Essay by Eric Worrall
Mistruths about renewables reducing energy bills are threatening to wreck the credibility of mainstream politicians.
British voters: yes to Net Zero, but not if it costs us
A new poll shows how shallow support is for green policies
The UK population is overwhelmingly in favour of the aim to reduce carbon emissions to Net Zero by 2050, but flips to strong opposition if the policy imposes any “additional costs on ordinary people”, according to new polling.
As Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announces his intention to expand carbon capture and increase the amount of oil and gas drilling in the North Sea, the results show a preference for the general goal of Net Zero, rather than any commitment to the policies which would be necessary to deliver it. While over 70% support the broader aim, less than half (42%) agree with the decision to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars after 2030.
The survey, carried out by YouGov, asked 2000 adults from across the UK how they felt about the Government’s green agenda. As well as the marginal opposition to banning petrol cars, only 42% of respondents support the phasing out of new gas boilers, which is due to begin in 2035.
…
Read more: https://unherd.com/thepost/british-voters-yes-to-net-zero-but-not-if-it-costs-me/
JoNova has done an excellent piece about Britain’s fickle politicians cooling on Net Zero after the shock Uxbridge by-election win, by an anti ULEZ campaigner.
Have net zero supporters been telling mistruths about the cost of renewables? Like a lot of accountancy, the answer depends on how you squint at the figures.
In real terms, the energy bills people pay in renewable heavy locales like Britain and California are soaring. So in a practical sense, the answer is a resounding yes.
But if you play fancy accounting games with the figures, like adding the social cost of carbon, the alleged damage CO2 emissions will cause in the future, make some very optimistic assumptions about future energy storage costs, and back date those alleged future climate damage costs into today’s economy using a discount factor, you can arrive at other answers.
I doubt most voters will be impressed by the fancy accounting tricks. Adding fake future costs to justify slamming people with higher energy bills today does not mitigate the energy bill pain people are experiencing right now.
People have to live today, here and now. People facing a choice between heating, eating and paying the mortgage don’t care what the weather will be like in 50 years, they have more immediate problems.
Even if anthropogenic climate change starts to bite, and creates more heatwaves, the last thing anyone in today’s world wants is for energy to be so expensive they can’t afford to run their air conditioner.
My prediction: Unless greens find a solution to soaring energy bills, and fast, by 2025 elected politicians who admit they unequivocally support Net Zero will be an endangered species.
For more information on the immense damage being caused by the global Net Zero push click here.
“Would you like jam tomorrow…”
“Nulla Britannia capita gravissime” – Take no British poll seriously.
Our political classes are all over the place at the moment, they even seem to have rediscovered what an adult human female is. That’s bad news for the plastic surgeons and weirdo psychologists, although the psychologists do have climate related illnesses to fall back on.
Meanwhile the Blade Runners are doing their bit…
“Shadowy ‘blade runner’ vandals trash cameras in anti-ULEZ backlash in London
Transport for London is installing 2,750 new cameras ahead of the planned extension to the current ULEZ on August 29th.”
https://www.itv.com/news/london/2023-07-31/shadowy-blade-runner-vandals-trash-cameras-in-anti-ulez-backlash
That’s a lot of targets.
Going green one way or another will always result in self-imposed hardship and misery.
All they have to do is work out how to make it a bit cheaper.
By total random, this just landed:
Quote:“”…. they even seem to have rediscovered what an adult human female is.””
Anything to do with this stuff we wonder.. Might explain where they went, and the missing babies.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/world/in-depth-the-hair-loss-drug-leaving-victims-with-a-debilitating-condition-5420853
Maybe not quite a new Thalidomide but…
This is up there with Dr Mengele
“Dr John Money and the sinister origins of gender ideology
How a cruel, amoral experiment helped birth today’s trans movement.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/02/05/dr-john-money-and-the-sinister-origins-of-gender-ideology/
“Mistruths about renewables reducing energy bills are threatening to wreck the credibility of mainstream politicians.”
What credibility?
“credibility of mainstream politicians.”
I was ignorant of what “oxymoron” meant until I looked it up and found this descriptive example….then it all fell into place haha.
“oxymoron”
Someone who’s brain malfunctions due to oxygen starvation !!
Oxygen deprivation is a significant risk for babies during the labor and delivery process, and can lead to hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), which can cause severe brain damage, developmental delays or even death.
According to the American Journal of Neuroradiology, birth asphyxia occurs in as many as 10 out of every 1,000 births. ( a lot of them about )
Morons. —Those whose mental development is above that of an imbecile, but does not exceed that of a normal child of about twelve years.
a foolish or stupid person
I always thought an oxymoron was a politician educated at Oxbridge
The universe is made up of neutrons, protons, electrons, and morons.
The government have none, the Opposition even less.
Scrap the renewables entirely and save lots more money.
They’re not meant to save money, they’re meant to make a few rich elites even richer, a purpose they are satisfactorily fulfilling
If the blob and MSM are so sure of these mis truths about renewables, why don’t they host some debates with knowledgable people from both sides of the climate / power generation fence – then people can make their own minds up based on what they hear – they won’t of course because the blobs facts just don’t add up
Mistruths. I miss the days when we could just call them lies.
“Lie” is an accusation they knew they were lying. Mistruth allows for the possibility they’re just stupid.
Is anyone that stupid? Apart from Shapps, Lucas, Davey, Milliband, The Net Zero All Party Parliamentary Group…..
OK Eric you win
Along with ‘misspoke, – caught in the act of lying
‘taken out of context’ was the favoured excuse by the Climategate crew, I recall.
Or both.
I live in Scotland where being a liar and stupid seem to be mandatory job requirements for politicians. In the case of the Scottish Greens, insanity is an additional job requirement.
Scotland is quite an interesting case, if you know what I mean.
Unfortunately, everyone in Scotland is now living in interesting times.
If I were living in Scotland,. I’d be living in England. Know what I mean?
Doesn’t work, if their lips are moving, they’re lying
Mistruths. I miss the days when we could just call them lies.
Well let that be a lesson to you about learnings.
The politicians are being lied to by the ecofascists and the unreliables industry but are too stupid to see that and so repeat the lies to the public in their ignorance.
This is the FT sees the UK debate shaping up:
This, I think, is the argument that a future Tory leader will make, and to great electoral effect: “Human-induced climate change is real and terrible. Don’t mistake us for denialists. But this is a medium-sized, post-industrial nation that accounts for around 1 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The ecological future of the Earth rests on giant middle-income countries, not on us.
“We should decarbonise. It would be weird to abstain from a technological crusade that America and the EU are going to make sure happens regardless. Britain has already committed a fortune in sunk costs. But a rush to net zero? That will cost you, dear voter, in ways that we politicians have obfuscated in the past. And what will that cost achieve? Not a material dent in the climate problem, but the setting of a moral example, as though India and China set their watches by us. Liberals forever accuse us on the right of overrating Britain’s sway in the world. Well, look who is grandstanding now.”
Very plausible. Goes on to say, comparing it to Brexit:
Until well into this century, a “eurosceptic” was someone who wanted no part of the EU’s single currency or labour market rules. Outright rejection of EU membership itself marked one out as somewhat farouche. “In Europe”, a Conservative leader took care to stipulate at the 2001 election, lest people think him a freak, “but not run by Europe”. And he was still annihilated.
Over time, that taboo crumbled. When it did, lots of people realised that only a concern for social respectability had kept them from expressing their true preference. The past couple of weeks might have had the same liberating effect on net zero sceptics.
It seems that in the end reality (and not common sense) will prevail, even the dumbest of the dumb politicians (most of them) know which side their bread is buttered.
It’s ironic that the zealots’ want us to go green to save the planet, our children and our children’s children but all of the people that we save and the (alleged) beneficiaries will be living in (dark and cold) abject misery.
I’ve already got my kids’ names down for a nice south facing cave!
This is a very dangerous form of mindbuggery. It reminds me of the day I arrive at the office, and the staff are all bright and chirpy, because they just signed a petition to pay only 14 cents per kilometer on the controversial new toll points on an old highway. They were horrified after I explained they all just signed a legal document agreeing to pay toll, losing a three-year fight against any form of tolling.
These sods just announced they got the majority of Brits to agree to Nut Ztupid.
“These sods just announced they got the majority of Brits to agree to Nut Ztupid.”
You didn’t believe it, did you?
Is my power bill higher? That’s the long and the short of it. If the answer is yes than the promises of lower bills was a lie. That’s the simple logic that most people will use in judging the effects of the decarbonization of our economies.
The arbitrary dates for the accomplishment of various Net Zero demands resemble nothing so much as Soviet Five Year Plans, except that the Commies actually promoted plans that were possible and, in some cases, achieved. The Net Zero plans are built around unproven science and impossible economics that put the well-being of the population at the mercy of charlatans.
“…less than half (42%) agree with the decision to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars…”
and half of that group don’t have a drivers license.
And the rest are cyclists
The healthy and wealthy countries of the Germany, Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and all of the EU, and the USA representing about one of the eight billion of the world’s population could literally shut down, and cease to exist, and the opposite of what the media tells us and believes will take place.
Emissions will be exploding from those poorer developing countries, i.e., the other seven billion on this planet. Unlike the wealthy countries that have huge economies that can subsidize any delusionally obsessed idea but these poorer countries dismal economies cannot subsidize themselves out of a paper bag!
Simply put, in these healthy and wealthy countries, every person, animal, or anything that causes emissions to harmfully rise could vanish off the face of the earth, or even die off, and global emissions will still explode in the coming years and decades ahead over the population and economic growth of India, Nigeria, China, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Tanzania.
Not that the “emissions” mean anything, but the deluded need to be confronted with this reality: Whatever you THINK the effects of the continual rise of “emissions” MIGHT be, the suggested “actions” WILL CHANGE NOTHING.
The operative question therefore becoming, do you want to have the resources to deal with whatever “weather” you’re afraid of, or do you prefer poverty and helplessness?
I recall a story about the EPA climate model showing no noticeable change in outcomes if all the proposed changes to emission were made by the US. Does anyone have a link? I think this was during the Obummer regime.
Nothing will make the slightest difference whilst China, India and Africa build new coal power stations. Another reason to flag NetZero as insanity.
“The healthy and wealthy countries of the Germany, Australia, Great Britain”
GB is NOT healthy. Half the population is obese, FFS!
One thing you should never do in Oz politics is come between a State Premier or Territory Chief Minister and a bucket of money-
‘Teals and trolls’: NT Chief Minister slams opponents over gas developments (msn.com)
Yep she’s a Labor climate changer alright but she’s also playing to the ‘croc country Territorians are different’ from those latte sipping southerners meme.
Cue said planet saving latte sipping southern troll?? that we all have to get off the gas and naturally the gas companies should pay for their own demise with that so the little people don’t have to pay for what everyone who’s anyone knows is the cheapest unreliables-
Australian households ‘shouldn’t have to pay’ for renewables: Kylea Tink | Sky News Australia
Ah well only the impotent are pure in politics but tell porkies and they always catch up with you in the long run. They keep telling me we need more women in politics too.
Well the crunch point for this in the UK is likely to be November 2024 at the General Election. And just to add to the fun there are local elections in May 2024 including for the Mayor of London where the hated ULEZ will be the main issue, ahead even of Khan presiding over a massive increase in knife crime.
Let’s hope and pray Reform UK get some MPs – the other options are vote for the 3 main parties and get nut zero, or spoil your ballot paper
I’m 72 tomorrow. Have always voted. Won’t be this time, nor did I or my wife vote at our recent by election, for Frome and Somerton. We are clear now that it is a completely pointless exercise as the difference between the parties is now as thin as a **** hair as we say over here. Probably Labour will do more damage than the Conservatives, but that’s no guarantee. Always used to be – and folks KNEW Corbyn would have crashed us.
But the Conservatives, who we vote for for smaller government and fiscal continence, and preserving what matters to us have done anything but.
Public sector massively increased.
Woke embraced rather than legislated against.
COVID was as badly mishandled as is possible. I will NEVER forgive them for what they did to us.
They have MASSIVELY increased public spending AND taxes. That was always seen as Labour’s main problem.
They call sod off.
“ahead even of Khan presiding over a massive increase in knife crime.”
ULEZ is nothing to do with “clean air”. TFL (Transport for London) told Khan it would make no real difference. It IS however to do with the MASSIVE increase in debt Khan has got TFL into. Slipper does not even begin to describe this lump of faeces.
Everyone wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. Virtue signaling requires nothing other than a verbal commitment. Actually doing something, like lowering your living standard, is a different matter.
The elites don’t want to lower their living standards, just yours
Some UK citizens who have swallowed the blobs relentless climate & CO2 bilge might be in favour of reducing carbon emissions and embracing nut zero, but the overwhelming majority, no
I would say a sizeable number understand that CO2 is the gas of life, nut zero is operation Carbon Tax and global boiling is nothing more than project fear on steroids from those wanting to instigate taxes and reverse decades of progress
The overwhelming majority won’t pay for nut zero, they certainly don’t want poor, expensive new technology, to replace affordable, reliable current technology, whether battery cars, heat pumps or power generation
All main political parties are guilty of mis-reading the room, however, the fact they are all signed up to the same nut zero scam, puts citizens in a situation where they either accept it, or put their faith in a new political party
Old news. People are all for cool stuff, until they discover that they’ll have to pay for it. The MO of the green movement for the last half-century has been to convince enough people that it will all be free.
It is past time to stop playing along with this madness. There is no climate crisis, CO2 is not the control knob for our climate and we are not going to reach a tipping point and suffer irreversible global warming. Considering those three things there is no reason to even think about net zero, it is a complete sham. This has to end.
Story tip.
Here’s a very confused story about Drax: Bloomberg and the Mail have not understood what is happening here.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12365957/Power-station-operator-Drax-furiously-DENIES-claims-used-government-energy-subsidy-loophole-avoid-paying-639m-households-height-cost-living-crisis.html
The wood pellet biomass operation is divided between 3 units which make a handsome income from ROCs – and which have been making out like bandits during the periods of higher prices, at least to the extent that they hadn’t sold too much production ahead of time via hedges at lower prices. This has always been the heart of the Drax subsidies. The 4th unit has a CFD: the economics of this are now rather weird.
Instead of CFD payments being calculated from the day ahead market used for intermittent generators like wind, the benchmark price is set biannually for summer and winter based on broker assessed prices for baseload trade for the season ahead. Until the energy crisis, baseload prices were consistently low, based on cheap coal and must run nuclear. During the energy crisis these prices have been very high, because French nuclear baseload generation has been in short supply on account of their ongoing maintenance problems. This high level of reference price acts like a tax, with the difference between the BMRP and the strike price being payable on every MWh they generate. They can only make money when market prices go sky high to cover the “tax” and provide a margin on top. Otherwise they simply do not run.
Bloomberg and the Mail are trying to suggest that Drax should have run and paid the “tax” which would have left them with losses compared with the £50+/MWh of subsidy they had been picking up for this unit (and even more on the ROC/REGO financed units: Drax sold £1,277m of ROCs in 2022). Perhaps Drax could have made sales at the outrageous BMRP prices, but that would have left whichever retailer purchased at those prices nursing a huge loss. For Drax itself, it would have made sense simply to buy supply from other generators and use that to supply whoever made the purchases. With no generation of their own, they would pocket the difference between the price at which they bought and the price at which they sold as profit. It makes no difference to the outcome, except that Drax profits would be higher, while the retailer would be nursing losses that they would need to pass on to the customer in higher prices.
The reality is that the BMRP is simply not fit for purpose as a way to benchmark CFDs. The CFD itself has probably not kept pace with changes in the cost of wood pellets, which I would guess are indexed to coal prices. Coal prices rose and fell in sympathy with natural gas prices, so CFD prices linked to CPI would have been heavily squeezed.
This chart shows what happened at Drax and the similar station at Lynmouth.
“Mistruths about renewables reducing energy bills are threatening to wreck the credibility of mainstream politicians.”
Ha! That happened long ago, and was crystallised so to speak by the relentless efforts of our elected representatives, after the Brexit vote, to scupper the vote that those who had elected them required. This was a full scale attempt by the house to either stop Brexit or neuter it so badly the EU still controlled us.
That our politicians ****ed up Brexit so badly (why were we not surprised) partly reflects the above, and also shows clearly their incompetence.
Nothing since 2016has done anything to boost confidence that we elect people who are booth good at the job and are public spirited. The complete lunacy of NetZero, and all parties adore it, simple confirms the above.
Our democracy is FUBAR. I’d add to that, the West is FUBAR, brought down by its own hands.
“People have to live today, here and now. People facing a choice between heating, eating and paying the mortgage don’t care what the weather will be like in 50 years, they have more immediate problems.”
You are absolutely correct. Which is why it’s quite important to be honest and say it isn’t about what the weather is going to be like in 50 years, it’s about what the weather is like today (and its effect on food crops), and about the amount of oil and gas that is available right now.
In other words, those fancy accounting tricks would not be necessary if money today reflected the real state of things. But it does not. According to current fiat money, the second law of thermodynamics does not apply, therefore, current fiat money can keep growing forever. But the second law of thermodynamics applies, which means that infinite supplies of energy are not possible in a finite planet, and in fact, data points to the fact that they are peaking right now. The total cost of energy cannot go beyond a certain percentage of the total economy, because if it did, it would be possible for rich individuals or entities to corner the supply of something as essential as energy, and that would shrink the economy. That means that if the supply of energy isn’t increasing, the size of the economy can keep growing in nominal terms, but not in real terms (adjusted for inflation). In short, current fiat money that keeps giving interest has been getting more and more separated from the real facts on the ground, and you need accounting tricks to say the truth, namely, that money is in actual fact not growing. But you’ll find none of this information in economic textbooks, and only the most radical Marxists will nod in agreement. Which is why the public is understandably confused by what is going on.