Jump to content

The Costly Illusion of UK Net Zero: A Dangerous Fantasy


Recommended Posts

Posted

image.png

 

Rishi Sunak has now publicly stated that Britain should abandon its legal commitment to achieving Net Zero, a stance that, ironically, he could have taken while in office. His realization has come late, but at least he has finally recognized what was obvious all along—Britain simply cannot afford it.  

 

Net Zero was never a wise idea to begin with. Now, however, it has become an outright dangerous one. Even before the government’s desperate search for additional funds to bolster defense spending, the financial burden of Net Zero was staggering.

 

The true cost has never been clear, and even today, no one can accurately predict the final bill. Back in 2019, then-Chancellor Philip Hammond estimated that reaching Net Zero by 2050 would cost Britain over a trillion pounds—a figure dismissed at the time but never seriously disproven. With the economy stagnating and energy prices continuing to climb, this legally binding commitment, hastily passed by Theresa May in the waning moments of her leadership, has the potential to inflict severe economic harm.  

 

And for what gain? Even if Britain were to miraculously achieve Net Zero overnight, the effect on global temperatures would be negligible. The UK is responsible for less than 1% of the world’s annual greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, major polluters such as China, the US, India, and Russia continue to produce emissions at a scale that dwarfs anything Britain could cut.

 

Unless these nations also commit to drastic reductions, Britain's economic self-sacrifice will achieve little beyond national impoverishment. Climate change will continue its course, but the British people will be left struggling to afford even the simplest pleasures of life.  

 

The new Labour government, despite inheriting what they have called a “£22 billion black hole” from the Conservatives, appears determined to dig even deeper. Their £18 billion payout to Mauritius over the Chagos Islands and Ed Miliband’s radical green policies threaten to dismantle industries, scar the countryside, and leave homes freezing. If this continues, the economic consequences will be devastating.  

 

However, there may be a glimmer of hope. Reports suggest Miliband could be removed in an upcoming reshuffle, with the government potentially reconsidering some of his more excessive policies. Even so, the financial burden of Net Zero may still cost Britain hundreds of billions. Sunak’s late realization is a step in the right direction, but unless the government acts decisively, the country may be trapped in a costly and futile pursuit that it simply cannot afford.

 

Based on a report by The Telegraph  2025-03-07

 

news-logo-btm.jpg

 

image.png

  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes after ruining Brexit she tried to ruin the long term energy outlook of the UK.

 

The Tories made a lot of mistakes, but the far the biggest was allowing Labour into power. Ed Miliband's obsession with net zero is incredibly dangerous for all but the very wealthy.  

 

 

 

So May ruined Brexit? So, usual question(s), Jonny, which I expect you will avoid answering once again.

 

What does this utopian Brexit look like, and how should/ could it (have) be(en) achieved?

  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, simon43 said:

Speaking with my scientist hat on, a net-zero policy is a commendable idea.  But the target period to achieve net-zero should be set to something rather more realistic, such as 100 or 200 years.....

 

Technology is simply not ready to achieve net-zero in one or two decades.  Battery storage technology for wind and solar is way-behind in development of suitable renewable energy storage when there's no sun and no wind.

 

Right now, we are 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.  Not using our cheap fossil fuel supplies for Drax is ludicrous, when we are importing biomass fuel from Canada and the associated huge carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation.

 

'Learn to walk before you try to run Milliband...'

And yet the technology is improving rapidly.

 

And of course wind energy is only one part of the Renewables available to the UK.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet the technology is improving rapidly.

 

And of course wind energy is only one part of the Renewables available to the UK.

 

Yes. there are other renewables, such as ocean wave kinetic energy, which is still somewhat in its infancy - technology-wise.  But it all seems to come back to the problem of efficient energy storage during outage time from solar, wind, wave etc. 

 

It's getting there, but trying to achieve net-zero on Milliband's timescales is crazy!

  • Agree 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

So yet another non-answer. 'In Nigel, we trust'.

 

Let's face it, (almost?) all you 'hard' Brexiters don't have the foggiest idea what you want and even if you did, you wouldn't have a clue about how to achieve it.

I believe a trade deal with the U.S. on very easy terms was on the wish list.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet the technology is improving rapidly.

 

And of course wind energy is only one part of the Renewables available to the UK.

 

And along with solar are useless without wind and sun.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...