The social and economic destructive power of the political Net Zero agenda across the European Union, and by extension the U.K., is laid bare in a damning new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation. In a long and detailed presentation, energy writer John Constable warns that the European Green Deal seems all but certain to break Europe’s economic and socio-political power – “rendering it a trivial and incapable backwater, reliant on – and subservient to – superior powers”.
It is easy to read into the report that “superior powers” include countries that supply Europe with vital oil and gas and make the industrial goods required to enjoy current lifestyles. If they wish, European consumers and politicians can continue to indulge in monumental green virtue signalling, print money until kingdom come and even consider resurrecting old economic and social disasters like pointless Covid restrictions. The TalkTV host Julia Hartley-Brewer often notes that Net Zero is “borderline insanity”. The use of the word “borderline” seems superfluous.
The collapse in competitive manufacturing capacity is nowhere more evident than in the renewable sector itself, says Constable.
It is clear that renewable energy equipment manufacturing has no future in the EU, and indeed manufacturing of any kind exposed to international competition will struggle to survive, except in niche areas.
The all but total collapse of the Spanish solar industry within eight years is highlighted. Constable describes it as “extraordinary” and in large part explained by the curtailment of subsidies. Overall, he says, “subsidised deployment in Europe has failed to give European industries a secure position in the world markets for renewable energy equipment. The field is now dominated by China”.
Again, it might be noted that if you can’t even pay companies to produce hardware under local economic conditions, Boris Johnson’s promise – backed it seems by almost all politicians – to bring plentiful green jobs in the U.K. across the ‘Red Wall’ is just windy rhetoric.
News of an impending Net Zero calamity is rarely far from the headlines. Tata Steel has been trying to obtain subsidies approaching £1.5bn from the U.K. Government to pay decarbonising costs and keep Port Talbot steelworks operational. “The new Prime Minister is unlikely to be willing to hand over subsidies on this scale, not least because every other industry hit by demands for decarbonisation would insist on handouts too,” said Dr. Benny Peiser, Director of Net Zero Watch. “It is becoming more evident by the day that the Climate Change Committee misled Parliament over the true cost of Net Zero,” he added.
The lack of Net Zero discussion in the current Tory leadership battle is interesting. Savvy politicians are starting to become aware of the disaster that is hurtling towards society as it seeks to quickly remove the cheapest and most efficient fuel it has from the energy mix and replace it with intermittent sources – described by Constable as “thermodynamically incompetent”. On the other hand, large swathes of the population have become convinced that the climate is breaking down, as evidenced by the hysteria that surrounded the recent brief heatwave. The science is ‘settled’, although a more realistic interpretation is that green activists and financiers have pursued a ruthless 30-year campaign to outlaw the scientific method from atmospheric climate science.
Constable argues that a change of course is inevitable to undo the “deeply embedded” harm of nearly 30 years. Moving towards “fundamentally cheaper energy” will require substantial reductions in European living standards. “Explaining this to the European people will form the greatest political challenge of the next 50 years,” he says.
In his wider report, Constable attempts to demonstrate that the enthusiastic adoption of the green agenda in the 1990s and early 2000s “has effectively produced gradual industrial and economic disarmament”. The ‘”resultant enfeeblement” compared to Europe’s competitors will make arresting the decline difficult: “Recovering the situation entirely may be impossible.” The author lists numerous body blows to overall competitiveness. Electricity prices to industry in the EU between 2008-2018 have been about 30% above those in the G20, an organisation that includes China, India and Russia. Gas price were 20-30% higher. Electricity prices were 80% and 30% higher respectively for industry and households, and this would have hit competitiveness hard and placed heavy energy costs on some of those least able to afford them. Petrol prices were approximately 30-50% higher, and diesel 10-40%, figures again that were guaranteed to destroy competitiveness outside the EU’s protective internal single market.
Meanwhile, energy consumption in the EU has been falling and is now said to be at levels last seen in the early 1990s. Such a deep and sustained decline is said to be unprecedented in the modern era. In the U.K., electricity consumption is reported to have fallen back to levels not seen since 1970. Energy efficiency, of course, plays a part, but Constable notes the effect of “price rationing and demand destruction”. The report labels Europe’s “green experiment” as a “costly failure”, noting that “carbon dioxide abatement costs in the EU are on average several times greater than even high-end estimates of the social cost of carbon”. This is said to indicate that the economic harm of the EU’s mitigation policies “is greater than the climate change it aims to prevent”.
Politicians – and green activist commentators – often blame inflation, high energy prices and food shortages on recent events such as Russia’s war in Ukraine. But Constable argues that the Ukrainian war, while bringing the failures of climate policies into sharper focus, does not mean that the harm is of recent origin. “On the contrary,” he argues, “the environmental policies have been damaging to the EU’s interests, and advantageous to those of its rivals, from the very beginning.”
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
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.
It is already set on a path of becoming trivial and incapable because a good part of the establishment and those those support it seem to hate our own culture, history and people and are determined to destroy those things.
Indeed, a quick look at a chart comparing projected population growth of Sub-Saharan Africa (not to mention North Africa, Turkey and the Middle East – which must be going on 300-500m people by now) vs. that of Europe is extremely frightening. Europe will require a heart of iron to stop the vast floods of people that will surely be streaming our way, making current immigration levels look miniscule.
Europe is a continent. And that people who’ve inhabited it for the majority of the last 2000 years insist in committing ethnic suicide by birth prevention will not stop it from remaining densely settled. Our so-called elites are presumably already deluding themselves by assuming this is all controlled and welcome. That’s more likely to be an ex post factum rationalization of something that’s just happening and entirely beyond their control. At some point in time, all these abortion and sex change clinics will – sadly – have to close because the people who used to consider this a valuable service will be gone. But the continent won’t be empty by then, immigration laws notwithstanding.
I agree , it’s like Munchausen Syndrome on a grand scale ! None of the so called governmental Faces around the World are just honest normal people , they seem like they are part of a crazed Cult ! Oh – Hang On …
It is pretty clear from the actions of scammers, their companies and the clueless and/or corrupt politicians which encourage and reward this sort of behaviour (the most notable combination of which in my opinion being, respectively, Elon Musk, Tesla, and the states of California and New York) that Net Zero has never been about making life better for little people.
Come to think of it, nothing (apart from one’s own efforts) has ever been about making life better for the little people. Once you become aware of this hopeless state of affairs, life becomes easier for you.
Are there any exceptions which prove the rule, Sceptics?
There are rare exceptions, which may or may not prove the rule, like Libya under Gaddafi, which provided cheap/free health care and housing and education and fuel for the population. Yes, the leaders of such countries, and there have been/are a few, get something out of it, but their countries did too. But they’re not approved of/not even allowed to exist by the US and its allies because the existence, and success, of such societies threatens their own regimes.
I’ll admit, growing up with every authority figure telling me how wonderful The West is, and how particularly terrible Africa and the Middle East are, I have over the last decade had to reassess my understanding of those areas.
This little ditty is a lighter look at Egyptian culture: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L3e4UryXDo0
One gets the sense that many there have always been laughing at The West… And yet I am sure that all “our” worst aspects are permeating that world.
Surely, the Progressives have it all wrong.
See my report above MAk
I wonder how far we need to apply Hanlon’s Razor e.g. these people genuinely think they are doing good ( stupidity ) vs deliberate malice.
I vacillate between the two but my takeaway from Thursday was more on the stupidity than the malice !
The lengths to which “the powers that be”/the small “western alliance” of financiers etc seem to be prepared to go to to disempower and impoverish the “masses” and maintain their hold over them with fearmongering and the creation of “constant crisis”, as the “everything bubble” implodes, is quite extraordinary. But then the massive scale of that bubble, the extent of the scam and corruption and oppression involved, is unprecedented.
Here’s an inside report from “The Other Side” as it were.
I spent the whole day on Thursday in a posh air-conditioned hotel in Mayfair attending an investment conference for Ultra High Net Worth Individuals ( $30m+ Liquid ) and Family Offices ( $100M+ Liquid )
The purpose of the conference was for the investors ( UHNWIs and F.O.s ) to find out what is hot in the world of “Capital Deployment”
The Investors were treated to several talks by CEOs of investment firms followed by Panel Discussions with experts on the topics.
The Investment Firms represented were ESG type Hedge Funds / Capital Management type outfits. There was an “Impact Investing” flavour too but mainly ESG.
The co-organiser of this conference (who I know personally ) is a consultant who specialises in making firms seeking investment ready for investors who want to see ESG credentials. And the main organiser is very much into Impact Investing.
As an aside – and I ended up sitting next to this guy at lunch – there was a Peer Of The Realm (Lord Such and Such) there who was actually really interesting to talk to. I won’t say what his business interests are so as not to give him away but the work his companies are doing to use carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is fascinating.
By the way the whole tenor of the meeting was “Carbon dioxide is bad, it definitely leads to global warming which is bad, so we need to invest in companies and technology that reduces both carbon dioxide emissions and also actively takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and locks it up”
The CEOs were very passionate about their firms desire to make the planet better through their carbon reducing technologies.
My main takeaways from the day were :
The CEOs of the ESG / Impact companies genuinely believe what they are doing is for good.
The UHNWIs and F.O.s were very keen to “make the world a better place” by deploying their capital into these schemes.
Another observations – these guys and girls were all very well travelled, all obviously ( very ) rich, and all appeared to be very much on board with the WEFs agendas. The flip side of that of course is that the economic harm caused by the WEF style ESG policies will have no lifestyle impact on any of these people !
Very interesting but not at all surprising!
Its not just against Europe, its against all westernised nations. Why our own politicians are allowing it, is the question. Net Zero zealots, to ‘save the planet’ cannot, if this is the goal, allow the rest of the world to function in the ‘old normal’ way.
Indeed, if the so-called “Third World” tries to carry on (wisely IMHO) with fossil/nuclear, we can guarantee wars of the utmost stupidity. Can’t say I would gamble on The West ‘winning’ any such conflicts, either…
Here’s a hopefully helpful remark to the people who comission such writeups: Threatening people while lacking the power to harm them is half laughable, half unpleasant. It’s not going to convince anyone. The people who are in favour of all these money sink projects (because they’re sitting below the sinks) will circle the wagons and hope the money flow will still last for a while. All others will just find something better to spend their time on then getting chastized by a relative nobody.
During the height of the Corona craze (whose height we hopefully alread saw), German governments even erected a heavily subsidized mask manufacturing industry to react to public fears that the Chinese might perhaps want to keep these absolutely critical products to themselves. None of these factories has ever really produced anything because Chinese manufacturers have gladly continued to supply the junk (with various parlamentarians getting six and seven figure provisions for deal making) and they’re – like the Nightingale hospitals – now all being dismantled again.
Our democratic ruling class is absolutely great on wasting our money on itself. We knew that already.
The west is going the same way the Roman Empire went …. and for similar reasons: Corruption and decadence in the governing class, economic incompetence and invasion by barbarians.
The obsession with Net Zero, destroying our manufacturing base, the farming industry and “turning back the clock” on living standards for “the peasants” is just a symptom of the decline.
‘… all but certain to break Europe’s economic and socio-political power – “rendering it a trivial and incapable backwater, reliant on – and subservient to – superior powers.’
Well it already is, so just finishing what the EEC/EU started.
I’ve seen Hanlon’s Razor invoked a few times recently: ‘Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity’. But it needs an addendum.. ‘but never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by corruption’.
A billion dollars can buy a lot of influence. A thousand officials and politicians can be bought for a million dollars each. Ten thousand can be bought for $100,000 each. Tropical all-expenses paid holidays for 50,000 journalists and academics? Easily done.
But loyalty can be far more easily bought with a career. We have multinational organisations laying claim to control of literally trillions of dollars over the coming years, every cent of which will be spent on increasing their scale and influence, recruiting from the ranks of the loyal in client states.
And corruption doesn’t need to be mendacious and active. Passive corruption; corruption through inaction or compliance, can take many, but collectively more harmful forms.
What we’re likely seeing now are politicians, officials, academics and media influencers jostling for tickets on the gravy train before it reaches its final destination – that is a rotten and ossifying Soviet / Chinese style of global feudalism. If ordinary people are kept too busy trying to keep the house warm, hold on to their jobs and feed their children to notice this state of affairs; to notice they have had everything taken away from them – even hope – all the better.
As a Marxist term, feudalism refers to an economic system where the dominant means of productions is land owned by nobles and worked by dependent workers who are legally bound to it (they’re not slaves because they’re not the property of the land owner).
A bit more generally, it refers to the way mediaeval society was organized: All land belongs to the king who parcels it out to his retainers as reward for military (or other) services and subject to the condition they’ll have to be available for military service in future at their own expense. This results in a system of indirect rule where the retainers are subjects of the king and the people bound to/ associated with the land which has been transferred to them are their subjects. It’s possible to have more than level here as retainers of the king who hold a lot of land in his name may, in turn, parcel that out to their retainers for the same reasons and subject to the same conditions.
I daresay we’re pretty safe from that.
Both are descriptions of a hierarchical power structure where power is derived from the apportioning of control over property, paid for in labour. It isn’t hard to imagine a medieval land baron proudly telling his serfs, “you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy”.
All power structures are hierachical in nature. Further, to a marxist economic reductionist, all economic systems save communism are fundamentally based on apportioning of control over property, paid for in labour. Nevertheless, Marx (and hence, Marxists) distinguish between societies based on slavery, feudal societies and capitalist societies. Considering this, you’ve just formulated a truism and a central tenet of communism that specifically not exclusive to feudalism.
Whatever that was supposed to communicate.
One of the best articles I have read on this self-inflicted (but externally encouraged, hello CCP) catastrophe.
I particularly liked this sentence:
“The science is ‘settled’, although a more realistic interpretation is that green activists and financiers have pursued a ruthless 30-year campaign to outlaw the scientific method from atmospheric climate science.
Further to the ‘settled science’ aspect, the much touted ‘97% of climate scientists support the catastrophic anthropogenic climate change theory’ claim is based on an invalid interpretation of a relatively tiny number of cherry picked responses to loaded questions.
In other words it is a lie.
I can’t stop laughing at Bozo telling us we’d be the “Saudi Arabia of wind”
. No wonder he got his P45
All over the media a few days ago:
“Climate experts agree that the record breaking temperature (40.3C) recorded on 19 July cannot be explained outside of the Anthropogenic Climate Change theory.”
Why have we not seen from the same sources (ie both ‘climate experts’ and media):
“The fact that the UK high temperature record remained unbroken between 1911 (36.7C) and 1990 (37.1C), plus the fact that by far the most prolonged period of unusually hot summer weather on record (stretching over 65 days instead of the recent 3) occurred almost 50 years ago in 1976 cannot be explained without rejecting the Anthropogenic Climate Change theory.”
Right back atcha!