Now we have to wait and see what Labour does. Historically, for this government, they will do nothing - they'll stick their fingers in their ears and carry on regardless - they obviously know better and know what's good for us, whilst us plebs know nothing.
Now that the main opposition party has cast doubt on the dash to net zero, will the impartial BBC be required to give airtime to the likes of Profs Dieter Helm, Gordon Hughes and the author of this article, who have long argued that it would be ruinously expensive.
Thank you for reporting on the overdue collapse of ideologically-driven energy policy in the U.K. Consider the political advocacy of German Greens is partially funded via German taxpayers through the Heinrich Böll Foundation (hbs.) Here's an anti-nuclear power example hbs post: "Renewables replace nuclear and lower emissions simultaneously," Craig Morris, 20 Nov 2019, Energy Transition - The Global Energiewende blog. This 2019 article is essentially 100% counterfactual statements. https://energytransition.org/2019/11/renewables-replace-nuclear-and-lower-emissions-simultaneously/
The Heinrich Böll Foundation receives German taxpayer funded subsidies. The hbs has elegant offices in Berlin. The hbs also has offices in the West Bank of Palestine, Moscow, Russia, Beijing, China, and Washington, DC. Many of the policies of the hbs are Socialist policies dressed in "green" garb. These Socialist policies only apply to the West, leading to declining economic competitiveness and declining military strength in the West. The BRICS nations are essentially exempt from these policies, so the Chinese economy in particular is growing stronger as their military strength also grows. Thus, "green" policies are paving the way for Chinese ascension to eventually become the world's superpower. As an American scientist and engineer with a Ph.D., I oppose this Socialist psychological operation.
Here's my November 12, 2024 Substack reporting on the harmful energy policies in Germany..... Protesting California's Ongoing Nuclear to Coal Transition - Part 2
you say that Net Zero reduces CO2 emissions by 0.8 %, the earlier assumed figure was 1% but both are far too high a figure.
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are estimated to be between 3 and 5 % of annual global emissions, the rest are natural. Taking the higher figures, acceiving net zero would reduce annual CO2 emissions from the U.K. by 0.05%. Not even measurable I would guess?
Academic really until we actually abandon the renewables push and consign them to the scrap man.
What he is referring to is the fact that now our CO2 emissions are below 0.3Gt p.a. that represents less than 0.8% of the global total of anthropic CO2 emissions. Other GHGs take the total to about 0.371GtCO2e out of a more than correspondingly higher global total asessed at 53.4GtCO2e for 2023, so less than 0.7% especially after adding in the global increase for 2024.
According to the European Commission's 'Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research' (EDGAR) 2024 report re the GHG emissions of all world countries, total global emissions in 2023 (the most recent report) were 52,962.90 Mton CO2eq. Of this the UK's share was 379.32 Mton - i.e. 0.72% of the total.
I’m expecting to see the level of CO2 to go up slightly because of the output from China and India. Of course it will be a good thing; as sensible, uncompromised scientists say, we would benefit greatly from a higher level. However natural events related to the sun will dictate 99.9% of what goes on and the evidence of man made influence is still unproven.
Its a good move, but with Labour's current majority its unlikely to change the Law as it currently stands . The CCA has to be repealed. Starmer is clearly unbalanced and/or operating under instructions from elsewhere, which probably include a back door re-entry to the EU. In that club there is absolutely no chance of a reversal of policy.
The important aspect of such mind changing must be to the education system and how that change is coming about due to realism of costs on the economy, but more important on the science - the true science based on the natural laws and not on the figment of the computer programmer. Oh, on that, computer science must be taught such that to ensure reliance on computer models must involve challenge to their outputs through comparison to common rules of thumb developed over the years by notable practitioners, such as in civil engineering where errors result often in fatalities. Much change has yet to come!
Almost immediately after Badenoch’s speech, the Telegraph carried an article by resident climate alarmist The fragrantly named Ambrose-Evans Pritchard. Unable to source any empirical refutation he relied on a climate industry mathematician to say something like “You might think you understand this but you don’t only we do”. As someone in the sensible and rational left camp I am well aware that if there is an unworkable policy like net zero one truth is permanent. Whether the policy is , a toxic one like open borders or gender identity , or an authoritarian grab like lockdowns you can always find an “expert” drinking at the fountain of public funding to support it. It’s just annoying for them that we don’t believe them. We have our own eyes and ears. We have a sensible media with independent and often better qualified experts like you David. That though keeps my spirits up.
I hadn't realised that there was an actual signed document between the parties on this subject. I thought it was just an understanding. This mirrors the IPCC policy that climate change was so important that there had to be consensus regardless of what science actually showed and that no opposing views could be accepted or viewed.
Having spent a quarter of a century educating kids carbon is bad how long will it take to re-educate them?
There is a big problem though, the world has been taken over by nutters on both sides: yes Milibrain and his mates are swivel-eyed loonies but so are Humpty Trumpty and mates like Faraway on the other end.
Kemi BadEnoch is without doubt correct to dump nut-zero but she is ineffectual and has been promoted well beyond her abilities.
It's worrying. The climate scam has been over for a long time, as far as the 'Settled Science' is concerned - real world evidence and published scientific research started driving the nails in its coffin years ago but it lives on as a Zombie Science because of huge amounts of Green Blob funding, universal support from institutional science and rampant censorship of alternative scientific views. But apparently, now that Grok 3 beta (with the help of some of those cute organic carbon-based units we used to call humans) has published a peer-reviewed literature survey, Grok 3 beta's Word is Gospel and the climate scam is reported to be officially over. Well I don't think it's over until the Fat Lady sings and I don't think the Fat Lady identifies as Grok 3 beta just yet!
Its took the green blob decades to get a breakthrough and brainwash the general populous so it will take time to now unwind that narrative. Im content we may now at least be at the beginning of the end of the lunacy and unravel it will but for the UK which has gone all in the lasting damage has been done im afraid.
It's about money and control and taking those from the West.
It's about impoverishing us to the extent we will do whatever we are told, like 19th century dock workers or coal miners who had to do so or face not having a job and food for the table.
Anyone who promotes climate change is either foolish or wants the above.
Either way they should never be trusted in any position of power.
That thing about the price of gas pushing up electricity prices I think comes about because of the accepted way that the wholesale price of electricity is determined by a kind of hierarchy of prices where by the lowest is selected first (usually wind) and the highest (usually gas) is selected last and it's that price that determined the price for all generators. That was my understanding as well up till about week ago when it was pointed out by Gordon Hughes that the market no longer works that way. I have to admit that I don't fully understand how the price is actually determined so I have to bow to Gordon Hughes' expert knowledge on the subject.
The market hasn't worked this way for decades and its extremely frustrating that the gas narrative just gets trotted out by all the media. To my mind this is the most important thing that needs debunking as break that then it exposes how the subsidy regime is the real driver. Thats not say certain elements of the renewable generators actually benefit very nicely from this arrangement where gas still sets the price in the day ahead market which is still c40% of actual generation.
Renewables on CFDs don't care what the gas price is. They are guaranteed their strike price (though it does work differently for baseload like Drax, where they have a set subsidy or even tax for 6 months at a time and only operate when it is profitable). The average CFD pays ~£150/MWh.
Renewables on ROCs are guaranteed their index linked subsidies increasing in April alongside indexed CFD prices. The average subsidy will then be above £100/MWh. Doubling and more today's day ahead price.
Rather than gas price driving electricity prices there is econometrics evidence that shows that interconnector imports are a key driver, and also that renewables supply and dispatchable capacity shortage are important.
Hi David, can’t wait to hear your views on the Heathrow debacle. Silence from National Grid is deafening. There was a farcical interview on the BBC with some random woman from the Institute of Civil Engineers, it was unbelievably bad. Galloping horses, wind farms all kinds of cobblers talked by someone who clearly knew the square root of SFA about electricity. But she was clearly the best they could dredge up as all the people who really knew what happened must have been duct taped to shut up. What are your sources saying?
Headed by former Eirgrid employee and and former head of National Grid Fintan Slye who appointed fellow Irish person Alice Delahunty as Head of Networks at National Grid, where she is now President of Transmission.
My impression of the interview also. Cannot believe that the IET have kept quiet. I know they can contact power systems engineers for comment, but the silence is deafening.
People quote that the UK only produces about 1% of global emissions. But I think it misses the point that emissions from China increases each year by an amount roughly equal to the whole of UK emissions in one year. So the whole of the UK could be switched off completely, no fossil fuels, no cars or aeroplanes no cattle or sheep, nothing and in about a year China has made up the difference as if the UK never existed.
Ditto, and even sillier that we are doing the same economic suicide trick for no reason at all in Australia.....while our famed pristine beaches/oceans, old growth forests, Great Dividing range, Hunter and Barossa Valleys, Nullabor plain, prime ag land - I could go on - are being sacrificed to the gods of the war on plant food. Environmental vandalism on steroids being paid for by the taxpayer. #wealthtransfer #Agenda2030
Now the other European countries, please
Not before time!
Now we have to wait and see what Labour does. Historically, for this government, they will do nothing - they'll stick their fingers in their ears and carry on regardless - they obviously know better and know what's good for us, whilst us plebs know nothing.
Now that the main opposition party has cast doubt on the dash to net zero, will the impartial BBC be required to give airtime to the likes of Profs Dieter Helm, Gordon Hughes and the author of this article, who have long argued that it would be ruinously expensive.
Thank you for reporting on the overdue collapse of ideologically-driven energy policy in the U.K. Consider the political advocacy of German Greens is partially funded via German taxpayers through the Heinrich Böll Foundation (hbs.) Here's an anti-nuclear power example hbs post: "Renewables replace nuclear and lower emissions simultaneously," Craig Morris, 20 Nov 2019, Energy Transition - The Global Energiewende blog. This 2019 article is essentially 100% counterfactual statements. https://energytransition.org/2019/11/renewables-replace-nuclear-and-lower-emissions-simultaneously/
The Heinrich Böll Foundation receives German taxpayer funded subsidies. The hbs has elegant offices in Berlin. The hbs also has offices in the West Bank of Palestine, Moscow, Russia, Beijing, China, and Washington, DC. Many of the policies of the hbs are Socialist policies dressed in "green" garb. These Socialist policies only apply to the West, leading to declining economic competitiveness and declining military strength in the West. The BRICS nations are essentially exempt from these policies, so the Chinese economy in particular is growing stronger as their military strength also grows. Thus, "green" policies are paving the way for Chinese ascension to eventually become the world's superpower. As an American scientist and engineer with a Ph.D., I oppose this Socialist psychological operation.
Here's my November 12, 2024 Substack reporting on the harmful energy policies in Germany..... Protesting California's Ongoing Nuclear to Coal Transition - Part 2
German deindustrialization follows slashing safe, reliable, cost-effective and zero-pollution nuclear power generation ..... https://greennuke.substack.com/p/protesting-californias-ongoing-nuclear-4fa
David,
you say that Net Zero reduces CO2 emissions by 0.8 %, the earlier assumed figure was 1% but both are far too high a figure.
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are estimated to be between 3 and 5 % of annual global emissions, the rest are natural. Taking the higher figures, acceiving net zero would reduce annual CO2 emissions from the U.K. by 0.05%. Not even measurable I would guess?
Academic really until we actually abandon the renewables push and consign them to the scrap man.
How and at what cost is another matter.
Also remember that a) The UK accounts for 0nly 4% of global CO2 emissions and b) atmospheric CO2 in total only comprises 0.04% as the baseline.
What he is referring to is the fact that now our CO2 emissions are below 0.3Gt p.a. that represents less than 0.8% of the global total of anthropic CO2 emissions. Other GHGs take the total to about 0.371GtCO2e out of a more than correspondingly higher global total asessed at 53.4GtCO2e for 2023, so less than 0.7% especially after adding in the global increase for 2024.
According to the European Commission's 'Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research' (EDGAR) 2024 report re the GHG emissions of all world countries, total global emissions in 2023 (the most recent report) were 52,962.90 Mton CO2eq. Of this the UK's share was 379.32 Mton - i.e. 0.72% of the total.
I’m expecting to see the level of CO2 to go up slightly because of the output from China and India. Of course it will be a good thing; as sensible, uncompromised scientists say, we would benefit greatly from a higher level. However natural events related to the sun will dictate 99.9% of what goes on and the evidence of man made influence is still unproven.
Its a good move, but with Labour's current majority its unlikely to change the Law as it currently stands . The CCA has to be repealed. Starmer is clearly unbalanced and/or operating under instructions from elsewhere, which probably include a back door re-entry to the EU. In that club there is absolutely no chance of a reversal of policy.
So the truth is kept to the high priests of government and the lying is outsourced to the climate change committee. Shameful.
The important aspect of such mind changing must be to the education system and how that change is coming about due to realism of costs on the economy, but more important on the science - the true science based on the natural laws and not on the figment of the computer programmer. Oh, on that, computer science must be taught such that to ensure reliance on computer models must involve challenge to their outputs through comparison to common rules of thumb developed over the years by notable practitioners, such as in civil engineering where errors result often in fatalities. Much change has yet to come!
Almost immediately after Badenoch’s speech, the Telegraph carried an article by resident climate alarmist The fragrantly named Ambrose-Evans Pritchard. Unable to source any empirical refutation he relied on a climate industry mathematician to say something like “You might think you understand this but you don’t only we do”. As someone in the sensible and rational left camp I am well aware that if there is an unworkable policy like net zero one truth is permanent. Whether the policy is , a toxic one like open borders or gender identity , or an authoritarian grab like lockdowns you can always find an “expert” drinking at the fountain of public funding to support it. It’s just annoying for them that we don’t believe them. We have our own eyes and ears. We have a sensible media with independent and often better qualified experts like you David. That though keeps my spirits up.
Yes, I read that article in the DT, you could feel the anger in tbe way it was written; it was very arrogant and condescending.
I hadn't realised that there was an actual signed document between the parties on this subject. I thought it was just an understanding. This mirrors the IPCC policy that climate change was so important that there had to be consensus regardless of what science actually showed and that no opposing views could be accepted or viewed.
Having spent a quarter of a century educating kids carbon is bad how long will it take to re-educate them?
There is a big problem though, the world has been taken over by nutters on both sides: yes Milibrain and his mates are swivel-eyed loonies but so are Humpty Trumpty and mates like Faraway on the other end.
Kemi BadEnoch is without doubt correct to dump nut-zero but she is ineffectual and has been promoted well beyond her abilities.
I don't agree that Trump and his new administration are "nutters". To the contrary, they are our main hope of salvation, see my earlier comment: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/cosy-climate-consensus-collapses/comment/102684054?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=8t7a0
Grok also proves the climate scam is over in a peer reviewed paper.
https://open.substack.com/pub/rwmalonemd/p/the-climate-scam-is-over?r=peo1w&utm_medium=ios
It's worrying. The climate scam has been over for a long time, as far as the 'Settled Science' is concerned - real world evidence and published scientific research started driving the nails in its coffin years ago but it lives on as a Zombie Science because of huge amounts of Green Blob funding, universal support from institutional science and rampant censorship of alternative scientific views. But apparently, now that Grok 3 beta (with the help of some of those cute organic carbon-based units we used to call humans) has published a peer-reviewed literature survey, Grok 3 beta's Word is Gospel and the climate scam is reported to be officially over. Well I don't think it's over until the Fat Lady sings and I don't think the Fat Lady identifies as Grok 3 beta just yet!
Its took the green blob decades to get a breakthrough and brainwash the general populous so it will take time to now unwind that narrative. Im content we may now at least be at the beginning of the end of the lunacy and unravel it will but for the UK which has gone all in the lasting damage has been done im afraid.
Agreed
Climate change policy isn't about the climate.
It's about money and control and taking those from the West.
It's about impoverishing us to the extent we will do whatever we are told, like 19th century dock workers or coal miners who had to do so or face not having a job and food for the table.
Anyone who promotes climate change is either foolish or wants the above.
Either way they should never be trusted in any position of power.
That thing about the price of gas pushing up electricity prices I think comes about because of the accepted way that the wholesale price of electricity is determined by a kind of hierarchy of prices where by the lowest is selected first (usually wind) and the highest (usually gas) is selected last and it's that price that determined the price for all generators. That was my understanding as well up till about week ago when it was pointed out by Gordon Hughes that the market no longer works that way. I have to admit that I don't fully understand how the price is actually determined so I have to bow to Gordon Hughes' expert knowledge on the subject.
The market hasn't worked this way for decades and its extremely frustrating that the gas narrative just gets trotted out by all the media. To my mind this is the most important thing that needs debunking as break that then it exposes how the subsidy regime is the real driver. Thats not say certain elements of the renewable generators actually benefit very nicely from this arrangement where gas still sets the price in the day ahead market which is still c40% of actual generation.
Renewables on CFDs don't care what the gas price is. They are guaranteed their strike price (though it does work differently for baseload like Drax, where they have a set subsidy or even tax for 6 months at a time and only operate when it is profitable). The average CFD pays ~£150/MWh.
Renewables on ROCs are guaranteed their index linked subsidies increasing in April alongside indexed CFD prices. The average subsidy will then be above £100/MWh. Doubling and more today's day ahead price.
Rather than gas price driving electricity prices there is econometrics evidence that shows that interconnector imports are a key driver, and also that renewables supply and dispatchable capacity shortage are important.
Hi David, can’t wait to hear your views on the Heathrow debacle. Silence from National Grid is deafening. There was a farcical interview on the BBC with some random woman from the Institute of Civil Engineers, it was unbelievably bad. Galloping horses, wind farms all kinds of cobblers talked by someone who clearly knew the square root of SFA about electricity. But she was clearly the best they could dredge up as all the people who really knew what happened must have been duct taped to shut up. What are your sources saying?
That's been more than adequately covered here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/johnsullivan/p/disinformation-and-the-heathrow-shutdown?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=nhgn1
Milibrain has ordered an enquiry now to be undertaken NESO.
Headed by former Eirgrid employee and and former head of National Grid Fintan Slye who appointed fellow Irish person Alice Delahunty as Head of Networks at National Grid, where she is now President of Transmission.
https://www.nationalgrid.com/about-us/our-leadership-team/the-executive-committee/alice-delahunty
It's like appointing a fox to lead a chicken inquest.
My impression of the interview also. Cannot believe that the IET have kept quiet. I know they can contact power systems engineers for comment, but the silence is deafening.
Kathryn Porter has also done a good write up of the Heathrow debacle.
https://watt-logic.com/2025/03/24/heathrow-airport-blackout/
People quote that the UK only produces about 1% of global emissions. But I think it misses the point that emissions from China increases each year by an amount roughly equal to the whole of UK emissions in one year. So the whole of the UK could be switched off completely, no fossil fuels, no cars or aeroplanes no cattle or sheep, nothing and in about a year China has made up the difference as if the UK never existed.
Ditto, and even sillier that we are doing the same economic suicide trick for no reason at all in Australia.....while our famed pristine beaches/oceans, old growth forests, Great Dividing range, Hunter and Barossa Valleys, Nullabor plain, prime ag land - I could go on - are being sacrificed to the gods of the war on plant food. Environmental vandalism on steroids being paid for by the taxpayer. #wealthtransfer #Agenda2030