UK Public Accounts Committee rubbishes net zero plans

Posted: March 2, 2022 by oldbrew in Critique, Emissions, government, net zero, Politics
Tags: ,


Their report summary is nothing if not blunt. They have the impression that the whole thing is a fantastic mess, but like most UK politicians don’t question whether the obsession with so-called ‘greenhouse gas emissions’ and the demonising of carbon dioxide is justified in the first place. A few extracts…
– – –
The government has unveiled a plan without answers to the key questions of how it will fund the transition to net zero, including how it will deliver policy on and replace income from taxes such as fuel duty, or even a general direction of travel on levies and taxation.

The Government has no reliable estimate of what the process of implementing the net zero policy is actually likely to cost British consumers, households, businesses and government itself.

The HM Treasury witnesses we questioned were reluctant to be drawn on what the future costs of achieving net zero would be, cautioning that while the Climate Change Committee has provided estimates, they contain ‘heroic assumptions’ with errors potentially compounding over very long periods.
. . .
Certainty for business and consumers is critical but as highlighted repeatedly in this Committee’s recent reports into Achieving Net Zero (HC935), Environmental tax measures (HC 937), Low emission cars (HC 186), and the Green Homes Grant Voucher Scheme (HC 635), government has too often pursued stop-start strategies which undermine confidence for business, investors and consumers in committing to measures which would reduce carbon emissions, especially when some green alternatives are still significantly more expensive than current options.
. . .
A top-down strategy from government won’t deliver on its own. There is a risk that a series of disconnected initiatives announced by central government will not bring about the changes that are set out in law.
. . .
In addition, Government rightly recognises it has much more work to do to understand the emissions impact of international supply chains, including the risk of domestic emissions being only window dressing if these are merely shifting emissions offshore to other countries.

Full report here.
– – –
Net Zero Watch — Government abandons official Net Zero cost estimate

Comments
  1. […] UK Public Accounts Committee rubbishes net zero plans […]

  2. ilma630 says:

    “The government has unveiled a plan without answers”, yet it still hasn’t answered the core question “Why?”. It has never provided any credible rationale or evidence why we *must* go net-zero.

  3. tallbloke says:

    “Currently, the Government does not report spending on net zero separately from other projects, considering it too “challenging”, according to the report.

    Net zero plans also “place huge reliance on a massive expansion of electricity supply and distribution capacity for which there is no clear national plan or cost estimate”.

    Last week, The Telegraph revealed that electricity networks were billing customers for green upgrades that never happened because they had overestimated the number of heat pumps and chargers that would be bought.

    Dame Meg Hillier, the chairman of the committee, said that failed green policies had resulted in a “shameful waste of taxpayers’ money” and a loss of “consumer confidence” in the past.

    She said: “You can’t just tell people they’ve got to change their behaviour without helping them along the way. It’s cost and convenience for consumers. There will be people who want to be green at any cost. There will be people who want to be green ideally, but might struggle to afford these things.

    “You’ve got to make it easier, natural and normal for people to take green options – and for example, understanding that not everyone lives in a home where you can have an electric charging point outside in your front garden.

    “Government has got to play a role in helping to shape the market, shape the infrastructure and make it easy for people to make the right choice because even people who want to make the right choice might find there are barriers that stop them doing that.”

    A spokesman for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said: “Gas prices are at record highs, so we need to move away from expensive gas. The more clean, cheap and secure power we generate at home – like renewables and nuclear – the less exposed we will be to expensive gas prices set by international markets.”

  4. Stephen Richards says:

    All of that would require a level of knowledge and intelligence not normally associated with MPs

  5. oldbrew says:

    ‘clean, cheap and secure power we generate at home – like renewables and nuclear’

    Even with today’s gas prices, who would rather pay the bill for renewables and nuclear than the bill for gas fired power stations? What about the massive costs of their waste problems?

    Gas is ready to go, under our feet now.
    – – –
    Note: The Public Accounts Committee is a committee of MPs, named in the report.

  6. oldbrew says:

    PAC: Government is relying heavily on rapidly changing consumer behaviours together with technological innovations driving down the costs of green options

    Aka wishing and hoping.

    PAC: Climate change is a global challenge which requires a global solution.

    Which means nothing. They are just part of the brainwashed body politic.

    Remind us what the ‘global challenge’ about climate was supposed to be…

    Nothing happening? Feb. 22 = net zero change from 1991 on. The big El Ninos have dried up, for now at least.

  7. Phoenix44 says:

    Oldbrew, once again that chart clearly shows that temperatures have risen in two steps with El Ninos, each raising the temperature by 0.2-0.3 degrees. Its difficult to believe that climate scientists looking at it see a continuous increase caused by CO2. What I find more plausible is that “warming” events such as El Ninos cause heat to be released to the atmosphere higher CO2 levels retain that heat for longer.

  8. Phoenix44 says:

    As ever government simply fails to understand the intricacy and complexity of what they are trying to do and the complete impossibility of centrally planning a transition of this kind. Having a handful of mediocraties at the CCC producing simplistic reports and misleading Tweets is not a plan, no matter what its idiot CEO believes he’s doing. There are hundreds of ways they can fail totally and thousands of ways they can fail incrementally. Just assuming we will all spend time and money on this is laughable. Only some of those with plenty of both will do so. The government has simply dug lots of big holes and will probably fall in to every single one.

  9. oldbrew says:

    Warmer oceans outgas more CO2 and/or absorb less CO2, whether warmists like it or not. Net result: atmospheric CO2 increases. To then claim CO2 makes oceans warmer is perverse.

  10. ilma630 says:

    Yet what is the physical mechanism for that ‘extra’ CO2 to “retain that heat for longer.”? If CO2 does ‘slow’ the transfer of (surface emitted) IR (to space), what time delay is added. My understanding is it’s microseconds. If there is any atmospheric heat retention, isn’t that latent heat in water vapour, not CO2?

  11. oldbrew says:

    In a well-mixed atmosphere full of molecules it seems doubtful that any of the radiative ones gets to decide which other molecule(s), or what type, its incoming longwave energy is instantaneously redirected towards.

  12. stpaulchuck says:

    once again, the all holy Church of the Satanic Gases is thrilling the audience with tales of terror if you do not believe and obey…. by opening your wallet (even further).

    Here’s where a really honest media would have been asking the most important question of all: how much will it cost and what will it save? Nowhere (except in places like this) are any of them asking for the null hypothesis, relying solely on CO2 and the magical greenhouse (that does not exist).

    The biggest enemy of people around the planet are the bought and paid for media.

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 )

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