Net Zero. It sounded a noble objective. As Chris Skidmore, the Government Minister who introduced the bill to the House of Commons in 2019, observed, it would mean Britain becoming the first major economy in the world to make a legally binding commitment to eliminate greenhouse emissions. But what did it really mean, what was it going to cost, and did any of the MPs who had just nodded it through actually understand the implications?
The Government’s case was based around a claim made some months earlier by the Climate Change Committee (CCC) – which advises the Government on climate policy – that achieving net zero emissions by 2050 would cost between 1-2% of GDP per annum by 2050 – roughly equating to an eventual bill of £1 trillion by that date. But this, said the Minister, was before you took into account the many benefits, such as increased air quality and what he called “green-collar jobs”. Moreover, he implied that falling costs would reduce the bill further. Forget the bill, in other words; it will be a modest fee given what we will gain.
Not one MP pointed out the folly: how can you possibly estimate the cost of doing something when you have no idea how it can be done? By 2019, Britain was well on its way to phasing out coal power and generating around 15% of its electricity from wind farms and solar farms. A small proportion of electric cars were already on the road. But fossil fuel-free aviation? Decarbonisation of the steel and cement industries? Satisfying an enormous hike in demand for power as cars and domestic heating were switched from oil and gas to electricity? Energy storage to cope with the intermittent nature of wind and solar energy? These were among the many technological problems with which the country had hardly begun to grapple. While in some cases solutions might exist in theory or have been demonstrated on a laboratory-scale, no one knew whether they could successfully be scaled up and at what cost. As John Kerry, the U.S. climate envoy, was later to say, half the technology which will be required to achieve Net Zero has yet to be invented. The U.K. Parliament, however, had just approved a law obligating the country to Net Zero with no idea of how, when or whether that technology would be developed – and not the faintest idea of what it would really cost.
When National Grid ESO – the company which runs the electricity grid in Britain – attempted to calculate its own estimate of the cost of reaching Net Zero by 2050 it came up with an answer dramatically different to that of the CCC. In 2020 it presented four different scenarios of how Britain might attempt the transition, involving different blends of renewable energy, changes in consumer behaviour and so on. Its estimated costings in each case came out at around £160 billion a year of investment, eventually reaching a total of around £3 trillion. That was three times the figure which the CCC had touted just a year earlier – and National Grid was only trying to price up the decarbonisation of the energy sector, not agriculture and difficult-to-decarbonise sectors such as steel and cement. To MPs who had treated the CCC’s figure as gospel, and nodded through the 2050 target, it was a sharp reminder that they had committed the country to an open-ended bill, the eventual size of which no one could reasonably guess – other than to say it was going to be huge. Those MPs knew full well the Government’s lousy record on estimating costs of things we do know how to do – such as building a high-speed railway in the shape of HS2 from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, whose estimated costs nearly trebled from £37.5 billion in 2009 to £107 billion in 2019. Yet they had swallowed whole an attempt to put a price on doing something which had vastly more unknowns and which involved technologies yet to be invented or proved on a commercial scale.
It took two years for the Government itself to come up with some kind of plan of how it would reach Net Zero. Britain could do it “without so much as a hair shirt in sight”, wrote Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the foreword to his Net Zero Strategy, published in October 2021. “No one will be required to rip out their existing boiler or scrap their current car.” By 2035, the document went on to say, the U.K. would be powered entirely by clean electricity “subject to security of supply”. To this end it was going to invest in floating wind farms and, by 2024, make a decision as to how to fund a large nuclear plant (yes, just one, and it was only the decision that would be made by 2024; it would take another decade or so to build). There would be investment in hydrogen, so that hopefully by 2035 we might have a public hydrogen supply to replace the gas supply (although a decision on whether to pursue this was delayed until 2026). Also by 2035, the price of electric heat pumps might have come down – might – to make them a practical replacement for new gas boilers which would by then be banned. New petrol and diesel cars would be banned from 2030, hybrids from 2035. There would be £750 million of investment to plant new woodlands and restore peat bogs.
But the Net Zero Strategy left more questions unanswered than it answered. How are we to establish security of electricity supply if we come to rely even more on intermittent renewables? How is one nuclear power station going to solve our problems when it – along with the one currently under construction at Hinkley in Somerset – won’t even replace Britain’s seven existing nuclear power stations, all of which are due to reach the end of their working lives by 2035? Does the Government really have confidence that it will turn out to be economical to produce hydrogen by zero-carbon means – as opposed to manufacturing it from coal and gas, as almost all the world’s hydrogen is currently produced? You can order us all to buy electric cars, but how are you going to make sure that the cars are themselves zero carbon, given that a hefty proportion of a vehicle’s lifetime’s emissions are tied up in its manufacture? If we are going to cover the countryside with woodland, where does that leave food production? Are we going to be even more reliant on importing it from overseas, with the consequence that our food might end up with a higher carbon footprint than now?
On top of that was left dangling the biggest question of all: what is it all going to cost us, and who is going to end up paying the bill? On the same day that the Net Zero Strategy was published, the Treasury produced its own assessment of the costs of Net Zero. Did the Treasury agree with the Climate Change Committee’s assessment that it would cost no more than £1 trillion, or National Grid’s estimate of £3 trillion for the energy sector alone? It couldn’t say. It offered no estimate of the cost of Net Zero; arguing, rather, that it wasn’t possible to make such an estimate at this stage. As for who will pay, that was at least becoming clear. We were all going to be paying, either through our taxes or through supplements on our energy bills.
Britain, in short, is to embark on an experiment unique in human history, in which it voluntarily rejects whole areas of established technology which currently make society and the economy function, and tries to replace them with novel technologies, some of which do not currently exist and others of which may exist on a demonstration level but have not yet been scaled up. And the whole project has to be completed in just 27 years, no allowances, no wriggle room. It will be an industrial revolution to put all previous periods of human progress in the shade – if it can be achieved. But there is a very, very big and expensive ‘if’ there. It is generally good to be ambitious and optimistic. There is a point, however, at which it becomes foolishness.
Is there even a Plan B in case technology disappoints and it proves not possible to decarbonise Britain without causing huge damage to the economy? I asked the Business Secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, this in October 2021 and he denied there was a need for such a plan.
No minister seems brave enough to say that the 2050 target may have to be revisited. Asked in July 2022 whether they were committed to the 2050 target, all five remaining Conservative leadership candidates confirmed that they were – although one, Kemi Badenoch, had previously suggested the target might have to be moved out to 2060 or 2070. All objection to the Net Zero Strategy has been brushed aside by Government ministers who insist there really is no alternative: so dire is the climate emergency that we simply have to decarbonise everything we do – fail to do so and we will be lashed by ever more dramatic weather: tossed, boiled, frozen and drowned. Behind it, though, lies a Little Englander fantasy: that somehow we can tackle climate change on our own, even if other countries do not follow our example. Yet Britain accounts for less than 1% of global emissions (or a bit more if you count them on a consumption basis rather than emissions basis).
Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, China, which accounts for 33% of global emissions, is addressing climate change in its own way – one which isn’t going to put constraints on its industries or involve the impoverishment of its people. And many other countries are adopting the same attitude.
Not Zero: How an Irrational Target Will Impoverish You, Help China (and Won’t Even Save the Planet) by Ross Clark – of which this article is an extract – is published by Forum on February 2nd.
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.
“How Much is Net Zero Really Going to Cost?”Answer:- trillions! 3, 4 ,6 what’s it matter, its an honorable cause, pointless, but honorable never the less!
The new God has spoken! Kneel and prey to climate change! Just like God, no one really knows whether it exists or not, but just have faith, believing makes it real!
And all this to remove a gas that doesn’t even matter in the first place!
God does exist. Aquinas and the 5 proofs.
Climate change due to 0.04% gas by weight, necessary for oxygen, 95% produced by Gaia, does not.
(Yes an interesting set of suppositions but none of which call for proof,so, they are only true to the eye of the beholder)![👍](https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/15.0.3/svg/1f44d.svg)
Agree with the gas from mother nature
“And all this to remove a gas that doesn’t even matter in the first place!”
Actually, the gas in question, Co2, does matter. Without Co2 all life on earth dies.
Yes sorry, I meant doesn’t matter as far as climate change is concerned
Far from not mattering, CO2 is vital for all life on Earth!
What a zinger. Fabulous article Ross. They don’t even understand the hidden additional costs imposed by Renewables.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/exposing-the-hidden-costs-of-renewables
Yes indeed, Ross is good as is Chris Morrison but Ross fails to mention the huge elephant standing in the corner – there is no system of storage of renewable energy. You can have as much wind and solar fields erected as you like but it matters not a jot with the intermittent wind and darkness needing to have storage of that renewable energy.
Putting aside the fact that there is no climate emergency – we have weather – some experts have put a price on the USA cost of putting in a national grid that uses wind and solar, assuming storage can be invented, and the cost is $25 trillion dollars (USA annual GDP) and then a continuing on cost.
Wind has a name plate capacity of about 28% for land based and 38% for sea based which means that you have a limit on what you can actually build before diminishing returns. Scotland with the most wind energy has a 49% theoretical capacity from these renewables but only 8% could be used in the National Grid last year because of the wrong time and poor connection and no storage. In December, we had -18C in NE Scotland and absolutely no wind for the best part of a week. Without storage of renewable energy, it is a waste of time.
New York needs 28 days storage and currently has 8 minutes through some short lived lithium batteries. Useless.
This is a worldwide issue if we want to continue the unnecessary debacle of Net Zero and not one politician is talking about it or better still, costing it. Meanwhile the virtue signallers in the West are being undermined by the far East.
And they’re all missing the basic question – instead of hand-wringing about HOW, they should start with the question WHY?
Is this identical to the COVID response?
No cost analysis, the danger is too big and too immediate for that. Just act.
And anyone who tries to fight against the madness has to do so with two arms tied behind their backs.
With COVID, you weren’t allow to question how dangerous it was. If you did, you were immediately beyond the pale. You could only raise questions about whether the response is proportional.
The same with climate change, as shown by Ross Clark. You can’t argue against the existence of a threat from climate change so you are left arguing whether the measures do more harm than good.
But here is the kicker: how can you argue about proportionality, trade-offs and risk if you’re not allowed to question the gravity of the problem or whether it even exists. It’s a two sided equation but one side of the equation has been fixed as death for millions. Not allowed to question that. So good luck arguing for proportionality and trade offs against the deaths of millions.
These people who want to sound reasonable like Ross Clark don’t seem to realise that they’re pinned to the ground until they can argue about the actual existence or extent of climate change.
Start with the Green Levy.
How much is it raising? (A. Billions)
What is that money buying? (A. Nothing. Probably goes to general taxation)
How much is raised from private jet fuel purchases (A. zero – exempt)
How much is raised from superyacht fuel purchases (A. zero – exempt)
So some very quick examples of why the Govt dont know the cost because the intent is to keep us paying ad infinitum
It’s a money laundering scam of the highest order, washing taxpayers money into the bank accounts of the chosen ones to keep us in perpetual serfdom.
Exactly and they don’t even try to hide it. Just look at Fishy with his Moderna contracts.
The intention of government is to take the population back to a state of feudal poverty and in the process dispose of millions of us.
Net Zero relies on the premise that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the primary driver of changes in climate and that positive feedback mechanisms will kick in to make changes catastrophic. The consequences of the net zero cultists beliefs will run into trillions of pounds.
I appreciate that the science is settled according to esteemed institutions such as the BBC – but surely the starting point should be open and vigorous debate about how robust the theory is before we start splurging the cash?
Even the calculations that the science is settled amongst them is nothing but a fraud, deliberately incorrect maths.
That alone should discredit everything the cc cultists say. https://www.2ndsmartestguyintheworld.com/p/97-consensus-what-consensus
As with war, where it’s not their or their kins lives, it’s not their money.
And until that is changed, we’ll see their reckless waste of our lives and money.
Add in, that this is based upon at least one hoax, the CO2 sole source one, created solely to make another set of people get money and power, and a far from proven myth, anthropogenic climate change, and the crazyness should become obvious to anyone but the cult’s high priests.
https://www.2ndsmartestguyintheworld.com/p/97-consensus-what-consensus
I’ve got a feeling they have no idea and don’t really care how much or even if it can be or will be achieved. It’s not rational.
We appear to have created a system whereby decisions are taken because they are politically correct, but obviously, rationally, hopelessly wrong.
The Covid response was clearly wrong, going completely against all established plans, yet politically it was inevitable – for cowardly, craven politicians, it was intolerable to be accused of “allowing” anyone to die.
Equally, with net zero, the practical issues are so vast and insurmountable, and the costs so potentially ruinous, that it is clearly, as you say, not rational. But politically it is untouchable – at least until such time as it runs crashing head-first into reality.
Well, political leaders were instrumental or complicit in manufacturing consent for lockdowns through a massive advertising campaign
Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Bunter, Truss, Sunak…..
Look no further for the source, cause, of all this lunacy.
Until our MPs are of a higher calibre, our leaders will remain low calibre.
Double MPs pay but make them more accountable to their constituencies.
Democracy: the least worst system of government.
Government not knowing how much anything will cost is the basis of Government. They don’t know because they don’t need to know, just like somebody with a credit card with no spending limit and the balance always to be paid by somebody else obliged to pay it, doesn’t know how much anything costs as there is no need to know.
The Government’s credit card is the taxpayer.
Our grandchildren will no doubt thank us for saving them from the frightening prospect of thermageddon, and will be glad we have completely de-industrialised their world and allow them to return to the idyllic lifestyle of the 1700s as serfs to the dominant Chinese ruling class.
The focus is on generating electricity with no thought about the grid infrastructure required to carry about three times the current load, and the vastly more complex network needed to distribute it.
The cost is just one aspect, where will other resources, labour, manufacturing, construction, transportation come from? How will wide scale disruption digging up streets, replacing sub-stations, upgrading wiring to and in buildings be handled and what effect on normal activities and the economy?
The complete madness of thought is illustrated by the population being simultaneously told to use less electricity whilst being encouraged to use more.
If you’re interested in what needs to be done with buried cable renewal, have a look at this: https://youtu.be/LS8VFhRMsYY It was done a couple of years ago – but with no intention of upgrading it for increased domestic loading for vehicle charging. The reason why it was done was that there were frequent faults due to cable insulation failures. They had only been in service for about 35 years; maybe the developers bought a cheap and nasty batch of cable! Both the old and the new are aluminium cable.
I’m sure they’ve thought about the grid infrastructure and come up with a much better (for them) solution – the smart meter.
Say hello to spot pricing and you can be sure that most people will not be able to afford to charge their car or run their heat pump.
Here’s an article estimating the costs involved in stopping the use of fossil fuels: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/27/bright-green-impossibilities/
This doesn’t take into account the amount of copper required – of which known reserves will run out long before 2050 and the cost of the copper will be trillions of dollars as reserves dry up.
The whole Net Zero fantasy is a complete nonsense – yet nearly all of our politicians support it. We need wholesale changes.
Net Zero
not budgeted
not needed
Stand in the Park Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
The argument about cost is largely redundant, since the objective is physically and materially impossible to achieve. As Chris Morrison has pointed out, the work of Prof. Simon Michaux demonstrates the “mineral blindness” in the Net Zero project – there are simply not enough minerals on this planet to be mined, even if we had the will and the resources to do it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/04/the-quantity-of-metals-required-to-manufacture-just-one-generation-of-renewable-technology-to-phase-out-fossil-fuels/
When I’ve read Ross Clark in the Telegraph, his underlying assumption seems to be that there is anthropogenic climate change. If he recants of that, perhaps there is another whole book to write.
We know that “People go mad in herds”, but NET ZERO is surely the greatest example of group think madness ever, and certainly the most expensive and the one that will impoverish all but the most wealthy in society. It was never put to the British people, and no politician of any major party asked a single question as to COST or BENEFIT. I saw some idiot on GB News yesterday supposedly of the “Climate Change Party” (Have you ever heard anything so absurd?) This guy spoke of all the business opportunities and green jobs, investment de da de da , but not once did he mention the climate, or protecting the climate. It was all about MONEY. ——The public are being seriously hoodwinked, and when you try to bring up this issue with friends or family, they mostly think you are some kind of conspiracy theorist that thinks they know better than “all the scientists”, such is the power of propaganda from government and their bought and paid for News Outlets (Except GB NEWS and FOX).
The Net Zero lunacy is going to kill thousands in the UK who will die of the cold every winter.
It will cause anxiety and depression in elderly people who will become isolated from their families who live a long way from them and who can’t travel by public transport or if public transport isn’t available.
It will lead to smaller, impoverished lifestyles for many people who live outside conurbations.
And it will do nothing whatsoever to change the climate.
It’s about transferring money – transferring it from “the little people” to the Global Elite – and CONTROL.
And it’s evil.
And all the hidden costs related to expensive and unreliable energy are just ignored, such as British business becoming uncompetitive and failing, unemployment, reduced tax revenues. All of this is just whitewashed. And this will have no effect on earth’s climate. This non plan has all the hallmarks of being created by fools.
Fantastic article. If only it was on the front page of all the MSM papers.
Don’t forget that humans account for only 5% of the planet’s CO2 emissions. The UK accounts for 1% of that 5%. So we’re responsible for emitting 0.05% annually of the planet’s total CO2 output. Even if you buy into the cult of Greta, it’s blindingly obvious that were the UK to stop all CO2 emissions tomorrow there would be no detectable difference in temperature, climate, or CO2 levels ever.