Scrap it entirely, Miliband is a lunatic driving this country to bankruptcy. We all see through the scam, if you don’t watch the video link. The left are pushing globalist agendas, unwillingly. We are led like sheep to the slaughter, it’s time to use our natural resources. We are less than 1% of global carbon emissions yet we must fulfil Ed’s wet dream.
Couldn’t agree more. Pumping money into Solar energy for Britain is madness. We don’t have the right climate for it to work and the land can be better used for something else. Windfarms are slightly better but I would rather see more investment in nuclear power because if we are investing heavily in AI our grids will require for more power which would be unsustainable with Solar/Wind.
6 Likes
Yeah it can go. There’s this crazy thing called “the free market” that will let individual people decide when (if ever) an electric car, or heat pump, works for them, and industry decide when (if ever) wind turbines or solar panels make more sense for power generation than oil or gas.
5 Likes
I agree, all we have done is shut our own power sources down and subcontracted them out to other countries which is a danger in so many ways. We have gas and oil we should be using it responsibly and to our advantage.
I think we need a variety of Power sources so that there isn’t a single point of failure. All British owned and run, split something like 40% Nuclear, 40% Gas, 15% Renewables and allow a further 5% for New technology like Hydrogen etc.
6 Likes
Yep. Climate change claims to be scientific yet produces no falsifiable experiments in line with the scientific method. A giant hoax. And if it were real, and those shouting loudest were actually terrified, why the hell haven’t we been investing in nuclear all these years?
Net Zero is bankrupting and enslaving us at the same time. Such a communist idea.
4 Likes
Its the perfect data mining, or government control tool.
Basically everything you do will produce some amount of CO2.
If they can justify monitoring of CO2 use, they basically have allowed monitoring of all behaviours.
4 Likes
Absolutely, it should be scrapped. It’s the greatest and maddest policy economic self-harm ever proposed, and has already resulted in energy prices being far higher in the UK than in other similar Western countries.
You can only support this energy policy if you want a decline in living standards and believe in managing a decline of the nation itself. Which is a fate that many of our political class appear to want for our country. Well, I don’t, and I don’t think any other patriot does, and our political class renounce all legitimacy to hold office by espousing this net-zero madness.
I haven’t the data to work through the cost implications but solar panels and windmills have a finite lifetime. Solar panels weather and delaminate, and so do windmill blades. So there’s an ongoing maintenance cost, they’re not free after you’ve first put them up. Then there’s the need to support these devices with a vast expansion of the electricity distribution grid and energy storage for when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. The economic model for these forms of energy is only sustainable by putting a tariff (a stealth tax) on energy bills. Cost per household anyone?
Another metric that should be considered is energy density. That is, the power output per unit area of land used. In this respect, nuclear power is far better than solar or wind. And it maintains a steady base load without needing energy storage.
I think if we put our minds to it, we could reduce to time it takes to build and commission nuclear power stations - much of the oft-quoted ten years is to do with the verification of safety features on stations that, to date, were built as one-offs. If we can build stations to a common design and plan, the construction and commissioning time could be reduced through design reuse.
1 Like
Cannot disagree with this. High energy cost is causing us to de-industrialise, and in the new world of higher defence spending, we cannot afford this. This policy must be reversed.
4 Likes
An Inconvenient Truth: our climate policies can’t save the environment, so what will?
Bjorn Lomborg at ARC:
A contribution to the discussion on energy and economic policy well worth noting.
2 Likes
I agree. Expensive, unscientific, economically suicidal and morally self-righteous.
Agreed. The UK’s CO2 output is less than 1% of global emissions, as the OP says.
Besides, we need cheap and abundant energy if we’re going to kickstart our economy:
Over the past two decades, Britain’s economy has needed a huge quantity of new housing, transport infrastructure and energy supply. Its postwar institutions have manifestly failed to deliver these. Britain is now a place in which it is far too hard to build houses and infrastructure, and where energy is too expensive. This has meant that our most productive industries have been starved of the resources, investment and talent – the economic foundations – that they need to grow.
1 Like
There is a role for solar on roofs, particularly when combined with battery storage. the trick is for it to be worthwhile for home owners without government funding, so it is not a burden on everyone else.
Net Zero as a concept is great, if all countries worldwide have the same policies. we share our air with the entire world. Our tiny nation sacrificing our economy for minimal global improvement in air quality/temperature is bonkers. It is, sadly, in the way it has evolved, a very expensive ego trip for certain sections of society who are happy for others to suffer for their badly thought out policies which massage their egos. I could go on, but think that suffices!
My support here seems like a no brainer. did I just waste a vote on something we all agree with? Well… Now everyone knows that we all agree with it. lol
We should obviously try to live as cleanly as possible within our environment, however, this net zero agenda is extremely damaging to our economy and our way of life. It’s uncompromising and it results in the most ludicrous set of circumstances, such as, we can’t extract our own raw materials because it’s bad for the environment, but mining them 10,000 miles away and shipping them in to the UK is ok?
In fact, every eco policy seems to follow the same path. We just move the problem out of our local environment and dump it in somebody else’s. It should be pretty obvious that we can’t dump all the worlds pollution in China and India. That will cause huge areas of the planet to suffer from serious and rapid changes to the environment due to it all being concentrated in those areas.
It’s absolute madness
2 Likes
All of GDP and everything we do is just an energy conversion. Move your arm, think, its all just energy. Renewable electricity - (map out the price each country pays vs the percentage of electricity they get from renewables) - is about 5 times the price of conventionally produced electricity as it has been for the past 10 years. That is before the subsidies given to renewables and the taxes imposed on fossil fuels. When adjusted for that, it is even higher. Far from Milliband creating high paid jobs, his policies have raised the cost of energy so much that it reduced productivity growth dramatically, reducing well paid jobs. We must teach people the laws of thermodynamics, and in particular, Howard T Odum’s 5th law of thermodynamics - Energy flows follow a transformation hierachy. Each level of Transformity (the quality of energy work can do) can be calculated by the emergy (emjoules) or cumulative energy over history embeded within it. The simplest way to understand this is that as energy (technically its exergy) is lost at every energy conversion, the further downstream a product or technology is, the more energy conversions have gone into its production, and therefore the more productive it must be to compensate, paying for all those upstream conversions. The transformity of solar, being the base of it all is 1, wind about 650, and coal about 40,000. At the moment, our renewable electricity is built on high transformity fossil fuels, and all the high transformity fossil fuel energy embedded in the capital stock, including us. Nevertheless, it is 5 times the price of conventional electricity. Try building the solar cells and wind turbines, or batteries, or just servicing the existing capital stock, with intermittent renewable energy, you will find it is impossible, and trying to do so will take us back to pre-industrial days. This is why the last 20 years has seen the biggest drop in total factor productivity in the UK since records began in the late 1700s. When adjusted for transformity, the world would need 7 1/2 years worth of annual solar irradiance hitting the entire planet, including oceans etc, to meet our annual energy needs. Not only is it impossible, therefore, but because everything, including nature and the environment and weather patterns etc are just the system degrading the energy gradient, by using that energy elsewhere, we would destroy nature and the environment. The fact that this is well known among the scientific community raises the question of who the politicians are talking to.
The evidence for scrapping Net Zero is strong but we also need an alternative policy:
Some of the many reasons Net Zero is wrong
- The UK contributes only about 1% of global emissions based on domestic production, but when accounting for imported goods and deindustrialisation, our actual carbon footprint is closer to 2%—meaning emissions have been effectively exported rather than eliminated[3][4].
- Net zero policies have coincided with some of the highest energy costs in the world, with analysis showing that subsidies for renewables and net zero initiatives account for around 40% of the increase in UK electricity bills since 2015[2].
- High energy costs have contributed to deindustrialisation, making UK manufacturing less competitive and shifting emissions—and jobs—overseas, rather than reducing global emissions[4].
- Continuing with a net zero approach that raises costs risks further economic harm without significant global climate impact, given the UK’s relatively small share of emissions[3].
Alternative policy
- Instead, focusing on the UK’s strengths in science, technology, and innovation could drive economic growth, create high-value jobs, and develop solutions that can be exported globally—amplifying the UK’s positive impact on climate and prosperity[5][6][7].
- Investment in innovation delivers strong returns, with every £1 of public investment generating £7 in economic benefit, and positions the UK as a global leader in clean technology and sustainable growth[5][6].
Sources
[1] Factcheck: Why Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch is wrong about … Factcheck: Why Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch is wrong about UK’s net-zero goal - Carbon Brief
[2] Net Zero to blame for surging electricity bills as prices increase by … https://www.gbnews.com/news/net-zero-blame-surging-electricity-bills-prices-increase-10-years-new-analysis-shows
[3] Not ‘just 1% of global emissions’ - Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit | Not 'just 1% of global emissions'
[4] Uk - Deindustrialisation Has Boosted Emissions - British Glass https://www.britglass.org.uk/knowledge-base/digital-library-and-information-services/uk-deindustrialisation-has-boosted
[5] UK Innovation Strategy: leading the future by creating it (accessible … UK Innovation Strategy: leading the future by creating it (accessible webpage) - GOV.UK
[6] [PDF] Net Zero Review 2024 | UKRI https://www.ukri.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/IUK-101224-NetZeroReview2024.pdf
[7] How can science and tech innovation boost regional economic … https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/135/science-innovation-and-technology-committee/news/204260/how-can-science-and-tech-innovation-boost-regional-economic-growth/
[8] UK Innovation Strategy UK Innovation Strategy – Research and Innovation Service
[9] We’ve won in court against the UK government for the second time We’ve won in court against the UK government for the second time | ClientEarth
[10] Greenhouse gas emissions by the United Kingdom - Wikipedia Greenhouse gas emissions by the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
[11] Innovation in the UK. Where are we at and what’s in store? - LinkedIn Innovation in the UK. Where are we at and what’s in store?
[12] UK Net Zero Research and Innovation Framework - GOV.UK UK Net Zero Research and Innovation Framework - GOV.UK
[13] Record £13.9 billion of R&D funding unveiled to boost innovation … Record £13.9 billion of R&D funding unveiled to boost innovation, jobs and growth - GOV.UK
[14] New Innovation Strategy starts a conversation on how to make the … New Innovation Strategy starts a conversation on how to make the UK a global hub for innovation by 2035
[15] Why the UK’s 1% of global emissions is a big deal Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit | Why the UK's 1% of global…
[16] Greenhouse gas emissions and trade, UK: 2024 Greenhouse gas emissions and trade, UK - Office for National Statistics
[17] Review article A critique on the UK’s net zero strategy https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213138822010517
[18] The Rise of Anti-Net Zero Populism in the UK: Comparing Rhetorical … https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13876988.2023.2242799
[19] Why the government’s plans to reach net zero don’t add up - LSE Why the government’s plans to reach net zero don’t add up - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment
[20] How to Address the Growing Backlash Against Net-Zero Policy How to Address the Growing Backlash Against Net-Zero Policy
[21] From pledge to practice: Assessing the UK’s net zero commitment From pledge to practice: Assessing the UK’s net zero commitment | CEPR
[22] We’re number one… in unaffordable electricity We're number one... in unaffordable electricity — Institute of Economic Affairs
[23] Emissions - United Kingdom - Countries & Regions - IEA https://www.iea.org/countries/united-kingdom/emissions
[24] Net Zero won’t repeat the job destruction of deindustrialisation Net Zero won’t repeat the job destruction of deindustrialisation – but it will mean significant change for 1.3 million workers in emissions-intensive jobs • Resolution Foundation
[25] [PDF] Economic benefits of industrial decarbonisation - Aldersgate Group https://www.aldersgategroup.org.uk/content/uploads/2023/09/Aldersgate-Report-Final-sep-6th.pdf
[26] Innovate UK - UKRI Innovate UK – UKRI
[27] Innovation, growth and the regions - Committees - UK Parliament https://committees.parliament.uk/work/8729/innovation-growth-and-the-regions/
[28] Innovate UK Vacancies - Myworkdayjobs.com https://innovateuk.wd3.myworkdayjobs.com/innovateukcareers
[29] Careers - Innovate UK Business Connect Careers - Innovate UK Business Connect
[30] Tomorrow’s technologies - UKRI Tomorrow’s technologies – UKRI
[31] New UK plan to reach net zero goal faces criticism - BBC New UK plan to reach net zero goal faces criticism
[32] Why are UK energy prices so ridiculously high? - King’s Think Tank Why are UK energy prices so ridiculously high? – King's Think Tank
[33] CCC: Reducing emissions 87% by 2040 would help 'cut household … CCC: Reducing emissions 87% by 2040 would help ‘cut household costs by £1,400’ - Carbon Brief
[34] Mission zero: Independent review of net zero - House of Lords Library https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/mission-zero-independent-review-of-net-zero/
[35] If the UK has more renewable energy, why aren’t bills coming down? Why are energy bills going up, if there is more green power?
[36] Carbon footprint for the UK and England to 2021 - GOV.UK Carbon footprint for the UK and England to 2021 - GOV.UK
[37] Analysis: UK emissions in 2023 fell to lowest level since 1879 Analysis: UK emissions in 2023 fell to lowest level since 1879 - Carbon Brief
[38] How decarbonisation doesn’t have to mean deindustrialisation How decarbonisation doesn’t have to mean deindustrialisation
There is also the factor that reducing CO2 might be doing harm rather than good.
It is without a doubt. CO2 is food to plants, why further deprive our countryside of its food? Truly nonsensical.
Absolutely agree. Can we also scrap lunatics from government? Literal lunatics, the ones who consented to geoengineering experiments to the tune of £50 million to try and block out the sun. So, are they going to hand out Vitamin D tablets and SSRIs (which don’t work)?! Apart from the Arctic, we get the least sun, less than Scandinavia. Oh, and doesn’t photosynthesis need sunlight and turn the carbon dioxide into oxygen?
The biggest polluters China and the USA are making no effort. Solar panels and turbines made in China and owned by Scandinavia.
We should restrict our selves to british made Solar tiles and home and factory insulation again british made
