can break this story and challenge the Government over these figures?

John V. Wright
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 20, 2022 8:51 pm

Yes, I admired JD’s work for a long time. And you are right about the general trend in Britain. But journalists should have high professional standards – what on earth are they up to? This is a big story!

Reply to  John V. Wright
July 21, 2022 4:06 am

Journalists have wives and families and mortgages, not high standards. The green blob pays much better than the truth

Reply to  John V. Wright
July 20, 2022 9:48 pm

Net zero means that emissions must not exceed sinks; it matters not whether that is 27% or 0.00001%. Thus logically the starting point is to find a method, if one is possible, to determine the actual sinks of CO2 in kilotons, grams, or whatever, If the sinks turn out to be 10,000,000,000 ton per year then, under net zero, 10,000,000,000 tons per year of emissions are allowed.

Now that it is properly started, a plan to limit emissions to 10,000,000,000 tons per year (or whatever quantity the real sinks are) can be worked out. I suspect that “they” are a long way from really getting started. As usual, they seem to be putting the cart before the horse.

Reply to  AndyHce
July 21, 2022 5:46 am

Try building more greenhouses that enrich their atmospheres with CO2, scrubbed from the atmosphere, and let the farmed plants be the sinks. More greenhouses, less CO2, more food. It can be done:


Dave Fair
Reply to  John V. Wright
July 20, 2022 11:01 pm

John, as the clothing on the Emperor is falling off thread by thread there will come a time that the jackals in the media will fall upon the people and institutions that are improvising the populace. It is too big a story to continue ignoring. We are talking about trillions of dollars down the rathole and crony capitalist’s obscene profiteering.

Reply to  John V. Wright
July 21, 2022 3:28 am

As I understand it, total CO2 in the atmosphere amounts to 0.04% (roughly 400 parts per million). If manmade CO2 is some 4% of that, that equates to 0.0012% of the atmosphere.

But it’s not some 4% of the atmospheric content. The total man-made contribution is considered to be the difference between current (419) and pre-industrial (280) ppm CO2. So 33% of current atmospheric CO2 is considered to be human caused.

Now according to the latest BP survey (just out) the UK contributes 1% of manmade CO2. Which seems to indicate that the UK is responsible for just 0.000012% of manmade CO2 in the global atmosphere.

This ignores cumulative emissions. These are taken into account in political climate negotiations because of the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. By 2020, the UK’s cumulative emissions were estimated to be ~78 billion tonnes, the fifth hightest overall, after the US, China, Russia and Germany, in that order.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 21, 2022 4:40 am

Please give us a study that PROVES that 280 ppm of CO2 is the BEST concentration for the globe! My suspicion is that there is none! The study should include a COST/BENEFIT, please note the benefit part showing what the optimum concentration is.

If there is no scientific proof of what the BEST concentration of CO2 actually is, then your assertions have no weight whatsoever.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
July 21, 2022 6:14 am

I didn’t make any assertions about what the ‘best’ amount of CO2 in the atmosphere might be. So maybe you can look into that yourself Jim, if you’re not doing anything else?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 21, 2022 6:30 am

You are the one making the refutation assertions. It’s up to you to provide the support for your assertions.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 21, 2022 6:48 am

Actually, I’m refuting assertions made by John V. Wright above, not making any of my own.

Namely, his assertion that the human contribution to current atmospheric CO2 concentrations is around 4% when in fact it’s around 33% (see the links above). Also, ignoring cumulative emissions when calculating individual countys’ contribution to that CO2 level, something all IPCC signatory countries acknowledge.

I didn’t make any comment, far less any assertion, that one concentration was better or worse than the other. If you’re interested in that subject, by all means conduct your own study into it.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 21, 2022 3:37 pm

So in your mind, 400 – 800 could be an appropriate concentration. You’ve got to make a decision here or don’t tell folks they are incorrect.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  TheFinalNail
July 21, 2022 5:54 am

Have you stopped breathing yet?

July 20, 2022 7:58 pm

Whether the actors involved actually intend to achieve net zero (which is theoretically possible), they will never, ever reveal the details of how it will be done. Because even the most blinkered people will realize that the required death toll is more than that caused by all of the historic mass murderers combined, from the Mongols to today.

July 20, 2022 8:25 pm

Rejoice, Liz is coming. You are going to have a feast of brainpower across the pond now.

Reply to  Pauleta
July 21, 2022 12:57 am

Due to braindrain, I guess.

Reply to  Dennis
July 21, 2022 2:19 am

Yep it’s classic the UK is going to beat itself up all to achieve nothing … it is amusing 🙂

July 20, 2022 9:17 pm

The court ruled there was not enough detail on how the target would be met.”

Ummmm… I don’t think it’s wise to kick the tires and look under the hood of that car.

Dave Fair
Reply to  H.R.
July 20, 2022 11:09 pm

H.R., that’s the fun of zealots. They will make you prove that you can and will meet their insane demands. The legal profession has been fine-tuned to extract the maximum amount of blood out of the zealot’s lawfare targets. In this case it is the inept government.

July 20, 2022 9:30 pm

They do seem to have a “real intention” of making life miserable for most people.

Reply to  AndyHce
July 21, 2022 2:20 am

The UK court seems hell bent on making sure they make that happen 🙂

Last edited 2 months ago by LdB
Reply to  AndyHce
July 21, 2022 10:43 am

The purpose of government is to screw all citizens in every way possible….and in ways unimaginable.

Ben Vorlich
July 20, 2022 10:07 pm

One of the key things missing from UK government policy is the cost of all this Net Zero.
Does the UK have have to be Net Negative until countries like China are Net Zero to account for all our imports?
I’m certain most people in the UK think that renewable energy accounts for at least half our electricity and it’s just changing to EVs and we’re there. Most don’t know how much CO2 is down to us.
But it sounds a great, easy to achieve low cost idea.

July 20, 2022 10:57 pm

The UK is halfway to meeting its net zero emissions target.

The UK’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 were 51% below 1990 levels, according to new Carbon Brief analysis. This means the UK is now halfway to meeting its target of “net-zero” emissions by 2050.

The result?

Diddly squat.

Reply to  Redge
July 21, 2022 12:56 am

Mind you, if you include offshoring, I bet the result is a significant Increase!

Reply to  Redge
July 21, 2022 2:36 am

No if you believe Griff, Nick Stokes and Loydo and the greentards they got a massive heatwave and more to come 🙂

Had they been pragmatic and just spent the money on actually fixing stuff they would be in a lot better position.

Coeur de Lion
July 20, 2022 11:28 pm

All the Net Zero discussions seem to centre on electricity generation. I’m looking forward to the exposure of plans to deal with shipping, aviation, forestry, agriculture and road transport. Prof Kelly’s paper says he couldn’t deal with those emitters properly.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
July 21, 2022 4:25 am

Sssh. That lot is firmly under the carpet for now.
I did write a short set of thoughts on that some years back.
My final conclusion is fairly simple, it can all be dine one way or another and the best way to work out which way is first of all to get rid of the Renewable Obligation and stop distorting the market.
Having done that, as peak oil approaches and passes, whatever works best at lowest cost will be developed, because it will be profitable. Let the market decide.

My best guesses were a nuclear electric society, with other reduction agents than coal being used to smelt metals, make concrete etc. Fertiliser can be made fromm ammonia via the well known Haber process and plastics can be made – and are being made – from ‘organic’ starting points. Plastics are very useful but they are not massive consumers of oil.

The biggest challenge is of course transport. In the limit, synthetic hydrocarbon fuel is probably cheaper and safer than e.g. hydrogen, and is probably not far off being cost effective at today’s prices. Big ships can be nuclear powered and made very fast indeed – who cares about savinbg a few grams of uranium on a voyage – and not entirely a bad way for people to travel long distances either.

Surface transport devolves to railways – lacking cheap hyrocarbons, and now with computer technology, an electric rail system could be very clean fast and cheap to trasnport goods and people around over longish distances.

Locally electric driverless cars and vans do the last 10 miles etc.

A society as different from today as the horse drawn world of the 19th cebtury, that will take 50+ years to arrive, bit by bit. A mix of what is possible, what is cost effective and what peole want. No government should even attempt to second guess the details, it should merely remove as many barriers as possible to its development.

The problem is that having sown the wind of climate hysteria, governments are now about to have to deal with the whirlwind.

Oh well, keep your powder dry and batten down the hatches, and find a safe place to watch the carnage from.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Leo Smith
July 21, 2022 6:49 am

Mmmm….. You may want to rethink this a little bit.

Plastics are very useful but they are not massive consumers of oil.”

Plastics are somewhere between 5% and 10% of total oil usage. Take away the rest and how much investment in oil production can 5-10% of current production justify? Probably very little – meaning supplies will become much more costly.

Surface transport devolves to railways – lacking cheap hyrocarbons, and now with computer technology, an electric rail system could be very clean fast and cheap to trasnport goods and people around over longish distances.”

It is already difficult and costly to maintain the current rail system because of rail bed changes over time. Considering the cost of having to maintain continuous conductivity of the rail line over long distances it is not obvious that such a system would be fast and cheap. Add to this the possibility of intermittent outages of a “green” electric grid system and the rail system would become a tangled up mess in short order. I can’t even imagine the re-engineering and re-manufacturing of all the switch points/sidings that would be required to maintain conductivity for both the main rail as well as the sidings!

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Tim Gorman
July 21, 2022 8:25 am

Towards the end of 2021 Network Rail in the UK put forward a plan to electrify some, not all, parts of the UK rail system at a cost of £30 billion (inevitably an underestimate once the work actually started). The Treasury didn’t like it and said no.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Leo Smith
July 21, 2022 3:33 pm

“an electric rail system could be very clean fast and cheap to trasnport goods and people around over longish distances.

Locally electric driverless cars and vans do the last 10 miles etc.”

Fast and stopping every 30 miles to load & unload isn’t going to be” fast” by any stretch of the imagination. Also here in the central U. S., 10 miles isn’t going to be enough, more like 75 – 100 or even more depending on where rail lines are built.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
July 21, 2022 6:39 am

None of the cost analyses include *any* of the ancillary costs of going net zero for electricity generation and transportation. These sectors are major users of oil. Their use helps justify further investment in the infrastructure providing oil to the world. The other major use of oil is in plastics. As investments in oil production fall, reducing oil supplies, the costs to the plastic sectors are going to shoot up, perhaps exponentially.

Just stop for one single minute and think about how your life would change if everything you have that is plastic doubles or triples in price. Ballpoint pens, suitcases, phones, measuring tapes, furniture, car dashboards, and on and on and on and on and on ……

July 20, 2022 11:38 pm

If there were enough details there could be a reasonable cost estimate and feasibility study for Nut Zero. The results would be shockingly expensive and not even feasible. So there is no detailed plan for each utility and company involved. And of there was, the battery capacity required would be arbitrarily kept well below the needed level for grid reliability, just to keep the estimated costs down.

If there was a detailed Nut Zero plan for the nation, and for each utility involved, then one could determine that the Nut Zero progress so far is already well behind schedule. For example, the mining required for lithium, copper, etc., required for batteries and infrastructure. In reality, Nut Zero is not going according to plan because there is no feasible, affordable plan.

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Greene
July 21, 2022 12:51 am

Net Zero – no; BUT Wealth Zero – Yes!

July 21, 2022 2:06 am

read Professor Ian Plimers latest climate book “GREEN MURDER NET ZERO”
Emeritus professor of geology University of Melbourne 600 pages 1600 references. Connor Court Publishing also from Amazon

Michael in Dublin
July 21, 2022 2:12 am

“I believe British politicians passed the climate change act as a smokescreen, to help fool voters into thinking they intend to do something about CO2 emissions.”

Politicians in Ireland and other EU countries are on a similar course.

If a private company sells a product that is harmful to the users when caught out they will be taken to court, have to pay a huge fine and withdraw the product. The same should happen to governments and politicians – but the fines should be paid by the political parties and politicians who supported these schemes and not the taxpayers. But here they should also include the beneficiaries of these fraudulent government green schemes. This would make them think twice before getting involved.

Last edited 2 months ago by Michael in Dublin
July 21, 2022 2:31 am

Another one set to go to UK courts is the pylon debacle to the wind farms.


112 miles of above ground Pylons versus Griff’s much touted HVDC subsea connectors … the later being deemed too expensive.

The green revolution is starting to look like something else to many in the UK 🙂

Last edited 2 months ago by LdB
July 21, 2022 3:44 am

A similar own goal appeared when Gina Miller got the courts to rule it as unconstitutional if the Brexit deal was not passed as a law in parliament, debated and vorted on and so on.
Meant to halt or cripple Brexit by making it a name only exercise, it had the reverse effect, it stopped a unilateral government decision resulting in a essentially a name only exit happening.
With respect to net Zero, there is another aspect: policies as deep and far reaching as this have to be subjected to some kind of formal costing before parliament can debate and pass them. This has not been done either.

July 21, 2022 3:55 am

Producing CO2 costs a lot of money .
Reducing CO2 costs a fortune .

Reply to  george1st:)
July 21, 2022 3:59 am

Why the world is rolling with coal despite the hysterics of the doomsters-
Column-Global 2021 coal-fired electricity generation surges to record high: Kemp (msn.com)

Dave Andrews
Reply to  observa
July 22, 2022 7:45 am

World coal use doubled from 2000 to 2020.. There are around 700 GW of coal fired plants 0-9 years old, 650 GW 10-20 years old and 700GW over 20 years old including 120 GW over 50 years old ( as at Nov 2021).

Coal has a good looking future, notwithstanding the growing expansion in China, India and Indonesia.

July 21, 2022 4:50 am

…or they could get real and simply repeal the law. Nothing says there must be such a law in the first place. Problem solved.

Reply to  Pflashgordon
July 21, 2022 5:59 am

Yah, but… then the whiney little greenies, with nothing better to do, will glue themselves to the front steps of the politicians’ houses… and demand tea and biscuits every two hours.

“But, but, but you promised net zero! How could you repeal it? We want our net zero.”

💡 ! But then the greenies wouldn’t be gluing themselves to the road and disrupting everyone else.

Great idea, Pflashgordon! 👍

July 21, 2022 5:21 am

Net zero was a unanimous empty political promise. Now it is biting them, hopefully hard.

Reply to  David Wojick
July 21, 2022 10:52 am

Nut Zero is not biting anyone yet.
Getting closer.
That will require blackouts that can’t be explained away.

Nut Zero is the panic reaction to climate scaremongering,
empowering leftist governments. The return to climate
scaremongering replaces the very effective Covid
scaremongering in 2020 and 2021. Fear is generated
to increase political power. It’s still working for the leftists.

Paul C
July 21, 2022 5:30 am

I have just been introduced to this monthly newspaper. A nice review of the climate fraud on page 6, but also contains many thought-provoking articles.


July 21, 2022 7:50 am

The first phase of the climate insanity was what I call the “photo op”, which was when every politician wanted to get a photo taken with them supporting the “hi tech” (old tech) birdmincers.

The next phase, was the scam …where every tom dick and harry of business and academia saw “global warming” as a quick way to make money from birdmincers and other monstrositities … at apparently zero cost to themselves.

The next phase: realism as the costs start to escalate out of control, as politicians who formerly saw birdmincers and similar scam technology as a simple way to increase their profile as “electable” politicians, start realising that the public have grown tired of having our money stolen from us by Big Business dressed up in green.

The next phase, is what I would call “panic”, as those in government start saying: “what the $$$ have we done?”. Because suddenly the costs start rising, not just a little bit as they imagined, but instead the impact of energy throughout the economy starts to bite extremely severely, and instead of a virtuous cycle of improving GDP, as we saw during the period of fossil fuels, we start to see a vicious cycle of declining GDP, extremely upset electorates and panicking politicians.

The next phase is “I thought we had stopped it?” as the cost increases created by the Net Zero insanity, start to have extremely problematic long term effects, severely denting economic performance (of the west) and making it impossible, despite reversing all the policies to get anywhere near “back where we started”. Basically, we will discover, that once Net Zero cost rises are in the pipeline, that they will continue putting up prices, increasing inflation and reducing GDP for a generation.

And, the final phase is the: “China is the world power now” …. where the decline in western economies is so severe that the West is no longer capable of taking on China.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Mike Haseler (aka Scottish Sceptic)
July 21, 2022 1:55 pm

Very good. My guess you can count the number of Democrats that understand virtuous/vicious cycling on two fingers on one hand.

July 21, 2022 8:27 am

It is past time the High Court recognises the truth that CO2 does not cause warming. Is it not also true that in the past 100 years CO2 has increased by nearly 50% while the 1930’s remain the warmest ?

July 21, 2022 8:35 am

Same deal in Oz as Federal Labor sticks a big Green and Teal target on its back-
Enshrining Labor’s climate target into law ‘a suicide note’ (msn.com)

It’s a suicide note alright without any real trajectory plan. I only hope the Lib/Nats have the nous to argue against it in Parliament with the proviso they’ll abstain from voting as the Govt has a mandate for it via the election campaign. Let Labor hang themselves with their unachievable virtue signaling as it’s easily rescinded when that becomes bleeding obvious. Never interfere with an opponent making a critical tactical blunder.

Andy Pattullo
July 21, 2022 8:39 am

Clearly the highest courts are not taking magic into consideration. They seem to have very narrow views based on a religious belief in the rules of physics and economics.

July 21, 2022 1:35 pm

I welcome this, because they will have to come up with an actual plan.
That plan can then be costed.
This is where the sceptics come in, and produce a cost estimate of the plan.
We all know the cost will be several times what they have admitted to so far.
So surely this is good news. A bit of truth coming out for a change.

July 21, 2022 3:28 pm

The best news is that once the costs to ordinary people is exposed, together with the news that China, India, Malaysia, Iran, etc are not going to destroy their economies with madness, then all hell will break loose. An just imagine when the true hourly integrated world temps show a declining trend….. Journalists prefer simpler selling tools like it was 37.8 deg C ( delete for 2 minutes) , a catastrophic trend!

Cheshire Red
July 22, 2022 6:05 am

UK politicians passed a law on carbon targets, and now realise they cannot hit the carbon targets they themselves passed into law!

%d bloggers like this: