I have long argued the UK ‘s net zero policies are too dear, are losing us our industry and jobs, are losing us tax revenues and increase world CO 2. The last argument cuts through with more of the politicians and officials than the prosperity, tax and job arguments. It helped me and a few others persuade the last government to allow further exploration wells in the UK and development of new oil and gas fields. Mr Miliband has imposed a complete ban. It got the last government to delay banning new petrol and diesel cars, only for Mr Miliband to speed up the ban.
I also argued in a couple of short books that the twin drivers of the planned electrical revolution for consumers were not popular and would not deliver the change the net zero advocates wanted. Heat pumps are too dear, disruptive to install where larger radiators and more insulation are needed and can be dearer to run than gas boilers. Battery cars are dear, often lack range, can be difficult to recharge on long journeys and will gradually lose subsidies as some more people adopt them.
The latest work suggests a £4.5 tn cost to the planned transition just in the UK. I used a figure of $275 tn for the world plan in my “The $275 trillion Green Revolution” to show a very rough magnitude of the task, which appeared in various articles based on a McKinsey report. It might well cost more to replace all those coal and gas power stations, most petrol and diesel vehicles and all that fossil fuel space heating.
Now the US has renounced net zero policy, China believes in it for others but keeps plenty of fossil fuel use herself, and India says net zero has to come later, the UK and EU remain locked together with a disastrous dear energy policy. They then wonder as they blunder why they lose jobs, close factories and hardly grow. Net Zero policy is both self defeating and very destructive of prosperity.
January 14, 2026
Given the suicidal policies of Starmer’s Gang, both economically and culturally, it is hard to believe Russia is a serious threat. Why would any country risk the lives of their own people to attack a country alrady committing suicide? He wouldn’t and in any case UK has nothing that he wants. The Chinese are more subtle than Putin. They still follow Sun Tzu’s Art of War emphasising strategy, deception, and knowing yourself and your enemy, especially that the greatest victory is winning without fighting, achieved through careful planning, exploiting weaknesses, and appearing weak when strong. The Tories fell for it and so do Starmer’s Gang.
January 14, 2026
Unfortunately, this is only too true Peter
January 14, 2026
@Peter Gardner – as with @IanT , its the ‘Plan’ A Plan with the full backing of the majority in Parliament, they are the ones that chose the Starmergeddon gang and keep it in power, they are the ones fighting the people by maintaining this destruction
January 14, 2026
Correct but you say “I have long argued the UK ‘s net zero policies are too dear” well yes but any Net Zero cost to the tax payer, subsidies, red tape or policies would be too much as it conveys no benefit at all quite the reverse. Many £trillions of cost zero benefit.
Where renewables works and makes sense without subsidy or rigged markets fine. The idea we should have a war on CO2 the gas of life, plant, tree and crop food is insane. Even when we do Miliband’s and May’s mad policies just exports its production and the jobs with it. Killing the economy, industry, jobs and out defence systems.
January 14, 2026
@Lifelogic – and what happened to the means to pay. Why was that cancelled first?
January 14, 2026
The mike Graham show yesterday Tues 13th showed what a mistake Reform have made with the pompous and wrong headed Zahawi. The man still does not even seem to recognise that his Covid Vaccine Programme as Vaccine Tzar was a disaster. The fastest vaccine roll out he says. But is was a programme that clearly did net harm Zahawi look at the stats mate. That was a stupid question he say a perfectly sensible question. About 7.20 then at 8.45 the excellent Dr Clair Craig.
The Covid vaccines did not prevent Covid infections, hospitalisations or deaths and did cause huge vaccine injuries. See her excellent book “Spiked – A Shot in the Dark”.
The sensible view is not pro-vax or anti-vax some vaccine do net good and some net harm I like the former and hate the latter even if it was the fastest roll out Zahawi. Covid vaccines were heavily in the net harm section. The government should release the honest figure and stop hiding the truth which is doing even more harm.
January 14, 2026
@LL. +1. Zahawi is the sort of pompous, arrogant person that we need fewer of in politics. Reform has become a refuge for some real greasy-pole climbers.
January 14, 2026
Good morning.
Someone somewhere is making a ton of money out of this SCAM. And you would think that the political class would have smelled a rat, much like the rest of us, and steered well clear. But no, they have not.
As always, I tend to look away from the obvious and look into the less obvious when it comes to matters our political class can deal with (another being MASS IMMIGRATION) but refuse to do so. I mean, one cannot believe that they are all that stupid, naïve, ideologically wedded, or just plain corrupt. This the majority of European (and Western) countries, political parties, politicians, media, academia and just about everything else.
There has to be more ?
January 14, 2026
£4.5 trillion (UK) circa £150k per household is probably still an underestimate. EVs, more “renewable” wind and solar and back up, carbon capture, vast grid capacity increases, huge insulation increases needed, heat pumps for all homes, even this does not cover the additional subsequent damage done to jobs, industry, the economy, our defence systems caused by the higher energy costs and intermittency! Another doom loop insanity!
January 14, 2026
The world will of course not go for net zero only idiotic governments like the UKs will do so rendering them uncompetitive due to expensive energy the costs. This inability to compete will cause vast further costs above the £4.5 trillion. It will not even reduce CO2 worldwide just export it and kill the UK economy!
January 14, 2026
Net zero crap is going to kill off my town of Scunthorpe when they get rid of the blast furnace and replace it with a arch furnace, but then this as been happening for decades all over the U.K. to get rid of our heavy industry and blame it on some sort of climatic change
January 14, 2026
Net Zero can only be achieved by tyrannical governance: by banning products which people want to buy and trying to force them to buy more expensive, less efficient and inconvenient, ones. And then rationing energy to avoid blackouts.
The Government seems to be quietly dropping the (nonsense) argument about “saving the planet” and has morphed to the “insulating ourselves from despotic oil and gas producing regimes” when we can look across the North Sea to Norway and see a perfectly acceptable, democratic country (aligned, but not in, their beloved EU) sensibly exploiting the reserves in the same sea we were – until the Eco Extremists banned it.
Whole industries and hundreds of thousands of decent jobs have been destroyed by the lunacy, with more teetering on the edge.
It’s a SCAM and we simply can’t afford it.
January 14, 2026
@Donna.+1.
It suits a tyrannical political class and is an element of the corporatist fascist system that has quietly taken over. Less a one -off scam, more part of how we are now controlled and enslaved. Fear-mongering, media control, removal of freedom of expression, social conditioning for the masses, profit and power for the ruling class and their agents.
January 14, 2026
Climate change is the foundation stone for all the other scams.
Starmer reconfirmed that mass migration was caused by climate change.
Net Zero is to thwart Climate Change and save the planet.
This house of cards must fall. We can’t bring one scam down at a time. They all stay or they all go.
January 14, 2026
Hurrah for cleaner, greener, cheaper energy. Wouldn’t we all love that, and to be self sufficient in such so as to be able to weather any hard times thrown up by world events.
However, such a thing cannot come about overnight and setting a date with urgency doesn’t change that. There has to be the technology to ease the transition if indeed it could ever be a possibility that the sun and wind could provide us with all our needs, in a cheap and environmentally friendly way as we are told the net zero agenda will make happen.
The glaring contradictions of the net zero gang are just another sign of their utter contempt for us mere mortals, they assume we are too in awe of them to notice things.
We’ve been stripped of our industries, our education system is more of a political training wing, we don’t train or employ enough of our own in essential areas such as health care, engineering etc.
Adding up all the destructive policies over decades, the net zero one is just another to ensure we are brought down and our alleged sins of the past are atoned for.
I’m sure many like to stick with the comfort of the pack and believe there is a more academic, intellectual or business reasoning for all this. Surely our political classes are just misguided?
I don’t believe so. I believe it’s all to do with pure hatred and a desire to bring us to our knees, it’s been in the making a long time.
There, I’ve said it.
January 14, 2026
Many of our Politicians are wedded to the self harm of net Zero I am afraid, and that would not be a problem if it only affected them, but unfortunately it affects us all, because we have to pay for both the fix they like to take, and the so called expensive remedy to stop it.
Clearly they are not competent at simple mathematics, otherwise they would quickly realise their own mistakes.
The bigger worry is that they will not listen, so they will never learn, so the addiction continues and harms everyone around them.
January 14, 2026
The EU are Net Zero fanatics but it appears the individual countries in the EU aren’t as around 20 of them still use coal for power generation. Indeed Poland uses coal for 70% of its power generation and has no phase-out plans. Germany uses the most total coal for power generation. Still, as Miliband tells us, Poland and Germany will be so impressed by UK’s lead in this area they’ll follow us. But he also tells us that since Brexit we have no influence in the EU. It’s a puzzle.
Net Zero is fine – withdraw ALL subsidies from renewable energy projects, stop paying windfarms to stop generating, have renewable energy providers sell to the grid in a free market with no price fixing or pegs to the gas generation price, cancel all electric car mandates, cancel heat pump mandates and subsidies, and see what happens. If renewable energy and EVs and heat pumps are so super-cheap there will be a rush by companies to provide them and consumers to use them. Won’t there ?
January 14, 2026
The mistake had been to force the rate of change. I’m sure that EVs make good sense in some circumstances. I could charge a small EV on my drive and it would be a useful local vehicle but it would not be my main one. It’s been a long time since we were a two car (four including sons) family as we don’t need two cars since our retirement. For some, a local “runabout” is all they might need but not all, not us.
People have different needs, preferences and pockets. It would have been best to let the market decide and change would have happened naturally. Unfortunately, logic and good sense were replaced by a religious-like zeal and our politicians threw all caution (and logic) to the wind and tried to force change when neither the technology nor the markets were ready. We (and Europe) have lost our car industry as a result.
January 14, 2026
But Sir John, In renouncing net zero policies it is surely necessary to explain what to do about the impact of Global warning. There is no doubt that global temperatures are increasing, 2025 was the warmest year on record and there is no doubt that global fires and global floods are increasing year by year, the UK is not immune to these effects. Is it then your policy just to ignore these inconvenient truths?
Reply You need to pursue this with China, India, US and EU as the main producers of CO 2 given your view.
January 14, 2026
Unfortunately James Morley climate change is the biggest hoax of the last century. For over 40 years the message has been repeated that we will either burn up or be flooded, and every year it proves to be more false.
January 14, 2026
Everyone of independent mind that has looked at Net Zero options concludes Net Zero is unachievable and is unaffordable. With that fundamental truth out there for all who are prepared to see to see it, we have t ask who exactly is driving the closed minds of Net Zero zealots like Miliband.
We know the economics do not stand up to questioning.
We know the environmental issues Net Zero generates are unsustainable to many rare species of flying creatures.
We know industrialising our farmlands with solar arrays is as unproductive as any scorched earth plan yet devised and is again, destructive to wildlife that depends on open farming practices for survival.
The tragedy of solar panels in our latitude is the pathetic utilisation they achieve when compared to the installed maximum capacity. All solar arrays fail to achieve 20% utilisation in the UK. To put that into perspective to meet the current grid requirement arrays would have to be installed with over 300GWs of capacity and even then the dead periods at night etc. would hav to be covered by other technology i.e. fossil fuel powered stand by stations.
Net Zero is the route to economic collapse/ That maty be why Ed Miliband is so in favour of it…..
January 14, 2026
I do not recognise these figures. And in any case, data used by anyone with such a long history of support for the fossil fuel lobby will, by definition, be anti-net zero
Detailed University College London research released last November found that 2010-2023, windfarm electricity has saved UK bill payers ~£14.2bn compared to having to buy and use gas to generate the same amount of power
Had we not invested in wind, the costs of building enough CCGT plant to cover electricity demand and the necessary grid upgrades would have been ~£133.3bn. During this period, the costs of government support were a mere £3.3bn each year. Not much to pay for domestic energy security
Today Miliband has awarded 12 X 25 year contracts for 8.4GW of new windfarms at an average contract price of £90/MWh, Which is only slightly above yesterday’s electricity spot price of £81/MWh
Since September 2021, renewables that are operating under CfDs have been generating electricity below the market rate – and so have been paying £billions to the Treasury via the Low Carbon Contracts Company.
Source:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2025/oct/wind-power-delivers-ps104-billion-net-benefit-uk-consumers
January 14, 2026
What is the real (percentage) efficiency of these windfarms SG? 38-41%
Out of 10,000 hours, for how many hours will they be effectively switched off – because there is too much wind, no grid capacity/demand or no wind? What is the cost of the (gas-powred) back-up required for when they are switched off? I don’t know the answers to these questions (or others I could ask) but I suspect that your ‘costs’ are not as straight foreward as you think.
If someone came to me and said, let’s invest in our own power and build windfarms, I’d ask them for a full breakdown on the overall cost of the scheme vs our existing one. What would be the capital costs, running costs, cost of emergency/alternate energy (and how often we’d need them) and the eventual replacement costs – but most especially for an overall comparison between our existing power provision and the proposed new scheme. In other words, I’d want to know when (and if) this investment was going to improve my business performance and my bottom line.
I’m pretty sure that Mr Milliband doesn’t know the answers to these questions or that (if he does) he’s keeping them very much to himself.
January 14, 2026
If wind and solar is expanding and is so cheap, why are our bills going up far more than in other Countries. !
January 14, 2026
Recent governments have made the mistake of being swept along by recent fads, from recycling to “global warming”.
This has diverted them from dealing with environmental problems that are real and current, such as the depletion of insects in some areas and plastics in the oceans.
The one thing that works well is conservation. It is out of fashion right now but, as soon as we have a government that again allows a free market in most goods and services, the link between saving money and reducing environmental impact will again be restored.
If the public sector – from Ed Milliband’s silly policies to empty buses running through villages, to the BBC using thousands of taxis, to subsidies for a train services that expect people to use private transport to travel to and from them etc etc – were subjected to a proper environmental impact audit, I am sure the results would show that they have damaged the environment far more than any private sector activity could do
January 14, 2026
Global Co2 is 0.04% of the Earths atmosphere. The UK emits < than 1% of that (<0.004%) When Miilband has virtually destroyed the country and IF he reaches 'net zero' It will make absolutely no difference to global Co2 because China alone will take that up in weeks.
Meanwhile, we'll be relying on the wind blowing at exactly the right speed and the sun shining (not at night though! ) to produce enough electricity for our expanding population.
A policy of the madhouse. Which seems to be where this country is heading under the failing, incompetent Labour party, led by the chief half-wit Starmer.
January 14, 2026
Following Starmers latest U-turns (13 now I believe) I read a comment on Facebook that made me laugh out loud.
“The only thing Starmer hasn’t U-turned is the boats” 🙂 🙂
January 14, 2026
Your figures seem low, considering the official report I commented on yesterday, which was still underestimated but put the cost at £76trillion.
In any case both figures are well beyond what the country can afford – so why doesn’t that slow down the progress of this destructive scheme. Are we still following WEF guidelines?
To commit the country, as Labour did, to a project that at the time was uncosted yet we were expected to go along with it because they said so, was worse than pure ideological irrationality, it was criminal.
It still is and the plug should be pulled NOW.
January 14, 2026
Historically, CO2 has never been a problem to our planet. The truth is that without CO2 we would cease to exist as all plant life relies upon it to grow. As for dangers of global warming, I would point out that around a couple of thousand years ago the Romans grew vines along Hadrian’s Wall and made wine and “Greenland” was farmed by the Vikings. Neither are now applicable because we’ve cooled down. So what is the problem now, I wonder?
We’ll suffer much more when global cooling takes hold and the planet experiences another ice age.
Extra terrestrial objects and orbits are the cause of climate change and earthlings can do nothing to change it.
Net Zero – it’s a scam.
January 14, 2026
While gold rapidly approaches a once-unthinkable $5,000/oz, the real price of gold would be orders of magnitude higher – if it was needed to back the money already in circulation
What would the gold price be if it had to back the global money supply?
According to VanEck, if gold were to back M0 (base money), it would need to trade at $39,210 per ounce. If gold were to back M2 (broad money), it would need to trade at $184,211 per ounce. These figures represent the price required to ‘cover’ the outstanding money liabilities in a scenario where gold becomes the primary reserve asset again
Under the classic gold standard, paper currency was merely a claim cheque for physical gold in a vault. That link was fully severed in 1971, moving the world to a ‘fiat’ system where money is backed only by government decree
Developed markets are struggling with high government debt, forcing central banks to print more money to keep the system liquid. As the pile of paper money grows toward infinity, the value of the finite asset, gold, must rise to keep up
Gordon Brown sold the bulk of the UK’s gold at the bottom of the market 1999-2002.
Rock on, Mr Prudence
January 14, 2026
“The last argument [net zero increases world CO2] cuts through with more of the politicians and officials than the prosperity, tax and job arguments.
Correct, Sir John. This is because the real, religious CAGW/Net Zero zealots believe that no expense, however enormous and including human lives, should be spared to save the planet. And for the Far Left, the sole purpose of the CAGW/Net Zero scam IS to sabotage the West’s energy, industry, economy and national security.