On Monday, I sent an email to David Smith at the Sunday Times. David Smith, the paper’s Economics Editor (since 1989), Chief Leader-Writer, Assistant Editor and Policy Adviser, writes a key economic article in the business section most weeks.
The title of my email to David Smith was: “How can the UK economy grow when Net Zero is giving us world’s highest energy prices?”
And the text was:
Both Labour and Conservatives have promised to lower the U.K.’s debt levels as a percent of GDP by promoting economic growth. But at the same time, both parties are pushing up energy prices by reducing the use of cheap reliable fossil fuels and increasing the amount generated by unreliable, intermittent and expensive wind and solar.
Perhaps it would be useful for your readers if you could explain how a country aiming to be the world’s leading clean energy superpower with some of the world’s most expensive energy can have a competitive growing economy?
All the best
David Craig
As David Smith often focuses his articles on how the U.K. can achieve economic growth, I referred him to two articles I wrote for the Daily Sceptic:
- ‘Britain is leading the world in committing economic suicide‘ – in which I showed that Britain had cut its CO2 emissions by closing down and exporting much of its manufacturing thus destroying jobs and making us all poorer;
- ‘Starmer’s “GB Energy” fantasy‘ – in which I expose as complete nonsense the Government’s and Labour’s claims that intermittent and unreliable wind and solar energy are cheaper than reliable fossil fuel energy.
I sent the email because I thought that the most important economic issue facing the U.K. at the moment was probably how rising energy prices, due mainly to the Net Zero-inspired move from cheap, reliable fossil fuels to unreliable and expensive supposed ‘renewables’, was making British industry uncompetitive and therefore would hinder economic growth.
I was surprised when David Smith came back within an hour with his reply. His reply was succinct: “No.”
I have noticed that the Times and Sunday Times have both joined the Greta-worshipping, climate-catastrophist cult. For example, on April 4th 2024 the Times featured an article by Baron Browne of Madingley, Chief Executive of the energy company BP between 1995 and 2007, titled: ‘Fighting climate change is a long-term investment and the outlook is sunny.’
I have had a little experience of business having worked in over 60 commercial companies in industries ranging from oil rig construction to steel mills to supermarkets to stocking manufacturing in 15 countries. But I’m not an economist. So I was rather looking forward to David Smith explaining how any future British Government could reconcile the, in my humble opinion, irreconcilable concepts of becoming a clean energy superpower with some of the world’s highest electricity prices with the ambition of generating competitive economic growth.
So you can imagine my shock and disappointment at Mr. Smith’s response. I’ll leave it up to you to decide why Mr. Smith decided not to take up this challenge.
David Craig is the author of There is No Climate Crisis, available as an e-book or paperback from Amazon.
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 most important commodity is ENERGY. It is the driver of Industrial Capitalism, and the price and availability of energy is directly correlated to standard of living, life expectancy, health, and a whole other series of indicators of prosperity.
Net Zero has a purpose, which is to reduce energy consumption. It is part of the UN Sustainable Development Agenda that thinks standard of living in the prosperous west is “too high”. When politicians stand there on TV News programs and say things like “we want to reduce energy costs” they are speaking with what the Apache used to call “forked tongue”. Net Zero was waved through Parliament with no discussion of cost at all, and to this day there still is no consideration of cost or how it will be paid for. But the National Grid estimates it will cost 3 trillion.
Net Zero is only going to increase energy costs as by far the cheapest way to produce it is by using coal and gas. The policy of increasing the price of energy and its availability puts pressure on economic growth and politicians MUST know this but are caught in the ideological groupthink madness that panders to UN Politics that uses climate as the excuse for Public Policies regarding energy.
But the proponents of Net Zero don’t like smelly unpredictable industry or capitalism. They prefer furry animals, shopping at Waitrose and they eat quinoa. None of those need hydrocarbons and when it gets chilly in the winter they go to Tuscany to their holiday home.
What’s the problem, darling. Fancy a joint as I’ve sone great stuff.
Yes that is one aspect of it, but Net Zero and the whole Green Agenda is clearly anti capitalism, and we don’t even need to take our word for it. It is clear from their Political Agenda’s like Sustainable Development, Agenda 21/30, and all their pronouncements what their goals are. A world run by unelected unaccountable technocrats controlling the word and its wealth and resources. National Governments apart from the Trump one and some right of centre parties across Europe, like in Holland, Italy and here with Reform are mostly signed up to hand over power to the technocrats, and do their dirty work for them all under the guise of “fighting climate change”.
So the question was:
And the answer was ‘No’.
No, it would not be useful for his readers?
No, he could not explain?
No, he disagrees that there is a country with an ambition to be a clean energy superpower with some of the world’s most expensive energy?
Just ‘No.’.
I have another question to ask ——“Why does the UK have to pretend to save the planet harder and faster than every other country at astronomical cost, and what effect will this have on global climate”? Because even Tony Blair whose Labour government gave us the Climate Change Act (2008 Miliband) has said it will not make the slightest difference as we are too small a country. —–PS It was probably Gordon Brown who had taken over as Prime Minister by then, incase anyone wants to get pedantic.
Doesn’t it boil down to this…
Anthropogenic greenhouse emissions make up 3% of earth’s atmosphere and the UK is apparently responsible for 1% of the 3%.
So the UK achieving Nut Zero will make absolutely F A difference to the atmosphere of the planet. In fact the likelihood is that we will have increased planetary greenhouse emissions – personally I do not believe in them – because as we export more industries and jobs the countries taking up our cast offs will increase their productivity and thus their emissions.
Of course we are being lied to and people like David Smith who is in a position to influence policy and public opinion would rather take the Judas’ forty shillings than do his job properly. In short he is acting in a treasonous manner.
last I heard China & India opens up a new coal power station every week. There was a good video on YT with the ex Sky News Australia Allan Jones talking about the 1% or the 3% on a auzzie style Question Time panel. The girl sat next to him had no answer. I think he wiped the floor and behind the toilet on that one!
Correction.
Anthropogenic greenhouse emissions make up 3% of Earth’s total flux of greenhouse emissions of CO2, an entirely beneficial trace gas, essential to all life on Earth.
The total flux is fractionally over 0.04% of the atmosphere. The UK emits 1% of that entirely beneficial gas.
So the crass stupidity and evil peculation is “WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!!”
Yes but tell that to your friends and family and they will look at you like you are from Mars. Propaganda is a very powerful tool and the Climate Industrial complex of Government, media and Green Industries farming all the government subsidy know that. Which is why we are bombarded with evidence free climate scaremongering on a daily basis. ——-Your friends and family probably all fall for that and you will likely have discussed this issue with some of them. Propaganda isn’t interested in one thing. Putting an idea in the publics head then keeping it there.
I should have said “Propaganda is only interested in one thing” —But I think you all got what I meant.
Thank you.
“acting in a treasonous manner” ——Yes and sadly and disturbingly he is not alone. led from the front by BBC, Sky News, Guardian and Independent where that insidious creep Donachadh McCarthy often has articles, the mainstream media long ago stopped being Investigative journalists and simply became left wing activists and there is no greater left wing cause than the Climate change politics which pretends to be about saving the planet so the masses will get on side, but you and I know by now that is has sod all to do with that.
Thanks 👍
I’d say that guy from the Climate Party is more dangerous than Donachadu because this guy (can’t remember his name) links everything to investment saying how much “opportunity” there is investing in everything green. He has charisma like Blair, so more dangerous IMO.
I recommend everyone reads David Craig’s book – There is No Climate Crisis – easy to read and comprehend. He does not lecture but purely puts in front of the reader facts and stats going back to 1850s and one does not have to be an expert to see the complete fantasy that has been raised time and time again. However, the subject has not, in the past, reached the messianic levels that it has attained today.
I should be gone in 15 years but this idiocy, that has gripped the Western world, has to stop before our grandchildren come of age.
I have read it. ——-But there are not many I have not read, and let’s face it, if you want to speak about an issue then you must learn about it. ——I will recommend 3 books for you. “Energy and Climate Wars” Glover and Economides. —-“Taken by Storm” Essex and McKitrick and “Hubris” Michael Hart.
‘No’ because the terms of agreement we have signed with our UN sponsors prohibits us from disclosing or discussing this aspect of Net Zero policy.
I think it may have been: “No, my overlords will notice”
‘No’ is rather defensive, isn’t it….passive aggressive…..a naughty child saying ‘Won’t!’.
That does appear to be the level of debate on the ‘nut zero’ side.
Mr Smith will not take up the challenge, quite simply, because he knows that he will be cut to pieces, made to look very silly indeed…..
Instead of just looking petulant and brattish, which is, you know, a slightly better look for a seventy year old…..or not really….
I’m surprised he chose to answer at all- safer to ignore it – though the answer is ambiguous enough not to incriminate him.
It’s possible he’s capable of enough doublethink to believe what he says but I doubt it so let’s assume that he know la “net zero l” and growth are incompatible.
He’s either a true believer in the necessity of “net zero” in which case he thinks that he is telling a Noble Lie or he knows the whole thing is nonsense and he is just being shrewd and not going against the narrative.
No tof, you can bet a month’s wages that his answer is all about money.
Probably
He could be a useful idiot- some people are probably quite motivated by the idea they are saving the world, but his refusal to answer suggests a certain cynicism
They have been ramping up the climate fear porn on the radio today. Can’t remember the exact figure they gave for how many degrees we could reach in five years, but rest assured, they will make sure those datasets are adjusted to fit the narrative. Bunch of frauds.
We are allegedly basking in 12° in Saddleworth but it sure as hell feels much cooler.
Aye and I had to close the window to sleep, too bloody cold. It is a guessing game when sleeping these days.
Yes and all based on modelling filled with assumptions and guesses. But the disturbing thing is that all of their expensive million dollar models have so far been WRONG. Not just wrong but very WRONG. Because they all assume CO2 has a much greater effect on temperature than it actually does. Yet government make public policy like Net Zero which will seriously damage economic growth and lower living standards based on those very same models.
Yup, using a psyop with water vapour doesn’t quite cut it.
Farage will hopefully put such questions to Sunak, Starmer et al in the full glare of the hustings. They surely won’t get away with fobbing him off as they have done with concerned citizens (such as myself) for so many years.
Let’s hope so.
People in other parts of the world have stopped laughing at the West. They are looking on with concern as if they are looking at a mentally diseased maniac in possession of a rather nasty weapon. Of course this dismays those who look on – they like to send their children to universities in the west. From an outside perspective it looks clinically insane and that is because it clearly is. We have become rather lax over the last century and sometimes you have to shake yourself out of it because you simply cannot continue along this trajectory without inviting destruction.
Don’t even humour these people. If we have a future at all it is in high energy high industry systems. There is no shortage of talent in this country in terms of intelligence and native genius it has just been thwarted in all sorts of ways. It is still there but it is sad that it is the strongest holders of our flame are the ones who feel the most despair. We have the gift of the magical English language and in return it asks of us certain things.
Same as every “Greta” I meet in the street. Logic and rational thought is irrelevant.
This is a cult. The Kool Aid will be drunk. But this time the Feds are drinking it too.
He can’t/won’t …. because he wants to save his job.
I do wonder whether the press in general is in receipt of payments from the green billionaires who promote climate alarmism. For example, the Telegraph does promote scepticism about the practicality of Net Zero but, to my knowledge, has never published any article or letter setting out criticism of the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 is the principal cause of recent global warming.
It is the same with GB News for a while now. Rees Mogg did point out C02 warming is just a theory but nothing as controversial since.
Headline Corr:
“Why Won’t the Sunday Times’s Economics Editor Explain How Net Zero Fits With a Growing Depopulation?”