Thread by @clim8resistance

The two faces of the Net Zero target. How to pretend a blank cheque isn't a blank cheque.

It is not only feasible that the costs of #netZero will exceed the amounts stated by Stern, Turner, Gummer, and the CCC.

Give me an example in which *ANY* government body has accurately estimated costs of a *favoured* policy. HS2? Crossrail?

See?

Here is one of their calculations.

Even if they are *right*, it could mean that the next three decades are characterised by economic stagnation.

That's assuming no external or internal economic shocks, such as another global recession. That would plunge the UK into depression.

Here are those central estimate costs, broken down.

1.3% of GDP is their 'central estimate'.

But ask yourself how wrong is an undemocratic, unaccountable technoratic panel -- of individuals whose relationships to special interests are undisclosed but known -- capable of being?

Here's an example of how wrong government estimates can be.

In 2012, BIS/DECC released their analysis of the size of the green economy. They claimed that it was worth £112 billion. Here is the breakdown of their market analysis, from my own reanalysis.

I had tried to get the data released under FOI since 2009. I met with the firm the government hired to produce the analysis. But they wouldn't show me the data or explain how it was produced. It took me 4 years to get half of it. theregister.co.uk/2009/04/02/gre…

What this showed is that the government were using already-existing sectors in their estimate of the market for "low carbon and environmental goods and services".

They were including the UK's water companies in their estimate.

By far the biggest part of the 'green economy' on the government's analysis was the "low carbon" market.

This image shows the data that they had published. But it meant nothing.

"Alternative fuels" and "alternative fuel vehicle" turned out to include...

Fossil fuels. Propane, LPG and LNG were included as 'low carbon'.

This is a classic government trick: reclassifying things which are categorically not-X as X.

The Low Carbon Building Technologies category included sales of windows and doors. No, not special windows and doors, every window and door.

When all the categories which are categorically not part of the 'green economy' are excluded, the following estimate was produced. From £112 billion, the more plausible figure was £28 billion.

But when you subtract green taxes & subsidies, the figure stands at £16 billion.

The government had inflated the size of the green economy by 700 per cent.

It was able to do this by creating opacity where there should be transparency, and by excluding debate from policy-making.

The body that produced the #Netzero report is no different to the BIS/DECC of 2012. They are likely worse.

They are intransigent.

They are hostile to criticism.

They are opaque.

The are conflicted.

And they are zealots.

It is *experience* which tells us that we should not take @theCCCuk's estimates at face value.

If you believe that government bodies can produce accurate cost-benefit analyses for their favoured policies, three decades into the future, I have a bridge to sell each of you.

Whether or not climate change is real, what is certain is that the UK Committee on Climate Change is a scam.

It is a nest of vested interests. It epitomises policy-based evidence-making.

If you don't believe me, try to challenge or get it to account for its claims.

You will not get far.

climate-resistance.org/2015/11/freedo…