Tougher carbon targets

Leading governments are as expected coming up with tougher targets to reduce carbon dioxide output, and are accepting the discipline of setting shorter term intermediate targets on the way to net zero by 2050. This week the German Green party moved in to the lead in the polls for the September 2021 Federal election. They have  pledged to increase Germany’s target of a 55% cut in CO2 by 2030 to a 70% cut. To achieve this they say they want to phase out all new internal combustion engine vehicles  and stop all coal use by 2030. President Biden is talking of halving 2005 levels of CO2 output  by 2030 in a major reversal of President Trump’s cheap energy policy based on domestic oil, gas and coal.

The question to ask  is how will these targets be hit without major changes of consumer behaviour?  How will they encourage or incentivise people to change their gas boilers and scrap their diesel and petrol cars? Germany is still reliant on coal and imported Russian gas for industry and homes. Why put in another gas pipeline from Russia  if this all has to be displaced? The German motor industry is trying to develop and display electric cars to replace its current successful  model ranges, but so far there is  no sign of a mass surge in demand on the scale needed given issues over prices, battery life and charge times. Governments are now talking about green hydrogen alternatives to battery electric travel  and mains electric heating, but the products based on it are not yet available to purchase. More uncertainty about what technology will prevail puts [people off early adoption.

These carbon warrior governments need to work with the private sector to decide what is feasible. They need to understand this transformation can only go at the fast pace they now want if the cars, heating systems, diets and the other things they want to change appear as products people want to buy at prices they can afford. There has been no need for government to push the mobile phone revolution. Most people wanted one and most embraced the new capabilities of the phone. There was  no need for governments to subsidise or regulate to get people to use Google searches or buy on line from Amazon. Their service was readily taken up by people.

 

The EU talks about the twin revolutions, the green and the digital. The truth is the digital revolution is bottom up, led by willing consumers seeking film and music downloads, wanting social media  and welcoming on line shopping. The green revolution is still top down. Without the products that fly off the shelves because they are good and good value it is going to take a lot of law, tax, regulation and subsidy to force the changes the quangos and governments want. The more they do it  by law, the more people will come to resent it.

245 Comments

  1. Javelin
    April 29, 2021

    Having looked at my candidates in the local election I have decided not to vote as they are all indistinguishable green/woke LibLabCon, or a Zero tolerance police commissioner (who will no doubt over apply the law).

    So none of the above for the first time in 35 years.

    I predict the lowest turn out ever in a local election. No doubt the LibLabCon party will blame covid but they will be making a dangerous assumption that they are still electable and a huge vacuum has opened up in British politics.

    1. a-tracy
      April 29, 2021

      There should be a ‘None of the Above’ button and if that hits more than the leading proposed councillor then they should have to re-run it because if people can be bothered sufficiently to go out and tick NotA then it should be addressed.

      1. J Bush
        April 29, 2021

        Agree with a ‘none of the above’ box.

      2. jerry
        April 29, 2021

        @a-tracy; Yes a ‘None of the Above’ box would be nice, but for it to be fair it would need compulsory voting, and in the current circumstances that would mean everyone having an automatic postal vote…

        1. a-tracy
          April 30, 2021

          jerry, why would it need a postal vote? ‘None of the Above’ would be more significant and meaningful if people had to take the time to go and queue up to register their displeasure at the proposed candidates.

          1. jerry
            April 30, 2021

            @a-tracy; I said under the current circumstances, many traditional polling stations will not be in use next Thursday, due to Covid social distancing rules etc. My usual polling station will be closed, meaning a 4 mile round trip, we have been warned to expect queues and those will be a/. outside and b/. in the street, masks will be needed. Yes we have been offered postal votes but offering and applying are two totally different things, especially for older voters who get easily confused or forgetful.

      3. Hope
        April 30, 2021

        Tories still introduced mayors and police commissioners against public opposition and very low turn out. Why have they not been scrapped?

    2. Dave Andrews
      April 29, 2021

      The local council runs in a straitjacket of statutory responsibilities. It doesn’t matter who you elect as councillor, they have to pour all available resources into social services, and still not have enough money (except for executive salaries). I have the impression those who run for these posts just see it as a stepping stone in a wider political ambition.
      Their election literature focuses on those issues they probably come across on their rounds – that is to say drawn only from people who don’t go to work. A lot of them I suspect don’t have to put their hand in their own pocket to pay council tax.

      1. SM
        April 29, 2021

        Speaking from years of my own experience as a voluntary political worker in Greater London:

        1. only a relatively small number of council candidates want to use a councillor position as a political springboard and
        2. canvassing in the daytime (under normal conditions) is rarely satisfactory, and political candidates usually have their own paid work to do then. Of course, young mothers, the disabled and the retired may well be at home then, but perhaps they are not supposed to have political views, in your opinion?

    3. Fedupsoutherner
      April 29, 2021

      Jav. Yes I’m spoiling my ballot paper too as I have a dire selection of candidates. I have never contemplated doing this before.

    4. Enrico
      April 29, 2021

      +1

    5. MiC
      April 29, 2021

      It’s not so long ago that this country had a “leading government”.

      It’s Goodbye To All That since brexit though.

      1. jerry
        April 29, 2021

        @MiC; For pity sake. The LA elections had little if anything to do with our EU membership, unless of course your LA was gilding their lilly whilst fobbing the taxpayer off with their own money, via EU regional grant schemes!

        1. turboterrier
          April 30, 2021

          Jerry

          Well said

      2. Fred.H
        April 29, 2021

        could you be more precise. I am having difficulty remembering a ‘leading government’.
        And as to Robert Graves ‘It’s Goodbye To All That’ – are you really suggesting that life in the UK is now similar to life in the trenches? OMG you have a bizarre concept of a tough type of living.
        Is that what living in Cardiff does for you ?

        1. a-tracy
          April 30, 2021

          Fred, I think Martin has moved to Yorkshire now he’s been posting that the restaurants are rubbish and the roads and the Yorkshire drivers.

        2. MiC
          April 30, 2021

          Ask John what he means by it then Fred.

          You have an impressive imagination though, it appears.

    6. turboterrier
      April 29, 2021

      At least turn up and deface the voting paper. That way it is at least recorded as a vote albeit not usable. What would the party hierarchy do if damaged votes were bigger than actual votes?
      They would ignore it at their peril.

    7. Narrow Shoulders
      April 29, 2021

      I hope you will turn out and not vote.

      None of the above is more powerful than low turnout, if the leading recipient of “votes” in an election was spoiled papers at least one party might take note.

      Non-voters need to register the fact.

      1. Sea_Warrior
        April 29, 2021

        That’s my plan.

    8. RichardP
      April 29, 2021

      I agree Javelin, but these elections are a rare opportunity to send a message to the Conservative Party about their authoritarian government.
      My vote will be entirely negative. I will be voting for the party most likely to beat the Conservative candidate.
      Will I have to hold my nose when voting? Definitely, but we might not be allowed to vote at all one day.

    9. J Bush
      April 29, 2021

      +1

  2. Peter Wood
    April 29, 2021

    Good morning,

    As a ‘carbon based lifeform’ myself (credit to D. Adams) I feel somewhat disturbed that I too might be replaced with ……

    1. Peter Wood
      April 29, 2021

      PS, At last Starmer got a couple of good hits in yesterday; poor old Bunter Boris, at 56 is he at last going to have to grow up and take responsibility for his activities? His biggest problem, and ours, will be the terrible May deal with the EU, NI Protocol, that will be an Albatross round the UK throat for many years.

      1. John E
        April 29, 2021

        I have to admit a sneaking admiration for the speedy way that Arlene Foster was overturned. That’s the proper Conservative way to handle things. Your current bozo is steering you onto the rocks and what are you doing about it?

      2. Andy
        April 29, 2021

        Brexit is your deal. Negotiated by Brexitists.

        We told you it would be lousy and it is.

        Will any of you gutless wonders ever take
        responsibility for your own actions or will you for ever blame everybody else?

        1. John Hatfield
          April 29, 2021

          Wrong as always Andy.

        2. Mike Wilson
          April 29, 2021

          I take full responsibility for Brexit. Happy now? As far as anyone can tell, nothing has happened.

        3. Fred.H
          April 29, 2021

          you missed the opportunity recently to go live on an uninhabited Italian island….the last incumbent lasted 32 years. I would have recommended it to you.

      3. a-tracy
        April 29, 2021

        Peter, what ‘good hits’? Do you really believe the people that are hurting at the moment think this is any different to anyone who was in such a powerful position over the years spending in State buildings? If that home was last refurbished by DC that is five years ago, why isn’t there just a budget to spend each year on State homes?

        If you think this is just the Tories – remember ‘The former Lord Chancellor – Mr Blair’s pupil master, Irvine was similarly accused of making misleading statements … of extravagance with public money for ordering £59,000 of flock wallpaper. That was just the beginning of the spending, though…’

        Baroness Scotland in 2018 was in the mire for spending ‘Nearly £600,000 of the foreign aid budget has been spent on renovating a palace used by Baroness Scotland as her office.’

        The truth is that we all need to release our purse strings this year and spend in the UK on British companies to support the recovery, to help UK businesses take their furloughed workers back on and to raise wages.

        1. MiC
          April 29, 2021

          It’s not the amount – stop the idiotic diversions please.

          It is WHO paid or was expected to pay for it, and what they might then ask in return?

          You know that, of course, don’t you?

          1. a-tracy
            April 30, 2021

            You’d prefer this example perhaps – ‘The UK’s largest trade union is under growing pressure to commission an independent review into the spending of almost £100m of members’ money on building a hotel and conference centre.

            Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, is also facing questions as to why the development’s main construction contract was awarded to a company owned by a friend.’

            My point is Martin that whoever is in a position of power – awards favours, money and rewards to their ‘friends’ and ‘people who ask for something in return’.

        2. Kathy
          April 29, 2021

          I well remember extravagant taxpayer-funded spending Downing Street under all governments but Labour certainly has form. Derry Irvine springs to mind immediately. Having said that, Carrie Symonds somehow seems to have forgotten her ‘green’ credentials (the ones she has talked Boris into pursuing to the massive long-term detriment of us all) when it comes to decorating and refurbishing for her own personal use. How can someone so ‘passionate’ about the environment and ‘climate change’ be so openly hypocritical? Strangely enough, the talking heads in the mainstream media haven’t jumped on this, have they? Is that because to do so would not fit the current narrative? It would surely prove that ‘climate change’ is not the threat that the powers that be keep telling us it is, wouldn’t it?

          1. Mark
            April 29, 2021

            I believe that some £1.5m of taxpayers’ money was spent refurbishing Bute House, the official residence of Nicola Sturgeon. Has there been much outcry about that?

          2. a-tracy
            April 30, 2021

            Kathy, did you read MiC response, it appears Labour and the left think spaffing the ‘amount’ on redecoration isn’t the important part of the point they’re trying to make. It seems it is ok to spend £600,000 on redecoration as long as the money comes from the taxpayer not ‘donors’ – they forget they have plenty of ‘donors’ step in when they are in power.

            There should be an allowance for refurbishment on a time scale agreed by the treasury. It really shouldn’t be the new apartment user who chooses the decor it should be in keeping with the building, that new kitchen the Camerons put in was far too cold-steel for that traditional house and when that choice should be in place for twenty years.

          3. a-tracy
            May 1, 2021

            Mark, MiC says it’s not about the amount of taxpayers money these politician’s spend, it is who they spend it with and favours they want in return. Do you know ‘WHO’ was given this £1.5m work at the Bute House residence because that is an interesting point, did they get the same scrutiny or because it’s taxpayers money being spent does no one ask?

      4. Peter
        April 29, 2021

        Peter Wood

        NI protocol & May Deal need not be an albatross if we moved to WTO terms. However, this government is not prepared to do that.

        So, as with other issues, there will be a lot of strong statements and empty promises and nothing will change.

        1. Peter Wood
          April 29, 2021

          That would mean giving 1 year’s notice to terminate the EU agreement. We should do that IF we have a national plan to trade with ex-EU nations on satisfactory terms that can replace, as far as possible, our trade with the EU. This is what we SHOULD have spent the 4 years on, after 2016, but we didn’t. I would like our trade balance, EU to non-EU, to be 25-75. At that level we really could negotiate from a position of strength. NI in particular, and fishing are going to constant thorns for any UK government; and remember NI Protocol is under ECJ jurisdiction, so expect EU to use ANY infringement to be severely punished by the ECJ. Boris too lazy to work on it though…

  3. Mark B
    April 29, 2021

    Good morning.

    If our kind host allows, I think we should pay heed to the words of this gentleman 😉

    I especially like the bit where he says;

    It’s a system in which too much power is concentrated in the hands of the elite and denied to the man and woman on the street.

    Well he did ‘finally’, in 2016, give the man and woman in some power. Not that it matters much.

    1. Mark B
      April 29, 2021

      Well our kind host has decided NOT to post the link to a website with a speech made in 2010 by, David Cameron.

  4. DOM
    April 29, 2021

    This is not about climate change or ‘Green issues’. This is about totalitarianism and the politicisation of all life

    Bottom up is democracy. Top down is State authoritarianism. Both parties and everyone of their compliant MPs including Mr Redwood are supporters of the latter. They have all, bar a minority, nodded through vile laws designed to target speech, culture and the very fundamentals of life itself including laws to force adoption of means of sustenance that we don’t want ie electric cars and non-gas boilers. WE DON’T WANT THEM.

    I cannot think of one MP who has stood up on a public platform and condemned the rise of a form of politics that politicises all issues including the idiotically termed ‘Green issues’ to force or impose unwanted changes upon our way of life

    The aim is political and politics is about power. The power of the State to control all things, all life and how we live our lives.

    This PM did not once discuss these issues before the last GE. No Siree. It was all about ‘free-lunch’ spending designed to deceive. Like the Child Catcher from CCBB, he waved around the lollipops to entice the childish idiots into his colourful and gilded carriage only to find that once inside they had been imprisoned in a cage of horror

    Both main parties who both now believe in virtually the same manifesto and the naive voter who continue to support them are an existential threat to our way of life and the UK (or what is left of it now this PM handed over NI to the EU and Ireland)

    1. Fedupsoutherner
      April 29, 2021

      Well said Dom.

    2. Jim Whitehead
      April 29, 2021

      +1. to DOM.
      The empty vessel of the H of C is deafening in its silence. Its walls should be reverberating with outrage.
      So much noise from without but scarce an echo from within.
      I am disgusted with the main political parties, useless ciphers for incredible notions by the BBC and common purpose amongst others.
      Cameron often used the word ‘incredible’ to describe his policies, and he was right!
      Totally INCREDIBLE.

    3. Mike Wilson
      April 29, 2021

      I am perfectly happy with electric cars and non gas boilers. When they work and are practical and economical.

      As an aside, who wants driverless cars? I don’t – most sane people don’t- yet the government is allowing them.

      1. glen cullen
        April 29, 2021

        I’m all for choice and freedom of choice – not banning things or social engineering

        1. M Davis
          April 29, 2021

          Hear, hear!

    4. Everhopeful
      April 29, 2021

      +1
      Agree.
      Gingerbread House. “Eat your fill, dear children”. (And then I’ll annihilate you!).
      Globalists have been trying this for years.
      Finally, having infiltrated every institution and with a totally compliant and lying media, through the medium of covid, they are going to terrorise us with lies about OUR PLANET!
      Never mind the Swedish brat…How bloody dare they?

    5. Everhopeful
      April 29, 2021

      Boris Johnson December 2015
      Worrying whether, despite his scepticism, global warming really was true.
      He wanted to keep tobogganing down Primrose Hill!!
      He phoned his mate Piers Corbyn to check……

      “And Piers did his best to calm me down. “Helmsman!” he said (since that is how he addresses me). “Relax. Winter has not gone.” And he went on to argue, quite persuasively, that there are plenty of places that are really very cold at the moment – the west of the USA, for instance. He reminded me of the prodigious snows that hit the eastern seaboard of America last winter. Yes, it is warm in the UK at the moment – amazingly warm – but the UK and its territorial waters amount to only one six-hundredth of the planet.

      The current mild spell would last till the end of January, he said, and it would then turn bitterly cold in February. Whatever is happening to the weather at the moment, he said, it is nothing to do with the conventional doctrine of climate change.”

    6. Brian Tomkinson
      April 29, 2021

      Agreed.

    7. MiC
      April 29, 2021

      I think that you deserve to live in a genuinely totalitarian system, e.g. N Korea, to assist with your general calibration and comprehension of the meanings of words.

      1. Mark
        April 29, 2021

        Some of us have experience of living behind the Iron Curtain in repressive times. Do you?

        1. MiC
          April 30, 2021

          I went there, yes.

          What ever has that to do with my original reply?

    8. J Bush
      April 29, 2021

      +1

  5. oldtimer
    April 29, 2021

    You make valid points about the difference between bottom up adoption of new tech and attempted top down enforcement of it. It seems to me that the top down enforcement regime is based on three conceits:
    1 climate change is driven by man made CO2 emissions; this is without regard to other influences like the sun.
    2 man can predict this change decades ahead to decimal point accuracy.
    3 having accurately predicted this change, man can control the climate to decimal point accuracy regardless of other influences like the sun.

    I am unconvinced by these propositions that we are asked to believe. Nor am I convinced that current EV technology is the last word in this technology. Spending money on such vehicles now makes no sense to me.

    1. Alan Jutson
      April 29, 2021

      +1

    2. J Bush
      April 29, 2021

      Volcano’s also play a part in the climate.

      However, what I find interesting is that these ‘experts’ claiming they can definitely forecast what the climate will be like in 10 – 20 – 50 years from now, but fail to lend their incredible crystal ball ‘expertise’ to the met office, so it can provide the following days, or the long term, weather forecast even remotely accurate.

      Or perhaps they do, and that is why the met office keeps getting weather forecast so hopelessly wrong all the time…

      1. glen cullen
        April 29, 2021

        Volcanos, country sized wild fires on every continent, earth quakes and sun flares don’t create nor contribute to climate change …it’s the nasty internal combustion engine car and only the cars in the UK – nothing else ?

      2. DaveK
        May 1, 2021

        A few years ago it was alleged that the Met Office were using similar algorithms and models for their long term (climate change themed) and short term forecasts, which resulted in such inaccuracy that it even resulted in the BBC cancelling their contract.

        On the main topic I always ask, why do the policies to combat CC and Covid result in:

        1. My diet controlled.
        2. My travel controlled/prohibited.
        3. My lifestyle limited.
        4. My employment at risk.
        5. My Freedom reduced to what some politician deigns to be sufficient.

        The end result, which they are totally transparent about is to build back better a socialist style utopia.

        If you allow your opponents to decide your fate, we are all lost.

    3. DavidJ
      April 29, 2021

      +1

  6. jerry
    April 29, 2021

    Oh dear Sir John. No, no, no there is no elephant standing in the room, it’s just a trick of the lights, no, no, no one is having their opinions censored or facts (that are in the public domain anyway) deleted. It is obvious when the Tory party is in deep doodoos, when sensor politicos try to talk about anything but what the public are talking and are concerned about – happened yesterday and no doubt will happen today…

    1. MiC
      April 29, 2021

      They don’t seem that desperate to make themselves popular, what with that majority of eighty.

      The Government has just defeated the attempt by the countless thousands of victims of Tory deregulation and fragmentation to unburden them of the costs of making their homes fire safe.

      It will ruin them.

      We know who will be spared the expense though, don’t we? The same people who saved a fortune by fitting cheap, death trap cladding in the first place.

      1. jerry
        April 29, 2021

        @MiC; “countless thousands of victims of Tory deregulation”

        If only there had been “Tory Deregulation”!…

        Once again Martin you mouth off without thinking, much of the cladding in question has been fitted because of building regulations dating back to the massive and unnecessary rewriting of the UK’s Building Regulations, undertaken by the Blair govt the early 2000s, notably Part L, & also the Housing Act 2004.

        All building owners and tenants ever needed was cheap energy, not what we have know, silly rules about the emission of plant food (also known as CO2), that have caused countless buildings to be retro-fitted with insulating cladding. Ever wondered why Major road verges and hedgerows are always so lush, might it have something to do with the by-products of burning petrol, CO2 and H2O?

        1. MiC
          April 30, 2021

          Tripe.

          Grenfell Tower was clad primarily to improve the views for wealthy residents in the area, whatever else might be claimed.

          Compulsory or quasi-compulsory competitive tendering means that Councils are largely compelled to accept the cheapest quotes, and so private companies are tempted to cheapen their tenders by any means.

          1. jerry
            April 30, 2021

            @MiC; Nonsense, as usual the only person talking “Tripe” is you Martin and stop trying to politicise the Grenfell Tower disaster, you do your arguments no favours, after all that is not the only tower block so affected.

            Had it not been for the regulatory requirement to improve the insulating characteristics of older buildings during refurbishments a simple, single layer, non insulating metal cladding would have sufficed in the circumstances you claim, “to improve the views for wealthy residents in the area”.

      2. MiC
        April 29, 2021

        The deeper question is how does a supposedly modern country come to the point where such grossly dangerous practices are so commonplace, and those doing it are apparently unafraid of prosecution?

        By its misguided people electing deregulation and outsourcing fanatics to government in the shape of the English Tories, that is how.

        There is no comparable outrage in any European Union country that has come to light so far.

      3. Mark
        April 29, 2021

        The regulations were set in accordance with EU Directives, and at the behest of green lobbyists who were far more concerned to waste large sums on uneconomic and dangerous insulation than o ensure proper fire testing. MPs are of course complicit in failing to object to the Statutory Instruments that were used to rubber stamp the Directives. But that I think includes all MPs from all parties.

        1. MiC
          April 30, 2021

          The regulations were not at fault.

          Persons in companies reportedly falsified the fire resistance properties of the cladding, and others also fitted it above the height for which it was approved, for just two factors of a number.

          1. jerry
            April 30, 2021

            @MiC; Except it is the regulations that require(d) insulating cladding to be installed…

          2. MiC
            April 30, 2021

            So regulations requiring, say, extractor fans in kitchens are to blame if someone gets electrocuted, not the shoddy workmanship of a negligent or fraudulent installer too then.

            Thanks for clearing that up.

            A lot of criminals will be delighted.

          3. jerry
            April 30, 2021

            @MiC; You really do not have a first clue, no one is excusing criminality, my point was the need to install such items in the first place, be it external insulating cladding, an extractor fan or what ever.

            Using your logic I might be excused suggesting that a lot of ‘criminals’ have been delighted by over regulation, thus giving them even more opportunity to do shoddy workmanship or fit shoddy materials, were previously there was no logical reasons – such as your suggested extractor fan, rather than simply being able/allowed to open a kitchen or bathroom window!

            Try reading up on the KISS principle, in this case the more complex a regulation, the more chance of something going wrong…

  7. Alan Jutson
    April 29, 2021

    Your third paragraph with regards to product demand sums up sensible reality John, your fourth paragraph about new regulation and tax rises sums up probable government future policy.

    “Lessons will be learn’t” never seems to be a reality with most politicians it would seem.

    1. Jim Whitehead
      April 29, 2021

      +1
      AJ, concise, precise, and accurate

    2. bigneil(newercomp)
      April 29, 2021

      Alan – “Lessons have been learned” – Biggest govt joke EVER. They are WAY too arrogant to believe they need to learn anything. The vast majority are their for their own egos and pockets. We have hundreds of thousands using Food banks and now pet food banks and clothes banks because of the poverty ( which is going to get worse – YET – – Millions are spent putting illegals in hotels as a reward for getting here. Soon they will be handing them brochures so they can select their brand new fully furnished house out of the million+ houses being built. Of course WE will be paying for them – while our govt drives US into the ground – physically AND financially.

  8. Cynic
    April 29, 2021

    If these policies did not have such serious consequences they would be comical. They are all based on scientific hypothesis whose predictions have all failed. Normally the hypothesis would have been totally discredited by now. So why are they still driving governments to commit economic and political suicide?

    1. Andy
      April 29, 2021

      Who has discredited climate change science? Donald Trump? Lord Lawson? The whackos at the global warming policy foundation? A bunch of far right freaks in America?

      The scientific consensus is overwhelming and clear. The actions of man are changing the climate at a fast rate and the consequences of that for our planet are potentially catastrophic if we do not take immediate action to stop it.

      There have always been people who think the world is flat. In 1400 they were the majority. By 1800 they were a minority. Now they are just idiots.

      In the 1980s climate change deniers were a majority. By 2000 they were a minority. By 2010 they were also idiots. Now they are dangerous idiots.

      1. Martyn G
        April 29, 2021

        Andy, just have a thought about “The greenies dream” – run Drax power station on wood pellets procured from the USA to reduce the UK’s CO2 generation.
        But:
        * The trees are felled by machines run on fossil fuels.
        * The felled trees are made into pellets by equipment powered by fossil fuels.
        * The pellets are transported to dockside by transport powered by fossil fuels.
        * The pellets are transported by ships using the most contaminating crude fossil fuels.
        * The pellets are moved and delivered to Drax with the use of fossil fuels.
        So the super-green UK has moved its use of fossil fuels to the USA. Drax is now a ‘green’ source of power generation? I think not….

        1. glen cullen
          April 29, 2021

          UK customers A, B, C imports 100 tonnes each wind turbines blades, wood pellets, lithium-ion shipped from China vessel X
          Vessel X is diesel and completes 4x return trips to Europe
          Each company can claim 100 tonne carbon trading and Government can claim 300 tonne carbon saving
          Taxpayer subsides all the above
          99% MPs and all parties support this new green policy – Virtual signalling gone mad
          And the people don’t get a choice

      2. Margaretbj
        April 29, 2021

        Quite Right

      3. Fred.H
        April 29, 2021

        In the 1960s EU believers were a majority. By 2010 they were a minority. By 2016 they were also idiots. Now they are dangerous, destructive idiots.

        1. MiC
          April 30, 2021

          No, they were only a minority amongst those who voted in the 2016 opinion poll.

    2. No Longer Anonymous
      April 29, 2021

      It isn’t about making the economy better or about political suicide. It is about them knowing that we are all going to get poorer in the West very soon because there is a Great Reckoning underway and spending power it shifting out East.

      They are trying to make getting-poor look like it is for our own good and was our own idea.

  9. agricola
    April 29, 2021

    Wicked CO2 comprises 0.0415% of the earths atmosphere and is an essential plant food. Nobody has yet explained in clear language why it is so dangerous in comparison with sun activity and volcanic eruptions which to date have controlled our climate.
    Mans activity has and does produce many noxcious substances which uncontrolled and in the wrong place can harm us. All the plastic we consign to the sea for instance. Much could be done to remove throw away plastic from our lives, but it is not happening fast enough. The first day out after lockdown produced some indicative press photographs of what a filthy inconsiderate people we are given the opportunity.
    Top down is fine for aspiration but not for direction, as I have said many times and you now confirm. Tell industry what you wish to achieve and leave it to them to come up with marketable solutions. Only legislate and enforce when there are market acceptable solutions. Seat belts save lives for instance.
    The first requirement is cheap clean power. Hydro electricity is cheap. Hydrogen is clean. Challenge industry and science with the mass production of both and we might start to get solutions. Scotland ,Wales and England have valleys that could be damed to produce electricity or are already damed but only for water.
    When we have the technical answers, patent them so they can be exploited. Do not give them away as has been the habit of government for decades past.

  10. SM
    April 29, 2021

    Sir John, you make a very valid comparison to the introduction of mobile – and then smart – phones. As these devices became easier to use and more compact (and affordable) they became more popular, but we were not told that the use of all standard telephones would be be forbidden. If I had a new gas boiler installed 2 years ago, what guarantee will I be given that there will be service engineers and parts available in case of breakdown, and most importantly gas pipes to fuel it for the rest of its working life?

    1. Martyn G
      April 29, 2021

      I don’t know about your area but here in Oxfordshire, for many weeks now it has become impossible to journey anywhere I want to go without enduring lengthy roadworks caused by the laying of tens of miles of new gas pipelines. Maybe someone forgot to tell the planners and contractors of the declared government policy of entirely eliminating the home use of gas in the near future?

      1. Christine
        April 29, 2021

        Also, the Government is still giving out grants for new gas boilers.

        1. Fred.H
          April 29, 2021

          I missed that and ordered one today …..doh!

      2. Fred.H
        April 29, 2021

        and Berkshire… any more bids further afield?

        1. Everhopeful
          April 29, 2021

          We have suffered 16 weeks of gas works here.
          Nightmare.

      3. No Longer Anonymous
        April 29, 2021

        Martyn,

        It is exactly the same here. Exactly.

        They’ve had a year of lockdown to sort this out – no-one was trying to get around. Now we are trying to get back to normal…

        They have closed the major route out of our town and started roadworks on the diversions too !!!

        This is so obviously deliberate.

    2. Mike Wilson
      April 29, 2021

      I had a new boiler less than 6 months ago. I have no doubt gas will still be available for it to burn in 10 to 15 years time. In the meantime I will statistically probably die and be out of this madhouse.

  11. Lifelogic
    April 29, 2021

    When these policies actually hit the public hard they will be hugely unpopular, vastly expensive, economic & job destroying/exporting lunacy and achieve nothing for atmospheric CO2 levels – let alone the climate. The laws of physics cannot be changed by moronic, virtue signalling, PPE graduates and lawyers types in parliament.

    You ask:- How will they encourage or incentivise people to change their gas boilers and scrap their diesel and petrol cars?

    But why do this? Retaining you old cars will nearly always be far cheaper and even better in CO2 terms than causing new electric cars to be build. We do not anyway have any spare low carbon electricity for cars or heat pumps (& burning wood produces more CO2 than coal per KWH). Not that CO2 is anything like the problem the deluded alarmists would have you believe – probably on balance a bit more is a net benefit.

    1. Lifelogic
      April 29, 2021

      Retaining your old car(s) will also mean you do not have the 80-200 range limits (perhaps as low as half that in winter), you will not need a new £10,000 battery in 6 years and you can refill the tank in two mins rather than 6 hours and tow things too. Far cheaper to insure as well and unlike the electric car owner you are actually contributing taxes to the treasury for road improvements and maintenance (but which they will then probably piss this away subsidising wind farms and PV arrays instead).

      1. dixie
        April 30, 2021

        @LL Responding in kind to your usual non-specific, blackcrap rant – retaining your old car contributes nothing to the R&D you have claim is necessaryed and it keeps generating CO2 and emissions whenever you drive it or refuel it, my BEV does not.
        BEV range is well above 200 miles in all weathers. Replacement batteries do not cost as much as £10k and since the manufacturer warranties them for 8 years/100,000 miles you won’t need to pay for earlier replacement. I have never spent just two minutes refilling the tank on a ICE vehicle, and my next EV will juice up 100km worth in 4 minutes. In any case it will charge on my drive or in the car park while I am doing other things, unlike with an ICE vehicle I don’t have to waste my time refuelling it.
        Insurance for my BEV was cheaper than my previous diesel car and my servicing costs are minimal compared to the diesel.
        Road maintenance is funded by a combination of national and local government, so I do contribute.

        Using your pseudo science one could say that ICE vehicles are far more dangerous than BEVs as they have killed and maimed many more people …

    2. nota#
      April 29, 2021

      @LL, But if all the jobs in the UK are exported to those zones that are getting on with, life the Government of the day can say the UK is producing less CO2.
      CO2 is not a considering factor in foreign manufacture and delivery to the UK. It about being on message and taking the p…s out of the People.

  12. agricola
    April 29, 2021

    Much talk yesterday of driverless cars. Has anyone yet considered the insurance implications of such vehicles. Who is responsible when one of them fails technically and runs into the pram on a crossing or a bus stop. Do the manufacturers become responsible. You can hardly blame the owner who is no longer the driver. The driver having been told he is surplus to requirements finds it more fun to be in the back with his secretary. Think about it, I see a lot of shifting and avoiding of responsibility once they hit our roads. A mix more dangerous than we have at present.

    1. Lifelogic
      April 29, 2021

      Well in the end they will be far safer than humans but it will be some for them to be reliably so. The insurance issues could easily be overcome but doubtless, government, lawyers, judges and vested interest will make an expensive pigs ear of this to self benefit. The computers doing the driving will at least be “looking” at the road in many directions simultaneously unlike human . Plus they will not on the phone, eating ice cream, lighting a cigarette or texting.

    2. nota#
      April 29, 2021

      @agricola. That was a weird pronouncement. What the are actually saying is the are to permit some of the systems already built into everyday cars. It gets even weirder they were saying only up to 37mph? VW Group cars at least for the last 7 years(my last 2 cars) to my knowledge and experience has had this systems available, my hand book states it only works in the 37-150mph range. Unless that’s the point they want it to work lower down because of their self inflicted transport catastrophe.

      You will LOVE HS2, you will LOVE ‘smart motorways’ we will cajole and manipulate you until you stop criticizing our one size fits all mistakes.

      More of a ‘dead cat’ on the table considering all the other woes this Government is deliberately creating for it self.

    3. Fedupsoutherner
      April 29, 2021

      Another crazy idea. No way am I putting my life and others in the hands of a computer.

      1. agricola
        April 29, 2021

        Too true. In Spain I make a occasional trip from the south to near Segovia, about 500Km. It is 90% on motorway. Once on the motorway I can set the auto pilot at 120Kph and let the car get on with it in terms of speed control. I only interfere at junctions and go manual around Madrid. It is very economical on fuel. However traffic is very low and most seem to be doing something similar, so it is a relaxing way to travel. I have just completed about 80 miles on the M5/M6 during the middle of the day. There is no way I could be persuaded to do any of it on auto pilot with me steering and on edge to overide the speed control, especially at 37MPH. Too much traffic, some of it very unpredictable if not erratic. I suspect that my normal 130/70 heart rate would go into overdrive if I had to sit back and let a computer anticipate what might happen.
        I would maintain that the only way to travel at 37MPH on our motorways and not cause dangerous traffic chaos would be to do it in an isolated dedicated traffic lane. What is the point of enduring London to Glasgow at 37MPH.

        1. nota#
          April 30, 2021

          @Agricola, I was referring to the adaptive(auto) type with lane keep included. They maintain the speed you set while adapting to the speed and retaining a safe distance from the vehicle in front. They keep you in lane unless you indicate to change. It is actual perfect for the ‘Highways England version of Un-Smart Motorways’ is it will sense the guy in front has stopped before you. I have only had it in the last 2 cars, but having looked it up apparently it has been an option since 2002 – not exactly ground breaking tech! It wasn’t breaking the Law before, so what’s the big deal with the announcement!

    4. hefner
      April 29, 2021

      Stricto sensu, it was not about driverless cars, it was about being on a given motorway lane circulating at less than 37 mph and allowing ‘drivers’ not to be holding the wheel.
      Up to now I have not seen so many prams or bus stops on the motorways I am using.

    5. DavidJ
      April 29, 2021

      Driverless vehicles only work on rail where they are constrained in direction and separation obtained by appropriate signalling; perhaps also slow moving agricultural machinery constrained to a field. Using them on roads is perhaps another useful tool in reducing the population.

    6. No Longer Anonymous
      April 29, 2021

      There will have to be a qualified and insured driver present in the driving seat monitoring the car’s behaviour and ready to intervene – the driver will have to remain sober too.

      Believe me when I say people will prefer driving to the monotony of monitoring.

      Alas, the point of this technology is that most of us will be unable to afford it and to price us off the roads.

      1. Fred.H
        April 29, 2021

        so who will be sympathetic reading your car insurance claim form ‘HAL ( the computer) went loopy slammed his/her foot on the go faster pedal and drove up the back of the car in front. No attempt to brake, swerve, use horn – it just rear-ended the car in front’.

      2. agricola
        April 29, 2021

        Were I a member of lloyds I would not be leaping to insure such an enterprise either.

  13. MPC
    April 29, 2021

    The eco zealots are afraid of informed debate. This is why the government will not reform the BBC and its editorial ban on those who wish to challenge the climate change conventional ‘wisdom’. Expensive energy will be a major cause of upcoming closures (GKN, Ellesmere Port) but won’t even be mentioned by Roger Harrabin and co. How can informed sceptics and scientists get themselves more widely heard in the broadcast media?

    1. Lifelogic
      April 29, 2021

      The government really should be funding some climate realist scientists to research their overwhelming case for not doing so much of this and put the argument. Get Lords Lilly, Lawson and Ridley to organise this. The BBC’s stance is appallingly biased, incessant and totally wrongheaded. Harrabin read English (Catz).

      1. dixie
        April 30, 2021

        To borrow your yardstick – Lords Lilly (economics), Lawson (PPE), Ridley (zoology) so not an engineer or practising scientist amongst them, Ridley comes close but pheasant mating habits don’t really constitute an expertise in energy science or engineering.
        We are in this climate scam pickle precisely because politicians and scam artists have corrupted scientists so why on earth should we believe increasing the number of these unqualified characters will improve the situation in any way at all.

    2. DavidJ
      April 29, 2021

      +1

  14. Nigel
    April 29, 2021

    It is rather like a charity auction, where each bidder wants to appear more virtuous than the last. The problem is that the bids are being made using other people’s money.

    1. nota#
      April 29, 2021

      @Nigel, Oh so true

    2. Andy
      April 29, 2021

      Strange. It wasn’t a problem for you when your Brexit was paid for with other people’s money.

      Anyway, if you voted Tory you voted for a Zero Net Carbon policy. I think the phrase is ‘shut up, you won.’

      1. Fred.H
        April 29, 2021

        or even shut up, you lost?

    3. glen cullen
      April 29, 2021

      Spot On

    4. Lifelogic
      April 30, 2021

      +1

  15. Lifelogic
    April 29, 2021

    Wind and Solar are only about 20% of UK electrical production, despite all the idiotic subsidies for them. Plus electrical energy is only about 20% of overall energy use. So where is all this electricity for cars and heat pumps coming from? Are they planning for 15+ times the current areas of wind and solar and where will all the cash for subsides come from?

    Just heard J R Mogg in an old video going on about the high quality of capable women MPs now encourage into Parliament. He gave no names I pondered but cannot realy think of any. Patel perhaps says some of the right things but does not deliver any others most are appalling even on the Tory side – May, Rudd, Soubry…

    I trust the Lords will take a very strict line on Betty Boothroyd, she really must be forced to take her training sessions to ‘combat bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct” while she recovers from her heart surgery. Such things are clearly vital for the country. Betty Boothroyd types and other 90+ year old women are so often the very worst culprits.

    1. kb
      April 29, 2021

      Electricity is only 11-15% of total UK energy consumption, depending on what source you read.

    2. Original Richard
      April 29, 2021

      Lifelogic “Wind and Solar are only about 20% of UK electrical production, despite all the idiotic subsidies for them. Plus electrical energy is only about 20% of overall energy use. So where is all this electricity for cars and heat pumps coming from?”

      With no plans for the extensive use of nuclear energy it would appear that those who are pushing this “green” unilateral carbon reduction on a massive scale are heading us towards energy rationing.

  16. Ian Wragg
    April 29, 2021

    Just anothet fad after same sex marriage and such.
    The political class want to be very careful not to alienate the punters.
    Civil disobedience will come from the respectable majority.
    Very few believe the CO2 climate nonesense.

    1. Everhopeful
      April 29, 2021

      Not sure about “fad”.
      They are very serious in their intent to break all our traditional allegiances and beliefs.
      First, dethrone God…then the family…then this group…then the next. Social distance from EVERYONE! Spread distrust and fear. ( Normal, decent MPs should be ashamed).
      Control every aspect of our lives with terror of disease and bogus climate rot.
      Pave the way for totalitarianism of some hue.

      1. M Davis
        April 29, 2021

        +1

      2. MiC
        April 30, 2021

        Who, please, are “they”, EH?

        Come on, give some specifics.

    2. Peter
      April 29, 2021

      Ian Wragg
      ‘Civil disobedience will come from the respectable majority.’

      I am not sure that is the case. They seem either phlegmatic, or apathetic, or lacking confidence.

      Look at all the things that have been meekly accepted under the banner of covid measures.

    3. Andy
      April 29, 2021

      The vast majority of younger people not only accept climate science but they also reject the denialist rantings of your generation.

      And mass civil disobedience by a generation flush with mobility scooters and Zimmer frames will be funny. It’ll also achieve nothing.

      You lost the climate debate 40 years ago. You are either part of the solution or an annoying problem for us to ignore.

      1. Philip P.
        April 29, 2021

        Forty years ago, Andy, people were probably wondering what happened to the ‘experts’ claim in the early 70s that the earth would be entering a new ice age.

        In any case, there has been no proper debate, just a bought-and-paid-for ‘consensus’ that sweeps aside inconvenient facts and floods the media. Were it a matter of science, discussion could not be closed down and dissenting voices silenced (as the BBC admits it does wrt climate). It’s global politics. When your 20-year olds leave the comfort of mum-and-dad and have to pay for their own fuel bills, they will understand that, as it will hit them very hard in the pocket.

    4. Mike Wilson
      April 29, 2021

      On the contrary- most people have bought in to the CO2 nonsense.

    5. turboterrier
      April 29, 2021

      Ian Wragg
      100% correct.

    6. No Longer Anonymous
      April 29, 2021

      Yup.

      Keep the masks on us and the restrictions, Boris. Keep pushing, mate.

      I’m now willing him to do it.

      (That flat tart-up is not a good look when people are losing their jobs and homes.)

  17. Richard1
    April 29, 2021

    The electrification of homes, transport and industry also requires 3-5x the electricity generation we have now. Where is that to come from, what’s the energy source for this power generation? Why are climate luminaries like Mr Carney who had a soft interview with Andrew Marr the other day never asked such questions? What’s the plan please, I’d really like to know.

    1. Everhopeful
      April 29, 2021

      Boris is getting a big hamster wheel.

    2. Hat man
      April 29, 2021

      The plan is, Richard, we get poorer, and the 0.1% get richer. You didn’t know?

    3. J Bush
      April 29, 2021

      I maybe/hope I am wrong, but still get the overwhelming impression the reason why they are not concerned about what will be an obvious energy deficit, is because either
      1. they are too thick to understand what they are proposing
      2. they do know what they are doing, but they don’t care that the cost of it will be prohibitive for most of ‘joe public’ and what they can afford will be rationed, via smart meters.

      Politicians will of course will not have to make a heat or eat decision, or worry about personal transport, as that is probably something else they will decide they can claim on ‘expenses’.

      Cynical? You bet I am.

  18. Everhopeful
    April 29, 2021

    Why are all these filthy governments intent on causing misery?

    1. J Bush
      April 29, 2021

      History records ‘brown envelopes’ played a significant role. With regard to this lot, I couldn’t possibly comment

  19. Iain Moore
    April 29, 2021

    You ask how are Governments going to connect their climate change rhetoric with policy? Quite simply they aren’t, it is only mugs like us who are going to destroy our economy. They probably look on with some amusement at this zealotry which has consumed our political class, and will happily profit from it as they strip us of all our productive industries.

    During our time in the EU it was always said we gold plated EU regulations, which other nations took as more as a guide than a regulation. Well the same thing is going to happen on climate change, only a lot worse as this time as it isn’t going to just be about targets, for our political class have got it as a religion as well, and as we know with religion all sorts of privations can be justified with its implementation.

    1. Christine
      April 29, 2021

      The same happened with Foreign Aid. Only our Government put to amount into law. Even now when we are nearly bankrupt Boris failed to repeal the law and has promised to reinstate the full amount as soon as possible.

      We are governed by fools.

  20. BJC
    April 29, 2021

    I hope the current batch of MPs are preparing well for their new lives outside of politics, because their careers will be ending at the next election if they continue on a path that excludes the views of those who elevated them to their position of power. They need to remember that we didn’t vote for the Green Party/policies, woke identity politics or to rid ourselves of our cars and boilers, etc. No matter how much ideological spin there is, the majority of voters are simply not going to support any Party that promotes the loss of the job they’re trained for, or for a less convenient, more costly lifestyle, are they?

  21. Alan Holmes
    April 29, 2021

    Net carbon zero means the end of modern civilisation except for the elite. No cars, no holidays, no proper heating, no meat and a nightmare world for most people. It is an agenda pushed by all those that will not suffer and we should resist it at every turn.

    1. Everhopeful
      April 29, 2021

      And I suddenly realised why the globalists have a downer on gardens (apart from them being private property).
      Gardens have to be watered!
      And they plan to severely limit our water consumption.

    2. Christine
      April 29, 2021

      +1000

    3. J Bush
      April 29, 2021

      That is my opinion as well.

    4. Fred.H
      April 30, 2021

      all designed to ensure control, you can only exist within laid down parameters.

  22. nota#
    April 29, 2021

    This is just more ‘Virtual Signalling’ to control and manipulate, it is now so bogus to be beyond creditability. Is the ‘Great Reset’ still just a conspiracy.

    We will reduce CO2 by first burning up more resources to remanufacture and deliver to market a whole raft of new products. In a UK context that means offshoring all our CO2 productions so as to be on message – even more World CO2 production, but with a great loss of jobs in the UK and more poverty. At least people wont be able to afford to buy the new ‘green’ device.

    Lets all go ‘Vegan’ to save the planet – kill and burn the animals. Producing more CO2. That of course includes those recreational ponies and horses, then you get to the family pets – all a waste of space pouring out CO2 what’s the point of them. At lest the Farming community that only has pasture land will also be out of work. Maybe these ‘new dictators’ should also consider culling the human race – after aren’t they the real problem, they resent being told how to live their lives for the benefit of the ruling class

    What you cant have is to favour one section of society over another, the WOKE brigade has pronounced that is discrimination. Or is it just discrimination when it is them not also taking responsibility and contributing. Being the same means being a ‘clone’ of how I think

    1. Everhopeful
      April 29, 2021

      +1
      You are not wrong!

  23. David Brown
    April 29, 2021

    Climate change and CO2 reductions is a challenge .
    I have mentioned more needs to be done on the use of Hydrogen rather than the dash for battery operated cars
    Primary because basic battery technology has not advanced as much as it potentially could do with more research.
    I have also mentioned before about planting sea grass around the shores and the use of moss in wetland flood plains.
    Both sea grass and moss can remove more CO2 than trees and other plant life.
    I believe the focus should be more on research and technology.
    In my mind there has to be a gradual move away from carbon fuels as technology advances and more focus on specific natural environment CO2 reductions as I have set out above

  24. David Brown
    April 29, 2021

    If I may add some humour for the day
    An old boss of mine used to say
    Bidet management
    Meaning “bottom up”

  25. Bryan Harris
    April 29, 2021

    These carbon warrior governments are either criminally incompetent or deliberately trying to create chaos by limiting our use of energy without providing a real alternative source.

    Never mind that this is an imaginary problem, heavily inspired by a politically motivated UN-IPCC, It is clear that the elite of planet Earth are willing to use any means to change everything about how we live, to comply with the UN’s agenda – The UK is complicit with targets set:

    Agenda 2030: Delivering the Global Goals gov.uk/government/publications/agenda-2030-delivering-the-global-goals
    INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THE UNITED KINGDOM
    At least 347 (73%) local authorities are pursuing local agenda 21 initiatives or strategies: un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/uk/inst.htm

    Let’s get away from the idea that alleged man-made climate change is about making life better for the people of Earth – At the very minimum it will reduce our reach and our potential. It is a world-wide plan to leverage control of our future lives.

    1. turboterrier
      April 30, 2021

      Bryan Harris

      +1

  26. nota#
    April 29, 2021

    From the MsM – “Britain is now set to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador to the UK

    Is the EU a Country or is it a Trading Association. Does other bigger World trading associations NAFTA, MERCOSUR,APEC and so on – have UK ambassadors. If the EU is a Sovereign State, and its structure says it is as it imposes laws, and regulations beyond trade and it has the Highest Court and collects taxes and Governs the States with in it, so why does France, Germany and so on have embassies, ambassadors, separate Olympic Teams (Even the UK isn’t permitted Olympic teams from England, NI, Scotland, Wales)

    Why is the UK Government handing out fishing licences to the French State while it is the EU that is in control of EU fishing

  27. a-tracy
    April 29, 2021

    How about your government immediately start the ball rolling, In 2020, the OTR cost of the most popular small car models ranged from £13,550 to £16,415. Restrict motability to electric vehicles and make the budget the average (other than for wheelchair access vehicles which should be specialised, electric or hybrid and would cost more because of the required modifications).

    Leading from the front shows us how it can be achieved on a tight budget. ‘The Motability Scheme helps people with a disability and carers to lease a brand new and affordable vehicle, with a great selection of around 2000 different cars, SUV’s, MPV’s and WAV’s to choose from.’

    How many properties in the UK does this government own? How many have gas boilers? How many have solar panels?

  28. Peter2
    April 29, 2021

    It will be interesting to see the reaction of voters when some of the implications of zero carbon begin to impact their own lives.
    Apart from huge rises in the costs of home energy (gas is 3p per kWh electricity is 15p per kWh) we will have to ban wood burning stoves, ban BBQs, ban bonfires, including November 5th and all fireworks, ban the use of portable LPG gas bottles, ban the use of small 2 stroke engines used for example in chain saws, hedge trimmers, model aircrafts and ban all forms of motorsport including Formula One.
    When electricity power failures become a regular occurrence due to reduced and intermittent supply are added, I think voters will not be so keen on this green revolution.

    1. turboterrier
      April 30, 2021

      Peter2
      When all that happens it will be too late

  29. John Miller
    April 29, 2021

    Politicians trade in talk, which costs nothing. They promise Nirvana without the means to achieve it. The unintelligent seem to belive that “zero carbon” is a good thng but will in fact mean the death of all life on earth. No carbon dioxide means no vegetation and, to quote a book from my childhood, “All flesh is grass”.

  30. turboterrier
    April 29, 2021

    The only real question that needs to be asked and addressed openly and honestly.
    Who the #### and how the #### is this going to be paid for.
    No more wishy washy thoughts from Boris, his ministers and so called scientific advisors.
    They are going about this in the wrong way introducing god knows what off the back of a postage stamp, non of the real detail was ever in any manifesto. The price they pay will be civil unrest and enough is enough, the ballot box appears not to be the answer as the people especially the tax paying ones are fed up with the so called political elite pissing down our necks and telling us it’s raining on matters that nobody across the planet has applied proper mathematics and research, not governed by iffy computer programmes. I fear Sir John you are one of a few lone voices in the house trying to apply reason and common sense. This whole CO2 debacle will end in blood and tears I fear.

  31. Bryan Harris
    April 29, 2021

    Yet another example of criminal incompetence by this irrational green government:

    Heating Mr Green’s house – a cautionary tale

    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/heating-mr-greens-house-a-cautionary-tale/

    1. Fedupsoutherner
      April 30, 2021

      A brilliant read Bryan

  32. Malcolm White
    April 29, 2021

    LifeLogic touched on it above. Once the use of fossil fuels has been outlawed, from where does the green energy come to heat our homes and power our transport?

    Has anyone in Government sat down with a spread sheet that shows the increase in energy supply from nuclear, wind and solar that will be necessary to meet the reductions in fossil fuel use proposed in 9 short years? Let’s forget the cost. Let’s just focus on the feasibility of providing that extra power.

    We had ‘experts’ aplenty telling us how bad Brexit was going to be with best and worse case scenarios – best in the Brexit case being worse than the status quo.

    Where are the experts with their computer models who can tell us that there is some vague chance that we’ll meet the target set for 2030 with power to spare and that pigs might fly?

    1. Mark
      April 29, 2021

      I have a modicum of expertise in this area, and I can tell you that the plans are infeasible without frequent and at times lengthy periods of failure to fulfill demand, coupled to periods where extensive curtailment is necessary, driving up costs: this tends to be a lower cost solution than attempting to use storage for anything other than intraday smoothing. As an example, I looked at the output from the offshore wind farms with CFDs over the past year or so (Beatrice, Walney, Hornsea, East Anglia, Dudgeon and Burbo Bank Extension). Between them they produced an average of about 1.5GW, or about 5% of demand. However, to turn their output into a steady baseload supply would require about 1.5TWh of storage – 1,500GWh. Our biggest electrical store is Dinorwig, which holds 9.1GWh. So that’s 165 Dinorwigs if we could find the space for them, at £425m apiece in 1980s money – call it £1.5bn today – or about £250bn for storage that covers just 5% of current electricity demand, or £5 trillion for 100% of current demand or £10 trillion for future doubled demand allowing for electrification. Try to do it with batteries and you can multiply the cost by 3, and pay it out again in 10 years or so for replacements – if you can find the batteries in the first place. 1.5TWh is 5 years’ global battery production, or enough for 30 million Nissan Leafs with 50kWh batteries – which also provides a clue as to why vehicle to grid systems are not going to solve the problem.

      The mitigation of storage requirements (or alternatively fully dispatchable backup) is quite modest through the addition of solar and interconnectors, particularly given the EU’s avowed intent to pursue the same crazy path, so we will all suffer simultaneous Dunkelflaute in the depths of winter.

    2. Lifelogic
      April 30, 2021

      +1

  33. glen cullen
    April 29, 2021

    This carbon target and the resultant banning of petrol motorcars has been done under the watch and consent of every backbencher…..they could revolt and reverse this policy

    In fact it’s the responsibility of the backbenches to oppose this undemocratic push to ‘green’ without the consent of the people

    Stop telling us what to do……there’s a reason why we only have one Green MP ?

    1. Richard II
      April 29, 2021

      +1

    2. Mike Wilson
      April 29, 2021

      there’s a reason why we only have one Green MP ?

      The reason for that is our First Past The Past voting system. If we had a fair voting system, the Greens would get 15% to 20% of the seats in Parliament.

      1. Mark
        April 29, 2021

        I am not sure what your idea of a fair voting system is: they poll at 7% according to the latest YouGov. 2-3 times more than proportional representation? Perhaps they should all live in Scotland.

  34. ChrisS
    April 29, 2021

    None of the Green Crap makes any economic sense and until it does, the public will not accept it.

    The car situation is a perfect example. I predict that come 2030, car owners will make sure they have the best IC-engined car for their needs and will be determined to hang on to it for as long as possible. Being in the fortunate position of owning several classic and modern cars, We will keep them all and enjoy them.

    But creeping up on the outside is the problem of home heating. We have a very new modern gas boiler and before they are banned from sale, we will buy and install another alongside it. We also won’t be getting rid of our wonderful four-oven gas Aga !

    1. DaveK
      May 1, 2021

      That being the case, I predict that if the lunacy persists, ICE fuel tax with rise by huge multiples and domestic gas unit prices rocket. That will not dismay the “evil” fossil industries as their profits will be unaffected.

  35. Christine
    April 29, 2021

    People have been so conditioned by the propaganda to believe Green is good that they haven’t considered the cost and changes to their lifestyle that these policies will inflict on them.

    Travel will be curtailed and very expensive home adaptations will be required. Control of eating habits will be enforced.

    Of course, this will only apply to the common people. The world elites will continue to live their lavish lifestyles travelling the World preaching to the rest of us.

    We need a proper debate on the cost and consequences of these policies before going down a road that will inflict considerable harm on people.

    Meanwhile, Asia increases their pollution and populations which are the biggest contributing detrimental factors in damaging the planet.

  36. Kenneth
    April 29, 2021

    The green industry is largely driven by government, quangos and propaganda and all of this is at the mercy of what is fashionable at any given moment and not what is right.

    Unless these ideas are grounded in popular support – and they are not – they will make things worse

  37. Original Richard
    April 29, 2021

    Anthropological global warming is a scam as evidenced by the fact that the Earth has been gradually warming since the last Glacial Maximum 22,000 years ago and long before our industrialisation.

    The scam, with its scare stories, is designed to frighten our population to unilaterally de-industrialise and hence destroy our wealth and democracy.

    It is driven by the same groups who wanted us to weaken our defences and democracy in the 1960s by pushing for unilateral nuclear disarmament and in fact are using the same false argument that we can convince others to do likewise by leading the changes and claiming the moral high ground.

    The answer to the question as to how it will be feasible to supply all the electricity required is that there is no intention of us being able to use as much energy as we currently use and energy use will be tightly controlled and rationed.

  38. ChrisS
    April 29, 2021

    The success of Gordon Brown’s feed-in tariffs shows that if Green projects are cost effective, people will take them up. Brown’s feed-in tariffs were so ludicrously generous, even I invested in a 4Kw solar array, but in reality, any green project just needs to demonstrate that it is slightly better than cost neutral to achieve a good level of take-up.

    Because somebody, somewhere sold the database for customers with solar panels, we are now plagued by home improvement firms chasing us to install battery back up systems. These are in theory a good idea but they are completely uneconomic to buy and install.
    Naturally we won’t be investing in something that is either inconvenient and expensive, (ie battery-electric cars ), or will never provide an economic return.

    This is the lesson that Governments will have to learn but it will almost certainly mean that they will try and tax IC-engined cars off of the road and increase taxation on gas so that running a gas boilers becomes too expensive. However, voters have little tolerance for this kind of cynical treatment as successive governments found out when they tried to impose a road fuel escalator. I do not believe that this kind of strategy can succeed.

    1. Mark
      April 29, 2021

      Now that the subsidies have largely been removed, the rate of new solar installations has slowed to a trickle for the past 3-4 years. The truth is that they were causing problems for local grid distribution, with solar surplus energy threatening to exceed the capacity of the local transformers and cables to take it away at peak summer midday times and making it hard to route energy across the transmission grid. In fact, National Grid has been working on a system for solar to be paid to curtail, which is going through trial phases at the moment. Before you subscribe your home to the scheme, be sure to know what you would do with the surplus energy. 4kW can easily start a fire (and that happened to someone I know, whose house burnt down due to a badly wired solar installation).

  39. IanT
    April 29, 2021

    I agree with sir John that these changes have to happen through demand – not dictate.

    I don’t care too much about how much Boris spends on his flat (as long as he pays for it himself eventually). It’s hardly a surprise, as he has led a far from perfect private life and (for someone who is apparently who is quite bright) seems to often keep his brains in his trousers. I can live with all that stuff, IF he runs the country well.

    But his green agenda is just pie in the sky, as these targets cannot be met with current technology and making policy ‘on the hoof’ (with no idea of how they can actually be delivered) is the height of stupidity and hopefully not influenced by Mr Johnson’s ‘trouser’ brain.

    My money will be staying firmly in my pocket with regards to new electric cars and alternative central heating until I either have absolutely no choice but to change – or I’m offered a viable and affordable “green” alternative. I suspect it will be the former. So vote with your wallet, it’s probably more effective than any vote you can make in an election.

    1. IanT
      April 29, 2021

      P.S. I’ve still not got a ‘Smart’ meter either……

      1. Lester
        April 29, 2021

        IanT
        Very sensible decision re smart meter, they won’t be able to shut down your electricity supply remotely!

      2. J Bush
        April 29, 2021

        Nor me

  40. Mark Thomas
    April 29, 2021

    Sir John,
    To me this is reminiscent of Mao’s Great Leap Forward, only now it is a worldwide Great Green Leap Forward.

    1. Lester
      April 29, 2021

      MT or great leap backwards?

  41. Bill B.
    April 29, 2021

    Sir John, you say: ‘The question to ask is how will these targets be hit without major changes of consumer behaviour?’

    I’m honestly surprised at this way of putting it. If anyone really still thought this was the ‘question’, I would begin to doubt if they knew what’s going on. Major changes in consumer behaviour are absolutely what are intended, no question about it. Globalist New Green Deal targets cannot be reached without them.

    The real question that you raise is whether this government should be imposing those changes by law when there is no public demand for them. Because the state and its state grant-funded, tax-exempt NGO lobbies know best, perhaps?

    Thank goodness I didn’t vote for that nanny state authoritarian tinpot tyrant Jeremy Corbyn. How different it would have been!

  42. kb
    April 29, 2021

    Hang on though -at the same time this news of German CO2 cuts came out, we also got told that the EU will be re-classifying natural gas into a greener class, so that EU members can continue to use it for longer (although the BBC seems to have forgotten to tell us this).
    In the interests of the Level Playing Field, why do we not do the same?

  43. kb
    April 29, 2021

    Google “CFD Register”
    There you will see listed the strike prices (i.e guaranteed prices) for electricity from low-carbon generators.
    Most of these guaranteed prices are shocking.
    Up to £173 per MWh, which equates to 17.3p/kWh.
    This is over three times the WHOLESALE price of electricity.
    These generators are actually farming subsidies, nothing else.

    1. glen cullen
      April 29, 2021

      Isn’t it interesting that every domestic energy company website ‘doesn’t’ show the kw per hour cost on their home page for easy comparison

  44. Derek
    April 29, 2021

    The mind boggles over this the latest western crazy crusade. Prior to the latest waste of OUR money it was the Mississippi Scheme or the South Sea Bubble or back to the Tulip Mania of 1636 but not forgetting the Dot Com boom of 2000. They all failed at enormous costs to the investors. This time around it’s not just private investors money BUT Tax payers earnings that are being wasted.
    Nothing can actually “fight” Climate Change. To do so would mean re-routing Earth’s wobbling orbit around the Sun, controlling Sun spots, altering the Moon’s orbit and changing the weather both here and across the Globe. Now who or what is capable of doing that? It is a nonsense to even consider it.
    Climate Change is a natural recurring phenomenon that has repeated over millions of years while Carbon and CO2 are essential to ALL life on Earth. So why do they think cutting it will “save the planet”?
    If they really want to help they should create a fund to assist those Nations worse effected by climate change not merely hand OUR money to those with huge vested interests in “saving the planet”.
    The new popular delusion will benefit only those make their money from “scaring” Governments who are naïve enough to believe them BUT never consult the people before they spend their money. Sounds rather like the MO of the CCP who incidentally do nothing for this new “cause” but of course gain from those that do.

  45. oldwulf
    April 29, 2021

    The virtue signalling of politicians, in an effort to win votes, has a whiff of dishonesty about it. They need to explain to us how everything will work, both practically and economically.

    So, I believe our host is quite right when he says, “These carbon warrior governments need to work with the private sector to decide what is feasible.”

    https://www.brookings.edu/essay/why-are-fossil-fuels-so-hard-to-quit/

  46. Michael Holmes
    April 29, 2021

    Absolutely agree and I do wish more besides yourself were making this sensible argument.
    There are no costs presented to us of the products we are intended to adopt and we fear any figures given will be a gross underestimate. One wonders why we should impoverish ourselves with this obsession with drive to be carbon neutral which will have minimum global impact whilst other industrial powers like China and India will power on and expand

  47. Pieter C
    April 29, 2021

    The reaction of politicians in the West is hysterical. There is no attempt to discuss or debate the actual science involved, which is the process by which a part of the infra-red radiatiation from the Sun is prevented from being reflected back into space by atmospheric gases, 90-95% by water vapour. CO2 has a small influence, but the assumption that the effect of CO2 increases in direct proportion to its atmospheric content, ie that 400 parts per million(ppm) has twice the effect of 200 ppm is almost certainly incorrect. At a water vapour content of 1%, a CO2 content of 600ppm is likely to cause a temperature increase of 0.3 of a degree over 400 ppm, and a content of 1000ppm a 0.6 of a degree increase. If this is the case, what is all the fuss about? Let us see a proper scientific analysis of this, rather that rely on politically motivated and flawed computer based modelling which takes “Global Warming” as a fact.

  48. Mark
    April 29, 2021

    The proposed targets are basically infeasible without completely collapsing our economies in ways that will bring about social collapse and enormous poverty, crime, and ultimately revolution. The plans require not only that we should be cold and hungry, but also that productive jobs in industry and agriculture should largely cease. Transport will become expensive even for the privileged. Reliance on renewables will produce a third world energy system with frequent outages, often at critical times such as cold snaps in winter. We will be unable to afford our welfare state and health service. The value of investments will collapse, and so will the income they provide.

    Such a system can only be maintained through totalitarian control, of the kind that enforced Mao’s Great Leap Backward.

    1. john waugh
      April 29, 2021

      The second world war has been described as the greatest man-made disaster in history.
      What you foresee is definitely in the category of disaster however it ends.

  49. L Jones
    April 29, 2021

    Strange how these policies weren’t talked about in the last General Election by your party. If they had been, I certainly wouldn’t have voted Tory. I certainly shan’t again.

    Reply They we’re not talked about because all the main parties agreed them

    1. glen cullen
      April 29, 2021

      Reply They we’re not talked about because all the main parties agreed them
      ____________________________

      You missed out the agreement with the people ?

      1. Sharon
        April 29, 2021

        Hear, hear! Thanks Glen…

        We clearly don’t get a look in or a say… we just pay for it all!

      2. Fred.H
        May 1, 2021

        but glen ….the ‘people’ can’t be trusted to actually vote !

  50. DavidJ
    April 29, 2021

    Tougher carbon targets!

    The pseudo science and manipulated data behind global warming has been comprehensively dismissed by real scientists yet still government sticks with it. This just confirms that it is simply another means of control imposed on us to suit the unacceptable demands of the globalists, who are intent on subjecting us to a truly Orwellian future.
    We cannot allow them to get away with it.

  51. hefner
    April 29, 2021

    Well Bjorn Lomborg believes this CO2 climate nonsense who writes the following for ‘Technological Forecasting and Social Change’, 156, 119981, July 2020: Welfare in the 21st century – Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change and the cost of climate policies:
    ‘Global warming is real and long-term, has a significant negative impact on society. Thus we should weigh policies to make sure we tackle the negative impacts without ending up incurring more costs by engaging in excessively expensive climate policies. We cannot and must not do nothing. But the evidence also manifestly alerts us to the danger that we end up with too ambitious and overly costly climate policies, and a general outlook that puts the world on a growth path that will deliver dramatically less welfare especially for the world’s poorest’.

    And yes, that’s the Bjorn Lomborg (The Skeptical Environmentalist) that some on this blog consider as a voice of reason for everything climate-related, don’t you, LL?

    1. Peter2
      April 29, 2021

      I wonder if you have read any of Bjorn Lomborg’s books Hefner.
      He wants far more spent on mitigating the effects of warming and far less spent on zero CO2 policies.
      He says the cost of us trying to control the climate will be huge and only achieve a small reduction in global temperatures.
      He says spending nearly all the money on zero CO2 policies will reduce future global growth and make billions of people poorer.
      But he has been ignored and sidelined which is a shame.
      His books are well written and researched and he is a voice for reason.

      1. hefner
        April 30, 2021

        I actually read The Skeptical Environmentalist about 15 years ago. I was agreeing with the author’s conclusions that money might be better used fighting poverty, improving water & sanitation in developing countries, helping them improve their economic perspectives, privileging adaptation over mitigation. In 2001, when the book was originally published, these ideas were somewhat novel and were first heavily criticised on both sides of the climate change argument. They were then rapidly phagocyted by people like those at GWPF as a way to ‘fight the Greens’. His more recent papers (a lot of them in sciencedirect.com) essentially continue with the same line of arguments.

        1. Peter2
          April 30, 2021

          I don’t see how his opinions become less valid just because some people you don’t like decide to follow him.

  52. J Bush
    April 29, 2021

    Interesting article about the reality of these ‘green’ low-output heat pumps/air-source heat pump (ASHP) and under floor heating (UFH) on the Conservative Woman blog site today. It exemplifies the extent of politicians myopic idiocy by only listening to a juvenile with learning difficulties who skipped school and a political activist with a degree in art history and theatre studies, instead of engineers.

    1. Fedupsoutherner
      April 29, 2021

      Just about sums it up.

  53. forthurst
    April 29, 2021

    The very worst exponents of top-down government are the Chinese. The CCP has launched a rocket, powered by Planet-wrecking paraffin, which they have the gall to call environmentally friendly, in order to put into orbit the main module of their planned Earth orbit space station. They also have a vehicle about to land on Mars. Apparently, the CCP wants to become a major Space power by 2030. We ourselves will be reducing our carbon emissions by two-thirds by 2030 whilst remaining a major military power that can threaten the Chinese with a diesel-powered aircraft carrier. It is probably best that we keep out of the space race because all our attempts in this direction have ended in abysmal failure as space vehicles tended to land at terminal velocity. Instead we must focus on becoming fully carbon neutral, fully multicultural, fully gender neutral; we’ll show the Chinese who’s best. They’ll be bound to want to copy us eventually.

  54. John McDonald
    April 29, 2021

    Dear Sir John, please raise a question in Parliament to ask how much CO2 is being released by nature as the planet warms up and how much CO2 is being generated by human industry , transport , heating and lighting etc. You might also like to ask why is Hydrogen as a fuel not being back by government investment/interest.
    Like petrol and diesel you don’t need a battery to store it. Pity electricity is the current ( no joke intended) green fashion. Electric cars appeared before the internal combustion engine / oil driven cars. Liquid fuel won the day. the waste product from hydrogen use is water and not a problem to dispose of. Old monster batteries are another matter to recycle.
    Bit of a problem if CO2 is not the problem but all the Human activity that it results from. The warning flag not the cause for the climate change. A lot of money to spend without fixing the problem if the change not down to Humans but a natural cycle. we are just told that CO2 generation is the problem but with no clear proof presented to the general public. Everyone in power at one time said the world was flat.

  55. Sharon
    April 29, 2021

    For a few years now,I’ve been reading up on ‘climate change’, and apart from the fact is seems that it’s being used as a political tool to re-arrange the world, where the paupers, us, are run by rich elites….it’s wrong.

    I’ve read papers where the near extinction of polar bears is proved wrong by the world’s leading authority; the coral reef which is supposedly dying – is recovering; the hole in the ozone – is gone. Deserts are not growing, but are showing signs of green shoots, the Maldives is not under water etc., etc

    I’ve read about a professor who explains how sun spots dictate the climate and so weather….

    I’ve seen charts in museums showing we are on the turn of the cusp of warmer weather conditions and are now on a downward trajectory to cooler weather.

    I read recently that Chinese scientists are concerned that we are due a period of Solar Minimum sometime this century (2060) ..and a professor who is concerned that we are not preparing for cooler weather, and is concerned that food growth in particular will need plans to be made.

    And the other day, I saw reference to Maunder-like Solar minimum which is thought to be coming soon.

    On checking this out I discovered this was in 1645 and it was quite severe. Obviously it took time to build and retreat, but some of the things described are present now, but are being blamed on a vague description of climate change. Formerly, it was called global warming (so do they know that’s wrong, hence the description change?)

    As any dissenter on the topic of global warming/change is shut down, discredited or sacked, I think it time that a two way conversation is had where the science is NOT settled! If the conversation is repeatedly shut down, how are we to know if these global warming bods are correct? And if they’re wrong….?

    1. Martyn G
      April 29, 2021

      The NOAA – notably believers in global warming – say that we’re entering a ‘full-blown’ Grand Solar Minimum in the late-2020s. Some may know of the ‘Maunder Minimum’ (prolonged sunspot minimum) around 1645 to 1715 when the Northern hemisphere froze, crops ruined and people starved. During a 28-year period (1672–1699) observers recorded fewer than 50 sunspots, in contrast with the typical 40,000–50,000 sunspots seen in modern times over a similar 25 year sampling.

      NASA is seeing this upcoming solar cycle (25) as “the weakest of the past 200 years”, correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling. In February and March this year many new low temperature records were set e.g. In February Moscow was hit with the worst snowfall in 50 years; In Canada, Manitoba set 20 new cold records on one Saturday alone (based on record books dating back to 1897), 41 new record low temperatures were recorded in Alberta the same month and snow fell in Egypt.

      There was a century-class Solar Minimum between 2018-20 which now looks like continuing and Earth’s atmosphere began to cool; so much so that by late-2020 it had all-but reversed the past few decades of “natural” global warming brought about by historically high solar output and is likely to continue in 2021. Finally, this year Europe suffered a climatic reality unknown since the he Centennial Minimum (1880-1920). All this is factual and I cannot believe whole-heartedly in the global warming pandemic.

    2. SM
      April 29, 2021

      Totally support your comments, Sharon. Of course, it seems that much – if not all – of this panicking is caused by computer programming, and we all know that computers cannot be wrong (especially if ‘we’ are running The Post Office ….).

  56. outsider
    April 29, 2021

    Dear Sir John, In my view the job of governments is to govern the state, not to govern people beyond what is necessary for that purpose. That distinction points to the proper response to climate change.
    1) The Government’s primary job should be to concentrate on making the entire public sector carbon neutral by, say, 2035. Tax incentives may then urge people and businesses to follow.
    2) If climate professionals are correct, which our Government accepts, there is nothing anyone anywhere can do to halt climate change over the next 50 years . And only China, the USA, India and Brazil can have much impact on the pace of change. Our Government’s second priority, therefore, should be to protect the country against the effects of climate change , eg through much better sea and flood defences and by orchestrating enough extra non-carbon power generation to accommodate a huge switch to electricity.

  57. Ignoramus
    April 29, 2021

    In the local elections I have ruled out all Conservative candidates, who occupy 80% of the seats. Never again until we have a new Prime Minister. Lib Dems are quite good locally and their party policy is end lockdown NOW.

    1. Fedupsoutherner
      April 29, 2021

      Spoil your ballot paper. They still get counted and it sends a message eventually to Westminster.

    2. dixie
      April 30, 2021

      The LibDem’s party policy is also “bollocks to brexit voters”, ie bollocks to democracy.

  58. miami.mode
    April 29, 2021

    …….These carbon warrior governments need to work with the private sector to decide what is feasible…….

    Sums it up really. A lot of nerdy types, so-called do-gooders, and virtual signallers talking amongst themselves.

  59. Dennis
    April 29, 2021

    I am deeply worried that the burgeoning world population will need much more food production.

    So when will the govt. bring out polices to increase the production of CO2?

  60. acorn
    April 29, 2021

    Mr … is looking forward to his 30 kW combi natural gas (NG) boiler being converted to Hydrogen. The Natural Gas (CH4) coming through his gas meter being changed to Hydrogen (H2). I tell him the best his combi could handle would be a mix of 70% NG and 30% H2; assuming the boiler’s flame sensor could detect a different colour flame that burns faster.

    Additionally, I tell him that H2 has about one third the energy content by volume than natural gas. Hence his 30 kW combi would need to burn three times the meters cubed (m3) of H2 to fill his bath at the same rate that it does now on natural gas. That is about 9 m3 per hour of H2 instead of 3 m3 per hour of NG. The vast majority of domestic gas meters can’t handle more than 6 m3 per hour so you are going to need a bigger gas meter probably operating at a slightly higher gas pressure.

    Mr S then starts quizzing me about heat pumps; air source and ground source. He favours the latter because the former frost up due to the high humidity of UK winters. I agree with him but question how he will install a ground source heat pump for a third floor flat.

  61. bigneil(newercomp)
    April 29, 2021

    In ONE day – 9 boats and 209 people – -and PP says “they are working on it” ????? – – she should be fired -IMMEDIATELY – SHE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING. SHE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION OF STOPPING THEM.

    1. glen cullen
      April 29, 2021

      Beyond words

    2. Sharon
      April 29, 2021

      I don’t think Priti Patel can do much all the while we are signed up to ECHR etc and lawyers intervene at the last minute to prevent deportation.

      It’s too big a money making business to stop overnight!

    3. Iago
      April 29, 2021

      Britain is no longer a free country, but it is worse than that – we have no borders so we have no country. The borders, incidentally, were signed away by the two brexit treaties.

  62. hefner
    April 29, 2021

    Further to my comment above referencing one of Bjorn Lomborg’s papers, here is another extract of significance (specially for anybody investing their money …):
    ‘Using carbon taxes, an optimal realistic climate policy can aggressively reduce emissions and reduce the global temperature increase from 4.1 degC in 2100 to 3.75 degC. This will cost $18 trillions but deliver climate benefits worth twice that. The popular 2 degC target in contrast is unrealistic and would leave the world more than $250 trillions worse off.
    The most effective climate policy is increasing investment in green R&D to make future decarbonization much cheaper. This can deliver $11 of climate benefits for each dollar spent’

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157
    (previously advertised by caterpillar).

    And that from The Skeptical Environmentalist.

    1. Peter2
      April 29, 2021

      $18 trillion to reduce the increase a tiny bit.

      1. hefner
        April 30, 2021

        World GDP (2017) was $80,934,771,028,340

        1. Peter2
          April 30, 2021

          The money is calculated to be spent over decades.

      2. hefner
        April 30, 2021

        $18bn over several years is tiny globally when the UK exported $689bn in manufactured products and services in 2019.

        Check your orders of magnitude.

        1. Peter2
          April 30, 2021

          The money is to be spent over decades.
          Check it out in his book.

          1. Peter2
            April 30, 2021

            And he said $18 trillions not billions.
            Check your own quote in your own post.

  63. glen cullen
    April 29, 2021

    The United Kingdom is expected to backtrack on its refusal to give the EU ambassador to the UK full diplomatic status……and the hits just keep on coming

    1. X-Tory
      April 30, 2021

      Yes, Boris Johnson always ends up surrendering to the EU. He did so on Northern Ireland, he did so on fisheries, he did so on financial services (not included in the TCA), he did so on the continued payments to the EU, he did so on paying for the EU’s foreign aid, he did so on the Horizon project …. So it is no surprise that he is about to do so again. The man is a serial surrender monkey, betraying Britain and the British interest at every turn. No wonder I’m an EX Tory voter!

      1. hefner
        May 4, 2021

        P2, yes, you’re right, $18tn as put in Lomborg’s paper and my original post.

  64. The Prangwizard
    April 29, 2021

    Debate and discussion are pointless. The idea that this Tory government is listening, wishes to listen and will consider the many realistic counter points is laughable. All ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ targets will be imposed no matter what resistance there is. Although ‘Boris’ is a believer he is dancing to the tune of his ‘one world’ government friends. He knows we can do nothing within a peaceful democratic process to return to sense and freedom.

  65. Lester
    April 29, 2021

    When I enquired from our local council the reason for declaring a Climate Emergency a year ago I was informed that it was called for by the UN, I replied that the UN were also calling for the destruction of the state of Israel and was this now council policy?
    Time for stop the lunacy, the UN aren’t our friends!

    1. Fred.H
      May 1, 2021

      UN?- no use to anyone, all talk no action.

  66. jon livesey
    April 29, 2021

    The basic reason that Germany wins short wars, but always loses long wars is that it is a highly industrialised economy in a resource-poor country. It has to import raw materials and export manufactured goods because that is the only way for it to survive. Exporting isn’t some special talent Germans have; it’s existential.

    Now Germany is busy trying to remake all of Europe in its own image, and so Europe operates the same way – import oil, gas, and metals and export cars and appliances. It’s a great idea until China begins to do the same thing on about fifty times the scale. That’s when you realise that the EU is following an economic model that worked until China showed up. It had the chance to get into the high tech revolution, and missed it.

    1. ChrisS
      April 29, 2021

      A rather dismal but sadly accurate description. However, where does that leave the UK ?
      The only resources we had were coal and oil, both of which are either nearly exhausted or impossible to extract economically. And that was before they became so politically incorrect.

      Do we just concentrate on being the World’s Insurance and banking provider ? Or is there something else we can be successful at beyond our undoubted research and technical skills ?

      With a population of more than 66m, we can’t even feed ourselves.

      1. jon livesey
        April 30, 2021

        First, we don’t have to feed ourselves, which is the entire point of trade. If every country does everything for itself, there does not need to be any trade, but the World economy gets less efficient. So we earn by exporting what we do well, and import food, among other things, which other countries do well.

        Second, don’t buy the mantra that the UK does nothing well. We are the second biggest exporter in Europe. 85% of our exports are manufactured goods, meaning that we manufacture those goods cheaper and more efficiently than the countries we export to.

        And our services exports are not limited to “Banking” but include everything that involves computation and design. We export designs, engineering, testing, construction expertise, medical know-how, medical devices, drugs and pharmaceuticals, chemicals and especially petro-chemicals, education, training.

        With goods and services together, we export about $500bn a year, which is a pretty huge number. You do not get export numbers like that by being unable to export goods and services. And the future for the UK means pushing more into the scientific, technological and computational areas where we excel.

        1. Fred.H
          April 30, 2021

          Ok so we keep our Finance skills, the others keep the food….great prospect.

    2. aess
      April 29, 2021

      Not so- the reason Germany lost both wars because the Americans came in

  67. X-Tory
    April 29, 2021

    “Leading governments are as expected coming up with tougher targets to reduce carbon dioxide output”

    *Not so*. The two most important countries in this regard – China and India – have NOT made any firm commitment to reducing their CO2 output. Until they do so, any action we take will be utterly pointless and achieve NOTHING. It will be like putting a plaster over a paper cut on your finger, while ignoring the knife stabbed into your chest. Idiotic.

    I refuse to succumb to the modern western disease, that peculiar combination of arrogance and self-loathing. We arrogantly believe that we are so important, our actions are really influential, we are responsible for the world and that other countries around the globe are looking at us, ready and waiting to follow our lead if we ‘set an example’. All absolute drivel. And on the other hand we are filled with shame and self-loathing for being such innate, evil racists and we therefore have no moral right to criticise non-white countries or make any demands of them. Again, utter tosh.

    If we believe that man-made greenhouse gases detrimental to the future of mankind then we should demand that China and India adopt exactly the same targets as we do and, if they don’t, we should impose highly punitive trade sanctions on them. Unless and until we do that, I won’t have any respect for either our politicians or their CO2 targets.

    1. glen cullen
      April 29, 2021

      Agree – its madness doing anything without the lead from India and China…..the most we should do is match their actual output

  68. XY
    April 29, 2021

    “The more they do it by law, the more people will come to resent it.”

    Well said. And the more they come to resent it, the less they will be inclined to vote for it – in fact, eventually they will vote against it.

  69. steve
    April 29, 2021

    JR

    “How will they encourage or incentivise people to change their gas boilers and scrap their diesel and petrol cars?”

    ……They won’t encorage or incentivise us, they [Boris Johnson] will ‘FORCE’ us. You know it, we know it. Vote killer.

  70. Mark
    April 29, 2021

    I see that the latest annual air quality statistics have been released.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/air-quality-statistics

    They are good news – perhaps unsurprising in view of lockdowns substantially reducing economic activity, with measured levels being below even the most ambitious targets set by the UN in a bid to grind economies to a halt, and well below the nationally adopted targets.

    DEFRA have encouraged the press to write this up as this being due to reduced traffic, and particularly from diesel vehicles. The reality is perhaps somewhat different: cars and trucks accounted for just 20% of NOx emissions in 2018, the last year for which we have a sectoral breakdown, and emissions from trucks were just 15% of what they were in 1970 thanks to AdBlue systems, and emissions from all sources have been in rapid decline as this chart shows.

    https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/VBL64/1/

    I note they blame the weather for some of the particulates pollution, blown in from the EU. Perhaps we could have some honest appraisal, rather than attempts to claim that things are getting worse and we need to shut down the economy even more in response. It’s simply not true. The reality is there are some isolated areas with problems that need tackling locally, while for the rest of us the air probably hasn’t been cleaner since the Industrial Revolution, or even before, given our historic reliance on firewood.

  71. Marko
    April 29, 2021

    From what I see the whole of the UK is imploding .. even Wales is looking to go it’s own way

    Very soon the first minister for NI at least for a short while will be Edwin Poots a hardline evangelic creationist.. Jeez in 2021- looks like

    My friend thinks imploding means taking back control

    1. Peter2
      April 30, 2021

      Have you checked recent polls Marko?
      No majority for independence in Wales nor Scotland.

    2. Fred.H
      April 30, 2021

      Scotland and Wales will become the largest food banks in the developed world. The kinder English will be seen throwing food parcels over the wall.

  72. formula57
    April 29, 2021

    I see it reported that Germany’s Constitutional Court has ruled on the German Government’s CO2 nonsense targets (per its 2019 Climate Change Act that demands cuts of greenhouse gas emissions by 55% — relative to 1990 levels — by 2030) demanding that they be made clearer. It has said inter alia that:

    “These future obligations to reduce emissions have an impact on practically every type of freedom because virtually all aspects of human life still involve the emission of greenhouse gases and are thus potentially threatened by drastic restrictions after 2030,” and “Therefore, the legislator should have taken precautionary steps to mitigate these major burdens in order to safeguard the freedom guaranteed by fundamental rights.”

    It seems the Court has sympathy with the plaintiffs, many of whom are young, and believes “One generation must not be allowed to consume large portions of the CO2 budget while bearing a relatively minor share of the reduction effort if this would involve leaving subsequent generations with a drastic reduction burden and expose their lives to comprehensive losses of freedom,”.

    It seems that when it comes to climate change burdens,the Generation Z-ers do not like it up ’em!

  73. Lindsay McDougall
    April 29, 2021

    How can you write a whole blog on this subject without mentioning that China is not making any targets to speak of, only guaranteeing zero net carbon emissions by 2060, a good ten years after everybody else, and opening (the last time I heard) a new coal fired power station a week? How can we make worldwide progress without amending WTO rules to permit extra tariffs on goods exported by countries running a dirty economy? There’s too much piss and wind and not enough action. And when is it going to be recognised that production of CFCs has passed its nadir and is on the rise again, China being one of the worst offenders? Until the hole in the ozone layer is fully closed, thereby reducing radiant heat at the poles, we cannot determine the rate at which carbon emissions must be reduced.

  74. nota#
    April 30, 2021

    @Lindsay, With a hint of sarcasm from me (but not in your direction). China is necessary as we need to keep exporting UK jobs there. The UK’s net zero doesn’t factor in manufacture elsewhere, the transport to get the goods here – as long as it makes us poorer, who cares. We can keep importing the finished goods and somewhere someone has figured out that that doesn’t have the same impact on the Worlds emissions.

    The 2060 target gives China time to ramp up its banking and services. We are after all, all in this ‘Great Reset’ project together – the Socialist mantra of level down not up.

    1. Fred.H
      April 30, 2021

      There is a strange theme running here – destroy our country and economy for an advantage elsewhere, but who knows what that will produce.

  75. Cheshire Red
    April 30, 2021

    There is no ‘climate emergency’.

    The term was coined by the Guardian and half a dozen other left-leaning liberal media bedwetters, who were concerned that they and their absurd and already-falsified pet theory was being ignored by billions of sane people.

    Hence they shifted the benign-sounding ‘climate change’ to fake-but-scary climate ’emergency’, ‘crisis’ or ‘catastrophe’, while the pleasant and not remotely scary ‘global warming’ was transformed into egregiously bogus ‘global heating’.

    Meanwhile, almost all the computer models that are used to attempt to justify this ridiculous climate dog and pony show are provably running too hot (ie they’re wrong!) so the theory is a busted flush.

    UK’s Net Zero will;

    Not reduce global CO2 atmospheric emissions.
    Not reduce global CO2 atmospheric concentrations.
    Not reduce theoretical ‘man made warming’.
    Not reduce overall global temperatures.
    reducing CO2 will have NO effect on temperatures, because CO2 doesn’t drive temperatures at all.

    Our country now faces decades of social disruption with millions of lives upturned for no reason, all for the bargain price of only several trillion quid.

    This is the price we must pay for having the silliest political class in living memory running our lives.

  76. Edwardm
    May 4, 2021

    Making absurd targets to impoverish the well-being of the electorate whilst not achieving any significant effect on CO2 emissions worldwide (whilst China, India and others keep increasing theirs), I’d suggest is electoral folly – creating an opening for another political party that opposes such nonsense.
    Boris and the Conservative party need to rapidly look at the evidence that shows CO2 can hardly have any significant effect on temperature and act accordingly and return to making rational and realistic decisions.
    (CO2 only absorbs a tiny fraction of the spectrum of IR radiation and slightly less than H2O does, yet there is little to no correlation between water vapour and temperature. Clouds do affect temperature by reflection of radiation – but CO2 does not make clouds).

Comments are closed.