We are being forced to do it, because it’s nothing to do with controlling the climate and everything to do with controlling you and me, whilst transferring more wealth (taxes, subsidies) to the globalist elites - you will never get a referendum on it, because ‘they’ know, it would be rejected on economic grounds in the main - the proles cannot afford the luxury of thinking they’re tackling a problem that doesn’t really exist
I'd be very careful about a referendum on NZ. There's a lot of brainwashed youngsters under 25 and oldies, usually women, who want to save the planet for their grandchildren. I think we'd lose.
No, we would (need) not lose. Our case is overwhelming - but we need to organise and unite around the truth. If we let amateurs and grifters "on our side" own the narrative, that is the only way we lose.
I hope you're right. The whole of the media will be against us, the government, so called climate scientists, and all those up to their elbows in the global warming money trough, earning a handsome living supporting the NZ nonsense. We have logic and facts, as long as someone is reading and listening.
We'd need a simple message, backed up by detailed evidence.
Example 1 (climate change): We only invented the (first, primitive) thermometer ~400y ago, and first reached the South Pole ~100y ago. Our knowledge of "global temperatures" over thousands of years, from proxy measurements, is nowhere near good enough to make the risible claims made by the climate alarmists - measuring global records to the nearest tenth of a degree. It's ridiculous.
Example 2 (Net Zero costs): The current wholesale price of gas in the UK is ~75p/therm, or 2.6p/kWh, so it's 𝗼𝗯𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 to anyone that retail power prices (Ofgem cap 24.5p/kWh) are completely disconnected from "the price of gas".
These simple points need repeating by every spokesperson on every media channel. Then, when the far-left loonies start throwing chaff, every spokesman needs to cut them down with detail.
That will take 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲, which most on "our team" don't currently have - but it's an easy process to get people trained up.
about heat pumps, “or to keep it cool in the summer.”
Except air to water heat pumps, the only ones permitted to receive a bung, if used to cool using radiators, would condense water from the atmosphere on every piece of pipework, on every radiator. Meanwhile air to air heat pumps that can heat as well as cool are not permitted to receive a bung.
Air source heat pumps retrofitted to houses that are not well insulated or modern built in the UK are noisy, inefficient, expensive, hideous to look at and ineffective. I've lived with one in a rented 2-bed old (maybe Victorian) semi-detached cottage on a hill and if you turn it down to 'frost setting' (went away at Christmas for 5 days) and a cold wind blows it refused to restart - engineers £97 and 4 days later 'tricked' it into 'believing the air was warmer than it was (so help me God). It is never warm enough however hot the thermostat is. My monthly Octopus bill is £167 a month. There's just me and I'm out all day and the heating is turned to 14 degrees from 9 am to 6 pm. My next house (newly built) has mains gas, electric, infra-red and a log burner. That should cover global freezing!
You would think these people, so keen to save our boiling planet, would do so, not for the money, but for the sheer duty, but no, it seems they are all extremely well paid rinsers, far better paid than the proles they are forcing net zero poverty onto, as ironic as it is self serving
They also don’t appear to be able to both understand climate science (empirical, not the made up, modelled stuff), or the characteristics of CO2 (a life giving gas which our atmosphere is bereft of) - they also don’t understand energy, or basic physics, otherwise they’d see that intermittent, vastly over expensive renewables, will never be capable of powering a nation without either unsourceable, unaffordable storage, or coal/gas/nuclear back up
Installing both renewables and the back up they need onto the same grid is utter stupidity, forcing consumers to pay for two separate power sources, on the same creaking grid
They should keep the name ‘net zero’ because it reminds everyone how utterly engineeringly incompetent renewables, battery cars, heat pumps etc, really are
From all I can see this Chris Stark has NET ZERO qualifications to run that program. It sure don't stop them from paying him an incredibly lavish salary:
From Net Zero Watch:
"...Campaign group Net Zero Watch has welcomed the resignation of Chris Stark, the chief executive of the Climate Change Committee (CCC), but says he should have been fired years ago.
"... Stark controversially oversaw the preparation of the Net Zero report, which was the economic and scientific justification for the complete decarbonisation of the economy, but was subsequently shown to have been a deception.[1]
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:
The public have remunerated Mr Stark to a total of over a million pounds over his term of office, an astonishing sum for running an organisation with a staff of around 40 people. In return, he oversaw the production of a “dodgy dossier” of policies that have led to the ruin of the economy. It’s good that he is gone, but he should have been summarily dismissed many years ago.”
Extraordinarily, it seems that Mr Stark may be moving to an even more lucrative position in the Green Blob, as CEO of the Carbon Trust. But according to Mr Montford, the appointment raises ethical concerns:
Mr Stark’s colleague at the CCC, Baroness Brown, has apparently appointed him to run the Carbon Trust, where she is chairman, and where the last CEO earned over £400,000. It’s clear that these eco-quangocrats are just lining their pockets. Claire Coutinho needs to institute a programme of reform of all these institutions. It’s obscene, the way ministers allow them to rip us all off....."
You see the means that the ruling Bankster Cult has to corrupt our institutions. They ensure incredible amounts of money are lavished on their pet bureaucrat stooges, a reward for being Judas Traitors.
Great, another MA with zero energy academic qualifications. Learned about energy from a stint at the WWF of all places. That's the grifters who officially declared in their annual Energy report that Nuclear energy has a carbon emissions of 350 gms/kwh which they admitted in a footnote was because they just don't like nuclear energy.
The World Wrestling Federation had to change their name to WWE because they didn't want to be confused with the WWF. They do have a reputation to protect.
The only qualification you need to be high ranking in the climerati, is left wing bias - it matters not that you are subject matter incompetent, as long as you keep singing like a canary about the narrative, global boiling etc, then you get the 6 figure salary + perks
"Concerns about climate change shrank across the world last year, a survey shows, with fewer than half those questioned believing it posed a "very serious threat" to their countries in the next 20 years."
Seems the increasingly frantic alarmist propaganda efforts of the AGW hoaxers are globally failing and they’re starting to panic, doesn’t it?
As the old saying goes, “you can fool some of the people some of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.
The AGW hoax is dying on its feet.
But the bedwetters don't need to worry, the Globalists will dream up something else to make them hand over all their money, lose sleep over, lock themselves up, terrorise their kids and hide behind the sofa very soon now.
In fact I think they’ll find they already have - GLOBAL PANDEMICS.
I think if you listened his recent interview on the Bloomberg Zero podcast you might consider it differently. In that interview he makes it clear that government should focus on those policies that improve energy security, provide affordable energy, and provide job opportunities, but with climate benefits as a secondary benefit. I think he recognises that policies that explicitly focus on net zero with other factors separately just will not be acceptable currently.
On your point on the cost of net zero you should strip out all the subsidies that fossil fuels receive ($7 trillion in explicit and implicit subsidies) to get a more accurate picture. Of course supply chain issues have led to inflation in wind turbines, but you've forgotten about the precipitous drop in EV battery costs.
The UK doesn't subsidise fossil fuels. Quite the opposite the Exchequer benefits from massive tax revenues.
Most commodity prices are back to pre-crisis levels. The big challenge to renewables is the move from negative real interest rates to positive real rates. Free money made them appear cheap, but now reality is starting to bite.
A bit touchy touchy. At least the author had the decency to post a proper response. It seems I have stumbled across a community that doesn't appreciate alternative perspectives. FWIW I agree with David's response vis-a-vis the UK, but at a global basis to not take account of fossil fuel subsidies is not comparing apples with apples.
After Net Zero comes Absolute Zero. Net Zero is not the destination.
If nobody voted for Net Zero, why are we doing it? Where is the democratic mandate? If we had a referendum on it, would it get approval?
We are being forced to do it, because it’s nothing to do with controlling the climate and everything to do with controlling you and me, whilst transferring more wealth (taxes, subsidies) to the globalist elites - you will never get a referendum on it, because ‘they’ know, it would be rejected on economic grounds in the main - the proles cannot afford the luxury of thinking they’re tackling a problem that doesn’t really exist
I'd be very careful about a referendum on NZ. There's a lot of brainwashed youngsters under 25 and oldies, usually women, who want to save the planet for their grandchildren. I think we'd lose.
Good point.
No, we would (need) not lose. Our case is overwhelming - but we need to organise and unite around the truth. If we let amateurs and grifters "on our side" own the narrative, that is the only way we lose.
https://twitter.com/EyesOnThePriz12/status/1779107411254534478
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/uk-energy-consumption-and-electricity
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/the-dummies-guide-to-uk-net-zero
I hope you're right. The whole of the media will be against us, the government, so called climate scientists, and all those up to their elbows in the global warming money trough, earning a handsome living supporting the NZ nonsense. We have logic and facts, as long as someone is reading and listening.
We'd need a simple message, backed up by detailed evidence.
Example 1 (climate change): We only invented the (first, primitive) thermometer ~400y ago, and first reached the South Pole ~100y ago. Our knowledge of "global temperatures" over thousands of years, from proxy measurements, is nowhere near good enough to make the risible claims made by the climate alarmists - measuring global records to the nearest tenth of a degree. It's ridiculous.
Example 2 (Net Zero costs): The current wholesale price of gas in the UK is ~75p/therm, or 2.6p/kWh, so it's 𝗼𝗯𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 to anyone that retail power prices (Ofgem cap 24.5p/kWh) are completely disconnected from "the price of gas".
These simple points need repeating by every spokesperson on every media channel. Then, when the far-left loonies start throwing chaff, every spokesman needs to cut them down with detail.
That will take 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲, which most on "our team" don't currently have - but it's an easy process to get people trained up.
about heat pumps, “or to keep it cool in the summer.”
Except air to water heat pumps, the only ones permitted to receive a bung, if used to cool using radiators, would condense water from the atmosphere on every piece of pipework, on every radiator. Meanwhile air to air heat pumps that can heat as well as cool are not permitted to receive a bung.
Heat pumps are to home heating, what the square wheel was to mobility
A stark fact that Stark didn’t know. That’s absolutely disgraceful.
He did know, which is why he didn't install a heat pump in his own flat.
Air source heat pumps retrofitted to houses that are not well insulated or modern built in the UK are noisy, inefficient, expensive, hideous to look at and ineffective. I've lived with one in a rented 2-bed old (maybe Victorian) semi-detached cottage on a hill and if you turn it down to 'frost setting' (went away at Christmas for 5 days) and a cold wind blows it refused to restart - engineers £97 and 4 days later 'tricked' it into 'believing the air was warmer than it was (so help me God). It is never warm enough however hot the thermostat is. My monthly Octopus bill is £167 a month. There's just me and I'm out all day and the heating is turned to 14 degrees from 9 am to 6 pm. My next house (newly built) has mains gas, electric, infra-red and a log burner. That should cover global freezing!
You would think these people, so keen to save our boiling planet, would do so, not for the money, but for the sheer duty, but no, it seems they are all extremely well paid rinsers, far better paid than the proles they are forcing net zero poverty onto, as ironic as it is self serving
They also don’t appear to be able to both understand climate science (empirical, not the made up, modelled stuff), or the characteristics of CO2 (a life giving gas which our atmosphere is bereft of) - they also don’t understand energy, or basic physics, otherwise they’d see that intermittent, vastly over expensive renewables, will never be capable of powering a nation without either unsourceable, unaffordable storage, or coal/gas/nuclear back up
Installing both renewables and the back up they need onto the same grid is utter stupidity, forcing consumers to pay for two separate power sources, on the same creaking grid
They should keep the name ‘net zero’ because it reminds everyone how utterly engineeringly incompetent renewables, battery cars, heat pumps etc, really are
From all I can see this Chris Stark has NET ZERO qualifications to run that program. It sure don't stop them from paying him an incredibly lavish salary:
From Net Zero Watch:
"...Campaign group Net Zero Watch has welcomed the resignation of Chris Stark, the chief executive of the Climate Change Committee (CCC), but says he should have been fired years ago.
"... Stark controversially oversaw the preparation of the Net Zero report, which was the economic and scientific justification for the complete decarbonisation of the economy, but was subsequently shown to have been a deception.[1]
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:
The public have remunerated Mr Stark to a total of over a million pounds over his term of office, an astonishing sum for running an organisation with a staff of around 40 people. In return, he oversaw the production of a “dodgy dossier” of policies that have led to the ruin of the economy. It’s good that he is gone, but he should have been summarily dismissed many years ago.”
Extraordinarily, it seems that Mr Stark may be moving to an even more lucrative position in the Green Blob, as CEO of the Carbon Trust. But according to Mr Montford, the appointment raises ethical concerns:
Mr Stark’s colleague at the CCC, Baroness Brown, has apparently appointed him to run the Carbon Trust, where she is chairman, and where the last CEO earned over £400,000. It’s clear that these eco-quangocrats are just lining their pockets. Claire Coutinho needs to institute a programme of reform of all these institutions. It’s obscene, the way ministers allow them to rip us all off....."
https://climate-science.press/2024/01/12/climate-change-committee-boss-should-have-been-fired/
You see the means that the ruling Bankster Cult has to corrupt our institutions. They ensure incredible amounts of money are lavished on their pet bureaucrat stooges, a reward for being Judas Traitors.
It has been rumoured on Twitter that Emma Pinchbeck, current CEO of EnergyUK, is being lined up to take over from Stark at the CCC.
Great, another MA with zero energy academic qualifications. Learned about energy from a stint at the WWF of all places. That's the grifters who officially declared in their annual Energy report that Nuclear energy has a carbon emissions of 350 gms/kwh which they admitted in a footnote was because they just don't like nuclear energy.
The World Wrestling Federation had to change their name to WWE because they didn't want to be confused with the WWF. They do have a reputation to protect.
The only qualification you need to be high ranking in the climerati, is left wing bias - it matters not that you are subject matter incompetent, as long as you keep singing like a canary about the narrative, global boiling etc, then you get the 6 figure salary + perks
Seems there's a lot of it about!
"Concerns about climate change shrank across the world last year, a survey shows, with fewer than half those questioned believing it posed a "very serious threat" to their countries in the next 20 years."
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/concern-about-climate-change-shrinks-globally-threat-grows-study-2022-10-19/
Heh - “AS THREAT GROWS”!
Seems the increasingly frantic alarmist propaganda efforts of the AGW hoaxers are globally failing and they’re starting to panic, doesn’t it?
As the old saying goes, “you can fool some of the people some of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”.
The AGW hoax is dying on its feet.
But the bedwetters don't need to worry, the Globalists will dream up something else to make them hand over all their money, lose sleep over, lock themselves up, terrorise their kids and hide behind the sofa very soon now.
In fact I think they’ll find they already have - GLOBAL PANDEMICS.
So be afraid, be very afraid!
I think if you listened his recent interview on the Bloomberg Zero podcast you might consider it differently. In that interview he makes it clear that government should focus on those policies that improve energy security, provide affordable energy, and provide job opportunities, but with climate benefits as a secondary benefit. I think he recognises that policies that explicitly focus on net zero with other factors separately just will not be acceptable currently.
On your point on the cost of net zero you should strip out all the subsidies that fossil fuels receive ($7 trillion in explicit and implicit subsidies) to get a more accurate picture. Of course supply chain issues have led to inflation in wind turbines, but you've forgotten about the precipitous drop in EV battery costs.
The UK doesn't subsidise fossil fuels. Quite the opposite the Exchequer benefits from massive tax revenues.
Most commodity prices are back to pre-crisis levels. The big challenge to renewables is the move from negative real interest rates to positive real rates. Free money made them appear cheap, but now reality is starting to bite.
Free money and the fraudulent focus on wholesale-only LCOE, rather than whole system retail costs.
Ignorant clown. David has a far higher level of tolerance than me. If you posted such utter trolling BS on my page, you'd get an instant ban.
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/uk-energy-consumption-and-electricity
A bit touchy touchy. At least the author had the decency to post a proper response. It seems I have stumbled across a community that doesn't appreciate alternative perspectives. FWIW I agree with David's response vis-a-vis the UK, but at a global basis to not take account of fossil fuel subsidies is not comparing apples with apples.
Alternative perspectives fine. Sealioning dishonest drivel, not so much.
“Her name was McGill, she called herself Lil, but everyone knew as Nancy.”
Are when its not going as planned lets have a rebrand
Great piece by Ben
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/26/the-green-agenda-will-lead-to-civil-war/