Some questions on carbon accounting

In order to close the gap with net zero ambitions governments and companies pursuing this agenda need to revise the way they account for it. Here are some questions they need to answer.

1. As China, Russia, India produce more than 40% of the world’s CO 2 output and their output is still growing, how do we get to the 2030 and 2035 targets? What actions are being taken to get the largest and fastest growing outputs by these countries  to be reined in?

2.Why does the system assume electric vehicles are a win for less CO 2? Will the figures include the fact that many EVs are being recharged with electricity that may come from more fossil fuel than renewable generation? What allowance is made for all the CO 2 produced in mining  and smelting the raw materials for an EV and its battery? And for total assembly and delivery? How many miles does an EV have to travel before it generates less CO 2 than carrying on with an older ICE vehicle,assuming it can get 100% renewable electricity or putting in accurate figures for the CO 2 content of the electricity likely to be used.

3. Why does the accounting system credit a country with lower CO2 because it has closed down fossil fuel based activities, only to import the products needed? This will usually raise world CO 2 by the amount of extra transport involved.

4. When attributing success to more renewables shouldn’t you need to also factor in the extra  costs and extra CO 2 from the standby fossil fuel generation needed to prevent black out when the wind drops?

5. What will be the CO 2 impact of needing to put in so much more grid capacity and cable to allow a major switch from gas to electricity?

6. When calculating the CO 2 impact of rail travel it is important to include connecting travel by road vehicle and do a whole journey calculation. It is also important to use a realistic mix of electric and diesel trains and allow for times in stations with engines running.

147 Comments

  1. Mark B
    August 22, 2023

    Good morning.

    What we are witnessing is a transfer of wealth and power from the West to the East and those charged with looking after our interests are facilitating this SCAM. And CO2 is the means by which this SCAM is perpetrated.

    We cannot question the ‘science’ because to do so would reveal what is going on.

    1. Ian+wragg
      August 22, 2023

      It’s nothing to do with CO2 as you well know John. CO2 is the bogeyman being used to destroy western industries for the benefit if the BRIC countries.
      White privilege is another tool being used to destroy us together with only whites are racist despite most of the muggings and knifing being black on black.
      It’s a very sick agenda this and other governments are following and ir won’t end well.

      1. Lifelogic
        August 22, 2023

        Indeed.

        JR has covered the topic v.well for s history graduate. I would add that connecting many wind farms and solar to the grid is far more expensive than connecting a large power station per MWH delivered. Circa 10× less efficient.

        Also why do they burn chopped down imported forests at Drax when thia causes more CO2 and enwvironmentsl damage than coal? Yet pretend it does not.

        Keeping an old car is nearly always better for CO2 than causing a new EV to be built.

        Reply I have studied many subjects in my lifetime. history was many years ago.

        1. Lifelogic
          August 22, 2023

          To reply: Sorry, unlike most you do exceptionally well. But it is not so much studying as the way different people think. Some people even think renewable energy means something! Many simply do not understand very simple concepts like sampling errors on bus train occupancies for example (as passengers mainly sample the full ones giving them a totally impression. How many MPs for example understand entropy or even know the difference between energy and power and the units. Or the reasons intermittent electricity is so much less valuable. The number of times I have heard people, MP and even energy ministers saying totally stupid things like “this wind farm with produce X mega watts PA.”

      2. Hope
        August 22, 2023

        No amount of spending can keep up with the mass I. If ration footprint being imported each year by JRs party.

        Yesterday we had about local authority/ public spending. How does an education dept keep up with the illegal criminal boat people let alone the 1.2 million JRs party imported last year!! No amount of council spending or tax rises can keep up with their level of mass Immigration stupidity!

        Treacherous May was busy cutting 20,000 police numbers while flooding the country with illegal criminals- Manchester bombing under her watch while she imported unvetted immigrants- bomber entered and left the country at Will!!. She had previously claimed as HS they were economic migrants then changed her narrative. May fell out with Border Agency, May fell out with Police. Each time being vindictive and spiteful to both knowing that her actions would hurt the public not individuals from each organisation. If she did not know she was completely stupid and reckless with our safety and that of the nation. The most useless HS in History and one of the most detested PMs in History. She (ministers should not have blank immunity) should be held to account for the Manchester bombing.

    2. PeteB
      August 22, 2023

      Mark, also a wealth transfer from the developed to the develping world. Not necessarily a bad principle but the way it is happening is flawed.

      Take WEF advisor Sarah Harper’s recent comments that “It is good to see fertility rates in western countries below the replacement ratio as that will address overconsumption”. No mention that net migration from developing countries is still leading to rising populations in developed countries and hence rising consulmption per person.

      1. Mark B
        August 22, 2023

        PeterB

        Not so noble when you consider the money is being pocketed by the elite of those countries to facilitate access to raw materials for large corporates and foreign countries.

    3. Sharon
      August 22, 2023

      Mark B

      Couldn’t agree more!

      I read the other day some woman working at the WEF says it’s good that white westerners are having fewer babies, because their carbon footprint is higher than poorer countries. The author questioned that by asking… hang on, won’t non- white westerners have a high carbon footprint too? But they are still having three, four or five children! That doesn’t make sense.

      But that’s the whole thing with net zero – most of it doesn’t make sense – or is contradictory!

      1. Everhopeful
        August 22, 2023

        +++
        Agree.
        And given that folk can’t wait to get to the West for all its goodies provided by the taxpayer…
        There won’t be many of those in the future since the birth rate is dropping and AI is making Luddites of us all.
        And thus not much in the way of free houses, heating and food.
        Treasure Island indeed!

      2. Lifelogic
        August 22, 2023

        Non of it makes sense, a little more CO2 is not a serious issue. the solutions they push do not even save CO2 they just export it, World cooperation will not happen anyway, adjusting to whatever climate comes is a far better and quicker way to spend the money to save lives. If is we needed to cool the climate in 100 years (we will not) then less CO2 would not be the best way to do this anyway.

      3. Guy+Liardet
        August 27, 2023

        CO2 does not drive the weather. Do some reading. For eg take a look at Dr Judith Curry’s latest on Climate Etc where she et al explain 2023’s unusual warmth. “Effect of green house gas CO2 is lost in the noise”. You will need to concentrate as the climate is more complicated than alarmists believe. Of course

    4. glen cullen
      August 22, 2023

      And the elephant in the room …why are we ignoring the counter argument, the other scientists that claim and dispute that climate change is either (1) not a risk (2) not made-made or (3) is a manipulation of data

      Why did our politicians allow the climate change committee to declare that the ‘science was settle’ …shame on you all for continuing to allow this charade

      1. BOF
        August 22, 2023

        G C
        +1

      2. Lifelogic
        August 22, 2023

        Well like Kahn’s ULEZ team and the absurd over reaction to Covid, Governments just buy the science and scientists they wish to hear from. Perhaps from say Imperial collage or other bent or deluded scientists. The types who demanded lockdowns and coerced unsafe and ineffective vaccines even for the young & babies. Follow the money or the political will for power and control!

        Some appalling PPE types of MPs then even try to trash the sensible ones like Clare Craig, Andrew Bridgen or the Barrington Declaration people.

      3. MFD
        August 22, 2023

        Plus one!

      4. Lifelogic
        August 24, 2023

        The BBC too think “the science” is settled, they a are one sided propaganda outfit on this issue. The wrong side as is usual for them.

    5. Barbara
      August 22, 2023

      ‘But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.’

      Ottmar Edenhoffer (co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, lead author of the IPCC’s controversial Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007), 2010.

    6. BOF
      August 22, 2023

      Mark B
      We cannot question ‘the science’ because their is no proper science behind the scam and they cannot answer the questions.

    7. Donna
      August 22, 2023

      “Government makes biggest payment to Bank of England in history to fund bond losses…..The Government transferred a record £14.3bn to the Bank of England last month as increases in interest rates lumbered the Treasury with heavy losses from quantitative easing (QE).The Treasury delivered the single largest state transfer to the Bank on record in July to meet the shortfall from the monetary stimulus programme put in place after the global financial crisis.Losses on the Bank of England’s quantitative easing measures have cost the taxpayer almost £30bn in the past 11 months, according to the Office for National Statistics.”

      Taxpayers forced to bail out the BofE …. it’s almost like the Not-a-Conservative-Party WANTS to be annihilated at the next General Election.

      1. Mark B
        August 23, 2023

        Don’t worry, Rishi the Usurper knows what he is doing, just ask the likes of Richard1 who thinks everything that is going wrong is Liz Truss’s fault.

        1. Hope
          August 23, 2023

          Donna/Mark,
          I genuinely believe this is deliberate destruction of our economy under the WEF build back better. No one could be that stupid, multiplied by ONS,OBR, Treasury, Cabinet and Party. This many people cannot be acting in tandem without knowing what they are doing is costing the taxpayer an absolute fortune while at the same time raising taxes to 70 year high, debt at a historic high, interest on debt at record high and Sunak and Hunt adamant that there should be no head count reduction!! Exact opposite they have increased the civil service head by 100,000 in 7 years!!

    8. Guy+Liardet
      August 27, 2023

      Golly, John, I do believe you are getting there! Now consider UK’s one per cent and your government’s Net Zero suicidal fantasy. Oh, and CO2 doesn’t make the weather!

  2. Peter
    August 22, 2023

    Some awkward questions on carbon accounting that governments and companies need to answer.

    So they will ignore them.

    They will toe the line. The questions still need to be posed but getting answers will be more difficult than getting blood out of a stone. The Emperor’s new clothes.

    1. PeteB
      August 22, 2023

      Spot on Peter. All credit for Sir J in raising thed questions but we will not get honest answers from our politicians. A truism for many areas of Government (Migrant movement, benefit costs, NHS delivery, transport infrastructure, government debt, to name a few…)

      1. acorn
        August 22, 2023

        Britain faces a debt-interest bill of 10.4% of revenue this year, the largest share in the developed world, according to Fitch. Who was it who got Thatcher to issue index linked Guilts against Treasury advice? Meanwhile, debt is forecast to jump to 105% of GDP by 2025. With a budget deficit and current account deficit both around 5% of GDP recently, half the budget deficit is paying for imports and the rest is being saved in the domestic private sector.
        Anybody got any ideas because this government hasn’t got a clue!

        1. Mark B
          August 22, 2023

          Oh it is Mrs.T’s fault is it ? Nothing to do with PM’s before and after her. Yeah, let us all blame a dead woman shall we because no one else did anything wrong – EVER.

          Get over it !!

          1. acorn
            August 22, 2023

            Thatcher introduced index linked Guilts in the 1980’s as an antidote to the IMF loan in the seventies. Alas, as usual with comments on this site, the lack of intellect in such matters just makes your comments laughable.

          2. Martin in Bristol
            August 22, 2023

            acorn
            State spending accelerated rapidky post Thatcher.
            Blair and Brown hosed magic money, printed and borrowed.
            Look it up
            Stop your nonsense.

          3. Mark B
            August 23, 2023

            And why did she have to do that ? Who created the situation whereby she had to do something because someone did something bad before her.

            And you just pick on once person and one thing as if nothing is interconnected either before or after.

            And you have the nerve to question others interllect.

          4. hefner
            August 23, 2023

            Yes look it up MiB.
            UK public sector net debt as a % of GDP was 50% of GDP in 2010. It had been at 40% in 1997-98. One could say a 25% increase over the Blair-Brown years.

            It is now at 100% of GDP, a 100% increase over the Cameron1/2-May-Johnson-Truss-Sunak years.
            HM Treasury.

          5. Martin in Bristol
            August 23, 2023

            Thanks for agreeing with me hefner.
            You show how state spending increased post 1997.
            Thus proving acorns claims were nonsense.
            Well done.

          6. hefner
            August 24, 2023

            MiB, Oh I see, a 25% increase in the Blair-Brown years is bad, (an average 2% increase per year over the 1997-2010 period) but a 100% increase since 2010 is fine (an average 7.5% increase per year over the 2010-2023).
            Interesting, 2% is a rapid acceleration, 7.5% is not.
            What I can only call a balanced view …

          7. Martin in Bristol
            August 25, 2023

            Again hefner, you get confused with acorns original claim about the Thatcher increase in spending.
            My balanced view is that the dreadful financial management of tje Blair and Brown government hosed money at a greater rate.
            And gave us the 2008 crash which echoed on for years afterwards and sold gold at ridiculously low prices costing us billions.
            PS
            You allowing anything for the enourmous economic effects of Covid in your balanced view?

            PS Im looking forward to your posts setting out the austerity policies you are in favour of to dramatically reduce State spending.

        2. MFD
          August 22, 2023

          The only thing I know is that Sunak is totally incompetent both as a Chancellor and PM.
          But I think that is the reason he was shoved into post. Ms Truss was going to save the country from bankruptcy and that would never do!

        3. PeteB
          August 22, 2023

          Adding to Mark B’s comment, Government debt as % GDP during the Thatcher years reduced. How many other PMs achieved that in recent times?

    2. Peter
      August 22, 2023

      I have not seen Sir John Redwood’s article of 12th August for ‘Conservative Home’ on that site. I was interested in seeing the comments over there.

  3. Will
    August 22, 2023

    There is only one question relevant to CO2 accounting, and that is why on earth should anyone spend so much effort on such a pointless exercise? CO2 is not, and never has been, the demon that some deluded eco-fanatics would have us believe, on this basis all of your points are irrelevant, we should be concentrating on getting this country back to making, growing and doing the things that should have been our priorities all along.

    1. Old Albion
      August 22, 2023

      Spot on!

    2. PeteB
      August 22, 2023

      +1

    3. Timaction
      August 22, 2023

      Exactly right. 7. Where is the evidence that CO2 is anything other than a plant food? Flawed computer modelling is not a good reason to bankrupt us. Stop adding tariffs to our energy bills for redundant windmill technology. Start fracking and nuclear. Stop being reliant on EU for our energy.
      They are not our friends as the boat people debacle shows and that YOUR Government refuse to deal with. It would take me 24 hours to end it. Stop the boats and turn them around or belt and braces return them the same day to the French by the tunnel. No more nice diplomacy, they’re laughing at us, passing their illegal migrant problem to us whilst pocketing £500 million for nothing!

      1. Lifelogic
        August 22, 2023

        “Flawed” computer modelling or bent & bought modelling see Climategate Khan’s appalling outfit and ULEZ “science”. They just want the “science” that gives them a ruse to tax, mug and control!

        1. glen cullen
          August 22, 2023

          Correct

      2. MFD
        August 22, 2023

        I could not have said that better Timaction

    4. BOF
      August 22, 2023

      Agreed Will
      Unfortunately there is now a lot of legislation to get rid of first and that means we must rid ourselves of a very large number of current MP’s!

  4. Bloke
    August 22, 2023

    Some people trying to add up ignore the rational numbers they find too awkward.

  5. DOM
    August 22, 2023

    It’s not about carbon. It’s not about cash. It’s not about diversity. It’s not about equality. It’s not about clean air. It’s not about hate or tolerance. What we are seeing is the construction of a fascist world in which all life is controlled, monitored and imposed and John’s party is colluding in this most pernicious and nefarious project

    1. BOF
      August 22, 2023

      DOM
      As Neil Oliver says, ‘It’s never about what they say it’s about’.

    2. glen cullen
      August 22, 2023

      I agree DOM, we must fight to maintain our freedoms

  6. Sakara Gold
    August 22, 2023

    I have repeatedly posted here (with our kind host’s permission) on the benefits of the green revolution and particularly, renewable energy. The reasons are simple – the wind blows, the sun shines and so wind and solar represent FREE energy. All we have to do is instal the solar panels, build the windfarms, harvest it and transport the electricity to where it is needed.

    Of course, the fossil fuel industry and the climate change deniers who support it’s incessant lobbying of ministers and their useful idiots, who plant endless anti-EV propaganda in the media, see renewable energy as an existential threat to their industry. Their relentless agitation against EVs, heat pumps, onshore windfarms, investing in upgrading the grid etc have resulted in Sunak’s government taking a decidedly obstructive and anti-renewables policy stance.

    The Conservative party, clutching at straws, have seized on the single local issue of ULEZ to demand that the governent makes green policies the dividing line against Labour at the next election. Current polling is informative:- a large majority of Conservative voters support net zero, more renewables infrastructure and the green revolution. The public have seen through the propaganda and are enamoured of Labour’s very good Green Plan. Fighting the next election with climate crisis denying, anti-green policies willl be a losing strategy.

    1. Timaction
      August 22, 2023

      I knew common sense wouldn’t take long with you SK or is it Martin in Cardiff or the Nottingham man?. Climate change/net zero is a religion. End of. Show us the evidence that CO2 is anything other than plant food. Waiting………………………………….

    2. Ian B
      August 22, 2023

      @Sakara Gold No, as an import only Country we have aggressively increased World pollution, more than any saving that would be possible from the UK having 100% renawables. Never forget your EV’s, wind-farms, solar panels are all produced in the most polluting methods in the most polluting Countries. These Countries also stated they will put their economy first.
      Heat pumps only work in Homes designed around them, they cannot fulfil the objectives in any homes older than around 15years. That is a massive housing stock that needs to be rebuilt.
      However that I would guess wasn’t Sir Johns question. He is challenging the preoccupation of importing from the Worlds Greatest Polluters rather than looking to our own capabilities. Destroying things that work and we have by forcing the taxpayer to fund the Worlds Polluters

    3. Original Richard
      August 22, 2023

      SG : “The reasons are simple – the wind blows, the sun shines and so wind and solar represent FREE energy. All we have to do is instal the solar panels, build the windfarms, harvest it and transport the electricity to where it is needed.”

      Nonsense. Coal, oil and gas are also free. It is always the harvesting and transport which costs. The wheels are already coming off the wind energy bus:

      A Renewables UK press release dated 04/07/2023 says that they and two other renewable energy associations have written a joint letter to DESNZ/the Government urging them to make changes to their next annual CfD clean power auction.

      Among other requests is that “the budget for fixed-foundation offshore wind alone would need to be at least two and a half times higher than its current level to maximise the capacity which could now be secured in this year’s auction.”

      So the idea that wind is now 9 times cheaper than gas is complete nonsense and wind is getting even more expensive as already predicted. Note also that offshore wind uses 1000 times more steel and concrete per unit of energy compared to nuclear and is totally unreliable requiring either a parallel gas system for backup or a storage system (hydrogen or battery) which is so expensive there is no plan for one even by 2050, 15 years after the proposed electricity decarbonisation date.

    4. Lifelogic
      August 22, 2023

      Well oil coal and gas are free you just have to extract and collect them whick is easier than wind plus they are on demand can be stored and are not intermittent.

      Conservative support net zero you claim well the BBC Gov propaganda has worked. But most have no science and do not even know what a KWH is or what net zero is. Try this question do you want to be forces to spend £100k on a heat pump and EV to give you a worse more expensive car and a worse, more expensive to run and maintain heating. system?

    5. oldwulf
      August 22, 2023

      @Sakara Gold
      I am trying to keep an open mind on the green revolution.
      I have read that there are idiots at the extremes of both sides.
      Sadly, I’m not sure that I would recognise one of those idiots if I saw one.
      Ideally, what I would like to see is a fully costed PLAN.
      It is amazing that we have got to where we are without such a fully costed plan.
      Our kind host has listed some of the important questions.

      ps: I am not sure there is such a thing as “FREE” energy.
      Everything has a cost.
      Presumably, we have to rely on the Establishment economists to supply us with the figures to explain the rationale for whatever course of action our lords and masters decide is best for us.

      pps: The costs of net zero seem to regressive in that they take a proportionately more from those on lower incomes.

      1. Lifelogic
        August 22, 2023

        No such thing as renewable energy technically it either comes from the sun wind, solar, wave (radiated nuclear fusion energy) or the rotation of the earth (tidal) or nuclear reactions in the earths core (geothermal).

        Coal is old wood and fossil fuel oil is old organic material – both can be made or grown.

      2. glen cullen
        August 22, 2023

        Your comments are probably true about the extremes of both sides of the CC argument ….but I would like to see some real evidence of any substantial change effecting mankind, as I look outside my window everyday I see no change

        1. hefner
          August 23, 2023

          Oh good, Glen, that you have a window in your English silo.

    6. IanT
      August 22, 2023

      SG – with all this increase in “Free” wind and solar power, why are my energy bills going through the roof?
      …..and where can I get my “Free” solar panels from please?

    7. a-tracy
      August 22, 2023

      “Sunak’s government taking a decidedly obstructive and anti-renewables policy stance.”

      Really? In what way? Plenty of people on here think the Sunak government is going too far and give plenty of their reasons.

      Just some of the policies, extra costs and changes:
      Ensure the UK reduces its greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels 100% by 2050,

      In 2019 (before covid closed down the Country), May’s government made the goal of reaching net zero by 2050 law backed by Boris, Sunak is also committed to the pledge.

      Incentives for people to rent and buy EVs in order to phase out new petrol and diesel cars after 2030 – the target was brought forward by Boris.

      There was a rollout of charge points for electric vehicles rolled out although it seems only London is benefitting at the moment.

      Green charges on all energy bills,

      2020 a pledge to ensure all private rented homes had an energy efficiency rating of C or better, where A is best and G is worst by 2028.

      No gas boilers in new builds from 2025. Although this may have to be pushed back because the price and technology isn’t ready. £450m in household grants for heating systems to be low carbon by 2035.

      Councils of all colours have lost a fortune investing in green businesses and solar plans. The government has to step in and bail out.

    8. Mark B
      August 22, 2023

      I have repeatedly posted here (with our kind host’s permission) on the benefits of the green revolution and particularly, renewable energy.

      Only because every circus needs a clown and you fit the bill perfectly.

      There is a flaw in the your thinking. What happens when the sun does not shine (nightime) and the wind no longer blows ? My guess is, that we either sit in the dark, cold and hungry, or fire up the diesel generators.

    9. Lynn Atkinson
      August 22, 2023

      Oil and gas are free and plentiful. The are created by ‘the planet’ naturally. All we have to do is pump it, refine it (which produces a raft of other useful byproducts) and transport it to where we need it.
      Modern energy deniers insist that it is easier to harness the wind which is an unreliable ‘commodity’.

    10. MFD
      August 22, 2023

      Some people believe all they are told Mark. Either because they dont have the intelligence or they are too lazy to research the subject.

    11. Donna
      August 22, 2023

      ” All we have to do is instal the solar panels, build the windfarms, harvest it and transport the electricity to where it is needed.”

      So it’s not free energy is it. It’s mega expensive energy which is killing thousands of sea birds and eagles; despoiling the landscape and the seascape and requires the backup of reliable energy because it’s only intermittent and can’t be guaranteed to supply energy when it’s needed.

      1. Mark B
        August 23, 2023

        And is denying the use of good arable land to grow food with, pushing up food prices. All so he can drive around in his over priced and rapidly depreciating BEV and virtue signal to the rest of us on how he is saving the planet.

  7. Donna
    August 22, 2023

    No. The only question that needs an answer is “when are you going to drop the lunacy?”

    1. Jim+Whitehead
      August 22, 2023

      Donna, +++++ succinct and true

    2. glen cullen
      August 22, 2023

      Spot On

    3. Lifelogic
      August 22, 2023

      +1

  8. Mike Wilson
    August 22, 2023

    Given that, eventually, fossil fuels will run out, surely transitioning to renewable energy (wind, solar, tidal, hydro and nuclear) makes sense.

    Also, extracting fossil fuels and converting them to energy is a filthy, polluting business.

    The way people on here go on you’d think burning coal and oil was a lovely smiley, rose scented process.

    The issue may, or may not, be CO2. The real issue is storage of renewable energy.

    1. formula57
      August 22, 2023

      @ Mike Wilson – agreed, tranistioning to renewables makes much sense (wholesale use of the planet as a waste dump is bad) but the disruption imposed by the forced pace is destructive in ways that eclipse the benefits.

    2. Everhopeful
      August 22, 2023

      It might make sense to try to develop alternatives along side of other fuels.
      But before being used they would have to work and be affordable.
      None of this however is about keeping us up and running, warm and fed.
      Quite the opposite in fact!

    3. glen cullen
      August 22, 2023

      We’ve discovered enough new fossil fuels deposites to last a thousand years ….cheap & abundant energy

      1. hefner
        August 23, 2023

        Interesting, ourworldindata.org, usually a very balanced website, quotes
        139 years of coal reserves given the 2020 production/use, 57 years for oil, 49 years for gas.
        (Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy, 2023: that’s the Institute that took over the review that BP had been doing since 1952).

        1. Martin in Bristol
          August 23, 2023

          Peak oil and the running out of coal and gas resources has been claimed many times in the 20th century.
          Your quote is just moving this claim ever onwards.

          See extinction.org for a long list of failed claims

    4. Lynn Atkinson
      August 22, 2023

      South Africa has ‘found’ trillions of £ of oil and gas. We have hardly started looking for it, and as the price rises so the volume of viable gas and oil also rises. The volumes quoted are ALWAYS based on viable recovery. Who has ever done a ‘viable recovery’ study of wind?
      When exactly do you think oil and gas will run out and on what basis?

      1. hefner
        August 23, 2023

        What is interesting/depressing here is that these 2020 findings in the Outeniqua Basin were made by the French company Total, and are expected to have a relatively small impact on the South African economy: the consortium put together to exploit these findings is made of Total (45%), Qatar Petroleum (25%), Canadian National Resources International (20%) and a South African sub-consortium for 10%.

        1. Martin in Bristol
          August 23, 2023

          Are you saying these companies are lying hefner?
          Why would they do that.
          They say valuable new reserves of fossil fuels have been found in South Africa.
          Where is your proof that is incorrect?

          1. hefner
            August 24, 2023

            Read again my comment MiB: do I say these companies are lying? I’m just pointing out that, despite this finding interesting in terms of new resources, the benefit to the South African people is likely to be small.

          2. Martin in Bristol
            August 25, 2023

            Yet the companies actually doing the exploration seem not to agree with your claim hefner.

  9. BOF
    August 22, 2023

    All because the carbon accounting is as fraudulent as the ‘war’ on CO2.

    The legislation, Climate Change Act and Net Zero, simply enforces the fraud and makes our country poor while enriching China and other countries that generate power with nuclear, coal and gas.

    Included in the audit should be the non recycling of vast tonnage of wind turbine blades and solar panels that go into land fill. The destruction of vast numbers of birds and bats. The loss of hundreds of thousands of acres of good farmland. The effect of offshore turbines on whale sonar, the probable cause of many beachings.

    The cost, and the point, of having to keep power stations on standby while the wind blows and the sun shines. Like planning a British beach holiday that assumes sunny days!

    1. Everhopeful
      August 22, 2023

      +++
      Apparently a famous London science college came out with a report questioning the value of ULEZ.
      It was totally ignored!
      But surely MPs would have seen it?

      1. Timaction
        August 22, 2023

        Even if they did see it like we did, they ignore it. Little to no benefit to ULEZ but it doesn’t fit with their agenda and raises lots of taxes that they can waste on some other useless lefty project.

      2. glen cullen
        August 22, 2023

        Will the climate change committee investigate ???

      3. BOF
        August 22, 2023

        Everhopeful
        Of course they saw it. But horror of horrors, it is not in line with the NARATIVE.

  10. DOM
    August 22, 2023

    Inflation is now a ‘right wing issue’ according to the American left. It’s only a matter of time before these scumbags declare life itself as a ‘right wing issue’

    The west is on a collision course with catastrophe with these lunatics in control

    1. Mark B
      August 22, 2023

      Dom

      I would be happy to be associated as Rightwing and having low inflation as a policy. Inflation is theft of peoples wealth by the State by another name.

  11. Sea_Warrior
    August 22, 2023

    Q6. How many MPs have flown abroad for their summer holidays this year?
    Q7. What will be the ‘carbon footprint’ of those 800 ‘refugees’ landing in Kent yesterday?

    1. Timaction
      August 22, 2023

      8. How many deported after the easy peasy questions asked by the Home Office? If you’re Gay you can Stay apparently is the in phrase!!! The coaching by the lefty charities and lawyers runs rings around the fools at the Home Office. No surprises there. They probably conduct the interviews by zoom from home, between shopping for vegan produce, walking the dog, the gym, and other errands in their electric cars.

    2. The PrangWizard
      August 22, 2023

      Sir John’s party and government do not care. They do not care about the interests of the original people of this country. all they say is just posturing because many of them come from established elitist positions. Our PM of course has no idea what the original people are like or how they wish to live or do live. He has no knowledge except what he has read about, being a cultural import himself. Part of our destruction which senior people dare not challenge.

  12. Mickey Taking
    August 22, 2023

    What deduction is made to allow for the fact that CO2 is required by plants, trees to feed the ever growing planet population?

    1. Everhopeful
      August 22, 2023

      They literally don’t want any of those things.
      Maybe (they think) a few Wagyu/caviar/asparagus type things for themselves but for dwindling humanity at large just factory produced, insect-heavy fake food (probably quite toxic btw)

    2. hefner
      August 23, 2023

      Why would you need a deduction when the actual amount of CO2 is measured daily and globally by the NASA satellite OCO-2 (Orbiting Carbon Observatory)?

      ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov

  13. Everhopeful
    August 22, 2023

    I think actually that the scam needs to be made VERY PUBLIC.
    Because brainwashed people truly believe the “this will save the planet” nonsense.

    Speaking of which we still have no internet access barring this unreliable hot spot.
    Shadows of future increased chaos.

  14. Nigl
    August 22, 2023

    I see zero point in even thinking about/being interested in the points being raised. Both sides of the argument are ‘corrupt’ from the politics to the science and I can not influence that one jot so better things to do with my time.

    When it gets translated by our virtue signalling uninformed politicians into the ‘lies’ like heat pumps that directly effect me that I can (collectively) influence, I will push back.

    1. Christine
      August 22, 2023

      I would be interested to know how many politicians and green zealots have installed heat pumps in their homes; purchased a fully EV vehicle without a second car that runs on fossil fuels; stopped flying; stopped eating meat and switched to insects. I expect it’s a case of do as I say not as I do.

      1. Lifelogic
        August 22, 2023

        None would be my best guess. Certainly not one “Chris Stark” who is the Chief Executive of the UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) and who seems to understand very little indeed about climate, energy, energy economics, grid stability, energy storage, electricity grids or logic and rather likes to demonstrate this in interviews. As does the recent (and currency) energy ministers and the chair of the above committee.

  15. agricola
    August 22, 2023

    As you imply the whole system is fraught with questionable accounting, intellectual dishonesty and hypochracy. Do we need to get so excited about carbon capture when plant life needs it. I liken the zealots that promote it, the CND of the 21st century, a bunch of hookers striving for a return to virginity.

    1. Lifelogic
      August 22, 2023

      You can get that “free” on the NHS now I understand. Prompt NHS cancer tests & treatments however?

  16. Rod Evans
    August 22, 2023

    Here is another question.
    8. Why is the CO2 being emitted by a power station ignored when that CO2 has actually increased in output following change of fuel used from local coal producing ‘Y’ tonnes to using overseas wood pellets now producing 2x’Y’ tonnes of CO2? i.e. DRAX.

    1. Lifelogic
      August 22, 2023

      +1 surely it is obvious that burning old wood (coal) at Drax is far better for CO2 and for the environment than chopping down huge forests and then importing on diesel ship to burn? Not alas to MPs or the Climate Change Comittee! They doubtless buy the carbon accountants that tell them what they want to hear.

  17. formula57
    August 22, 2023

    “3. Why does the accounting system credit a country with lower CO2 because it has closed down fossil fuel based activities, only to import the products needed?” – because the whole scheme is a complete fraud producing nonsense figures to amuse the gullible.

    (My own carbon neutrality by 2020 commitment remains intact despite some delays caused by Brexit, Covid, the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Christmases and Easters and not actually doing anything. My virtue has never glowed so much and I commend my approach to the country at large.)

  18. Narrow Shoulders
    August 22, 2023

    Re 1 when I see punitive tariffs on imports from countries that do not prey to the gods of net zero – I will know that net zero is real.

    Until then it is a scam.

    1. Lynn Atkinson
      August 22, 2023

      Oh they have done better than that! They have SANCTIONED out main supplier and blown up the pipelines😂🤣! Stark raving mad.

  19. Ian B
    August 22, 2023

    Sir John

    Not so much questions about carbon accounting, the question highlights this Conservative Governments socialist desire to destroy every corner of UK society, so that those that call themselves ‘elites’ get to rebuild in their own image.

    This Conservative Government will tell you that the conspiracy theories of ‘the great reset’ are an invention and a myth. Then do everything defined in that play book to bring the UK to its knees.

  20. Des
    August 22, 2023

    Expecting a good effective system to account for carbon is ludicrous when the entire premise is false. CO2 is not a poison, it is the stuff of life. The world had 5 times as much in the atmosphere for millions of years and was absolutely fine with far more verdant plant growth.

    1. BOF
      August 22, 2023

      +1 Des

  21. Robert Thomas
    August 22, 2023

    Grid Capacity : the introduction of SMRs will require much less change to the existing grid than an increase in renewable energy. SMRs can be put on the sites of former large nuclear and fossil fuel generators and so utilise the existing network and, presumably, avoid costly planning delays. The UK has the technology and the engineering capability ; has the Government got the determination, nerve and will to speed up its introduction ?

    1. BOF
      August 22, 2023

      R T
      Yes, but. It is taking so long to make such a simple decision that I believe there is no intention of doing so and thereby helping a UK company, RR. It would also help the UK’s survival as a 1st world power and that is definitely a no no.

    2. hefner
      August 22, 2023

      rolls-Royce-SMR.com
      Latest news from the website:
      – 12/07/2023 ‘Report outlines benefits of integrating RR SMRs into the UK energy mix’.
      – 28/06/2023 ‘RR SMR renew calls for closer international collaboration on small modular reactors’.
      – 14/06/2023 ‘Joint study with Sumitomo Corporation shows that RR SMRs could help ‘power’ the UK’s hydrogen network’.

  22. Bryan Harris
    August 22, 2023

    Brilliant questions that deserve an answer – Shouldn’t the appropriate minister be consulted, or better still, what about asking the Climate Change committee?

    As China, Russia, India produce more than 40% of the world’s CO 2 output and their output is still growing, how do we get to the 2030 and 2035 targets?

    Here’s the rub: Netzero was never about reducing Co2 levels by all countries – the whole scam was designed to reduce the West to 3rd world levels.

    While we labour in Dark Ages conditions socialist regimes will take over completely and then you’ll see a world that comes out of your worst ever nightmares, and far worst than even the most dystopian films ever made. Netzero will go down in history as the worst crime ever against Humanity.

  23. Ian B
    August 22, 2023

    Where do this Conservatives Governments loyalty’s lay? Just take the BEV’s for a starter, these hit UK roads with big taxpayer subsidies. In practice this means that those that cant afford them are funding those that can. Then the real kick in the teeth they are all imported, meaning the UK taxpayer is not only funding Foreign Governments they are funding the removal of UK jobs.

    Lets not forget even the vain attempt for the taxpayer funding going to a new foreign owned assembly part in Somerset to assemble batteries from Chinese components, is a farce. The UK taxpayer gets nothing, all gains go to India And China. And who is listed as the worlds largest polluters?

    Even if the UK attained the situation of 100% renewable energy, the import first mentality negates any gains.

    There is nothing that required our legislators to create the 2030 & 2035 targets, it was 100% their choice. They are the creators, the amenders and can repeal UK Law. They the UK Legislators along with this Conservative Government need to stand up and take on personally the burden they have suggested exist, they need to understand and bow their heads in shame to the increases through their stupidity of World Pollution they have personally created. As they all well know imports from the Worlds Greatest polluters – is still World Pollution, it is a greater pollution burden on the World than doing nothing. The shame the stupidity they are using UK taxpayer money to do it.

    1. Ian B
      August 22, 2023

      In simple terms if we had a UK economy first approach we would be creating the wealth to cope with what ever is thrown at us.

      That would take a real Conservative Government and we have not even got a remote chance of that happening until the current crowd have maliciously destroyed the UK.

  24. halfway
    August 22, 2023

    But no mention about shipping one of the biggest polluters and here we are about to do deals with countries on the other side of the world – you couldn’t make it up.

    Not only do ships pollute the atmosphere with the noxious fumes belching out but they pollute the oceans seas with particles of micro plastic by discarding ballast water in mid oceans and in river estuaries. Just something else

  25. Original Richard
    August 22, 2023

    “China, Russia, India produce more than 40% of the world’s CO 2 output and their output is still growing……… What actions are being taken to get the largest and fastest growing outputs by these countries to be reined in?”

    None.

    That CAGW (now CAGB) is completely false is evidenced by the fact that no activists have an issue with non-western countries emitting vast quantities of CO2 and that nuclear, the only low CO2 emitting energy source which is affordable, reliable and secure is ignored in the western democracies and even operational plants closed before the end of their useful life.

    The activists know that their renewable energy and electrification Net Zero “solution” is pointless and unnecessary and being unaffordable is designed to destroy the western democracies access to cheap, abundant and reliable energy, the very core of prosperity.

    1. hefner
      August 24, 2023

      Sorry to be picky again OR.
      The USA have 850 TWh of nuclear-produced electricity. France (412 TWh nuclear-produced electricity in 2018) started his civil nuclear programme in the 1970s and in the 70-80s was building three new nuclear plants per year. It had up to 80% of its electricity from nuclear in the 2000s, about 70% now. The nuclear plants had originally a lifetime of 50 years. Macron’s government recently extended this ‘lifetime’ to 60 years.

      But rereading your comment, I should have understood that you do not consider the USA or France as western democracies.

      1. Martin in Bristol
        August 27, 2023

        So out of the whole number of European nations hefner your argument is that France has a lot of nuclear capacity.
        And America, well yes. We realise that.
        What about the other European nations and the UK?

        Odd that the greens (and you) whilst wanting zero CO2 also want zero nuclear.
        Hence OR’s point which was very well made.

  26. Original Richard
    August 22, 2023

    JG : “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”.

    It is useful to note that those with a higher intellect (aka the “chattering classes”) as evidenced by their degrees in the non-stem subjects such as the arts, politics, history (ancient and modern), languages (ancient, English and foreign), social geography and the law etc., and consequently now head up and control all our major institutions – Parliament, the Civil Service, the NHS, quangos, educational and research establishments, judiciary, the police, the MSM/BBC etc. are the most susceptible to false memes.

    Whilst the co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize, Dr. John Clauser, who has described the ‘climate emergency’ narrative, “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people”, gets no recognition or publicity at all and is being cancelled.

  27. Brian Tomkinson
    August 22, 2023

    Here is another question :
    The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is said to be 0.04% of which only 3% is man-made – do you really believe that removing the UK’s 1% of that 0.0012% i.e. 0.000012% will do anything to ‘save the planet’?

    1. Ian B
      August 22, 2023

      @Brian Tomkinson – yup, known facts, real science proven over many years. This Conservative Governments new religion is clearly not about the Planet

    2. Timaction
      August 22, 2023

      Exactly, but you know every weather event on the planet will be attributed to the bogy gas and in turn………………global warming/climate change.

  28. glen cullen
    August 22, 2023

    SirJ, all good points today, and questions that we’ve been shouting about for years

    When it comes to calculations you’ve forgotten to included the international government scam of ‘carbon-trading’ ….and the big one, what calculation is used to show that our ‘net-zero’ efforts have been successful …whats the success criteria ?

    Build miles of cycle lanes …but what if no one uses them
    Scrap coal power generation ..but to import energy via interconnectors
    Scrap ICE vehicles …but the people can’t afford EVs or charge from home
    Scrape free movement and travel …but the people didn’t vote for ULEZ, LTNs, 15mins
    Impose ESG and green taxes ….but the people didn’t vote for a green party
    The list goes on

    1. Timaction
      August 22, 2023

      Indeed. Just answered the haveyoursaywest.co.uk on line. More cycle lanes, bus lanes, walk ways. Of course people of my generation are going to rush outside and run the 5 miles to ASDA (no public transport, unless you take two buses each way and wait hours in between) and walk back with the weekly shop. Public transport where we live is a joke. Its Bristol/Bath or ………no where, except Bristol airport. That does give us ideas……
      So the increasing traffic congestion, building everywhere, no dentists, Doctors, school places around here is not influenced by the Governments mass immigration policy? 1.2 million tax payer subsidised minimum wage legal immigrants/family routes annually has no impact on anything!! Said nobody anywhere, apart from Worstminster.

  29. Bingle
    August 22, 2023

    On a separate but not entirely unrelated subject, I read today that the March OBR forecasts of debt etc. on which the Government bases its budget, was again wrong – overstating it by more than £11Bn. Has it ever been right?

    What a disastrous way to run a Country.

    Is it not time that this useless bunch of Economists were given their marching orders?

    1. Ian B
      August 22, 2023

      @Bingle – the OBR is a recent Government construct brought about from loss of confidence in the Chacellors own Treasury Department. To date they have never been right.
      Jeremy Hunt recently employed for himself a new panel to advise him on what the OBR was stating. Un-controlled unaccountable growth of the State brought about by a Government unable to manage – no wonder taxes are at a 70 year high.

    2. Ian B
      August 22, 2023

      @Bingle – Yes just 14% out in their predictions. How many in the real world would still be in post making such a catastrophic mistake?

      Of course being taxpayer employed, there is no accountability or responsibility attached to them or on their Boss(the 2 Chancellors) to do the job effectivly.

  30. ChrisS
    August 22, 2023

    The points you raise really need answering but I think we posting here already know the truth :
    All these figures are fiddled in favour of the climate change agenda and bear no sense of reality.

    EVs are certainly not the panacea they are claimed to be, nor are they ever going to be. The whole-life emissions they will produce from mining the battery minerals, through use on the road, to eventual scrapping will surely be worse than the equivalent figures for the most modern IC-engined Cat 6 cars. I strongly suspect that the comparison figures offered to make the case for EVs are between an optimistic view of EVs run on entirely green electricity, and the current mix of cars on the road of all ages. This is not a fair comparison as almost all the current IC cars on the road will be replaced with Cat 6 ones by 2035, and we are decades away from entirely green power generation.

    The infrastructure cost estimates for charging points, the grid, and power generation will undoubtedly prove to be a fraction of the eventual cost, and the required amount of reliable, green power required will be unachievable on any reasonable timescale.

    It will be 20-30 years before we could possibly have the required amount of Nuclear-generated electricity to stop using gas to provide the electricity to run all the EVs required. That will add hugely to emissions.

    It’s exactly the same as the whole exaggerated and fraudulent case that continues to be made to justify HS2.
    Most people don’t believe a word of it !

    1. Ian B
      August 22, 2023

      @ChrisS – The alarm has already been raised by the London Mayors advisors that particulates from EV’s is greater than his ULEZ doctrine can achieve. Clearly ULEZ is about money not health.

      EV’s, due to their excessive weight, are massive producers of tyre and brake particulates. More contaminating to the lungs of the young than diesel exhausts. EV’s are not a clean air product

  31. glen cullen
    August 22, 2023

    Home Office data as at 22nd August
    Illegal Criminal Immigrants – the govt. isn’t bothered so I don’t care anymore
    Illegal Boats – the govt. isn’t bothered so I don’t care anymore

    If anyone is interested the govt. link is https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats-last-7-days

    To quote SirJ ‘’we don’t believe you’’

  32. Peter Miller
    August 22, 2023

    Sadly, Boris under the influence of his greenie wife, committed the UK to the economically disastrous policy of net zero. It is time for the Tories to abandon this policy, which will impoverish the majority of this country’s inhabitants.

    A good first step would be to overturn Sadiq Khan’s unpopular and pointless ULEZ expansion.

    1. Ian B
      August 22, 2023

      @Peter Miller – giving London’s surrounding counties back their domains would be a start as would be bringing back London Transport. A case of it when its not broken why attempt to fix things

    2. DennisA
      August 22, 2023

      First the Climate Change Act has to be repealed and I can’t see that happening. It allows NGO’s to take the government to court if they backtrack on their foolish commitments. Repeal could be done if the Conservatives at Westminster were of a mind to do so, but as they all voted for it (with a small number of notable exceptions, including SIr John), I doubt there is the appetite to even consider it, even though they have a majority, for now.

      It is a massive albatross around the neck of the UK.

  33. Christine
    August 22, 2023

    The whole climate emergency is a con. This is all about a future where the government controls how we spend our cash. A social credit system is our future but it won’t affect the rich as they will just buy credits from the poor. People need to wake up and elect new politicians who are against this state-controlled dictatorship before it’s too late. Unfortunately, our media has been compromised and the majority of voters don’t know what’s coming. Many even believe the lies they are told.

  34. John Downes
    August 22, 2023

    As an accountant, I object to the use of the word ‘accounting’ to describe the process of estimating carbon dioxide production.
    Accountancy is about precision. Yes, we estimate things from time to time, but we have to justify our estimates and compare them with reality when time has passed.
    All this stuff about carbon is no better than a wild guess, of no greater provenance than a Treasury Forecast. Worthless, in other words.

    1. Ian B
      August 22, 2023

      @John Downes – not when the word is used to describe political reasoning, that is then just religion – hence the guess work.

  35. Nigl
    August 22, 2023

    And in other news looks like the OBR got it wrong again.

    Hunt/Sunak slavishly accepting them as a means of shifting blame in fact just look stupid.

  36. IanT
    August 22, 2023

    I have some old editions of the ‘Model Engineer’ from the early 1900’s. One of the popular topics back then was home power generation, ranging from small steam and oil powered generators to water powered contraptions. Of course, they were made obsolete with the widespread availability of ‘mains’ power.
    But perhaps I’d better have a look at them again and see if they now make practical sense to the home owner again. After all Windmills are back in fashion 🙂

    1. Lifelogic
      August 22, 2023

      Can make more sense today. This as so long as you do all your heating, cooking, hot water, kettle with gas or similar and use LED lights and low energy appliances rather little electricity is actually needed. Save on the rip off standing charges too. But does not apply if you have an EV car to charge! Can even make sense to have a small gas powered generator and use the waste heat for hot water or heating! This rather the reverse of the government’s bonkers EV car and heat pump from wind tubines agenda.

  37. Ian B
    August 22, 2023

    It is clear people are with the help of the ill informed Media and me-to MP’s are able to conflate situations and create another direction and meaning.

    Of course renewable energy is desirable, but is that the same as the UK Taxpayer being forced to subsidies the Worlds polluters to achieve a contradictory objective? World pollution, is not in one geographical zone it is the whole World, just moving it to encourage more uncontrolled pollution elsewhere, is utterly ridiculous. Then this is compounded in that the UK Taxpayer will be paying the Worlds Polluters that retain the ownership of these facilities for ever more, to keep choking the World. The Conservative Governments failure is not the aspiration but their desire to ensure anyone and everyone can get paid with UK Taxpayer money seemingly at the denial to UK Enterprise and Ownership. This Conservative Government has set out to destroy the UK not save the World from pollution.

    Elsewhere in the World, taxpayer funding is available on the basis of the enterprise must be based, have its actual manufacture and its home where the taxes are to received. Even the EU Commission is demanding 65% of the production(not just assembly) must be in the EU. This Conservative Governments attitude is anyone can be given UK Taxpayer money with no requirements placed on them.

    A case in point, the Somerset Battery assembly plant will received for its foreign owners more money than was required to facilitate UK based and owned UK taxpaying Industry to produce the same thing. ‘British-volt’ required half the subsidy of the Somerset outfit and would produce home grown technology and ownership. The company this Conservative Government gave our taxpayer money to has no expertise in this area hence the portioning things off to the Chinese and importing components for assembly. With this Conservative Government version all the ownership, the technology, stays in foreign hands and whims, it will not advance the UK that has been programmed out of the situation. It is not a UK Investment it is a UK giveaway.

    Its illustrations like this and there are many, that begs the question exactly who do our MP’s, our Legislators and the Conservative Government think they are working for?

    Is creating more World Pollution the aim of our UK Parliament and this Conservative Government? That is certainly what they are doing in practice.

  38. Barbara
    August 22, 2023

    Sorry to be blunt, but CO2 is *not* carbon and anyone referring to ‘carbon accounting’ is merely showing either a) they do not know what they are talking about or b) they are deliberately obfuscating. Accepting and using the new, nonsensical, incorrect phraseology made up by the fanatics is just ceding territory to the other side imo.

    1. MFD
      August 22, 2023

      I go for “B” Barbara, like my dad said seventy eight years ago when he returned from war, never trust a politician as most lie and certainly dont lead by example.

  39. Kenneth
    August 22, 2023

    Good questions. Probably best directed at the Socialist regime

  40. Ed
    August 22, 2023

    It’s all a scam. Everyone in power must know that.
    What is the ulterior motive.
    Who is going to benefit from the destruction of the West

  41. Original Richard
    August 22, 2023

    “In order to close the gap with net zero ambitions governments and companies pursuing this agenda need to revise the way they account for it [CO2 emissions]”.

    I read on p 48 of the NGESO FES 2023 Report :

    “The Climate Change Committee has updated their methodology for calculating emissions
    by removing climate feedback, aligning themselves with international agreements on
    emissions reporting, and we have reflected this in our emissions modelling…….

    The biggest impact is in the agricultural sector. Agricultural activity produces a mix of
    methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions are
    more strongly influenced by climate feedback mechanisms. Removal of climate feedback
    from the calculation leads to lower emissions than previously reported.”

    Why is this not applying to CO2 emissions?

    https://www.nationalgrideso.com/document/283101/download

  42. outsider
    August 22, 2023

    Dear Sir John,
    You pose good questions but most of your colleagues do not care about tiresome “detail”. We can confidently predict that all the countries that pledged to be “carbon neutral” by 2050 will be able to report that they have achieved it. This is a classic case of Goodhart’s Law, that any measure used as a policy target will become distorted
    You will remember that France, Germany and Italy all had to devise different ruses to fiddle the figures so that their economies appeared to meet the Maastricht Tests for joining in the new euro. As I recall, only the Netherlands, Austria and Finland really did.
    The scope for fiddling figures to meet “Net Zero” is boundless, not least on definition, location and double-counting (eg Drax pellets or international travel, freight and offsetting). But you do not address the other side of “net zero”, measuring absorption of CO2, There lie great opportunities for window-dressing. If we plant a sapling do we count it as fully grown?
    There are also genuine opportunities to boost absorption, particularly in our teritorial waters, if only we put ours minds to it. But if our aim was to curb global warming while maintaining living standards, rather than just to meet a statistical target, we should by now have 4 or 5 big atomic power stations under construction.

  43. margaret
    August 22, 2023

    We are not solely talking about the cost in monetary terms. There is a cost to humanity. Unfortunately when the climate has changed so much that all living mammals/ humans are annihilated the planet will go on and be in the trust of nature itself .

  44. Mickey Taking
    August 22, 2023

    and now for something different which matters:
    The Tories are facing electoral oblivion in the red wall as a shock poll reveals they will lose every single seat.
    Polling from Electoral Calculus, shared with The Independent, reveals all 42 red wall seats held by the Conservatives are set to return to Labour at the next general election. The scale of the rebellion against the government appears to in part be driven by the spiralling cost of living, with a separate analysis seen by The Independent showing the crisis is having a devastating impact on Tory-held seats in the red wall.
    The data, compiled by analytics firm Outra, show 15 Conservative-held red wall seats, which were won at the last election but have historically supported the Labour Party, are among the 50 constituencies with the highest number of financially distressed voters in the country.

  45. SimonR
    August 22, 2023

    Sir John,

    The dodgiest of the lot is imported biomass, where growing the trees apparently offsets the carbon released by burning them twice, once in America and once again here.

    However, it must be said that the owners of Drax have been very clever to switch to such a system, and we owe them all a lot of thanks, as that’s the only thing that has stopped the crazies shutting them down – thus preserving a vital source of power generation.

    Your implication that we should be looking to encourage overseas trading partners to use less carbon if we’re serious about getting the numbers down is right, but we don’t even implement reciprocal tariffs with China when they put them on British imports to support their own industries, so we’re a million miles from slapping them with a carbon tax.

    We should focus on:

    1. Supporting environmentally responsible home-grown industries, heavy and light, and discouraging dirty power generation overseas via tariffs if necessary.

    2. Creative approaches to Net Zero ‘Geoengineering’, for example, dressing agricultural land with rock dust, which also has several other benefits: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/managing-uk-agriculture-rock-dust-could-absorb-45-cent-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-needed-net-zero
    Also, spraying sea water into the air from ships – a large reason for the unusual rise in sea temperatures recently has been identified as the banning of a sulphur component in ship fuel, as this used to provide more cloud cover. Spraying sea water can apparently harmlessly replace this effect. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening#:~:text=Marine%20cloud%20brightening%20also%20known,to%20offset%20anthropogenic%20global%20warming.

    3. Renewables that actually work. It is a scandal that tidal – a source of completely reliable energy, is ignored in favour of wind, and solar of all things. Tidal would also be huge for Wales, and any Government pressing ahead would be likely to reap significant rewards there. Energy from waste. Very unglamorous, but we should be incinerating all the eligible waste we can. It’s appalling to me that IDS is opposing a plant in his constituency.

    A big set piece initiative like Tidal, then gives the Prime Minister the cover to ditch the 2030 ICE ban, and shows that we are confident in achieving our Net Zero goals without ruining everyone’s quality of life and impoverishing and enfeebling our country.

    Best,

    SR

Comments are closed.