Bankrupt, blackout Britain where the ever-expanding ranks of the poor get clobbered, open borders place intolerable burdens on public spending and services, the rich spivs get richer backing heavily-subsidised energy white elephants – and those of a certain age look back to the good old days of the 1970s. That isn’t quite how Professor Gordon Hughes spells it out in his excellent new report that crunches the energy transition numbers of the collectivist Net Zero project, but it might be considered a fair summation of reading between the lines.
The insanity of Net Zero becomes clearer by the day. The idea that hydrocarbons – a natural resource whose use from medicines to reliable energy is ubiquitous in modern industrial society – can be removed within less than 30 years is ridiculous. In his report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Hughes concerns himself with the transition from hydrocarbons to ‘green’ technologies such as wind and solar. Forget all the politically-inspired low-ball figures of transition, he is suggesting. Looking at you, Climate Change Committee. It is likely that the amount of new investment needed for the transition will be a minimum of 5% of gross domestic product for the next 20 years, and might exceed 7.5%. Gordon Hughes is a former World Bank economist, and is Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh.
There is no chance of borrowing such an “astronomical” amount, notes Hughes, and the only viable way to raise the cash for new capital expenditure would be a two decades-long reduction in private consumption of up to 10%. “Such a shock has never occurred in the last century outside war, and even then never for more than a decade,” he notes.
Recent polling in the U.S. has shown that the desire of a majority of citizens to pay for Net Zero barely stretches to more than the ‘chump’ change in their back pockets. “Commitment to the energy transition is a classic ‘luxury belief’ held most strongly by those who are sufficiently well-off not to worry about the costs… Indeed at least some of those who promote the transition most strongly are among those who expect to gain from the business opportunities.” On this latter point, Hughes was possibly recalling the recent activities of rising media star Dale Vince (£110 million in wind subsidies to date, and counting).
Politicians sometimes blather about the pioneering role taken by European countries in Net Zero. Hughes points out that leaders in China and India are not fools. “Posturing about targets that are patently not achievable and might be economically ruinous is unlikely to convince anyone, although most will be too polite to point this out,” he observed.
Writing a foreword, Lord Frost identified a make-believe world inhabited by Net Zero proponents where it is claimed costs will magically come down, new technologies will somehow be invented and promised green growth will pay for everything. “But they never give any evidence for believing this – and, where we can check what they say, for example in the real costs of wind power, we can see that these cost reductions are simply not happening,” he said.
On the immigration front, Hughes notes a 1% increase in the British population every year. He notes that 4% of GDP must be invested every year in new (not replacement) capital per head. Of course nothing like this is being spent and capital per head is falling rapidly. “Just maintaining the amounts of capital per head will eat up an amount of investment equivalent to that required for the energy transition,” he states.
Squeezing domestic consumption, in other words making the already squeezed poor even poorer by removing all their remaining luxuries in life (older cars, cheap foreign holidays, meat), is the only realistic way to fund the enormous sums required for the Net Zero energy transition. Possibly a glimmer of reality is creeping into political circles with the opposition Labour party having gone through “agonies” and ditched its £28 billion a year green deal. “Clearly, they concluded that it was impossible to sell an increase in the tax burden of that magnitude to a reluctant electorate,” he said. In fact, the sums involved in the Labour plan were only a fifth of the estimated cost of transition.
Any future Government wishing to travel the path of Net Zero must make the choices of reducing public services and mandating savage cuts in household expenditure. Needless to say, the general population is in almost total ignorance about these realities. Hughes notes that the electorate has given no indication that they are willing to bear the costs involved. “Indeed until now all they have been told is that there are few or no trade-offs required, and technology will somehow magically solve everything.”
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.
The Conservative Government 2010-2024
‘The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.’
Robert Conquest
We are about to have a budget from the Chancellor. —-Will it be a penny of this or tuppence of that? Will petrol tax go down or up? Will National Insurance go down ? etc etc.—- All of this fiddling about and tinkering here and there will make no overall difference to anything at all as long as Net Zero and its astronomical costs remain the political goals of all major parties. They had no debate and no vote in Parliament and the policy was simply waved through and this eco socialist policy designed specifically to lower living standards because western lifestyles are deemed “unsustainable” by the world government in waiting at UN and WEF is what will determine prosperity moving forward.———-It will make no difference what a chancellor does about the edges. The budget is like someone with a bucket trying to bail out the titanic. It is obviously still going to sink.
“TRUE COST”? ——-Think Trillions. ——-Where does that money come form? —–YOU. ———–Was this ever discussed or voted on in Parliament? —-eh NO. —Why not? —Because they don’t want you to know. ——Welcome to democracy in the 21st century.
The Red Thumbs down person must disagree with the facts I just gave. ——–WHY? Is any of it wrong? Or are they just so firmly entrenched in pretend to save the planet dogma that they refuse to admit reality? —–The same applies to my other comment above.
No reply—-Mainly because you have no argument
Having a complete lack of knowledge about Physics, Chemistry, a bit if Biology and Geology, and a sliver of understanding of how Science works does hinder any analysis of technical proposals.
And then, studying an Arts or Humanities subject at ‘university’ is no help either.
And yet, still, every council in the land bends itself towards achieving its Net Zero goals, even celebrating minor wins, planning insane numbers of wind and solar farms, changing all council vehicles to EVs and inundating the counties with electric charging points. They just don’t get it and probably never will and view people like us as deranged, possibly mentally ill, while they are gods of virtue and in touch with what needs to be done to combat the climate emergency. If anything smacked of a warped fairytale it would be Net Zero. We’ll eat mud pies and call it steak and kidney, we’ll drive dog carts (if they leave our pets alone) and call them luxury car(t)s…
Steak and kidney? What, you mean like dead animals? Ergh. What you need is some proper food like Linda McCartney sausages:
Rehydrated Textured SOYA Protein (52%), Water, Rapeseed Oil, SOYA Protein Concentrate, Seasoning (SULPHITES) (Dextrose, Flavourings, Salt, Onion Powder, Yeast Extract, Colour: Red Iron Oxide), Fortified WHEAT Flour (WHEAT Flour, Calcium Carbonate, Iron, Niacin, Thiamin), Bamboo Fibre, Stabiliser: Methyl Cellulose, Tomato Purée, Salt, Raising Agent: Ammonium Carbonates
Better for the environment donchano.
—
Just noticed that water is the second named ingredient after rehydrated textured soya protein. So quite a lot of water then.
It is hard to believe someone who was a billionaire would want to manufacture such trash as the food she puts her name to. Have these people no shame? Have they no concern for their own reputation?
Mrs McCartney is dead and has been for many years.
Councils don’t have a view as such. They take their instructions from above and question none of that and what individuals may think that work in council departments is irrelevant. Because their thoughts as individuals are of no concern to their superiors. Collectivism deems the induvial to be subordinate. The individual must submit to the will of the larger community needs, as determined by mostly socialist communist or Marxist central planning governments. —-Net Zero is currently the major tool in this regard. It allows for no questions to be asked, either about the reason for it or the cost or practicality of it and even it will achieve its stated goals. ——-It is simply something that has to be blindly accepted as necessary to “save the planet”, whether there is any evidence for that or not. Any individual who dissents from current Net Zero orthodoxy will be silenced one way or another., and labelled as a “climate denier” etc etc.
A fact filled article on the pressures facing British farmers. This is really scary stuff.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/supermarkets-are-driving-farmers-into-the-ground/
And this deals with the wider, more international aspects – the rapacious banks, Klaus “You will eat ze bugs,” Billy and his fake meat, the GMO mobsters.
Always remember:
No farmers. No food.
https://off-guardian.org/2024/03/05/the-food-transition-is-a-war-on-food-farmers-and-the-public/
We buy veg from Riverford [referred to in the CWJ article] and from time to time I price check it against supermarkets. Riverford is competitive on price, and wins on taste, delivery, and packaging. It turns over >£100m, so it has economies of scale. Getting a box per week encourages us to consume more veg, which is healthy. The only downside is choice – Riverford offer a limited number of options, so we won’t be offered avocado in January – and nor should we be, nothing wrong with a bit of seasonality.
Perhaps more farmers should do the same, sell cooperatively, and squeeze the supermarkets out? Ask the Riverford team for guidance, they seem pretty straightforward
Everytime I see one of their marketing stalls, I read the “life on the veg” or whatever the slogan of the day happens to be and then walk away. If you’re to lazy to pronounce (or write) “vegetables” when you mean “vegetables”, I don’t want to buy any stuff from you where the cut corners are less easily
recognizable.
But this is a good sign as poor grammar, spelling and apostrophes are the true domain of a proper greengrocer
Come on RW, are we really supposed to believe you haven’t seen the pun?
Farmacy Cooperative is another veg box which is non-profit making. Doesn’t cover all areas but this is being worked on, offers fortnightly veg boxes & the farmers get paid directly. Good quality produce- though a couple of boxes ago the weather damaged cauliflowers were sent out to ensure that the farmer got some income.
https://www.farmacycoop.org/
OUR VISION
Imagine a future….
Where Humanity & The Planet Flourish Together
Where Power Is Decentralised & In The Hands Of Local Communities
Where Local Economic Systems
Offer Secure Access To Food & Essential Items
Improve Our Health & Wellbeing
Regenerate Our Ecosystems
Allow Communities To Thrive!
A Future Vision? We Think So!
A rather old vision, Karl. I sometimes imagine a future where the hometown of my father is no longer occupied by Russians and I don’t think both together is an option.
all very well but how is their spelling and grammar
/sarc
Net Zero = National Suicide.
It is a globalist agenda for establishing a World Government.
The only political party that vows to abolish these insane policies is the Reform Party.
They are the fastest growing political party in the UK.
Spread the word and vote for change, otherwise our country will be utterly destroyed.
You got no comments or thumbs up because you were late to pass comment, but what you are saying about National Suicide is true. —–See my comments above for views on Net Zero
An agenda for a version of a World Government with Uncle Sam in charge perhaps?
Once again Chris Morrison gets the length of his contribution right. Others, please take note!
This exercise will illustrate just how wealth accumulation favours the old, and annoys the DEI crowd.
Draw two axes, then label the horizontal axis ‘Age’ , and the vertical axis ‘Accumulated Wealth’.
If you assume that the population is uniformly spread, from zero to 85 years old, and the wealth of everyone is zero at their birth, you can draw the following:
Then up to 25, wealth is still zero,
Then up to 65, wealth is accumulated at the same steady rate,
Then up to 85, wealth is reduced at twice the rate of accumulation,
Then at 85, they are penniless
You should have a triangle with a base of 40 years and another of 20 years, touching, the same height, with their points facing away from each other, and the base of one is twice the other. We can draw a vertical lines at 45 & 75 years, and a horizontal line between the points where they meet the graph. Assign the large square, between 45 & 65, an area of Two, and fill in the other areas, accordingly. The total area under the graph should be Six and represents Total Savings.
Those under 25 have 0 % of the national wealth (but they ought to have hope and aspirations)
Those under 45 have 16.7% of the national wealth
Those over 45 have 83.3% of the national wealth (very uncomfortable for some)
Those over 65 have 33.3% of the national wealth, and
Those over 85 have no savings, but this only an illustration of the problem that Freedom and Equity, together, bring.
Adding in a couple of more lines, you can see that:
Those under 35 have 4.2 % of the national wealth, and these are probably the most politically active.
And this is when everyone has an IDENTICAL WEALTH COHORT, so doesn’t account for the varying amounts that people save or whether a young couple buy a house together or rent as singles!
Two words…..no kidding.
one simply has to witness their own living conditions. Net zero is making all of us poorer. It must be brought to an end. It will be. BLM disappeared, DEI getting slaughtered, lbgtqeprst very quiet these days, trans going the way of the rest of this nonsense.