No, the ‘Benefits’ of Net Zero Do Not Outweigh its Costs
“Under a range of assumptions, the benefits of Net Zero consistently outweigh the costs,” claims a new report from the Climate Change Committee (CCC) – the quango charged with telling Parliament what Britain’s ‘Carbon Budgets’ should be. They are the opening words of its “supplementary analysis” of the Seventh Carbon Budget, and they are, if read correctly, surprisingly candid. But the candour required to admit to basing policy recommendations on a “range of assumptions” has been immediately forgotten by journalists and politicians who have turned the CCC’s report into a statement of fact.
The Guardian’s Fiona Harvey was first to the scene. “Some real figures on the costs and benefits of Net Zero, as opposed to the made up ones beloved of the reality-deniers,” she tweeted, linking to her article in which she claims: ‘Reaching Net Zero by 2050 “cheaper for UK than one fossil fuel crisis”.’ She had already forgotten the “range of assumptions”.
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.
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.
Pretty funny stuff from the CCC, but really just a desperate attempt at self justification. In the real world, which is slowly but surely approaching, these comedians would be out of a job
Who voted for these people? Like all Quangos they are parasites, unelected, paid vast sums of tax payers money to serve their own ideological interests. What a boony
Other assumptions prove that the wind blows nicely all the time and the sun shines all day long.
Is there any assumption of the cost of the unemployment caused by the net zero stupidity?
Unemployment would be counted on the benefit side. You become unemployed; you die; lower healthcare costs (and less pesky carbon walking around). Win!
Seriously, this is implied in some of the reasoning (see e.g. travel, diet) the article uncovers.
The Net Zero Amendment was simply waved through Parliament in 2019 with NO DISCUSSION OR DEBATE of cost/benefit and NO VOTE. —–It was a CLIMATE CHANGE COUP. ——-The cost to the Political Class was irrelevant and the ideology trumped the cost. We see now what the costs are as we have the highest electricity prices in the world along with other silly countries like Germany and the Industrial Base is TRASHED as well as millions forced into ENERGY POVERTY —DELIBERATELY.
This is what alignment with the UN and WEF agenda brings, all under the guise of saving the planet which is simply the excuse for what it is really about —-Global Eco Socialism, something that Thatcher warned about in her book “Statecraft”
“Some real figures on the costs and benefits of Net Zero, as opposed to the made up ones beloved of the reality-deniers,” she tweeted, linking to her article in which she claims: ‘Reaching Net Zero by 2050 “cheaper for UK than one fossil fuel crisis”.’ She had already forgotten the “range of assumptions”.
1) Compared to what?
2) At what cost
3) What is the evidence?
( ©️ Prof Thomas Sowell)
There are no actual benefits of net zero, at best it’s a displacement activity that simply moves energy expenditure somewhere else to benefit different people and at worst it aims to remove an insignificant amount of a trace atmospheric gas that is strongly beneficial to all life on the planet.
We’re already in an Emperor’s New Clothes situation.
The boy has pointed the finger and laughed. More and more “ordinary people” have joined in and are refusing to go along with the nonsense. They aren’t buying EVs, heat pumps and solar panels. They’ve refused veganism and are buying meat.
The parasitic “Nobles” may still be shouting that the suit of clothes are the most amazing they’ve ever seen but outside the Court of the CCC, the argument has been lost.