Lockdown Files Lessons Need to be Applied to Net Zero

Energy policy is dominated by numerically challenged busybodies and not engineers or scientists

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

C.S. Lewis

Summary

We learnt centuries ago in the Enlightenment that stifling scientific inquiry and denouncing new discoveries as heretical was wrong. Yet, the response to Covid-19 has taught us that this lesson has been discarded with dissenters to the approved narrative being monitored by the state, cancelled by social media and ridiculed by the commentariat even though they have subsequently proven to be right.

Now C.S. Lewis’ moral busy-bodies are hard at work on Net Zero. The original Net Zero order was waved through Parliament without a formal vote or formal cost-benefit analysis. The House of Lords is now urging Government to adopt similar failed Covid-19 coercive behavioural policies to help implement Net Zero.

The scientific credentials of the legislature, energy policymakers, advisors, pressure groups and commentators are sadly lacking. More than half of the Parliamentarians who took a recent Maths SATS test aimed at 10 and 11 year olds failed. This means they struggle with adding up, times tables, long division and percentages. The wonders of calculus are completely alien to them and the closest they have come to imaginary numbers is the increasingly implausible LCOE calculations issued by the Government.

The ranks of policymakers from the highest offices of state, to the Energy Security and Net Zero department to all-party groups along with the commentariat are bursting with students of history, English, classics, law and PPE. There’s hardly anyone with a degree in a STEM subject and even fewer with a degree in anything remotely relevant to generating power or designing an effective grid.

The people who manifestly failed in their quest to Follow the Science™ on Covid-19 are now urging us to do the same on Net Zero, yet there’s barely a scientist or engineer in their ranks. The people who partied the night away during lockdown are no doubt cheerfully hopping from climate conference to climate conference on private jets while forcing everyone else to cut their carbon footprint. They are manifestly unqualified to make such demands, yet they denounce as deniers anyone who dare challenge them.

It’s not just the Emperor who has no clothes, the entire Net Zero court is naked, yet they want to torment us without end because their conscience demands Net Zero. The National Grid is calling for a 32-56% reduction in overall energy demand by 2050. It seems that nobody understands what this will mean for the economy or wider society. Before we wreak even more havoc on the economy and wider society, we need to take a look at alternatives. It is time for a Great Reset: time to reset Net Zero.

Introduction

Early sceptic, Galileo was investigated and denounced as a heretic by the Catholic Church for championing Copernican heliocentrism which challenged the religious tenets The Science™ of the time.

Now we are supposed to have learned that lesson and are often told that we must follow The Science™ when it comes to discussions about many areas of policy. However, use of the definite article to describe science seems to imply that scientific truths are sent down to us on tablets of stone as if they are articles of religious faith. Quite the contrary of the lesson learned from Galileo’s experience. In reality, science is a dynamic process with sceptics often overturning the consensus through observation and experiment.

I believe there are parallels between the treatment meted out to Galileo, the response to Covid-19 and the hysteria we are now seeing surrounding Net Zero policies.

This article will look at what is now generally accepted as scientific truth about the Covid-19 response, the legislative history of Net Zero, the behavioural policies the House of Lords is urging the Government to adopt and the shocking lack of numerical and scientific skills among policymakers and the Net Zero commentariat.

Why is Net Zero, perhaps the most profound policy enacted in recent times, being done to us by people who are manifestly unqualified to understand, evaluate or challenge what it really means or how best to go about it?

Following the Science™ on Covid-19?

In recent times, we were told the authorities were following The Science™ in their response to Covid-19. However, we now know that to be nonsense:

• We were locked down even though lockdowns don’t work.

• We were forced to wear masks even though they make little difference.

• Children were coerced into taking vaccines even though the JCVI failed to recommend them.

• People were banned from social media for suggesting the virus might have come from a Wuhan lab even though that is now accepted as the most likely source.

• We had to show vaccine passports to go to the pub or theatre even though the vaccines do little to stop transmission.

• The Government used fear to increase the perceived level of threat from Covid-19 to increase compliance with lockdowns, at the behest of SPI-B.

The organs of the state were even mobilised to monitor those who dared to question the approved narrative. The Partygate affair and the Covid-19 Lockdown Files have shown us that those making policy didn’t follow their own rules and even laughed at those locked up in quarantine hotels.

However, the Covid-19 hysteria wasn’t limited to Government. Labour leader Keir Starmer was constantly demanding stronger measures that went on for longer and even described the decision to lift the remaining restrictions as “reckless.” I recall journalists from all of the main broadcasters constantly braying for more severe restrictions at every Government press conference.

This tells us that when a small group of people act without scrutiny or effective opposition they get caught up in groupthink and get egged on by attention-seeking media personalities. Even though they say they were Following The Science™, they sought to isolate, cancel, censor, intimidate and ridicule those who might have a different view, even though scepticism is an essential part of the scientific method.

What does the Covid-19 response tell us about Net Zero and energy policy?

Legislative Background

Let’s start with manifesto pledges and the legislative background to Net Zero. The words “Net Zero” did not appear in the Conservatives’ 2017 manifesto, although there was a commitment to continue to abide by the Climate Change Act’s commitment to an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. They did however commit to an independent review into the costs of energy. Despite the lack of manifesto backing, the 2050 Target Amendment Order was waved through the House of Commons in June 2019 without a formal vote and without an impact assessment. So, the origins of the Net Zero target are dubious, however, the 2020 Manifesto did include the Net Zero pledge.

This nodding through of Net Zero mirrors the lack of cost-benefit analysis given to Covid-19 lockdown policies.

Net Zero Behavioural Policies

In its Future Energy Scenarios paper, National Grid ESO models what our future energy use would need to be to hit the Net Zero target by 2050. They call for a reduction in end user demand in the range of 32-56% between 2021 and 2050, as shown in Figure 1. This is a massive change, requiring big reductions in residential, transport, industrial and commercial energy use.

Figure 1 - Total Energy Demand Reduction Required by 2050

The House of Lords recently produced a report on behaviour change for climate and environmental goals. They recognised that nearly a third of the reductions up to 2035 require behaviour change. Their specialist advisor was Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh, who first studied theology and religious studies before moving to psychology and the public understanding of climate change. Why is it that theology and religion keep cropping up alongside Net Zero? Among their recommendations for Government were:

“The Government should seize the opportunity to evaluate behaviour change which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand the theory, drivers, and levers behind the changes, with a view to applying lessons learned to other critical policy areas, including climate change and the environment.”…“The evaluation should include an assessment of the effectiveness of principles behind COVID-19 behaviour change interventions, such as…the use of an independent advisory structure through SAGE and SPI-B.”

and

“Departments from across government should use the full range of policy levers—including regulatory and financial (dis)incentives, the development and adaptation of physical and choice environments, and communication and engagement—to enable changes to the most impactful climate and environmental behaviours.”

They do not explicitly say it, but in essence they are suggesting that the same fear tactics used during the pandemic should be used to get the public to accept the consequences of Net Zero.  In other words, to force us to accept the changes required by Net Zero, they want to re-enact the Covid-19 playbook, potentially including monitoring those who dissent from the policy.

Policymaker Credentials

Now let us look at the scientific credentials of those demanding we go further and faster on Net Zero policies. As we shall see in the more detailed analysis below, the policymakers and energy policy commentariat are dominated by people with Arts and Social Sciences degrees. Qualifications in STEM subjects are few and far between and experienced engineers even rarer.

Just like with Covid-19, the conditions are in place for groupthink to take over policymaking and the same frameworks for coercion are being built. I fear that the mantra will be Follow the Science™, but those forcing the mantra upon us are supremely unqualified to understand or challenge that is being thrust upon us.

Parliamentarians

A good place to start is the main group of MPs and members of the House of Lords. It would be too much to go through the qualifications of each and every one of them. However, we can get a flavour of their general scientific and numerical ability from the SATS tests some of them completed recently. Only 44% of the cross-party group of parliamentarians achieved the standards expected of 10 and 11-year-olds in maths. Indeed, Green peer Natalie Bennett said the maths test was “very challenging” and “this is not the education for the 21^st century” (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 - Natalie Bennet Maths was Very Challenging

This means they struggle with adding up, times tables, long division and percentages. The wonders of calculus are completely alien to them. This doesn’t give a high degree of confidence that Parliamentarians are capable of properly scrutinising subjects requiring a high degree of numerical and scientific ability.

Scientific Qualifications in the Highest Offices of State

The highest offices of state include the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary. Rishi Sunak read PPE at Oxford and gained an MBA from Stanford. At least there’s some evidence of numeracy in Economics and business, but neither of his degrees would classify as STEM subjects.

Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt is another PPE graduate from Oxford. The Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly has a degree in hospitality management studies from Ealing College and Home Secretary, Suella Braverman is a Cambridge law graduate.

All worthy subjects, but probably none of them covered the wonders of thermodynamics or power engineering.

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Moving on to the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Secretary of State is Grant Shapps (aka Michael Green) who gained an HND in business and finance from Manchester Polytechnic. His Minister of State, Graham Stuart failed his Philosophy and Law degree at Cambridge. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Andrew Bowie  studied History and Politics and his colleague Amanda Solloway left school at sixteen and founded her own consultancy in 2008.

We find our first engineer in the hierarchy is Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Lord Callanan who has a degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering from Newcastle Polytechnic.

Permanent Secretary, the senior civil servant for the department, is Jeremy Pocklington who graduated from Oxford with a degree in Modern History.

So far, that’s only one person with a degree in a vaguely relevant subject in the leadership of the country and the department that oversees energy policy. It’s a shame their diversity hiring policies don’t extend to placing people who actually know what they are talking about into senior positions. The numerical skill in the department is most likely deployed on devising more subsidy schemes.

Science and Technology Select Committee

The Science and Technology Select Committee has 11 members from across the political spectrum. They are led by economist Greg Clark. Only three of them have a STEM degree, with one chemist, one biologist and a physicist. The rest either do not have a degree or they have degrees in law, politics or PPE.

Not exactly the backgrounds one would hope would be in charge of scrutinising one of the biggest changes to society ever contemplated.

Climate Change Committee and Net Zero Review

What about the advisors to the Government? The Climate Change Committee produces periodic Carbon Budgets and issues emissions targets that are followed by others with almost religious fervour. The chair of the Committee Lord Deben (aka John Selwyn Gummer) read history at Cambridge. The Chief Executive is Chris Stark who has a degree in Law and Financial Studies. The other members are economists and climate scientists, with one member being an Engineering professor. Lord Deben is also gaining notoriety for playing fast and loose with his declarations of interest.

The review of the Government’s Net Zero policy was carried out by Chris Skidmore, who graduated from Oxford with a degree in Modern History.

Again, leaders with qualifications in STEM subjects are somewhat thin on the ground.

Praseg

Praseg is the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Renewable and Sustainable Energy. The chairman of the group is Conservative MP Bim Afolami, who graduated from Oxford with a degree in Modern History. The vice-chairs of the group include Caroline Lucas, Peter Aldous and Alan Whitehead, none of whom have degrees in anything resembling a STEM subject. However, Alan Brown is a civil engineer and Darren Jones studied human bioscience. At least these are STEM subjects, but none are closely related to designing a power grid.

Industry Representatives and Pressure Groups

The chief executive of Energy UK is Emma Pinchbeck, who has a Classics degree from Oxford. Her early career was as head of the climate change team at WWF-UK, followed by a stint as deputy-CEO of RenewablesUK. This vast practical engineering experience leads Emma to describe herself as an “expert in whole-economy decarbonisation and the energy transition.”

RenewablesUK is led by Dan McGrail who previously has a long career at Siemens, however, his degree was in International Business and Spanish.

Leo Hickman runs the campaigning website CarbonBrief and is a graduate in Art history from Sussex University. The environmental think-tank Green Alliance is run by Shaun Spiers who has degrees in PPE and War Studies. James Murray is the editor-in-chief of the environmental website Business Green and has an English degree from Exeter University.

Roger Harrabin has an English degree and was the BBC environment analyst for many years before retiring. The Times Energy Editor is Emily Gosden who read Modern History and Politics.

As can be seen, the leadership of the main industry pressure groups and senior commentators don’t seem to have any STEM qualifications between them. These are the people who are telling us about the wonderful economic opportunities arising from the Green Industrial Revolution, even though Net Zero is strangling the economy and that renewable energy is getting cheaper, even though it’s getting more expensive. Maths certainly is not their strong point, except when it comes to demanding subsidies.

---