How is the Energy and net zero policy going to work?

I did not vote for the Climate Change Act of 2008. I was critical of the lack of costings and forecasts of what would be needed to undertake such a fundamental  change of the energy we used and the ways we used it. No one proposing it could tell us what technologies would work and would be needed to decarbonise diets, aviation, heavy plant, industry and home heating.

This week I am unable to support the government’s latest essay in energy policy geared to hitting the net zero targets. The Bill continues the development of a complex web of subsidies, windfall taxes, price controls and regulations that run the risk of imposing dear energy on us. The UK seems to think cutting our CO 2 output by closing factories and steel works here is good for the planet when importing these items will add to world CO 2.

I am concerned about the UK spending an estimated £20 bn on carbon capture and storage. This is all extra cost which will either be paid for by taxpayers through subsidies or by energy users through higher prices. Either way it is bad for inflation, jobs and business here in the UK .

The UK should not be putting our own energy using businesses or our domestic consumers at a disadvantage. The UK does not have to pioneer carbon capture before other far larger CO 2 producers like China and the EU get around to using carbon capture.


  1. Mark B
    September 5, 2023

    Good morning.

    The Bill continues the development of a complex web of subsidies . . .

    Only those that can afford heat pumps, much like BEV’s, will be able to access the subsidies (free taxpayer money) to have them installed. Once again the poorer end of the economic scale is paying for the wealthy to save not the planet, but their rather large bank balance.

    It is a case of the rich looking after themselves and each other at our expense using false claims to scam us. A shameful way to carry on.

    1. Everhopeful
      September 5, 2023

      If I were rich I would want quiet heating that worked really well.
      I remember the sheer bliss of rich relatives’ central heating in the 50s/60s.
      Who would really, honestly lust after a heat pump?
      100% agree about “shameful”.

      1. Bloke
        September 5, 2023

        Receiving a £5000 govt subsidy to buy a heat pump of minimal functional value generates worthless waste.

      2. Cynic
        September 5, 2023

        Any political party with Net Zero policies in its manifesto will not get my vote.

        1. John de los Angeles
          September 7, 2023


      3. Mickey Taking
        September 5, 2023

        a modern form of buying an indulgence!

      4. Hope
        September 5, 2023

        Do you mean like Charles and his son William? They have many palaces yet still want to buy many other houses while lecturing us about carbon footprint and saving the planet. Goldsmith springs to mind to be of a similar character. I am sick to death of these hypocrites, worse tell us what to do and live exactly opposite to what they preach for the little people. A message for them, Piss off.

        1. Donna
          September 6, 2023


    2. Donna
      September 5, 2023

      Yes, it’s the same middle-class selfishness that Khan has deployed with his ULEZ Tax Grab. Make low-income, tradesmen and pensioners pay an exorbitant tax, so that upper and middle-class Eco Obsessives can benefit from a glow of virtue.

    3. glen cullen
      September 5, 2023

      ”it is very difficult to get someone to see the obvious when retention of their job/funding depends upon them not seeing it” Upton Sinclair American novelist

    4. Lynn Atkinson
      September 5, 2023

      Only the rich can afford the electric bill that heat pumps run up – no subsidy on those. Heat pumps are going out of fashion.

  2. Lifelogic
    September 5, 2023

    How is the Energy and net zero policy going to work? Well it is going to further suppress growth, depress living standards, export jobs (and CO2 production), waste £ trillions and do nothing at all for the climate.

    Firstly a little more CO2 plant, tree and crop food is on balance a net benefit, we are living in a period of a relative dearth of CO2 anyway in historic terms. Secondly the proposed methods to reduce CO2 make no or no significant difference anyway, at best they merely export CO2 production achieving nothing even in CO2 terms, (keeping an old car longer nearly always causes less CO2 than buying a new EV, burning wood at Drax is worse in CO2 and environmental terms than burning old wood – coal). Thirdly cooperation from China, India, Africa, Americas, Russia… would be needed and will not really be forthcoming anyway. Fourthly UK manmade CO2 is only 1% of the world output. Fifthly CO2 is only one of millions of factors that affect climate and not even the main one which are orbits and solar activity. It is not even the main so called ‘greenhouse’ gas.

    So how many reasons does one need to see the lunacy of this policy and bill?

    Finally even if there were a climate emergency then adaptation is a far better way to spend money saving lives far more quickly than pointlessly reducing CO2 impoverishing ourselves and waiting many years. Far better way to spend money saving lives here and now.

    Carbon capture is idiotic and wastes vast amounts of energy in the (pointless) process pushing up energy costs even further. Far more people die of cold than from brief periods of excessive heat and avoiding deaths from excessive heat is easier to solve too.

    1. Sakara Gold
      September 5, 2023

      I have previously commented on your complete misunderstanding of the physics involved in energy storage solutions, your reliance on questionable academics funded by the fossil fuel industry, your poor command of arithmetic and your refusal to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that the world is overheating due to greenhouse gas CO2 and CH4 emissions.

      Carbon capture and storage is a scam put forward by the fossil fuel industry to enable them to continue flaring “excess” gas from oilwells. There is nowhere in the world where even medium sized projects have succeeded and indeed, in Texas, Australia and Saudi Arabia billions have been spent on CC&S projects which have been abandoned. We have given enough subsidy to the fossil fuel industry, we need clean energy. Now.

      1. David+L
        September 5, 2023

        Consensus isn’t science. Throughout history there have been many “concensi”(if that is the plural) which have proven disastrously wrong.

      2. Mike Wilson
        September 6, 2023

        we need clean energy. Now.

        1. Mike Wilson
          September 6, 2023

          From where? Wind? Intermittent. Solar – useless for 6 months of the year. Nuclear? Absurdly expensive.

      3. Lifelogic
        September 6, 2023

        I have not seen any coherent comments from you on “my misunderstanding” of the physics of electrical energy storage. By background is Maths, Physics and Electronics at two top universities and in my work. I agree carbon capture is a waste of time, money and energy. Nothing “dirty” about CO2.

        I am with Dr John Clauser, co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize and the many other many sensible physicists and scientists. He recently launched a massive attack on the “climate emergency” scare. Calling it a “dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people” Dr Clauser has asserted that misguided climate science has “metastasised into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience”.

        Dr Clauser argues that climate pseudoscience has been promoted and extended by misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies and environmentalists.

        “In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s largest population, and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.

      4. Margaret
        September 6, 2023

        Bangor University with the help of Rolls-Royce and others are testing trisofuel on the moon in to create a moonbase.There is hope that if our natural non carbon sources fail then trisofuel could power generators.

      5. Lynn Atkinson
        September 6, 2023

        16,000 scientists have signed a petition that says there is no consensus as you repeatedly and incorrectly claim.
        Indeed as the others have given up science in favour of obtaining their subsidies, you could say that all remaining scientists say Climate Change is a scam.

        1. Lifelogic
          September 6, 2023

          +1 at best it is a vast exaggeration.

          1. hefner
            September 7, 2023

            Indeed, the petition was signed by 1,609 scientists, not 16,000.

    2. Enough+Already
      September 5, 2023

      Yes but don’t forget that Mr. Skidmore’s ‘independent’ energy review that led to the government spaffing billions of our money on CCS, will be coining it from his new consulting job for a carbon-capture company.

    3. Wil
      September 5, 2023

      One can see why the government would want to do this.
      They are totally incapable of solving the needs of the country, but they can get an easy win in the usual way, by spaffing taxpayers money.
      They need a slogan for the next election, ‘ The Venezuela of Carbon Capture’ has a nice ring to it.

      They will also solve the economic migrant problem, no resident of other countries will want to migrate to a failing country.

    4. Hope
      September 5, 2023


      Uni party are not listening nor care what the public think. Labour would be no different. I do note however that anti democrats Cooper and Benn back in Starmer’s cabinet so all three can overturn public mandate/vote to leave EU! Blaire’s govt is back!

      JR could do better than not vote to support lunacy. He and chums could vote Sunak and Hunt out of office.

      1. JoolsB
        September 5, 2023

        +1. Their only chance is getting rid of Sunak and Hunt but they won’t of course. It’s all about saving face first and foremost and to get rid Of Sunak would be to admit the coup of Liz Truss by Tory MPs in order to put their man in was a suicidal mistake. Better to hand us over to Labour than admit their folly and toss these two high tax, big state, EU loving, net zero plonkers out.

  3. Will
    September 5, 2023

    There is no climate emergency. There is a political movement using the language of Net Zero to destroy Western civilization as we know it. The only sensible course of action is to repeal the Climate Change Act and all dependent legislation, and start acting in the interests of the UK.

    1. Everhopeful
      September 5, 2023


    2. PeteB
      September 5, 2023

      Spot on Will. Show me one piece of Climate Change research that evidences a scientific proof showing humans are causing the world temperature to change. There is conjecture and causation, nothing more.

      In any case, the UK has done it’s share in reducing hydrocarbon usage per person (no bad thing in itself). Let other countries catch up with us before we move further.

    3. BOF
      September 5, 2023

      +1. In a nut shell.

    4. Donna
      September 5, 2023

      Correct. It’s UN Agenda 21 in action …… make businesses and taxpayers in western nations effectively pay reparations in order to “level up” the 3rd world. The aim is to reduce the living standard of people in the west.

      It’s 21st century Communism. The people who created this policy believe the only reason Communism failed is because it wasn’t imposed everywhere at the same time.

    5. majorfrustration
      September 5, 2023

      Quite but how on earth do we get rid of these idiots in Westminster

      1. hefner
        September 7, 2023

        Don’t forget, the voters put them there. Do you ever look at yourself in the mirror?

    6. agricola
      September 5, 2023


    7. MFD
      September 5, 2023

      Sir John I fully support you direction of thinking, I wish more of the members if the house would use the intelligence they are supposed to possess!
      This proposal is not to benefit the population of Britain.

    8. glen cullen
      September 5, 2023

      Some factual weather 200 year old weather charts showing no climate emergency, no real weather difference at all, please review the data charts at ‘not a lot of people know that’ , all the charts are official data

      ‘And according to CET, June 1846 was more than a degree hotter. It was also hotter in 1676, 1822 and 1826. That, of course, demolished their claims about global warming.’

      1. hefner
        September 6, 2023

        All that it shows is that temperature over Central England has not moved much. I know that on this blog there are a number of people who think of themselves as part of Global Britain but hey …

        1. Narrow Shoulders
          September 6, 2023

          Last year’s 42c put into perspective

    9. Christine
      September 5, 2023


    10. Jim+Whitehead
      September 5, 2023

      WILL, ++++++. Yes. Top line and bottom line, REPEAL THE ACT

    11. Timaction
      September 5, 2023

      That is the only answer and so we need to elect an alternative Party as the legacies all agree on the net zero religion. Therefore we need REFORM and rid ourselves of the stupidity that sits in Parliament. 0.000012% of CO2 will be saved from the UK’s contribution to the Earths atmosphere. So that’s going to change the climate……… I still have a bridge to sell them.

    12. Sharon
      September 5, 2023

      Will + 100

    13. Ian+wragg
      September 5, 2023

      100% true. That’s why Truss had to be silenced. Until all I dusty and agriculture is destroyed there will be no let up.
      A revolution by the electorate is long overdue.

    14. Judith Hoffman
      September 5, 2023

      Why doesnt anyone listen to those of us who believe whatever climate change that is happening is normal? Only the sun can control the climate and plants need CO2, without it we would have no food, perhaps that’s the long term plan! In the 1800’s we came out of a mini ice age so it stands to reason that we would go into a warming period. I am so sick of hearing the doom and gloomers!

  4. Everhopeful
    September 5, 2023

    What is in it for whoever is pushing all this?
    It’s not as if they have a brand new, multifunctional product to flog us.
    Nothing that works better than what we already had.
    The end of industrialism and thus capitalism…their aim?
    But that only makes sense if the majority must work simply to keep the minority in comfort and power.
    I think actually that the future is being modelled (!) on ancient China.

    1. Mickey Taking
      September 5, 2023

      The end game is merely to address the growing freedoms of the Western world, by reducing the economic leverage to balance individualism between the West and the Rest. I say merely when in fact it is a fundamental destruction of living standards.

    2. Wanderer
      September 5, 2023

      +1. Ancient China. Feudal England. It’s wicked, but a majority of the future British peasantry is letting them get away with it.

    3. glen cullen
      September 5, 2023

      We need names ….who in the Tory party is for net-zero and the CCC

    4. Jim+Whitehead
      September 5, 2023

      Everhopeful, Nice comment, thank you

    5. Christine
      September 5, 2023

      There is a huge amount of money in this for landowners including the Crown.

      The Crown Estate, which manages the monarch’s property portfolio, holds exclusive rights to lease the seabed around the British Isles for wind and wave power. Its profits go to the Treasury, which then sends 25% back to the royal household in the form of the sovereign grant.

      As always follow the money.

      We were invaded nearly a thousand years ago and the British people are still paying the price.

    6. Sharon
      September 5, 2023

      Global communism. There are many left leaning groups, wealthy families etc who believe there are too many people on the globe. By funding left leaning organisations, funding of activists groups they are able to achieve what we are seeing. Preparation, training etc has been going on for decades. The UN and WHO have frequently been infiltrated by communist types….

      If people die along the way, that helps their cause, but if not, pile all the plebs into smart cities, don’t allow them to go far from home….the countryside is then left for the wealthy to enjoy.

      Unfortunately, we are at the destruction of what’s there stage still.

      It’s all a bit sick, and I don’t think they’ll succeed, but what an almighty mess will be left to sort it out! It’s like WWW3 without the bullets.

    7. Barbara
      September 5, 2023

      Well, one who is pushing it is Grant Schapps. It seems Covid was just a training ground. In April 2022, he wrote:

      “Reallocating road space: measures

      As set out in ‘Gear Change’, we continue to expect local authorities to take measures to reallocate road space to people walking and cycling. The focus should now be on devising further schemes and assessing COVID-19 schemes with a view to making them permanent. The assumption should be that they will be retained unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary. Authorities should be considering how to” … etc etc

      Grant Schapps
      Secretary of State for Transport

      1. Mark
        September 5, 2023

        Now that he has left a train wreck behind at DESNZ you have to wonder how much damage he will do at Defence.

      2. Lifelogic
        September 6, 2023

        +1 let’s cause congestion and kill personal mobility and the economy by Grant Shapps.

  5. Sakara Gold
    September 5, 2023

    It is difficult to say much about the government’s new energy bill, except that the alleged proposal to “liberalise” the de facto ban on new onshore renewable infrastructure will do nothing of the sort.

    New onshore windfarms will still be banned if a single resident objects. This requirement is not applied to other energy sources and once again, Sunak’s government has shamefully kowtowed to the fossil fuel lobby. For example, the net zero brigade are insisting that wind farm developers lose the right to appeal

    With the ULEZ story now stale news, the right-wing press has started a campaign supporting the NIMBY element objecting to new onshore windfarms, pylons, solar parks, substations etc.

    Why should onshore renewable infrastructure developments face more planning obstacles than new housing, expansion of onshore oilfields or roads? Especially when the “Environment” secretary has just allowed housing developers to dump liquid waste into national park trout rivers, with the damage to be paid for by the taxpayer?

    1. Original Richard
      September 5, 2023

      SG : “New onshore windfarms will still be banned if a single resident objects. This requirement is not applied to other energy sources and once again, Sunak’s government has shamefully kowtowed to the fossil fuel lobby. For example, the net zero brigade are insisting that wind farm developers lose the right to appeal.”

      On the contrary, the fossil fuel lobby are very happy to see further spending on useless renewables as it means that there will come a time when the Government will be prepared to pay any price for fossil fuel generation to provide backup and prevent blackouts leading to chaos and civil unrest.

      There is no economic non-fossil fuel backup system for intermittent renewables in existence or even planned by 2050 because it is so unbelievably expensive.

      No-one in the UK expects their energy to be expensive, unreliable and intermittent.

  6. Bloke
    September 5, 2023

    Without support the government is sunk.

  7. Old Albion
    September 5, 2023

    How many times does it have to be explained?
    UK net zero = no longer producing 1% of 0.045% of the Earths atmosphere . That’s 0.00045% In other words infinitesimal.
    And it will be swallowed up by China in weeks.

  8. DOM
    September 5, 2023

    John knows full well CC and its sidekick ideology NZ is a politically driven scam so why doesn’t he say so? We can all see it’s a con simply based on the fact they demand adherence to it using threats and expulsion for deviation from the narrative.

    It’s the same with race, gender and sexuality. It’s not about equality but about domination, power and control. All is politicised and all is weaponised while the lifeblood of our world, speech, is criminalised

    We are seeing nothing less than Marxism

    The Tories are repulsive for embracing this poison. Shameless, utterly disgusting behaviour

  9. Sakara Gold
    September 5, 2023

    Indeed, carbon capture and storage facilities are capital-intensive to deploy and energy-intensive to operate, making them particularly expensive when energy costs are high. There are also high risks and uncertainties around the technological performance.

    CCS has been tried in several places across the world, in Australia, the USA, Saudi Arabia with several developments in the pipeline, but most have been scrapped due to CO2 leakage, excessive costs and poor selection of underground storage facilities. The £20billion is a waste of taxpayers money

    1. Mark
      September 5, 2023

      It’s nice too be able to say you are correct.

    2. Lifelogic
      September 6, 2023

      Correct but pointless too as CO2 plant food is on balance a net positive.

  10. Berkshire Alan
    September 5, 2023

    Remember the millennium bug when planes were going to drop out of the sky, computers all over the World were going to crash causing chaos everywhere, there was a massive panic to order new so called improved systems before Catastrophe stuck, just because of a date.
    Cast your mind back to Ken Livingstone pronouncing London was now a nuclear free Zone, so would not be effected by a nuclear war.
    Move forward 20 years and we have been suckered in again with the complicated climate change argument and the farce of a solutions which are to be imposed, with little real science or product development behind it.
    Just look at RAAC Concrete and Grenfell Tower for recent examples of wrong products in wrong places.

  11. Mike Wilson
    September 5, 2023

    I’d happily have a heat pump.


    I didn’t have to have larger radiators
    I had room for a large hot water tank
    I didn’t need to replace the pipe work to the radiators (to increase the bore)
    It heated my home on days when it is freezing outside
    The electricity to power it was affordable
    It wasn’t going to cost me £15 grand

    1. glen cullen
      September 5, 2023

      I’d happily consider an EV …if it was my choice

  12. Donna
    September 5, 2023

    You are one of a tiny handful of sane and independent-of-thought MPs, Sir John.

    The rest are either bought-and-paid-for WEF puppets, or aspire to become one. In order to enrich themselves, they are quite happy to drive their own Constituents into poverty.

    The latest proposed assault on our economy, called the Energy Bill, is going to load unnecessary costs on businesses and householders – and will do nothing whatsoever to address the “climate crisis” which only exists in flawed and easily manipulated computer models created by bought-and-paid-for climate-activist “scientists.”

    I cannot think of a single reason why I’d vote for the Treacherous Tories. Even the “Labour would be worse” argument no longer holds any water: they’re no different, they too are just puppets of the WEF.

  13. Roy Grainger
    September 5, 2023

    The current anti-ULEZ campaign in London is a small precursor to what will happen when people are forced to spend £20k on new heat pumps, hot water tanks, piping and radiators. The newspapers will be full of freezing pensioners. Whichever government is in power then will have big problems.

    1. glen cullen
      September 5, 2023

      Can you believe that this is under a Tory government

  14. Des
    September 5, 2023

    You know we’re near collapse when the entire political class has gone insane and pushes for policies absolutely certain to destroy their economy and society. Those that realise this and are going along with it to loot whatever they can from the public purse before the collapse are about the lowest form of life imaginable.

  15. Sea_Warrior
    September 5, 2023

    I would like to see CCS abandoned completely. It will cost as much as smart-meters and produce just about as much affordable energy – nil. It’s as if the zealotment – they don’t govern – has learned nothing from last winter.
    At the risk of being de-banked, I’ll confess to wtaching some of JRM’s show last night. He’s not voting for the bill either.
    P.S. I have the gas-man coming around for a boiler inspection on Thursday. I’ll be getting some advice on what’s my best option for replacing my decades-old boiler before 2025. One certainty: it will be using proven technology.

    1. IanT
      September 5, 2023

      I’ve already ordered my new Gas boiler SW. It’s getting fitted in a few weeks time.

      I did ask all the Heating Engineers (who quoted for the job) about the possibility of a Heat Pump and they all told me my home would simply not be suitable, if only on the grounds of poor insulation. I’d also need to have it virtually re-plumbed and much larger radiators installed. One told me that he doubted any house over 4-5 years old would be suitable for a heat pump and that many now being built currently wouldn’t either.

      Now I simply do not believe that the Government is not aware of these facts. So I can only conclude that they are deliberately misleading us about the true costs and practicality of their ‘Green’ agenda. I can’t think of any other logical explanation I’m afraid

  16. Narrow Shoulders
    September 5, 2023

    Will this bill cut the link between amounts paid for “cheap” renewables and electricity generated using gas?

    There is a huge market for renewables and great goodwill from the populace. It shouldn’t ned subsidies, people will take it up if it works. If it doesn’t work then it is not worthy of subsidy.

  17. Oldwulf
    September 5, 2023

    “..critical of the lack of costings and forecasts of what would be needed to undertake such a fundamental change of the energy we used and the ways we used it.”

    So …. there is no “plan.” The Net Zero “policy” is merely an aspiration.

    The electorate needs to choose it’s new Government very, very carefully.

  18. Donna
    September 5, 2023

    Off topic, and I have very little time or sympathy for any Minister in Sunak’s Junta, but Gillian Keegan was quite within her rights yesterday to point out that for the past 20+ years the people who should have been anticipating and dealing with the RAAC situation have been sitting on their arses and playing “pass the parcel” with the problem expecting someone else to be holding it when the music finally stopped.

    Of course, Sunak (as usual) did completely the wrong thing and made her apologise for stating the obvious.

    1. Hope
      September 6, 2023

      Yet claims to serve with integrity while denying he was chancellor cutting back on capital school programme!!

  19. BOF
    September 5, 2023

    We must face it Sir John. The Climate Change Act and Net Zero are baseless. It is all fraud and deception and that makes those who impose these monstrous policies on us liers and fraudsters.

    There is no climate change emergency. There is no scientific basis to support this malign fantasy other than computer modelling! By design all it will do is impoverish the UK.

    You and like minded MP’s will have to be blunt and call out the lies and fraud. Softly softly dies not work.

  20. David Bunney
    September 5, 2023

    Absolutely John. This Energy Bill and Net Zero on the whole has to be stopped and rolled-back.

    There quite frankly is no empirical evidence for man made climate change, nor that any changes in weather are dangerous. For the most part the only correct solution to increasing or decreasing rainfall etc is to plan and adapt, build more reservoirs, dams etc. Changing our CO2 output by deindustrialising or even attempting at a global scale is not technically nor financially feasible. It won’t control the weather and merely destroys westerners prosperity, makes us more dependent on China and at great financial and environmental cost replaces technogies that working affordable with one’s which don’t and are unaffordable. Of course the elites get richer a d more powerful along the way bit it is an evil, corrupt nd regressive thing to do to society.
    The Energy Bill proposes that the Secretary for State for Energy and Climate will have powers to decide without Parliamentary scrutiny how fast and how much torture and hardship to impose on homeowners, landlords and businesses. The Bill overrides many aspects in existing petroleum exploration, refining and distribution law and electricity law to give powers to stop the gas or petrol production too. People can be sent to prison or fined too for not complying with the latest whims of government. It is becoming an evil and contorted version of the child’s game Simon Says. If you don’t comply you lose your property and go to jail.

    I don’t know if MPs from across the Isles can stop this Bill but it is time that the Energy Bill, Climate Change Act, Renters Reform Bill and Immigration Act be stopped.

    Please do your best. Also warn the government that like ULEZ we will see major uprising soon over this tyrannical craziness that is destroying people’s lives.

    David Bunney

  21. Ian B
    September 5, 2023

    “How is the Energy and net zero policy going to work?”

    Looked at logically with all the other missteps this Conservative Government is/has been making, its about Control and Punishment.

    People are at work seeking more control, more manipulation on something that frankly just doesn’t add up. The very nature of all the diktats to date do the opposite to the ‘story’ being told. Battery cars are not net zero, their introduction is by way of the taxpayer subsidising a foreign power to produce more CO2 and pollution – the transfer of UK wealth for a nett gain in World pollution.

    Jeremy Hunt, hitting the media over the weekend, suggests there was/is and energy crisis created by Putin that has caused the UK taxpayer to subsidies energy to the tune of £94 billion. That is simply not true the UK’s energy situation was known long before Putin’s semantics, it was known when this Conservative Government took office and left to them to sort out by Labour. £94 billion of taxpayer now wasted and was does the Conservative Government have to show for it? how many Nuclear plant would that provide, traditional or SMR’s. So the taxpayer hit is not a result of Putin it is simply Conservative Government neglect.

    I could go on endless as with most people it is easy to see it is about manipulation and control – not net zero or enegy

    1. Ian B
      September 5, 2023

      @Ian B
      The world has just witnessed they latest BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) Countries getting together to coordinate there efforts in this brave new world.

      Collectively this grouping produces some 100’s if not 1000’s times more World pollution/CO2 than the UK. What are they doing about it – Nothing, their economies come first. They didn’t join the Boris Johnson race to the bottom.

      Then to rub salt into the wounds this Conservative Government is giving(thats it giving) BRICS countries UK taxpayer so that they can keep producing more and more World Pollution so that the UK taxpayer has to pay out more and more of their hard earned money. At the same time this Conservative Government by their policies are cancelling UK jobs so they can be moved out of the UK. A spiral out of control. This Conservative Government is cancelling the UK economy in the name of Control and Punishment. There actions have nothing to do with UK energy security or net zero.

      You find yourself ask who does Sunak, Hunt and this Conservative Government work for, it appears to be anyone other than those that pay their wages.

  22. Javelin
    September 5, 2023

    The urban elite want to shift electricity production to the countryside whilst they drive around in electric cars in their cities.

  23. Javelin
    September 5, 2023

    I saw a video by an extremely competent scientific communicator (Anton Petrov on YT) with over a million subscribers. He points out that we are STILL coming out of the last ice age and that the arctic and arctic have been shrinking for tens of thousands of years so OF COURSE temperatures are still going up.

    He also points out that this cycle will reverse and that the first sign of this is an increase in methane: which has been going up. So it looks like the earths climate ping pongs between temperate and glacial periods driven by the release of methane (possibly from the sea bed).

    Search “Anton Petrov Methane”

    1. hefner
      September 6, 2023

      According to Anton Petrov the cycle might reverse but it will certainly not be because of increased emission of CH4 as over its average residence time in the atmosphere (about 20 years) methane is a greenhouse gas about 80 times more potent than CO2.

      1. Mark
        September 6, 2023

        The potency of methane as a GHG in a lab bell jar is very different to the reality in the atmosphere, where most of its absorption spectra are covered by other gases, notably water vapour. See Methane and Climate by Wijngaarden and Happer.

        1. hefner
          September 6, 2023

          Unfortunately the paper by Wijngaarden and Happer is incomplete. They just ran a number of static radiation transfer calculations, changing the concentrations of greenhouse gases. They just compared a set of ‘instantaneously computed’ fluxes (before and after) not the fluxes as they would have appeared after the initially small temperature difference has further adjusted with changes in absolute humidity (via the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, confirmed in the 1850s) (adjusting obviously very differently with height as H2O concentration decreases from the surface to the stratosphere).

          That’s exactly what Syukuro Manabe had done in the 70s with one-dimensional (vertical only) and 80s (with three-dimensional Global Circulation Models) for which he got his Nobel Prize in Physics in 2021.
          And that’s also the mechanism at work in all weather forecasting models (NB, not climate models), which when used to reanalyse decades of meteorological observations are showing (and providing the explanation for) the warming since the 1900s.

  24. David Cooper
    September 5, 2023

    Backbencher: “Will this Bill bring tangible net benefit to quality of life?” Minister: “Er…no, but we have to set an example to the world…”
    Another backbencher: “On a point of order, the Minister has just misled the Commons. It WILL bring tangible net benefit to quality of life. In China. Where they will all fall about laughing at the further wealth transfers in their direction, as the UK takes yet another step towards unilateral economic disarmament. They had the Great Leap Forward – we are engaged in the Great Leap Backward.”

  25. Brian Tomkinson
    September 5, 2023

    JR: “How is the Energy and net zero policy going to work?”
    By controlling and impoverishing the majority for the benefit of the already wealthy minority.

  26. agricola
    September 5, 2023

    NZ is an ill conceived idea, appallingly badly thought out, with no consideration for the economic well being of our country or those living in it. It is low grade politicians on an evangelical high with no mandate whatever from the electorate. They are the diciples of Boris the ultimate snake oil salesman and as such question nothing.
    You SJR, me and every other elector of Conservative inclination need to get behind Reform. They are the only party with the ideas and determination to drive through Conservative solutions. It is a delusion to believe that any of the consocialist parties wish to see change. The only one willing to change its cloathes for power is Labour, if returning to the camellion Blair can be construed as enlightening. Your central office will ensure your candidates are clones of dolly the sheep. So SJR it is make up your mind time, you need to thrive on masochism to remain with consocialists.

  27. Bryan Harris
    September 5, 2023

    THE ENEGY BILL – Parliament tightens the screw!

    The Energy Bill comes before Parliament this week — It provides for “the creation of criminal offences” where there is “non-compliance with a requirement imposed by or under energy performance regulations”. People could also be prosecuted for “provision of false information” about energy efficiency or the “obstruction of… an enforcement authority”.

    Ministers want to grant themselves powers to create new criminal offences and increase civil penalties as part of efforts to hit net zero targets. Under the proposals, people who fall foul of regulations to reduce their energy consumption could face up to a year in prison and fines of up to £15,000.

    This is a massive overkill, even if our oceans were really boiling it would be rightly deemed undemocratic and oppressive.

    The Bill is festooned with new criminal offences. One of the most offensive is where a business owner could face a year in prison for not having the right energy performance certificate or type of building certification.

    Instead of undergoing scrutiny, criminal offences will be created using statutory instruments. These are still approved by Parliament but “typically nodded through”. There has not been a statutory instrument rejected in the last 35 years.

    There is no excuse for such powers to be handed out to ministers.

    1. glen cullen
      September 5, 2023

      This evenings vote confirms that we have a government of green, libdem and labour ….without voting for them at general election

  28. Lindsay+McDougall
    September 5, 2023

    Some stats:

    UK territorial green house gases (GHG) by gas type (CO2 equivalents):
    Carbon dioxide 80%
    Methane 12%
    Nitrous Oxide 5%
    F gases 3%

    UK GHG emissions by industry:
    Transport 27%
    Energy supply 21%
    Business 17%
    Residential 15%
    Agriculture 10%
    Other 10% (includes waste management and industrial processes)

    [Source for both of the above]

    CO2 emissions by country:
    World 100% 38 billion tonnes
    China 29%
    India 7%
    EU 10%
    UK 1%
    USA 14%
    World CO2 emissions from coal 14 billion tonnes

    [Source for the above: Wikepedia]

    Some conclusions:

    Looking at UK CO2 emissions by industry:
    – The industries relate to human activity, so we should aim to keep population down
    – Transport should not be the whipping boy; energy supply and consumption account for more

    Looking at world data:
    – China, USA, EU and India together account for more than 50% of world CO2 emissions
    – UK is not too important in this regard
    – Coal accounts for 37% of world CO2 emissions

    Implications for UK policy are:
    – It should be easy for us to attain net zero carbon by 2050 provide that we have zero population growth
    – Deterrents are needed at world level to suppress coal burning. Sanctions via WTO seems the best route, with additional tariffs applied to exports from countries running a dirty economy.

  29. Original Richard
    September 5, 2023

    “I did not vote for the Climate Change Act of 2008…..This week I am unable to support the government’s latest essay in energy policy geared to hitting the net zero targets.”

    Many thanks, Sir John.

    The Net Zero Strategy, using renewables and electrification, is pointless, unnecessary and being unachievable is hence unaffordable and designed to destroy our access to cheap, abundant and reliable energy, the very core of our prosperity.

    There is no CAGW. If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

    I simply cannot vote for any party that supports CAGW/Net Zero.

  30. MPC
    September 5, 2023

    It’s difficult to see an end to this insanity in the absence of truly balanced debate in the mainstream media, especially the BBC. Such debate is highly unlikely as government knows that the BBC, Sky and others strongly support the net zero crusade. They fear informed debate as they know that real data and full explanation of the scientific method would prove what a destructive sham all this environmental extremism by government really is. Those of us who want to stay optimistic need to be prepared to take direct action – street protests and the like – in due course when the blackouts, deaths from cold, and the bans on use of reliable technologies begin to bite, and before a scorched earth destruction of our fossil fuel infrastructure is wrought. That’s not far into the future now.

  31. glen cullen
    September 5, 2023

    A good piece of writing SirJ, to the point and succinct, I now know where you stand on this subject ….I wish all MPs would declare one way or another

  32. Mr Voxpopper
    September 5, 2023

    Carbon capture and storage is completely bonkers. The amount of CO2 (a harmless gas) stored will be miniscule yet the cost will be enormous. The public will have to pay for it either as taxpayers or consumers. All this effort to solve a non-existent problem.

  33. Keith from Leeds
    September 5, 2023

    Once again, our Government and opposition MPs show their ignorance of the facts of life. Reliable, cheap energy is the basis of a thriving modern economy. Sir John, it is great that you voted against the bill in 2008, and will vote against the current bill, but I despair of your colleagues.
    The only Net Zero they will achieve is the total destruction of the UK economy!

  34. Chris S
    September 5, 2023

    The case we have all been making against Net Zero by 2050, through this excellent debating chamber, is unarguable, yet every political party represented at Westminster is enthusiastically signed up to the new religion. Whatever they say to the contrary, when voters come to understand the consequences to them of complying with Net Zero by 2050, they turn against it.

    Sooner or later either Labour, the Conservatives, or a new party will realise that they are not representing a majority of their voters and they will see an electoral advantage to backtracking away from 2050.

    I doubt whether anyone currently dead set against 2050 would have a problem if it were reset to be achieved by 2070. All the technology problems will have been solved by then while it’s obvious that the current race to 2050 is unachievable, whatever ludicrous amount is spent trying to achieve it.

  35. Original Richard
    September 5, 2023

    The Government are misleading the MSM and public concerning energy and power from renewables. Such as their press release “Energy security boost with multi-million backing for renewables” issued 03/08/2023 where they claim that the AR4 auction for “11 GW of low carbon capacity will generate sufficient electricity to POWER 12 million British homes……”.

    This is simply untrue.

    11GW may, in a year generate sufficient ENERGY for 12 million homes, although my calculations show this to be insufficient by some 20% but far more importantly the 11 GW of renewables are totally incapable of providing the dispatchable (always on demand) POWER required for 12 million homes because of intermittency.

    Looking at the wind and solar data for 2022 you can find instances where the 42 GW of installed renewable power generated just 0.5 GW. As I write the 28 GW of installed wind power is generating just 2.6 GW of power.

    No-one in the UK expects their power to be intermittent.

    The MSM and public need to be told this information to realise that renewables cannot operate without a parallel fossil fuel backup system in place. There is no plan, even by 2050, for non-fossil fuel grid scale storage because it is so hideously expensive.

    I simply cannot vote for any party that supports the economy destroying CAGW/Net Zero.

  36. IanT
    September 5, 2023

    “This week I am unable to support the government’s latest essay in energy policy geared to hitting the net zero targets. The Bill continues the development of a complex web of subsidies, windfall taxes, price controls and regulations that run the risk of imposing dear energy on us. The UK seems to think cutting our CO 2 output by closing factories and steel works here is good for the planet when importing these items will add to world CO 2”

    Well put Sir John – this is a complete nonsense of uncosted policies that will make us all poorer, colder and less secure. Why would we vote for any Party that promotes such obvious short sighted stupidity?

  37. Lifelogic
    September 5, 2023

    “Voters will embrace green tech if it feels fair” says William Hague in the Times then witters on about the oportunities it can bring.

    100% wrong yet again William. No voters want to spend circa £80k per houshold for an inferior EV car and heat pumps that cost more to run and do not even save CO2. CO2 that is plant and tree food & actually does green the planet. It is not fair, costs a fortune, freezes people to death, exports jobs and acheives nothing for climate.

    Frack, mine and drill and sort out nuclear fusion and better nuclear with at the vast savings on net zero. Do not roll out duff tech like carbon capture with subsidies. The order is R&D get it working and make it cost effective only then roll out without subsidy!

    1. Lifelogic
      September 5, 2023

      Hague again “Britain has to seen as placing itself in the front rank of change” why William? To show how appallingly governed we are by this piss down the drain government with its bonkers energy policy?

      1. Lifelogic
        September 5, 2023

        Or to show how scientifically illiterate our MPs and the climate change committee are in general? I see that once again the Gov. are on about using car batteries to store intermittent wind power and smooth the grid out. Another bonkers policy as:-
        1. depreciation of the car battery per charge is often more than the value of electricy charged.
        2. Stationary batteries are far cheaper and often safer than car batteries are.
        3.You want you car to be ready to go when you need it not discharged.
        4. Many people have no where to charge the car anyway.

    2. Donna
      September 6, 2023

      Voters can’t afford the costs of the Eco Lunacy. Whether it’s “fair” or not, doesn’t come into it.

      If it’s going to cost a household £80,000, which seems to be a reasonable estimate of the lunacy so far (an EV car; heat-pump and all the necessary house alterations) and they don’t have the money, then whether the punishment-beating from the Eco Nutters in Government is applied “fairly” is irrelevant.

  38. David Bunney
    September 5, 2023

    For some reason my comments are not getting through to you or getting published. (This might be technology at my end, not uploading properly to you as it doesn’t even come up as awaiting approval for publication any more, but I hope I’m not being censored)

  39. Rod Evans
    September 5, 2023

    The Climate Change Act of 2008 needs to be repealed in total.
    It presents a false premise i.e. the climate is affected adversely by CO2. No study has been produced anywhere that supports that theory.
    The facts we data we collect and observe inform us the world is in a very benign climate condition. The biosphere is better for all living organisms than it has been for centuries with record food production across the entire world.
    The ongoing negative image thrust onto fossil fuels, by the anti fossil fuel advocates and so heartily advanced by the captured media must be challenged and corrected before it is too late for the poorer members of civilisation to survive the deenergising policies being proposed.
    Time is running out, so is our freedom to be independent.

    1. hefner
      September 6, 2023

      ‘No study has been produced anywhere to support that theory’: Really? What about:
      – John Tyndall, 1859, ‘John Tyndall and the greenhouse effect’

      – Syukuro Manabe, Klaus Hasselman, Nobel Prize in Physics, winners, 2021., 05/10/2021, ‘Princeton’s Syukuro Manabe received Nobel Prize in Physics’., 08/12/2021 ‘The human footprint of climate change’. ‘greenhouse gases’ ‘temperature’: curves on Figure 1 are for six different reanalyses of temperature observations starting in the 1900s performed by NASA, JMA, MetOffice Hadley Centre, C3S/ECMWF, NOAA and Berkeley Earth.

  40. Original Richard
    September 5, 2023

    “I am concerned about the UK spending an estimated £20 bn on carbon capture and storage.”

    This scheme, CCUS, is an extra cost needed to provide reliable (dispatchable) power because of the intermittency of renewables. Renewables always require a completely parallel system of energy backup for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. In 2022 there were times when the 42 GW of installed renewable capacity generated just 0.5 GW of power. As I write the 28 GW of installed wind power is generating just 2.7 GW of power.

    Although CCUS cannot yet be made to work efficiently and will require lots of gas it is still cheaper than using hydrogen for energy storage at a capital cost of £1 trillion or worse still, batteries, at a capital cost of nearly £4 trillion.

    So the “Net Zero Strategy – Build Back Greener” where on P19 we were informed that “our power system will consist of abundant, cheap British renewables…..and ensure reliable power is always there at the flick of a switch” was totally misleading and our energy is going to get ever more expensive until the CCA is repealed and the Net Zero Strategy is cancelled.

    I simply cannot vote for any party that supports CAGW/Net Zero.

  41. Christine
    September 5, 2023

    We see providers paying customers not to use their heating in the evenings this winter. How many desperate people will die from hypothermia because of this policy?

    Only the UK is following this ridiculous net zero religion. The rest of Europe has record oil and gas stored for the winter, much of it bought from Russia. They have also delayed the ban on petrol and diesel cars. Nobody else is implementing a carbon capture system. Why is our Government continuing with this lunacy? It makes no sense. They are either idiots, deluded, or corrupt. We are not even allowed to debate the subject because their arguments would never stand up to scrutiny.

    If voters don’t remove all the main political parties next year there is no hope for the future of our country.

  42. Bert+Young
    September 5, 2023

    All the signs point to a forthcoming vote of no confidence . The Conservatives have no choice now but to change its leadership . Getting and establishing the right priorities is a must ; time is running out and all the surveys show there is little trust in Sunak . Yesterday the moves that Starmer has made has shown his determination to win and public sentiment supports him . I – for one – who has always voted Conservative will abstain if Sunak is still in charge ; I urge Sir John to evoke change .

  43. glen cullen
    September 5, 2023

    Think of a world without the constraints of net-zero ….now you’re thinking of China, Russia, India, the whole of Africa, South America, the Middle-East and 99% of Asia

    The media and our own government would have you believe that it’s a collective world effect …ITS ISN’T, NET-ZERO IS ONLY HAPPENING IN EUROPE & NORTH AMERICA

  44. a-tracy
    September 5, 2023

    Our large energy-using companies like Steel Works, etc., what do they do for themselves in regard to energy? I noticed Bentley in Crewe has fields full of solar panels and roofs full of them; they claim to be carbon neutral. I don’t know if they have any windmills or other forms of power or, indeed, are now self-sufficient.

    Are they in a position to invest in these new rolls royce and other power solutions. Why does everything need to be government? Are these companies making money or not? Don’t they get allowances for investments?

  45. glen cullen
    September 5, 2023

    BBC reporting ‘Birmingham City Council has declared itself effectively bankrupt’ go woke go net-zero …go broke

    1. a-tracy
      September 6, 2023

      In the private sector, the leaders lose their jobs, the owners lose their stakeholding, and big changes happen like restructuring.

      Does an ‘adjudicator’ come in? Are we moving these failed retail business leaders into Councils? Personally, if I were in charge of government I’d beg Mike Ashley who was born in Walsall to come into Birmingham Council with his own team and give me the low down and a set of proposals to rescue his City.

  46. Atlas
    September 5, 2023

    Agreed Sir John – 1000%

    Our enemies will raise a glass to cheer if this legislation passes.

  47. forthurst
    September 5, 2023

    Parliament is full of people who would claim to be well educated. Many attended Oxford University whose reputation is world wide. Actually they are not well educated at all since they have not studied science and particularly Physics to a sufficient level to immediately test any scientific proposition on which they are invited to legislate as to how it might be achieved in practice; instead of which they think they can pass laws and then say “oh well, we don’t know how it could work but we leave all that kind of stuff up to the techies to sort out”. Perhaps, if they knew how much contempt this invites from people who are educated into the laws of science and how much they have needlessly sabotaged our economy and damaged the health of children and adults with their so-called vaccines they might reconsider whether they are really qualified to govern us. The people themselves will have a view and express it through the ballot box.

  48. Kenneth
    September 5, 2023

    Far more important to look into why the insect population and diversity has been reduced.

    The CO2 alarm is based on forecasts and modelling which have been proved to be inaccurate.

    The drop in insects is a real problem and will have very bad effects on the food chain.

  49. James Freeman
    September 5, 2023

    I am with you John on this. Any budgetary control has gone out of the window with net zero. All we get is smoke and mirrors. How much is this all going to cost the government and the economy? Is this reckless approach going to upset the bond markets?

    Why are we spending £20 billion on carbon capture before the technology is proven and the costs understood? Indeed, the correct approach is to do a proof of concept project burying the carbon from the power plant already being built on Teesside. Then, if the concept works, produce a proper costing and subsidy regime for other projects.

  50. The Prangwizard
    September 5, 2023

    Why can’t you just be courageous and come out clearly against the whole concept?

    If you don’t I presume you believe it and just want your party and party in government to do their sums better.

  51. Mark
    September 5, 2023

    It won’t work at all.

    Today Clare Coutinho is reviewing the results of the AR5 CFD auction which will be a disaster thanks to the intransigence of Shapps (conveniently escaping the music) and DESNZ. With major wind companies having announced they would not take part we will be left with small volumes of expensive boondoggles for floating wind, tidal stream and perhaps a flood of solar projects, many of which will not get connected because of grid constraints. She will need to decide whether to rerun the auction: reality is that the next auction will need much softer terms to attract interest. Much higher maximum strike prices, perhaps restoring the option for market prices removed in AR5, and some compensation when market prices go negative again removed in AR5. But the delays to buildout and cancellation of projects bid at too low a price will create a looming capacity shortage that can only be filled by fast build gas generation, which will require generous terms in the next Capacity Market auction, presumably due in February. The whole Saudi Arabia of wind policy should be reviewed in the light of cost realities.

    That’s just some electricity generation: there’s transmission and distribution, interference with demand, novel pricing schemes for wholesale that will create more subsidised favourites, gas, nuclear, insulation, heat pumps, hydrogen, and EVs. All a mess.

  52. Mark
    September 5, 2023

    I have been reading a White Paper from 2003. A good chunk of it was devoted to measures for climate change, but these were restrained to low carbon being 20% of electricity by 2020 (nuclear was about 17% but expected to fall with closures). They expected wave and tidal power to become competitive, displaying some lack of technical appreciation.

    Much of the energy policy was clearly drafted by a very able civil servant who probably spent formative years seeing what market competition achieved under Thatcher. Sensible policies for seeking diversity of supply for oil and gas as we started to become a net importer with declining North Sea production – yet seeking to maximise domestic production, and for keeping coal in the mix for the same idea, while noting that private industry was already investing in LNG import facilities all figure prominently. Such common sense is completely lacking in DESNZ today, and yet showed its head with the endorsement of Tony Blair who wrote the foreword. The logic was irrefutable.

  53. Ed
    September 5, 2023

    It’s not

  54. XY
    September 5, 2023

    I’m more concerned with the way science is being done these days. See this for a write-up on how a respected scientific journal was twisted into doing what the net zero acolytes wanted – burying the counter-argument (aka the real science):

    I wrote to my MP about this and the response was robotic (“97% of scientists agree on this”).

    So I sent the link above, described my on background and those of family members who are (or have been, pre-retirement) leaders in various scientific fields – and exhorted my MP to open their mind and see what is being done to massage the evidence.

    The difference between a model and actual data/observation is stark. We see that in the woeful attempts of the BoE, OBR, ONS etc to model the economy. GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

    A model si only as good as its assumptions/inputs and the climate models are so poor in this respect that it cannot be ccident or even incompetence. For example: the assumption in one IPCC model that coal usage would increase by a factor of 10. Who ever believed that would happen?

    Observation is very powerful, even the untrained can see that Brighton beach is still there, atill the same size as it was 100 years ago. Go figure.

    1. hefner
      September 7, 2023

      XY, Which model has an increase of coal usage by a factor of 10?
      As you report it, I assume you know which one it is.

      You know the problem with your comment is that the climate models that are run for the IPCC exercises do not have increase of gas, coal, oil or whatever in their inputs.

      For the Fifth Assessment, all models were run with five different Representative Concentration Pathways giving time series of the concentrations (not emissions) of the various greenhouse gases to 2100. So no need to define what oil, coal, gas or whatever was supposed to be doing.

      For the more recent Sixth Assessment, the climate models were all run with a number of so-called Shared SocioEconomic Pathways defining as before the concentrations of GHGs (only four this time) but also the potential mitigation policies running in parallel. Here again no need to define the amount of coal, gas, oil or whatever.

      There might be plenty of reasons to criticise IPCC but at least people commenting here should make the effort of checking from different sources (possibly even what they are about to write before putting ‘the pen to paper’.

  55. Original Richard
    September 5, 2023

    What’s the connection between today’s UKHSA amber heat health alert and North Korea?

    We are informed that the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un is paranoid about the intentions of the USA and the West. But this cannot the case, he even spent 7 years or more living in Switzerland and enjoyed his sports, particularly basketball. He is simply using this tactic to make the country paranoid and impoverished so he can more easily keep power and control.

    Similarly, the purpose of CAGW, described by the 2022 Nobel Physics prize winner, Dr. John Clauser, as “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people” is a fictitious narrative designed to frighten us with unfounded tales of burning global fires, boiling oceans (Al Gore) and a boiling planet (Un Sec Gen) in order to impoverish and then control us using Net Zero.

    Hence today’s issue of an amber health alert by the UKHSA/Met Office which is designed to make us paranoid about the climate and believing that we must change our behaviour to accept expensive, meagre and intermittent energy from useless renewables to save the planet.

  56. glen cullen
    September 5, 2023

    Government relaxes the effective ban on onshore wind-turbines ….maybe they could also relax the effective ban on fracking for shale gas

  57. James4
    September 5, 2023

    Why are we not talking about the real threat to our country ie, the mass invasion by the illegals, that and the fact that our government has its head stuck in the sand.. what was taking back control about if not for this? and no leadership no leadership showing from anywhere

  58. hefner
    September 5, 2023

    China, the EU? Where are the USA and Russia? Does each of the EU27 countries have the same energy policies and the same percentage contribution to the European total?
    Well, that’s Sir John’s usual sleight of hand.

    1. Lynn Atkinson
      September 6, 2023

      You still fail to comprehend what the EU is, or is it the most aggressive show of obstinacy and sticking to the line to continue the lie that traps the fools?
      You can tell the truth now, the EU is a single entity. None can escape, they are trapped financially.

      1. hefner
        September 6, 2023

        Isn’t it true that depending on the topics Sir John sometimes is looking at the EU as a block and sometimes at the individual countries, simply to help him strengthen what at the origin is a rather weak argument? In terms of energy policies, most EU27 countries have been affected by the Ukraine-Russia war, but not to the same amount, as not all EU27 countries are relying on oil, gas, coal, nuclear, solar or wind to the same extent. Do you really think that Swedish energy mix is similar to the Spanish, the Polish or the French one, and that these countries are following a EU diktat?

        Yes, certainly obstinacy against people like you. Anybody reading the freenations website (as I do) would perhaps realise that people around it are completely bonkers, in most of their analyses whether they are about Russia, Germany, the USA or the NATO/EU.

        In fact, I pity you, Lynn.

        1. Martin in Bristol
          September 7, 2023

          More rude aggressive postings from you hefner.
          Do you talk to people like this in your business or social life?
          Calling people bonkers and saying you pity them.
          Join a debating society and learn some manners.

  59. Richard1
    September 5, 2023

    As we approach the election the important thing to remember is, ridiculous, damaging and irrational as these policies are, Labour would be even worse. Will this be enough to scrape through? I doubt it.

    Ministers – and of course all leftwing politicians – are somewhat shielded as no mainstream media ever pose these fundamental questions about green policies. But the public of course are beginning to see the huge costs (for little or no benefit) which they entail.

  60. Margaret
    September 5, 2023

    It’s the story of the Brits life.We make all the effort whilst others mess up.We spend the money with good intentions and others take the mick.

    1. Lynn Atkinson
      September 6, 2023

      Why would they not? It’s the definition of stupidity.

  61. hefner
    September 5, 2023

    O/T but very interesting: in the New Statesman 30/08/2023 by Harry Lambert ‘Britain’s great tax con’ ‘The UK’s tax system entrenches inequality, stymies growth, and rewards the few at the expense of the many’.

    1. a-tracy
      September 6, 2023

      It’s behind a paywall, sum up how the tax system entrenches inequality?
      The better you do in this Country the more taxes you pay 62% over £100,000 due to the PA claw back. If you run a business and get dividends from past profits that have already paid corporation tax of 25% now, higher rate dividend tax = Higher rate, 33.75% ; Additional rate, 39.35% … so every £1 you get to keep 41.25% so how exactly do you think that entrenches inequality and SO WHAT about rewarding the few if they got off their arses from 16 working all hours to make that business work themselves, I say good luck to them, please keep on going and growing our economy you few people that achieve that and are willing to stay and pay all that frankly to support nearly 3m people that should be working or working more themselves.

      This is why if Labour are elected we will quickly discover that we’re going to hit the big iceberg that we’ve been skirting around since they last broke the economy completely in 2008!

  62. Derek
    September 5, 2023

    We, the electorate, did not vote for it either. And there lies the problem with our “democracy”.
    The British people never get the chance to approve of such enormous Government expenditure, especially when it affects all of the tax payers in the country. And who ends up actually paying for this profligate waste? Why, us tax payers in this country.
    This is not democracy and we can only practice democracy once every 4 to 5 years. Once a government is installed we, the people, cannot change any policy they throw at us. Which is exactly why we have such massive debts and evident disasters at present. There has been no control over the dubious goings on in Downing Street.
    The Swiss hold frequent referenda so they have a taste of real democracy and I look forward to GB adopting the same principles but I will not hold my breath.

  63. rose
    September 5, 2023

    This bill seems to be a Gordon Brown confection, reaching into everything and taking and giving money will nilly, imposing interfering and unnecessary regulation, all to impoverish us.

    How come HMG can ram something through like this – not as badly as with the Windsor Framework but almost – without proper scrutiny? 174 amendments not being debated properly. Over 400 pages of bill not being debated clause by clause. Including provision for ministers to make up new criminal offences with prison sentences, and without parliamentary discussion. Yet HMG is not allowed to defend our borders.

    It occurs to me that had Mrs T succeeded Blair instead of preceding him, she might not have been allowed to send the Task Force. Some billionairess from BA would have hired our legal system to stop her.

  64. KB
    September 5, 2023

    What they are after now is building onshore windfarms whilst riding roughshod over the concerns of the locals, and those concerned about our countryside. This is because offshore wind is turning out too expensive, despite us being told continually how cheap it was. The companies that won the latest auctions have now stated that they are no longer willing to build offshore at the prices they quoted.
    Britain is not sunny enough for solar power at the times that we actually need the power (winter), so we are back to onshore wind.
    It will take many thousands of square km covered in turbines to provide for our energy needs, when we no longer use oil for transport fuel and gas for heating and use electricity instead. Almost everywhere will be need to be covered with windfarms to make a dent in our energy requirements. This is what is coming our way by 2050.

    1. rose
      September 5, 2023

      It is also the case that wind turbines in the North Sea with all their paraphernalia are polluting the sea and damaging the fish. Furthermore, they are not secure from enemy sabotage. The maintenance must be a nightmare too and it won’t be long before they have to be replaced. Where to chuck them then?

      The cost of wind turbines and solar panels is never accounted for, particularly not the environmental cost, or the social cost of all that slavery in China.

      We were horrified this last month by how much arable land in Cornwall was completely covered with solar panels. How did they ever get permission? Or do they actually get paid to do it by HMG.

  65. glen cullen
    September 5, 2023

    Yesterday I reported that my petrol station had put up the price of E10 petrol by another 2p to £1.50p per litre
    Well today they’ve done it again ….its now £1.52p

  66. John de los Angeles
    September 7, 2023

    You are simply completely correct Sir John, but the Government id hell bent on destroying the country!

Comments are closed.