David Turver’s Eigenvalues, Richard Lyon’s State of Britain, Douglas Brodie’s comments, Paul Homewood at WUWT and elsewhere, Joanne Nova's Perfectly Good Civilisation Going to Waste, Chris Morrison and Ben Pile over at the Daily Sceptic, are all (among others) beacons of sanity illuminating the madness of the Westminster crowd.
Three cheers for NESO's engineers for keeping the lights on last week – earliest November snowfall I can remember since the 1980s.
What’s to stop Britain’s inexorable slide off the wrong corner of the OWID plots and into penury, that dates back to before the 2008 Canute Tribute Act?
Let’s see what the next four years bring. Maybe Mr Musk will buy the Daily Telegraph, sell off Tesla and invest the proceeds in thorium-powered SMRs.
As the philosopher Shankly once upon a time observed – Aim for the ceiling and you might hit the floor, aim for the stars and you might hit the ceiling.
I think it's interesting to look at what has happened to electricity demand by sector. The economy flatlined under Labour, and the consumer boom associated with the financial bubble and bust was truly punctured. Since then it's been downhill all the way.
I have just sent this to our MP Elsie Blundell - others may find the useful.
Dear Elsie,
As a local constituent I am writing to ask for your feedback on this email which includes an article by David Turver on SubStack. I have been following the “progress” of the COPs and our NetZero policy for many years and his article provides a well-written summary of where we are up to and the dangers of pushing forward with NetZero. The original article can be found here:
I would like to highlight the following points and questions:
Sir Kier Starmer was one of very few major global leaders to attend COP29, though he was accompanied by 470 UK delegates. Do you believe that this represents value for money, particularly at this difficult time?
Figure 1 is a chart showing the inexorable rise of CO2 emissions, demonstrating that there is no realistic possibility that they will be reduced and any further cuts we make will have no impact. Do you agree with my assessment and if not what evidence would you cite to support your opinion?
UK emissions (at 0.81% of global totals) are now lower than at any time since the General Strike of 1926. The additional commitment made by our PM to target an 81% reduction compared to 1990 levels will take us to a level lower than in 1850. Do you agree that this would have a disastrous impact on our society at a time when the growing nations (see figure 2) continue to develop fossil fuel resources?
Figure 3 demonstrates that global energy use continues to grow and fossil fuel consumption is at record highs. Do you agree that this supports my argument that anything we do to transition away from fossil fuels (assuming that is practically possible) will have no impact globally?
Figure 4 demonstrates that we are not so much transitioning from fossil fuels as moving away from energy altogether, which is having a devastating effect on the economy. Do you agree?
If you consider nothing else, please look at figures 5 and 6 which correlate emissions and GDP per capita. Looking at both charts together, there is a clear relationship showing that cutting emissions leads to lower energy consumption that in turn reduces economic growth, making everyone poorer. Therefore, I ask how you plan to fund growing public services against the backdrop of a stagnant economy?
As David Turner points out in his summary, we understood that Labour's primary objective was economic growth and yet this analysis demonstrates that NetZero policies implemented since the Climate Change Act in 2008 have directly or indirectly contributed to killing our any prospects of economic growth.
I have been an environmentalist since university (I voted for the Green Party) and I understand that the climate is changing. I don’t doubt that sea levels are rising etc, but I don't see any prospect for our NetZero policies to make even the slightest difference for the reasons explained above. We should use the cheapest, cleanest fossil fuel available, which is gas, and use this to help us to transition to a clean energy technology based primarily on nuclear power (delivering strategic as well as energy security). We can in the mean-time spend far less money by mitigating the impact of climate change (better sea defences and planning policy to avoid flood plains etc).
Given this, I suggest that spending £22 billion on a project to sequester CO2 via an unproven technology is not only likely to fail but against the backdrop of many more pensioners freezing to death this winter, is deeply immoral. Do you agree?
I look forward to hearing from you and ideally meeting up to discuss in more detail. Perhaps you could suggest the best way to meet?
That’s the idea. Let us know how you get on. I got the standard reply saying how they are flooded with emails and I’ll be lucky to get a response if any.
COPS needs to die as does the whole UN IPCC initiative it’s become politics and not science.
Its clear to many governments that NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable, financially irresponsible, and extremely foolish. And especially as the “rest” of the global economies continue to do nothing anyway. It may mean only focused adaption for “high risk areas” and will allow us to get on with prosperity using the power of Fossil fuels.
Better watch out David, the UN is coming for climate sceptics/deniers/spreaders of misinformation like you, aided and abetted by the G20. Don’t you know that tackling climate change is one of the UN’s Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals? https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142972.
For me any words regards the COP jamboree are a pointless waste of breath adding to huge unnecessary exhalation of carbon dioxide 😉
What on earth is the point of giving swivel-eyed loonies like Miliband and free money-seekers from Bali a platform? Does the world gain anything from training kids especially to be sent to negotiate something they and nobody else understands?
Thank you David. Very clear, very damning expose of the 'energy transition' which is actually an energy decline. Your sentence here gets right to the heart of the issue:
"We are not so much transitioning from fossil fuels as moving away from energy altogether, which is having a devastating effect on the economy."
As you demonstrate, for all our efforts, we are still consuming 74.2% of our energy from fossil fuels, when the global average is not much different, at 76.5%. The biggest difference is that per capita UK emissions have gone from just over 10 tonnes in 1990 to just over 4 tonnes now, which by my reckoning is a massive 60% reduction in energy use of the average citizen, which, even with energy efficiency measures, still translates directly as a huge decline in living standards.
The human metabolic rate declines continually with age - and then you die. This is what is happening with the UK - except it's not a natural death, it's murder.
Thank you David for your usual clarity and persuasiveness through facts. I now understand that the reason Mr Starmer looks like a man who's just walked through the wrong door, is because he just did.
The truth is our emissions are much higher as we favour making ourselves look good by destroying our own industry only to import what we need from countries that care little about the environmental impacts nor H&S of workforce nor paying them fairly. Torys and Labour have been just plain hypocrites over this.
Personally i believe there is a place for renewables and in the long run it makes sense to use solar at equatorial latitudes as well as using offshore windmills where its naturally windy. All that displaces fossil fuels and ensures what we have left will go further so we can continue to use in transportation and domestic heating where electrification is pretty pointless, or impossible when it comes to aviation, although nothing wrong with hybrids for built up areas to improve air quality.
On the $300B/pa its not clear who has to pay what and how its even administered which is atypical of anything to do with the UN so i expect to see MPs challenge Millibrain and his groupies over what this really means for the UK as we are broke already.
Yes, it seems that there are natural places for solar and wind. Where climate is neither too hot nor too cold, and where sun and wind are abundant. Add in that the place is isolated and has a small population that’s not used to having 24/7 power, and everyone can be happy. But that’s not many people!
I remember 10 years ago pointing out to assorted politicians the futility of our unilateral attempt to “tackle climate change” using the same graphs of rising global fossil fuel consumption and emissions, only to be fobbed off every time.
Incidentally, the BBC reported on the breach of the precious 1.5°C limit almost a year ago with no mention of the massive global warming spike caused by the Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption, a concealment of the truth which proves they are lying to us: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68110310.
Here in the US (especially Ohio, Indiana, and Texas) we'll start accepting British "climate policy refugees" ....that can bring some industrial plant with them.
Brilliant article which I will share with our local Labour MP and my “Politics in Pubs” group. Btw - if you are ever in Manchester on the 4th Tuesday of the month we would be very happy to have you as a guest speaker. We also have groups in Newcastle, London and Sheffield.
Thank you for a most informative article on why we in UK are being impoverished through the actions of our technically -ignorant politicians over the past decades, and how Starmer is as two-faced as the cheeks of a derrière. There is no doubt that the actions of his government are working directly against his stated goal for growth. Concerning the latter it would appear that the actual target is riddance of the old, hence growth in the body-disposal business, to make way for his army of foreign youngsters that are more physically procreative. Additionally, the new-comers are much more amenable to a dictatorship than the indigenous.
David Turver’s Eigenvalues, Richard Lyon’s State of Britain, Douglas Brodie’s comments, Paul Homewood at WUWT and elsewhere, Joanne Nova's Perfectly Good Civilisation Going to Waste, Chris Morrison and Ben Pile over at the Daily Sceptic, are all (among others) beacons of sanity illuminating the madness of the Westminster crowd.
Three cheers for NESO's engineers for keeping the lights on last week – earliest November snowfall I can remember since the 1980s.
What’s to stop Britain’s inexorable slide off the wrong corner of the OWID plots and into penury, that dates back to before the 2008 Canute Tribute Act?
Let’s see what the next four years bring. Maybe Mr Musk will buy the Daily Telegraph, sell off Tesla and invest the proceeds in thorium-powered SMRs.
As the philosopher Shankly once upon a time observed – Aim for the ceiling and you might hit the floor, aim for the stars and you might hit the ceiling.
I think it's interesting to look at what has happened to electricity demand by sector. The economy flatlined under Labour, and the consumer boom associated with the financial bubble and bust was truly punctured. Since then it's been downhill all the way.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/fBZ5C/1/
I have just sent this to our MP Elsie Blundell - others may find the useful.
Dear Elsie,
As a local constituent I am writing to ask for your feedback on this email which includes an article by David Turver on SubStack. I have been following the “progress” of the COPs and our NetZero policy for many years and his article provides a well-written summary of where we are up to and the dangers of pushing forward with NetZero. The original article can be found here:
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/cop29-flops-starmer-makes-uk-cop-lot
I would like to highlight the following points and questions:
Sir Kier Starmer was one of very few major global leaders to attend COP29, though he was accompanied by 470 UK delegates. Do you believe that this represents value for money, particularly at this difficult time?
Figure 1 is a chart showing the inexorable rise of CO2 emissions, demonstrating that there is no realistic possibility that they will be reduced and any further cuts we make will have no impact. Do you agree with my assessment and if not what evidence would you cite to support your opinion?
UK emissions (at 0.81% of global totals) are now lower than at any time since the General Strike of 1926. The additional commitment made by our PM to target an 81% reduction compared to 1990 levels will take us to a level lower than in 1850. Do you agree that this would have a disastrous impact on our society at a time when the growing nations (see figure 2) continue to develop fossil fuel resources?
Figure 3 demonstrates that global energy use continues to grow and fossil fuel consumption is at record highs. Do you agree that this supports my argument that anything we do to transition away from fossil fuels (assuming that is practically possible) will have no impact globally?
Figure 4 demonstrates that we are not so much transitioning from fossil fuels as moving away from energy altogether, which is having a devastating effect on the economy. Do you agree?
If you consider nothing else, please look at figures 5 and 6 which correlate emissions and GDP per capita. Looking at both charts together, there is a clear relationship showing that cutting emissions leads to lower energy consumption that in turn reduces economic growth, making everyone poorer. Therefore, I ask how you plan to fund growing public services against the backdrop of a stagnant economy?
As David Turner points out in his summary, we understood that Labour's primary objective was economic growth and yet this analysis demonstrates that NetZero policies implemented since the Climate Change Act in 2008 have directly or indirectly contributed to killing our any prospects of economic growth.
I have been an environmentalist since university (I voted for the Green Party) and I understand that the climate is changing. I don’t doubt that sea levels are rising etc, but I don't see any prospect for our NetZero policies to make even the slightest difference for the reasons explained above. We should use the cheapest, cleanest fossil fuel available, which is gas, and use this to help us to transition to a clean energy technology based primarily on nuclear power (delivering strategic as well as energy security). We can in the mean-time spend far less money by mitigating the impact of climate change (better sea defences and planning policy to avoid flood plains etc).
Given this, I suggest that spending £22 billion on a project to sequester CO2 via an unproven technology is not only likely to fail but against the backdrop of many more pensioners freezing to death this winter, is deeply immoral. Do you agree?
I look forward to hearing from you and ideally meeting up to discuss in more detail. Perhaps you could suggest the best way to meet?
Yours sincerely,
Mind if I use this to write to my MP?
That’s the idea. Let us know how you get on. I got the standard reply saying how they are flooded with emails and I’ll be lucky to get a response if any.
For all Starmer’s talk of generating economic growth, it looks suspiciously as if he and “Rachel from accounts” are actively trying to degrade the economy. They will never get growth while they persist with their legally-binding, self-harming Net Zero agenda. Arguably that agenda has been the main cause of economic stagnation here and in the EU for the past 20 years as captured in two graphs: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_2392,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ff384495f-bfbb-4956-8fdb-76d1df37b1a9_1196x951.jpeg and
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fcbd5e67a-8722-4dd5-afbe-c0c9f9f11bee_967x716.png?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
COPS needs to die as does the whole UN IPCC initiative it’s become politics and not science.
Its clear to many governments that NetZero is unnecessary, technologically unattainable, economically unviable, financially irresponsible, and extremely foolish. And especially as the “rest” of the global economies continue to do nothing anyway. It may mean only focused adaption for “high risk areas” and will allow us to get on with prosperity using the power of Fossil fuels.
More at …. https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/no-netzero
Climate Brief..…… Why No NetZero
https://www.takebackmanufacturingnigelsouthway.com/storage/2gQGbQgvl35VEljt9koRYhr9gtJCuJ-metaQ0xJTlRFTCBOZXdzIGxldHRlciBOb3YgMjAyNC5wZGY=-.pdf
x1ZiI4slK2Uu9a6M2vLlsq6qTFhnCi-metaV2h5IE5vIHRvIE5ldFplcm8ucGRm-.pdf
https://www.takebackmanufacturingnigelsouthway.com/storage/5gLmZLTKHSlNpnyASYOsdZgEhOUSQJ-metaQ2xpbWF0ZSBSZWFsaXNtIEZhY3RzLnBkZg==-.pdf
www.nigelsouthwayauthor.com
Better watch out David, the UN is coming for climate sceptics/deniers/spreaders of misinformation like you, aided and abetted by the G20. Don’t you know that tackling climate change is one of the UN’s Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals? https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142972.
Here’s a UK climate change counter-misinformation initiative dating back to the previous government: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/climate-change-misinformation-impacts/what-impact-do-climate-change-misinformation-and-disinformation-have-html. I was struck by the bullet point “In the UK, denial of climate science is no longer a serious issue. The challenge of mis- and disinformation lies now in distorting discussion of climate solutions.”
With respect... I believe you need re-educating on the climate science and you are also way out of step to where the politics is going..
I would say the misinformation is more generated by the UN on many fronts including climate change…
We expect a strong decommitting by future western governments from many UN initiatives COPS IPCC WTO SDGs etc
Please review the information I have attached,, and I am happy to assist in you better understanding the future.
More at …. https://nigelsouthway.substack.com/p/no-netzero
Climate Brief..…… Why No NetZero
https://www.takebackmanufacturingnigelsouthway.com/storage/2gQGbQgvl35VEljt9koRYhr9gtJCuJ-metaQ0xJTlRFTCBOZXdzIGxldHRlciBOb3YgMjAyNC5wZGY=-.pdf
x1ZiI4slK2Uu9a6M2vLlsq6qTFhnCi-metaV2h5IE5vIHRvIE5ldFplcm8ucGRm-.pdf
https://www.takebackmanufacturingnigelsouthway.com/storage/5gLmZLTKHSlNpnyASYOsdZgEhOUSQJ-metaQ2xpbWF0ZSBSZWFsaXNtIEZhY3RzLnBkZg==-.pdf
www.nigelsouthwayauthor.com
I think you’ve misunderstood; I was joking/mocking. My climate scepticism credentials are here: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
Hey…. I am so sorry Matey.... I hope you will accept this apology…. 😊
Its bad enough to take it from the alarmist without getting friendly fire
I will study what you provided and add it to the list.
Any way take a look at this info maybe its useful..
Its from one of the CLINTEL members … It’s a good one.
https://www.takebackmanufacturingnigelsouthway.com/storage/x1ZiI4slK2Uu9a6M2vLlsq6qTFhnCi-metaV2h5IE5vIHRvIE5ldFplcm8ucGRm-.pdf
For me any words regards the COP jamboree are a pointless waste of breath adding to huge unnecessary exhalation of carbon dioxide 😉
What on earth is the point of giving swivel-eyed loonies like Miliband and free money-seekers from Bali a platform? Does the world gain anything from training kids especially to be sent to negotiate something they and nobody else understands?
Stage-managed https://www.ft.com/content/8c1031b6-2917-4e0f-904a-45f6cd20059e? is the best description from serious commentators?
By the way, did you know Storm Bert still has a grip on the UK and will maintain it 'til Tuesday. If only the BBC produced sensible programming.
Thank you David. Very clear, very damning expose of the 'energy transition' which is actually an energy decline. Your sentence here gets right to the heart of the issue:
"We are not so much transitioning from fossil fuels as moving away from energy altogether, which is having a devastating effect on the economy."
As you demonstrate, for all our efforts, we are still consuming 74.2% of our energy from fossil fuels, when the global average is not much different, at 76.5%. The biggest difference is that per capita UK emissions have gone from just over 10 tonnes in 1990 to just over 4 tonnes now, which by my reckoning is a massive 60% reduction in energy use of the average citizen, which, even with energy efficiency measures, still translates directly as a huge decline in living standards.
The human metabolic rate declines continually with age - and then you die. This is what is happening with the UK - except it's not a natural death, it's murder.
Thank you David for your usual clarity and persuasiveness through facts. I now understand that the reason Mr Starmer looks like a man who's just walked through the wrong door, is because he just did.
The truth is our emissions are much higher as we favour making ourselves look good by destroying our own industry only to import what we need from countries that care little about the environmental impacts nor H&S of workforce nor paying them fairly. Torys and Labour have been just plain hypocrites over this.
Personally i believe there is a place for renewables and in the long run it makes sense to use solar at equatorial latitudes as well as using offshore windmills where its naturally windy. All that displaces fossil fuels and ensures what we have left will go further so we can continue to use in transportation and domestic heating where electrification is pretty pointless, or impossible when it comes to aviation, although nothing wrong with hybrids for built up areas to improve air quality.
On the $300B/pa its not clear who has to pay what and how its even administered which is atypical of anything to do with the UN so i expect to see MPs challenge Millibrain and his groupies over what this really means for the UK as we are broke already.
Yes, it seems that there are natural places for solar and wind. Where climate is neither too hot nor too cold, and where sun and wind are abundant. Add in that the place is isolated and has a small population that’s not used to having 24/7 power, and everyone can be happy. But that’s not many people!
I didn't use consumption emissions because GCB haven't updated the data since 2021
You could send your post to Starmer and Miliband and I’ll wager they would fob you off with their standard boilerplate assertions: https://x.com/FCDOGovUK/status/1839325354789675519.
I remember 10 years ago pointing out to assorted politicians the futility of our unilateral attempt to “tackle climate change” using the same graphs of rising global fossil fuel consumption and emissions, only to be fobbed off every time.
Incidentally, the BBC reported on the breach of the precious 1.5°C limit almost a year ago with no mention of the massive global warming spike caused by the Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption, a concealment of the truth which proves they are lying to us: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68110310.
Here in the US (especially Ohio, Indiana, and Texas) we'll start accepting British "climate policy refugees" ....that can bring some industrial plant with them.
Brilliant article which I will share with our local Labour MP and my “Politics in Pubs” group. Btw - if you are ever in Manchester on the 4th Tuesday of the month we would be very happy to have you as a guest speaker. We also have groups in Newcastle, London and Sheffield.
Politics in pubs sounds very fun way of spending an evening in a pub!
All welcome https://politicsinpubs.org.uk
Thank you for a most informative article on why we in UK are being impoverished through the actions of our technically -ignorant politicians over the past decades, and how Starmer is as two-faced as the cheeks of a derrière. There is no doubt that the actions of his government are working directly against his stated goal for growth. Concerning the latter it would appear that the actual target is riddance of the old, hence growth in the body-disposal business, to make way for his army of foreign youngsters that are more physically procreative. Additionally, the new-comers are much more amenable to a dictatorship than the indigenous.