The term “net zero” has devolved into nothing more than a convenient political slogan, says Chris Stark, the outgoing head of the UK’s Climate Change Committee (CCC) according to a recent Guardian Article.
His comments expose a facade that many have long suspected: the grandiose plans for a “green” economy are not only impractical but laden with hidden sacrifices for the everyday citizen.
A Convenient Escape from Reality
Stark’s admission that the term “net zero” might be better dropped because it has sparked a “dangerous” culture war is an astounding revelation of backpedaling. It appears that the climate agenda, once touted as the salvation of our environmental woes, is now a political hot potato that even its staunchest proponents are ready to drop when the going gets tough.
The populist response to the net zero label, described by Stark as a blockade to sensible improvements, conveniently omits a critical analysis of why such opposition exists. Could it be that the public has grown weary of being fed idealistic visions that fail to materialize into practical solutions?
The High Cost of Green Dreams
The U-turns by prominent UK politicians, such as the delayed changeover to electric vehicles and the watering down of financial commitments to green initiatives, are indicative of a broader trend. These reversals highlight a stark disconnect between policy promises and the realities of their implementation. The supposed minor lifestyle changes Stark alludes to under the net zero initiatives—like adopting heat pumps and shifting to electric vehicles—mask the significant financial and social costs that disproportionately burden the average household.
Tackling the climate crisis has been presented as a massive change, but Stark was at pains to point out that it would not be. “The world that we’ll have in 2050 is extremely similar to the one we have now. We will still be flying, we’ll still be eating meat, we will still be warming our homes, just heating them differently,” he said. “The lifestyle change that goes with this is not enormous at all.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/22/net-zero-has-become-unhelpful-slogan-says-outgoing-head-of-uk-climate-watchdog
Stark’s comments downplay the substantial lifestyle adjustments and economic sacrifices required from the public to meet these nebulous net zero targets. Suggesting that life in 2050 under net zero mandates will be “extremely similar” to today is either a gross underestimation of the changes being pushed or a deliberate attempt to pacify the populace with oversimplified and disingenuous assurances.
The Technology Trap
“It’s very strange that some see heat pumps as an enemy of the people,” he said, in an interview with the Guardian before leaving his post this Friday. “This is a remarkably sensible technology that we’ve known about for a long time, a straightforward technology to put in your house to keep it warm, or to keep it cool in the summer. But in this country, they’ve taken on a totally different totemic role, as a technology that is being somehow forced upon the populace. I think that’s very dangerous.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/22/net-zero-has-become-unhelpful-slogan-says-outgoing-head-of-uk-climate-watchdog
The push for technologies like heat pumps, which Stark defends as a “remarkably sensible technology,” does not acknowledge the broad resistance stemming from legitimate concerns about cost, effectiveness, and the imposition of such technologies on people without proper consultation or alternatives. Labeling this resistance as dangerous is a patronizing dismissal of valid consumer and citizen concerns, suggesting a disconnect between those formulating policies and those affected by them.
The Unrealistic Portrayal of Economic Benefits
“We are talking about cleaning up the economy and making it more productive – you can call that anything you like,” Stark said.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/22/net-zero-has-become-unhelpful-slogan-says-outgoing-head-of-uk-climate-watchdog
While Stark points to countries like China, the US, and the EU investing heavily in low-carbon technologies as models to emulate, he glosses over the complexities and challenges inherent in these transitions. The narrative that transitioning to a low-carbon economy will be largely beneficial and painless ignores the economic disruptions and job losses in industries reliant on fossil fuels.
Divisiveness and Policy Impositions
But it was not just those who were against climate action who were causing the problem, according to Stark. Climate activists were also alarming people, he warned, and creating “quite a serious barrier to large parts of the political spectrum to support climate action” by forceful protests, and presenting environmental policies as radical.
“It would be more helpful if they were less divisive,” he said. “I don’t think it is radical. It’s really important that we stop using words like that, as it is understandably frightening.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/22/net-zero-has-become-unhelpful-slogan-says-outgoing-head-of-uk-climate-watchdog
It is ironic that Stark criticizes climate activists for being divisive, as the policies he supports have themselves been incredibly divisive. Moreover, his call for policies that are “fair” and do not disproportionately impact those on lower incomes rings hollow when the track record of such policies shows a tendency to do precisely that.
Conclusion: A Call for Realism and Transparency
The narrative surrounding “net zero” as propagated by figures like Chris Stark has been one of oversimplification and, at times, outright deception. The sacrifices imposed on UK citizens under the guise of environmental progress involve significant lifestyle changes, economic burdens, and a curtailment of personal choices. As we move forward, a more grounded, transparent approach to environmental policy is necessary—one that honestly addresses the costs and challenges, engages with public concerns genuinely, and fosters policies that do not just serve the elite or technocratic visions detached from reality.
H/T strativarius
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
F’kn Dummies are too thick to realise the ‘term’ NetZero isn’t the problem.
No doubt it will be awarded a new pronoun to make it acceptable.
NetOrgasmic 🙂
Net Poverty would be a more appropriate term.
Search “Net Zero” on the web.
There are a HUGE number of agencies, governments, businesses, hangers-on and other scammers trotting along with the slogan.
Unfortunately, I think it will take on ZOMBIE status and it will take a while to kill it completely !
Not just a slogan, an official policy, like here in NetZeroachusetts.
Yes Net-Zero or more accurately Nut-Zero has run its course. Much like “global warming” morphed into “climate change” Net-Zero will be re-branded with a new fresher look and feel!!! –
You can see the UN’s spin doctors & advertising guru’s working overtime to come up with a more user-friendly moniker for this already proven disastrous global brain-dead term, that represents, well really nothing important.
I’d like to propose that all WUWT readers and calling all climate sceptics, to propose a new marketing catchphrase to replace the tired worn out Net-Zero.
Something that will really grab the world by storm and encourage all of humanity to join together in a blind race to achieve the irreversible decline of modernity and civilization as we know it.
How about “We must all make sacrifices today to ensure tomorrow!”
Sounds a bit fascist to me…
The devil has all the best songs.
I’ve always liked the Sensational Alex Harvey Band version of that song.
And their version of Delilah performed on TOGWT.
I saw them at Charlton football stadium in 74. Supporting the Who. Great gig
76 wasn’t it? I saw the same gig at Parkhead stadium in Glasgow. There’s a very old website of the event but I don’t know if it’s still up.
Little Feat amongst the support.
and that’s really exactly what they mean but won’t say
I suggest something with the word “Stormy” in it.
Stormy times
Stormy weather
Or
Stormy Daniels?
Storm in a tea cup
I am always thinking of phrases to ridicule leftists better than Nut Zero, that I have used for years.
How about
The Carbon Reduction Atmospheric Project, or CRAP?
Last year I had four entries in the annual COP contest for Climate Motto of the Year, but they were all ignored:
Climate change will kill your dog
Climate change will make your cat throw up
Ban baked beans to cut methane pollution
Become a millionaire by living in the trunk of your EV
Ban baked beans
I think a certain Mr J Kerry might have some objection to any such notion.
“The Carbon Reduction Atmospheric Project, or CRAP?”
I like that one!
And yet look at what was posted right here a couple days ago:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/04/20/climate-change-killed-your-pets/
I saw that and had to change my Climate Change Will Kill Your Dog slogan that I used for several years, to:
Climate Change Will Shrink Man’s Favorite Organ
Net-Nirvana
when I think of Net-Zero, the first thing that comes to mind is Jonestown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
It all comes down to the same root problem. They never did any cost-benefit analysis on “net zero,” or any of the associated projects.
They failed to do a proper cost-benefit analysis, from the point of view of the people, even as far back as 2006, when the Stern review was grossly biased in favour of political action.
In 2007-9, they tried to obscure this by dropping the “social cost of carbon” approach, and instead using a made-up measure, which over-stated the costs of taking no political action by a factor of at least 5.
Then in 2020, they in effect exempted “strategic” projects such as “net zero” from any requirement to do cost-benefit analysis at all. It appears to have been Sunak that did this, right after he became chancellor. Presumably, under pressure from Johnson.
This has been all along, as John Locke told us, a “long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way.” Which “make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going.” But we aren’t as stupid as our enemies like Stark seem to think. Enough of us have managed to keep our eyes on the ball throughout, that the result is a growing backlash from the people.
Heads deserve to roll in the UK government over this. And a lot of them. But just as importantly, we want our money back. And our petrol and diesel cars. And our gas boilers. And our fracking. And our rights and freedoms. And everything else we have lost through these moronic policies.
“Heads deserve to roll in the UK government over this. And a lot of them. But just as importantly, we want our money back. And our petrol and diesel cars. And our gas boilers. And our fracking. And our rights and freedoms. And everything else we have lost through these moronic policies.”
Don’t hold your breath Neil.
“It appears to have been Sunak that did this, right after he became chancellor. Presumably, under pressure from Johnson.”
Sunak has shown himself to be as gullible as Johnson on green BS, so I doubt any pressure from above was necessary.
Post says:”It all comes down to the same root problem.”
This sentence is true enough, but I think you have identified the wrong “root problem”. The root problem is that in order to prove their superiority as leaders/people they believe a lie.
Stop believing the lie and all the problems can go away.
Essentially, “Ignore that man behind the curtain.”
Extreme government measures should require unequivocal proof that supports their use. Otherwise, they are simply dictates from dictators.
CO2 is not capable of resonating as claimed. after the first 20ppm concentration of CO2 there is little reaction with infra photons red photons.
More importantly, CO2 is required for ALL life on earth! It is REQUIRED for photosynthesis which feeds ALL plant & animals life. 6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2. Do we really need Zero CO2? Is there anyone out there who knows anything about actual science? Or is everyone Brainwashed with political ‘science’?
They never did a cost analysis.
Don’t say net zero!
I laughed mightily when I spotted that in the Grauniad. I really do believe the Graun would be better described, not as a serious newspaper, but as a 6th form protest rag. And it’s always, well almost always, bang on message – and quite a bit more. As for Stark & Co, rooms with rubber wallpaper seem more than appropriate at this juncture.
“Net zero has come a long way quickly, but it’s a journey that’s just beginning.
The concept of net zero has come a long way in a very short time – it has gone from science to policy to mainstream in less than a decade. “
https://eciu.net/analysis/infographics/net-zero-history
In the last 4 to 6 years the message has been massively ramped-up throughout the mediaspheres and by governments etc. In these last years we have had the phrase ‘net zero’ machine-gunned (h/t P Ehrlich) at us night and day, Stark and chums are major offenders:
“A government spokesperson said: “Our record on net zero speaks for itself.”
…
Mr Stark said the country had made enormous progress towards reaching the climate target of net zero by 2050 under Theresa May and Boris Johnson.
…
Reaching net zero means no longer adding to the total amount of greenhouse gases – such as carbon dioxide and methane – in the atmosphere. The government is bound to this target by law.
…
“But we need to reach our net zero goals in a sustainable way, so we have taken action to protect our energy security, ease the burdens on hard-working people and provide transparency about the choices involved so that we bring people with us in meeting our climate targets.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68863796
That article was published three days ago, on 21st April.
So it’s more than a bit rich for Stark to start complaining about their favourite slogan now. The left(?) love to play around with words, mostly diluting or even warping their meaning, e.g. racism, chestfeeding etc. But it does go wrong for them; global warming was obliged to transmogrify into climate change.
So, with that in mind we should rebrand net zero as zero chance [matey]. That to my mind is at least reasonably honest.
Net Zero, by any other name, is still stupid and anti-human.
Well, zero chance means…. No chance
Chris Starke’s comments are the complete inverse of what has actually been taking place.
Chris Stark is not being open or honest about the Net Zero disaster that his committee the CCC, has recommended to the government be adopted.
I thought he was a complete idiot, this article supports that being the case. I seem to recall that he’s moving on to another pointless but no doubt handsomely-rewarded post in the same field. I suppose his counts as one of the well-paid “green jobs” that we hear so much about.
“is statement that life will be virtually the same in 2050 as it is now is just plain propaganda.”
I bet the cost of electricity is not the same in 2050, if they continue down this Net Zero deadend road.
The price of a pint of beer will not be the same.
Shall I present the near infinite list?
Flat beer with no CO2 in it.
“Chris Stark is not being open or honest about the Net Zero disaster”
Of course he’s not because he is just moving on to become CEO of The Carbon Trust where he will continue to push for net zero, even if it gets rebranded as some other slogan.
There is no Green Energy Transition
It’s a green Trojan Horse
Nut Zero is just as fake as the coming climate crisis.
There is a Real Transition to Leftist Fascism in progress, disguised as a Green Energy Transition to save the planet from climate change.
What is fascism?
Example from this week:
Follow the latest Trump kangaroo court. Already fined about $550 million and he will be in prison if Democrats need him there to win the 2024 election.
Trump is actually being prosecuted for a 2016 misdemeanor past the statute of limitations. Hillary Clinton used fake campaign legal expenses to pay for her Russia dossier, similar to this Trump case, but she plays by different rules.
Reading at least a dozen climate and energy articles each morning, I am surprised by how easy it is to find good articles on why Nut Zero won’t work, or is not making much progress.
Nut Zero is going to be too expensive, not feasible, not enough batteries, there is no demonstration project, there is no cost estimate or funding, and whatever mining is required is already over a decade behind schedule.
At least 175 nations with almost seven billion of combined population are not participating in Nut Zero and the other 20 don’t seem to care.
When asked for proof Nut Zero is a real engineering project, we can list hundreds of executive orders from the Joe Bribe’ems bureaucracy.
Nut Zero seems to be mainly about giving orders to the private sector from Washington.
If those orders are not followed, they can be enforced with fines. Mainly done by unelected bureaucrats.
A real engineering project requires a detailed plan, funding and easily observed progress toward a well defined goal. Nut Zero has none of these. Nut Zero is not a real engineering project.
Nut Zero is a political strategy to control the private sector from Washington (or London, or Berlin). It is a gradual process starting with the auto, oil and gas and electric utility industries. It will gradually spread to other industries “needed to make more progress”.
Conservatives like to claim leftist politicians pretending to be climate scientists and grid engineers are fools. But they are actually quite proficient at gaining political power over the private sector of the US economy.
I wish every article on Nut Zero would mention that Nut Zero is not necessary because there is no climate emergency and predictions of such an emergency have been wrong since 1979. Bonus points for mentioning more CO2 is good news for our planet.
the coming climate crisis.
Is already here. April 24rth, London, 10:55 GMT/UTC 8C
That means burning more gas..
I don’t care for Trump but $550 million fine is insane. I also don’t care for Biden. I was hoping both parties would pick middle aged people.
Or middle ground. We need a president that represents ALL of the people.
Problem is that “the people” are so deeply divided nowadays that no individual can represent everybody any more. Blame the Climate Worriers!
Radical Democrats don’t make very good scientists, but they are not fools. They are very good at gaining political power by hook or crook. That’s because they are ruthless and don’t care to abide by the rules. Anything goes for them whether it’s legal or illegal; constitutional or unconstutional. And, unfortunately, they have access to billions of dollars, from their leftwing billionaire supporters, they can use to finance all their attacks on Democracy.
The battle will culminate on November 5, 2024.
Nut Zero is a strategy to gain power and hand out rewards: Government contracts for your favorite businesses that are best at following your orders. But not for Big Oil.
Punishments = government fines
Rewards = government contracts
It’s the media that is owned by the rich hoping to make trillions from the $US200 trillion it is estimated to cost to stop warming by 2050 that is pushing their agenda.
I wish every article on Nut Zero would mention that Nut Zero is not necessary because there is no climate emergency and predictions of such an emergency have been wrong since 1979. Bonus points for mentioning more CO2 is good news for our planet.
_______________________________________________________________
Oh, like this one that YouTube puts on videos with a Climate Change topic:
“Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.”
How ’bout this:
“Net Zero is an impossible goal that bans humanity from using fire. There are no negative effects from more CO2. A warmer greener world is not a problem.”
Or this:
Leftists ruin everything they touch
They are vermin
But you can’t set traps for them
I agree with the sentiment of your comment, but it really depends on your point of view (not “you” personally, the general or royal “you”). For leftists, it’s a feature, not a bug. Their whole worldview is to ruin this and tear down that. They’re great at destruction, just not very good at rebuilding.
“John Podesta, a senior adviser to President Biden on clean energy, said in a speech last month. “We got so good at stopping projects that we forgot how to build things in America.”
Um, “bans humanity from using fire” is a meme that needs to spread.
Human civilization started when we learned to use fire.
Civilization ends when we are not allowed to use it.
Net Zero involves battery storage. A theme on WUWT is the opposition to “green” schemes on environmental grounds. Such an example can be seen in Dunbartonshire in Scotland. Apatura are proposing to build a 560MW battery storage facility. Local residents are none too pleased.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24076234.cochno-road-battery-storage-community-fights-green-project/
I was going to read that link but didn’t care to accept their cookie policy. What is the price for this facility?
Price?
Who cares?
It will cut fuel costs so much the investment will pay back in 13 minutes. Unfortunately the 560mW battery is only good for 12 minutes of power.
When you see MW, wonder why you are not seeing MWh
When you see mW, realize that the person either isn’t knowledgeable about power, or isn’t knowledgeable about the System Internationale, or both.
Get your marshmellows ready. The fire will be splendid.
But we won’t be allowed fire.
Question about the UK: When they use the language “replace gas boilers with heat pumps”, what kind of heating do they mean to install? Heat pumps into already ducted houses? Adding duct work to houses? “Split units?” Other?
Primarily to replace gas-fired combi-boilers, to provide both hot water and heating. Which generally means finding space for a hot water tank, and replacing existing radiators with bigger ones because of lower hot water temperature. They aren’t directly heating air, so no ducting is involved.
Google Boris Johnson Net Zero target and you get “A landmark Net Zero Strategy setting out how the UK will secure 440,000 well-paid jobs and unlock £90 billion in investment in 2030 on its path to ending its contribution to climate change by 2050 has been unveiled by the UK government today (19 October).19 Oct 2021”
https://www.gov.uk › news ›
I remember reading at the time that Boris asked his Science advisors to present a power point presentation on Climate Change (probably on the prompting of new wife Carrie) before announcing the above target.
We also learn that science was Boris’s worst subject at school unfortunately we are now suffering from the results of 3rd Grade classroom teaching lesson and a Leader who has the comprehension of science of a 3rd grade school boy.
Johnson was just one of many idiots. There has been negligible resistance to any of this green cr*p since the Climate Change Act was enacted under Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband with overwhelming support from MPs across all parties. MPs didn’t even bother to vote when May put through one of the legally-binding instruments as pretty much her last action as PM, it just went through on the nod. There have been hints of a dawning reality but nothing to suggest that whoever is in power (almost certainly the awful Starmer) by the end of this year will blunder on down this road until forced otherwise by said reality.
wow, many new jobs and vast investments and solve the global burning problem- sounds like a wonderful policy! /sarc
Not just new jobs, but good well-paying jobs.
I remember the fiasco of The New Deal. A few months of work then back to the bread lines.
Or, if he were Biden, good, well-paying, union jobs.
“Stark’s admission that the term “net zero” might be better dropped because it has sparked a “dangerous” culture war is an astounding revelation of backpedaling.”
And maybe we deplorables have negative associations with the word “zero”. Like, zero economy, zero national power, zero comforts- knowing full well, the wealthy won’t be experiencing anything zero-ish. Yuh, “zero” isn’t an inspiring word. Gotta come up with something that sounds exciting, sexy, fun- implying a much better life and a better planet. Don’t talk about the cost. Don’t suggest that the planet will be chillier when the objective is reached.
Nut zero zealots must be drinking this kool-aid from Oil Price:
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Wind-Overtakes-Fossil-Fuels-as-the-UKs-Largest-Power-Generation-Source.amp.html
Too bad the useful details such how much wind power was consumed were left out. Along with how was the other 20+% of power generated.
Or, there are “millions” of these installed than no one knows about:
https://unofficialnetworks.com/2024/04/22/wind-turbine-wall-home-power/amp/
Or, there are “millions” of these installed than no one knows about:
https://unofficialnetworks.com/2024/04/22/wind-turbine-wall-home-power/amp/
O/T but when it comes to rebrands, some seem to press a button
I recall when I asked for times (of broadcasts etc) to be included with UTC I was informed that Americans have a visceral hate for the term. Yet, UTC is another name for… GMT
So which term do Americans prefer (and why – or not)?
Being old fashioned, I prefer GMT. But since that was a English definition, it had to be changed to a “globally acceptable name.” It’s the sun. No, it’s the moon.
Not sure if this is a poll, but I’m comfortable with both. What I have a problem with is DST/EDT and whether it’s a four- or five-hour difference between North America (east coast) and UTC (i have the clock on my computer set up for both local time and UTC).
It will remain green witch meanie time.
Either. But, actually, I prefer Zulu.
Net Zero was always nothing more than a convenient political slogan. The mistake was to turn it into policy.
Control the language, control the ideas. K. Marx
Taking a £200k hit to my property value (through proximity to new 400kV line to feed wind power south) – plus £40k to retrofit heatpump to 200year old house, plus ongoing loss of visual amenity, plus an EV mandated once my trusty diesel gives up – lets round it to £350k hit to my wealth.
said money transferred directly to foreign owned utility company by virtue of them choosing the cheapest/most damaging option for “low cost wind power”.
what’s not to like?
idiots….
“plus £40k to retrofit heatpump to 200year old house,”
Whose idea was that?
The government.
Australia now has the largest penetration of weather dependent generation for any large, isolated network, totalling 40% of demand in Q1 2024.
The mandated theft extracted from consumers to pay the WDGs their graft amounted to $2014M while the wholesale power cost was $3587M.
The theft is added to the retail price that includes a whole raft of additional costs to make the system viable with all that intermittent generation as well as the additional cost of capital of new but poorly utilised interconnectors to remote WDGs.
The highest component of the WDGs was rooftops, which served 12% of the total demand over the quarter: up 10% year-on-year. This shows the future direction with households taking a position to limit their exposure to high cost grid power and join the Ponzi scheme. Rooftops is one of the factors causing potential investors to withdraw proposals for additional grid scale WDGs because they are eating away at the demand and potential income.
Household batteries are also having a small but growing impact on eroding the demand. The minimum demand was the lowest Q1 demand since Tasmania joined the NEM.
It is probable that Australia now has the highest retail electricity price in the developed world. It would need a close look at pricing structures at retail level to confirm this.
Albo’s has failed to deliver lower power prices. The academics will be scratching their heads wondering why prices keep going up as WDGs take a larger share of power supply. They fail to factor in the need for reliable generators to make a profit.
The current price cap of $300/MWh over a 7 day period will be doubled to $600/MWh over the next three years to ensure gas plants can make a profit despite reduced output. Ten years ago, coal generators were happy with $50/MWh operating most of the time. Now they ratchet up to $300/MWh so they make a profit during the few hours of peak demand morning and night. So a whole lot more players all making a profit and the consumer bears the cost.
Crooks or imbeciles – the various governments are not serving their electorates.
The Left typically run on a handful of slogans at any one time. If “net zero” is out, it creates a vacuum the Left abhors, so they will quickly create a new slogan to fill it.
Chris Stark is perfectly right. You just have to ignore ALL the counterfactuals, a speciality of all climate alarmists.
The UK is well into Phase 2 of failing projects, disillusionment, and seems to be just entering Phase 3, panic.
The trigger might be blackouts, but they will come quite a bit later, in the late 2020s. Or panic may be caused sooner than that by the EV car quotas. Right now this year manufacturers must sell 22% EVs, or pay 15,000 per car over quota. Next year its 28%.
They are reported by the Telegraph to be actually doing 15% this year. The problem is the big manufacturers are doing worst. And there is no reason to think buyers are going to warm to EVs.
So there are only two choices for the UK. One is that the manufacturers lower their sales of ICE cars, so that their lower EV sales do make up 22% of total sales This will require big reductions in sales, which will produce profit problems. It will also be a sort of rationing.
This has the potential to trigger a crisis and take the political class into panic. The economic implications of a collapsing car market are considerable.
Or, the government could backtrack on quotas. At that point we will be well and truly in panic mode.
In numbers. Quota is 22% EVs and 78% ICE. The total market is about 1.9 million if its like last year. EV sales are 15% so far this year, which would be 285,000 full year. Quota for this year at 22% would be 418,000.
How much do ICE sales have to come down to get this 285k back up to 22%? To make 285k into 22% of total sales, total sales will have to fall to 1.3 million, of which ICE sales would be 1.015 million
That is quite a fall from last year’s totals and next year when the quota rises to 28%, if there is a continuing buyers strike which forces them to make it up once more by lowering ICE sales again, its going to be catastrophic.
Have I got the numbers right here? If so, its really rather grim. The real possibility is coming into view that the result of the quota will not be to make people buy EVs, but will just be to stop people buying any car. Then we will see panic.
These things can happen very fast in the UK. The Cass Report, on gender issues and treatments, finally came out in England. The result a month or so later has been very striking. All of a sudden a lot of people are now totally silent, and many others are stridently shouting things in public which they would not have dared whisper in private two months ago. In just a couple of months the political class has launched itself through the panic stage into the search for the guilty.
Could happen with climate too.
Do they need a new slogan? How about an English translation of the German phase, “Energiewende” which has proven very successful. They might also think about using “Mein Kampf”, another successful slogan.
How about “England: The Saudi Arabia of windpower!! or bust.
BTW, I really don’t think most people get it.
This whole green thing, like covid, is just a cover for increasing govt size and control.
If the pols scale back on the green goals a bit, this is not a victory of any sort. This is just the pols calibrating how far they can go with the green nonsense before the dim bulbs called “voters” feel enough discomfort to vote them out of office. So, when the goals are scaled back a bit, don’t expect the pols or the apparachiks to surrender one bit of their new powers.
It has always been, and always will be, about power.
I can sum this up easily. Everybody is sick and tired of being lied to and having the crap scared out of their children. Enough is enough. 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. You know who to blame for this mess. Get government out of the energy business and all of this goes away.
Of course. Net Zero is clear nonsense.
Could we use a little very BASIC grade school level science? CO2 is absolutely REQUIRED for all of present life on earth! All life now basically depends on photosynthesis to garner energy from the sun to create, and power, our physical bodies. Plants use sunlight to fuel their growth and to produce food for all other life to grow their own bodies and fuel their activities.
PHOTOSYNTHESIS DEPENDS UPON CO2. Without CO2, there will be NO PHOTOSYNTHESIS and no life as we know it on earth! Did you not learn this in GRADE SCHOOL science class?
6CO2 + 6H2O + light -> C6H12O6 + 6O2 (the -> means results in, or produces) is the formula for photosynthesis.
How can you expect us to live with NO CO2 to provide HALF of the molecules required for this process? Some magical Communist or Globalist fairy? There is a reason that the green plant growth, now seen on the earth, is increasing WITH the SLIGHT increase in CO2.
In former ages on earth, there were huge amounts (relative to today) of CO2 in the atmosphere AND the earth was a lush green with bountiful plants to feed the animals. Re-read your BASIC science and botany. Look at the geological records before they are removed from public view by people trying to murder us. Also remember, that these same plants release O2 for us to breathe while they are producing our food! Do we really want to kill them? WTH is the matter with people?