On this zerocarbon Britain thing

OK, so, first we assume the can opener:

There is huge potential to decrease energy
demand without decreasing the services that
are provided. In zerocarbonbritain2030, energy
demand is decreased by over 50%.

It\’s the only way to make the numbers work of course. In decreasing demand from housing:

Decrease area requiring heat,

Quite how making us all live in rabbit hutches is not decreasing the services are provided isn\’t said.

Decrease the thermostat/air temperature

Similarly, reducing the temperature at which we live not being reducing the services offered by heating the places in which we live isn\’t discussed.

On cars and transport:

Improvements in battery technology are
expected in the future, and concerns about
supply limits on raw materials are unfounded.

Isn\’t that delightful? They\’re entirely willing to use the \”technology will save us\” argument when it suits them: plus wave away any problems over resource availability. If you\’ll allowe me those two let outs I can prove (as Julian Simon did) that we can have an ever rising number of people living ever richer lives for the next 7 billion years.

We use some lignocellulosic
biofuels in the zerocarbonbritain2030 scenario
to power the sectors for which there is
currently no alternative to liquid hydrocarbon
fuels: aviation, shipping, some heavy goods
vehicles and some farm machinery. 1.67
million hectares of land in Great Britain is
devoted to producing the feedstock. We
assume a corresponding reduction in meat
consumption, so that there will be no net
increase in land use.

That\’s, what, 7, 8 % of total land area? Around and about the total land area currently devoted to buildings actually. Most green, don\’t you think?

In the zerocarbonbritain2030 scenario an
absolute reduction in transit is required.
Passenger kilometres travelled domestically
decrease by 20%, spread evenly across all
modes. Domestic aviation is eliminated and
international aviation decreases by two thirds
due to limits on biofuel supply. Some shorthaul
flights can be replaced with trains and
ships but an absolute reduction in transit is
also likely to be required.

Umm, this is a decrease in services provided, isn\’t it?

In the zerocarbonbritain2030 scenario
abundant food for the population is produced
but livestock products are reduced to 20-30%
of their present quantity. Cow and sheep
stocks in particular are much reduced.The
levels of egg, poultry and pig-meat production
are only a little lower than today…

We\’re not going to reduce the services on offer but at least 80% cuts in cows and sheep. Beef, mutton, wool, lamb and leather are more of those services we\’ll not be cutting then, eh?

Plus, of course, we\’ve just fucked organic farming right over as there\’s no shit to keep it going.

Good one really.

Something like 60% of electricity comes from wind. Umm, haven\’t they realised that the wind doesn\’t blow all the time? No, not even over an area as large as gthe UK and offshore areas?

Ooooh, this is a good one! Cement production is going to decline to 10% of current levels. Yes, this is to be done at the same time as we need lots and lots and lots of cement to anchor all those windmills. Good one that….

So, just to sum up: we\’re all to live in colder, smaller, houses, eat no meat and travel less. But there will be no reduction in the services on offer. And to get from here to there we\’re assuming both technology as yet undeveloped and no shortage of resources.

As I said earlier, the New Economics Foundation is involved so of course it was bound to be bollocks.

9 thoughts on “On this zerocarbon Britain thing”

  1. People often tell the Left that 1984 was a warning not a manual.

    I’m wondering if some on the Left thought Threads showed us something to which we can all aspire.

  2. “Plus, of course, we’ve just fucked organic farming right over as there’s no shit to keep it going.”

    Not a problem. There’ll be an inexhaustible supply of bullshit as long as the NEF exists.

  3. My proposals:
    (a) go 100% nuclear, massive emissions saving, no depletion in power.
    (b) go 150% nuclear, move over to electric ground transport, even more emissions saving.
    (c) go 200% nuclear, make everyone interconnected in a huge communications network, no-one needs to travel to work or the shops anymore, all produce delivery is done in bulk rather than by individual shoppers, another huge emissions saving.
    Of course, if you’ve already decided that nuclear is a non-starter …

  4. Thats what comes from a report written by many authors with no joined up thinking.

    One of the best ways to cut down on energy use is to insulate insulate insulate. Go the way of PassivHaus. Then you will only need a small amount of energy for lighting and heating water.

    What this doesn’t do is solve the problem for the existing housing stock of which 99% is inefficient.

    How about this for a bit of lateral thinking to cut down on transport. Rather than have everyone buy houses and then commute long distances, more should be done to increase rentals. This way people would have less to fix them to one spot and they can move closer to their work. Just like everyone did in the 1800s.

  5. “One of the best ways to cut down on energy use is to insulate insulate insulate.”

    That’s assuming the energy cost of making, transporting and installing the insulation is less than the energy saving over the lifetime of the insulation, figure in the gross inefficiency of government, and I bet this will actually be an energy increase, just like local recycling schemes are.

  6. Only softies use central heating in our climate. Softies and people living above 500 foot, perhaps.

  7. I had a fucking huge steak for dinner, just to stick two fingers up at these puritanical twats. 12 oz, aged New York Strip, well-seasoned with a lot of salt and loads of black pepper. Brought it nicely up to room temperature and let it sit there for 3 hours to get ripe. I didn’t even ‘offset’ it with anything healthy: it was caramelised onions and pan-fried Crimini mushrooms to go with it. Drank beer, too, and yeast farts are the Devil’s gas, carbon dioxide. Christ almighty, it was outrageously good.


    The only reason I’m eating baked chicken and steamed broccoli tomorrow night is so I can live long enough to piss on George Monbiot’s grave.

  8. Mr Newman,

    Now that’s what I call a paradigm shift! I always thought post-apocalyptic survival fantasies were the preserve of the wingnut fringes, not the mainstream moonbats.

    Still given the logical consequences of what the greenies are demanding maybe you are right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *