UK opposition leader dumps “impossible” climate plan: Net Zero fantasy will bankrupt us!

...

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.

UK Flag, Britain, United Kingdom.

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

 

 

9.9 out of 10 based on 67 ratings

41 comments to UK opposition leader dumps “impossible” climate plan: Net Zero fantasy will bankrupt us!

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    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.

    340

    • #
      Jaye Patrick

      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.

      104

      • #
        GlenM

        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.

        120

        • #
          GlenM

          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.

          70

      • #
        Ted1

        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?

        50

  • #
    Neville

    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.

    290

    • #
      Gerry

      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 ?

      10

  • #
    David Maddison

    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

    341

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      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

      50

  • #
    Eng_Ian

    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.

    320

  • #

    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:)

    440

    • #
      David Maddison

      Could it be Australia?

      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.

      311

    • #
      RickWill

      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.

      250

      • #

        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.

        90

  • #
    Greg in NZ

    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.

    110

  • #
    Neville

    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

    210

  • #
    Old Goat

    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”…

    170

  • #
    Fuel Filter

    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.

    230

    • #
      RickWill

      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.

      190

    • #
      Dianeh

      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.

      No words.

      50

  • #
    Neville

    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/

    90

  • #
  • #
    Ross

    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.

    130

    • #
      David Maddison

      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.

      140

    • #
      Jon Rattin

      Is there any chance of Kemi giving Dutton a wake up call?

      30

  • #
    Forrest Gardener

    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.

    81

    • #
      RickWill

      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.

      120

      • #
        Gerry, england

        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

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Is this a Saul on the Road to Damascus story or is Nigel Farage the one telling the truth? 🤔

    70

  • #
    Yarpos

    Showing more courage and a sense of direction than Dutton is just months out from an election

    120

  • #
    Neville

    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

  • #
    nb

    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?

    10

    • #
      David Maddison

      The socialists love unending war.

      To quote from the Left’s instruction manual, Nineteen Eighty Four:

      “In accordance to the principles of Doublethink, it does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, that victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. The essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects. And its object is not victory over Eurasia or Eastasia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.” Julia? Are you awake? There is truth, and there is untruth. To be in a minority of one doesn’t make you mad.

      10

  • #
    IainC of The Ponds

    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.

    00

  • #
    IainC of The Ponds

    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

    00

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>