The usual parties try to outdo each other in net zero hyperbole, despite very limited climate knowledge and no means of doing anything of significance about any supposed problems. Meanwhile the public wonders how much their bills will be increased to pay for it all, what heating, cooking and travel options will be withdrawn and when, and what the state of the electricity supply will be as ever more intermittent sources take over from predictable on-demand ones, raising the chances of power cuts.
– – –
With the election just one week away, Labour’s pledge to “make Britain a clean energy superpower” has sparked a debate on whether or not their net zero scheme is actually achievable, says City AM.
Sir Keir Starmer revealed that Labour’s transition team is considering setting up an office for Net Zero, should they win the election, in order to reach their target of decarbonising the electricity grid by 2030, five years before the Conservatives.
The party plans to allocate £28bn each year towards climate initiatives, citing economic limitations and emphasising the importance of fiscal responsibility. [Talkshop comment – that figure was scrapped in February according to the BBC].
But the costly ambition of this net zero roadmap has triggered discussions within the party about finding a balance between environmental goals and financial caution.
This 2030 deadline will be achieved with the creation of Great British energy, a publicly-owned clean power company aimed at strengthening energy security and cutting bills, which will be funded by increasing the windfall tax on oil and gas companies, and then preventing them from lowering their windfall tax bill.
Labour’s net zero secretary, Ed Miliband, believes that the 2030 target is attainable and an essential step towards a green economy.
However, the policy does not appear to be convincing everyone.
Javier Cavada, the European boss of Mitsubishi Power, argues that the party’s plan has little chance of success and said that the focus should be on creating “a path that is realistic, affordable and achievable”.
Despite Labour declaring that its schemes will ultimately decrease the price of energy bills, Cavada is not entirely convinced that less than six years will be enough time to achieve this. He fears that the project will also be extremely expensive and questions whether the whole country and its industries will be able to invest in it.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe, CEO of INEOS, also voiced his concern for Labour’s “absurd” manifesto, claiming that their policy will only lead to the UK importing their energy from overseas.
Electricity demand is expected to rise from currently around 300 terawatt hours per year to about 360 terawatt hours by 2030, and Ratcliffe said that the 2030 goal will increase the risks of energy crises and electricity shortages as it will coincide with the expected closure of most of the UK’s remaining nuclear power stations.
The GMB Union has said that the net zero plans will lead to “power cuts and blackouts”, tarnishing the reputation of the party and it is insisting that Labour reconsider their manifesto.
Full article here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
“a clean energy superpower” is an “oxymoron”, when it is not nuclear paired with fossil fuels, where needed.
Green Energy use is just shifting the actual “necessary useful emissions” to countries that must burn more and more coal and oil and natural gas, to mine, process, manufacture, and ship the “so called, intermittent, wind, solar and batteries.
CO2 has been proven necessary for life on the earth, with more CO2 promoting better growth of Green Things That Grow and promoting More Efficient Use of Water.
Harm from more CO2 has never been measured or proven. Every Climate Change is inside the bounds of past natural Climate Changes.
When they say unprecedented change, much is lies and only goes back a couple hundred years into the Little Ice Age, of course we have warmed out of the Little Ice Age, and that has been Very Good Changes!
At least Reform isn’t on the net zero killjoy list of parties.
Re net zero. sounds like the Labor (ALP their spelling) party in Oz before the election. The way things are moving they could be tossed out at the next election (2025). In UK you are unfortunate having elections only every 5 years. In Oz it is every 3 years and sometimes as now that is too long. UK should like some of the Swiss political system in which there are Citizen Initiated Referenda and recall. Recalling idiots like May, Boris Johnson and the present Sunak may have helped UK go in the right direction. A referendum on the stupid energy Act would have helped. The vote on Brexit was right but politicians should have jumped immediately to have free trade agreements with Commonwealth countries (Australia, Canada, India, NZ, Singapore, South Africa Etc) who they dumped when going into the Common Market and started going economically down hill. Was not UK offered a deal with USA (if Trump gets back in that maybe possible gain)
The labour party and Milliband in particular are either just lying or have no idea of the actual challenge that Net Zero in 5 years entails.
The amount of Steel, Copper, Rare Earth Elements and Silica to manufacture the Wind Turbines and Solar panels in the quantities required is impossible. Especially with the current state of the industry.
There are not enough specialist workers to manufacture and install it all.
The amount of money required is far higher than their budget and will bankcrupt the country.
They living in La La land.
Labour’s North Sea oil and gas policy under attack from industry and activists
The UK’s biggest union and a financial supporter of Labour on Thursday staged a protest and published an open letter, urging a rethink on the oil and gas exploration ban, signed by nearly 200 local firms from Scottish towns dependent on the oil and gas industry.
By Ian King, Business presenter – Thursday 27 June 2024
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/labours-north-sea-oil-and-gas-policy-under-attack-from-industry-and-activists-13159925
‘living in La La land’ – that’s the power of magical thinking.
As a British oil boss points out: “imports have higher production and transportation carbon emissions by the time they get to our shores”, which undermines Labour’s climate-obsessed position. Plus UK jobs are trashed for no benefit.
every year the hyperbole and outright BS spewed about by politicians and wannabes is sometimes overpowering of the senses. This year is not different.
I’ve got more important things to watch: reruns of ‘Are You Being Served’ and ‘Black Adder’ for instance. I’ve got to stock up on ‘The Benny Hill Show’ to fatten out the library.
It’s a pity that the only party that will scrap net zero, is the plaything of an incompetent narcissistic.
You mean this “incompetent narcissist”, Adam?
Nigel Farage, who, apart from single handedly taking and soundly defeating on the EU and the British Establishment and extracting us from the Eurofascist kleptocracy, thereby establishing himself as the most successful, influential politician of his generation…
Tell us, what have you accomplished?
Agree Cat (like with most of your comments). UK could have advanced quickly if the government leaders (and the public service) had carried out the wishes of the public that voted for Brexit (stopping immigration was a major wish another was to lower the cost of living which was being reduced by the stupid demonising of CO2). PM May wanted to give the EU all the power to decide. Boris was no better. He thought more about the thing between his legs and the “green” person who satisfied him. With Brexit UK could have turned to Commonwealth countries, to China, Japan and South Korea (as did Australia when UK entered the common market) and even USA. There was data that showed economically EU needed UK more than UK needed the EU (particularly Germany and France) UK did not have to abide with EU laws. UK should have put their “thumb up to the EU” and said we will trade with you on our terms (as is the case for Norway, Iceland or Switzerland)