I receive a number of enquiries, often from students and schoolchildren, about net zero issues. I am going to publish a few background pieces so these exchanges can be better informed.
The answer to the common demand that the UK leads the world in carbon dioxide reductions is that we are doing just that. The figures for the thirty years from 1990 reveal that of the major economies the UK has cut its emissions by far more than the rest of them.
Increase or decrease in output of CO2 1990-2020
China  +381%
India  +302%
South Korea +129%
Brazil +97.9%
Mexico  +40%
South Africa +38%
Australia +38%
Canada +19%
Spain – 7%
Japan -8%
USAÂ -10%
France -27%
Russia -30%
Germany – 37%
UKÂ -46%
These numbers should lead to some questions about the huge variation in achievement between differing countries.
China produces 30 times as much CO2 as the UK each year. If China’s CO2 output goes up 3.3% next year on the previous year the increase in China’s CO2 is the same as the whole amount of CO2 generated by the UK. China plans to carry on increasing her CO2 until the end of this decade. Those who want to bring world CO2 down should as these figures show direct far more attention to China and India, the main sources of growth in the gas.
If the UK carries on cutting its CO2 by stopping producing its own oil and gas, and ending the manufacture of steel, glass, ceramics, aluminium, petrochemicals and other energy intensive products it loses us well paid jobs and tax revenues but it does not cut the world’s CO2 output. We import these items instead, usually increasing the amount of CO2 generated, at least by the extra transport requirement.
We also make ourselves dangerously dependent on imports of important items, which can be disrupted by wars, shipping problems or disease patterns as recent years have shown. It also widens the balance of payments deficit which requires us to borrow more or sell more assets to afford the extra imports.
All the time China and India carry on expanding their CO2 output it is difficult to see the world progressing to net zero.
October 9, 2022
Good morning.
Just tell them that Net Zero will mean that at some point, the government will have to ban fizzy drinks as they contain harmful (sic) levels of CO2.
I bet that will go down as well as the plans to force us off the roads and increase our energy bills ?
đ
Let us be clear about all this. China has used the UN and its âwilling helpersâ here in West to create a false narrative that CO2 is evil and the West must de-industrialise in order to save the plane, all the while China (and India) picks up the slack and builds its economy on the foundations of our elected representatives stupidity.
The British Empire was built on trade. A lesson that the Chinese seemed to have learned and intend to exploit to their advantage and to our ruin. US President Trump saw this and so he had to go.
October 9, 2022
Mark B – yes and the Chinese have long memories and carry a big chip – they are all taught about the wrongs done to them in the 19th century like the opium wars and naval blockades forcing the ports to open – makes them dangerous people now.
October 9, 2022
JR, I really do not care about witch craft predictions and targets. If your party and govt believe in them they do not deserve to be in power. I would rather be warm, prosperous through jobs and industry. Why does your idiotic govt and party think all goods produced and transported half way around the world by diesel ships and vehicles from coal fired power stations in China is good and anything produced here bad? Morons. A bit like borrowing money to give away to I did and China, no wonder the UK is in ÂŁ2.3 trillion of debt!!
Paris Agreement needs to be scrapped, mass immigration cancelled and all UN left wing poverty instructions and those from WHO and EU.
October 13, 2022
Plus the Climate Change Act must be repealed and the Climate Change Committee disbanded. How can it be independent and objective when it has members whose incomes benefit from their conclusions. The HoL register of interests etc ed
October 9, 2022
1800 2020
World Population 1,000,000,000 7,800,000,000
CO2 ppm 278 425
increase in Popn. 7.8 X
Increase in CO2 ppm 1.53 X
CO2 Density/Million of Pop 0.27800 0.05449 (DECREASE!)
Now if increase in CO2 is all caused by human activity, don’t you think it’d be a LOT higher?
October 9, 2022
Peter Wood
Very good post Peter
Even the 92% of our politicians who don’t have any idea on these things, you cannot make it clearer than that.
October 9, 2022
Deforestation ?
October 10, 2022
Peter
Clearly the logical solution as these figures show, is to increase the Worlds population, so that we can reduce Co2 per person. !!!!!!
I wonder if the green zealots would agree ?
October 9, 2022
Nice to know that we lead the world in one of the most stupid and useless ideas ever devised.
October 9, 2022
+1 far worse than useless it is totally counterproductive for humanity.
October 9, 2022
Cynic. Brilliant. +100
October 9, 2022
Well they could have carbonated drinks and food kept healthy with CO2 in the packs by extracting the CO2 from power stations or from the air. It would just pointlessly cost rathercmore. Did Perrier not use a natural source of CO2 anyway plenty of such natural sources?
There is of course no need to reduce CO2 as on balance a little more in the atmosphere does net good and is vital for life. Slightlyvwarmer is good too. Anyway the solutions proposed wind, solar, EVs, cycling, tidal, walking, public transport, heat-pumps⊠do nothing significant to reduce CO2 anyway they at best just export it together with jobs.
As your figures indicate the UK output is trivial and irrelevant and World co-operation will not happen anyway.
October 9, 2022
The UK has outsourced to low wage or slave economies much of the stuff which needs doing but which makes a lot of CO2.
The highest CO2-per-head country is Canada, and the UK is still near the top along with the US. China is a long way down, and whatever you might say, the Chinese are very well aware of these facts. Nor has it historically contributed anything like the long-developed countries to the atmospheric pool of CO2. The stuff doesn’t just go away.
October 9, 2022
How do those statistics you quote work Martin? Does the UK get CO2 added on the imports from the countries actually producing it and China and India get their CO2 reduced by the amount they export?
October 9, 2022
Per head.. how is that relevant to the total CO2 reduction target?
October 9, 2022
Er, how can I put this?
October 10, 2022
Well try an argument that works NHL
If the UN’s key ambition is to reduce global emissions then concentrating on those nations with the greatest emissions and the fastest growing levels of emissions would seem to be a good policy.
Or read Sir John’s article on Monday.
October 10, 2022
Er, by linking your source so that I can see if CO2 imports are added to our CO2-per-head
October 10, 2022
Funny, on 10/10 Sir John appears to think that CO2 per head has some relevance.
Reduction of the global total is nothing more than the addition of the total for all individual countries, which if they want to implement some CO2 policies have to add the CO2 emissions of each of their individual citizens. Got it now, P2, or is that too difficult for you to understand.
October 10, 2022
Your usual sarky comments I note heffy
But sadly no real contrary argument.
PS
Have you actually Sir John’s Mondays post?
Or is “some relevance” the height of your debating skill?
Hilarious
October 10, 2022
Where Sir John tells you there are 19 nations with more than double the UK’s CO2 output per head.
Yet you and most lefty greens are obsessed with the UK
October 12, 2022
I am not obsessed by the UK in general, I am somewhat interested in some UK characters who write on blogs (âPer head. How is that relevant to the total CO2 reduction budgetâ) without thinking for much more than two seconds, simply because a name they âhateâ has appeared on the blog: P2avlovâs dog?
October 13, 2022
I and others have explained why focussing on per head does little to achieve the UN’s desire to reduce global CO2 levels heffy but your mind is closed.
October 14, 2022
Did you ever explain anything P2avlovâs dog? Others might have, you never. You are unable to build a proper argument âŠ
And it is a rather limited view to think that individuals concerned by climate change cannot do anything within their day-to-day life to reduce the global CO2 levels. What about getting a smaller car? Reducing flight-requiring foreign holidays? Lowering the temperature by a few degrees in various rooms of oneâs house? And wearing an additional layer? Eating more locally produced vegs and fruits?
My mind might be âclosedâ but yours is in a permanent state of the worst Conservative stupor.
October 14, 2022
You weaken your attempts to display yourself as the most clever guy on here with your cheap abuse of others you disagree with.
It ruins your arguments.
Whilst with this particular post you invoke multiple red herrings.
I thought you wanted “decent debate”?
It seems not
October 16, 2022
Donât be daft P2avlovâs dog, you were the one who first asked for âdecent debateâ on a day you had lost the argument after putting a vacuous one-liner contradicted by a proper argument you could not accept. In those days you didnât even know what was a red herring, a reductio ad absurdum, or other logical fallacies.
But keep on the good work: being ridiculous is not a fatal condition.
October 9, 2022
I only we had not let the immigrants in – we’d have been alright…
October 9, 2022
Well said Mark. Our stable is led by donkeys. Stick with home produce.
October 9, 2022
I suspect that the majority of children (and perhaps adults) too thing CO2 is a poisonous gas and pollution. Such is the level of propaganda from the BBC, Governments, Quangos, NGOs and many “charities”.
October 9, 2022
Good Morning,
Sorry, off topic.
Everyone please read the Daily Mail extract from Kate Bingham. found here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11294895/Head-UKs-vaccine-taskforce-KATE-BINGHAM-reveals-painful-bureaucracy-jab-programme.html
If this is typical of the manner our government and civil service normally operates, then we need to remove the lot of them and replace with people who want to work FOR the Nation, not themselves or their personal political agenda.
October 9, 2022
Good comment but as usual the âhowâ is missing, therefore âso whatâ?
October 9, 2022
Deliberately bankrupting us to shroud wave to the rest of the world.
No other country is suffering the same self harm for a pointless exercise.
Germany this week gave the go ahead for a lignite mine to feed 3 power stations.
The show must go on.
We are being conned at the highest level led by the Business Extinction and Import Substitution department of government.
October 9, 2022
Correct.
October 9, 2022
IW and LL,
Somehow importing coal from Russia is okay when we have hundreds of years of supply here, importing gas and oil is okay even though we have our own here!! May and Tory economics make us poor as a nation and individually. Fact.
It is a bit like the police being criticised after they are doing what May and Sir Tom Windsor demand!!
October 9, 2022
And Germany is planning to pump hundreds of billions of euros into their economy to save businesses which would be against EU rules. Looks like it’s only the UK that follows EU rules and we are supposed to have left the club.
October 9, 2022
+ many, Ian. I just don’t understand WHY? Who is benefitting from the decisions of the UK government (hint: it IS NOT the UK).
October 9, 2022
Having had dealings with HMG (defence & communications) this does not surprise me one bit.
The question is what will our elected representatives do about it.
October 9, 2022
Apart from informing us about Handcock’s unsuitability for High Office, this is the most telling paragraph:
“Very few permanent secretaries â the senior civil servants ultimately responsible for the commissioning of work â have STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering or Mathematics) degrees. Less than ten per cent of graduates entering the Fast Track Civil Service scheme have STEM backgrounds. Instead, Whitehall is dominated by historians and economists, few of whom have ever worked outside the official and political worlds. Politicians are no better.
In general, MPs lack relevant skills and industrial, commercial or practical non-political experience.”
In other words, they would probably manage to run a 19th century, pre-industrial UK quite well but are completely unqualified to run a 21st century one. Perhaps they secretly know that and that, in turn, is why they are attempting to send us back to the 19th century with their moronic Net Zero policy?
October 9, 2022
Donna, I wonder how the pay of permanent secretaries compares to private sector, if the public sector offered permanent secretaries a private sector type pension and benefits package, combined with higher pay today would that attract more STEM graduates into the positions.
Also if government requires STEM grads wouldnât you think theyâd hire the best A level STEM students three days per week and give them day release to accomplish a degree over six years on two days per week release. Earning whilst theyâre learning. With a buy out after so many years like private company degree apprenticeships I know do.
October 9, 2022
Yes AT, bring in part time degree apprenticeships. Too many have disappeared from all sorts of professions. But at the same time one would really have to deal with our rip-off universities. Perhaps reinvent the Open University as a STEM-only distance-learning institution, cap fees, and provide bursaries to apprentices?
October 9, 2022
Donna.
Good post thank you for the information.
The whole Central Office type structure of all the political parties if they are capable have got to reinvent themselves, and the whole candidate selection process. If those in Central Offices have no idea on STEM then we the electoral punters can have no confidence that the right questions are being asked during the selection interview by people that actually really understand the requirements needed by the country and the party.
October 9, 2022
Effectively that’s what I did. Day release and correspondence with residential courses here and there.
October 9, 2022
No only do they have no STEM degrees but often not even a basic understanding of STEM nor indeed any real economics usually (this often true of economics graduates). When ~98% of out deluded MPs voted for Milibandâs moronic climate change act (not JR) they did not even do a sensible cost benefit analysis.
Then again loads of scientists come out with complete and utter drivel too and get hooked on the climate alarmist religion. Lord King (chemistry) was Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and Head of the Government Office for Science from 2000 to 2007. He said “I see climate change as the greatest challenges facing Britain and the World in the 21st century”. In reality the mad ânet zeroâ over reaction to climate change is doing vast damage”. The climate has always changed and alway will CO2 just one of millions of factors in this and a rather minor one.
October 9, 2022
Absolutely correct and Kate Bingham makes the point again specifically referring to BEIS, writing :
âIN my seven months as chair, I was disappointed by the absence in the Business Department of scientific, industrial, commercial and manufacturing skills.â And this is the department in charge of Net Zero, an engineering project.
But also damning from Kate Bingham were :
âThis was my first inkling of the power of officials, who get to decide what they show to their Ministers for approval and decisions.â
âHaving spent my working life in the private sector, Iâd entered a world where process apparently mattered more than outcomes.â
October 9, 2022
A shame that it is now clear the covid vaccines are rather ineffective and rather dangerous too with considerable excess non covid deaths in the UK and elsewhere many in the young. Denmark has stopped vaccinating the young. In Florida the Surgeon General has stopped the vaccines for men under 40 due to an excess of 84% heart related deaths within 28 days. An Oxford study also suggest that the vaccinated are actually at higher risk of catching Covid by 44%.
The masks did considerable very considerable harm too.
So Truss when is your government going to get on the right side of this argument and stop vaccinating – certainly for the young at least?
October 9, 2022
Lifelogic if she didnât vaccinate anyone under 50 without medical conditions that require it, how much would that save in ÂŁs next year?
October 9, 2022
About ÂŁ1 billion directly it seems then the cost of treating the many adverse effect and loss of these peopleâs labour and their taxes on top which is probably well over ÂŁ5 billion.
October 9, 2022
+1 to LL. AT – the saving might be far more than the cost of the injections…we don’t know what long term damage these genetic treatments are going to cause to the recipients or their offspring.
October 9, 2022
See also Dr John Campbellâs latest video, where he reveals that a peer-reviewed medical journal has just published an artlcle showing that the spike proteins from the mRNA vaccines have been found in breast milk of lactating mothers.
October 9, 2022
Indeed and then we have the low fertility rates, increases in maternity problems and still births too. And this age group were even never at any real risk from Covid so why were they vaccinated with these rushed through âvaccinesâ?
October 9, 2022
Great article. Proves LL posts correct when talking of STEM qualifications or lack of them. Tx Peter.
October 9, 2022
Would you want to fly on a jet designed by MPs or use them to design a bridge, block of flats, tax system or have brain surgery performed by them?
October 9, 2022
@Peter Wood
+100
October 9, 2022
Every sensible man and his dog know that NZ is a virtually unachievable target unless you are a follower of the STW religious sect that has all but taken over the woke thinking countries and their politicians.
It seems more and more like a carefully orchestrated plan that is driven by people in the WEF and other spin off organisations that when you scare the population with the death of the world by CO2 pollution it is far easier to control the weak minded looking for a feel good cause to become dedicated to, but only the little bits that fits the high priests teachings. This country will go down in history to be the first world power to sacrifice itself on the alter of the STW sect. For what?
October 9, 2022
STW?
October 9, 2022
Lifelogic.
STW Saving the World
October 9, 2022
Still you make the assumption that CO2 reduction is necessary. An article in yesterday’s Telegraph indicated that the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have spurred a significant increase in forest growth – surely a good thing, especially as overall surface temperatures across the globe have signally failed to increase in line with the wild projections of failed models.
Net Zero is just a destructive fantasy, and the UK should not be at the front of the pack of lemmings running over the cliff to destruction.
Reply Do try reading what I write instead of attributing views to me I have not written
October 9, 2022
CO2 reduction is actually hugely costly and damaging , slightly more plant, tree and crop food in the atmosphere is a net positive on balance.
October 9, 2022
There are far bigger threats to the demise of the world’s natural infrastructure in the form of too many inhabitants, pollution whether it be from plastics, chemicals, human waste, natural habitats that balance the ecological cycle.
Without CO2 the world would never have got this far and when scientists make bad calls on the basis of their computer modelling, lecturing on these matters stating the words that those who have employed them want to hear, eventually it becomes like the child’s story of the Emperor’s New Clothes the are so consumed with what they are preaching they are given full control of the minds and support of the politicians and world leaders and Heads of State and none of them want to listen to the little people’s cry to “stop for God’s sake and think, look, what you are saying and doing”
October 9, 2022
Turboterrier, if modern scientists in these matters are all taught by the same lecturers year after year who is around at a high level to challenge them anymore? When Bellamy tried it he was retired off into obscurity.
October 9, 2022
Bellamy was a genuine scientist and wouldn’t go along with the global warming scam. The BBC preferred their tame nodding donkeys.
October 9, 2022
+1
October 9, 2022
Indeed he apparently initially showed an aptitude for English literature and History; he then found his vocation because of an inspirational science teacher, studying zoology, botany, physics, and chemistry in the sixth form.
Indeed a genuine scientist and this despite being a biologist/botanist!
October 9, 2022
The mantra is that going net zero on CO2 will save the planet.
Well not only is CO2 levels not particularly a problem, chasing it is a distraction from the real dangers of pollution and habitat destruction. In a way, we all contribute to this with high consumption lifestyles, so one of the best ways we can help is to bar further immigration. The less people there are contributing to UK high consumption the better for the planet.
Somehow though the green lobby have overlooked what seems to me blinding obvious.
October 9, 2022
To say western governments are so dedicated to saving the planet, they seem remarkably insouciant about the likelihood of thermonuclear war nowadays.
October 9, 2022
Sir
The UK economy is a basket case.
These figures show the main reason why.
October 9, 2022
Exactly. Germany not cutting its CO2 levels shows that, despite being a major industrial power and a main contributor to CO2, it knows that its political might its based on its industrial strength and nothing, not even fears of a trace gas like CO2 will stop it from doing what is in its best interests.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/06/22/germany-refuses-to-agree-to-eu-ban-on-new-fossil-fuel-cars-from-2035#:~:text=in%20the%20City-,Germany%20refuses%20to%20agree%20to%20EU%20ban,fossil%20fuel%20cars%20from%202035&text=Germany's%20government%20is%20refusing%20to,to%20Finance%20Minister%20Christian%20Lindner.
Note: Germany says NO!
October 9, 2022
There’s nothing I can disagree with in your post John. It’s obvious to a blind man so I can only assume the government is intent on making the UK poor and a basket case. What other reason could there be unless of course you take into account vested interest and noses in the troughs?
October 9, 2022
But what are you proposing?
Even if we could organise appropriate energy sourcing we must import many of the feedstocks and precursors for the types of manufacturing you list and so be dependent on imports anyway.
The cost of energy or even CO2 emission levels have not been the primary cause for our commerce and industries to be moved off-shore, that is down to political action in the UK and EU, greed in the City and unionised over-growth in wages.
Reply Running down out own oil and gas production, carbon taxes and high energy prices have played a big part in offshoring energy intensive activities
October 9, 2022
@Reply I don’t disagree energy costs pay a part but our industries have been actively run down since the 80s and 90s.
But establishing cheap energy won’t magically reinstate the heavy manufacturing industries such as cars, shipbuilding, trains etc, or high tech industries such as semiconductors, computing and telecommunications manufacture.
October 9, 2022
No but it will not penalise the industries that we do retain either
It might also give us time to evolve our domestic arrangements. My house is heated by a gas-fired boiler running water filled ‘radiators’ (convector heaters) – as are 80%+ of other UK homes. I haven’t seen any viable alternative that I can afford so far.
October 11, 2022
@ IanT
I am not arguing against using our own gas and energy resources or proper planning and preparation of any transition. I am arguing that even if we do it will not stop the government and City barrow boys giving away our industries and commerce for their sole benefit. Things need to change more radically than simply deciding to frack.
October 9, 2022
Unfortunately the data presented is insufficient to be able to draw real, useful conclusions. The percentages need the context of the actual levels of CO2 emissions per capita in both 1990 and 2020 to be able to be better understood.
October 9, 2022
As Oldwolf has alluded to above, those countries whose CO2 levels have even risen or are not as low as they should be govern their industrial output, seem to be doing better economically than most. In there lies the clue.
October 9, 2022
Perhaps that suggests an interesting counter-ESG investment strategy: only invest in countries that are increasing their CO2 output.
October 9, 2022
Per capita measuring is of no real use because the UN’s key objective is to reduce CO2 levels globally back to pre industrial levels.
As you say Peter nice for context.
Not so good for “saving the planet”
October 9, 2022
I don’t think so Peter.
The numbers are the percentage CO2 increase per Country, a perfectly reasonable comparison, whatever the population change was within that country.
October 9, 2022
They show both reductions and increases IanT
Pareto principles suggest we would succeed in reducing emissions fastest by focusing on the biggest current emitters.
October 9, 2022
I disagree. To use the percentage figures in the original article to illustrate this, say China was emitting 10 tonnes/person in 1990 and the USA was emitting 60 tonnes/person. China’s increase of 381% would mean that in 2020 their emissions had increased to 48.1 tonnes/person, and for the USA, a 10% decrease is a reduction to 54 tonnes/person. Despite China’s huge percentage increase and the USA’s decrease, this would still leave the USA emitting over 12% more per person (54 is 112.3% of 48.1) in 2020 than China.
Absolute values are important in understanding the true context and should not be omitted, especially given that different countries are starting from different places and industrial heritages.
October 9, 2022
Have all the statistics you like Peter.
The key UN aim is to reduce world emissions of CO2.
So we should look at every nation’s CO2 and work to reduce them.
Context and history and output per person gets us nowhere.
October 9, 2022
Sir john, I’m afraid your facts and logical argument are wasted on the people pushing this agenda. Unfortunately the same is true for the general public, who can so easily be swayed by fear propaganda. We’ve seen this over the last two and a half years with Covid. It works the same way with climate. If the public, especially younger people, are frightened into believing there is an existential threat to the planet, and something must urgently be done, emotion will take over. They fear for the future. Then they’re told they must accept responsibility and change their lifestyle, reducing CO2. They can feel good, though, by signalling how virtuous and caring they are, as people who want to save us from extinction. They’re proud of what they do, even if in extreme cases they’re blocking the road and not letting a lifesaving ambulance get through. Again, emotion takes over. In my view the Big Green Racket can only be defeated if another emotion takes hold – massive anger at how we’re being impoverished and lied to by corporate scammers, their political puppets, and the bought-and-paid-for media.
October 9, 2022
But the general public doesn’t think it is being impoverished – they get their housing, food, energy, smartphones, cheap food, cheap clothes, holidays abroad whether they are in work or not. For those on benefits or working in the public sector it isn’t their money so why should they care. Clearly they don’t otherwise our industries and commerce would not have declined to such an extent.
If you work in the private sector you are supporting these groups and most likely paying more than half your income in taxes – who speaks for us?
October 9, 2022
dixie
+100
October 9, 2022
CO2 is not the culprit for global warming, it is an essential air borne fertiliser. Read The Daily Sceptic for alternative evidence to that being forced upon us by the Green Zealots.
October 9, 2022
+1
October 9, 2022
So, âno one else gives up smoking, therefore why should iâ?
Couple that with unlimited virtue Net Zero signalling by your government (Boris) trumpeting itâs âignore all opposition/alternativeâ arguments approach and thereâs your problem.
Although not in the stark terms you set out (adding actual cost would make it even more dramatic) but realised by most people, who rightly accuse you of making us suffer economically, as opposed to,other countries putting their populations first.
There should have been a middle way but you are now on the political hook.
U turn and the Opposition/highly vocal environmentalists will be all over you and may encourage others to join, do nothing and continue to suffer as you set out.
Another example of this, frankly, poor cadre of politicians paying more attention to the âdrawing room of Notting Hillâ and Home Counties liberal elites, than the needs of the rest of this.
As Truss tries to reset this mess, your list plus costs should be attached to every press comment/briefing.
October 9, 2022
Nig1, Iâm not reading your smoking analogy into it. I feel that JR is saying weâve just exported the smokers, they still exist but now in China and India. Then to add to it, we pay more in shipping to bring back the goods they used to make in the UK.
October 9, 2022
NigL
Because – looking at Sir John’s figures – we’re due some slack by comparison to other nations. Our going Net Zero is immediately harmful to health but you completely ignore this and wail about some future (uncertain) event.
What IS certain is that many of the people we beggared ourselves to save from Covid will die of hypothermia this winter but no-one will attribute it to Net Zero …. because it doesn’t suit the narrative.
Have you not noticed how the detailed mortality charts appear when it comes to placing restrictions on the people and they also disappear when it comes to placing restrictions on the people ?
(I am yet to see charts on deaths caused by lockdown btw.)
October 9, 2022
@ Nigl.
Giving up smoking yourself helps your own health regardless of others. But saving CO2 does nothing unless most other do it too & in reality even then it does virtually no good and actually much more harm than good. So not a sensible comparison or a parallel at all.
October 9, 2022
Never, not ever in the history of the Western world has there been a greater exercise in self harm. Not by Kings, Queens or assorted dictatorships.
Our so called democratic governments are doing this deliberately. They know that the CC/GW/NZ narative is all built on lies and that CO2 is not a danger, but the harmful policies are inherited by successive governments and continued. Perhaps the current energy crisis will force a change but I will not be holding my breath.
October 9, 2022
+1. All the absurd BBC types of discussions of this topic start from the premise âhow are we going to hit our net zero targets?â Not why on earth do we have these mad CO2 and damaging targets?
October 9, 2022
The BBC, King Charles, Prince William, David Attenborough, St Greta, Kwasi Kwarteng most Cof E Bishops & almost all the political parties have a lot to answer for, in pushing this idiotic, unscientific, climate alarmist, devil gas clap trap.
October 9, 2022
Yes LL, I thank God the King is not going to Cairo, and hope that Prince William does take up the cudgels on his behalf.
October 9, 2022
William alas already has done even before the Queen died. He should copy his Granny for now on & not his Father.
October 9, 2022
A few years ago I believe on Channel 4 there was a reality TV series which took today’s Comprehensive School Children and put them into something resembling a 1960s Secondary Modern School (minus the physical punishment of course).
It was quite a wake-up call to the pampered little darlings who found out, for the first time what hard work, very basic facilities and discipline really meant.
The spoiled children and kidults who obsess about climate change have no idea what imposing Net Zero NOW, when we have no reliable alternative sources of energy (ie not a bank of windmills which work sometimes), would really mean for most of them: basically an early 1960s standard of living. Personally I’d quite like some extended power cuts this winter …. I’m prepared for them ….. just so they learn what the permanent austerity they crave will REALLY mean.
And by spoiled children and kidults, I also mean the pampered, cossetted, idiotic Ministers and MPs who are bankrupting this country so they can virtue-signal to the rest of the world.
October 9, 2022
Donna. Yes. Bring on the power cuts. Most of us on this site have lived through it all before but mummy’s darlings will find it hard to cope without their electronic gadgets.
October 9, 2022
+1
October 9, 2022
Donna, it was actually a replica of a grammar school, but the amusing, or perhaps sad, part was that the participants, around 15 years old, were given a test beforehand with them believing it to be a GCE, but it turned out that it was an old 11 plus examination paper.
October 9, 2022
A great illustration of the decline in productivity of the education system.
October 9, 2022
All that tells me is that China (and many other countries) knows of the CO2 scam, are not prepared to destroy their nations over a scam, but will benefit greatly from the self destruct button being pressed by every westernised country. By the time we run out of fossil fuels, the world will have VIABLE alternatives for energy and China will again benefit from the money spent on research and inventions by other countries.
As usual, the UK government has to virtue signal itself to the top of the ‘halo’ list, regardless of the consequences to our people and our country. The reduction of CO2 produced by the UK is extremely dishonest anyway. We do NOT reduce CO2, we allow other countries to produce more, on our behalf, and we pay a very high price for the privilege.
October 9, 2022
Voters vote for it but then lemmings do as lemmings do.
People should have the right to commit Hari Kari even if it doesn’t seem that way at the time
October 9, 2022
+1
October 9, 2022
It’s the UN’s Agenda 2030 in action. Beggar the wealthy west and transfer their wealth to the less developed nations to pay for the “original sin” of colonialism.
October 9, 2022
+1
October 9, 2022
Shirley
Agreed, trail blazing in business is always very, very expensive, sometimes it is better to be just a little late to the Party, and then clean up financially at very little development cost afterwards.
The Chinese have been doing that for years, and have been gifted all kinds of knowledge by the fools who thought manufacturing overseas would be cheaper, short term it perhaps was, but then you risk losing any intellectual property knowledge you had, which gave you that advantage.
Now we have over 100,000 foreign students in our universities working here on our research and development projects.
Difficult to make it all up really !
October 9, 2022
BA, cuckoos in our nest.
October 9, 2022
How have these levels of human generated CO2 been measured?
October 9, 2022
Sorry that question was a bit obtuse – who determines and controls these figures, are the numbers for each country even comparable …
October 10, 2022
Dixie, I wondered the same thing. How are the figures calculated? Is it the amount of electricity KW we use and the amount of Gas? The Green zealots are banging on about ‘Animal agriculture is responsible for at least 87 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report by Climate Healers’. That’s why they’re emptying milk in stores (I hope to goodness they were all fined for the cleanup) and trying to get us all to eat insects instead of meat; so, do they count every cow we breed for meat and milk and sheep? Does our CO2 output reduce by the amount we export? Do they allocate a certain % to every human breathing in the UK?
October 9, 2022
I do hope John informed those children that what we are seeing has nothing to do with CO2 output and everything to do with the politicisation of CO2 output?
Didn’t Boris Johnson once say to Mark Steyn over dinner that the entire green issue was and I quote ‘total bollocks’. As PM Johnson became a NZ zealot. I am sure that this preposterous, hypocritical and idiotic persona is now common across the western political and bureaucratic class.
Today, western governments will if they can politicise the breath from your body. That’s now dangerous this entire ideology has become. It is new in the sense that they now possess the technology to monitor each individuals carbon output or use digital means to control our consumption down to the last grain of sugar
I am hoping governments do push the string
October 9, 2022
DOM – They DID politicise our breath (and, at some point in the process, taxed it.) Do you not remember masks and social distancing ?
October 9, 2022
It strikes me that, in general terms, countries with high labour costs are decreasing their co2 whereas, low labour cost countries are increasing their co2 output. Is this really about co2 or labour costs?
October 9, 2022
The Chinese outnumber us by about 20 to 1. Their home population causes much of the energy resource growth as previously-remote country folk develop more into active consumers of products and services, such as those in cities. We employ many of them there to produce items for our UK market: that is our own energy consumption but being attributed to them on their own land.
Even so, the heaviest risk of all is that of increasing population growth across the world.
Preventing excessive births would solve many of the worldâs problems.
October 9, 2022
Well a number of interesting issues here.
First there is the false accounting of Net-Zero. We close our ‘dirty’ industries and import those goods instead. If we assume that the emmissions caused in manufacture are the same (and they may well be higher if powered by coal) – then our emmissions go down but the manufacturing countries goes up. So we’ve exported our CO2 emmissions elsewhere – and that’s all we’ve achieved. In fact we have probably made things worse.
So Sir John’s percentages really just show that we’ve been very successful in sending our emmissions elsewhere. They do not really tell us what we’ve actually emmitted – unless we truely account for the ‘imported’ emmissions. This is true of all things we import of course, including energy for instance.
With respect to population growth, most countries have declining populations (including China) if you factor out immigration. Two Canadian scientists have suggested that as you educate the female population of a geography, birth rates decline sharply. As an aside, China really kicked started it’s population declne with it’s ‘one-child’ policy, followed closely by growth in it’s middle classes. One of the problems facing Russia currently, is that (unlike during WW2) many Russians only have one son. Putin has just mobilised them (or tried to) and that may be his biggest mistake, when the ‘only child’ doesn’t come back.
October 9, 2022
One of the biggest lies that coloured my upbringing was that of population increase. We saw every example of poverty and humanitarian disaster, attributed to overpopulation and natural disaster.
Only after a grew up did I discover that much of the misery was caused by war (the journalists’ cameras never pointing in the direction of the soldiers with guns), and their overpopulation could be solved by allowing women the same rights and privileges as men, so they could decide whether they wanted to raise a family or pursue a career.
Likewise today we see the accounts of disaster, but always the suffering women and children. Why the fathers aren’t taking responsibility is never answered and they are never seen on camera.
October 9, 2022
Russia’s population and life expectancy dropped massively in the 1990s, IanT, when Western corporates were able to plunder the Russian economy and wreck it, with the compliance of President Yeltsin in the Kremlin. Average births per woman briefly declined then to just over 1, but have since climbed back to around 1.5, similar to many Western European countries. (Britain with its large third-world immigrant population is a bit higher at about 1.8.)
Russia has recently mobilised only about 1.5% of eligible reservists for non-combat roles allowing more of the professional military to fight in Ukraine. That doesn’t seem to be viewed in Russia as a ‘mistake’ – the latest polling by the independent Levada opinion poll in Russia, known for its critical stance vis-a-vis President Putin, gives him a 77% approval rating. The mistake that may cost him his position, is if public opinion shifts and blames him for not having taken the war with NATO more seriously at an earlier stage.
October 9, 2022
Whilst I understand that Russia has large (potential) manpower resources to draw on Peter, it really isn’t that simple to do in practice.
“….for non-combat roles allowing more of the professional military to fight in Ukraine…”
There is some evidence that this is not what is actually happening. I will accept that many Russians support the ‘war’ but I’m not sure that support extends to the call-up. There are credible reports that people are being shipped straight out without any idea of how they will support their families (or pay their mortgages etc) in their absence. From what we can tell, Russian military logistics and organisation leave much to be desired. It’s probable their conscription is no differently managed.
As any soldier will tell you, it’s not just about giving someone a gun and showing them how to shoot it. It’s about discipline, teamwork, determination and ultimately, commitment. You don’t learn that in a few weeks. If you take civilians and stick them on the front line (after just a few weeks training) against experienced infantry, then I’m quite certain what the end result will be.
October 10, 2022
These are reservists who have already done their military training. Russia has large numbers of military already under arms guarding other vulnerable sectors, who are being switched to Ukraine. You say there’s some evidence this isn’t happening. You may be right, but you don’t say what and where that evidence is.
October 9, 2022
Ian T:
I referred to exporting our emissions in my 3rd sentence. You spelt it out more fully and better Ian. Added to those emissions are more caused by transporting the products to us, which Sir John mentioned, as did you in referring to energy.
Chinaâs population has been declining, yet a high proportion of their 1.4 billion folk rapidly developing into western styles of living creates far more demand for consumption than a reducing birth rate can hold back. Population growth should have been controlled much earlier to have had adequate effect. Healthier lives are splendid, yet add on-going consumption at the other end. Indiaâs population may be 1.4 billion too, with similar consequences.
The UK is heavily overcrowded, yet our population size limits what difference relatively so few peopleâs consumption could make on worldwide figures.
October 9, 2022
No chance of that, Bloke. I am sure you have noticed that this (and previous) governments would fill the UK to the rafters with immigrants. They aren’t picky either. Criminals and freeloaders are very welcome too. No ID … no problem! Here’s a 4* hotel, free everything and pocket money too. Go out and enjoy your freedom to do whatever you want at the taxpayers expense. The CONS governments of late have even made Blair’s immigration policy look moderate. The consideration of pollution, scarcity of vital services and housing, scarcity of EVERYTHING unless it (and the labour required) is imported. The government don’t care. We are just the cash cows. I wonder if we Brits will ever get equality with the illegal immigrants? I doubt it!
October 9, 2022
Bloke. But think of the extra money in benefits many would lose. Children for many are a nice little earner and nothing more sadly to say.
October 9, 2022
Good luck with that.
The only factors we can really influence are those in our control.
– I suggest we get very good at dealing with resource scarcity and making the maximum opportunity of what resources we can get
– move to a circular economy and re-use and recycle everything and definitely not ship it back to China etc so we can then buy it again.
– emphasize knowledge and skills development, and protect it
– identify critical resources and materials and manage them properly, perhaps even have a bloody list and strategy!
– onshore the critical resources and industries
If there is an energy shortage there is no excuse or rational to allow energy resources to be exported unless we have a sustainable surplus. The same goes for food and strategic materials.
October 9, 2022
+1
October 9, 2022
Population growth? Don’t worry, Bloke. Mr Gates and his friends are working on it.
October 9, 2022
As you clearly state the UKs net zero targets are utter nonsense and will achieve nothing. Therefore something else is behind it. Iâm amazed that so many of the British public are so gullible. It just shows the power of the media and our education system.
Wake up people this is about totalitarian control and grabbing everything you and your families have ever worked for.
October 9, 2022
+1
Only ‘they’ will not need to grab it as, just like the happy-clappers of clapping for the NHS of fame have shown, they will hand it all over willingly.
People are such sheep and, like such, deserved to be fleeced.
October 9, 2022
@Christine A Government desperate to be on the social media message is siding with the Terrorists that are paid for by the UK taxpayer â doesnât make sense or help either.
A Government that defended the majority when they are under the threat of this minority would really be a turn around moment.
October 9, 2022
Good news for some folk, I’m sure. However it will make zero difference either to the relative incompetence of this and earlier governments across the board (let’s see the comparisons since the seminal year of 1990 for economic growth, exchange rates, inflation across these countries as compared to the UK) or to the almost certain prospect of a Labour government.
October 9, 2022
The printing presses have been running since 2008. There has been no austerity in reality, other than the frozen wages of ordinary public sector workers. Quangos and government empires have grown and grown and Truss and Kwarteng failed to tackle this first, before tax cuts.
The Blob squealed as soon as anything that looked like Thatcherism emerged – tax cuts a thousandth of the national debt.
It is like being led by incompetent gamblers always paying for their next fix on Wonga loan.
The Tories have been to the Left of Blair all along and are mesmerised by Davos (Net Zero.)
October 9, 2022
I see you are still onboard the net zero scam. Do you really believe that politicians or anyone else can control the earth’s climate and temperature? They can control people though and that is what this is all about – control of people’s behaviour to enrich a minority. To demonise carbon, the element on which life as we know it is based and carbon dioxide without which there would be no life on earth is despicable and evil.
Reply Try reading what I write
October 9, 2022
Reply to reply:
I have read what you have written and nowhere can I find any challenge to this despicable notion of net zero and CO2 reduction. All you do is say how well we are doing and look how badly other countries are by comparison.
Reply I am making the case against the UK damaging its self reliance and living standards when most people need gas and petrol for heating and travel.
October 9, 2022
As an expert in in popular causes that I firmly believe in (in my case, Christianity) and as a man of principle, allow me to assure any doubters out there that all principles, whether of a religious nature or a green one are extremely expensive. I do not mean only personally – you are shunned and, yes, hated even – but more importantly for everyone else too.
Climate change is one of the most expensive principles on the planet.
Which is why we are moving away from it as we find out the true cost.
October 9, 2022
Who is this ‘we’? All I hear is more and more of the climate religion. Like all religions, it is based on faith, not facts.
October 9, 2022
Cull all the net zero waste and use the vast sums of money saved to develop practical fusion and better nuclear. This would be a far better plan. We have plenty of fossil fuels for 200+ years or so use them. We will have practical fusion in less than 40 years surely?
October 9, 2022
LL. +100
October 9, 2022
âNet Zero must make us more wealthy not lessâ was the headline for Jacob Rees Moggâs inane article yesterday. It sums up why the Conservative Party has lost my vote at the next election, and I suspect, the votes of most who contribute to this site. What with Steve Baker now caving to the EU, the only true conservatives visible in the parliamentary party to potential voters appear to be yourself and Craig Mackinlay. Nowhere near enough to secure a majority, or to convince voters that a Labour led government could be any worse.
October 9, 2022
J R-M has been a massive disappointment since he became a Minister.
At Reform’s Party Conference Richard Tice confirmed that their next manifesto would include a commitment to scrap the plan to ban new petrol cars in 2030. That’s got my vote.
October 9, 2022
Donna. Mine too.
October 9, 2022
Surely the figures are meaningless. We could be at zero if we simply imported absolutely everything. No wonder we have – allegedly (who measures this stuff?) – reduced our output of CO2. We import so much all we have done is pushed the CO2 on to other countries.
Where are the true figures?
October 9, 2022
There is no climate catastrophe/crisis/breakdown, anthropogenic or natural.
There is no evidence that extreme weather is increasing – check the data rather than accepting the BBCâs hysterical reporting. Average temperature (land & sea) measured by satellite by the UAH since 1979 is increasing by only 0.13 degrees C per decade.
The data on temperature and CO2 for the last 500 million years since the start of the Cambrian explosion shows that temperature does not follow CO2 levels, both of which have been much higher than today. In fact the Antarctic Vostok Ice Core Data (450,000 years) and the Greenland Ice Core Data (11,000 years since the last ice age) shows CO2 following temperature when both are at historically very low levels.
Data from NASA of CO2 levels over the last 800,00 years shows that these have dropped 9 times (including at the last ice age 11,000 years ago) to 180 ppm, just 30 ppm above the level below which plants, and hence all life on earth, cannot survive.
The current level of CO2 is historically very low and should be trebled to reach the optimum required for plant and hence food growth.
October 9, 2022
Every government & civil service meeting, interview or conference should be force to show those figures, they should be on the front page of every government & quango website and be promoted at every education establishment
October 9, 2022
Yes, I think most free thinkers were aware.
However, Boris Johnson and his acolytes appeared to believe it was a race. Wanting the UK to be No 1 ahead of the rest of the World at the expense of the UK economy, security and sustainability. While the big players, polluters put their economy first.
Which ever way you shake it the UK is only 1% of the World problem. With a strong resilient economy and low taxes to encourage endeavours, the UK could have funded all the aspirations thrown at it.
The punishment regime has to stop, the unfunded handouts have to stop, the UK can and must earn so wealth is created and we have a future.
October 9, 2022
As you have also said, Sir John importing is not reducing
October 9, 2022
By outsourcing our manufacturing (which is what Net Zero really means) we also lose control of the clean-ness of production of the same goods.
The aim is not to maintain our standard of living. The aim is to make us poorer.
October 9, 2022
Unfortunately much of our CO2 output has gone to China and India so we’re not clear of blame.
We’ve also bought most of that stuff on credit and QE.
I keep telling you all. CREDIT is the worst thing for the environment. We also would not have tolerated the empowerment of China for so long without it.
October 9, 2022
Off topic, I came across this letter on the website of the Bucks Free Press, dated September 20 2001:
https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/4621.our-defence-and-the-eu/
“Our defence and the EU”
“In the real world, it is NATO, not the EU, that has secured peace in Europe.”
From an article by Peter Condradi in the Sunday Times of August 21 2022:
“Nato had declared as long as ago as 2008 that Ukraine could join the alliance â much to Putinâs fury. More than a decade later, a timetable for Ukrainian membership had still not been agreed, nor did it look likely to be.
Ukraine was left with the worst of both worlds: it could be portrayed by the Kremlin as a Nato stooge, yet, despite growing flows of western arms, it did not enjoy the reassurance of mutual protection guaranteed to members under Article Five of Natoâs founding treaty. It was as if a target had been painted on its back.”
October 9, 2022
Yes, Denis. That’s how they got a war started. It worked. Excellent result for the Washington neocons seeking to ‘weaken Russia’, the aim they announced, and also for the Green blob in Berlin, seeking to get fossil fuels shut off. And that’s worked too.
October 9, 2022
O/t, but I note Truss has just signed us up to the nascent EU Army:
âEU officials have unanimously approved the British Army’s application to a Dutch-led initiative that already permits the same for other NATO nations. PESCO involvement will allow the UK to expedite armed forces delivery, but further integrates the country with the bloc.”
Once a Remainer, always a Remainer, it would seem.
October 9, 2022
Barbara. I’m shocked although I can’t think why when this kind of behaviour from. Ministers seems to be the norm.
October 9, 2022
The most important line in the said article is the para that suggests we ‘must’ have a closer relationship with the EU security policy
”The news comes as a post-Brexit first for the UK, as joining a PESCO project means the country must engage with the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CDSP)”
October 9, 2022
It is true that the UK is responsible for 1% of current CO2 emissions. In 1751, as the first nation to industrialise, it was responsible for 100%. Currently, the UK and the US together are responsible for 30% of the historic cumulative CO2 fossil fuel emissions still in the atmosphere.
“Up until 1950, more than half of historical CO2 emissions were emitted by Europe. The vast majority of European emissions back then were emitted by the United Kingdom; as the data shows, until 1882 more than half of the worldâs cumulative emissions came from the UK alone”.
“Who has contributed most to global CO2 emissions?” By by Hannah Ritchie
October 01, 2019
October 9, 2022
However acorn, if weâd have known about solar panels then and windmills, as China and India do know wouldnât we have omitted less? Also we were a much smaller population then so how was the CO2 calculated compared to China and India with their populations 20x ours?
October 9, 2022
If you read the article,you may educate yourself to answer your own question.
October 9, 2022
I thought you could save me the trouble. But Iâll add it to my reading list.
October 10, 2022
The article does not explain how the numbers were calculated/estimated. It also assumes that 100% of anthropogenic CO2 at the time of the industrial revolution was caused by the UK which is patently false.
Hint: other countries burned coal before, during and after the industrial revolution which marked the introduction of steam in manufacturing, rather than coal.
October 9, 2022
Yes a-tracey. The Chinese are understood to have been burning coal for thousands of years, while we were struggling to build Stonhenge. They also burned large quantities of wood for cooking and for heat during their cold winters. Between 1700 and 1750, China’s population was recorded as rising 44 per cent to 182 million, which implies a lot more CO2. At the time, Britain’s population is estimated at about 6 million. By 1850, China’s population had risen to 450 million and Britain’s to about 18 million. To claim that Britain accounted for 100 per cent of historic CO2 emissions is a bit like claiming that the British were responsible for all or even most of the world’s slavery.
October 10, 2022
outsider, well acorn has sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole with his quote by Hannah Ritchie.
All those 182m compared to 6m in the UK consuming food in order to work yet the little ole UK is responsible for 100%? The Chinese bought railways from the UK. They eat rice, and meat, “Rice is the nutritious staple crop for more than half of the worldâs people, but growing rice produces methane, a greenhouse gas more than 30 times as potent as carbon dioxide. Methane from rice contributes around 1.5 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions” source wri
We are told the UK can reduce CO2 if we change to using windmills, solar; so if it’s true that we are told the Chinese didn’t use these western fossil fuel use inventions for 200 years why didn’t they start their plants using windmills and solar and use the energy saving heat pumps that we’re becoming more aware of as time is going by sooner than we did?
October 9, 2022
So what. CO2 is plant food.
October 10, 2022
Found this “The global production of fertilisers is responsible for around 1.4% of annual CO2 emissions, and fertiliser use is a major contributor of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions.11 Jul 2022” carbonbrief
October 9, 2022
Should we in the UK reduce to below zero then acorn?
Historical emissions are like the greens version of slavery reparations.
If the target right now today is a reduction in global CO2 then each nation needs to reduce.
Starting with those with the biggest current emissions.
October 10, 2022
So you condemn the economies of the later industrialising nations for the sins of the early industrialising nations. As if the CO2 inventory before 1990 to 2020 period never existed. Those that created the mess should be the ones to lead the cleanup.
October 10, 2022
I dont condemn anyone acorn.
And we are leading the efforts here in the UK.
But…
If you want to rapidly reduce global emissions then concentrating efforts on nations with the highest current emissions and the fastest growing emissions seems the best way forward.
If we were to get to net zero China will make up the difference in a year.
October 10, 2022
We did not “create” the burning of coal, or even boiling water to make steam, we harnessed steam to drive machinery.
October 10, 2022
Thanks Dixie
The left on here has a very odd version of economic history.
October 10, 2022
acorn, ive been doing a bit of reading as you suggested…
“Every person emits the equivalent of approximately two tonnes of carbon dioxide a year from the time food is produced to when the human body excretes it, representing more than 20% of total yearly emissions. That is what a study by the Universidad de AlmerĂa says…According to the study, producing food from animals, such as meat and dairy products, causes the greatest impact. Agriculture, livestock, fishing and the food industry are the greatest source of carbon dioxide water pollution, but in both cases the effects of human excretion (through breathing or due to waste water treatment) are next on the list.”
So the Chinese had many more people than the UK. China is the 4th largest producer and consumer of beef in the world. China is also the 5th largest beef importer in the world.
This was an interesting find too. “Chinese people living under the rule of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911) also faced a variety of environmental problems. Rapid population growth in the preceding centuries led to land shortages and the depletion of natural resources of all kinds, from wildlife to biomass fuels.” https://chinadialogue.net/en/energy/9918-the-historical-roots-of-china-s-industrial-revolution-2/
“Starting in earnest in the 1860s, Qing statesmen acquired new tools from beyond Chinaâs borders to increase the countryâs power. Foremost among these tools was foreign military hardware….The first railway in China was built by the British near Shanghai in 1876 and operated until 1877, when it was destroyed by the Qing governor-general…Qing officials in various parts of the country had constructed (with foreign engineering expertise) over 300 miles of track by 1894.
They had the opportunity and did Industrialise acorn, if their heads of government decided to use their people rather than machinery why is that the West’s fault as you indicate, they all emit CO2, and why are we responsible for their desire not to develop when they were offered the same opportunity?
October 10, 2022
another interesting little find acorn – “Rice is the nutritious staple crop for more than half of the world’s people, but growing rice produces methane, a greenhouse gas more than 30 times as potent as carbon dioxide. Methane from rice contributes around 1.5 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions, and could grow substantially.16 Dec 2014” wri
October 9, 2022
Well no. Most countries were burning lots of firewood to provide energy. As we know from Drax that is not as efficient as burning coal. What the UK started to do was to mass produce things at low cost by using energy much more efficiently than had been possible previously. We became the workshop of the world, exporting widely. Of course the CO2 accountants tend to forget about the use of firewood (especially as it is hard to measure when harvested and used locally), so they produce nonsense statistics.
October 9, 2022
Iâm unable to comprehend why an intelligent person such as yourself is still pushing the Net Zero scam?
Presumably youâre happy that a large percentage of the population is having to decide between heating and eating?
This wonât end well for the politicians who are responsible for this, the Poll tax riots will seem very mild
Reply Do try reading what I say and stop lying about my views
October 9, 2022
Lying?
Coming from a politician!
October 9, 2022
My views seem to coincide with the majority of your contributors
October 9, 2022
If your view is that SJR is pushing the net zero agenda, Lester, no it doesn’t coincide with my view. To me, his post is clearly aimed at ‘those who want to bring world CO2 down’, and offers good arguments against their net zero agenda. I wonder why you can’t see that. On the other hand, you may have in mind his party in government’s agenda, and I would agree with you there.
If the Tories eventually manage to scrap the ruinous net zero commitment, it will be because some of their MPs will like SJR have taken a stand against its unaffordable excesses. They understand that they have to take the public with them, and cannot do this in one go.
October 9, 2022
Dear Sir John,
Thank you for this concise and powerful post.
The UK should, of course, continue to play its part in a global effort to brake any warming-induced climate change caused by increasing the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere.
As you show, however, nothing the UK can do will itself have a meaningful effect. That depends largely on China, the United States, India, Brazil and Indonesia. So it is deeply (and intentionally) misleading for campaigners to imply that achieving Net Zero in the UK will have any beneficial effect on the UK climate.
Given your figures you use and the policies of different countries, it is absolutely clear that global warming is likely to accelerate over the next 28 years rather than be limited to what professionals consider a safe limit. Let us hope they are wrong.
Do UK politicians really believe the science they claim to espouse?
If they did, they would be following a three part programme I use to test people of different political persuasions.:
1) Build a large new fleet of atomic power stations as fast as safely possible.
2) Cut back long-distance and intercontinental trade in goods severely, apart from those with a high value- to-weight ratio.
3) Carry out a massive programme of flood protection and sea defences as the top infrastructure priority.
I have yet to come across any party or serious politician who would meet this test.
October 9, 2022
Really interesting figures in the post.
Confronted with those anyone can see where CO2 reductions should be focused, if that’s the aim.
It’s disgraceful this sort of information is not given any publicity by the MSM, or used on our educational institutions.
October 9, 2022
It is a long held belief of many people, including me, that a free press is essential for a functioning democracy. I don’t think we have a functioning democracy. And the reason is the media. They exert far too much influence. The government is terrified of ‘how this will play in the media’ and the media drives agendas which are harmful to this country.
Maybe a free press is not such a good idea.
October 9, 2022
Well despite all of the reasons given here to abandon net zero, it looks like we still have Green politicians in charge who have arranged for banks, investment houses, industry and anyone working for government, King Charles the Green and the armed forces to stop us using oil and gas. But Liz and Nazim don’t want to waste ÂŁ25m on telling us how to save on the bills.
I could do this for free on an A4 sheet.
Turn the heating down to 18 C ad wear warm clothing during the day and 16C at night and wear pyjamas.
Only fill the kettle with the volume you need boiled.
Keep the tap on cold unless you really need hot water. Wash hands in cold.
Only wash clothes when they are dirty. Make underclthes last 2 days.
Have a bath once a week a shower twice and use a flannel at the basin the rest of the time.
Keep windows and doors closed.
Cook using a pressure cooker, air fryer and microwave. Eat more canned food.
Stop watching TV and read more.
Don’t use electric heaters.
Wear Bob Cratchet gloves when writing..
Needless to say my wife refuses to do any of these and this is what spooked Liz.
October 10, 2022
Stred Lol, my Mum said something similar to my Dad when he suggested she used a blanket whilst watching tv rather than turn the radiator on. He’s trying to see how long he can last without the heating on!
With regard to ÂŁ25m on leaflets, most under 50’s have a smartphone or the internet and get their information from search engines like google, google could do a little more after all today their google doodle is about Mostafa El-Abbadi: Why a Google Doodle is celebrating the Egyptian historian on his 94th birthday today.
It would be more useful to have a picture of energy-saving tips. Why does everyone expect the government to use taxpayers’ money to do everything now?
October 9, 2022
Oxfordshire CC is enthusiastically pushing through populaton control based on the NetZero ideology in that the gov’s ’20 is plenty’ speed limit regulation slogan is being put through in towns and villages. This is said to be in places which have ‘expressed an interest’. I gather here it is a dozen or so out of maybe 750.
They say it is subject to survey but this is a sham here as there is no question in the parish council circulation asking ‘Do you think there should be no change?’ It is just do you want 20mph in the whole of the village, or in parts? And do you want a ‘speedwatch’ group to enforce limits?
I wonder how much more off our miniscule output of our CO2 creation will they claim it will make. Most of us will be more miserable but council ideologues will be happy.
Is there any chance Liz Truss will put a stop to it?
October 9, 2022
It is likely to lead to more pollution. To keep to 20mph most will need to be in second gear, which uses a lot more fuel for the distance travelled. Of course the other possibility is that people will simply avoid going to places, which will not be good for the local economy.
October 10, 2022
I doubt the catalytic converter is working efficiently at 20 mph.
October 9, 2022
It would have been interesting to provide also the CO2 production/consumption/emission in 1990. Without them a derivative (decrease/increase 1990-2020) only makes part of the story.
I have increased my speed by 10%. Is it the same if I started at rest or if I was already going at 100 mph?
Given that I cannot think that Sir John is so thick that he did not see this obvious flaw in his figures I can only conclude that he is (again) taking his readers by the nose.
reply These are the way the Green world authorities monitor and control. Tomorrow I will use the per capita figures which are also useful. I am seeking to inform, not to mislead.
October 9, 2022
Most talk about various aspects of science involved but I took route cause analysis in that much maligned subject .. philosophy.It could help some use information in a sensible way.
October 10, 2022
Root. Sorry dyslexia
October 10, 2022
Actually I could use route also as it has been the route man took without understanding the danger signals.
October 9, 2022
We are beating Russia and Germany – whoopee! Actually they are cheating because they are simply switching from coal to natural gas, or were as Germany has hit a snag because their infrastructure for delivering gas has been attacked by a terrorist state which may make it more dependent on expensive gas from the USA in the short term but in the medium term may decide Germany that NATO is actually an occupation force of their country willing to bar no stratagem in preventing it from getting close to Russia and then inviting the US to clear off. Of course, we love the US and believe everything they do is marvellous, including creating lethal vaccines, which means we actually don’t need our own foreign policy and could sell off the Foreign Office to a hotel chain, thereby reducing the cost of government.
October 9, 2022
Getting off the Net Zero hook is going to be difficult. After decades of propaganda – for example the disgraceful Climate Change Committee and the very dubious Nudge Unit – people are not yet ready for the chants of ‘Four legs good, two legs better!’ So how to reverse the most damaging policy – full Net Zero – while paying more than lip service to that suicidal notion?
I give you the Halfway to Hydrogen transition. We currently burn a lot of the higher hydrocarbons, diesel, petrol, bunker oil etc. These high CO2 fuels can be replaced by methane, shale gas, CH4. When these are burnt much of the energy comes from the hydrogen, the rest from burning the carbon. The CO2 impact is substantially reduced. Other benefits – very low NOX and particulate emissions – are an added bonus.
While we make the transition to SMRs the Halfway to Hydrogen pathway will cut our emissions and keep our society working.
One other great advantage. Even the most rabid Green will have to admit the benefits.
JF
BTW, ÂŁ1,000 to vote for fracking is too mean. Let the first community that approves drilling and gets the gas moving be very handsomely rewarded, the second 10% less, etc.
October 9, 2022
Sigh, if only I had kept that Rover P6 3500, 20 mpg on petrol, I could be rumbling across the Canadian prairies that wonderful V8 engine powered by natural gas. But I sold it for 350 quid to somebody in south London and they drank 25 quid of that the night before.
October 9, 2022
dixie
+100
October 9, 2022
i believe it is all about balance. plants/ trees use CO2 : there is so much arid land and trees being chopped the absorption factor continually reduces. The time it takes to replace hundreds and thousands of years of this green stuff , lags behind . Whilst man impacts on this vital balance of nature ,the damage is independent of day to day living and carbon foot print, yet it is essential to stop the decline and the only way we can personally do it is trying to rebalance. I don’t think we will achieve net zero but the attempt to balance the scales may be worth it. The earth will do it itself eventually but we won’t be part of it.