Wrong question

The world’s first detailed route map to ending a nation’s use of fossil fuels is both “ambitious and affordable”, according to the UK government’s official advisers,

Entirely the wrong decision tree. The correct one is:

1) Should this be done?

2) Is this the best available way of doing this?

That we can afford to do it this way isn’t relevant at all, not until those first two have been answered.

BTW, the answer to 2 is no, whatever your opinion of 1.

25 thoughts on “Wrong question”

  1. Yeahbut, Tim, you’re thinking about this rationally and with goodwill. They aren’t.

    They’re doing it because they hate us and mean us harm. The problem, as Oliver Letwin so eloquently explained, is frightful oiks from places like Sheffield being able to afford flights. Or cars. Or privately owned homes.

    They mean to change all that.

  2. Suicide is painless.

    Spending other people’s money is always affordable.

    ‘half of the cars on the road being electric by 2030’

    Your electric supply is marginal now. You simply don’t have the ability to power them.

    ‘10,000 giant wind turbines in the North Sea.’

    A thousand a year for the next ten years. Uh-huh.

    ‘The Climate Change Committee’s analysis found that the future cost savings from no longer having to buy oil and gas almost offsets the £50bn-a-year investment needed’

    The money you save from not eating anymore will pay for your new clothes.

    ‘The CCC route map forecast people’s energy bills remaining level’

    10,000 giant wind turbines are free.

    ‘as cheap renewable energy expands’

    Proof beyond reasonable doubt that those in charge know nothing about which they pontificate.

    ‘Electric cars will also save drivers money’

    Cost of electrics vs ICE is not secret information. They lie about that which is easily checked, indeed, most know the truth already. Many have become interested in buying an electric, only to be SHOCKED by the cost.

    ‘but a phase-out of gas boilers will mean some households will require government help to install more expensive low-carbon heating systems’

    Yes, these will be FREE! They tax you, then use the money to buy something ‘for you,’ and claim it’s painless for you, as they, not you, pay for it.

    ‘meat eating, which is already falling, being reduced by just 20% by 2030’

    ‘Just’ 20%. Not a problem for you.

    ‘Changes in how people live “need not entail sacrifices”’

    You vill like die changes.

    Official. From the Climate Change Committee for Public Safety.

  3. No. The first question should be ‘Is there a problem?’ And so far, that’s far from been established. The mistake’s been accepting the problem hypothesis, in the first place. That’s allowed the interest groups to game the solution mechanisms to their own advantage.
    The correct response would have been ‘There is a problem? Then prove it beyond reasonable doubt & we’ll do something about it?”

  4. Johnson has to survive his upcoming Brexit betrayal, the virus fiasco AND economic ruin before this green shite can have a prayer.


    We will ALL need to be active against the state if we want to avoid serfdom. Blojob is a loser–but others will take up the evil and there are plenty of eco-Judas’s (Judaii?) with their would-be masters.

  5. Reading the actual report:-

    “By the early 2030s all new cars and vans and all boiler replacements in homes and other buildings are low-carbon – largely electric. ”

    Ain’t going to happen. No-one has a car the size of a Mondeo running on electric power. And people like me are going to wait until this technology is fully mature, all the infrastructure in place.

  6. “The correct response would have been ‘There is a problem? Then prove it beyond reasonable doubt & we’ll do something about it?””

    Then show us exactly how big it is, who it affects, where, how and why, then we can look at what is sensible to do to mitigate.

  7. Bloke in North Dorset


    That “largely electric” is doing a lot of heavy lifting and provides a nice get out clause when the time comes.

  8. “according to the UK government’s official advisers”
    Their names aren’t Whitty and Vallance by any chance?

  9. This Net Zero malarkey has become an end in itself with little or nothing to do with climate change.

    Our wonderful Parliament has passed laws and enabling acts that decree we shall be Net Zero by 2050 and by god we shall be. Even if it means we all starve to death in the freezing cold, we shall be Net Zero.

    The fact that this magnificent achievement will not change the climate one iota means nothing to those people pushing for this nonsense, (and many of these bastards know it will not affect the climate).

    On Jan 1st 2050, BoJo’s successor will be able to stand on the steps of 10 Downing and announce to the world that Britain is now carbon free, (apart from all that carbon we’ve covered up with fraudulent accounting), although the world won’t actually be able to hear xer since there’s a nice big anticyclone over europe, so none of our windmills are working and the power is out.

  10. Did they detail the electric infrastructure investment plan that is going to enable all this?

    The story now is, if you plug your £45,000 electric golf cart into your smart meter at home, it’ll magically upload leccy to the National Grid and we’ll all get rich doing each others’ washing. Or something.

    The Brits have never been that keen on revolution apart from Wat Tyler, Oliver Cromwell (pbuh), and the Jacobites (if we’re counting Heilanmen and left-footers). But my guess is that people might actually be miffed at brownouts, could escalate to being fed up or even brassed off.

    I predict a lion. I predict a lion.

  11. “‘10,000 giant wind turbines in the North Sea.’”

    That will save me the bother of days out at the coast birdwatching – there won’t fcuking well be any…

  12. If 420 ppm of CO2 is a present and current climate emergency, then getting to net zero will still be a climate emergency. Logic is not strong with the CCC.

  13. I notice in the TV reports I’ve seen on this that John Selwyn Gummer is noticeably absent and one of his underlings has been doing the interviews instead.

    I just skimmed the report, specifically looking at the electricity generation scenarios. The plan seems to be lots of wind & solar (in the UK…), with excess generation producing hydrogen to be stored & used when the wind drops. There’ll be some nuclear for base load.

    It also talks about ‘cheap electricity’, but the figures in Table 3.4b on page 144 give £60/MWh for gas in 2050 versus £110-200/MWh for what they call ‘dispatchable low-carbon power’. That doesn’t look very cheap to me! They do quote £25-40/MWh for ‘variable renewables’ however. Forgive me if I express significant doubt about that figure!

    They also want £50B/year to build it all. I think the Chancellor may have issues with that!

  14. “then getting to net zero will still be a climate emergency”

    It doesn’t add up . . . a 30 year response to an “emergency?”

  15. In passing
    The world’s first detailed route map to ending a nation’s use of fossil fuels is both “ambitious and affordable”, according to the UK government’s official advisers,
    No doubt it is. To politicians & others sucking on the public teat. But to rest of us have to pick up the bill?

  16. @Ga,ecock

    Why do you think they want us all to have smart meters?

    Variable tariffs

    Anyone homecharging their EVs can expect a personalised tariff as a customer courtesy

  17. Surely there is a real danger of the electric car push backfiring, with people paying bodgers to keep massively high-mileage diesel things going for longer, thus keeping 20 year old polluting cars on the road for much longer instead of replacing them with modern cleaner versions.

Leave a Reply

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