I enjoyed much about this article, though note exception below.
It does illustrate the extraordinarily convoluted policy considerations and incentives/disincentives needed to achieve the desired end of lower CO2 emissions. Just what we all need. At the moment, NZ is just making us poorer, and fast.
My real exception is a scientific one, and I wouldn't be a scientist if I wasn't a sceptic: I don't accept 'CO2 control nob theory', nor the model predictions used to send us into the NZ doom-loop. Zilch predictive power. Settled science is a contradiction in terms - there's no such thing. Real science is conjecture and refutation, and there are plenty of reasons to be circumspect, at least, about atmospheric CO2 concentrations inching up from an all-time low.
Given our historical and geopolitical situation, we have one really pressing need: very cheap energy in abundance.
"Past budgets have focused on the relatively straightforward task of decarbonising our grid. Switching from a grid powered mostly by fossil fuels to one powered by zero carbon renewables (with batteries and some nuclear) is a gargantuan task, but it isn’t one that requires the public to radically change their lifestyle."
I think it is evident that statement is wrong, by a large margin.
We cannot run a grid without fossil fuels until it is entirely nuclear, and that too, has it's limitations as it tends not to be flexible enough for the grid.
Renewables will never replace fossil fuel genertaion and this will be evident in the next couple of yeras as Mr Milliband tries to prove otherwise.
Also look at Germany who are equally as deluded.
Don't you think that a severe rise in price doesn't radically affect lifestyle, especially as the price of electrcity negatively affects commmerce and industry so employees will not see a rise, in real terms, of salary and many alreday have seen their industry close.
Likewise the farming community is being attacked and restricted in the name of CO2 nonsense.
My point of view is that both the Climate Change act should be repealed and the climate Change Committee be disbanded as they do not understand technicalities or practicalities and worse believe the agenda that the U.N. is forcing on governments.
That agenda, and it is working, is to de industrialise the west using the trojan horse of CO2.
That is not my opinion but statements from officers of the U.N. Framework for Climate Change.
There is more and more scientific opponents to the idea that the IPCC political section claim that CO2 is the control knob. That statement is fatuous. Even their scientific working parties disagree with the IPCC 'Guidance for policymakers', i.e. soverign governments, and the working parties themselves disagree on some matters. This is how science is.
Basics, the earth is kept warm by the sun and that heat is how we survive. Some of that heat is re radiated back to space and greenhouse gases recieve that heat as infra red radiation, half of which is re radiated to space and half back to earth. We are only in the second stage. That extra heat affects many things and that affect in most cases opposes the rise in temperature.
Physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Green house gases in order of effect H2O, by far the most powerful in terms of concentration and the width if infra red spectrum it traps. CO2, Ch4 NO etc are far smaller in volume and trap but a tiny proportion of the IR spectrum.
Antropogenic CO2 is around 4% of the total CO2 emissions annually, the rest is natural.
Is it logical that man can alter climate by reducing the tiny amount of CO2 emissions we generate?
You also make the incorrect claim that weather is getting more severe and more extreme; data shows otherwise. Using insurance figures is illogicall as the insured value has soared with time and inflation, it is not a measure of weather.
Great article. I agree that the UK's global role should be more seen as a climate change lab testing and innovating new technologies rather than overly focused on the net zero target. Great points on carbon leakage too. I would add one thing. While our current emissions our relatively small we need to recognise our historical contribution to CC (which is far greater than current emissions but still small 3%ish) and the economic and social advantages we have derived from this. It doesn't detract from your central argument but it's important to recognise and why it is important that the UK shows global climate leadership.
I am afraid I find the historical stuff completely unpersuasive.
Why are current generations responsible for the actions of past generations? And why should we only count past emissions? What about all the lives saved/growth created from Britain's industrial revolution?
This means if you want to heat our pre-1920s homes in a green way then AC is probably the only way. And their high ceilings become an advantage as well.
as you mention Screwfix, are you in the U.K., where air conditioning is not required for domestic properties.
How can a heat pump improve radiator performance, especially as the accepted wisdom is that heat pumps in older properties do require larger radiators due to the cooler wtaer that heat pumps provide as opposed to gas or oil?
And heat pumps are not green, adding to our grid load increases CO2 emissons, not reduce them. It is another lie that our government comes out with, and there are many in this field.
I enjoyed much about this article, though note exception below.
It does illustrate the extraordinarily convoluted policy considerations and incentives/disincentives needed to achieve the desired end of lower CO2 emissions. Just what we all need. At the moment, NZ is just making us poorer, and fast.
My real exception is a scientific one, and I wouldn't be a scientist if I wasn't a sceptic: I don't accept 'CO2 control nob theory', nor the model predictions used to send us into the NZ doom-loop. Zilch predictive power. Settled science is a contradiction in terms - there's no such thing. Real science is conjecture and refutation, and there are plenty of reasons to be circumspect, at least, about atmospheric CO2 concentrations inching up from an all-time low.
Given our historical and geopolitical situation, we have one really pressing need: very cheap energy in abundance.
Sam,
you say:-
"Past budgets have focused on the relatively straightforward task of decarbonising our grid. Switching from a grid powered mostly by fossil fuels to one powered by zero carbon renewables (with batteries and some nuclear) is a gargantuan task, but it isn’t one that requires the public to radically change their lifestyle."
I think it is evident that statement is wrong, by a large margin.
We cannot run a grid without fossil fuels until it is entirely nuclear, and that too, has it's limitations as it tends not to be flexible enough for the grid.
Renewables will never replace fossil fuel genertaion and this will be evident in the next couple of yeras as Mr Milliband tries to prove otherwise.
Also look at Germany who are equally as deluded.
Don't you think that a severe rise in price doesn't radically affect lifestyle, especially as the price of electrcity negatively affects commmerce and industry so employees will not see a rise, in real terms, of salary and many alreday have seen their industry close.
Likewise the farming community is being attacked and restricted in the name of CO2 nonsense.
My point of view is that both the Climate Change act should be repealed and the climate Change Committee be disbanded as they do not understand technicalities or practicalities and worse believe the agenda that the U.N. is forcing on governments.
That agenda, and it is working, is to de industrialise the west using the trojan horse of CO2.
That is not my opinion but statements from officers of the U.N. Framework for Climate Change.
There is more and more scientific opponents to the idea that the IPCC political section claim that CO2 is the control knob. That statement is fatuous. Even their scientific working parties disagree with the IPCC 'Guidance for policymakers', i.e. soverign governments, and the working parties themselves disagree on some matters. This is how science is.
Basics, the earth is kept warm by the sun and that heat is how we survive. Some of that heat is re radiated back to space and greenhouse gases recieve that heat as infra red radiation, half of which is re radiated to space and half back to earth. We are only in the second stage. That extra heat affects many things and that affect in most cases opposes the rise in temperature.
Physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Green house gases in order of effect H2O, by far the most powerful in terms of concentration and the width if infra red spectrum it traps. CO2, Ch4 NO etc are far smaller in volume and trap but a tiny proportion of the IR spectrum.
Antropogenic CO2 is around 4% of the total CO2 emissions annually, the rest is natural.
Is it logical that man can alter climate by reducing the tiny amount of CO2 emissions we generate?
You also make the incorrect claim that weather is getting more severe and more extreme; data shows otherwise. Using insurance figures is illogicall as the insured value has soared with time and inflation, it is not a measure of weather.
Iain Reid
Great article. I agree that the UK's global role should be more seen as a climate change lab testing and innovating new technologies rather than overly focused on the net zero target. Great points on carbon leakage too. I would add one thing. While our current emissions our relatively small we need to recognise our historical contribution to CC (which is far greater than current emissions but still small 3%ish) and the economic and social advantages we have derived from this. It doesn't detract from your central argument but it's important to recognise and why it is important that the UK shows global climate leadership.
Thanks!
I am afraid I find the historical stuff completely unpersuasive.
Why are current generations responsible for the actions of past generations? And why should we only count past emissions? What about all the lives saved/growth created from Britain's industrial revolution?
Air conditioning doesn’t only have the advantage of cooling in the summer.
It also has much higher power outputs.
A single AC unit can probably output double the heat of a 2m by 60cm water radiator with a heat pump - https://www.screwfix.com/p/flomasta-600mm-x-2000mm-11664btu-white-type-22-convector-radiator/281tg - don’t forget heat pump outputs are roughly half the list figures given there.
This means if you want to heat our pre-1920s homes in a green way then AC is probably the only way. And their high ceilings become an advantage as well.
Mathew, #
as you mention Screwfix, are you in the U.K., where air conditioning is not required for domestic properties.
How can a heat pump improve radiator performance, especially as the accepted wisdom is that heat pumps in older properties do require larger radiators due to the cooler wtaer that heat pumps provide as opposed to gas or oil?
And heat pumps are not green, adding to our grid load increases CO2 emissons, not reduce them. It is another lie that our government comes out with, and there are many in this field.
Heat pumps have lower water temperatures so therefore radiators with a heat pump produce lower heat outputs than those quoted from Screwfix.
Heat pumps, AC and even electric base heaters are definitely green.
Electricity now only produces 126g of CO2 per kWh[1] in the past year vs 233g of CO2 for a gas boiler.[2]
And then there’s the fact that heat pumps are 300% efficient vs maybe 90% for a gas boiler.
[1] https://grid.iamkate.com/
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/GHG-emission-factors-for-different-boilers-Data-sources-are-GEMIS-495-37-except-for_tbl2_334164530
See e.g this one from Samsung that has a heat output of 3.5kW - https://samsung-climatesolutions.com/gb/b2c/products/fjm/windfree-elite.ar12cxcaawkneu.html