From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Starmer has just confirmed at COP29 that the UK will formally aim to cut emissions by 81% from 1990 levels by 2035. This means a cut of 65% from current levels.
This is in line with the CCC’s call last month, which I analysed here. As I noted then, the emission savings made so far have been low-hanging fruit, albeit expensive fruit! It will though get progressively harder as time passes.
Many of the non-CO2 GHGs have already been cut substantially, meaning that much bigger cuts will have to be made to CO2. We can build more wind farms, but can’t get away from the fact that power only accounts for about 10% of emissions now, so massive cuts will be needed elsewhere.
And all this is just the start. Within another 15 years, we are supposed to have no emissions at all.
Back in 2020, an organisation called UK FIRES published their honest assessment of how we could get to Net Zero. UK FIRES is a research programme sponsored by the UK Government, tasked with supporting a 20% cut in the UK’s true emissions by 2050 by placing Resource Efficiency at the heart of the UK’s Future Industrial Strategy.
I covered their report “Absolute Zero” at the time here. Since then nothing has really changed – we have no new technologies with which to address the problem, there is a limit to how much we can rely on intermittent wind and solar power, EVs and heat pumps still remain unaffordable and impractical, and people want more of everything, not less.
The stark analysis laid out by UK FIRES is still true.
This was how their report began:
https://ukfires.org/about-us/our-vision/
Below is what I wrote back then. Everything I said is still true.
To many people, “saving the planet” means little more than building wind farms, planting trees and using less plastic. However it is gradually beginning to dawn on the public that the impact on their lives will be substantial.
Even then though, things like scrapping gas boilers and moving to electric cars have been something that “won’t happen for decades, so why worry now?”
However a new study, sponsored by the UK Government, has warned that huge changes to our lifestyles will be necessary, and much sooner than we think, if zero emission targets are to be met.
The report by UK FIRES, called Absolute Zero, calls for all UK airports to be shut by 2050, because there are no practical alternatives for zero emission flight. But as part of this timetable, all airports other than Heathrow, Glasgow and Belfast must shut by 2030.
In a stroke, air travel will be effectively banned for most of the country, as Heathrow simply would not have the capacity to handle more than a small proportion of demand. (Heathrow currently carries a quarter of UK passengers).
But that is just one item on a long list of changes to be forced on the British public. The report concludes that we cannot bank on technological innovations coming to our rescue.
If you thought that we could simply rely on renewable energy, forget it. As UK FIRES points out, even with rapid growth of renewables, we will still need to cut our energy use by 40%, even before air travel and shipping are factored in. And all of this without accounting for the projected population increase.
So forget about electric cars being the solution, because we will not have enough electricity to power them. The recommendation from UK FIRES – have 40% less cars on the road. Their suggestion – use the train more, ignoring the sky high prices, the fact that railways offer very limited routes and how you are supposed to travel around when you get to your destination. The idea that we will all willingly give up our cars to travel by rail or bus is utterly naive.
The report also conveniently ignores the high carbon dioxide footprint in building electric cars in the first place.
Heating is another area where we must cut emissions. UK FIRES expect us to buy heat pumps, seemingly oblivious to the fact they will cost each household a good £10k more than our conventional boilers. They also don’t appear to realise that heat pumps are incapable of supplying the heat we need in the middle of winter, or that the power grid simply could not cope with that sort of spike in demand even if they could.
Or maybe they do! Their guidance includes using heating for less time, in fewer rooms and wearing warm clothes in winter.
Our diet does not escape either, as we will have to give up eating beef and lamb, not to mention frozen ready meals. While we are expected to rely on arable farming instead, they also want fertiliser use to be drastically reduced.
Meanwhile the construction industry is likely to grind to a halt, as cement is phased out. Unfortunately the actual making of cement releases emissions, regardless of the source of the energy used.
Forget about housebuilding, new hospitals and infrastructure, they want us to concentrate on retrofit and adaptation of existing buildings.
Ironically, as even the report admits, we don’t know how to install new renewables or make new energy efficient buildings without cement.
If all of this was not bad enough, they want to ban all imports by 2050, unless they can come via rail, which might be a problem given that we are an island! Of course, we don’t have zero emission freight ships at the moment, and are unlikely to in the foreseeable future.
Quite how we are expected to feed ourselves without importing food is a mystery, unless we return to 1940s style rationing. And you can forget about all of those other things get from abroad now.
What about, for instance, computers and electronics? We will quickly become an international backwater, without access to the latest technology. It would be like the country returning to 1990s style Nokia phones, VHS and floppy discs!
Some may be substituted by UK made goods, but it is hard to see how industrial capacity could be built back up with the restrictions planned on construction, energy use and industrial emissions.
But it is not only the emissions from shipping which concerns the authors. They also say we must be responsible for all emissions from the production of imported goods.
So how, you might ask, are we supposed to live in this glorious, emission free future?
UK FIRES says we must not worry! We can apparently carry on doing the things we enjoy most, totally emission free. Things like sports, social life, eating, hobbies, games,computing, reading, TV, radio, volunteering and sleeping! According to the report, “we can all do more of these without any impact on emissions.”
Indeed, with the economy and industry destroyed, most of us will have much more time on our hands for these pursuits! (Climate scientists and bureaucrats excluded, naturally).
Nowhere in this dismal little report is there any acknowledgement of the fact that the UK only generates 1% of global emissions. The report starts by stating:
We have to cut our greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050: that’s what climate scientists tell us, it’s what social protesters are asking for and it’s now the law in the UK.
Wrecking the economy is not something we should do, just because a few eco-loon protestors are asking for it. And laws can, of course, be changed.
We must however thank the authors of this report for bringing home the very real and damaging effect that the mad rush to decarbonise will have on peoples’ lives.
And, as they have rightly stated, these changes will have to start being put into practice very soon, certainly during this decade.
For too long, the impact and cost of the Climate Change Act has been deliberately hidden from the public. Partly this has been the result of a political conspiracy between all of the major political parties and establishment in general. It has also been aided and abetted by all of the media, with a handful of notable exceptions.
But their dirty little secret cannot be covered up for much longer.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Could someone tell me why this is necessary? There’s no way that the rise in atmospheric CO2 will be checked, whether natural or Asian coal burning. UK’s contribution is immeasurably small.
It isn’t necessary, and outside the delusions of Mad Ed and TTK, many are starting to wake up to this fact.
Even the Conservatives, who’ve spent the last 15 years going with the flow, are starting to push back on NZ.
The objective is not zero emissions. The objective is population control. Once no one has their own car and smart meters control everyone’s access to energy, there will be no calls for freedom of speech, no “Islamophobic” outbursts, or protest of any kind really.
If true, that would be a conspiracy on a hitherto unimaginable scale.
Do you have any evidence for such a conspiracy?
Its less a conspiracy than a most convenient lie.
Its a narrative that makes nearly everybody who is anybody, money, power, and virtue.
As increasingly the labouring class, the artisan class and the merchant class are supplanted by raw machine power, computer aided manufacturing, and the disintermediating Internet as a channel to market, the political power of those classes diminishes. They are not needed by the ruling elites, who themselves are largely redundant too, so they invent a purpose for themselves that is virtuous, requires political power and is expensive.
There is also, in a world of diminishing access to fossil resources, the question of who gets to play with them.
And the ability to create an untermenschen class of ‘deplorables’ who are mushroom managed into subservience, fed on extract of locust and anointed with lizard lotion, is merely confirmatory proof that the elites deserve to be elite.
Everywhere the direction is against democracy, towards more government power to either promote liberal socialist bullshit or to combat it.
Both sides are now conditioned to expect that the other lot would be, if in power, a complete disaster of civilization ending proportions. And all steps are justified in stopping them.
And both sides demand more power, to stop them.
I am not encouraged.
I can see no way out.
Not on this side of the pond.
Torches and pitchforks on parade, the elite are on the run. If you’re lucky, we’ll succeed to such an extent that even the British voter will question why they can’t also have that.
It’s common knowledge. The WEF told us that there would be a reset years ago. You need to catch up.
You will own nothing and be happy. Also, eat ze bugs.
The global elites pushing the climate agenda write about it in books. Which you can read. Or check Jay Dyer’s YouTube channel. He’s read 50 or so of them. Don’t be an ignorant fool.
Jay Dyer?
I’ve just googled who he is, and if you think that watching his YouTube channel makes you informed, then god help you.
That’s not a factual rebuttal. Why am I not surprised.
How do you factually rebut a YouTube channel that doesn’t deal in facts?
Ignorant and foolish. Your confession offered freely. The end.
Covid 19? Or did you actually believe that was a real, ‘deadly’ virus too?
Tell me – why aren’t hundreds or thousands of ‘unvaccinated’ people dying from ‘Covid 19’ every month in the U.K.? What happened to the ‘deadly’ virus, which our idiotic government ruined our entire economy over?
As if people in power would LIE about an imaginary threat, which would enable them to have complete control over their ‘cattle’…
We have just SEEN “a conspiracy on a hitherto unimaginable scale”, it was called ‘Covid 19’. We still haven’t had our tens of billions of pounds back from the fake ‘vaccine’ manufacturers, because their ‘vaccines’ didn’t stop the spread of the ‘deadly’ virus, and didn’t stop people from dying from it (allegedly), otherwise the media would have been telling us day and night about the number of UNVACCINATED people who died ‘from’ or ‘with’ Covid 19.
Are you saying that every government, every scientist on the planet was wrong?
This is “wibble” territory.
It mutated into Omicron, which is much less deadly than earlier strains, and by now everyone has acquired at least some level of immunity, either by infection or vaccination, so the death rate has plummeted as a result.
Also, FYI, it’s still killing ~ 200 – 250 people per week, so ~ 10,000 per year, which is not exactly a small number.
Wibble.
More wibble.
Unbelievable wibble.
Please stop, you’re embarrassing yourself, but more to the point, you’re embarrassing all of us who have serious points to make about net-zero, climate change, or indeed anything.
I am a net-zero sceptic, I have no wish to be associated with your lunatic conspiracy theories.
“smart meters control everyone’s access to energy”
and water – a UK act of parliament passed in 2021 sets a limit on personal water consumption of 110 litres per day by 2050. Of course, like the original 80% target of the climate change act, this limit will be lowered without debate in parliament.
Net 110 2050!
It’s to facilitate control of the masses. Reduce the population. Ensure that there is more room for the elite, who will continue to use huge yachts and private jets.
Almost sounds like the globalist elitists like the old concept of Lebensraum. For them.
GRIFT
It’s not about the climate at all, it’s about controlling people. People were becoming so well off and productive that they were having enough spare time to step back from the grindstone and look at what their “rulers” were up to. Then the internet came around and access to information exploded. People now had at their fingertips repositories of information that would have been the envy of Emperors and Kings of the past. With this information, they started to learn that their “rulers” were not acting in their interests, and hadn’t been for a very long time.
The “rulers” couldn’t put up with this, if people really wake up to what is going on, they’d be an endangered species. So, something had to be done. The fact that it was climate that was chosen is somewhat arbitrary. There had been major wars throughout the last century and their ability to send fear through the populous was waning as was public enthusiasm for such expeditions. Something was needed to focus the fear of the public. An existential crisis that could be used to distract the majority of the populous and simultaneously as a cudgel against any who do not acquiesce to the fear based propaganda. The climate was that focus. Initially, the scare was global cooling, which later changed into global warming without the slightest hint of incredulity from those in thrall of the propaganda. This is a major tell that this is primarily a mass psychological control operation. Ordinarily, were the threat to perform an entire about face and emerge in the opposite direction, that would elicit a degree of skepticism from people with expertise in the field, the media and the general public. However, that change occurred in a surprisingly similar way to the switching of allies and enemies in Orwell’s 1984.
In essence, I think it was probably the internet that really broke things for the “rulers”. Before that, they had a tight monopoly on the publication and dissemination of information around the world. The intelligence agencies of various countries infiltrated the media of other countries and even (especially) their own in order to ensure that the information released to the public was curated as they desired. There was no real way for people around the world to share information directly with each other with any efficiency. But, the internet broke that. This happened very quickly (relatively speaking) and does not seem to be something that was predicted or expected to happen. The “rulers” were caught off guard, as they are a slow and lumbering Goliath. Even in the last few years they didn’t understand the power of the internet and social media. Their efforts to control the information flow during COVID failed miserably because of this failure. This is why we see across the Western world a massive push to censor and control (through mandatory digital ID) access to the internet and social media, to quash “misinformation” wherever it pops up. The reality is that “misinformation” is just something that the government/bureaucracy does not agree with.
This is, of course, not the only issue. There are two or three other major issues, which I won’t go into too much detail on lest this comment become a tome. The three main issue I see are energy availability (easy to access oil/gas/coal resources), monetary system failure and demographic catastrophe. The latter two are probably the most significant. Demographics are a huge issue in the West and also in China, these economies will not be able to sustain their aging populations at anywhere near the standard of living that they have grown to expect. That might make you wonder why they were playing around with respiratory viruses in a lab that had a high mortality among the elderly, but that’s a topic for another day. The other major issue is that the monetary systems of the Western world are spiraling towards collapse. All fiat money systems eventually collapse and the death spiral of the US dollar based hegemony is rapidly increasing. We face a future of rapidly increasing inflation, which will likely end in hyperinflation and eventual collapse of the US dollar and many other fiat money systems throughout the West. This cannot be stopped, but it can be postponed through rampant money printing, which causes the inflationary spiral. We are now in that phase.
Why would they choose to tilt at such windmills (figuratively as well as literally) in an attempt to “fix” this. Perhaps they believe their own propaganda? Or, perhaps they want a scapegoat to deflect blame for the coming collapse away from its true cause? In the end, it comes down to their insatiable lust for power. They want all the power, even if getting it would destroy the whole world.
The tide is turning…the UK is serving all of us well as the world’s green experimental island, and though painful to watch, may well the proverbial canary in the coal mine and serve to help turn the tide for the rest of us…similar to our recent election results in the US. The green experiment (and more than a few others) is ending, and logical, sequential consequences of insane policies are coming home to roost.
“though painful to watch”
Yes, it is.
It’s less painful than watching Hamas terrorists cook Israel babies in ovens–alive.
Two much smaller islands, El Hierro in the Canaries and King Island in Bass Straight, both windy places, have already tried. It didn’t work. Both still rely on diesels for roughly half their power.
Indeed so, but neither island had Mr. Miliband with his religious fervour, not the wonderfully named Two-Tier, Free-Gear Kier as a completely immune-to-fact-leader.
Socialism has never been done properly – let them show you, you deplorables, rabble, unbelievers, how it should be done.
Wind and solar – remembering that Great Britain is ALL north of Winnipeg, Canada, so solar is a bit limited [‘useless’] from about November through to about mid-February.
And sometimes the wind goes absent for days and weeks . . .
Auto
Given that geographic location is not up for change, the other variable – source of energy – is the primary item to change and it can only go one way. Just a matter of time. Condolences to the citizens of UK for the long wait, but positive change is inevitable.
Would Starmer and company please tell us what benefits will be achieved for the human race through any measurable cut in carbon dioxide emissions by any or all human beings, and why these benefits were not noticeable from mitigation measures which effectively occurred during the COVID19 conspiracy in the UK and elsewhere?
When are politicians going to stop lying to us outrageously about stuff, any stuff, but especially their irrelevant and absurd attempts to change what nature and our planet has happily done for a very long time without our help or hindrance?
The lock downs were nothing, vis a vis CO2 production by the average individual, compared with what is to planned to come.
I’m doing that intentionally to reduce my exposure to the internet. You can’t be hacked if you’re not connected. You can’t get advertised at if your online activity is close to zero. You can’t have your movies/books retroactively plastered with trigger warnings, or have scenes cut, when they’re burned on a DVD/laserdisc/VHS tape. Can’t have your “music collection” taken away from you if Spotify/iTunes decides your political views go against their terms of service, if they’re on CD/vinyl. I’ve been smartphone-less for over a month now, and if I make it to New Year without needing it, I’ll be smartphone-less permanently. No more dodgy apps tracking my movements and usage. Is life a bit less convenient? Sure, but…
It’s the triumph of blind faith over reality.
Renewable energy is now “unstoppable”, and no government can prevent the shift to a global low-carbon economy, UK energy secretary Ed Miliband has said.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/15/renewable-energy-unstoppable-ed-miliband
And just to rub it in…
He said the UK was acting out of national self-interest by taking a global lead on cutting greenhouse gas emissions and boosting financial help available to poor countries
Our national interest? Their feudal interest.
Reality has now shown that there’s something seriously wrong with folks like Ed. It’s one thing to look at theory or have concerns when there is a lack of knowledge about something ( as in early days of covid ) but there is NO lack of knowledge, science or qualified studies about how absolutely INSANE these policies are. Something else is at work!
Just as claimed in almost every article that isn’t here or on a number of other similar viewpoint sites, such as Jo Nova, the world is headed towards mass extinction if things don’t change markedly soon. That’s why the superior leaders are dead set on their goals.
Thoroughly delusional.
The COLLAPSE of renewable energy is now “unstoppable”, and no government can continue for long to prop up the shift to an imaginary global low-carbon economy.
It has always been a grifter’s scam, propped up not by a formal conspiracy but by the aligned interests of many powerful people, each acting independently on their own selfish interests. For as long as the convenient fiction can be sustained.
So certainly there are those in politics and the deep state who press Net Zero because of the aspect of control that it promises. Among these are both fascists and the further-Left communists.
But equally, the crony capitalists who bend the knee to Green idols because of their love of collecting money from the public fisc rather than the difficult and risky approach of selling superior products to discerning customers spending their own hard-earned money.
Then there are the climastrologers who know that their career prospects depend on confirming the dogmas, and so miraculously do not question any doctrines and police against any heresy within their ranks.
The parade continues with the Green NGOs who derive the income financing their posh lifestyles from donations induced by terrorising young minds.
I am sure that other non-conspiring co-defendants can be named, but I will not further burden the reader.
Just to point out a small thing I notice. The “terrorising minds” young or not, by one side seems to be well balanced by the terrible picture you’ve just presented.
I’m afraid that your point eludes me.
My point is that there is no vast conspiracy and no common goal, but many disparate goals, often contradictory. There are WEF villains but they are not orchestrating the whole thing through secret meetings.
No conspiracy need be shown to justify the claim that there is a vast global scam. The incentives to keep the scam going so far have exceeded the incentives anyone had to end it.
Possibly, the tide is turning because political power can accrue to those who champion the people being harmed by the scam. The harms are no longer slight and the next stages promise to be so much worse.
We need men in white coats and more mental hospitals.
Mrs. Thatcher released many of the – ahh – ‘mentally-challenged’ into the community.
Possibly not a great success.
I don’t think she imagined quite so many entering the Cabinet.
Auto
The really valuable thing about this post is that it draws on the UK Fires report to go into the specifics of what society would have to be like to get to net zero.
There is a general pattern among climate activists to argue that all that happens is that cars and heating become electric, electricity generation is shifted to wind and solar, and everything carries on as normal. People still live in suburbs, shop at malls, drive to work or to take the kids to school. Energy prices, according to Miliband, fall.
The report makes it clear that this is not going to happen. But its actually far worse than the report allows because it doesn’t cover the collateral changes that would be needed to society. It would actually be back to about 1900, with computers, and that means huge rehousing of people in dense towns with employment and facilities within walking or cycling distance. You have to imagine the end of freeways, malls, suburbs, personal mobility of all sorts.
For Britain, it would be back to about 1950. If you are in Britain, see if you can find anyone who remembers 1950 and ask what it was like. In many ways it wasn’t bad, but it was very very different. That is where the country is headed, but with blackouts.
Time for the activists to get real and honest about what their agenda implies.
I can volunteer for anyone who wants to know about rural Scotland in the 1950s and 1960s from about 1955 onwards. My experiences were particularly extreme but we weren’t the only ones without electricty and only one room with heat (when it was occupied).
Remember “party line” telephones?
The rag and bone man etc? Paraffin heating etc etc etc?
no more paraffin heating.
Be more like the 1750s
There were plenty of blackouts in 1950!
From 1945 for me.
No hot tap..
one fire in the living room.
9inch tv screen 405 line black and grey.
Sweet rationing till 1953.
No refrigeration for food.
Bath water heated in gas boiler for bath in tin tub.
Dolly tub to wash cloths in with skiffle board with hot water from gas boiler.
Cloths washing done out side on Mondays.
Washing hung on out side washing line in all weathers.
No trainers only pumps.
No off side rule in football.
2d given in return for returned beer bottle.
Milk was delivered by horse and cart (till 60’s)
Christmas did not start till a fortnight before the 25th.
You were allowed to smoke none filtered cigarettes ( any where)..
Boys at school wore short trousers till secondary school.
The rag and bone man came round with his horse and cart and gave out goldfish for old clothing.
.
.
You had a TV? Ooh, there’s posh for you.
I feel an episode of the Four Yorkshiremen coming on
I’e I could only float my matchstick boat in the horse piss in the gutter.
as the stream was too polluted .
Did not say we had it (9inch TV only that it was available)..
I had to do round the next door to watch Superman once a week.
On a 6 inch Tv.( only allowed to do that because girl next door liked me)
You must have lived down the street from me. We came to Canada in 1957, mind blowing.
!950 Britain was almost the 15 min environment that many have been proposing . Didcot in that era had small shops and businesses, now gone, where , if you had the necessary number of coupons in your ration book you could buy anything . Library was free, Buses (Tappins) were cheap and a Grammar school education (teachers in gowns , latin compulsory, girls addressed by forenames , boys by surnames) available if you were bright enough . Frankly you did not need anything else. The downside was that houses were cold , often damp if Victorian or edwardian vintage . Typically there was only one fire (coal) kept going through the day by being built up with wet slack. Baths once a week , but Friday night a treat : codliver oil and malt – given that sweets were rationed. .
According to Our World in Data, approximately 83 percent of the Global Primary Energy Consumption is carbon based. I’m waiting for those calling for conversion to carbon-free energy to publish their plan for doing so — including cost and source of funds — show your work.
There was a time when first world countries were slowly and carefully moving from carbon-based energy sources to nuclear power. If the anti-nuke crowd hadn’t irrationally blocked the shift to safe, clean, reliable nuclear power we would be well on our way today.
Instead of letting engineers design our future we let the greens dream it. And “it” is a costly and unreliable nightmare.
The IEA say that the last decade has seen the share of fossil fuels in energy production fall from 82% in 2013 to 80% in 2023.
However, energy demand has also increased by 15% over that period so the amount of fossil fuels being used has also increased.
IEA ‘World Energy Outlook 2024’ (Oct 2024)
The major involved bureaucratic and insurance entities greatly benefited financially and/or politically by the lies about the dangers of nuclear energy, at least up to the time when they almost killed it completely. They are very unlikely to give up that strangle hold now, so progress will be slow, at best.
What’s the alternative? Do nothing?
There is about 5.2 * 1015 tonnes in the atmosphere.Divide that by 1 million and you get 5.2 Gigatonnes.CO2 is about 1.5 times denser than air, so the CO2 equivalent by volume would be about 7.8 Gigatonnes
Latest government statistics show that emissions for 2023 in Britain were about 300 million tonnes.
Suppose Britain takes no action??
In 2050, in 26 years time, Britain will have emitted about 7.8 Gigatonnes and increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by 1 part per million by volume.
Is that what you really want?
A bit more would be even better, 10 times as many people die from the cold than heat in Europe, a nice 1/1 balance would make it a pleasant climate.
Do you think more CO2 could actually help (aside from that part of it that comes from heating homes)?
What are China’s annual emissions?
How fast are they growing?
What about India and the rest of the developing world?
If the UK, by some miracle, managed to achieve net-zero, how long would it take the above to more than wipe out the UK’s contributions to the fight against “climate change”?
Less than six months by my workings.
What’s the alternative?
Nuclear power if you’re serious about net-zero electricity, with the added benefit that it reduces our reliance on oil/gas from unfriendly states, wind/solar are an expensive joke.
Other than that, a strong economy, which requires low energy costs, and gives us the resilience to adapt to “climate change”, if or when it comes.
Nothing the UK does will affect “climate change” so long as the likes of China are ploughing on regardless, the only thing net-zero will achieve is the impoverishment of all of us, with the consequence that we will be unable to adapt to whatever challenges “climate change” brings, due to a simple lack of money.
All of which assumes that the threat from CO2 is real in the first place.
I’m in the do nothing about CO2 camp, on the other hand dumping sewage into seas and rivers is a different matter.
What’s the alternative? Do nothing?
There isn’t a problem to do anything about.
Is that what you really want?
(1) What will the percentage rise in CO2 ppm be?
(2) What difference will that make to global temps?
I don’t particularly want or not want it, I don’t think its worth worrying about. If there were any kind of global movement to lower emissions, that would be a different matter. But there isn’t, so the merits of doing it unilaterally? Few and none.
And what effect will all these numbers have?
Hasn’t been proven to be detrimental, so no, do not care.
Nope. You missed it by 1000 times. Try 5.2E18. Then change “million” to “billion” in the second last sentence and you will be close.
UK is an insignificant player to greening the planet. China and India are doing all the heavy lifting.
And all because of the ALLEGED harm from carbon dioxide.
No, not at all. I want Britain to have emitted as much CO2 as we like. And industry, technology, social freedom and comfort to have increased dramatically. Just like we have been doing for hundreds of years.
The additional 1ppm of CO2 is laughably irrelevant. Fossil fuels in total have contributed about 0.5% of greenhouse gases in all of history, and only the least effective greenhouse gases. That cannot have a noticeable effect on the global temperature, but even if it did, it would save some of the lives currently lost due to cold. Would you not want that?
a scary, hard to breath, view?
What’s the alternative? Tear down the bird shredders and frack gas, burn coal, and have a viable economy again.
CO2 is net beneficial but you needn’t charge the other countries for the benefit. Think of it as taking up the white man’s burden.
We in the UK were promised sensationally new battery technology as long ago as the early sixties to assist in a new era where nuclear energy would bear the main energy load assisted by clean fuels such as natural gas and hydroelectric. Windmills and solar panels were technologies that had failed to catch the imaginations of our ancestors since without the batteries needed to hold the charge until it was needed they were pointless luxuries.
No matter what idiots like Starmer may preach to his lunatic following in his political sermons we are not as stupid as he and his Party is.. Britain will be crippled if his government is allowed to wallow in this madness and stupidity. Energy is no luxury no matter how it is achieved – it is an absolute necessity, Nuclear is clean and so why hasn’t the UK got a plan that doesn’t involve bankrupting us until we succeed in building the infrastructure we need instead of turbines and panels that destroy our countryside for no good reason when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. We have known this for a long time and so what the hell is Starmer up to if it isn’t virtue signalling madness for virtue signalling madness sake?
Back in the oil crisis of the 1980’s the UK Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) dismissed wind as a viable source because of its unreliability. How times have changed!
Well, since I knew the head of their research department back then, I can tell you that they definitely did not dismiss it.
I took that information from page 112 of a book I have entitled ‘The Renewable Energy Alternative’ by John O Blackburn published in 1987. Guess you can’t believe everything you read.
And the UK Fires report had not considered AI and Data centres hunger for power, add that in and its even worse.
The good news is that there’s almost no reason to reduce emissions.
Climate sensitivity is measured in degrees per doubling of CO2. Within a doubling or two, the impact of the next ton will be effectively.zero.
Miss the target by a foot or by a mile – the outcome is effectively the same.
The average human exhaled breath contains about 40,000 ppm of CO2. What’s he going to do about that?
That answer, at least is plain. With fewer average breathers, there is just that much less CO2.
Sharia will make NetZero obsolete in the UK. Immigration will reverse as those who find sharia intolerable emigrate to more inclusive countries.
The UK is getting what it voted for – unilateral economic disarmament and hordes of uneducated immigrants.. And despite Kemi Badenoch recognising these facts, has changed her tune to win the Tory leadership.
How is Starmer going to cut Clouds and Water Vapour which constitute 90% of atmospheric greenhouse gases? ( carbon dioxide is only 0.04%)
CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, but about 2% of greenhouse gases. Fossil fuels have probably added about 0.5% points of that. Obviously an insignificant amount of the total, however.
Did he insinuate he was going to?
To those “in-charge”, “saving the planet” means little more than getting paid to build wind farms, planting trees and using buses and trains”. FIFY
One scene setting element in”1984” was just how grungy the environment was. A good little Marxist seems not to care much, as long as the plebes are equally miserable. The Party does not do much better, but they still have perks.
Whether the goal is “economic justice” or “environmental justice”, having a goal that excuses any behavior is needed.
In a single word:
Subjugation
noun
The question is what are you going to do about it?
Elect Donald Trump. Oh, the UK doesn’t have him?
I’m flying to North Korea next week to claim asylum
Russia would be a much better alternative! They’ve got plenty of energy resources, as well as wide swaths of undeveloped land full of economically desirable metals and minerals. Why else would the Western elites have been trying to gain control of it since the break up of the Soviet Union!?
Look here the whole of this CO2 nonsense is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics which has yet to be disproven. Cold CO2 cannot heat the surface. The atmosphere at a few thousand feet is always cooler than the surface (which heats to lowest atmosphere). How cold is it at 30000 feet? About -40C. Doesn’t work does it?
Maybe there is more willingness to listen to actual science and actual logic now…nothing like the domination of suffering and the overthrow of BS in the US presidential election to start the ball rolling. Simple facts like yours may actually be absorbed by the voting public!
Everything in the universe emits photons. They can heat up anything else, whatever the temperature of either body. That’s basic physics.
But it is also true that the anything else emits, according to its temperature. Emissions increase with the 4th power of the temperature change and, at least in many cases, the residence time is very low.
A single burning match at 30,000 feet still radiates energy towards the surface. Some of it might even get there. The question is not does it but how much difference it makes.
The only way to fix the above dilemma is to start educating the public with the truth: human caused climate change is a hoax. What little we contribute is nothing compared to nature. There is tons of solid evidence of this. Need to find a way to get this message out. Maybe with Trump in office, we can start that conversation.
So you’re supposed to not eat meat any longer and move to a vegetarian diet, but the UK is moving forward to essentially destroy farming through taxation and countries like Holland destroy farming by taking all the land away. How exactly will these vegetables be grown and delivered? Asking for a hungry friend.
Learn which weeds that grow between solar panels are editable.
We need to regulate net zero out of existence.
Okay, Starmer. You, go first. Let’s cut power to the house of commons and number 10. Or maybe just to ALL of London. Thank God the Brits still have fireplaces and woodlands A few illegal coal mines would also help.
Add “a plague of locusts” to the title