, 94 tweets, 16 min read Read on Twitter
Watch part 2 of the £trillion non-debate.
Minister says that the Treasury will be doing a full impact assessment and evaluation of the costs of #netzero.

Why would they do this *after* the #netzero target had been set?

It's a blank cheque, isn't it?
Who agrees to a thing before knowing the costs of a thing?
Maybe that's normal for @beisgovuk ministers. But it's a surprise to me.
Interventions are less worried about the costs than they are concerned to make sure than all consumption is included in the emissions reduction target.
John Gummer intervenes - says that flights and shipping will be included.
The lord wants 'consensus on the means' of delivering #netzero, not just the ends.

There isn't a consensus on either. The cross-party consensus is not shared by the wider public.

Nobody in Parliament seems to understand it. They're in a bubble.
For the 'opposition'... the minister for slow reading is reading a script, slowly. He seems to want the #netzero to go further.

Such opposition.
Apparently international aviation and shipping is not included in the target.
The opposition really doesn't think that the proposed #netZero target hurts the taxpayer/billpayer enough.
"Decarbonising" transport is functionally equivalent to abolishing transport.

They admit it, if you listen carefully.
the current green lord is Lord Grantchester. He's finished, thankfully. Apparently he's as wealthy as he is boring.
Gummer is on his feet. He's the chair of the CCC, which produced the #netZero report. He is emphasising the cross-party agreement on climate change. I think he's upset that Labour politicians have been criticising the government's proposal.
Gummer loves a political consensus because he's a beneficiary of undemocratic policy-making and so is his entourage.
Gummer says he's unhappy about criticism that the report is uncosted. Not sure what point he's making. It sounds like he's waffling an excuse for not having produced a proper costing. "It's the best we've got" seems to be the whole of it.
Gummer is now trying to conflate criticism of the cost aspects with people who are 'dismissing' the problem.
If the sceptics are wrong, says Gummer "we'll have buggered up the planet".

Such shrill language.
Gummer is a liar.

He has not argued with sceptics. Zealots and cronies have resisted and closed down debate.
Gummer shouting against the GWPF saying that the estimate of retrofitting houses was too much at £150K per home.

The green leaning IAT's figure is £2trillion -- the same as rebuilding the entire housing stock.
Government makes things cheaper says Gummer.
The GWPF's figures are not true, says Gummer.

But he cannot show @theCCCuk's workings.
It is for Gummer and the CCC to reply to their critics. With evidence.

Instead, they smear their critics.

That is how we can know that the #netZero target is deeply regressive, and the likes of Gummer serve themselves.
"we are building crap houses", says Gummer.

He admits that people will have to pay the costs of retrofitting. He hasn't said how much that will be.
"Cross party agreement is essential to win this battle", says Gummer.

He wants politicians and parties to close ranks against the public.

It's that simple.

His fortune depends on it.
Bernard Donoghue -- GWPF chair - politely objects to Gummer. Asks if the Chancellor's estimate of £trillion is wrong.
Gummer claims that the CCC has checked "every figure" on the GWPF's website and that they are all wrong.

Where have they published their rebuttals?
Peter Liley asks if his figures, published by the GWPF, from the Government's own figures, of £300bn costs of the CCA to date are correct.

Gummer very angrily refuses to answer.
That angry refusal is very typical of Gummer.

He cannot cope with debate and criticism. He's nasty when confronted with it.
Gummer sits down after his rant. Lib Dem's Lord Fox stands up and usual stuff -- wants more.
Fox says "we're not going fast enough" after having spent his time going on about how difficult it will be and how many questions have not been answered about how #netZero will be achieved.
Bryony Worthington on her feet. She was the FOE activist who was recruited by the Labour Government to help author the Climate Change Act. For which she was rewarded with a Peerage. Now she's blurting the typical alarmist litany.
she says that the UK must deliver #netzero, despite the rest of the world increasing its CO2 emissions (she named China's and Russia's vast FF expansion).

She should try explaining that to all the people who didn't get the chance to vote for her.
Worthington wants to go beyond #netzero to repay "our" "climate debt".
It's very easy for people like Worthington to issue imperatives, and to propose Unicorn policies.

She doesn't have to find work. She's got a well-paid job, for life, and a FAT pension.
"there is no price you can put on the future of humanity", says worthington, dismissing cost-benefit analyses.

She wants a blank cheque.

There is nothing moral about a blank cheque, you mad, mad, mad woman.
"We've got to undo the damage we've already done" says Baroness Young of Old Scone.

We haven't done *any* damage.


Tree-planting needs to increase fifty-fold, says Young, to undo the damage.

I hope she's got a big garden.
Young says we only need to ask the insurance companies to estimate the cost of climate change.

She's wrong.
Matt Ridley cites the £trillion figure & sums already committed through subsidies. Illustrating the costs: £1000 per second for the next 30 years.

Says the costs are much higher, even on the CCC's own evidence.
Ridley pointing out that Peers have casually said that the costs are acceptable.

Points to the @theCCCuk's failure to provide @aDissentient with the basis of its cost estimates.
Ridley making mincemeat out of the CCC's ridiculous hydrogen plans.
Ridley citing the £2trillion cost of retrofitting that I earlier wrongly attributed to the IAT.
Ridley points out that the UK is going to be alone on the world stage. Other big players have already signalled they will not join us.

#Netzero is not "soft-power, it's soft-in-the-head".
Ridley wants to compare the social cost of carbon and the cost of abatement.

That way we can have a rational basis for evaluating #netzero.
Ridley finishes a great speech pointing out that Gummer is in no position to criticise anyone for "inaccuracies".
Adair Turner is on his feet. Declares his interests in the wind industry.

Turner was the first Chair of the CCC. Attacks sceptics. Says sceptics are always wrong.

He can never respond to sceptics or critics in debate though.
Only alarmism from Turner. Wants the world to achieve #netzero by 2050.
Turner says the costs are falling far faster than anyone could have predicted.

So why have energy prices risen?
It doesn't matter how much solar panel costs fall if the costs of land to put them on rises.
Turner's speech was entire rhetorical. Possibly more so than Gummer's, though not quite as angry.

Given their positions, this is remarkable. They have to mischaracterise their critics, and cannot respond to them in kind, on the basis of the facts that they claim pertain.
Jenny Jones on her feet. "Not doing enough". Says she feels embarrassed to be a peer while there are green activists outside demanding more.
Jones saying the government isn't accepting the science, "which is clear".
There are millions of people outside Parliament NOT demanding #netzero.
Jones: "Not enough". "Not enough". "Not enough". "Not enough". "Not enough". "Not enough". "Not enough". "Not enough". "Not enough". "Not enough". "Not enough".

"Can we please have some policies that will make a difference". She has no idea.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge terribly worried about fracking. Clearly doesn't know what she's talking about -- can't even read the script properly.
The CCC's Julia King (I think) disputing that the CCC's cost estimates are 'impact' estimates. Tries to claim that there are hidden benefits.

She's lying. We know she's lying. She told me a decade ago that "behaviour change" is the biggest part of the CCC's targets...
... King's view was that the public are "extremely selfish".

She is entirely hostile to the public. She is completely indifferent to the hardship that #netzero will inflict on them.
This wasn't Baroness Brown -- Julia King is Baroness Brown.
Peter Lilley speaking -- he pointed out that the potential costs of the original Climate Change Bill's target (60%) were twice the costs of the benefit. Parliament ignored it, and took the advice of the CCC to increase it to 80%.
The government produced an estimate which found that the costs would double. Then invented a fictious figure of a £trillion of benefits.

The cost benefit analysis was a fantasy.
Intervention from a Labour Lord, claiming that Lilley is re-writing history. Says that the government of the time answered his question.

Lilley clarifies.
Lilley's objections are to the economics. Worthington says that policies that follow #netzero will have their own impact assessments.
Lilley wants a cost benefit of the total of the #netzero, not piecemeal impact assessments of the many policies that will follow it.
Lilley is emphasising that it is the responsibility of the house to scrutinise the costs.

It's true. But the whole point of #netzero is a blank cheque.
We should beware and be aware of the political risks of imposing huge costs on the public says Lilley, citing the gilet jaune.
Not sure who's speaking now. But he looks *far* too young to be a peer.
Daniel Mosley, 4th Baron Ravensdale, apparently. He's 36.

An engineer apparently. But giving a quite boring lecture on thermal efficiency.
Bernard Donoghue raises the point that the #netzero target has appeared because of May's desire for a 'legacy' and the climate 'emergency' propaganda.
Met Office data does not support the case of the 'climate emergency'. Climate model's do not make a sound case, either.
BEIS figures suggest the costs will be £70bn/yr, says BD. Suggests the total liability is too complex to give an account of ,and likely far higher than the CCC admits.
"We have to ask which areas of public expenditure may have to suffer to pay for it: health, social care, schools, defence? They may be cut to shoulder the burden".
"the working people of the country will carry the burden". The committee appreciates the problem, says BD.

Likens climate change to an establishment religion that is not shared by the public, and #netzero will not enjoy public support.
it is irresponsible to push through this SI without assessments of costs. BD asks for an independent inquiry & parliamentary reports.
Final point from BD: #netzero has been pushed through in a cavalier way, with no regard for the global context. It's dangerous. A futile gesture of moral imperialism. "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".
Wasn't quite the final point BD! Too much to fit into a tweet, but rightly condemns the BBC, compares to the Stasi. Says people won't be able to afford their licence fees if the #netzero policy is not properly scrutinised.
Lord Henly is wrapping up.

I'm usually a critic of the Lords, but there was *Far* more debate today than there was in the Commons.
Henley wants to address costs and how to achieve #netzero.
Costs: the CCC estimate that the cost is now within the same range of the 2008 climate change act.

But they plucked figures out of thin air.
GDP figures are simply to give scale, says Henly, not estimates of impact.

This is disingenuous.
Impacts/costs are estimated in the carbon budgets, says Henly.

This hardly answers Lilley's point.
Matt Ridley asks Henly why the CCC has not made its workings out available.

That's a matter for the CCC.

My experience is that the CCC are not interested in answering questions.
Lord Grantchester closing for the LP. Absolutely dire, apocalypticism, followed by 'green industrial revolution' unicornism.

It's quite a shamelessly opportunistic attempt to criticise the government, which has no resonance outside Westminster.
Looks like it's going to a vote.
It seems very clear that none of the supporters of #netzero, like the supporters of the CCA2008 and its targets have got a clue how it can be delivered, either through legislation or technology, nor any idea how much it will cost.
The advocates do not care how much it will cost, nor the consequences.

When the issue of costs and consequences are raised, the reaction is to slur the questioner, or to recycle the alarmist litany.
Those advocates fall into three camps: the zealots, the dense and the conflicted.

They want to remake UK society and culture in its entirety. They have no idea how. They have no mandate.
To call it "virtue signalling" barely does the travesty justice. These are individuals who are *supposed* to be extremely competent people, with the sense not to be drawn along by nakedly ideological projects, and to respond to them with careful attention to the facts.
On the issue of climate change, the vast majority of MPs and Peers have proven themselves entirely incapable of scrutinising anything.

This is perhaps the reason why the CCC was created. Today's politicians prefer to defer responsibility, while maintaining their privilege.
This has given all sorts of unsavoury elements influence over UK policy, to enrich themselves at public expense.

You can protest that "climate change is real" as much as you like. The point is that climate change policy is a beano for chancers, spivs and crooks, all the same.
This epitomises just how ***king ridiculous the entire spectacle has become.
The BBC and other institutions of the state will not permit the expression of climate change scepticism, or debate.

But they will permit unhinged, end-times weirdos like Rupert Read.
It's like waking up one day in a Jim Jones settlement.
They are a cult. They are *literally* a cult. A crazy, end-times cult.

But let's not have any debate on TV or outside Parliament about #netzero.
Anyway. That's the end. #Netzero is policy now.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Ben Pile
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!