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.
The debate was about the cost of Net Zero. It followed an interesting path. Those concerned about the matter focused on the cost; exactly what was written on the tin of the debate. They talked about how, during Theresa May’s original 2019 rush to Net Zero in the waning days of her premiership, there had been no impact assessment of the project. Nor has there been one since. They talked about how we should surely know what it might cost, whether any of the numbers presented by Whitehall so far have been in any way realistic, whether they might be affordable, or indeed whether the bill to be paid is so large that it is ludicrous to think we could ever manage it. These speakers tended to stay assiduously away from too close an examination of whether climate change was happening and what kind of mitigation would be best; they focused
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
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.
Our goal should not be net zero carbon emissions, the goal should be a level of emissions such that the cost of reducing them equals the damage that those emissions would cause. The solution, of course, is to implement a carbon tax at the social cost of carbon. In the UK various environmental taxes (fuel duty, Air Passenger Duty, etc.) already exceed this.
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
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??
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.
Net Zero is not crumbling at all – not in nutty UK. But it will collapse suddenly in heap of economic ruin.
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.
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.
Which of these people would you follow out of a burning building?
Its dead on its feet.
Trump will deliver the coup de grace.
Can’t wait.
“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… Read more »
“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.
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.
Net Zero Catastrophe Looms Large
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.
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”.
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.
“Despite no uniform understanding of its meaning, the definition contained in Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration is widely recognized by states and provides practical guidance in the development and application of international law:
“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities.Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
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… Read more »
Deleted