Because governments cannot make such a massive infrastructural change without f***ing things up. What else has it got right? Not HS2. Not Crossrail... Not nuclear power. The bigger the project, the greater the failure.
Moreover, between now and then, this is going to cause manufacturing and retail and service sectors MASSIVE upheaval.
The manufacturers have long business plans. They are going to be scrapped. No more R&D. No more factory building. Financial quagmire.
Here's the BMW Mini plant at Oxford, with other auto industries in the area. It's vast. 4000 people work in the factory, and 400 have just lost their jobs thanks to Covid19 policies. In 10 years time, Oxford will go from low unemployment to high unemployment.
Also on the site is Unipart, from the remnants of British Leyland, which is 3/4 worker-owned. It has 6,000 employees.
But for how much longer?
In 2030, we will still be not paying off the hundreds of £billions that @RishiSunak and the government spunked on ridiculous Covid measures.
I.e. 2030 is less distant in time than the 2008 financial crisis.
Remember "austerity"?
If there is any recovery between now and 2030, it will then be squandered by this vastly stupid Net Zero agenda.
Like millions of people, I depend on second hand, older, but serviceable cars. The most I ever spent on a car was about £1750. I have never been able to afford a new car. This market will disappear, because batteries will not survive long enough.
Public transport is more expensive than private car use. Loans are predicated on disposable income. But #NetZero is going to absorb all of that that *anyone* has in increased energy prices, mandatory housing retrofitting, and so on.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
To the extent that it is not mere nonsense, this is green mysticism: "the climate crisis is driving the foundations of economic shocks".
People internalise this irrational green ideology. We should take it seriously.
Inflation and interest rates have nothing to do with 'climate'.
There is no climate change signal in cocoa production stats. Thee of the last four years saw record production. The last year's production was still higher than any year prior to seven years ago.
Prices of commodities often fluctuate, for myriad reasons. Greens always blame a single outlier on 'crisis' to support their ignorant ideological view.
Labour will further exclude the public from political decision-making by outsourcing policy to unelected panels of people, who will be tortured into submitting to the will of the fake experts that will bore them close to death, before providing them with rigged questions, and then writing up their deliberations to suit the conveners, not what the 'citizens assembly' actually determined...
Read my analysis of the climate 'citizens assembly'.
This is a somewhat shallow and hollow attempt to circumvent the major problem haunting global climate politics for four decades.
It was the 'free-rider' problem: why should we commit to self-harming policies when others won't?
Those other countries were 'developing' when the first global policies were being considered. Now they are well and truly developed, and their progress is accelerating, while much of the seemingly 'developed' world is stagnating, thanks in large part to rising energy costs, owed in turn directly and indirectly to the green policies she is arguing for.
Ritchie tries to counter what she claims is a 'weak argument' with a series of arguments that are even weaker.
1. Rich countries – that have emitted the most – have a moral responsibility
Why? The data provided by her own project show very clearly that there are no adverse signals in fundamental metrics of human welfare that can be attributed to climate change.
Moreover, the same data show that affordable, abundant and reliable energy are key to that progress.
So there is no injury. And thus there is no moral obligation.
This work is an add-on to our @ClimateDebateUK/@Togetherdec report on air pollution politics.
We show how green billionaires and their fake civil society organisations are corrupting UK democracy at all levels of government -- international, national, regional and local.
My 'debate' with Donnachadh McCarthy on @petercardwell's @TalkTV show this morning.
Starts at 1h.46m.44s into this Youtube clip.
A discussion thread follows...
Unfortunately debate with green zealots is not possible, because of what I call the 'Femi effect'. As with debates about Brexit with Remainer activists, you end facing a machine-gunned litany of unconnected factoids, precluding any focus on facts, let alone coherent argument.
That means you have to try to limit what you respond to -- McCarthy wanted to talk about everything from ice cores to annual global temperatures and his solar panels, not the rights and wrongs of UK climate and energy policy. And much of what he said was simply untrue.