By Jo Nova
Hallelujah — Kemi Badenoch has thrown Net Zero under a bus
Finally, 8 weeks after Donald Trump was sworn in, the UK conservative party says what skeptics and many conservatives have been saying for ten or twenty years. Perhaps they were jolted into action by the shocking polls that showed — from out of nowhere, the Reform Party was polling just as well, or even better than the 200 year old Conservative party.
Conservatives supporting global weather witchcraft and UN fantasies are facing an existential threat.
The GWPF is delighted, of course, having warned about the dire Net Zero outcomes for 15 years. And Kemi Badenoch blasts the old policies, calling them “fantasy politics” that cost the Earth, drive up the cost of electricity, while “not really” protecting the environment. She’s realized no one had a detailed plan, and if they did, sensationally, she says they wouldn’t talk about it because it would reveal “just how catastrophic the actual costs will be for families, for businesses, and for our economy.” In a blockbuster moment, she even admits the futility of it all saying that the UK has done more on carbon emissions that anyone in the developed world, but they were only responsible for 1% of the worlds emissions, and the world isn’t following them.
Her three big reasons are that the plans have no details, the targets are unrealistic, and they’re far too dependent on China for everything, which is 60% powered by coal. Finally, a Western Leader admitting that “leading the way” on climate change is pointless if no one else is following you.
This marks a major change in the Tory party plan — and even though the UK election is not for another four years, it will finally allow the conservatives to point out all the silly flaws in the government climate plan, instead of just promising to be a different shade of crazy themselves.
Kemi Badenoch’s speech: (some excerpts)
Net zero by 2050 “is fantasy politics. Built on nothing. Promising the earth. And costing it too.”
Today, I’m talking about one of the biggest ways we are destroying our children’s inheritance.
Let’s start by telling the truth on energy and net zero. Every single thing we do in our daily lives is dependent on cheap, abundant energy.
When energy became cheap and abundant, living standards began to rise, health and life expectancy grew. Cheap, abundant energy is the foundation of civilisation as we know it today. We mess with it at our peril. And that’s exactly what we’ve been doing for twenty years. And it’s now starting to cause real pain for everyday people and businesses. The cost of electricity – far too high – much higher than nearby and comparative countries with the real possibility of it going even higher with environmental levies.
It’s fantasy politics. Built on nothing. Promising the earth. And costing it too.
She lays out the pointless hypocrisy of it all — though doesn’t twist the knife — did Nick Clegg care at all about CO2?
I remember Nick Clegg dismissing the idea of building new nuclear because it would not come online until 2022. That decision has cost us billions.
Given that the conservatives legislated many of the suicidal Net Zero ideas themselves, there is a mountain they have to climb, to convince voters they really mean it:
…the political class has lost trust. The only way that we can regain it is to tell the unvarnished truth. Net zero by 2050 is impossible.
I don’t say that with pleasure. I want a better future and a better environment for our children. But we have to get real.
Anyone who has done any serious analysis knows it cannot be achieved without a significant drop in our living standards or worse, by bankrupting us.
Let me give you three truths at the heart of net zero.
Nigel Farage blasted back with — “Fooling No One”
…Reform UK leader Mr Farage, whose party had already pledged to ditch the target, accused her of desperation. The Clacton MP said: “Kemi is fooling no one. Let’s not forget that she happily waved through Conservative government legislation on this, including enshrining net zero by 2050 into law. “If she truly believed this would bankrupt the country, why didn’t she voice her opposition sooner? This is a desperate policy from a leader and party floundering in the polls in an attempt to hitch themselves onto Reform’s momentum.
The Conservatives have a lot of work to do to earn trust after years of sabotaging their own country.
More of her speech below:
First: the published plans are completely muddled.
It is true that the UK has made the greatest progress on carbon emissions in the developed world. Yet we are only responsible for 1% of global emissions.Even if we hit absolute zero, we will not have net zero around the world, if other countries are not following us. And they are not. They certainly will not if they see us bankrupting ourselves to get there.
Our success at reducing emissions has also come at a significant cost: the highest electricity bills in the developed world.
…we must effectively build two systems of electricity generation – one based on renewables and one not. One for when the sun shines and the wind blows. And one for when they don’t.
The real reason no one in their government is talking about a proper overall plan is that they know it would reveal just how catastrophic the actual costs will be for families, for businesses, and for our economy. Those costs include families being forced to replace perfectly functioning cars, boilers, and cookers with more expensive, less reliable versions of the same thing.
[The Second truth]: even where there is a plan, we’re behind.
By 2040, the Committee on Climate Change says more than half of UK homes need to rip out their boilers and replace them with a heat pump.There is no way we can do this quickly enough on that timescale.17 million houses need to be fitted with an expensive heat pump in just 15 years. How many houses have one now? Fewer than 300,000 – because heat pumps run on a lot of expensive electricity and it turns out, many people just don’t like them.
But let’s look at the good statistics. Last year saw the highest number of heat pumps ever installed in the UK, 50,000. That’s the best we’ve ever done. So, at that rate it’ll take 340 years not 15 to get to the target.
The third truth.We are massively exposing ourselves to countries who don’t share our values.
Take solar panels – the good news is that costs have dropped in the last decade.
But here’s the less good news. Ten years ago, we were heavily dependent on China for all of the key components. Today we’re even more dependent.
….60% of their supply comes from coal fired power stations.
Those three truths are why I call myself a net zero sceptic. Muddled plans, unrealistic targets and deadlines, over-reliance on China.
We have got to start acknowledging what is in plain sight.
UK Flag photo: Rian (Ree) Saunders
.jpg){kind=link}
Thus the fundamental truth; politicians are generally useless. It is axiomatic in their world that you can reverse yourself, say something different, and immediately
get full credit for same and avoid all accountability for what has gone before. No other profession pretends to this inanity, ad because the practice is followed by politicians of all stripes, they tend not to point this failing out in one another. This is why putting people with business attitudes in government is such a systemic shock.
430
Your cynicism is noted.
In an ordinary citizen’s life, it’s called a ‘come to Jesus’ moment; in a politician’s life, it’s a ‘back flip’ (which is pointless since you’ll still be facing the same direction).
The veracity of Ms Badenoch’s remarks will be in the development of future anti-RE policies. The Tories will need to dump twenty years of left-leaning policies and create new right-leaning policies if they have any hope of winning the next election.
Mr Farage’s atypical and derisive comments are noted as a template response and unhelpful in saving Britain from the depredations of Labour and the WEF.
144
My cynicism as well. My view is that Reform have been consistently running a no to net zero and now that the ersatz Tories see Reform bleed them of votes they change tack. That is opportunism pure and simple. Democracy needs a shake up, if not a dose arsenic.
160
While the politicians still believe that CO2 is the devil, it is all just to get them elected. Good start from Ms Badenock ,but a long way to go.
100
Yes, a good start, but several years too late. Why didn’t she voice her opposition when she was in government and in a position to affect policy? Why wait? Why now? Kemi Badenoch is one of the more likeable politicians* but she does seem to follow the trend rather than lead.
” Likeable politician – is that an oxymoron?
30
Because although she was in Cabinet (1) it was not part of her brief and (2) because she would have had to resign and then no longer be in a position to affect policy.
40
She was actually the only MP to question the imposition of net zero in the debate where it was approved without a vote, asking for a proper cost benefit analysis, making an allusion to the indoctrination of children in green mantras atthe same time.
50
Unfortunately Reform haven’t done the hard work on how to actually ditch net zero without causing more problems. They can’t do it with the policies they have put forward.
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/reform-needs-to-reform-energy-policy
10
Labour and te WEF?
True, but what about Russia and China? They are full bore buildding capaccity to wage war.
Then there are the problems i the Middle East and looming in Africa?
70
Why don’t they quote the actual numbers and that proves that the 15 billion tons increase in co2 emissions per year since 1988 have been emitted by the NON OECD countries and no increase from the OECD.
That’s the reason that the OECD should stop this BS and fra-d ASAP and always understand that energy security is always national security.
The idea that the OECD can negotiate from a position of weakness are just more stupid fairy tales and fantasy. We’ve wasted trillions of $ over the last 37 years for a zero return while NON OECD co2 emissions have soared.
330
Yes… energy security is the basic foundation of national security …..and Dutton should make energy security the foundation of its economic and foreign policy. It is easily a winnable policy stance and if it leads the Libs to power can be used for a number of really sensible policies.
Probably a bit late now for Dutton with election strategies already laid out but you never know. Perhaps a policy stance for One Nation ?
40
I’m still waiting for Dutton to dump the Paris Accords and the entire “green” energy SCAM and return us to before the time when his comrade, the intellectual midget Little Johhny Howard started the systematic destruction of the Australian energy grid which included giving away our gas supply to the Chicomms at world’s cheapest prices on a bizarre 30 year contract with no provision for inflation or market prices and banning nuclear power in law.
(To US readers, Dutton is the “opposition” “leader” and possible alternative PM of the fake conservative Liberal Party. Some would say “controlled opposition”, i.e. fake. They are all in the Uniparty together.)
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/how-australia-blew-its-future-gas-supplies-20170928-gyqg0f.html
391
DM,
Yes, I see commercials for Alinta on the TV, claiming they will be honest on their path to net zero, so I looked them up to find Alinta is owned by a Hong Kong group. How do we come to have foreigners dictating our energy costs and types?
Then I see the Alinta commercial which is a cartoon-like cone of countryside with windmills and solar panels and hydro all depicted together on mobile tank tracks, with the solar panels arranged in a stupid inwards-facing circle so that some of them will be in the shade much of the time.
Whew! Our pollies of all stripes have a lot to answer for. Geoff S
110
If a career criminal all of a sudden says that what they were doing was wrong and they won’t do it again, do we just ignore ALL previous crimes?
I think there should be a penalty to pay for the damage they have done. That penalty, as a minimum should be expulsion from office and the loss of ALL pensions accrued, that money can go back to the taxpayer. It’s the least they can do.
370
Spare a thought for Liz Truss who was brave enough to lead the country in a different direction but was despicably sabotaged by the establishment, the blob, that held out against implementing Brexit for years.
Congratulations to GWPF and the small group of climate realists in the Conservative party.
The tectonic plates of politics are moving, the German Adf, Argentina, Trump, Italy.
Where will the next shift occur?
Could it be Australia?
Sorry, only joking:)
600
Tragically, I think not.
Both factions of the Uniparty are fanatically committed to the Paris Accords.
And the Lamestream Media, the Establishment, The Blob, the Subsidy Harvesters, the Public “Service” and all the other parasites bleeding taxpayers are in on it and promote the absurd idea of Australia as a “green energy superpower”.
Obviously not a single one of them has any clue about physics, chemistry or engineering, at least among the useful idiots. Those “in the know, know” because they are using energy starvation to destroy our Civilisation.
351
Tony Abott was calling it out well before Liz Truss. Electricity pricers reduced during the couple of years of Abbott’s leadership before Turncoat betrayed him.
330
That is true, but Liz Truss didn’t get into trouble because of her position on net zero, I think that was the least of her concerns at the time although she is the rational side. She had a broad agenda for economic reform and that terrified the establishment, especially the financiers and the big money movers.
200
Are you quite sure of that, Rafe? In 2022 Liz Truss beat Rishi Sunak to replace Boris Johnson as Conservative Prime Minister of the UK. She lifted Johnson’s 2019 moratorium on exploratory fracking in England. Truss resigned weeks later after Bank of England actions reduced market confidence in her financial policies, just one day after many Conservative MPs refused to vote against a Labour motion for a permanent ban on fracking. She was replaced by Sunak, who quickly renewed the moratorium.
And here’s a further question unasked by the mainstream media. Sunak had said of fracking, while campaigning to replace Johnson 12 weeks earlier, that he was “supportive of it… ’cause if we can get it to work it’s good for our long-term energy security” (Sky News, 4th August 2022). Why did he U-turn on fracking?
20
Talking of the Blob –
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/545272/blobfish-overcomes-notoriety-as-world-s-ugliest-animal-to-win-new-zealand-s-fish-of-the-year
A picture tells a thousand words – or in this case, a thousand politicians’ faces: my nomination for No.1 lookalike Ugly Blob is Ant Albanese, followed by Keir Stalin, with puppet-master Klown Schwab a close turd.
A game the whole family can play – Name The Ugly Blobfish! Being upside-down antipodean critters ourselves, I’m not surprised No Zulders voted this ‘thing’ as Fish Of The Year / nah.
140
They’re great eating too.
20
I thought this was funnier:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-52309848
I prefer to call the current UK PM ‘Der Sturmer’.
00
Again, the data proves that today we live in the safest period in Human history and made possible by the use of BASE-LOAD fossil fuels.
Again, here’s the proof that death rates from extreme weather events have dropped over the last 124 years and a huge drop from 1960 to 2024.
Again, just 3 billion in 1960 and 5.1 billion MORE people at risk in 2024.
This only takes a few minutes to find at OWI Data and saves us from WASTING trillions of $ for a zero return.
Are the OECD countries really that stupid that we can’t find the data and save trillions of $ and save our environments from toxic, unreliable W & S?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/natural-disaster-death-rates?country=Extreme+weather~All+disasters
240
They know the data, they don’t care because they are following the WEF/Davos plans for Humanity.
30
Politics is a popularity contest . She is acknowledging that reality exists . Until now the narrative (fictional story) has been able to hold sway over the masses by manipulating them through fear and guilt . This process has largely been driven by the MSM whose hypocrisy is getting unmasked for all those paying attention . Scepticism is the weapon which will lead us out of this mess . In 50 years this will be known as the “global insanity”…
220
Journalists, academics and politicians have a lot to answer for ….. the nurturing and fertilising of fear and guilt into the psyche of the middle class …they have no shame. ……
…….and we have no courage.
https://www.reddit.com/r/libertarianmeme/comments/182v1p9/i_did_not_come_here_to_guide_lambs_i_came_here_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
20
Got some GREAT news from Trump. I’ve included the entire post🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
********
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/trump-says-hes-authorizing-use-of-coal-for-energy-production-5827350?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=gp&src_src=partner&src_cmp=gp
President Donald Trump said on Monday that he was authorizing his administration to use coal-fired power plants for energy production to counter China’s economic advantage.
In a Truth Social post, Trump stated that the nation’s coal industry had been “held captive by environmental extremists,” which he said had allowed countries such as China to gain an economic advantage over the United States by opening hundreds of coal-fired power plants.
Trump stated that he would move to authorize his administration “to immediately begin producing energy with BEAUTIFUL, CLEAN COAL,” but did not provide further details.
The move would mark a major reversal in U.S. environmental policy, as the country has shifted away from coal, which was its primary fuel for electricity generation in the 2000s, toward lower-cost alternatives such as natural gas and renewable energy.
As of 2023, coal made up about 15 percent of the power generated in the United States, a significant decline from 51 percent in 2000, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
After taking office on Jan. 20, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to review existing regulations that restricted the use of domestic energy resources—particularly coal, hydropower, and nuclear energy resources—and declared a national energy emergency to expedite the development of the nation’s energy infrastructure.
Trump stated in his order that “burdensome and ideologically motivated regulations have impeded the development of these resources, limited the generation of reliable and affordable electricity, reduced job creation, and inflicted high energy costs upon our citizens.”
To fulfill Trump’s objectives, Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) administrator Lee Zeldin said on March 12 that the agency would take steps to roll back several environmental regulations in what he called the “largest deregulatory announcement in U.S. history.”
The EPA outlined its planned regulatory rollbacks in a series of statements, targeting rules or suites of rules initially authored by the agency and published during the administrations of Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, which it considers to be the origin of “trillions in regulatory costs.”
The EPA stated that it would reconsider the previous administration’s rules on power plant emissions, commonly referred to as the “Clean Power Plan 2.0.”
It stated that the Supreme Court had struck down a 2015 version of the Clean Power Plan. In that ruling, the court “barred EPA from misusing the Clean Air Act to manipulate Americans’ energy choices and shift the balance of the nation’s electrical fuel mix,” according to the EPA.
“President Trump promised to kill the Clean Power Plan in his first term, and we continue to build on that progress now,” Zeldin said. “We are seeking to ensure that the agency follows the rule of law while providing all Americans with access to reliable and affordable energy.”
Earlier this month, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum suggested that the United States should restart its shuttered coal-fired power plants to meet surging electricity demand.
“I think as part of the national energy emergency which President Trump has declared we’ve got to keep every plant open,” Burgum said in an interview with Bloomberg. “And if there have been units at a coal plant that have been shut down, we need to bring those back on.”
Burgum also stated that the country should keep existing coal-fired power plants operational by easing environmental regulations imposed by previous administrations.
China’s construction of coal-fired power plants reached its highest level in a decade last year, according to a report by the Finland-based Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air released on Feb. 13. The report states that China constructed 94.5 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants last year, the highest volume of new builds since 2015.
240
Could you imagine the British Fleet of 1800 taking on the Chinese fleet of 2025!
Essentially that is what the UK has been done with its economy. It is using 250 year old wind technology as the centre piece of its energy production to compete with the Chinese economy using 50 year old coal technology.
So far, there is nothing that matches coal for economic electricity generation and metal smelting.
240
No words.
100
Again here’s the increase in co2 emissions since 1940 and note the same trend over the last 81 years and of course continued after Dr Hansen’s BS speech in Washington DC in 1988.
So why can’t the OECD countries understand this very simple graph?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissions/
100
Hallelujah.
30
Peter Dutton- get hold of that speech, rewrite it in your own words for the Australian situation and set up a presser at the National Press Club to deliver it. Maybe chuck in some stuff about future nuclear and the LNP will romp in the next election.
160
Dutton sees the only purpose of nuclear as replacing coal for base load.
He remains committed to net zero and the Paris Accords and more windmills and solar.
He and his advisors don’t have a clue.
At this point someone will usually say, we’ll hear his true policies after the election, assuming he wins. Well, that’s not acceptable. If he’s the PM Australia wants and needs, he needs to state his policies upfront and now.
190
Is there any chance of Kemi giving Dutton a wake up call?
40
And once again I see a new political leader and ask myself how in heaven’s name they floated to the top of the political septic tank or climbed to the top of the greasy pole.
Born in the UK of Nigerian parents? I think I got an email from Nigerian Royalty once. It turned out to be too good to be true.
Oh well. As I also always say it’s not a good idea until the right person has it.
111
Badenoch is a very impressive person. She is impressive. This is her recent speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6e5bqc9T2E
Before she was leader, she was not an advocate for NetZero but I think she had to change her tune to get the leadership. No doubt Trumpism has emboldened her. Free speech is catching on. Calling out the Climate Scam™ is now become,ing woke. There will be a many grifters hanging on until the bitter end. And I recognise that reversing 25 years of destroying Australia’s electricity grid will not be corrected in a week or two.
150
When Olukemi Adegoke from Nigeria first became an MP to represent British people all her first utterings were about representing her homeland Nigeria which should have been enough to disqualify her from holding public office..ever.
60
Thing is, the Nigerians themselves don’t get scammed.
When you are out there dealing with criminals, having a Nigerian head the team is a good move.
10
Is this a Saul on the Road to Damascus story or is Nigel Farage the one telling the truth? 🤔
70
Showing more courage and a sense of direction than Dutton is just months out from an election
150
Again, why doesn’t Badenoch or Dutton or the OECD countries ask the very obvious question about co2 emissions and co2 levels? Here’s the question and answer according to the Royal Society……” if all Human co2 emissions were stopped today, then how long before co2 LEVELs dropped to about 280 ppm?”
Everyone I’ve asked about this, haven’t got a clue about what these so called Scientific groups really believe.
And nobody thinks that it’s a good idea if nothing changes for thousands of years. It would certainly destroy their plans to quickly lower co2 levels.
Again why don’t Badenoch or Dutton or the OECD countries ask this most obvious question?
Here’s the answer from the Royal Society question 20………..
20. “If emissions of greenhouse gases were stopped, would the climate return to the conditions of 200 years ago”?
“No. Even if emissions of greenhouse gases were to suddenly stop, Earth’s surface temperature would require thousands of years to cool and return to the level in the pre-industrial era”.
“If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to “pre-industrial” levels due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in ocean sediments. Surface temperatures would stay elevated for at least a thousand years, implying a long-term commitment to a warmer planet due to past and current emissions. Sea level would likely continue to rise for many centuries even after temperature stopped increasing [Figure 9]. Significant cooling would be required to reverse melting of glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet, which formed during past cold climates. The current CO2-induced warming of Earth is therefore essentially irreversible on human timescales. The amount and rate of further warming will depend almost entirely on how much more CO2 humankind emits”.
30
Sorry, here’s the link to the Royal Society’s question 20 and their answer.
Can Humans really wait until 3025 or 4025 to find out whether their prediction works out or not? But I’d love to see Badenoch throw this cat among the pigeons.
https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-20/
10
I, for one, am willing to wait!
31
Thanks.
I had read that the IPCC currently accepts it would take 30 years for anthropogenic CO2 to halve in the atmosphere. I don’t have the link. Can someone share? Or am I hallucinating like ChatGPT?
I am skeptical even of that low figure, given the claim that anthropogenic radioactive c14 produced by atomic tests halved in the atmosphere in only a decade. Yet I acknowledge I don’t have that link either.
Since every year nature routinely extracts from the atmosphere 20 times as much CO2 as humans emit, I’m comfortable with those low figures, but I’m happy to be corrected.
Of course, nature also adds 20 times more CO2 to the atmosphere than we emit, so there is currently a faint increase in the proportion in the atmosphere.
I’d research for those links- but I have twenty similar research tasks ahead of me, so if someone who already knows can answer, I would be grateful
10
Obviously in need of a clue. Ice accumulation on cold land is the result of warm oceans. The cooling comes after the ice has built up.
And Greenland is already gaining ice extent and elevation of the summit.
60
Why would Co2 of 280ppm be the target? If we have increased crop yields and the world is greener (for eg greening the sahara) than when the Co2 was a lot lower, why would we want to go back there.
Genuine question.
100
The presiding wisdom in the UK/EU is there is nothing better for ‘carbon’ than a Russo/European war. I wonder what the conservative view is?
30
The socialists love unending war.
To quote from the Left’s instruction manual, Nineteen Eighty Four:
31
In his defense, Orwell meant it as a description and warning rather than an instruction manual.
20
In 2010 China emitted 8.6bn tonnes CO2, and in 2023, 11.9bn, an increase of 3.3bn tonnes over 14 completed years, or 236MT (million tonnes) average increase per year. In contrast, Australia emitted 405MT CO2 in 2010 (directly here, not including CO2 from our coal and gas exports), and in 2023 383MT, a decrease of 22MT over 14 completed years, or 1.6MT average decrease per year (around 0.4% per year)….for all those tens of billions spent!
China’s increase in emissions equals our entire yearly output in less than 2 years. We have decreased our emissions on average per year a pitiful 1.6/236 or 0.7% of China’s average yearly increase.
50
Labor keep denying that RE is more expensive when in the grid than FF. Let’s look at a prime example.
California is the US’s most RE-heavy state. It also has the highest retail prices by a factor of 2 over the rest of the US. But it gets worse. This from a recent Wall St Journal article:
Southern California Edison charges residential customers 73 cents per kilowatt-hour between 5 and 8 p.m. during the summer. That’s significantly higher than the average annual residential rate in California, which was more than 32 cents through November 2024. San Diego Gas & Electric charges some residential customers $1.16 per kilowatt-hour on “Reduce Your Use Event” days, which the California Public Utilities Commission allows the company to declare up to 18 times a year. Further north, Pacific Gas & Electric charges residential customers 56 cents per kilowatt-hour during the summer between 4 and 8 p.m.
Hashtag REsocheap
40
[…] Read the full article at: https://joannenova.com.au/2025/03/uk-opposition-leader-dumps-impossible-climate-plan-net-zero-fantas… […]
10
Time to start tapping that 3.3 billion barrels of oil too.
https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/media/vtjkyqnf/uk-reserves-and-resources-report-as-at-end-2023.pdf
£1.40 at the pump is ridiculous sitting on all this!
20
But how much of that £1-40p is tax?
About 70-80p, IIRC – so over half.
https://www.racfoundation.org/data/percentage-uk-pump-price-which-is-tax-page
The Government absolutely needs that money to keep up the sales of nice BMWs [electric ones, of course] as part of the Motability scheme [pronounced scam?]. You probably can’t afford one – but some kid with a diagnosis of ADHD or obesity gets one – albeit with a lot of help from Uncle Whitehall. And most aren’t even assembled in the UK.
Perhaps we make the number plates …
And many UK refineries have closed – not economic – in the last three decades – Isle of Grain, at least one at Milford Haven, Grangemouth is going. Not sure about Shell’s Stanlow – didn’t they sell it?
Much refining is now done in the Far East – energy costs – not inflated by woke green madnesses – are lower. So are wages.
The UK – and Europe – would seem to be on a downward spiral.
Useless Tories helped this. And Free-Gear Two-Tier Starmer’s mob [whose unifying impulse is a lust for telling other people how to run their lives] is certainly not yet stopping that decline!
The US has a chance – I wish that the UK could be seen, also, to have a chance.
Auto
20
Know of a fella doing private taxi work in his wife’s motability car.
It is a big part of the EV increase – https://news.mo.co.uk/news/scheme-customers 800,000
that is a fair chunk of the 2 million ish EVs and Hybrids: https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/electric-cars/choosing/road-to-electric/
Add in fleet sales, not a lot of private interest really…
10
I had only just found out about these barrels in the ground here – I thought it was primarily offshore.
I guess I never really thought too much about it really. But was surprised by how much.
00
I had only just found out about these barrels in the ground here – I thought it was primarily offshore.
I guess I never really thought too much about it really. But was surprised by how much.
10
In her defense, Kemi Badenoch might be late to the party and jumping on Reform’s issue- but she’s right.
Engineers tend to make unsuccessful politicians. They assume their colleagues will be responsive to reality. They are routinely backstabbed because they trust colleagues who seek personal advantage rather than the welfare of the country.
Badenoch’s stated intention of ‘making sure that Party Policies are at least possible before announcing them’ is a desirable aspiration, but will be an electoral disadvantage. The party may be paddling as fast as a duck’s feet, but will look do-nothing.
My advice to her is that she spend time on surveying the parliament, the party, and the people, with genuine questions, in order to give the appearance of genuine consultation. Not biased one-eyed questions. E.G. ‘Q) do you think climate change is important? A) Yes I do, but if I say yes they’ll think I mean the Government should do more, when I think it’s important they stop pursuing Net Zero’.
10
As a formerly lifelong Conservative voter (until the last one when Reform got my vote and will do again) I say to Ms Badenoch ‘too little, too late’. You had 14 years to put a stop to this nonsense, and now, when you are powerless, you decide it’s all too expensive, unfeasible and unnecessary. Where was your party when we needed this said 14 years ago? Where where you when net zero was enshrined into legislation? Oh yes, you were in power then. YOU did this. You will not be forgiven.
10
The trouble is that both Badenoch and Starmer are arguing against Net Zero on economic grounds. If they want to undermine the greens, they will need to argue on scientific gounds and assert that CO2 does not cause a dangerous amount of global warming, and explain why and then explain that the figures are being doctored. But do they believe that or are they merely manoeuvring for electoral advantage?
20
Sorry, I meant Badenoch and Farage!
10
One battle at a time. Belief in the climate religion will be hard to shift. But the rapidly rising costs of Net Zero are very evident, and easy to argue against. Once you remove net zero as being infeasible and unaffordable (whatever you believe about climate) then the need to believe in climate religion is reduced, which makes it much easier to tackle rationally.
20
A bit like window dressing. She figured that NetZero will cost us dearly but hasn’t made the last step: recognising that the climate crisis is massive hoax.
30
woman with brain damage suddenly decides a helmet was a great idea … AFTER they fully endorsed not wearing helmets!!!
You can give credit for those who said nut zero was insane BEFORE they started the insanity, not after.
10
For those not familiar with UK politics it is important to understand that ever since hug a husky Cameron it has been invaded by closet greens. Out of the 121 in the current Parliament some 50 listed here have expressed their belief in the need for net zero
https://www.cen.uk.com/our-caucus
They will surely seek to oust Badenoch, so she risks splitting the party by openly challenging them. That’s probably the best outcome. The real credit for the policy change goes to Claire Coutinho, whose 10 months as energy minister rapidly taught her that the policy was unworkable. She set up a study into the cost of net zero in order to have ammunition to tackle the blob. It was interrupted by the early election and cancelled by Miliband. She has already done a lot of work not only in persuading Badenoch to come out against net zero, but also in starting to work out how to move away from it.
20