Thanks again, David, for another wonderful and logical article. From across the pond, I wonder when a leader will arise in the UK to tell the truth to your fine citizens: Nothing the UK ever does, or does not do, will ever have any effect on anyone’s climate.
All the public treasure dedicated in this futile attempt has been wasted, save perhaps whatever was dedicated to PM2.5 reductions in urban areas.
Of course, that may all be offset by the greater PM2.5 contributions by EVs, due to higher weights causing greater tire wear.
Why futile? First, on a global scale, and as you rightfully mentioned, UK CO2 emissions are but a rounding error of Asian contributions.
Too, let’s say one is a leader of a country who’s taken little or no measures to mitigate CO2 emissions. Let’s imagine this country emits 10-15% of global CO2.
I’ve heard a number of Brits claiming the UK is setting an example to the world. And you are…just not the one you believe.
The leader of this country would look at the UK and note that over two decades you’ve devoted £bazillions erecting 11,000+ wind turbines spread out over hundreds of miles, a fair amount of solar, and some very expensive storage.
You still intend to spend billions more on grid expansion to connect all these far flung VRE projects. And the more you connect, the higher the spending on capacity markets and ensuring sufficient grid inertia
Despite, or rather because of all this, you now have among the highest electricity rates going.
The high power costs have caused large deindustrialization and job loss.
All these efforts have simple moved UK emissions (and jobs!) to a ledger in Asia, along with additional emitted transporting finished products to the UK on ships burning 63,000 gallons of bunker oil per day.
I apologize for the length of this post: To recap, the UK has spent 20-odd years and bazillions of shekels, and had absolutely no effect on global CO2 levels.
Totals have continued their inexorable rise, unabated and unaffected by any action taken, or not, by the UK.
As a matter of fact, even when human CO2 emissions dropped 6-8%, global totals merrily continued their upward trajectory.
Any logical leader of this fictitious country would surmise that any large effort to reduce CO2 would only harm the country and hurt its citizens and economy.
And that the only sensible thing to do to satisfy those who clamor for zero-carbon power is to invest in dispatchable nuclear power.
VRE cannot power the world. If even a relatively tiny country cannot do it after 20 years, there is no hope that a larger nation would find success.
Although many parts of the population had embraced the new religion of a climate change emergency, a new majority of western citizens are becoming painfully aware via new scientific facts that they are being misled, and that NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
So, all governments must start asking far more questions about why they are spending so much of their citizens wealth on this non-solution and must undertake a deep review of the NetZero journey.
I looked to see if we had any data on housebuilding under the new government yet, to find that although it was updated only a few days ago the most recent data covers Q2 2024. I charted it anyway, and was immediately struck by two things: recent levels of housing starts have plunged to lows last seen after the Financial Crisis in 2008. This was proceeded by a spike to record levels in Q2 2023.
Research revealed that in June 2023 new building standards were applied including a mandate to provide for EV charging and tougher standards on insulation and limitations on windows. Even tougher standards are already in the works, with some due next year. By putting a shovel in the ground builders were able to proceed under the old rules at lower cost, and with more marketable designs.
The previous attempt to push for net zero housing was imposed by Huhne. Some homes were built to those standards but proved difficult to sell. The full mandate was to take effect in 2016, but was dropped after the 2015 election.
At the moment housing completions have continued on a more even course as the surge in starts in slowly worked through. But soon, the lack of new starts will hit completions too. To be fair, the end of ZIRP mortgages is depressing demand for house purchases, while supply has increased from sales by landlords facing increasing tax burdens on renting, and now threatened with costly and ineffective requirements to meet EPC C. These will only accelerate, throwing renters on the streets and creating a housing crisis.
It seems likely that Labour will ignore the lessons in real world economics. They may attempt to nationalise part of the BTL sector, but that is likely to create a bigger banking crisis than 2008 with crashing house prices no longer underpinning mortgage collateral.
Net Zero policy is likely to be exposed more quickly by these effects than by rising energy shortages. Those will appear quite suddenly as finance dries up, the exchange rate plummets, and energy imports become unaffordable.
I think you can use window size as a proxy for Britain's wealth over the decades. Who would want to live in the caves the present regulations demand? Natural light is so important to wellbeing, I think.
Insulating your house will be a necessity as price of electricity will be exorbitant and probably rationed on cold days anyhow.!! Anyhow NESO FES is flawed completely overstated so they can make the case for the great grid upgrade. This is reinforced by NESEO itself which has forecast lower demand again this winter as energy demand continues to fall year on year as we hollow out manufacturing and particularly steel production. Fortunately Millibrains goal of doubling wind and tripling solar is pipedream and not achievable nor required given by their own admission they now say we need 30-40GW of flexible generation on the grid (see Capacity Market changes for 29/20 delivery year) to cover for todays situation (Wind 1.1/Solar0.5GW).
Im a lukewarmer on climate change but will go with balance probability that we ought to see where its possible to find fossil fuel substitutes even if part time and its more expensive overall. However, until the worlds big polluters do something tangible we shouldn't be driving ourselves into the ground especially as none of those talked about green jobs are going to be in UK. So time to stall anymore expansion and build up our own capabilities so at least the green jobs come to the UK if we are going to spend billions on this.
The real world tends to look rather different. Here's the NAO trashing the outcomes of the Green Deal that was so bad it got canned before the money was spent:
It's really worth reading Kathryn Porter's 3 part series on the inadequacies of the EPC system and the measurement of real energy savings, and real world behaviour
Thanks for the references. Is NAO the only part of government that hasn’t gone woke? I suspect the new Office for Value for Money is an attempt to reduce its power.
Iirc, they didn't measure cavity wall insulation in the DEEP study, they looked more at internal and external insulation. Many houses, including my own are not suitable for cavity wall insulation.
Older data from BEIS, which I discussed at Cliscep a couple of years ago, showed an 8% reduction in gas use on average after fitting cavity insulation.
Air tightness in older housing is a singularly bad idea, as it will encourage damp and mould, and the ill health that goes with it. Houses pre 1870 didn’t have a damp proof course, and even later Victorian and Edwardian homes are built to “breathe”, meaning moisture from ground and air does deep into walls but also dries out again when the outside weather is drier. The problem with homes and heating in these soggy isles is not so much keeping warm but keeping dry: this so-called summer I’ve sporadically had the heating on in August because of the humidity inside the house (Victorian semi with three foot thick stone walls).
Excellent - thank you David! I am particularly interested in the DEEP report - thank you for bringing this to light. While I haven't been through it in detail, it seems to my eyes to have integrity, but it appears not to have been read and absorbed by the Climate Change Committee. I am shocked by the long payback times for domestic energy saving measures and astonished that this has had no impact on the Committee.
I believe these payback times reflect the appalling construction standards of our housing stock, much of which was built in times of energy abundance based on domestic coal. Less than a century ago, homes were built with fireplaces even in quite small bedrooms - if you were cold, you lit a fire. This was the case in our previous home, a small semi, built in 1938.
The ultra-fortunate very few, like me, get to live in self-build homes where insulation and air tightness are built into the fabric by design, and reap the benefit of modest energy cost, kept toasty warm by heat pumps (we're off the gas grid). It's not that insulation doesn't work, it's when and where you get to apply it.
The answer to what to do about the housing stock is the famous response given by an Irishman asked for directions: "Well I wouldn't start from here".
There are two factors which, like night following day, will reduce payback times. Energy costs are only going to head upwards, as you repeatedly warn. Much-heralded growth will fail to materialise, not least because of energy costs, so the government, whichever happens to be in power, will resort to the traditional approach of inflating away its gargantuan debt, to our cost again.
I can't report on it yet, but my forthcoming bedtime reading is "Life After the State: Why We Don't Need Government" by Dominic Frisby. These days when I see or hear "The government must do more" I have to resist the urge to put my head in my hands and quietly sob.
I did a lot of intensive research in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire. Part of that looked at the claims made in the planning submission for projected energy savings from the insulation. I calculated the payback period was over 200 years.
"I believe these payback times reflect the appalling construction standards of our housing stock, much of which was built in times of energy abundance based on domestic coal."
I believe they reflect past construction standards which were often high quality (Victorian and Edwardian houses representing the pinnacle of quality construction) but not obsessively focussed on 'energy efficiency' and 'emissions reductions' of a natural gas expelled into the atmosphere in hugely greater quantities by volcanoes and the world's oceans. Rather they were focussed on durability, utility and even aesthetic appearance. It is testament to this focus that much of our old housing stock is still standing and in good condition, hundreds of years later. I doubt that many 'new build' houses will still be standing in two or three hundred years time. I would much rather be living in a naturally well ventilated 'draughty' old home with large, fully opening windows than reside in an airtight eco-tomb in order to save a few pounds in running costs realisable only by my great grand children! Or worse, just to signal my virtue in 'saving the planet' from an imaginary climate crisis.
Notwithstanding the fact that I am sure your own personal self-build home is indeed very warm and comfortable and built to high specifications; it's just that the majority of commercially available 'energy efficient' new builds aren't.
PS also agreed on ventilation. Thanks to chance I decided early on that mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) was not a luxury but necessity. Before we moved in nearly 3 years ago we had three days with the heating running without the MVHR. It was vile - condensation everywhere and humid air. When I made the final connection to the ventilation and ran it, overnight the humidity dropped 20% and the difference had to be experienced to be appreciated. As you note, well-insulated but poorly-ventilated modern homes are bound to be a disaster.
We certainly see eye to eye on your last paragraph. Much commercial modern housing is a testament to corner-cutting. My advice to those in Victorian mid-terrace properties is to encourage your neighbours to keep their thermostats set high.
David, thanks for this sobering piece of reality. It has long seemed that the CCC were zealots in a carbon echo chamber. They (and the so-called Energy Secretary) now seem to be displaying some of the signs of extreme left-wing fascism i.e. tyranny and absolutism. Not at all good for the UK – economic and social carnage, as you say.
I owe to Mark Mills an excellent riposte to the mantra that wind and solar are free energy. ALL energy is free, in the sense that humans don't create any of it: what costs is the getting of it. That brings wind and solar neatly alongside every other energy source we use..
Net Zero is a religion now and we have laws about separation of Church and State. They are fine to exude claims of magical CO2 effects but not when it comes to real life and public safety.
Remember..... we contribute less than 1% of man made CO2. Mother Nature contributes c97% of all atmospheric CO2. Or to put it another way we contribute 0.03% of atmospheric CO2.
Superb analysis again David. Whilst out have lunch the other week with two former work colleagues (bith very comfortably well off) the subject of Climate change came off. I let them know my position and they were horrified. I was called a "flat earther". It got me thinking about this elitest thinking. I've concluded that they all stand to directly gain by it. Either the early adoption of technology to accrue massive subsidies that will disappear if the tech is ever deployed to the majority (think tax benefit on EVs which is starting to reduce), direct business investments (think Ecotricity) and/or the ability to virtue signal and align themselves with those in their groups. Most have no understanding of the issues of climate but they do understand subsidies and cheap virtue.
BTW - I know no of the tech will ever go mainstream because the working class won't put up with it (neither will the middle class once they understand the paybacks without subsidies... witness my eco friend who lives in a Victorian semi. He openly admits he wouldn't pay c£20K for upgrades but thinks the journey we're on is good "I'll never get that money back").
My concern is that in the UK the energy cost is already causing the poor (not me) to be poorer and that is only going to get worse under our new government and the energy tzar Milliband, who does not appear to understand anything. We have more food banks than ever with the increased rate of food banks being about 50% per annum mostly caused by Net Zero.
As I said to Nigel, start with wind droughts which is a politicially neutral topic and interesting in its own right, then see how long it takes them to find out the implications for windpower by themselves.
In Australia the energy realists started as climate realists and pivoted to energy for the strategic reason that we cant discuss climate in public, nobody understands any science and it is a poison pill.
On the other hand, people who are not well off will be increasingly receptive to the idea that their suffering will not help or make any difference. And we can explain the energy crisis in language that they can understand.
I have friends who are similarly convinced. What is noticeable is they do not actually research the subject from a numerical and historical point of view. How should we convince these friends without losing them? If we cannot convince our friends who can we convince?
Its very clear that the eco evangelists have penetrated very far into people mindsets and for majority they will follow the brainwashing as it doesn't really impact them. Unfortunately it will take a few blackouts,although at worst i see rolling blackouts as the only risk as NESO are very competetnt at keeping the lights on as long as they can throw our money at the problem. So agree with you that we need to find a response to this situation that reflects that so far we have lost the argument to the CC lot.
For some time in the energy realists of Australia we have been talking about the parallel universe occupied by net zero enthusiasts. Britain and Australia each contributed about 1% of man-made CO2, that is plant food, the breath of life which is greening the planet and boosting the harvest of food worldwide.
If we contributed no emissions at all it would not make a measurable difference to any indicator of climate and the shortfall would be made up within 12 months by the developing nations of the world including China LOL.
it is a great shame that practically the whole population has been enslaved by net zero fanatics with the full support of all the major parties.
What has happened to science teaching?
Let's all live in the same universe.
Getting back to wind droughts for a moment, how long does it take for people to understand that windmills produce next to nothing at night doing Dunkelflautes and consequently no amount of additional windmills in Britain and Germany will do any good to keep the lights on and provide affordable electricity.
They are totally detached from reality. It is almost 5 years since I posted this: https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/fossil-fuel-dependency-shows-net-zero-is-impossible/.
A payback period of 40 to 300 years is incredible. I always figured a payback of 10-20 years is a good goal, giving a 5-10% return on investment.
Thanks again, David, for another wonderful and logical article. From across the pond, I wonder when a leader will arise in the UK to tell the truth to your fine citizens: Nothing the UK ever does, or does not do, will ever have any effect on anyone’s climate.
All the public treasure dedicated in this futile attempt has been wasted, save perhaps whatever was dedicated to PM2.5 reductions in urban areas.
Of course, that may all be offset by the greater PM2.5 contributions by EVs, due to higher weights causing greater tire wear.
Why futile? First, on a global scale, and as you rightfully mentioned, UK CO2 emissions are but a rounding error of Asian contributions.
Too, let’s say one is a leader of a country who’s taken little or no measures to mitigate CO2 emissions. Let’s imagine this country emits 10-15% of global CO2.
I’ve heard a number of Brits claiming the UK is setting an example to the world. And you are…just not the one you believe.
The leader of this country would look at the UK and note that over two decades you’ve devoted £bazillions erecting 11,000+ wind turbines spread out over hundreds of miles, a fair amount of solar, and some very expensive storage.
You still intend to spend billions more on grid expansion to connect all these far flung VRE projects. And the more you connect, the higher the spending on capacity markets and ensuring sufficient grid inertia
Despite, or rather because of all this, you now have among the highest electricity rates going.
The high power costs have caused large deindustrialization and job loss.
All these efforts have simple moved UK emissions (and jobs!) to a ledger in Asia, along with additional emitted transporting finished products to the UK on ships burning 63,000 gallons of bunker oil per day.
I apologize for the length of this post: To recap, the UK has spent 20-odd years and bazillions of shekels, and had absolutely no effect on global CO2 levels.
Totals have continued their inexorable rise, unabated and unaffected by any action taken, or not, by the UK.
As a matter of fact, even when human CO2 emissions dropped 6-8%, global totals merrily continued their upward trajectory.
Any logical leader of this fictitious country would surmise that any large effort to reduce CO2 would only harm the country and hurt its citizens and economy.
And that the only sensible thing to do to satisfy those who clamor for zero-carbon power is to invest in dispatchable nuclear power.
VRE cannot power the world. If even a relatively tiny country cannot do it after 20 years, there is no hope that a larger nation would find success.
Dr Vernon Coleman has pointed out that the U.K. is the net zero test bed. Things can only go downhill, especially with this lot in charge.
Yes its nuts... be careful who you vote for..
Although many parts of the population had embraced the new religion of a climate change emergency, a new majority of western citizens are becoming painfully aware via new scientific facts that they are being misled, and that NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable and extremely foolish.
So, all governments must start asking far more questions about why they are spending so much of their citizens wealth on this non-solution and must undertake a deep review of the NetZero journey.
https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/climate-change-awareness-is-growing
I looked to see if we had any data on housebuilding under the new government yet, to find that although it was updated only a few days ago the most recent data covers Q2 2024. I charted it anyway, and was immediately struck by two things: recent levels of housing starts have plunged to lows last seen after the Financial Crisis in 2008. This was proceeded by a spike to record levels in Q2 2023.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/J85L9/1/
Research revealed that in June 2023 new building standards were applied including a mandate to provide for EV charging and tougher standards on insulation and limitations on windows. Even tougher standards are already in the works, with some due next year. By putting a shovel in the ground builders were able to proceed under the old rules at lower cost, and with more marketable designs.
The previous attempt to push for net zero housing was imposed by Huhne. Some homes were built to those standards but proved difficult to sell. The full mandate was to take effect in 2016, but was dropped after the 2015 election.
At the moment housing completions have continued on a more even course as the surge in starts in slowly worked through. But soon, the lack of new starts will hit completions too. To be fair, the end of ZIRP mortgages is depressing demand for house purchases, while supply has increased from sales by landlords facing increasing tax burdens on renting, and now threatened with costly and ineffective requirements to meet EPC C. These will only accelerate, throwing renters on the streets and creating a housing crisis.
It seems likely that Labour will ignore the lessons in real world economics. They may attempt to nationalise part of the BTL sector, but that is likely to create a bigger banking crisis than 2008 with crashing house prices no longer underpinning mortgage collateral.
Net Zero policy is likely to be exposed more quickly by these effects than by rising energy shortages. Those will appear quite suddenly as finance dries up, the exchange rate plummets, and energy imports become unaffordable.
I think you can use window size as a proxy for Britain's wealth over the decades. Who would want to live in the caves the present regulations demand? Natural light is so important to wellbeing, I think.
Insulating your house will be a necessity as price of electricity will be exorbitant and probably rationed on cold days anyhow.!! Anyhow NESO FES is flawed completely overstated so they can make the case for the great grid upgrade. This is reinforced by NESEO itself which has forecast lower demand again this winter as energy demand continues to fall year on year as we hollow out manufacturing and particularly steel production. Fortunately Millibrains goal of doubling wind and tripling solar is pipedream and not achievable nor required given by their own admission they now say we need 30-40GW of flexible generation on the grid (see Capacity Market changes for 29/20 delivery year) to cover for todays situation (Wind 1.1/Solar0.5GW).
Im a lukewarmer on climate change but will go with balance probability that we ought to see where its possible to find fossil fuel substitutes even if part time and its more expensive overall. However, until the worlds big polluters do something tangible we shouldn't be driving ourselves into the ground especially as none of those talked about green jobs are going to be in UK. So time to stall anymore expansion and build up our own capabilities so at least the green jobs come to the UK if we are going to spend billions on this.
This 2020 article from OVO Energy suggests 3-4 year payback on cavity wall insulation.
https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/the-ultimate-guide-to-cavity-wall-insulation
The real world tends to look rather different. Here's the NAO trashing the outcomes of the Green Deal that was so bad it got canned before the money was spent:
https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/green-deal-and-energy-company-obligation/
It's really worth reading Kathryn Porter's 3 part series on the inadequacies of the EPC system and the measurement of real energy savings, and real world behaviour
https://watt-logic.com/2021/01/27/building-energy-performance-epc/
https://watt-logic.com/2021/02/01/building-energy-performance-measurement/
https://watt-logic.com/2021/02/04/building-energy-performance-consumer-choices/
Thanks for the references. Is NAO the only part of government that hasn’t gone woke? I suspect the new Office for Value for Money is an attempt to reduce its power.
Iirc, they didn't measure cavity wall insulation in the DEEP study, they looked more at internal and external insulation. Many houses, including my own are not suitable for cavity wall insulation.
Older data from BEIS, which I discussed at Cliscep a couple of years ago, showed an 8% reduction in gas use on average after fitting cavity insulation.
https://cliscep.com/2022/09/02/insult-britain/
Interesting contrast!
Air tightness in older housing is a singularly bad idea, as it will encourage damp and mould, and the ill health that goes with it. Houses pre 1870 didn’t have a damp proof course, and even later Victorian and Edwardian homes are built to “breathe”, meaning moisture from ground and air does deep into walls but also dries out again when the outside weather is drier. The problem with homes and heating in these soggy isles is not so much keeping warm but keeping dry: this so-called summer I’ve sporadically had the heating on in August because of the humidity inside the house (Victorian semi with three foot thick stone walls).
Excellent - thank you David! I am particularly interested in the DEEP report - thank you for bringing this to light. While I haven't been through it in detail, it seems to my eyes to have integrity, but it appears not to have been read and absorbed by the Climate Change Committee. I am shocked by the long payback times for domestic energy saving measures and astonished that this has had no impact on the Committee.
I believe these payback times reflect the appalling construction standards of our housing stock, much of which was built in times of energy abundance based on domestic coal. Less than a century ago, homes were built with fireplaces even in quite small bedrooms - if you were cold, you lit a fire. This was the case in our previous home, a small semi, built in 1938.
The ultra-fortunate very few, like me, get to live in self-build homes where insulation and air tightness are built into the fabric by design, and reap the benefit of modest energy cost, kept toasty warm by heat pumps (we're off the gas grid). It's not that insulation doesn't work, it's when and where you get to apply it.
The answer to what to do about the housing stock is the famous response given by an Irishman asked for directions: "Well I wouldn't start from here".
There are two factors which, like night following day, will reduce payback times. Energy costs are only going to head upwards, as you repeatedly warn. Much-heralded growth will fail to materialise, not least because of energy costs, so the government, whichever happens to be in power, will resort to the traditional approach of inflating away its gargantuan debt, to our cost again.
I can't report on it yet, but my forthcoming bedtime reading is "Life After the State: Why We Don't Need Government" by Dominic Frisby. These days when I see or hear "The government must do more" I have to resist the urge to put my head in my hands and quietly sob.
I did a lot of intensive research in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire. Part of that looked at the claims made in the planning submission for projected energy savings from the insulation. I calculated the payback period was over 200 years.
OMG what a tragic error.
"I believe these payback times reflect the appalling construction standards of our housing stock, much of which was built in times of energy abundance based on domestic coal."
I believe they reflect past construction standards which were often high quality (Victorian and Edwardian houses representing the pinnacle of quality construction) but not obsessively focussed on 'energy efficiency' and 'emissions reductions' of a natural gas expelled into the atmosphere in hugely greater quantities by volcanoes and the world's oceans. Rather they were focussed on durability, utility and even aesthetic appearance. It is testament to this focus that much of our old housing stock is still standing and in good condition, hundreds of years later. I doubt that many 'new build' houses will still be standing in two or three hundred years time. I would much rather be living in a naturally well ventilated 'draughty' old home with large, fully opening windows than reside in an airtight eco-tomb in order to save a few pounds in running costs realisable only by my great grand children! Or worse, just to signal my virtue in 'saving the planet' from an imaginary climate crisis.
Notwithstanding the fact that I am sure your own personal self-build home is indeed very warm and comfortable and built to high specifications; it's just that the majority of commercially available 'energy efficient' new builds aren't.
PS also agreed on ventilation. Thanks to chance I decided early on that mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) was not a luxury but necessity. Before we moved in nearly 3 years ago we had three days with the heating running without the MVHR. It was vile - condensation everywhere and humid air. When I made the final connection to the ventilation and ran it, overnight the humidity dropped 20% and the difference had to be experienced to be appreciated. As you note, well-insulated but poorly-ventilated modern homes are bound to be a disaster.
We certainly see eye to eye on your last paragraph. Much commercial modern housing is a testament to corner-cutting. My advice to those in Victorian mid-terrace properties is to encourage your neighbours to keep their thermostats set high.
David, thanks for this sobering piece of reality. It has long seemed that the CCC were zealots in a carbon echo chamber. They (and the so-called Energy Secretary) now seem to be displaying some of the signs of extreme left-wing fascism i.e. tyranny and absolutism. Not at all good for the UK – economic and social carnage, as you say.
I have the same problem. 'but Rob wind is free!' 'Rob, nobody wants to here about capacity factor.'
We're walking towards disaster with a govt trying to step on the gas. (Well not gas, that's the problem).
I owe to Mark Mills an excellent riposte to the mantra that wind and solar are free energy. ALL energy is free, in the sense that humans don't create any of it: what costs is the getting of it. That brings wind and solar neatly alongside every other energy source we use..
Net Zero is a religion now and we have laws about separation of Church and State. They are fine to exude claims of magical CO2 effects but not when it comes to real life and public safety.
Remember..... we contribute less than 1% of man made CO2. Mother Nature contributes c97% of all atmospheric CO2. Or to put it another way we contribute 0.03% of atmospheric CO2.
Superb analysis again David. Whilst out have lunch the other week with two former work colleagues (bith very comfortably well off) the subject of Climate change came off. I let them know my position and they were horrified. I was called a "flat earther". It got me thinking about this elitest thinking. I've concluded that they all stand to directly gain by it. Either the early adoption of technology to accrue massive subsidies that will disappear if the tech is ever deployed to the majority (think tax benefit on EVs which is starting to reduce), direct business investments (think Ecotricity) and/or the ability to virtue signal and align themselves with those in their groups. Most have no understanding of the issues of climate but they do understand subsidies and cheap virtue.
BTW - I know no of the tech will ever go mainstream because the working class won't put up with it (neither will the middle class once they understand the paybacks without subsidies... witness my eco friend who lives in a Victorian semi. He openly admits he wouldn't pay c£20K for upgrades but thinks the journey we're on is good "I'll never get that money back").
My concern is that in the UK the energy cost is already causing the poor (not me) to be poorer and that is only going to get worse under our new government and the energy tzar Milliband, who does not appear to understand anything. We have more food banks than ever with the increased rate of food banks being about 50% per annum mostly caused by Net Zero.
As I said to Nigel, start with wind droughts which is a politicially neutral topic and interesting in its own right, then see how long it takes them to find out the implications for windpower by themselves.
In Australia the energy realists started as climate realists and pivoted to energy for the strategic reason that we cant discuss climate in public, nobody understands any science and it is a poison pill.
On the other hand, people who are not well off will be increasingly receptive to the idea that their suffering will not help or make any difference. And we can explain the energy crisis in language that they can understand.
See if any of these notes are helpful.
https://www.flickerpower.com/index.php/search/categories/general/list-of-briefing-notes
0.9GW of wind now is drought in my book especially as its forecast over next 48hrs
Thanks Rafe
I have friends who are similarly convinced. What is noticeable is they do not actually research the subject from a numerical and historical point of view. How should we convince these friends without losing them? If we cannot convince our friends who can we convince?
Its very clear that the eco evangelists have penetrated very far into people mindsets and for majority they will follow the brainwashing as it doesn't really impact them. Unfortunately it will take a few blackouts,although at worst i see rolling blackouts as the only risk as NESO are very competetnt at keeping the lights on as long as they can throw our money at the problem. So agree with you that we need to find a response to this situation that reflects that so far we have lost the argument to the CC lot.
For some time in the energy realists of Australia we have been talking about the parallel universe occupied by net zero enthusiasts. Britain and Australia each contributed about 1% of man-made CO2, that is plant food, the breath of life which is greening the planet and boosting the harvest of food worldwide.
If we contributed no emissions at all it would not make a measurable difference to any indicator of climate and the shortfall would be made up within 12 months by the developing nations of the world including China LOL.
it is a great shame that practically the whole population has been enslaved by net zero fanatics with the full support of all the major parties.
What has happened to science teaching?
Let's all live in the same universe.
Getting back to wind droughts for a moment, how long does it take for people to understand that windmills produce next to nothing at night doing Dunkelflautes and consequently no amount of additional windmills in Britain and Germany will do any good to keep the lights on and provide affordable electricity.