I was pleased to see the Unite Union make the case against the disastrous de industrialisation Mr Miliband’s policies are causing. I welcome Claire Couthino’s return from maternity leave as she takes on the argument that far from UK electricity being too dear because of the gas price, UK electricity is far dearer than gas thanks to extreme renewable policies. The mix of high guaranteed prices and substantial subsidy make new wind power very expensive. She rightly pointed out that recent guaranteed prices for renewable power from new wind farms are several times dearer than for gas generated electricity and for using gas as a primary fuel.
Some here want the main parties to dump the whole idea of climate change, challenging the science. In my two short books on the topic, “Build back green The electrifying shock of the green revolution” (2021) and “The $275 tn Green Revolution Will consumers buy it” (2024) I accepted the scientific consensus that CO 2 is a warming gas, and if nothing else changes more man made CO 2 leads to some overall warming.
I raised a number of questions about how the global temperatures are measured, why there were periods of global warming and cooling before mankind arrived and before the widespread human burning of fossil fuels, how accurate the climate models and forecasts are , whether sun intensity, water vapour presence and other important factors could offset or accelerate the impact of manmade CO 2 and other obvious issues. As many governments and universities continue to spend a lot of money and human resource on climate change studies, clearly they do not think the models are perfect or our knowledge complete. Some of you contribute to the scientific discussion. There is no sign that there is about to be a major change of scientific view held by the leading European and UK governments and the main universities.
I still do not intend to develop the debate about the pace, intensity or reality of global warming. By all means contribute to this debate if you have studied the models and the wider science. I wish to intensify the debate about UK net zero policies with a view to getting urgent change. To get that change we need the support of the many experts and people in power who do believe global warming is serious and brought on by current manmade CO 2.
One of the strongest reasons for change all in the debate should agree is the current UK net zero policies are wrong in their own terms. They increase world CO 2 with their manic pursuit of less CO 2 produced here but far more world CO 2 needed to produce all the imports we then need as we close down our own factories and oil fields. Imported LNG means 3 times as much CO 2 per unit burned than UK gas down a pipe from the North Sea.
They are wrong in saying the UK by closing down fossil fuel use more quickly will lead the rest of the world. Instead over the many years we have been leading the world in cutting our own CO 2 emissions manmade world CO 2 has continued to increase. There is no evidence that UK leadership has worked or will work all the time China and Germany wish to make things to sell to us with plenty of coal and gas in their mix of fuels.
They are even wrong over their proposed remedies for too much CO 2. Buying a new battery car may mean more world CO 2 not less when you take into account all the extra CO 2 produced by the mining for rare minerals, the manufacture of the batteries and the likely use pattern of the vehicle. Worse still much of the time in the UK when you come to charge the battery car there is no spare renewable electricity available so they need to burn more gas in a gas powered generator. The same can be true of a heat pump. On a very cold windless day in winter your heat pump will need more gas fired electricity to keep it running.
I will look in a later blog at the changes we urgently need in policy.
October 4, 2025
Good morning.
It is not about the environment or saving the planet, that nonsense is for the numerous ‘useful idiots’ to believe in, give them their talking points and moral standing. Whilst they posture how they are saving the planet by buying expensive intermittent energy and and truly environmentally damaging EV cars, which rely on child slave labour for their rare earth materials such as cobalt. No, this environmental SCAM is all about one thing – Wealth redistribution. Whether it be through crony capitalism through various hedge funds and venture capitalists, or Socialist leaning NGO’s, fake charities and Supranational bodies.
They are all after your wealth.
October 4, 2025
Europe today has an excess of wind so we are exporting 2gw of electricity at te princely sum of £2.40 per gwh after paying Orsted £200 pet mwh to generate it. Funny farm anyone
October 4, 2025
The new registration for cars has BEVs on 23.3%. Of which 8.9% is domestic consumers. Sales are mainly business and Motorbility which get taxpayer funded subsidies.
There is a long way to go before the 91% are convinced EVs are the solution.
October 4, 2025
@Ian Wragg – ah, the good old taxpayer has to keep funding those already with money, their own funds, so they get richer, while the majority have to make do and make sacrifices and do what used to be seen as balancing their budget, something the Government and its Parliament have no concept of.
The under attack pension, they do pay tax but are not permitted to work and earn, now have to fund company cars and the rich to buy new ones.
October 4, 2025
Agree – If net-zero was real, they’d subsidise you to keep your old car on the road
October 4, 2025
Exactly! If they really wanted to reduce CO2 that is the best way to do it!
October 4, 2025
😂
October 4, 2025
as at 13:00hrs we are importing 6% energy via interconnectors …..other energy (ie lpg, biomass etc) via ships unknon
October 4, 2025
Just after 9 a.m. NESO agreed to pay the Limekiln wind farm near Thurso £999/MWh to restart generation according to the LCP feed of unusual events on the grid.
October 4, 2025
If only we had a coal mine & power station
October 4, 2025
Meanwhile the new Archbishop of Canterbury is a woman. She is really big on gay marriage and used to work in the NHS.
Will suit those who want religion to suit the zeitgeist and the politics of the day. Atheist Starmer is in favour. King Charles congratulated her on her important role.
October 4, 2025
She is also in favour of Net Zero like Welby before her:-
The Bishop of London, the Rt Revd and Rt Hon Dame Sarah Mullally DBE, said:
“Our commitment – as Christians – to the environment is motivated by our faith, rooted in the care for creation and for all God’s people. In London we see first-hand the impact of our environmental decision making. The capital’s air pollution problem not only contributes to our health but to climate change too. We are committed to reducing our carbon emissions as far and fast as possible”
October 4, 2025
Her statement alone shows just how ignorant and misguided she is.
Air pollution is one thing harmless net beneficial CO2 plant, crop and tree food is quite another altogether.
“The capital’s air pollution problem not only contributes to our health” to damaging our health surely!
“to climate change too” the climate has always changed even before the Garden of Eden & thus mankind. Surely if ones believes in God you would assume he intended the climate to change, the land masses to move, living creatures to evolve!
“We are committed to reducing our carbon emissions as far and fast as possible” I assume she meant to say reducing are CO2 emissions by as much and as quickly as possible – so as to be rather more grammatical and accurate.
This however would be rather foolish as CO2 is vital for all life on earth, plants, crops, trees, food and is a net benefit – as is being slightly warmer on balance.
Rt Hon Dame Sarah Mullally DBE studied nursing at Southbank Poly. So you might have though she would know about lungs, O2, food and their role in the conversion to energy, living and CO2!
October 4, 2025
@Peter – a has been religion that lost its way when it stopped by the source of stability and a haven in a troubled World. It has headed down the path of wanting get down with the kids, join the WOKE brigade and insult everyone that made up what is termed a congregation in the community. Even the head of the Church of England has sort an audience with the Roman Catholic Pope which will taking place this month.
October 4, 2025
Instead of introducing gay marriage, the Tories under Cameron should have reintroduced National Service to man-up our young men like a finishing school. 3 months. Other countries in Europe have National Service. Civilised countries have always had it in some form throughout the world and ages as a way primarily to man-up young men (to train for war is of secondary importance).
October 5, 2025
Would this not be against the modern slavery act and the gender equality laws? Or does the state have exemptions?
October 4, 2025
Spot on Mark B
October 4, 2025
My main issue with Net Zero 2050 is that no-one can prove the need to be net zero nor by 2050 either. Given the disruption and economic costs for Britain are so severe the climate lobby needed to be able to evidence these two requirements. So far they have failed to do so.
Naturally we need to transition off non-renewables but so far the evidence is saying we have more time than 2050 and that facilitates the best option – nuclear power. In my opinion that is the only clean energy source we should transition to and we should do so as we accrue the capital.
October 4, 2025
Believing something is correct and knowing that it is are very different. We seem to be in a post science age.
October 4, 2025
Indeed the expressions:- renewable energy, climate deniers, carbon emissions are all unscientific in essence.
Wind, wave and Solar come from radiated nuclear fusion on the Sun tidal from the rotation of the earth, geothermal from nuclear activity in the core of the earth. Non are actually “renewable” just long lasting.
“Climate deniers” who are these people? The climate has always changed even before mankind evolved, surely even climate alarmists like the BBC accept this?
“Carbon emission” are actually CO2 emission and are net beneficial for nearly all life and for greening the planet.
October 5, 2025
I note that NASA have now calculated and measured the effect of the Three Gorges dam in China in slowing the rotation of the earth.
October 4, 2025
We’re doing net-zero to stop the sea level rise ……but I’ve not see any real evidence of any sea level rise
What we have now is classic policitcal mission drift
October 4, 2025
Google the east coast floods of 1953!
The East Coast floods of 1953 were a catastrophic event caused by a storm surge combined with a high spring tide that struck the UK, Netherlands, and Belgium on the night of January 31, 1953. In the UK, the disaster resulted in the deaths of 307 people, damage to 24,000 houses, and the evacuation of over 30,000 people.
Nothing remotely as high as that for 72 years so far. But imagine how excited the mad alarmists at the BBC would get now about things if so much as 3 houses were washed away!
October 4, 2025
@Paul Freedman – Science is when the facts have been laid bare for you peers to challenge and scrutinise findings – something the NutZero fraternity refuse. That the number one flaw.
The next flaw, if a need is proven and there is a need. When you know the need will cost money a great deal of money should you block the very means to produce the wealth to make changes, do you cancel things before viable and functioning alternatives have been found?
Then when you know that all your competing Nations, keep pushing, keep growing, keep earning and you still don’t sense you have taken a wrong turning or is it you are an MP there to destroy those that pay your wages and pay you. The UK Parliament is ether full of lunatics or simply agents of a foreign power
October 5, 2025
They also refuse to release mortality, live birth, cancer, cardio-vascular disease rates broken down by Covid Vaccine status. Where these have been partly released in other countries the figure are damning! In the UK it will probably take 40 years like Hillsborough, the Blood Contamination Scandal, the many NHS maternity and other scandals…
October 4, 2025
The “Science” is corrupted by Globalist Organisations and individual billionaires who are using their wealth to pay for the “scientific opinion” they want promoted ….. just like the Covid Tyranny.
Pandering to “scientists” who believe the nonsense because they or the institutions they belong to are paid to promote it is not, in my opinion, the way to stop it. At best, all it will do is marginally improve the situation via a pointless compromise.
If there was a genuine scientific debate taking place about climate change, the BBC would act impartially and allow both sides of the debate to participate. It doesn’t: instead it propagandises relentlessly on behalf of the Eco Globalists.
The UN has told us the real reason for the Net Zero Insanity:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/24/global-warming-is-not-about-the-science-un-admits-climate-change-policy-is-about-how-we-redistribute-the-worlds-wealth/
Reply A few billionaires follow or work with all the main western governments, universities, courts and international organisations who all believe the same things and recommend the same damaging policies. Some billionaires are net zero sceptics.
October 4, 2025
Well past time for a major rethink. The whole basis of the war on CO2 was economic, environmental, scientific and defensive lunacy from the start. Ed Miliband Climate Change Act was voted for be nearly every MP at the time (not JR, Ann Widecombe, Peter Lilley and a tiny few others).
The climate has and will always change. Atmospheric manmade CO2 is one of millions of factors but a bit more CO2 and even very slightly warmer are on balance a net good.
As you point out most of the solutions they propose such as EV cars do not even save CO2 when properly accounted for. The same is often true for wind + the back up needed, walking, cycling, heat pumps, burning wood (young coal at Drax)… So often we just export the CO2 production and jobs often increasing it with extra transport fuel.
I do not want to dump Climate Change just for some scientific realism. This is climate changes always has always will, CO2 is a rather minor factor (not even the main greenhouse gas), we have had ice ages with far higher CO2 levels than now. Plus a bit more CO2 plant, tree and crop food and very slightly warmer is a net good anyway. Also world cooperation would be needed to reduce CO2 and that will not happen and the things pushed to reduce CO2 often do not and are very expensive and impractical anyway.
So three reasons the Miliband/May policy insane any one of the three is sufficient alone to ditch this lunacy and all three are true! ( false accusation deleted ed)
Prof. William Happer has perhaps the best honest videos on the topic:- The Crusade against CO2, The gas of life, integrity in climate science, elimination of CO2 is a suicide pact, World in the mist of Carbon Drought, An Existential Threat? Radiation transfer in clouds…
October 4, 2025
The five Tories who voted against the Climate Change Act 2008 were Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Peter Lilley, Andrew Tyrone and Ann Widdecombe. Then there were those who abstained, eg, John Redwood.
(bills.parliament.uk ‘Climate Change Act 2008’, 3rd Reading, 28/10/2008).
October 4, 2025
Was he paired?
October 4, 2025
hefner
Why repeat what Lifelogic said in his first paragraph?
October 4, 2025
Not science at all but another mad religion, a vast exaggeration at best – hopefully we can stop it before any more damage is done. See the book “Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds” 1841 by Charles MacKay. Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad (or is it perhaps driven mainly by corruption and vested interests).
October 4, 2025
Yes, and the Pope has condemned ‘climate change critics’!…
October 4, 2025
Well climate alarmism is a new religion so I suppose it is the Pope’s and the Bishop of Cantab.’s area of expertise.
Perhaps I should study to become on “expert” in fairy rings, climate alarmism, astrology or some religion. It seems you can get tax free palaces to live in like some politicians. No need even to pay tax on the benefit in kind it seems!
October 4, 2025
A place in the house of Lords too and tax free £323 daily allowances!
October 4, 2025
A good short Prof. William Happer video.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/e6mu1k/in_5_minutes_princeton_professor_describes_the/
October 4, 2025
It’s the devil’s gas… Burn the witch.
Question is, who is the Emission Finder General?
We are being taken back to the dark ages… Literally. It has taken on the traits of a religious cult… Rotating crosses on every hill. The “Priests” in white lab coats or hi viz jackets and The Gospel According to Ed…. The world’s gone bonkers.
Still I am sure once The Digital ID is imposed on us, they will be able to cancel us blasphemers.
October 4, 2025
Indeed rather convenient that there is more wind on the hills so everyone can see these advert better.
Great British Energy, is investing £200 million to install solar panels on approximately 400 schools and NHS sites, with about half of the sites being schools and the other half being hospitals in England. The plan, supported by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, aims to reduce public sector energy bills, with the first installations expected by the end of summer 2025.
So why just 400 schools? Either it makes sense economically (below a certain latitude anyway) or it does not. There are approximately 32,226 schools just in England and 2000 hospitals so why only 400?
They will be expensive to install, will need cleaning and maintenance are a fire risk and will generate more of their energy when the schools are shut for summer holidays and it is largely not needed. They are government propoganda advertisng – not a serious energy policy! Pissing money down the drain yet again.
October 4, 2025
It may be because many roofs are not designed to take the extra load.
A friend of mine had his buildings insurance nulled because he put solar panels on his roof. I don’t know if the more modern panels are lighter than the older ones but, I wonder how many people will have a nasty shock if they have to make a claim and they find the insurer won’t pay.
October 4, 2025
Insurance is largely a racket most of your premium goes on ins. comp. overheads, admin, profits, fraudulent claims, 12% insurance tax … Some life insurance companies are even refusing to pay out on deaths due to people having taken the Covid Vaccines which they claim were experimental medicine/gene therapy – but then they do have a valid point here I suppose!
October 4, 2025
Why do we only have 46 historic sea level measure points around the UK ….if change change was real we’d have thousands to produce as much data as possible
https://ntslf.org/about-us
October 4, 2025
We have satellite measurements.
October 4, 2025
No we don’t ….we don’t take any additional measurements beyond the scope of the website listed aboe
October 5, 2025
sealevel.nasa.gov ‘How do satellites measure sea-level changes?’
Earth.gov ‘How do we measure sea level changes?’
Coastwatch.noaa.gov ‘Sea surface height’.
noc.ac.uk ‘The hills and valleys of the ocean: Sea surface height and ocean circulation from satellite altimetry’.
esa.int ‘Charting sea level’.
Take your pick.
October 5, 2025
Who is ‘we’?
October 4, 2025
It might be a much better use of that £200M to put it towards repairing/replacing the schools and hospitals with RAAC concrete problems. The NHS has suggested that solving this issue would currently cost them > £10B.
October 4, 2025
It is not about the electricity generated (economically it will clearly make no sense). It is about political propaganda that can be seen and using tax payers money for these ends!
October 4, 2025
I agree LL
In some circles, rebuilding a school or hospital delivers little political Kudos these days…
October 4, 2025
Whilst I am much in favour of measures against pollution and that reduce squandering of scarce resources, unwelcome are those like much of Minister Miliband’s policies that go against President Xi’s sound advice to select green solutions only where they are preferable to whatever they replace.
(So Ms. Coutinho has been on maternity leave: I had thought she was another who had outsourced her Opposition spokesperson job to you.)
October 4, 2025
Coutinho read part maths at Oxon. She is not daft and should take a much stonger line against this mad religion.
CO2 is not “pollution” it is plant, tree and crop food and vital for nearly all life on earth. Also odourless, transparent and a significant net good. That is why they usually talk of “Carbon” Pollution which is usually black (unless in diamond form).
October 4, 2025
Kathryn Porter gave another interview on Triggernometry and explained with her expertise how Ed was pursuing disastrous and bonkers policies. She said she has been talking to Ms Coutinho and Mrs Badenoch and they have decided to change Conservative policy.
October 4, 2025
She is a sensible lass with a physics degree I think. She know what she is talking about unlike nearly all the government “experts” and politicians. Sound too on all the vast legal and red tape obstacles to doing anything much in the UK.
October 5, 2025
Her Conference speech is billed as Energy is Prosperity – Cheap Power for Britain.
With Badenoch having announced she would repeal the Climate Change Act I think you can expect a policy that upsets net zero fans.
October 4, 2025
I’m surprised john that an obviously intelligent man like yourself accepts CO2 which is a trace gas, drives climate change . As for the scientific consensus this is only become naysayers are drowned out.
Climate change zealots employ the same tactics as anti immigration people by instead of calling them racist call us deniers.
Whilst Badenough ang Courtinho may give lip service to cancelling net stupid targets, they are firmly on the bandwagon only wanting to travel a little slower.
Carney is an interesting case. As boss at the BoE he loudly proclaimed the need for net zero and the deindustrialising of Britain. Now he’s PM in Canada he proclaimers drill baby drill. Don’t you find that strange. New Zealand has reversed its ruinous policies of no more oil and gas extraction because it was destabilising their electricity grid.
We are the only country pursuing this idiotic path led by Marxist energy secretary who delights at watching the country go down the tubes.
People are at last awakening to the WEF scam
Reply Try reading what I wrote and stop misrepresenting my view
October 4, 2025
A BIT more atmospheric CO2, all other millions of things that affect the climate being the same (they will not be), will warm the earth rather slightly but not by very much. Anyway more CO2 is certainly a net good on balance as is slightly warmer.
October 4, 2025
“There is no sign that there is about to be a major change of scientific view held by the leading European and UK governments and the main universities.”
I seems not they follow the research grants and the group think insanity. Privately the sensible physicists recognise the scientific reality though but often dare not state it. Thanks goodness for Trump we need grants for a red team of scientist to debunk this exaggerated religion.
The same type of mad religion that gave us the net harm Covid vaccines and lockdowns which have done such huge harm with extra deaths, cancers, loss of live births, cardio vascular diseases… see the recent huge South Korean study. Follow the money here and the group think political lunacy. Vast errors made by Boris, Sunak, Handcockm the vaccine regulators and our so called medical “experts”.
October 4, 2025
You’re right that we have to persuade people that net zero is not the way forward.
Most here (I’m one) believe it’s a scam, but that position is so radically different from your BBC-propogandised climate change believer, that it’s impossible to get them to agree. Getting them to see that net zero isn’t. and won’t, reduce global CO2 is the best short term way to convince a few of them of the need to scrap net zero. They might then vote for a scrap net zero Party.
As others have said here, however, the deeper problem is the vested interests that want net zero to continue.
October 4, 2025
”radically different from your BBC-propogandised”
Sadly, also whats taught in schools that climate change is real, co2 is evil and only government control and taxes via the CCC, net-zero policies and UN can save us
October 4, 2025
Sir John, I have studied the background research and reasoning of Climate Change this past years. I have consumed every bit of data from all sides of the debate though that debate is extremely one sided since the BBC declared man made global warming now changed to climate change ‘settled science’.
That is about as unscientific as it is possible to be but that is the state funded broadcasters view and has been pushed into every home and education facility since Al Gore’s infamous and bogus ‘Inconvenient Truth’ presentation and book back in the early 2000s.
Every prediction of a sign that we were in a climate crisis since then has failed to materialise. The Arctic ice did not ll dissaapear in 2013 as the BBC said it would or in 2014 as the Guardian said it would. The world did not come to an end in 2017 as Prince now King Charles said it would. Not one of the climate alarmist predictions has materialised. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change suggested a limit on temperature increase to 2 deg. C and preferably a 1.5 deg. C ceiling or catastrophic events would occur. We have already reached a 1.5 deg C. and nothing unusual has happened. Even more shocking is the endless horror stories being pushed into our children’s minds by educationalists wedded to a lie called man made climate change. Children are fearing for their world and having sleepless nights worrying about something they can not impact.
The facts are clear from study after study peer reviewed and verified.
Sea level rise that would cause the Maldives government to hold cabinet sessions in diving gear under water is not happening and the Maldives continue to expand their tourist/holiday industry without any hint of risk to investors because there are none.
Wild fires were catastrophic back in the early 20th century and today they are a mere fracrion of wjhat they once were 100 years ago. Local forestry practices that have been changed based on flawed ecological thinking have given rise to some very well publicised fires in California. The loss of real estate and lives is due to bad management of the core forestry practices and bad planning by local government intent on Net Zero.
Polar bears are thriving and becoming an embarrassment despite Sir David Attenborough tumbling walrus nonsense broadcast and Greta Thunberg’s fear mongering.
The sea is not turning to acid and never could, it already holds 60 times more CO2 than the entire amount in the atmosphere. Even is all of atmospheric CO2 was absorbed by the oceans, (an impossibility of course due to Hernry’s laws and partial pressure restraints) the oceans would still remain alkaline.
The list goes on but time prevents distilling my long research into a readable comment.
Suffice to say, climate change is real but it is not a threat to humanity and it is not anything to do with CO2, beyond the immeasurable amount (and declining contribution due to saturation) increasing CO2 has on our atmosphere.
Sleep easy at night as I do. Research the total facts and repeal The Climate Change Act 2008 with its disastrous Net Zero added into it by Theresa May, oh and junk the pointless Climate Change Committee, it is a total waste of money..
October 4, 2025
Well researched and written Rod. Should be mandatory reading for the cretins in Westminster.
October 4, 2025
Yes “The oceans boiling” from the berk running the UN may have been the daftest. I have studied it for 20 years and the catastrophe side relies on the Michael Mann hockey stick graph to push its settled science. Even Imperial College used it when their geologist gave the annual science lecture to children. This graph dispenses with the Little Ice Age that we have been coming out of for 150 years, making the recent rise look steep. They say that the LIA was just a local event, but geological and tree ring research has found the same event in China and Australia. The same supporters of Mann were found fiddling the record in the University of East Anglia when emails were leaked. The BBC tried to whitewash this. Michael Mann was still getting away with it until recently but Trump is allowing the truth to be heard.
October 4, 2025
Rod, ++++++
October 4, 2025
The extinction clock website lists everything that ‘hasn’t’ happened
https://extinctionclock.org/
October 4, 2025
Glen the extinction clock is a great document showing the continuous fear mongering listed and not a single prediction has come to pass.
How many more years are we expected to simply ignore these charlatans and their over hyped prediction of death and the end of the world?
October 4, 2025
+1
October 4, 2025
In my earlier comment which has not been uploaded yet, I missed out the word twenty when describing my study period into climate change. In other news today we learn the Net Zero Banking Alliance is closing with immediate effect because the members which was all the senior banks across the world have pulled out.
What does that tell yu about the future of Net Zero?
October 4, 2025
IMO Net Zero is an ideology driven by billionaires who have zero consideration for the end user. Added to this we have an avowed Marxist peddling this nonsense. Reminds me of The King’s new clothes.
October 4, 2025
” I accepted the scientific consensus that CO 2 is a warming gas, and if nothing else changes more man made CO 2 leads to some overall warming.” I agree, but an increasing number of scientists say that the proportionate greenhouse effect lessens as atmospheric concentration increases. A slightly warmer world (see Rod Evans comments) and increased CO2 will significantly green the earth and increase food crops. There are no disbenefits, no tipping point and no climate catastrophe.
However, Sir John is 100% right on the disbenefits created by the insane Net Zero policy pauperising the UK and despoiling our countryside. How the government can envisage the loss of jobs, profits and taxes to overseas is quite beyond me.
October 4, 2025
There is a natural warming of the earth the uk was frozen over millions of years ago there was no fossil fuel being burn then
We have thousands of aeroplanes every day flying high up in the atmosphere the pollution they leave behind stays in the atmosphere
this pollution is causing a layer of pollution and its getting thicker more dense
if you fly in a glider you can see this pollution
The biggest cause of pollution and people won’t admit to it is the world population growth thank you sir john.
October 4, 2025
All as you suggested that needs addressing was known and well out in the open 10 year ago. Along with the need to earn vast amounts of wealth to address any changes. The Government spends millions of our money to have all scenarios, the proper research and the cost laid out before them and Parliament before any direction is taken. Sir John you knew the situation as did the rest of Parliament; they all knew what they were voting for.
In fact, even Ed Milliband’s thoughts and his costs that were adopted were known back on 2008 when he was made Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change were know from the outset.
How many administrations have we had since then? All the Governments & Parliaments have agreed and still agree with Ed Milliband’s direction, they all could have changed things and refused – that’s the problem the majority are not as yourself Sir John prepared to consider what they are putting their name to. They are the free-loaders refusing their job
The bit that is beyond credibility is for anybody to believe that one of the alternative administrations that had previously the Collective Responsibility of Cabinet for maintaining the flawed costly NetZero direction and the Laws according Ed Milliband should now be seen as being capable of changing their mind. After all we know all their previous promises, that is all their previous promises, as with the other section of the Uniparty including the one now in control mean a big fat zero once elected – the credibility of Parliament is ‘shot’ the promises of the continuity and continuation of the old faction are shot.
What will the excuse now be for doing nothing, not allowing the UK compete on the World Stage on the same playing field as its competitors?
Don’t hold your breath people
October 4, 2025
A bit like the criminal invasion, the boat people, NetZero could be changed to day if not tomorrow if there was a ‘will’ to do it. Parliament over and over has show it is dedicated to destroying the UK, loading it with unimaginable cost and changing is culture to be pressured to abide by personal ego of the few. parliament has shown it seeks to isolate the UK from being Part of the World community
The ‘Will’ of Parliament our elected MP’s is anti UK. The rein of terror has been about self, ego and self-esteem
October 4, 2025
I’ll start by saying I don’t believe human activity produced Co2 is of any significance in terms of imagined ‘climate change’
Even if i was conclusively proven wrong. The whole concept of ‘net zero’ is a farce.
As I repeatedly say on this blog and elsewhere. The UK produces <1% of global Co2. ( 30% of global co2 and rising.
So what possible sense is there in destroying the remaining UK industry, in order to import more goods with the increasing Co2 emissions that produces. And wiping out thousands of UK jobs whilst producing the most expensive energy in the developed world, with built-in intermittence.
I’m still waiting for an answer to that from Starmer/Milliband/anyone in government.
October 4, 2025
That sentence should read China produces 30% of global Co2 and rising
October 4, 2025
Dear Sir John –
I’m sure that, from your expertise and experience, you know very well the importance of having proper, correct data before making an argument with immense political and economic impact.
There are now sufficient data available – from FOI the Met Office had to reply to – to show that the ‘data’ the Met Office provides to ‘show’ that we’re ‘experiencing climate change’, i.e. increasing heat, already – are abysmal, wrong, or even from wether stations which don’t exist. Im’ happy to send you the relevant links if you require them.
Is it too late to throw the unspeakable ‘Net Zero’ guff out of the windows, a policy which has and is costing us and the economy dearly?
October 4, 2025
Any policy the UK implements to reduce CO2 production will have zero effect on the world’s climate, we are too small, so why are we implementing any policies at all ? Why do very expensive things with a ROI of literally zero and no intangible benefits either ? Furthermore a warmer climate would benefit the UK so we are lucky that USA/China etc. are not going to reduce CO2.
October 4, 2025
ROI isn’t zero. It’s negative.
October 4, 2025
ROI on Net Zero is indeed hugely negative, just as with the Covid “Vaccines” and Lockdowns, HS2 and so much of government activity, employment laws and other red tape…
October 4, 2025
@Roy Grainger – why are we destroying the UK and just giving it all to our competitor Nations. When those same competitors accounting for more that 90% of the wolds pollution just keep on growing unabated. Everything done by UK Government and its Parliament in the last 10years or more has just exported UK Wealth, the very commodity for its survival. All at the same time as banishing the skills and resources, just gifting them to our competitors that cause more pollution than if we were permitted to take care of ourselves. A Government and Parliament fighting its people and removing their right and means to exist, there can be no other view that can be attributed to the so-called MP’s that have inflicted this punishment
October 4, 2025
The overriding issue is ‘the science of climate change’ is unsettled. Yes there has been a modest increase in world temperature. It’s not an emergency. However, IPCC scientists have accepted there is insufficient understanding of the impact water vapour has on temperature and water vapour contributes 95% of greenhouse gases! Weather is not climate. Climate is weather averaged over twenty to thirty years. There is also no evidence weather events are getting more extreme, a fact accepted by the IPCC. The Little Ice age and the Medieval Warming period are well understood examples of changes to our climate and relatively recent. Climate constantly changes, always has and always will. Furthermore, it’s abject nonsense to destroy our industrial base only to import goods including oil and gas vast distances so a group of Net Zero fanatics can claim to be virtuous. Net Zero 2050 is an arbitrary target, it’s technically unachievable and it’s economically disastrous. Wind and solar are impractical, unreliable sources of energy and hugely expensive to locate, install and connect to an ageing grid. Furthermore, these are low voltage sources of energy lacking essential inertia to ensure frequency stabilisation. Since 2008 our energy policy has been a chaotic mess, almost certainly heading for a train smash and it’s essential the policy is changed and the 2008 legislation repealed. This does not mean we completely abandon aspirations for clean energy with low emissions but policy must ensure our industrial base, our jobs for our people are the main priority.
October 4, 2025
The government funded “consensus science” that anthropogenic CO2 emissions by themselves cause global temperature to rise leading to a “climate crisis” is entirely false. How does it explain: 1) How climate has always changed and over the last 500m years the planet has been at times 15 degrees C higher than today and for most of the time without snow at the poles? Or how 125,000 years ago Hippos wallowed in the Thames followed by an ice age and warming to exit this ice age just 11,000 years ago? Or, if we are now at the “hottest ever”, how 7000 year old tree stumps are being revealed as glaciers melt in BC/Canada? 2) How it is that when both CO2 and temperature are both exceptionally low, as has been the case for the last 450,000 years, that CO2 follows temperature and not vice versa as shown by the Antarctic Vostok ice core data? Further, the “consensus science” expects us to believe that a cooler atmosphere heats a warmer planet, the basis of the IPCC’s radiative warming theory, in complete contradiction to the second Law of Thermodynamics. Or that CO2 is the main driver when water vapour is a far bigger greenhouse gas than CO2 being 10 to 100 times more prevalent in the atmosphere and absorbing far more of the planet’s emitted IR radiation. Professors Happer & Wijngaarden have shown using the IPCC’s own radiative warming theory that both CO2 and water vapour have already absorbed all the IR radiation emitted by the planet and that adding more CO2 or water vapour adds little or no additional warming, an effect known as “saturation”. And Shula and Ott have very compellingly argued that the IPCC’s radiative theory to be false because of thermalisation. There is no scientific basis at all for additional anthropogenic CO2 warming the planet, let alone causing a climate crisis.
October 4, 2025
Well largely true, but some minor anthropogenic CO2 warming is rather likely and indeed urban heat island effects but surely no CO2 caused climate emergency whatsoever!
October 4, 2025
Net-zero is like marmite; you either love it or hate it
I’d suggest that net-zero has, like brexit, been promoted via a government programme of fear ….you’re a racist, a bigot, a dimwit if you don’t agree with the funded, controlled & supplied ”science”
October 4, 2025
Like a previous commentator, I have also studied global warming and climate change in depth. CO2 is not a problem now, nor will it ever be. CO2 is about 04% of the atmosphere, yet the UK Health and Safety Executive say people can work in an atmosphere of 25,000 parts per million of CO2, doing an 8-hour day and a 40-hour week.
GW/CC happens entirely naturally and has done for thousands of years. The Earth has an oval course, not a round one, around the Sun, resembling a rugby ball shape. When the Earth is furthest away from the Sun, it gets cooler; when it is closest to the Sun, it gets warmer. How difficult is it to understand that?
Everyone who pursues Net Zero is either being dishonest or uninformed. In the case of our Energy Secretary, it is both. He must know he is talking about and pursuing policies that are rubbish. Finally, if Wind and Solar are cheaper than fossil fuels, why do they need massive subsidies that we are paying for?
October 4, 2025
I read that the Pope believes in Climate Change. Along with the new ABC, the question is do either believe in God?
October 4, 2025
And does God believe in these two holies?
October 4, 2025
Didn’t god create the earth and all its trace gases
October 6, 2025
None of the CFCs, HFCs or HCFCs are God’s responsibility.
October 4, 2025
Having talked to many people and read reports there is nothing we can do to prevent climate change. We should be putting in more defences such as raising river and sea banks. As a Christian I believe we have control over animals as the bible teaches but not over weather.
October 4, 2025
Have you noticed that as the general public become more and more sceptical about alleged ‘climate change’ mad Ed Milliband now rarely mentions ‘climate change’ but continuously rattles on about ‘energy security’
I mean ‘energy security’ relying on wind turbines and PV arrays !!!!!
October 4, 2025
Has the introduction of EV bikes & cars stopped climate change
Has banning the gas boiler stopped climate change
Has the ban on coal stopped climate change
Has the ban on further north sea oil gas stopped climate change
Has the ban on fracking shale gas stopped climate change
Has the introduction of 20mph zones stopped climate change
Has the ban on smoking stopped cancer
Has the ban on wood burning stopped climate change
Has the net-zero taxes stopped climate change
I could go on, the list is endless and the answer is we don’t know ….what I do know is that our governments love banning things and taxing things
October 4, 2025
Forgot ULEZ and congestion charge
October 4, 2025
Most if the above does not even reduce CO2 let alone change the world’s climate to any sig. degree!
October 4, 2025
Thats my point
October 4, 2025
Why is there not more widespread reaction to the consequences of the government’s net zero policy?
Surely there must be more than a few armchair “scientists” and “engineers” banging away on a blog.
No marches on Whitehall and Westminster with brighly coloured flags by the overcharged masses.
Very little public noise from industry – captains of industry should be climbing media studio walls.
Rebellion would be so much more effective if the wider set of stakeholders were actively involved, so where are they?
The government’s industrial strategy is utterly dependent on secure, sustainable energy – so where are all the complaints from the advanced manufacturing, digital services, data science and AI companies?
Perhaps because they are no longer here, they left our shores decades ago. A consequence of short sighted consumer and government actions.
October 4, 2025
I would like to know…when we achieve Net Zero, by how much will it reduce global temperatures ?
I hope before we complete this project costing hundreds of billions someone somewhere knows the answer.
October 4, 2025
No key performance indicators, no milestones, no budget restraints and no success criteria ….just more taxes to save the planet
October 4, 2025
Polar bears will express fulsome thanks.
October 5, 2025
Wilis Eschenbach uses IPCC assumptions to calculate the effect of achieving Net Zero by 2050 in the UK, cutting emissions over the period by 5.5 GtCO2 as follows.
1 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to:
2.13 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon
7.8 Gt of CO2 (as CO2 has a molecular weight 44/12 times that of carbon)
Approximately 45% of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere, while the rest is absorbed by oceans and land
So a 1 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 ≈ 17.3 Gt of CO2 emissions. And the UK change of 5.5 Gt of CO2 converts to a 0.32 ppmv decrease in atmospheric CO2
Next, under a “business as usual” scenario, by the time we get halfway to 2050 the CO2 level will be ~ 450 ppmv. The 2022 level was 425.6. Per IPCC assumptions, the average change in forcing over the period is ~ log2(450/425.6)*3.7 W/m2. The change including the UK reduction is log2( (450-.32) /425.6)*3.7 W/m2. The difference between these is the change due to the UK reduction, which is 0.0038 W/m2
Finally, the IPCC assumes a climate sensitivity of 3°C per doubling of CO2, which is 0.8°C per additional W/m2. This gives us our final figure of a POSSIBLE change of 0.003°C from the UK foolishness.
Perhaps an MP could get that into the Parliamentary record at Hansard.
October 4, 2025
The blindingly obvious…
The boss of JD Wetherspoons has warned the Chancellor that her tax rises will fuel inflation
Speaking to The Telegraph, the Wetherspoons chief executive said inflation was “umbilically linked to cost increases”, saying higher taxes would “always result in price increases for consumers”.
then in the comments: a Hugh Tredegar noted, John Redwood on X recent….
Breaking the Manifesto pledge on Income Tax would make the government even more unpopular. The public wants the runaway welfare costs and costs of illegal migration brought under control.
and many more that are seeing ‘it’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/03/wetherspoons-boss-reevess-tax-rises-will-fuel-inflation/
October 4, 2025
“I welcome Claire Couthino’s return from maternity leave as she takes on the argument that far from UK electricity being too dear because of the gas price, UK electricity is far dearer than gas thanks to extreme renewable policies.”
I think she will struggle to convince her own Parliamentary Party, over 40% of whom are members of CEN (Conservative Environment Network).
October 4, 2025
“I welcome Claire Couthino’s return from maternity leave”
Should that be relevant to government action or inaction? Isn’t it rather concerning that any energy policy progress depends on the private leave that members of the government may take? In private industry care is taken to ensure complete cover when a senior staff member is absent.
October 6, 2025
Claire Couthino is a Conservative politian, not part of the current government party.
October 5, 2025
The UK is wasting millions on so called Green energy solutions that are neither Green nor providing energy security :/
The technologies we are investing in like Wind Farms, Solar Farms, Heat Pumps, EVs and Hybrids are not Net Zero, are damaging the environment, the economy and do not provide energy security.
Nuclear power and e-fuels are the real, reliable paths to Net Zero – yet the UK refuses to face the truth that we are heading down a dead end, and to take the bold action our future demands.
Worth watching the following Podcast with Kathryn Porter to understand how bad the UK energy security position is and what technologies and policies the UK needs to implement to sort out the issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzCiEHGVMwA
October 5, 2025
Please use a name that separates you from me. I have been commenting here for years. You will see that Mark B has done this, and has established a clear line of his thoughts for others to focus on without confusion.
October 5, 2025
Just to annoy you Co2 deniers . The world does have a carbon dioxide problem because human activities are releasing CO2 faster than natural processes can remove it, leading to record-high atmospheric concentrations and a significant increase in global temperatures and ocean acidity. This excess CO2, primarily from burning fossil fuels, is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas that is causing global warming and disrupting the climate at a rate unprecedented in Earth’s history, according to sources like NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Why CO2 is a problem:
Global Warming: CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere, leading to a rise in global temperatures. Human activities have increased atmospheric CO2 by about 50% since the pre-industrial era, a rate much faster than natural increases.
Unprecedented Rates: The current rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is about 100 times faster than the increases observed after the last ice age, a period that ended 11,000-17,000 years ago.
Ocean Acidity: The ocean has absorbed a significant amount of this excess CO2, which has caused a 30% increase in acidity (a 0.1-unit drop in pH), impacting marine ecosystems.
Human Causation: Evidence, including the chemical fingerprint of the CO2, shows that the excess is primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels, a source consistent with ancient plant matter.
Environmental Consequences: This rapid CO2 increase is driving climate change, which can lead to more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and potential mass extinctions, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
October 5, 2025
There has been a 1.4 degrees centigrade rise in global average temperatures since 1880s when modern records began.
The rate of increase since 2000 has reduced when experts spoke of a tipping point and runaway rise.
Current CO2 levels are at a quite low level compared to long ago.
Oceans are not acidic even with this small increase.
World population is rising at a fast rate.
Possibly due to the greening of the planet creating better crop growths due to this mild rise in CO2
Every cloud…
The chance of mass extinction is zero.
October 5, 2025
Who denies CO2
Another ridiculous comment from the green lobby.