Most countries have now committed to reducing their CO2 emissions to Net Zero; Germany by 2045, the USA, Japan and Europe, including the U.K., by 2050, China by 2060 and India by 2070. Under these circumstances, I suggested in the Daily Sceptic on March 11th that climate sceptics should accept the direction of travel and focus their time and energy on trying to ensure the Government puts forward reasonable policies in order to achieve Net Zero.
From the comments on my article, it seems that some climate sceptics still believe it is realistic to persuade the Government to abandon Net Zero. I would certainly agree that the Government needs to slow down the timetable for Net Zero and it needs to ignore the claims about ‘climate emergency’ and ‘the clock is ticking and we are at one minute to midnight’. If these claims are true then we are all doomed anyway because it was clear from COP26 that China and the other countries of the developing world, which between them produce 63% of global CO2 emissions, have no intention of reducing their emissions in the near future.
Our Government needs to consider carefully which policies will work and which won’t. For example, I listened to Any Question on the radio on Saturday April 2nd and the panellists from all the political parties blithely talked about generating ever more energy from wind. This is madness. If we become too dependent on wind energy then when we have spells of weather with low wind speeds there will be power cuts and our homes will be without light and heat.
There is also talk of increasing the amount of solar energy, which at the moment is much less developed than wind. But there is a reason why solar energy is less developed and that is because it does not make sense in the U.K. Our maximum energy requirement is during the winter when we need to heat our homes and offices. But in the winter there is very little sun in the U.K., the days are short and the sunlight weak.
The only presently available option for both reducing CO2 and having a reliable electricity supply is nuclear energy and the Government should be upfront about this and commit to a major programme of new nuclear power stations. But successive governments have neglected nuclear energy and the industry has all but disappeared in this country. We cannot just wave a magic wand and new nuclear power stations will appear. Even if the Government decides tomorrow to go with nuclear it is unlikely that any new power stations will be operational until the 2030s and in the meantime fossil fuel power stations will still be needed.
There is also the issue of China, which is by far the largest emitter of CO2; it produces approximately 30% of global CO2 emissions. China and other developing nations have been quite clear that their priority is not climate change but improving the living standards of their population. So China has said it will keep increasing its CO2 emissions during the present decade but from 2030 onwards it will gradually reduce them until reaching Net Zero in 2060. Many people question how much we can rely on the word of the Chinese Government and would argue that the U.K., which produces only 1% of global CO2 emissions, should pedal more slowly until we are clear that China, and indeed the other countries with large CO2 emissions such as the USA and India, are keeping to their promises.
So there are practical reasons why the U.K. should move more slowly towards Net Zero but is it realistic to argue it should abandon Net Zero altogether? A point often made by climate sceptics is that throughout its history the Earth has shown variations in temperature. There were periods when it was warmer than now and periods when it was colder. But human beings were not around for most of these previous climate change episodes, whereas we are around now and we have the technological and scientific tools to better understand the Earth and its climate. The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has been proposed to explain the main observations. Firstly, the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, from under 300 parts per million (ppm) before the Industrial Revolution to over 400 ppm now, is assumed to be due to human activity, burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees. Secondly, the increase of just under one degree Celsius in the Earth’s temperature over the same time period is assumed to arise from the increase in CO2 because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Whilst I would completely agree that AGW is not proven, it is plausible and has the support of the majority of scientists.
Over the years, climate sceptics have made a number of criticisms of AGW, for example that CO2 absorption is largely ‘saturated’ and adding further CO2 will not greatly increase atmospheric warming, or that the correlation between CO2 density and temperature is imperfect and in the middle of the last century there was a period of 30 years when the temperature did not change. AGW supporters then counter these criticisms, for example by agreeing that the main absorption band in CO2 is ‘saturated’ but adding there is still absorption in weaker lines and the wings of main band, or that the Earth is a large and complex planet and when plotting CO2 density versus temperature you need to take a multi-decadal view such that you use the running mean over 20, 30 or 40 years. These and other technical issues have been widely discussed over the years but the majority of scientists still support AGW.
Climate sceptics have also proposed a number of alternative explanations for the increase in the Earth’s temperature, for example it is caused by solar activity or it is a natural statistical fluctuation. But again, these explanations have not attracted widespread scientific support. Until there is either a show-stopping criticism of AGW or a compelling alternative theory to AGW it seems unlikely that governments will abandon Net Zero.
John Fernley is a retired scientist who was a Research Fellow at University College London working on Atomic Physics and subsequently a director of a wind energy development company.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
One of the first questions (because it is the biggest cause of the cost of living crisis) the Conservative Party membership will ask is: where does each candidate stand on net zero?
It will be very interesting to detect the foot shuffling, hand wringing, averted gaze, equivocations, of the various candidates on this matter.
And the simple untruths. Candidates will claim what their audience want sto hear but vote according to convenience in Parliament to avoid upsetting their staff, other MPs and the MSM.
I’m waiting for the various candidates to parrot the WEF line “Build Back Better.” That will be the clearest indication possible that the only thing which has changed is the face of the puppet.
Net Zero is a scam from top to bottom, a mechanism to make the populace fearful and therefore more likely to accept extra taxes to “solve the problem”, the proceed of which then finds its way into the pockets of crooks and their mates in the corridors of power. Crony Capitalism. Corrupt transfer of wealth from the many to the few. Doesn’t matter what colour the “government” is, they’re all the same. They get power because they want to control YOU. End of story.
Same can be said of The Deadly Virus. Obviously. But then everyone here knows this.
Although there are lots of sheep out there following the mantra of climate emergency, many quite genuinely, the guys at the top driving all this stuff know its a load of hogwash. I’ve spoken to so many people who have said, ‘if only Boris would drop Nett Zero…Carrie this, Carrie that etc, etc’. We’ll he wouldn’t, he couldn’t. That decision is taken much higher than Prime Minister. Once you see the lie, and then you see the other lies, you finally realise that there is just one big lie. Its not going to end well, and we’re not on the good side.
Cui bono?!
Provides the answer to this and almost every other question and folly.
Well it isn’t me who bono from net zero
And I don’t like Bono, eithers
Off piste is where we go
Renegades, true disbelievers
(Lines 2 and 4 rhyme if you use Cockney)
Well if the polls are to be believed, cuddly Ben Wallace is favourite.
No one has heard of him which probably the point.
He may not be a warmtard but he’s a devout covidian and warmonger who called Brexiteers clowns.
I take it the Conservative party membership won’t be given a chance to choose anyone half way sensible (Chope Redwood Brady McVey Bone etc.)
I would have included Owen Paterson too but they’ve got him already…
I cut up my membership card, and tweeted a video of the process, explaining exactly why, but then I got banned from Twitter. And no, I didn’t renew.
I do not believe there is a majority in Parliament to overturn the Climate Change Act. Even if there was, they would not dare to take on the blob, the array of financially interested academics and the MSM who continue to bay for ever more action on the theory of man made global warming (or, as they now chose to term in, climate change).
The most ruinously expensive legislation in UK history. Until the covid1984 shambles. I suppose nothing will be done until millions of us “waste” our vote like in 2015. Or am I being too optimistic?
No disrespect to Dr John Fernley, but I think anyone who thinks that the British Prime Minister has the power to go against global climate change policy should be automatically excluded from writing for the DS for being too naive.
Next we’ll have someone writing that the next PM should revoke the emergency authorisation of Covid jabs on the grounds that their safety record is not good enough.
“Realistically, the world will make more progress in reducing CO2 emissions if green technologies improve.”
This one sentence destroys the whole case.
What a plonker!
No attempt from the downticker to counter my statement. It is beginning to look more and more like a state employee, 99.9 % of which are sad firkers.
Aye. This retired scientist is a halfway-houser. Direction of travel…hydrogen…mini nukes. He has lost the argument before he starts. Better to go straight to the heart of the problem. CO2 follows temperature so cannot be the main driver of climate change.
https://www.history-of-geo-and-space-sciences.net/2021-05-26_hgss-2021-1_latest-version-of-the-manuscript.pdf
From low concentrations you get a bit of warming but the effect wanes and reaches a saturation point at current levels.
https://clintel.org/the-greenhouse-effect-summary-of-the-happer-and-van-wijngaarden-paper/
Furthermore, since CO2 is food, decarbonisation is one of the most evil things peopls can propose.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
The next Tory leader appointment has got to be the right. Its more crucial than ever they get this correct. If they don’t get it right they are going to lose millions of voters. Personally I doubt if I would ever vote for a main stream party again, and I believe there are many Ex-Tory voters, rather than Ex-Labour voters, who are on the verge of a similar decision. I think this is make or break for the Tories, and if they get it wrong, it will be curtains for them, at least for the next 5-10 years.
If the Conservative Party even so much as mentions ” Net Zero ” , their vote base will collapse. Remember, the last PM. We will be the “Saudi Arabia of wind”. I’m a fully qualified engineer and the political class are as normal; deluded.
True, but the political class are bought and paid for by megalomaniacs who have created this nonsense so they can enslave the western population. Check out what’s happening in the Netherlands around Nitrogen. The guy who has driven the bill through parliament is brother to a man whose farming empire has just had £600m invested in it by none other than Bill Gate. We are miles beyond being able to dismiss this whole thing as a conspiracy theory.
Our wind will last forever.
Saudi Arabia’s oil will not.
Interesting, to some extent. Note that “green hydrogen” is a storage medium for electricity generated by renewables. If it is only used for surplus output from the latter, it might be reasonable – but it is not exactly efficient. Compared with direct use of the electric output from anything (such as electric traction on a railway), it’s crap – roughly 30% thermal at best? Then there are costs to do with it’s storage and physical transmission.
There are some manufacturers promoting the use of hydrogen as a short term storage mechanism for some railway rolling stock, using fuel cells to release the power as required, but presently a lot of hydrogen is a by-product of other things, extracted from methane (‘natural gas’), from firms like Air Products. I think “blue hydrogen” is the moniker for the output via that route.
Indeed. Horrible hydrogen. Since there is nothing wrong with co2 there is pretty much no need.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/06/Hydrogen-Fuel.pdf
Agreed. In most use cases hydrogen as an energy storage medium is silly. Direct use, or batteries make much more sense.
I’m puzzled as to why railway operators think H is the solution. They argue that some parts of the rail network are hard to electrify, so why not use batteries on trains to bridge these gaps?
The most absurd statement any politician has ever said came from the mouth of this roaring arsehole last year. In front of group of young children in Glasgow he referred to the first steam engine as “the doomsday machine.”
As another reminder for anyone whose friends or relatives still think net zero is a ‘good idea’ here what this three trillion pound scam is going to cost in actual stuff:
-636 missions to Mars.
-The cost of an Uber journey across our entire solar system and back.
-3 million KLFs with 3 million furnaces.
-6000 brand new hospitals with free parking.
-16 million fully trained NHS nurses for ten years.
– 6 million fully trained police officers for ten years.
-12 million ambulances.
-750 million ICU ventilators.
-24.8 million affordable homes or social housing.
-Free university education for 60 million students.
-A cheap briefcase containing £100,000 cash for every household in the UK.
-200 billion clean water tanks in Sudan.
-500 billion plastic taps in Sierra Leone.
-60 billion hand washing stations in Mozambique.
-3 trillion pounds towards cyber and physical defence against attacks by our enemies.
-3 trillion pounds towards recycling and cleaning our oceans of plastic waste.
-3 trillion pounds towards protecting elephants, tigers, rhinos, whales and many other rare and endangered species across the world.
-3 trillion pounds towards finding a cure for Cancer, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson’s, Altzheimers, Malaria or any other devastating disease you can think of.
Climate change is a trillion dollar a year business, all funded through western countries tax revenues. Too many people rely on this for income. Too many entrepreneurs, elite politicians, NGOs, media & climate scientists are making millions from this. Until western countries shut down this funding, this wave of abuse will continue.
Getting shot of Princess Nut Nuts will be a good first step in stopping the Net Zero nonsense
“the more CO2 emitted the more the Earth will warm – but the magnitude of any temperature rise is highly uncertain”
– which is exactly why we should reduce GHG emissions as quickly as possible. Playing the Lottery is fine but Russian roulette is not.
If we get this wrong, having to rapidly suck GHGs from the atmosphere will be horribly expensive and be absolutely no fun at all.
Fossil fuels are finite (the supply is limited so they will run out) so we must make the switch to renewables at some point. Let’s not wait until we are forced to.