In a recent debate in the House of Lords, Lord Hunt – Philip Hunt, Labour’s Minister of State for energy and security – expressed concern that the cross-party political impetus behind Net Zero might be waning. This indeed would be an intriguing development. We may well find out if it is real in a second Lords debate later today.
In the first debate, held two weeks ago, twice as many peers spoke in favour of Net Zero as had concerns about it, but there were also a handful who were ambivalent, including – a welcome development – the Bishop of St. Albans.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
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.
Even the EU’s guidelines on the precautionary principle make it clear that any proposed application of that principle should be accompanied by a cost benefit analysis:
‘In addition, the general principles of risk management remain applicable when the precautionary principle is invoked. These are the following five principles:
https://www.envirotrain.co.uk/module-a/a4-towards-sustainability/a4-7underpinning-concepts/a4-7-1precautionary-principle
Ah yes the infamous “Precautionary Principle”. It has been used since the very beginning to impose policy. As regards climate it talks about the “risks of using fossil fuels”, but never about the risks of NOT using them. —eg Where would the western world be without fossil fuels, and the answer is in Medieval times. Where would the developing world be without them? —The Stoneage.
You cannot have a debate about the Precautionary Principle without knowing whqt it says.
There is a great deal about this definition which is open to debate. But notice that the measures must be cost-effective and taken according to a state’s capabilities.
Accordingly a cost-benefit analysis of any and all measures is essential. Without that neither of those two conditions can even be assessed let alone judged met or not.
What amounts to a “threat” to the environment is open to debate as is “serious or irreversible damage“.
Again, there must be a ‘lack of full scientific certainty” which implies a sufficient degree of certainty and on a balance of probabilities but what if there is no scientific certainty?
Let’s pretend the climate is changing. What scientific evidence is there really that it is caused by CO2?
How can any measure be cost-effective if there is no idea whether that measure is what is required to counter the threat?
That is precisely the question in my view which people should be asking.
Should we all be doomed to live with blackouts or just a significant lack of the power we have become accustomed to or even a return to pre-industrial society which cannot be sustained with the populations that exist worldwide.
Who is debating these issues?
No-one because we are all being cancelled and screamed down by the loony Left and Far Left and nutters who engage is destructive and illegal performance protests rather than putting their case.
They do that because their case is shaky at best and not convincing.
Who can trust a ‘worldwide consensus of scientists’ when many barely qualify for the title and probably most if not all are part of the ‘worldwide consensus’ because it means jobs and research grants and denying means cancellation and sacking.
This is quite apart from the fact that no one really knows if such a “worldwide consensus‘ exists because there are no mechanisms for testing if there is one. We all know by now that these things can be conjured up out of thin air by those with access to and/or control of mass media.
Look at what was done over Covid – every country in the world with few exceptions followed the non-existent ‘science’ and behaved in exactly the same way dictated to them when it was all a sham cooked up by a very few people with a lot of money.
Deleted
It’s very difficult to comment on the economically-suicidal Net Zero nonsense without using ‘profanity and abuse’. So, as ‘profanity and abuse’ are banned, I won’t comment.
Nice “no comment”.
When I was a student in Nottingham, there used to be a guy standing in the street with a placard saying “Repent. The end is nigh! Saint Greta is like him, only more hysterical and annoying.
As far as I can see there are two sides to net zero:
1.) The religious zealots. Greta, Just Stop Oil, Extinction Rebellion. Doomsday profits of our modern, confused, post-Christian era.
2.) Political opportunism. Politicians looking for a way to control the population, using the tried-and-tested method of “we are in mortal danger but WE can save you”. Also a way corrupt small countries can extract money from richer nations.
3). A way that politicians and chancers can enrich themselves by fleecing taxpayers – Al Gore, Selwyn-Gummer, Dale Vince immediately spring to mind.
You missed off the big one – the $$$ gravy train,
Agreed, but ‘prophets’.
😀😀😀
Absolutely right. Most cultures have in their history prophets of doom with the message of “we have greatly sinned, we need to atone for our sins by donning on sack cloth and ashes or the gods will punish us with floods and famines”. Green agenda today. Also, climate change is the gift that keeps giving to incompetent politicians. When they get something wrong, they blame the “settled science” of climate change to dodge accountability and possibly legal action for their mistakes.
Well and succinctly put.
I am sure that you meant “Doomsday prophets”, but of course you are also correct for there are indeed profits, massive ones, for the “Green elite”.
Greta seems to have moved on to other things now, like the elections in Georgia.
Net Zero Catastrophe Looms Large
Years ago I asked my local MP, Mark Francois, about Net Zero, and he was scathing about the lack of figures about the cost of moving toward that goal. Let’s hope this Lords debate is the start of a wider examination of the costs involved and a reassessment of how this whole policy area should develop over the coming years. If things continue as they are, then we shall lead the world, but not as a trailblazer, more as a lemming.
Starmer, Millipede and other assorted imbeciles refuse to even consider the costs, they just want their place in history to be cemented as the people who saved the planet from a non-existent problem.
You have to think though, surely they know, even if they refuse to see, they know!
Like Sunak, they probably plan to swan off to Davos when the proverbial hits the fan.
Did your MP raise his concerns in parliament back in 2019 when Net Zero was simply waved through?
He did. He was on a backbench committee and asked for the figures. I haven’t checked his voting record but I very much doubt he would have voted “for”.
Mark Francois is one of the adherences to the climate agenda, so I don’t have much time for him. Shame cos he was a Brexiteer.
“Should we have an honest discussion about the costs and benefits of pursuing the path of Net Zero?” ——To even feel there is a need to ask this question shows how totally absurd Net Zero is. Who in their right mind enters into something without knowing the cost and the benefit? But that is exactly what we did in 2019 when the Net Zero Amendment was simply waved through Parliament with no debate, no cost/benefit analysis, and no vote.
I always hear those in favour of all of this stuff say “But WE MUST do something about Climate Change” as if we have no choice in the matter. But who do they mean by “WE”. —-They mean us here in the UK. They don’t mean all countries of the world because they know everyone else including all of the major emitters of CO2 are not doing this. But they want to press on spending astronomical sums of our money, forcing up energy prices and impoverishing people to unilaterally save the planet. —-A country that emits only 1% of all the emissions cannot hope to do that anymore than an Antelope can hope to shrug off a pride of 14 Lions. Even Tony Blair recently said nothing the UK does will have any effect on global climate. So why are we doing it? —-Now that is the real question everyone should be asking. We are doing it because Climate Change gives the Progressive Left the ideal opportunity to put in place policies they have long craved but could not get away with. I include the so called Conservatives in this because it was they, under Tereas May who gave us the Climate Change Amendment in 2019.
But now with a President in the USA who does not fall for this eco socialist scam and countries in Europe like Germany having their government collapse because of the detrimental effect of green absurdity the tide is turning. —–Miliband and Starmer however will hold out to the bitter end as if they were at the Alamo.
“Miliband and Starmer however will hold out to the bitter end as if they were at the Alamo.”
At least John Wayne died a hero’s death at the Alamo. There is no question Kneel and Milivolt will die like the cowards they are.
Only in film, he refused to serve in WW2.
Its dead on its feet.
Trump will deliver the coup de grace.
Can’t wait.
Which of these people would you follow out of a burning building?
The laughably ridiculous Theresa May and Lord Deben have vested interests so cannot be objective.
Perhaps her well paid speeches are the result of pushing net 0 through Parliament. There was an article on here that mentions the Co that paid her was out of business, all a bit fishy.
They should be debating the reasons for Net Zero (there are none except corruption) and not the unquantifiable cost.
In theory you are correct. But in reality you are dealing with a lot of ignorant morons who believe the crap spewed out by the legacy media and you need to move slowly. The route of showing that Net Zero is not financially achievable is a good start, followed by demonstrating that mitigation when any effects materialise is an economically sane response. When the sea ice refuses to melt away, we don’t all burn to crisp etc. the morons will lose interest in climate change.
Net Zero is not crumbling at all – not in nutty UK. But it will collapse suddenly in heap of economic ruin.
The biggest story today was Bobby Kennedy’s appointment as director of hhs. The markets are shaking in their boots. So are all those who mandated, coerced dangerous mrna covid vaxxes.
If the incompetent gov’t continue to pursue their net zero agenda they can expect little if any support from the USA. President Trump will not support nonsense. He is making that very clear. Anyone in the UK gov’t listening??
This may be just a council but the cracks in the foundations of Net Zero are spreading.
https://youtu.be/D_LX0b5svnc?si=z2-2n2qQxcxWyyEO