Pensioner left in the cold after his boiler failed: Source Liverpool Echo, Fair Use, Low Resolution Image to Identify the Subject.

“Britain has Become a Poorer Country” – but is STILL Chasing NET ZERO

Essay by Eric Worrall

The mainstream media are failing us, not asking obvious questions, like “how can we prevent energy prices spiralling out of control?”.

As the UK falls into a recession that could soon swallow Europe, this town offers clues on England’s cost-of-living nightmare

By Lucia Stein

While much of the world anxiously waits to see if their economies will tip into a recession next year, the United Kingdom may already be in the midst of one.

The economy shrank 0.3 per cent between July and September, in what Bank of England forecasts say is the start of a “prolonged period” of negative growth that will last throughout 2023.

“Why is Britain set to be the first country into recession and the last country out?” Labour leader Keir Starmer asked in parliament last month.

“The UK has effectively become a poorer country, not just poorer than we expected to be, actually just poorer,” Institute for Fiscal Studies senior research economist Ben Zaranko said.

With expectations that about 710,000 households across the UK will struggle to pay for warm clothing, heating and food this winter, residents in Burnley have resorted to cutting back on electricity use as much as possible.

Basically, the price of imported goods — such as energy, fuel, gas, and food — are rising at a faster rate than the price of the UK’s exported goods, resulting in a yawning current account deficit.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/as-the-uk-falls-into-a-recession-that-could-soon-swallow-europe-this-town-offers-clues-on-england-s-cost-of-living-nightmare/ar-AA15MJ7j

The following is the UK Opposition Leader asking why the UK is at the bottom of the league when it comes to economic hardship. But the opposition leader doesn’t have any solutions.

Everyone knows what the solution is – drill for more petroleum. The UK has enormous gas and oil reserves which are currently not be exploited, which could be used to bring down prices. All the UK has to do is issue a few fracking permits.

But people keep skirting around this obvious solution, including the author of the MSN article above.

Even if you don’t think the UK has enough frackable gas to make a difference, why stand in the way of people trying?

We have moved from being a free society, to a society of social pressure to avoid discussing forbidden topics.

Suppressing discussion also suppresses public efforts to marshal support for finding solutions. Britain is teetering on the brink of a severe recession and millions of people are suffering needlessly, because too many people no longer feel free to discuss major problems and possible solutions in public.

Lucia Stein, you wanted to be a journalist so much you made it your career. I assume you wanted to help people when you chose journalism as your profession. So how can you and your fellow journalists live with yourselves, how can you keep silent and keep avoiding the obvious, when there is so much more you and your fellow journalists could do to help alleviate the suffering of millions of people?

5 32 votes
Article Rating
81 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John V. Wright
December 30, 2022 10:22 pm

Oh Eric, it’s much worse than that here!

  1. Britain produces 0.000012% of global CO2. The plan is to go from there to Net Zero…
  2. Our government will not allow fracking because fracking creates CO2 and that, it says, is a bad thing. So in order to meet the shortfall in national energy production they are…importing fracked gas from the United States. No really, they are. Even if you sat down with them and explained really slowly they still wouldn’t get it.
  3. Britain has large shale deposits and huge onshore oil and gas deposits still unused. As a nation we could be energy independent in about five years. Sadly, this will never happen because even when the Conservatives lose the next election in two years time the incoming Labour government also believes that fracking/offshore oil and gas production are bad things. We are screwed either way.
  4. The Reform party is the only political party in Britain that supports fracking and energy independence. Currently, it is too small to have an impact. But we hope that it grows quickly and becomes a power in the land. It is the only Right-of-centre political party in the country.
Phillip Bratby
Reply to  John V. Wright
December 30, 2022 11:38 pm

Yes, the only way out of the mess created by LIbLabConGreen is ReformUK. We must promote it for all our worth.

michel
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
December 31, 2022 2:34 am

With or without Reform, in two years from now the UK is probably looking at a landslide Labour government. I have seen polls suggesting the Conservative Party falling to around 60 MPs. If Reform splits the small C conservative vote this becomes more likely.

Mainstream coverage does not seem to have addressed what a landslide on this scale would mean. It would dwarf the 1948 landslide. It would probably wipe out the Conservative Party as an electoral force.

It would also enable the radical climate agenda to which Labour seems ever more committed. There would be no restraints whatever on them. The second chamber is toothless and in any case is strongly left-leaning. Miliband, the author of the Climate Change Act 2008, is still a force to be reckoned with. Starmer has, as a for instance, talked about total decarbonization of the generating plant in the UK by 2030. With such a landslide there would be nothing to stop the Party going for it.

Along with other radical fringe policies, probably including nationalization of much of the energy infrastructure of the country.

If things continue on the present path it will be time to fasten seat belts.

HotScot
Reply to  michel
December 31, 2022 6:19 am

Conservative Party falling to around 60 MPs.

This is only a technical possibility. Highly unlikely.

It would probably wipe out the Conservative Party as an electoral force.

To be replaced with either the Lib-Dems or Reform UK, likely Reform UK as the official opposition. That at least changes the dynamic in parliament.

It would also enable the radical climate agenda to which Labour seems ever more committed. 

Theresa May enshrined NetZero into law, there is barely a more radical position than that.

There would be no restraints whatever on them. 

With an 80 seat majority there were no restraints on the Conservatives but they couldn’t ram through what they wanted. Labour will face precisely the same problems the Conservatives did.

Starmer has, as a for instance, talked about total decarbonization of the generating plant in the UK by 2030.

Its easy to make outrageous claims when in opposition knowing you can never fulfil them. The time to judge will be in 2024 when labour reveal their election manifesto, and in 2029 when they have failed to implement it, as labour always does.

including nationalization of much of the energy infrastructure of the country.

They can’t just wave a magic wand and nationalisation happens. It’s a difficult process to manage as so many energy assets are owned by investors who will want to see a substantial return. It could affect every investment decision made into the future as the UK would be seen as untrustworthy.

bobpjones
Reply to  HotScot
December 31, 2022 11:17 am

Aren’t our politicians already perceived as untrustworthy? In consideration of how they handled the referendum, and seriously tried to overturn it?

As for renationalization, alas, you’re right. Thatcher sold off all UK assets to fill the pockets, of the wealthy via tax reductions and their investments in lucrative newly independent utilities.

HotScot
Reply to  bobpjones
January 1, 2023 6:15 am

The ERG group was filled with loyal Brexiteers, and largely climate sceptics as well.

Thatcher did the country a favour by selling off nationalised businesses that were bleeding the country dry. They were a battleground for socialism and were a huge burden on the taxpayer. Many ordinary people have done very well from share ownership in BT and British gas.

MarkW
Reply to  michel
December 31, 2022 8:56 am

In other words, you have to support an awful party, in order to prevent the really awful party from gaining more power.

If the choice is sliding into hell fast, or really fast, why bother?

michel
Reply to  MarkW
January 1, 2023 12:20 am

No, that’s not what I said. I wasn’t advocating any particular vote, just reflecting on the probable outcome of the present situation, which is universally expected to lead to a Labour landslide, at least in England.

But you are right, in the way things look to be in two years time, voting will be choosing the lesser of two evils. It often is. The British have had a Conservative government for 12 years now, and like it or not the choice two years from now will be between Conservative and Labour in England. In Scotland probably between SNP and Labour, unless there is an unexpected Conservative revival. In Wales Plaid or Labour.

It is hard to see energy and climate policies changing under a Labour government. As a for instance, none of the four major political parties (five if you count Plaid) has even mentioned the possibility of repealing the Climate Change Act.

I think HotScot is wrong to discount the possible collapse of the Conservative Party. FPTP electoral systems can do this, a party can simply fall off the cliff. It happened to the Liberals in the first half of the 20c, and it really could happen to the Conservatives.

At the last election the UK electorate consigned Corbyn’s anti-Semitic Trotkyite tendency to the ‘dustbin of history’. That was because Johnson appeared (and I think was) obviously the best of the available choices. Best=least bad.

But that will not be true in two years time, when Starmer’s colorlessness will be his greatest asset in the campaign. And if Labour really does win by a landslide, Miliband, obsessed by climate catastrophe, will be in charge of energy policy.

HotScot thinks there will be restraints on what even the largest Labour majority can do, and cites the relative feebleness of the Johnson government as an example. I think this is wrong. He doesn’t cite what stopped it, and I think there is nothing in the UK constitution to do so.

The Johnson government wasn’t impeded from policies by anything. It had the power, but it did not want to do anything radical, and it was too disorganized to get it done, even if it had.

A Labour government in two years time, with a far greater majority than Sunak presently has, will have nothing to prevent them from pursuing Net Zero on a grand and thorough scale. I think they will, and I think Britain will be a different country after they get through.

HotScot
Reply to  michel
January 1, 2023 6:47 am

I didn’t discount the possible collapse of the conservative party, kindly read what I posted.

Miliband is using climate as a pawn, just like every other politician is. Like I said, it’s easy to shout from the sidelines.

What stopped Boris from going too far was political pressure, money, commercial reality and Biden cutting the US oil and gas market off at the knees. Exactly the same, and now Russia’s intervention will stop Starmer who is even more moderate than Boris was.

Starmer has pulled the labour party toward the right. And whatever can be said about him, he’s a lawyer and isn’t inclined to stick his neck out when he knows full well climate change is universally questioned.

michel
Reply to  HotScot
January 2, 2023 8:25 am

The latest polls and accounts of them seem to support a more balanced outcome. This is the Guardian:

Labour’s lead hovers at about 20%. But remember that under our first past the post (FPTP) electoral system, where it’s the spread of support across the country that counts, Labour needs a lead of 12% for any parliamentary majority. Historically, the trend is that governments recover as they get closer to election day.

Regression analysis of previous midterm leads show that a 28% lead tends to result in an eight-point margin of victory on election day. That would put Labour deep in hung-parliamentary territory. The loss of a dozen seats through boundary changes and voter suppression through ballot ID checks combine to make things even harder. And Labour’s lead looks soft.

That is a very long way from my suggestion of a wipeout.

AndyHce
Reply to  michel
December 31, 2022 1:12 pm

Plenty of time for this Reform party to be well infiltrated with subversives who will talk the new talk but then vote the old game once the party actually comes to power.

michel
Reply to  AndyHce
January 1, 2023 12:23 am

Getting representation in the Commons for a new party in an FPTP system is really, really hard, and unlikely, and takes decades. Look at UKIP, which got a huge popular vote and no seats. I doubt Reform will be a force to be reckoned with in Parliament after the next election. It main effect will be that it may take votes from the Conservatives and so make a Labour landslide greater.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  michel
December 31, 2022 1:21 pm

If things continue on the course they are currently on, enough of them (conservatives AND labor), will all freeze to death, so it won’t matter anyway!

strativarius
Reply to  John V. Wright
December 31, 2022 1:00 am

A new party and the same anti-democratic set-up?

Yeah, that’s going to work

Leo Smith
Reply to  strativarius
December 31, 2022 2:26 am

What same anti-democratic setup?
Reform are not a pro EU party!

Steve Richards
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 31, 2022 3:32 am

All thinking Brits should consider voting for Reform UK when given the opportunity. An uncontrolled Labour majority will be a disaster for the UK.

strativarius
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 31, 2022 5:35 am

What same anti-democratic setup

The Parliamentary dictatorship, of course. You really believe that it’s a democracy? Try recalling Matt Hancock, or recently convicted Claudia Webbe and Margaret Ferrier….

Let me know how that goes.

michel
Reply to  John V. Wright
December 31, 2022 2:04 am

Britain produces 0.000012% of global CO2…

No. This is comparing apples with oranges. It seems to be comparing UK annual emissions with the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is a nonsense. The right measure is that Britain produces about 1% of global CO2 emissions. Around 450 million tons a year.

If you count the emissions on imported goods as well as local emissions it rises to around 700 million. But then you would have to deduct the emissions from exported goods, to be consistent, which no-one does. When people advocate going to UK Net Zero they also do not advocate banning the import of emission laden goods either.

So on balance, 1% or so of global emissions is a reasonable number to go on.

All four large political parties in the UK are arguing for reductions in emissions in order to do something they call ‘tackling climate change’. From the 1% number you can see that no amount of UK reductions can have any effect on climate.

Notice the same silly fallacy in New York’s plans. Reduce emissions and get to Net Zero because climate, when even should New York get to Net Zero it would have no effect on climate.

The UK experience in the last few months has proved that no amount of installation of wind and solar will reach Net Zero. Or perhaps this needs a qualification: it will not reach Net Zero while preserving existing life styles. The problem is that wind just stops for periods of a week or so, several times a year. Its due to blocking highs which lead to clear calm weather – hot in summer, as last summer, or cold in winter, as last month. In the winter solar produces almost nothing, and what it produces is for a few hours around noon. Its too small to make any difference.

UK demand for power varies between about 35GW and 45GW – depending on time of day and season. It peaks of course in December – January, when its dark at 4pm even in the South, and it also peaks in the early evening.

The UK basically has two choices given this. Choice one is to have a parallel generating structure using mainly gas. The more wind installed, the greater the effort to run the country on it, the more gas will be required in the times when wind fails.

The second choice is not to install parallel gas, and to accept blackouts. Absent the parallel gas generating system these will be quite long and nationwide in scale. It would be reasonable to plan for three or four nationwide blackouts lasting around a week, every year, and probably a dozen or more shorter ones. See the following:

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
http://www.gridwatch.co.uk
https://grid.iamkate.com/?fbclid=IwAR3OhtYtg8DXWCH0bygCjwHjpngS_1j2CGm-Mae-avb8AVVjiE4_b1VDr8I

and the source of all three is:

Electricity Data Summary | BMRS

Where you can get csv downloads of every parameter on UK power that you ever wanted.

Richard Greene
Reply to  michel
December 31, 2022 9:47 am

Let’s differentiate between Nut Zero for a nation and Nut Zero for the nation’s electricity generation industry. The last time I looked,electricity generation in the UK accounted for only about 19% of total UK primary energy use.

So even if it was possible to get to Nut Zero electricity, that leaves the remaining 81% of the UK primary energy use that is not Nut Zero: Those pesky cars and trucks. Gas furnaces (boilers) in homes and commercial buildings. Etc.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 31, 2022 1:32 pm

So, then, if it weren’t for people (humans) you’d hardly need ANY energy, right? That seems to be the plan for certain elites, it seems.

bobpjones
Reply to  michel
December 31, 2022 11:28 am

Whilst you’re absolutely right on your assessment, perhaps we should emphasize not, when the wind doesn’t blow (or sun shine). But the unreliable variability of either source.

Where I live, I can clearly see a wind farm, which at peak output could produce c20MW. But yesterday, under high wind conditions, was producing only about 66%. However, all too often, that output is considerably less at 33% or significantly less.

Under such conditions, where would they obtain the infill? The answer can’t be from other wind farms, as their variability will be just as unreliable.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  John V. Wright
December 31, 2022 10:14 am

Absolutely on the mark. Not only does the reporter skirt around the real story of “Green-Policy-Caused-Disaster”, but the Bank of England, while reporting recession makes a huge understaement:

“Bank of England forecasts say is the start of a “prolonged period” of negative growth that will last throughout 2023”.

I forecasted this over a year ago here on WUWT (as I’m sure many here did). I said then, there is no way, even if they stopped all this totalitarian nonsense at once, that a miserable future can be avoided over the remainder of this decade. The social and economic harm is firmly baked in.

Graham
Reply to  John V. Wright
December 31, 2022 10:57 am

I agree with you John,
I wonder how history will tell the story of how climate zealots under the direction of the UN wrecked so many countries economies at the beginning of the 20th century .
Climate madness has infected most political parties in so many countries around the world.
It is far cheaper in cost and also emissions to extract gas with fracking in your own country than
gas from distant lands.
Energy security should be enshrined into law in all countries with a two finger salute to the UN.
The world is being ordered by the UN to cut emissions who are appointed , not elected so they are unaccountable for any directives that they issue.
Governments should be putting the welfare of their countries first before going nut zero.
Unfortunately we have the same political situation in New Zealand .When Labour lose the next election to National it will be the Act party in coalition who will maybe put a brakes on nut zero .

Ben Vorlich
December 30, 2022 10:30 pm

The UK has an MSM that loves sharing its readers, listeners and viewers. Many of whom seem to hate the idea of progress.
Frackenfood and fracking are the most recent, along with 5G masts.
The spirit of throwing clogs into weaving Looms is still strong and still exploited

Kevin Kilty
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 31, 2022 7:15 am

Frankenfood.

Coeur de Lion
December 30, 2022 11:50 pm

CO2 doesn’t affect the weather. We’ve now shown that it is impossible to decarbonise electricity generation. Now let’s try aviation, farming, construction, forestry and I look forward to a treaty with Europe to electrify all the thousands of diesel powered 12wheel artics. Has the ridiculous Lord Deben a plan? I think we should be told.

strativarius
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
December 31, 2022 12:28 am

“farming…”

Sri Lanka….

Richard Greene
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
December 31, 2022 9:51 am

Greenhouse gas warming does affect the weather.
The greenhouse gas pattern of warming reduces the temperature differential between the Arctic and the tropics. And the reduced temperature differential improves (moderates) the weather in the northern hemisphere. That has actually happened:

COMING CLIMATE CHANGE CRISIS PROPAGANDA IS SO EFFECTIVE THAT IT PREVENTS MOST PEOPLE FROM ENJOYING TODAY’S WONDERFUL CLIMATE. 

U.S. HURRICANES MAKING LANDFALL HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND SINCE THE LATE 1800s. 

MAJOR US TORNADOES HAVE BEEN IN A DOWNTREND 

SINCE THE 1950s. 

US HEAT WAVES, DROUGHTS AND FOREST FIRE ACRES BURNED PEAKED IN THE 1930s. 

THE 1930s STILL HAVE THE MOST US STATE MAXIMUM HEAT RECORDS OF ANY DECADE, BY FAR. 

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Joe Shaw
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
December 31, 2022 12:06 pm

But it has not been shown that it is impossible to decarbonize, only that it is impossible to decarbonize without causing massive economic and social harm. Not the same thing at all.

Yes, there is a plan. No, we will not be told.

michel
Reply to  Joe Shaw
January 1, 2023 12:37 am

Yes, this is spot on. Implementing the Net Zero plans will not deliver what is promised from them. The result, if they are pushed to the limit, will be huge changes in how and where the British live, work, play and travel. Down to such mundane things as what food is available, where you can buy it and how you can cook it. The whole structure of industrial estates, suburbs, shopping centers, the automobile industry, it will all have to change totally.

I can see no evidence of any planning or even discussion of the issues. For instance, suppose it takes 40 minutes to charge cars which have a winter range of about 100 miles. What is that going to do to long distance (50+ miles) travel? And what will the consequences be? Suppose cars cost far more to buy and run. Suppose electricity becomes both more expensive and rationed. Suppose heat pumps really become mandatory, they will cost a bomb to install and not deliver any running-cost savings, in fact will probably cost more than gas. This takes a big chunk of disposable income out of the market. What are the consequences of that?

The UK has a quite competent civil service, and if tasked to product a detailed assessment is certainly capable of doing it. But there seems to be no sign in the UK that anyone in the political class can even see why it might be a good idea to do it.

strativarius
December 31, 2022 12:27 am

Starmer doesn’t know basic biology so why would this empty suit have any answers?

Parliament is decided, we just have to suck it up.

vuk
December 31, 2022 12:47 am

With articles of this kind, there can’t be any surprise that Eric is not listed among the New Year recipients of
The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, a British order of chivalry, rewarding contributions to the arts and sciences.
Happy new year Eric.

Editor
December 31, 2022 1:26 am

The US has been in recession since the start of the year

MarkW
Reply to  Paul Homewood
December 31, 2022 9:01 am

True, but see if you can get anyone in the MSM to mention it.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Paul Homewood
December 31, 2022 10:05 am

“The US has been in recession since the start of the year”
Paul Homewood
If this is the Paul Homewood that writes great articles at his UK blog that I often recommend to others, please stay away from US economics.

UK may be in a recession starting 3Q 2022

THE ABOVE QUOTE IS COMPLETE BS
No US = recession was declared for 2Q and 3Q 2022 and no such declaration was necessary from the NBER.

1Q US Real GDP growth was at a +3.2% annual growth rate
4Q US Real GDP growth is estimated at a +3.7% annual rate
Surrounded by two strong quarters, 2Q and 3Q will never be declared to have been a recession, which is also reflected in the low unemployment rate throughout 2022.

SOURCE OF 4Q 2022 Real GDP ESTIMATE:
GDPNow – Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (atlantafed.org)

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Graham
Reply to  Paul Homewood
December 31, 2022 11:05 am

Its the start of the next year now .

Bill_H
Reply to  Paul Homewood
December 31, 2022 11:50 am

Not if one redefines the meaning of the term “recession”. See how easy it is to say the U.S. economy is robust with low unemployment and inflation. 🙂

Richard Greene
Reply to  Bill_H
December 31, 2022 1:56 pm

Recession is a subjective call by the private NBER, or National Bureau of Economic Research. A recession can be over before they make a decision. There was no US recession in 2022.

National Bureau of Economic Research | NBER

son of mulder
December 31, 2022 1:44 am

How would we ever achieve Net Zero without being in constant recession? Once it was realised that it wasn’t only electricity production that created CO2 (20%of UK energy) the only option was to reverse growth, price motoring off the road, raise energy costs, cause leisure businesses to go bust. work inefficiently from home…..etc etc.

strativarius
Reply to  son of mulder
December 31, 2022 2:03 am

It’s about reducing “human” impact

“””A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States.

De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.””” —Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and Dr. John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, 1970

Last edited 1 month ago by strativarius
Decaf
Reply to  son of mulder
December 31, 2022 4:57 am

Well, whether or not they’re going to succeed with Net Zero, they will succeed in cratering the economies of any country that attempts this. They’re very good at destruction. So are young kids.

Last edited 1 month ago by Decaf
MarkW
Reply to  son of mulder
December 31, 2022 9:04 am

There are quite a few socialists who have been telling us that we are just going to have to accept lowered standards of living.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Elliot W
Reply to  MarkW
December 31, 2022 2:07 pm

I think the definition of “socialist” has changed over the last years. Do those persons championing lower standards of living for others actually believe in lowering their own? John Kerry, AOC, Algore, Obama, diCaprio, Trudeau, Bojo, Charles3, Harry Markle come immediately to mind.

Richard Greene
Reply to  son of mulder
December 31, 2022 1:57 pm

CO2 emissions correlate well with economic growth (Real GDP).

Ron Long
December 31, 2022 1:51 am

Journalists sell blood, gore, doom, and gloom. The CAGW Loonies found a friend in mainstream media and Journalists. Knowledge, Truth, and Science are so old-fashioned, and are shoved aside by the woke idiots that are most commonly shouting the loudest. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. I just read an article about Five Elections That Will Shape the World in 2023, it might get a lot worse.

michel
December 31, 2022 2:24 am

Should perhaps add some numbers to make the scale of the problem apparent. The UK has about 25GW wind and 15GW solar capacity installed. Demand is 35-45GW.

Last month during the cold spell, featuring the usual blocking high, there were periods of days when total wind+solar delivered less than 5GW, and several periods of about a day when the total delivered was around 1GW.

We would need a power systems planner to give a definite and authoritative view of what this would mean, absent gas generation. The case for the prosecution must be that, given this, taking the country to Net Zero would have required several nationwide blackouts, and a lot of regional ones.

The Net Zero advocates have never put up any specific plans showing how they would get through such events in any other way.

Decaf
Reply to  michel
December 31, 2022 5:00 am

Because they don’t care, as long as we suffer and they don’t.

AndyHce
Reply to  Decaf
December 31, 2022 1:24 pm

Recall that special permit for a 2500 gallon private propane tank?

Richard Greene
Reply to  michel
December 31, 2022 10:11 am

“The Net Zero advocates have never put up any specific plans showing how they would get through such events in any other way”

There will never be a feasible Nut Zero plan that could be used for a cost estimate (unaffordable) and a co,[leetion date estimate (definitely not 2050)

Nut Zero can’t go according to plan,
because there is no plan

Only a long winded Nut Zero vision statement and arbitrary completion date exist

The leftist fantasy project that is designed to fail

The failure of Nur Zero will be spun as another climate emergency.

And the alleged “cure” will be bad news for us conservatives and libertarians

MORE GOVERMENT !

.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 31, 2022 1:46 pm

I’ve heard you should plan your work, and then work your plan! But, since there IS no plan, then their ‘plan’ fails! Maybe that was the plan all along?

Richard Greene
Reply to  IAMPCBOB
December 31, 2022 2:02 pm

I’ve been saying that for a few years.
— Nut Zero is designed to fail.
Leftists want fundamental transformation from capitalism (more like US socialism these days) to Marxism, with a likely stop along the way at fascism.

Transformation REQUIRES that they ruin the current economic system so people can be convinced it MUST be replaced.

That theory explains every leftist plan and decision.
They hate America and want to radically change it.
So they break what works to advance their devious goals.
And leftists are good at ruining everything they touch.

Leo Smith
December 31, 2022 2:26 am

The aim is to ensure Britain is poorer than the EU by failing to take any advantage of Brexit whatsoever in order to force a popular movement to rejoin to be successful.

Unfortunately it looks like Germany will be in far worse shape

1saveenergy
December 31, 2022 2:26 am

Net Zero means …
You will own nothing,
you won’t be happy,
you’ll return to the feudal system,
&, if you are lucky, you’ll die younger (thus avoiding the problems of old age without medical attention ).
It’ll be just like the good old days … of medieval serfdom.

Jackdaw
Reply to  1saveenergy
December 31, 2022 9:09 am

A few generations ago, if your ancestors were dirt poor, you’d be dirt poor and so would your kids, and their kids. Expecting the next generation to be better off is a recent phenomenon. Give it a few generations, and we’ll be back to the future – if your ancestors were dirt poor……….

Rod Evans
December 31, 2022 2:50 am

Unfortunately Eric, as we all know, well those of us who have been in business know, if you do not secure energy supplies you have no business. In national terms this simple fact translates into this. If you have no energy you have no economy and you have no society.
Net Zero is on that path of destruction of nation, by design.

Graham
Reply to  Rod Evans
December 31, 2022 11:20 am

You nailed that Rod.

No energy No economy No society.

Would you mind if I asked our Taxpayers Union to print this for billboards for distribution around NZ.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Graham
December 31, 2022 2:11 pm

Be my guest, I have many fond memories of NZ before the woke left took over Jacinda and crew have destroyed freedoms and the unique NZ adventure spirit.

quelgeek
December 31, 2022 4:25 am

No one’s prices go down till everyone’s prices go down.

I am totally in favour of fracking and drilling but keep in mind the UK is attached to EU networks of pipelines and powerlines. It is therefore part of the same energy market. Because of the way free markets work UK producers will sell their gas at market price. Unless the expectation is to absolutely flood the market the price to consumers isn’t likely to change much. In fact energy security won’t be improved either.

What will improve is the flow of royalties into the public coffers, so at least in principle public services could be maintained and debts possibly paid down. Or, maybe more likely, the surge of royalty income will be p*ssed away on more wind farms.

BurlHenry
December 31, 2022 7:07 am

Eric Worral:

This the abstract of a short communication that I recently had published:

“Historically, warm periods such as the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm period were all eras where there was very little volcanic activity, with the result that their atmospheres were normally free of dimming volcanic SO2 aerosol emissions. This allowed world-wide temperatures to rise 2 to 4 degrees above current temperatures, causing droughts, famines, and the demise of earlier cultures around the world.

Current Net-Zero activities banning the burning of fossil fuels and their SO2 aerosol emissions will have the unintended consequence of causing temperatures to rise to those of the earlier eras.”.

https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.16.1.1035

This warning needs to be quickly addressed, by halting all Net-Zero activities since we may already be near a “tipping point”!

strativarius
Reply to  BurlHenry
December 31, 2022 7:15 am

This warming should be welcomed.

MarkW
Reply to  BurlHenry
December 31, 2022 9:27 am

When exactly have warm periods caused droughts, famines and the demise of cultures.
Historically, warm periods have caused civilizations to thrive. It’s been the cold periods between the warm periods that killed people.

Graham
Reply to  MarkW
December 31, 2022 12:37 pm

Also what Burl Henry has missed is that those three historical warm periods were all warmer than present and the climate moved back to cooler times .
The Little Ice Age was the coldest period in the last 11 thousand years .
We emerged from the Little Ice Age 170 years ago but CO2 will not stop us from entering another cold period .
The UN has pushed this false narrative of runaway global warming caused by CO2 to attempt to take over the world with an unelected one world government .
The theory of global warming depends on the tropical hotspot which is non existent despite satellites circling the earth measuring atmospheric temperatures .
Also it has been known for over 100 years that the effect of CO2 on warming is logarithmic and rising levels will cause little if any future warming .
Net zero,zero carbon are buzz words but the world needs energy otherwise many people will starve.
Last IF the UN and others pushing zero carbon could THINK for them selves they would be advocating NUCLEAR POWER to power the world if they really think that fossil fuels are a problem.
They don’t .
That is proof that they have hidden agendas as without reliable energy supplies the world will be on a downward spiral into widespread starvation and poverty .

BurlHenry
Reply to  Graham
December 31, 2022 3:08 pm

Graham:

The historical warm periods were all warmer than the present because of low atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels, due to a very low incidence of volcanic eruptions.

he Little Ice Age was caused entirely by a very high incidence of volcanic eruptions

See: “The Definitive Cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures.

https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.1.3.2.0170

The only way that we can enter another Ice Age is if volcanic activity again increases.

Richard Greene
Reply to  BurlHenry
December 31, 2022 10:16 am

The temperatures were no more than +1 degree C. higher than today in those warmer period, and most likely withing the margin of error of local climate reconstructions

SO2 emissions are temporary, not permanent

There are many five year or longer periods since 1975 when the global average temperature and SO2 levels were not moving in the direction expected if SO2 was a climate control knob

SO2 levels are a minor climate change variable.

BurlHenry
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 31, 2022 11:17 am

Richard Greene:

“SO2 emissions are temporary, not permanent”
Agreed.

BurlHenry
Reply to  BurlHenry
December 31, 2022 11:50 am

However, when they are reduced, or absent, temperatures always rise.

“There are many five year or longer periods since 1975 when the global average temperature and SO2 levels were not moving in the same direction”

When there is a VEI4 volcanic eruption, SO2 aerosol levels always increase, and temperatures always decrease.

When there is an El Nino, SO2 levels have always decreased, and temperatures always increase.

So, yes, they both always move in opposite directions, thus proving that SO2 aerosols are the MAJOR Climate Change variable.

Richard Greene
Reply to  BurlHenry
December 31, 2022 2:06 pm

2015 to 2022 temperature steady (UAH) but SO2 down

1975 to 1980 Temperature up and SO2 up too, NOT down.

Two contradictions — there are more between 1980 and 2015.

BurlHenry
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 1, 2023 5:29 am

Richard Greene:

Between 1975 and 1980, Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions rose by 10 Megatons.

SO2 aerosols are reflective, and cool the Earth’s surfaced by reflecting the Sun’s rays away.

It is impossible to have had warming between 1975 and 1980.

The only possible explanation for your statement that temperatures were up between 1975 and 1980 is that the UAH sensors must also be sensitive to the the Sun’s reflected rays, giving false information.

cgh
December 31, 2022 8:12 am

Who cares what the legacy media thinks or writes? They were a broken institution a long time ago.

Jackdaw
Reply to  cgh
December 31, 2022 9:03 am

Unfortunately, too many still place their faith in such institutions and believe their propaganda.

cgh
Reply to  Jackdaw
December 31, 2022 1:51 pm

Perhaps not. After more than thirty years of non-stop propaganda, several things are clear:

  1. global warming is dead last in importance for the public among all other environment issues. It comes dead last over a host of immediate, pressing issues like unemployment, schooling, job security, Covid-19 issues.
  2. the legacy media is at an all time low in acceptability by the public. Newspaper circulations are at an all time low. Television audiences have been tanking for years.

What doesn’t help matters for the pond-scum is that they have a perfect record of abject failure on every single one of their predictions of doom and disaster.

antigtiff
December 31, 2022 8:23 am

Net Zero is the only way…..you wanna save the bears…..and…. and save the coral…..and and save the penguins …don’tcha?

MarkW
December 31, 2022 8:53 am

The problem is that they believe they are helping people. By supporting the elimination of fossil fuels and capitalism, they believe they are saving people by the billions.
In their view, if a few hundred million end up dying in the here and now, well you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

Jackdaw
December 31, 2022 9:00 am

Unfortunately, both major Parties have broadly the same principles – high tax, high spend, state intervention, excessive regulation and a love for all things Net Zero, regardless of cost, both financially and socially.

The Conservative Party has become a shill for the Labour Party, and there is no other Party with enough clout to do anything about it at the moment, but I hope Reform UK can be influential. As UKIP and the Brexit Party were major disrupters and influenced policy, I hope Reform UK can do similar and force a change in direction, but that requires large numbers of voters to switch their political allegiance. I’m not sure that they have been subjected to enough pain to do so yet, and the MSM will not support Reform UK or give them the platform they need to get their message across.

Richard Greene
December 31, 2022 9:38 am

When you sit back and look down from 30,000 feet, the UK is one of many nations that BENEFIT from global warming, just like Canada and every nation in the upper half of the Northern Hemisphere. Here in Michigan too. Give us more of that wonderful warming!

nurtureyourchild
December 31, 2022 9:55 am

This goes back to the climate change act put into the books in 2008 by Hilary Benn and Ed Miliband for Labour.
We were the first country in the world to start down this route so it stands to reason we’d be the first to be hit by the consequences. For some strange reason every politician in this country was taken in by the blatant lies bandied about back then and still are. The problem is that most politicians are educated in the classics rather than down a scientific route. Anything slightly scientific goes right over their heads!

My husband and I were part of a group back then, Repeal the Climate Change Act, trying to show what an abyss we were walking into, we even managed to get into the news occasionally. The trouble was that the followers of this quasi religion had deep pockets, any common sense flew out of the window. And now we are where we are and people like me can sit back and watch the carnage and at least say we tried.

quelgeek
Reply to  nurtureyourchild
December 31, 2022 10:29 am

Sadly I know from experience that a group formed to oppose a crazy idea which has managed to slip into mainstream thinking will attract not only sensible, coherent people, but also every malcontent nut-job for miles around too. Be prepared for some distasteful bed-fellows and ridicule.

Sean Galbally
January 1, 2023 4:16 am

None of the arguments for Net Zero counts if the truth that atmospheric carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels has a negligible effect on the climate is accepted . It consists of 0.04% of greenhouse gases and is saturated anyway. The climate has always changed and is not exceptional now. It is predominantly dependent on the sun and nature and not man. We should adapt to the climate we have and use our fossil fuels with cleaned up emissions while we develop sustainable alternatives. There is absolutely no need for austerity or poverty.

Sean Galbally
January 1, 2023 4:48 am

None of the arguments for Net Zero counts if the truth that atmospheric carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels has a negligible effect on the climate is accepted . It consists of 0.04% of greenhouse gases and is saturated anyway. 90% of greenhouse gases consist of water vapour or clouds over which we have no control.The climate has always changed and is not exceptional now. It is predominantly dependent on the sun and nature and not man. We should adapt to the climate we have and use our fossil fuels with cleaned up emissions while we develop sustainable alternatives. There is absolutely no need for austerity or poverty.

andersjoan
January 1, 2023 6:30 am

Andy Espersen :
Yes, Britain is poor – as poor as a church mouse. Like Zimbabwe she has lost all global creditworthiness : Truss and Kwarteng could not borrow more money! This simply means that if (like Zimbabwe) the British government spends any extra money this will translate into inflation. At present it is over 10% – I envisage this will necessarily increase perhaps tenfold within a couple of years.

The House of Commons must eventually create a coalition emergency government (like during the war under Churchill). This will necessarily be under a charismatic leader with the conviction that the only way forward is to create energy at all cost (nuclear, coal, gas, fracking, oil, etc.) and scrap all investment in renewables – as well as stopping maintaining all existing renewable power stations.

NetZero is a physical impossibility. Period.

Consequently it will not ever, cannot ever eventuate. And again consequently, government must not spend another penny on any renewable energy whatsoever.

Who will be that charismatic leader??

Last edited 1 month ago by andersjoan
%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights