Yesterday evening I was asked to join a discussion about net zero policies on LBC. The person putting the net zero view wished to mount a personal attack on me on false grounds rather than dealing with the realities of the damaging policies he and Mayor Kahn are proposing to Mr Burnham. He seemed surprised by my line of argument and unable to cope with it.
In the short time I was given I tried to summarise my long advanced case that the main UK net zero policies are self harming and self defeating. I pointed out that most of them lead to more world CO 2, most notably the crazy decision to keep our gas in the ground, replacing it with imported LNG. This generates three to four tines as much CO 2 as using our own piped gas. This came as a shock to my LBC counterpart who then tried to deny the obvious.
I did not have time to point out if I bought a battery car large quantities of CO 2 would be generated abroad in its manufacture to mine the battery materials and make the battery. More importantly when I plugged it in to recharge most likely they would need to burn more gas in a gas power station to meet my extra demand. How does that help? It would be more efficient to burn the fossil fuel directly in the vehicle.
I did point out in the ten years from the Paris climate Treaty there has been a big increase in world CO 2 led by China, India, USA, Russia and Brazil. There is no sign of that trend changing. The UK inflicting self harm and choosing a self defeating policy makes things worse all round. Why won’t they listen? How many more times do we need to explain the obvious?
August 10, 2026
Well it is a religion so logical explanations are very unlikely to change their minds.
A little more CO2 plant, tree and crop food and even a little warmer is on balance a net good. But even if you accept the devil gas climate emergency religion the policies they push (EVs, “renewables”, public transport, bikes, walking do not even reduce CO2 to any significant degree many policies increase it.
Anyway what the UK does is insignificant in world terms and, as you say, the policies in China, India, USA, Russia, Brazil… make us irrelevant anyway. We are impoverishing ourselves for no reason at all and endangering our defences too.
August 10, 2026
But Coutinho and Kemi are still essentially dithering and on the fence on this topic at best. A touch on the brakes people essentially. Coutinho especially, under (abandon ship and £600bn spent doing net Covid lockdown and vaccine harms) Sunak was very pro Net Zero. So what is her/their true position then or now?
Reply Not true. Read their cheaper energy plan.
August 10, 2026
In reply to this depressing pro-fossil fuel and anti-net zero post as the world is burning up – again:-
1) We cannot afford the huge subsidies paid to the extraction companies to make the tiny remaining oil and gas fields economic.
2) Sunak’s 2024 delay to the ban on sales of new ICE cars was not wanted by the SMMT, has resulted in the transfer of EV production to the EU, the closure of factories in the UK, significant penetration of the UK EV market by exceedingly cheap Chinese models and the loss of jobs
3) Many people who have installed heat pumps report significant savings in electricity costs and warmer homes
4) The taxes on ICE cars should be massively increased to compensate for the loss of road tax and VAT on fuel as EVs come to dominate the market
5) 14 years of stonking increases to the national debt, as Sunak in particular printed more money than any Chancellor in history, have bankrupted the Treasury. The taxes on extraction of hydrocarbons should be doubled and those on renewables should be eliminated
7) The wind has failed to blow on only 5 days so far this year, we do not need additional CCGT plant to compensate, just more battery storage and more N Sea windfarms. Onshore wind and solar and the EU interconnectors give us greater energy security than gas pipelines from Norway, LNG tankers from Quatar and huge oil rigs dotting the N Sea
The Conservatives had 14 years to build RR’s modular nuclear reactors. Why did they not do so?
August 10, 2026
You’re wasting your time John. Net stupid is a religion and as with most cults, they’re 100% righteous in their beliefs.
I was discussing the recent wildfires with a friend who was trying to tell me they were the result of global warming. I pointed out that 90% were man made or arson.when I showed him the article about rewinding being a big prob all he could say was Tory rag.
There is endless comment on the Internet saying we need to build more and more wind and solar even though it’s destabilising the grid. They don’t or won’t understand the necessity of inertia or Reactive load on the system. I’ve stopped arguing.
We need and will probably get some serious power cuts in winter
This may give pause for thought.
August 10, 2026
The forthcoming review of the BBC – which will include funding – is causing excessive salivation from Reform and the right of the Conservative Party. At long last, after years and years of agitation, they see the prospect of breaking up the beeb – and allow American media giants to dominate British broadcasting to the dteriment of British cultural programming
The vast majority of television viewers in the UK are happy to pay the very reasonable licence fee. The right-wing minority who refuse to pay should be prosecuted to the limit of the law. Why should the rest of us who do pay for their licence have to suffer because a few fanatics want to control editorial policy? Those who advise on social media how to avoid paying the licence fee should also be censured.
The BBC review should include prohibiting political appointments to the unitary board of the BBC – including the Chair and members. The licence fee should have a modest annual rise for the next 5 years – say £7.50 each year. Anybody who insults the impartiality of the BBC should be banned from airtime and lastly, the BBC should be free to discuss any of the important issues of the day.