Derrick Berthelsen has a useful Critic piece on the inescapable consequences of Net Zero. Nothing we don't know, but worth saying again and again.
The new normal of net zero
A dash to net zero requires significant lifestyle changes
Last week, PM Rishi Sunak made a speech on the UK’s net zero policies. The BBC described it as an overhaul of the government’s green commitments, designed to meet net zero targets the UK has made internationally.
Rishi himself has been quick to make clear that nothing in these changes reduces his commitment to reach net zero by 2050, however. Despite one of the stand out policies being a delay to the end of petrol and diesel car sales in the UK from 2030 to 2035 (moving to be in line with the EU), motor industry sources have been informed that government plans to force manufacturers to meet minimum targets for selling electric cars will still come into effect from next year.
In other words, the changes appear to be more about presentation than a fundamental shift in Government policy. It is clear that the policy will require significant lifestyle changes if it is to be achieved.
The whole piece is well worth reading as a reminder that eventually we will be expected to accept and build our lives around an intermittent electricity supply which largely depends on the wind blowing and the sun shining.
People should be completely clear what this means. We are looking at a world where energy use returns to the pre industrial age: dependent on the weather. People may not be able to have a cup of tea or a shower when they want. Watch the TV when they want. Wash their clothes when they want. Put the heating on when they want. People may have to run their lives around when the wind blows or the sun shines. It could take society back to a time when the weather ruled over our energy use and life choices.
Sunak may be making presentational changes to his policies, but the plan is still the same. He claims he wants to be honest with people about what the plan means. If so, he should start by telling people the truth — that the dash to net zero before the technology exists means significant changes to the way people live their lives.
Is that what you want? What you voted for?
10 comments:
‘People may not be able to have a cup of tea or a shower when they want. Watch the TV when they want. Wash their clothes when they want. Put the heating on when they want.’
Harking back to your post on myths, I find myself wondering whether, at a subconscious level, this is really about making sacrifices to appease the climate gods and avert disaster - certainly the overblown emotion of the M25 protester weeping about our impending destruction suggests more than a touch of of religious terror.
To be fair, I already consider the weather before putting on a wash, as I suspect do most people with outdoor space who are aware of the running costs of a tumble dryer or the impact of wet washing indoors. (Incidentally, one of my favourite internet exchanges ever was one I stumbled upon on an engineers’ forum; a contributor had sparked a debate by asking whether it was ‘more efficient to hang towels on the line in landscape or portrait format’.)
Berthelsen writes very well, making technical points relatively easier to understand.
There's an interesting bloke in my wife's new congregation - a climate change prof at the local uni. He gave a talk on what we could do to help mitigate the effects of global warming. He said that in his professional and academic opinion, the world was getting hotter, and it was almost certain that this was predominantly due to burning fossil fuels. But his recommendations were the usual ones, with nothing new: don't leave equipment on stand-by, turn down the thermostat, insulate your house.
My wife spoke privately to him later, and he said he had no time for politicos and fanatics - he just dished out what he thought were the facts. I wonder what he will think when he can't upload his latest paper because the suppliers don't find it convenient at that time. It just confirms my suspicions that the loons are the side-show. The real menaces are the sober bureaucrats who "help us" by telling us to "come and get it" when they are generating enough.
Macheath - for many believers I'm sure it is about making sacrifices. It's similar to old notions of pastoral utopia and more recent fictions such as the TV programme The Good Life. It's not an easy ideal to tackle because we do consume too much and waste too much.
We also consider the weather before putting on a wash, but we know people who don't, who simply shove wet washing into the tumble dryer every time, even in summer.
Sam - yes the real menaces are the sober bureaucrats and if one prof doesn't give them the orthodox answer they go to one who will. Happens in other fields too of course, such as pandemics.
For some reason government bureaucrats don't do uncertainty, maybe because there is an aspect of the legal mind in all government bureaucracies. Yet the malign consequences of Net Zero are not particularly uncertain. There will be adaptations, but the incompetence is becoming difficult to understand unless the malign aspect is malign intention. I suspect it is.
It (Net zero) isn't going to happen. Getting rid of it is going to be a long, drawn out and fractious process, but ultimately its going to be scrapped. What we are seeing is the first part of that process. Politicians are going to discover that they can only govern with the consent of the people, and one way or another that consent can be withdrawn. The political class have been used to doing their own thing for a long time, and ignoring public opinion on various issues (particularly foreign policy issues such as the EU), but NZ is not something they can hide from the public for much longer, if at all. While things like foreign policy can very much impact people's lives (the current cost of fuel is largely down to the foreign policy response to the Ukraine invasion for example) the costs are not obviously attributable to government policy, and aren't that easily quantifiable. NZ costs will be cash costs imposed on just about everyone, in a very open and clear way. And as such will involve the silent majority in politics in a way they haven't been for a very long time. The ULEZ camera vandalism campaign and LTN demonstrations are showing how this is going to pan out. We aren't going to see Mr and Mrs Average necessarily sawing down ULEZ cameras, but they will turn a blind eye to those who do. That is how the consent to NZ will be removed - the majority will tacitly support the minority who riot over it. Just as happened with the Poll Tax.
I don't see Sam's Professor's logic. There is no data that can show the world is getting hotter; no correlation between CO2 levels and atmospheric temperature (where measured) and mankind produces roughly 3.5% of the Earth's increase in CO2. The professor draws his salary at government pleasure, I presume.
Agree with Sobers, but in addition the cost of fuel has been driven up by the discouragement of further development of North Sea oil and the refusal to develop on shore oil fields and start a fracking program.
Sobers - I've been teetering on the edge of that view and you have persuaded me at least. It isn't going to happen because it can't, although when and how it will turn is unclear. You must be right about riots because they seem inevitable if Net Zero grinds on. The government must be expecting them at some point. I'm not sure what the trigger will be - an accumulation of frustrations presumably.
I often scan online comments against mainstream media articles and from what I see there is widespread distrust of our political class and a lack of belief in what they tell us. Still plenty of party loyalists and orthodox dimwits, but also people prepared to laugh at them.
Yet what we still need is a major upset in the next general election. Without that we still have problems.
Tammly - I agree, the prof is wrong but orthodox. Ironically, people with smart meters now know just how expensive an almost warm house has become and many must know where the blame lies.
When the Romans arrived the Britons were already mining and burning coal. So Net Zero is contrary to our oldest traditions.
Believing in Net Zero is as daft as believing in the Virgin Birth - but at least the VB story leads to a Christmas for the children to enjoy. Net Zero will result in the children freezing to death.
dearieme - apart from a few genuine loons I don't think anyone believes Net Zero will actually work. Daft doesn't seem to put enough people off though.
Post a Comment