The week between Christmas and New Year’s is a peculiar time—a liminal space where the usual frenzy of modern life pauses, and reflection takes center stage. For many, it’s a time to step back, take stock, and plan for the year ahead. It’s a tradition that could do wonders for climate policy, where rushed decisions and dogmatic thinking often dominate the conversation. Maybe it’s time for climate policy to take a holiday.

The concept of a pause—a genuine break to reassess—is desperately needed in a field driven by alarmist narratives and speculative science. Policies built on climate models riddled with uncertainties are just as likely to cause harm as to achieve any good. Instead of doubling down on Net Zero mandates or renewable energy quotas, policymakers could use this downtime to ask: Are these policies truly benefiting humanity—or are they paving the way for unintended consequences?

A Pause to Reflect on Predictions

Climate policies are often justified by dire predictions that consistently fail to materialize. As we head into 2025, it’s worth recalling the many apocalyptic forecasts that have gone up in smoke. Take claims that Pacific islands would be underwater by now or that Arctic ice would have disappeared entirely. Instead, those islands remain habitable, and polar bears are still prowling the Arctic, or many other failures that can be seen on WUWT’s own Failed Prediction Timeline.

Policymakers rarely acknowledge these glaring inaccuracies. Instead, they double down, crafting policies based on models that overestimate warming and underestimate human adaptability. Shouldn’t this end-of-year break be the perfect opportunity to reassess these models and their real-world track record? If climate science can’t predict the future reliably, why are we treating it as a crystal ball?

This holiday pause could also be a time to question whether the harm caused by rushed climate policies outweighs their supposed benefits. Consider the lives disrupted by soaring energy costs, the industries crippled by overregulation, and the developing nations stalled in their quest for prosperity—all based on uncertain projections.

Energy Policy: A Season for Common Sense

Winter is a time when the consequences of misguided energy policies are felt most acutely. As families struggle to heat their homes amidst skyrocketing energy prices, it becomes clear that the push for unreliable wind and solar has left many vulnerable. Policymakers often dismiss these hardships as “necessary sacrifices,” but sacrifices for what, exactly? If the goal is to mitigate future harm, why ignore the very real harm happening now?

Imagine if policymakers spent a week in the shoes of an average family—choosing between heating their home and affording groceries—or a business owner facing closure due to unsustainable energy costs. Such firsthand experiences might prompt a more balanced approach: one that prioritizes reliable energy sources, such as natural gas or nuclear, over intermittent and expensive renewables.

Learning from 2024: The Year of Uncertain Policies

This past year, COP29 in Baku provided yet another showcase of global climate policy’s contradictions. As delegates flew in on private jets to lecture the world about emissions, Europe’s energy crisis continued to highlight the fragility of green energy systems. From Germany’s backpedaling on coal phaseouts to California’s rolling blackouts, 2024 was a banner year for illustrating the practical failures of policies grounded in uncertainty.

These examples underscore a fundamental problem: Climate policies often ignore the real-world trade-offs they impose. Leaders talk of “saving the planet,” but their actions reveal priorities that are out of touch with the needs of ordinary people. By taking a “holiday,” climate policymakers could reflect on whether their policies are doing more harm than good—especially for the world’s most vulnerable.

A New Year’s Resolution for Climate Policy

As we step into 2025, it’s time for climate policy to adopt some New Year’s resolutions. Here are a few ideas worth considering:

1. Acknowledge Uncertainty: Recognize the significant gaps in climate models and predictions, and adjust policies to reflect this uncertainty.
2. Stop Harming the Poor: Reassess how policies like carbon taxes and renewable mandates disproportionately impact low-income families and developing nations.
3. Support Energy Innovation: Shift focus from restricting energy use to encouraging technological advancements in nuclear power, clean coal, and other practical solutions.
4. End the Culture of Alarmism: Replace the constant drumbeat of catastrophe with a balanced discussion about risks and opportunities.

Conclusion

A pause for reflection doesn’t mean abandoning environmental stewardship. On the contrary, it’s about embracing a more thoughtful approach—one that weighs the costs and benefits of every policy. It’s time to move away from rushing toward uncertain goals and instead prioritize solutions that address today’s needs without mortgaging the future.

Should climate policy take a holiday? Absolutely. Because sometimes, the most productive thing you can do is stop, reflect, and reconsider. Let 2025 be the year we replace rash commitments with reasoned action—and, in doing so, create a better path forward for everyone.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

What I really wanted to comment on regarding the EV consultation was the gross disinformation below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/industry-encouraged-to-shape-uk-transition-to-zero-emission-vehicles

The Consultation Document is even more specific:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/phasing-out-sales-of-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-from-2030-and-supporting-the-zev-transition

The so-called “industry research” comes not from the car industry at all, but from the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), who would be better described as a Disinformation Unit. The link given takes us to their analysis here.

And the ECIU analysis makes it clear that they have based their petrol costs on the pump price, including fuel duty and VAT:

A typical comparison is the Zoe v Clio:

But when fuel duty of 69.54p/litre (inc VAT) is deducted, that £667 saving is reduced to just £167.

We also need to factor in the fact that VAT is charged at 20% on petrol, but only 5% on electricity. A 5% VAT rate on petrol would cut the saving cut to about £100.

It is of course valid to quote the full savings listed by the ECIU in relation to actual costs paid  by drivers currently.

But the Government is not doing that. Instead it is deliberately claiming that drivers will benefit from the transition to EVs. But they know full well that by the time ICE cars are banned in 2030, the taxation raised by fuel duty and VAT on fuel will have to be raised from other sources. Consequently drivers may benefit from cheaper charging, but will see those savings cancelled out by road charging or some other revenue raising scheme.

The Government also ignore the fact that EVs cost much more to buy, wiping out whatever paltry savings might be made on fuel.

The Zoe, for instance, costs £4400 more to buy then the Clio.

If a business put out misleading advertising like this, they would be hauled over the coals by the Advertising Standards Authority.