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wonders how much their bills will be increased to pay for it all, what heating, cooking and travel options will be withdrawn and when, and what the state of the electricity supply will be as ever more intermittent sources take over from predictable on-demand ones, raising the chances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.
Full article here.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
June 27, 2024 at 08:20AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 