Net Stupid Feels the Heat
The heat wave provides an argument AGAINST Net Zero.
JUPPLANDIA
Above: Failed former Labour leader Ed Miliband returned under Kier Starmer as Britain’s Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. His fanatical pursuit of that goal has inflicted enormous damage on Britain’s energy security, reliability and sovereignty. Under Andy Burnham he has been promoted to the role of Foreign Secretary. Miliband and his brother David were both in their youth mentored by close family friend Eric Hobsbawm, Britain’s most influential Marxist historian. Hobsbawm once famously refused to set a limit on the number of deaths that could be justified to achieve Communism.
The UK already has some of the highest energy bills in the world.
And thanks to Ed Miliband, Net Zero, and the Brirish Establishment’s love affair with economic suicide, it’s getting worse.
The UK has also currently been experiencing a series of five unusually warm ‘heatwaves’. These have had noticeable impacts on the greenery around us, with fields, parks and verges showing an amount of golden, brown and dead grass we more often associate with Mediterranean countries.
It’s a simple visual marker of hot days, and hosepipe bans or the threat of them are another.
Once, it would have been left at that. In the 1970s when we had some very intense heatwaves, kids ate more ice-cream, beaches were more packed, and none of it was accompanied by being told the planet is dying.
What we have had this year is not nearly as spectacular and unusual as people are being told it is, but now there are political and financial incentives to linking any spell of hot weather with the grim spectre of planetary apocalypse.
Labour and Hamas supporter Dale Vince, a former New Age traveller who made a £100 million fortune out of green subsidies given to ventures like the energy company Ecotricity or the Renewable Energy Company Vince founded in 1995, is an example of the profits to be made when the State backs particular business ventures for ideological reasons.
The climate change narrative is of course that man made climate change caused by increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has a ‘greenhouse effect’, driving up temperatures. Supporters of this narrative further claim that this requires ‘green’ taxes, huge subsidies for ‘green’ energy, switching to solar power and wind power, abandoning coal (in the 1990s forty percent of Britain’s energy still came from coal, today all those plants are shut), neglecting nuclear, and moving instead to a radical programme of reducing our national carbon emissions to zero.
There are severe problems with this.
There are still serious and expert scientists who dispute the entire model. Claims of total consensus are based more on scientists who demur being vilified, ostracised and denied research funding than these scientists having been proven wrong.
The primary evidential basis of the theory is in the regular climate reports of the IPCC, which use highly problematic computer modelling of worst case scenarios, or in examples of statistically dubious creations such as the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ developed in 1998 by climatologists Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes.
Climate change scientists and climatologists advocating for climate change measures are in fact paid to support the theory on which their disciplines rest. People generally don’t set out to disprove the theory that provides them with a job and a pension.
Indeed, back in 2009 hackers obtained and released thousands of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia which showed researchers discussing how to solely select data that confirmed anthropogenic climate change or seemed to do so, how to keep other data out, and how to “hide the decline” in specific data sets being discussed. Despite clear evidence of data manipulation from these hacked documents, what was now a research industry predicated solely on accepting the man made climate chsnce theory rallied around and insisted (in eight investigations resulting from the scandal) that such discussions were perfectly normal and above board.
Any recognition of climate change as beyond human control or primarily driven by forces other than man made forms of pollution does not come with nice offices, respectable posts, a salary, a pension and well funded research supplied with long lasting grants.
But the “consensus” does.
Other severe problems are that the entire demanded process in response to the alleged coming catastrophe is one where even it’s strongest advocates aren’t actually sure it will make a blind bit of difference. No net zero advocate can say if Britain achieving Net Zero ‘saves the planet’. Since Britain only contributes 1% of global emissions and other countries aren’t electing to destroy their existing energy networks or massively raise their energy costs through the same measures, Britain’s capacity to actually impact global warming seems somewhat exaggerated.
Most of the things Britain is doing don’t seem like rational measures at all, but rather vastly expensive virtue signalling.
An example of this is seen with regard to North Sea Oil and other oil reserves. Britain has oil supplies for at least 400 years, with more in undeveloped fields.but we have placed so many green taxes and restrictions on extraction that development of new fields is entirely abandoned, and existing ones severely limited.
At a time when international supply is vulnerable to political events, our nation refuses to use its own resources. Instead we pay Norway sums like 30 billion pounds in one year to supply us oil from the same sea we won’t use anymore. Just so we can say that we are ‘being virtuous’.
In our rush to convert to solar and wind, which are both still unreliable and expensive with negative ecological imprints, we purchase solar panels from China….which China can install with kill switches (potentially controlling our energy supply), which cost us yet more money, and which are created in a country producing far more emissions than we do. Coal based power stations are common in China, and Chinese factories building solar panels are linked to coal powered stations. Without oil, too, of course, the panels can’t be transported by sea to Britain.
Everything involved in creating and delivering those solar panels we have purchased to supposedly end emissions, exists due to China emitting far more than us.
Even our current heat wave proved, not the avert an apocalypse necessity of Net Zero, but the create an economic apocalypse stupidity of Net Zero itself.
Because we are conducting a suicidal energy transition (which will have no mesningful impact on global emission levels) and because we haven’t built a new power station in 30 years, we have to import energy. The last nuclear power station in the UK was begun in 1987 and operational by 1995 (Sizewell B). We haven’t completed a new one for 30 years (Hinckley Point C is currently being built).
Instead we have created over 3,000 solar and wind farm sites that are expensive, make a lot of money for companies being subsidised to create and run them, and which can either have to be shut down to prevent overloading the grid when conditions are just right for that result, or supply next to nothing when weather conditions are poor for the type of energy they supply.
Most ludicrously of all, solar panels do not cope well with extreme heat.
All of which leaves us dependent on importing energy from other nations to keep the lights on. We are particularly dependent on energy imported by EDF, the French State sponsored energy company, from France’s nuclear stations.
Recent reports indicate that one major region of the UK was importing 74% of its energy at peak from France and the Netherlands. Another major region was 50% reliant on this imported energy. The mini heatwaves spike this dependency, proving just how vulnerable our energy grid is now to being shut off by another nation.
Balancing costs, which include imports and a few other measures to secure energy supply to meet demand, already cost us 2 billion a year. During the heatwaves, supply from France was limited and we relied heavily on importing from the Netherlands. That came with costs up to twenty times the normal as suppliers inflated prices due to increased demand (and desperation).
Britain was left begging other nations to charge us twenty times the normal rate.
Because Britain is one of the astonishingly stupid nations ‘leading the way’ with Net Zero.
••••
••••
••••
••••
(UKR)