The United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change in 1988 and in 1995 the first climate change Conference of Parties (COP1) was held in Berlin. There has been a COP meeting every year since then, apart from 2020 when covid intervened. Last year COP28 was held in the United Arab Emirates and was attended by 84,000 delegates who flew in from all around the world to lecture the rest of us about the importance of reducing our carbon footprint.
In the nearly 30 years since COP conferences began, the U.K. has halved its CO2 emissions so that we now account for a mere 1% of the global total. But in this same time interval the developing world has massively increased its CO2 emissions. For example, China’s CO2 emissions have quadrupled and now account for 29% of the global total. India’s have tripled and now account for 7% of the global total. Both countries are still increasing their CO2 emissions.
The problem is that ‘green’ technologies are not very good. Electric cars and renewable energy are more expensive and inferior in performance to their fossil fuel equivalents. So as the developing world industrialises it is using fossil fuel technology to keep its costs down. Is it right for the privileged people of the First World to tell the poorest people in the Third World that they now have to stop operating gas and coal-fired power stations and stop driving petrol cars because of worries that in 50 years time the planet will be warmer? Climate modelling is so complex and uncertain that we don’t know how much warmer and we don’t know the consequences of that warming. Quite understandably the priority for the leaders of the developing world is to improve the lives of people now rather than worry about what may or may not happen in 50 years time.
Despite the fact that we only produce 1% of global CO2 emissions, our Government has decided we must press on with being world leaders in Net Zero. Because our ‘carbon footprint’ is already so small, reducing it further will have no measurable impact on global temperatures, but it will further impoverish British people. For example, we are repeatedly told by the green lobby (which these days occupies influential positions in politics, the media, universities and business) that renewables are now the cheapest form of energy generation and we should build ever more wind farms and solar farms. Since the U.K. is already a world leader in offshore wind it follows that we should have some of the lowest electricity prices in the world. In fact the opposite is true, the U.K. has some of the highest electricity prices in the world. Typically people in this country pay more than twice as much for electricity as they do in the USA, where shale gas has transformed the energy market, and more than five times as much as in China, where they are still building coal-fired power stations. The reason the U.K.’s electricity prices are so high is because there is a massive hidden cost in renewables which its supporters gloss over or never mention, namely the need to have back-up energy generation for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
The sales growth of electric vehicles in this country has stalled as people realise just what poor value they are. They are expensive to buy and inconvenient to drive because of the long charge times and the scarcity of public charging points. There is also the issue of how green electric vehicles actually are after taking into account the environmental impact of mining the rare earth metals and manufacturing the batteries. Yet our Government is blithely carrying on with its plan to ban petrol cars.
If the world is going to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the best way forward is to encourage research and development so that we improve green technologies. Imagine for a moment a time in the future when ‘green’ technologies might be cheaper and better than their fossil fuel equivalents. If this were to happen then people would want to buy green technology and the world’s CO2 emissions would fall quickly and naturally. In the meantime we have the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties all wanting to inflict more of this junk green technology on us. Only Reform offers any sanctuary for the Net Zero sceptic.
Dr. John Fernley is a retired scientist.
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.
Green technologies will never be cheaper than reliable, consistent,.scalable and available power sources. Green is fantasy living. Green is communism in a green wrapper.
Dr John Constable of the Global Warming Policy Foundation says we are living off cheap Chinese coal because everything we use is made in China. We have destroyed our home based manufacturing but exported the jobs and emissions to China and othet developing world countries. We have been had by the greens and our low intellect governments
Co2 is plant food so we don’t need to ration fossil fuels, they should only be replaced, if at all, by technologies that are more efficient.
Hydrocarbon energy does not come from ‘fossils’, dead dinos or ‘devonian algae’. Abiotic, renewable, self-creating, clean and almost unlimited.
That is a theory and it is plausible. At this point I am not prepared to comment further until I have investigated this thoroughly (perhaps more people should adopt that policy) —–But the fact remains that western countries are forcing their citizens off coal and gas as a means of generating heat and electricity and coercing them into using wind and sun. Oil coal and gas are concentrated energy that will give energy 24 hours a day everyday. Wind and sun cannot do that and is very much more expensive for various reasons that are well documented. (1) They cannot provide base load (2) They require constant backup from reliable sources like Coal Gas or Nuclear (3) They require enormous areas of land because they are diffuse forms of energy production. ——-All of this means we in the western world are paying way more for our electricity than the countries that continue to use eg coal, like China India Malaysia Brazil etc. —-The excuse for all of this eco socialism is climate change. ——But under any kind of scrutiny there is no evidence of a climate crisis. It is all Politics emanating from the UN called Sustainable Development.
Well I guess we all know where Kier Starmer lives now. Give me strength! It’s these deluded, brainwashed cultish kids again. I’m obviously no fan of Starmer but in what way is this fair to his family? Listen to what they’re saying though. We’re doomed if they represent the majority of youngsters;
”I am far from Sir Kier Starmer’s biggest fan, but you stupid children at @youth_demand
are intimidating him at is home, where he has a young family.
Invasion of privacy, invasion of private property, you are utter scum.
Hamas are the block to peace.”
https://twitter.com/DaveAtherton20/status/1777757249718354165
Another Good Thought For The Day by Mark Steyn
“If the world is going to reduce carbon dioxide emissions…”
We don’t need to do this. CO2 is plant food.
Carbon Dioxide + Water + Sunlight = Plant growth + Oxygen
Wot I learned in primary school.
We all “did”. Somehow I doubt its being taught nowadays, CO2 is bad, it’s toxic, so the fact plants need it must be hidden.
Never reported on MSM is that it has risen (it has) so the Earth has got greener.
At 420 ppm CO2 can have no meaningful impact on temperature.
Methane is measured in ppb (parts per billion) so even if it is a more active Greenhouse Gas, its irrelevant, there’s so little of it its to all intents and purposes unmeasurable, and it degrades.
“Only Reform offers any sanctuary for the Net Zero sceptic.”
That’s a cheap shot, Dr John. And I disagree. They’re all the same. Learn how to be an archos. It’s the only way.
Well, it’s the only way for me
I’m not sure if at some point in the past Richard Tice supported net zero or something similar but the Reform draft manifesto makes their claimed position very clear. http://www.reformparty.uk/energy-and-environment
Obviously we can’t be sure if Tice means what he says or is actually just part of “the consensus” masquerading as a genuine alternative but I’m confident that a vote for Reform is a vote for the possibility of change regarding net zero, plus other woke ideas, whereas a vote for any other party will just lead to more of the same.
You won’t know what Reform would do unless they form a government. That might be unlikely. But I recall Cameron and Johston before they were in government calling renewables “The Green Crap”. Not long after Boris was in power he wanted to be “The Saudi Arabia of wind”————Once you are in government you suddenly find you are dealing with the UN , the WEF, multi billion dollar corporations, renewables contratcs, carbon taxation and the whole shebang. ——-Otherwise known as the “Green Blob”——–That blob would fall down heavily on Tice as well
People need to understand where all of this climate change stuff really comes from. —-In a world of increasing population (there are now 8 billion people) it is impossible for everyone to have the same prosperity as the western world does. Because for all 8 billion to have that standard of living all of the worlds coal oil and gas would be exhausted very quickly. This was the view of the Socialist think tank “The Club of Rome” way back as far as 1972. We have also had this point of view from Maurice Strong that “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial societies collapse and isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about”? ——-In order to achieve all of those eco socialist goals a very plausible excuse is required. That excuse for the last 35 years has been “climate change”. But the UN Politics of Sustainable Development insists that the wealthy western countries, like UK EU, USA etc who have benefitted most from using fossil fuels should be the ones who STOP using them first. ——Most of our own politicians, with the notable exception of Donald Trump are fully onboard with this idea and are happy to impose huge costs on the use of coal and gas, and force unreliable expensive wind and sun on their citizens. This ofcourse forces up the price of energy and means people will be priced out of using it —–This is DELIBERATE. Do not be fooled by silly climate activists telling you that wind and sun are now cheaper than fossil fuels. This is FALSE. Coal and gas have been made hugely expensive by the addition of environmental and carbon taxes etc and wind and sun made cheaper by huge subsidy. The result is high energy bills and that is because our own governments don’t want us to use fossil fuels so they can pander to UN Politics.
Firstly, the idea that we need to reduce CO2 output (our own breath) is utter nonsense – the stupidity of our politicians knows no bounds. Should one have an ounce of common sense or education, it is clear that the most dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour (clouds) but trying to sell the idea to the average citizen that water is poisonous would never have succeeded, so the instigators of the ‘climate change’ mantra settled on the hitherto innocuous gas CO2.
Secondly, cheap energy means economic and industrial success, leading to rising standards of living and education, resulting in reduced birth rates. This idea that the western world has achieved a high standard of living which, for reasons of ‘saving the planet’ or more likely upholding our own high standard, should not be allowed elsewhere is truly repulsive, as expressed by people like Boris Johnson travelling to Africa and telling the governments to ignore the coal and oil buried underneath their feet and instead use ‘sustainable’ energy sources.
People were talking about shortages of oil, coal and this and that 50 years ago: forget it – there is no mention of that now and UK is even sealing oil and gas sources in the North Sea due to the climate idiocy. Africans and other poor countries should go the way we did and enjoy cheap energy and its enormous benefits.
Hear hear.
In a sense we should be thankful they chose to blame CO2 and not water vapour, at around 95% of greenhouse effect their arguments would be much more compelling, and harder to counter – although we have very little in the way of effectively questioning the CO2 argument. They would not have needed to shut down debate regarding water vapour.
It’s much harder to defend the choice of CO2 and it was a massive mistake considering there is so little of it in the atmosphere, so they have no option but to shut down and stifle any debate, de-platform and ruin people who dare challenge their ridiculous and inane narrative.
Denying CO2 causes warming will soon become hate speech, we can see its coming, only a matter of time as things are heading!
Sometimes my more long winded comments don’t always hit the sweet spot. ——-So let me give you all the 20 pence version which might be a little bit easier for your consumption ————–The UN, the WEF and our own political class have decided that our lifestyles and standard of living are too high. They think it is “unsustainable”. So they want to lower that standard of living. To do that they need a plausible excuse. That excuse is “climate change”. Climate change policies like Net Zero are there to force us to use less energy. It is not about the climate. —–Cheers Y’all have a nice day.
But not lower it for themselves of course, or it they di they wouldn’t support this climate farce.
As I sit here typing some comments I see Jim Dale plugging a book on GB news with Eammon Holmes and Isabel Webster. —–His book is called “Surviving Extreme Weather” or some crap like that. Eammon and Isabel know absolutely nothing about energy or climate so he gets a very easy ride on their show. —–Here is a question for you and your silly book though Jim.——–What aspect of weather in the world is getting more extreme or more frequent? ——-The answer according to the even the IPCC is NONE. So you have written a book about surviving something that isn’t actually happening. Aren’t GB news very good to you? I hope you appreciate them allowing you to plug your garbage.
Two other questions that never get asked, but should be:
1) At what points in history has there even been a stable climate? As in when did Earth have no change in climate. This proves just how inane the “Climate Change is real” statement really is. Of course its real, as in how could it not be! Weather is also real.
2) What is the actual optimum global temperature? Does that vary at different latitudes?
“Only Reform offers any sanctuary for the Net Zero sceptic” which is why they’re getting my vote.
I will not vote for any Party which intends to pursue the policy of bankrupting this country and impoverishing its people. Whether they intend doing it a few years slower than the alternative is irrelevant.
Well done. Whether Reform would be able to stop Net Zero is debatable though. Even if they were able to form a government they would need a vote in favour of stopping it. Since not a single MP questioned Net Zero and it was simply waved through parliament in 2019. I doubt very much if there would ever be enough of them to vote for stopping it………Net Zero is another globalist coup.
The Chinese government keeps prices artificially low resulting in frequent power outages. Their strategy is to prioritise increasing renewable sources as they are more cost effective.https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/resolving-near-term-power-shortages-in-china-from-an-economic-perspective/#:~:text=2021%20and%202022%20saw%20several,the%20power%20shortages%20in%20China.