Skip to content

It’s amazing how badly wrong officialdom gets this

Topping said his experiences with businesses had shown him that governments could move much faster, without harming their countries’ competitiveness or alarming the business community.

“Governments could be way bolder in setting targets, and back their scientists, engineers, businesses, banks, cities to come up with solutions,” he said. “The moonshot analogy is not inappropriate.”

The British government asked for a report on the subject. They got 1200 pages of the Stern Review.

A crucial part of which said “Don’t set targets!”. Instead, change prices and leave the outcome to be what it should be as a result of those properly changed prices.

So, what has British officialdom been doing since? Setting targets.

Ignorant tosspots.

7 thoughts on “It’s amazing how badly wrong officialdom gets this”

  1. The world could reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions in the early 2040s, substantially ahead of the mid-century climate target, if governments set more stretching goals and make bold policy decisions, the UK’s outgoing climate business expert has said

    It’s probably just a coincidence that this is exactly what a sociopath would say.

    In his role, he forged alliances among businesses to lead a “race to zero”, by which companies set targets to reach net zero emissions and laid out the measures they would take to achieve them. More than 8,300 businesses around the world are now members of the UN’s Race to Zero initiative, alongside more than 3,000 other organisations including cities and local governments.

    It’s a literal race to the bottom.

    The experience of the Covid-19 pandemic had shown what governments could do when they tried, he added.

    Warned ye, didn’t I?

    However, he said some sectors were continuing to stand in the way of progress. Oil, gas and coal companies made bumper profits in the past year on the back of record fossil fuel prices which were sent soaring by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    Gaiaspiv sounds remarkably like a Communist, but remember folks: he was appointed by the Conservative (sic) government.

    This bonanza was built on false assumptions, however, said Topping. “The US oil companies are living in a fantasy land,” he said. “There’s still some quite big heads in the sand. But they will die. They cannot survive. Their Kodak moment is nigh.”

    Gaiaspiv says unicorn farts and blackouts are good enough for the likes of you.

    “China is quite happy for the west to label it as a coal problem while it develops a global competitive leadership in [clean] sector after sector. And India is on the same track now. But you show me how many times western commentators point at India or China as competitors rather than polluters,” he said. “I think it’s a huge strategic mistake to underestimate how clearly [countries such as China and India] see this as the future.”


  2. And we have the NHS to show us just how good Government is – boldly setting targets, coming up with solutions.

    Government made critical serial ‘errors’ with respect to SARS CoV 2, have chronically failed to challenge the so-called science of climate change, failed to grasp that physics governs electricity production and generation, and confines itself to a handful of paid, loyal experts who produce pseudo science out of a hat to support policy, and refuse to take wider counsel from other scientists, actively working to have them silenced whilst ignoring and discrediting them.

    As far as CoVid is concerned this has led to a ruined economy, 2 000 excess deaths a month many from ‘sudden’ or ‘mystery’, criminal refusal to acknowledge the danger of the mRNA vaccines whilst promoting them for use on infants and children.

    There is no change in the Earth’s climate system beyond natural variation outside Man’s control.

  3. The second someone says moonshot I stop reading. That was an an engineering problem, the basic physical principles of which were well understood. Not an appropriate analogy to ‘please invent new stuff that we currently have no idea about’.

    The Manhattan Project, which needed a lot more basic research, is possibly more appropriate. But even that was rooted in ‘we have a reasonable idea this is possible’.

    Problem is that no one on the ‘we must do something’ side is willing to accept that if there is nothing revolutionary that can be done, then despite externality charging nothing (except on the margins) will noticeably happen. The rational, most efficient all round outcome is not what they want. It will be deemed a failure.

  4. “The Manhattan Project, which needed a lot more basic research,”
    For the plutonium bomb, yes.

    The uranium bomb was fully designed in Britain’s Tube Alloys project, before the US joined in.
    All that remained was building an enrichment plant big enough (and not having it bombed), and the engineering/supplies challenges involved. And then, the only place the US could get sufficiently small grain size pure nickel powder for the diffusion membranes was….Britain!

    But I agree with the point: the Apollo project was metal bashing and spending, all the science dates back to a Russian circa 1900. (And all the serious metal basing was ex-German…ahem)
    Net Zero however, requires a whole new Physics Cap’n.

  5. Not only that, but the moonshot was a stupid vanity product.

    No-one was better off after it in any sense except pride. It brought no benefits that a ICBM or satellite rocket project would not have bought for a tenth the money.

    It also went literally nowhere. We have all but abandoned manned space flight.

  6. Of course, Chester, the same could have been said about the Portuguese project to sail around Africa. But they went ahead and did it.

    Then again, you could point out that Antarctica is far better suited to human life than the moon, and that Africa even in the middle of the Sahara is a literal paradise by comparison.

Leave a Reply

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