Delaying Ed Miliband’s Net Zero Targets “Could Save UK £350 Billion”

A new report this week from the National Energy System Operator (NESO), has blown up Ed Miliband’s mad Net Zero plans.

According to NESO, aiming for an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050, instead of the current 100% target, could save the UK £350 billion, £14 billion a year. NESO is the official, state-owned body responsible for planning and running the UK’s energy systems, so what they say carries a lot of weight.


To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.

There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

24 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dinger64
3 months ago

And then labour can give it to wasters,grifters and gimmegrants!

ElaineH
ElaineH
3 months ago

He will forever be known as mad Ed.

Marcus Aurelius knew
3 months ago

Reduce the emissions reduction target to zero, CO2 is plant food and hence necessary for all life on earth, it’s not a pollutant.

Then put Mad Ed in a cage and charge admission.

Dinger64
3 months ago

I wouldn’t pay to see that monster!
(I’d pay to have him put in an oubliette)

Marcus Aurelius knew
3 months ago
Reply to  Dinger64

Worth reinstating an oubliette just for him.

John Kerr
John Kerr
3 months ago
Reply to  Dinger64

Did you mean omelette?

Dickie Hart
Dickie Hart
3 months ago

Meanwhile in the real world, last year China commissioned 94.5GW of new coal fired electricity generation to add to its current fleet of approx 1200 coal fired power stations. As I write, the UK is generating only 34.3 GW from all sources, gas, nuclear, wind, solar etc etc

Marcus Aurelius knew
3 months ago
Reply to  Dickie Hart

Perspective

A concept unfamiliar to the brainwashed save the planet crowd

Keencook
Keencook
3 months ago
Reply to  Dickie Hart

Not much solar in East Yorkshire today…….

Jon Garvey
3 months ago

If going slow saves so much money, how much more would be saved by doing nothing?

Yes, but what’s the point of saving all that money if the earth tips over, 99.9% of species become extinct, we’re suffocated by cow-farts, the sea rises 400m, and the sun falls on my poor bald pate?? You tell me that, eh?

Marcus Aurelius knew
3 months ago
Reply to  Jon Garvey

Apparently we already passed that tipping point so it’s time to party, what else can we do?!

Jeremy17
Jeremy17
3 months ago
Reply to  Jon Garvey

John…..we maybe in climate change but not crisis.
With hydrocarbons we have the cheapest & MOST efficient energy to ADAPT.( if needed)
Note: all disaster predictions have been false, and if we keep talking of planetary extinction it’s not surprising our kids are “not bothering ” with Life caused by Mental Illness.

John Kerr
John Kerr
3 months ago
Reply to  Jon Garvey

Things are so bad that I can’t tell if you’re joking or not. 🙂

Steve Hatch
Steve Hatch
3 months ago

The truly “holistic” approach would be to throw all the legislation in the bin and let people get on with their lives – the best solutions would evolve naturally.

transmissionofflame
3 months ago

Well surely it’s not really a saving – just expenditure postponed?

varmint
3 months ago

OK, Miliband is the European and World Champion of Phony Planet Savers and licks the backsides of the UN/WEF Eco Socialists and its Sustainable Development and Net Zero Agenda’s, but let’s not forget who brought the Net Zero Amendment to Parliament. It was Teresa May, supposedly a Conservative who did that, and it was waved through Parliament in 2019 with no debate, no cost/benefit analysis and NO VOTE
—So in actual fact the entire Political Class have foisted this scam on us and it is only now with Reform rising in the polls that Conservatives are saying they will ease up on some of it, when infact it all needs to be DITCHED. ——Lets hope REFORM can make that happen and maybe our electricity bills won’t be the highest in the world like what they are now because of this phony planet saving FRAUD

JohnK
3 months ago

Without delving into their publications, it would seem that scrapping equipment early (compared with the original project plans for a given installation) would increase costs, compared with replacement in line with historic depreciation & long term replacement forecasts. Ask an accountant about that.

transmissionofflame
3 months ago
Reply to  JohnK

Good point – at least in part this “saving” may actually be real rather than just expenditure postponed, if it allows functioning equipment to reach end of life naturally.

Norfolk-Sceptic
Norfolk-Sceptic
3 months ago

You need to take into consideration any backups that need to be maintained or purchased, or damage due to lack of supply.

transmissionofflame
3 months ago

That’s true – unless all the “old” infrastructure that can be ditched* including all the duplicated stuff and the backups, spare parts etc come to end of life at the same time, which seems unlikely/

*Can be ditched once scientists learn how to harness unicorn farts to power an industrialised nation.

mike r
mike r
3 months ago

If a 20% reduction yields £14 billion a year in savings, does that mean that hot having a reduction target would yield a £70 billion a year saving? We could fill the governments black hole several times over.

JXB
JXB
3 months ago

Delaying Ed Miliband would save much more.

Marcus Aurelius knew
3 months ago
Reply to  JXB

I’d prefer to hurry his life up, relative to ours. So yes, you are indeed correct, the theory of relativity states that we need to slow him down. Maybe put him into deep freeze.

He could be used for actual science.

John Kerr
John Kerr
3 months ago

For delay, read scrap. Extrapolate that to the whole climate change scam and some form of normality might return.