Cost of ‘net zero’ will be astronomical, new reports warn

Posted: March 11, 2020 by oldbrew in climate, Critique, Emissions, Energy, government
Tags: , ,


It could cost over £100,000 per household, leading to zero measureable effect on the climate. Going down this rabbit hole looks like a diabolically bad idea, but it’s official UK government policy regardless of expense.
– – –
The cost of reaching the government’s “Net Zero” target will be astronomical for the UK economy.

That’s according to analysis by two new reports published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The reports find that decarbonising the electricity system and domestic housing in the next three decades will cost over £2.3 trillion pounds.

The final bill will surpass £3 trillion, or £100,000 per household, once the cost of decarbonising major emitting sectors like manufacturing, transport and agriculture are included.

This is the equivalent of a £100 billion HS2 project every single year.

According to the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) the costs for Net Zero in 2050 are ‘manageable’: “…we estimate an increased annual resource cost to the UK economy from reaching a net-zero [greenhouse gas] target that will rise to around 1–2% of GDP by 2050.”

Yet, the CCC has resisted attempts to have its calculations disclosed under FOI legislation. Even more remarkably, it has admitted that it has not actually calculated a cost for the period 2020–2049.

The decision by Parliament to undertake the complete decarbonisation of the UK economy is thus uncosted.

According to GWPF director Benny Peiser, the two new studies represent the first meaningful attempts to pin down the cost of net zero:

“Although the Committee on Climate Change claims that net zero can be achieved at modest cost, they have now quietly admitted that they have not actually prepared any detailed costing. Unfortunately, Parliament seems to have taken them at their word, and we are now embarked on a project that risks to bankrupt the country.”

Note for editors:
GWPF has today released a series of papers on the cost of Net Zero. Details here.
– – –
Petition: Hold a referendum to scrap the UK’s policy of Net Zero CO2 by 2050

At 10,000 signatures, government will respond to this petition
At 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament

Comments
  1. Phoenix44 says:

    No, its not the equivalent of HS2. If we simply did that, at least we would have some new rail routes and additional capacity some of it going faster. That might not be worth the money, but it wouldn’t all be wasted.

    This money will be entirely wasted. Worse, at least some will make our lives worse – more expensive, less efficient, less comfortable, fewer choices and opportunities.

    What has to be tested is whether this is worth the it – what is the cost of not doing this? We know the answer to that question, and the cost is much lower than this cost.

    How we moved from the flawed but correct methodology of Stern to this utter madness with no methodology is a question nobody seems to be able to answer. Stern was the policy. Suddenly its not.

    Maybe there’s some sort of judicial review of Net Zero possible, based on the total lack of costings?

  2. Fortunately the EU has decided to sign up to this policy too and they intend to take the lead. Good, once they get involved we need to persuade our government that policy cannot be enacted without a proper costing exercise which will prove that it is an impossible task for a modern society to implement.

  3. oldbrew says:

    ‘UK can’t reach net zero unless it plants a forest twice the size of Birmingham every year’

    Climate neutrality by 2050 is unlikely for the UK without also ‘drastically reducing air travel and halving meat consumption’, according to a new report.

    https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/03/11/uk-cant-reach-net-zero-unless-it-plants-a-forest-twice-the-size-of-birmingham-every-year/
    – – –
    More fantasy then.

  4. chaswarnertoo says:

    Time for Carrie, and Boris, to learn some physics and engineering.

  5. oldbrew says:

    29 BULLET POINTS PROVING THE SUN CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING, NOT CO2: BY A GEOLOGIST, FOR A CHANGE (DR ROGER HIGGS)
    MARCH 11, 2020

    28) By blaming global warming on atmospheric CO2, the IPCC implies that ongoing warming of the ocean (e.g. Cheng et al. 2020) occurs via the atmosphere. But this is backwards. In reality the sun warms the ocean, which in turn warms the air. Humlum et el. (2013) showed that small changes in sea-surface temperature precede corresponding changes in air temperature by 2 months, and precede changes in CO2’s growth rate by 12 months (because warming ocean releases CO2; Bullet 9). Thus Bullet 28 alone destroys IPCC’s argument that global warming is by CO2.
    . . .
    Inescapable conclusion: the IPCC is wrong − the sun, not CO2, drove modern global warming.

    By DR ROGER HIGGS (http://www.geoclastica.com + https://www.researchgate.net)

    https://electroverse.net/29-bullet-points-proving-the-sun-causes-global-warming-not-co2/

  6. Stuart Brown says:

    Sign the petition folks! Over 3000 signatures already – the govt has to respond at 10000

  7. Bob Lyman says:

    While I have not yet seen an adequate definition of what “net zero” carbon means, it is a reasonable presumption that it means very close to zero emissions from (and therefore use of” oil, natural gas and coal) That would only be possible if there were viable substitutes for oil and natural gas in adequate quantities to meet society’s needs. There are not, and there is no reason to expect that there will be in the next 30 years. Electric cars are feasible but much more expensive than internal combustion engines, and the electricity needed to power them will certainly not be reliably available from wind and solar energy. There is no way to power large trucks, large marine vessels or aircraft by electrical energy, because the battery technology is not available, and it would cost too much if it were. So, estimates of costs like these are bound to be under-estimates.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Rocking along to near 4000 now.

  9. stpaulchuck says:

    Net Zero is a fool’s errand to combat a non-existent boogeyman in the form of the Satanic Gases. The whole ‘greenhouse’ idiocy is a total misdirection. It’s been pointed out right from the git-go that if there were a GHE then there’d be a mid tropospheric hotspot on the ‘ceiling’. There never has been one, and of course there never will be.

    The whole AGW scam is nothing but a load of bull droppings.

    My Brit cousins are right on about getting a cost analysis. And don’t forget the OPPORTUNITY COST numbers! They always leave that out because it pretty much obviates just about every political recommendation to do anything they come up with. The classic line over here is, “Well, if it saves just one life…,” ignoring that usually the opportunity cost is dozens or even hundreds of lives.

    Oh yeah, NO STATIC SCORING. That’s another nasty trick they pull over here. The sheeple here have no idea what that is but it causes all sorts of issues when their wet dream goes into use because people DO change behavior when costs and prices change. Econ101. Duh.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Uk gov. has given the batty greenies a big stick to beat it with…

    UK Budget Endangers Net-Zero Climate Target, Greens Complain
    Date: 12/03/20 The Independent

    Academics and green groups slate ‘truly awful’ Budget that sees chancellor ‘threatening attainment of UK’s net-zero target’

    “Cheap fuel prices have encouraged people to purchase gas-guzzling SUVs, which now account for one quarter of new car sales. Carbon emissions from transport are rising, and cars now emit more CO2 than power stations. These trends are not sustainable.”

    https://www.thegwpf.com/uk-budget-endangers-net-zero-climate-target-greens-complain/

    Expect more of the same carbophobia ad nauseam.

  11. Gamecock says:

    ‘It could cost over £100,000 per household’

    ‘will cost over £2.3 trillion pounds’

    NFW. Not a chance. Cos you won’t have the money. It can’t cost what you won’t have; you can’t spend money you won’t have.

    Zero GDP 2050

  12. gallopingcamel says:

    Just signed Tallbloke’s petition. Approaching 5,000 already!

    I thought Boris would be against “Stupid Government” but my optimism seems to be misplaced.

  13. oldbrew says:

    Gamecock: you can’t spend money you won’t have — unless you borrow it.

  14. Gamecock says:

    You have to have someone who will lend it to you.

    You could print your own, but hyperinflation won’t get you anywhere, either.

  15. oldbrew says:

    Net zero isn’t just wrong, it’s scandalous.

    Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo rips NASA & NOAA’s ‘religiously’ proclaimed ‘warmest year on record’
    March 12, 2020

    Current climate policies – based on these unreliable temperature records – threaten our economic and national security interests.
    https://www.climatedepot.com/2020/03/12/meteorologist-joe-daleo-rips-nasa-noaas-religiously-proclaimed-warmest-year-on-record/

  16. Patrick Healy says:

    Galloping Camel, he is known as Boris Corbyn to many of us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s