First, I would agree that some global climate change may indeed be taking place. World history has shown that such changes come in cycles and are a natural phenomenon. These cycles have never been controlled by mankind and I would suggest that Draconian measures to attempt to do so constitute wishful thinking, pandering to the crowd and questionable integrity.
A millennium ago, King Canute failed in his narcissistic bid to order the tide not to come in on the beach. He got his feet wet. Are we observing similar narcissism in the majority of our Western leaders today, attacking fossil fuels and planning bans of the same without having a cost-effective replacement available? As a goal, “Net Zero” sounds a good slogan but applying it in an untimely and zealous fashion demonstrates a complete lack of lateral thinking and common sense – and will lead to more than getting one’s feet wet.
Reportedly, it is now mooted that the Biden administration is looking at a near-term ban on the use of diesel power for its trucking industry (which is the lifeblood of USA’s commercial prosperity and enterprise). Forcing the truckers to go electric would produce the following nightmare.
At present, diesel-powered trucks travel approximately 1200 miles on one tank. Refilling the tank takes approximately 15 minutes. In contrast, it is estimated that electric battery-powered trucks would only be able to travel approximately 200 miles on one charge and recharging the battery could take several hours – probably exacerbated by long queues at truck stops. In one fell swoop, the Administration would have effectively paralyzed the movement of goods and merchandise throughout the USA.
Where is the common sense in that?
In one of my earlier Insights, I raised the subject of billions of tons of fossil-fuel-powered merchant shipping transiting the global commons each day. Our Western leaders appear not to have addressed the significance of this scenario – which may well prove to be an insurmountable barrier to the Net Zero ideological pundits. But great self-inflicted harm could have been realised in the interim.
The tsunami of climate change/Net Zero hysteria continues unabated and, if it progresses without the application of rational thought and logic, it represents an existential threat to our prosperity and, in turn, to our national security.
On the military front, it was particularly disturbing to hear the views of the retired Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Michael Wigston, when he was in office, promoting the Net Zero philosophy for implementation within his Service – even giving target dates for the same, within the next decade, if I remember correctly. Pure lunacy? And pandering to a blinkered audience? Perhaps, in the light of his views, the RAF would now lend strong support to the procurement of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVNs) and surface warships for the Royal Navy. That would be a logical military aim and a step in the right direction for maintaining peace on the high seas – and it would have immense strategic significance, unlike the ongoing Tempest program (whose extravagant costs could pay for at least one CVN, even two).
On the same front, can you imagine our land-force war fighting vehicles such as tanks, armoured personnel carriers and self-propelled artillery platforms being electrically powered? Their utility when deployed to a combat zone would be practically zero.
It is becoming abundantly clear that Net Zero pundits in today’s world are definitely on the wrong track, domestically, commercially and militarily speaking. Implementation of their ideology and proposed timescales can only result in Western democracies being led like “lambs to the slaughter”. A very different way ahead needs to be established, sooner rather than later.
Climate has, and will always be changing. It is right to consider what we consume and I applaud moves to do more with less. In your note, you could have added a 12th point, which is we are in long terms cO 2 decline. If it drops from its current level by half, plant life is unsustainable, and all life that relies on them. Conversely, if it rose 100 times from the current.04%, they would thrive, and we’d be fine. As it is, man made CO2 accounts for tiny percentage of the total. Our political leader do not grasp the basic engineering required nor what minerals are needed.
Bang on Sharkey..to many eco nuts who are blinkered to the point of absolute stupidity.
Flt Lt Peter Tamblin I Eng MRAeS RAF Rtd August 18, 2023Reply
Spot on old chap, as a former RAF Engineer Officer, I tear my hair out at these mid informed knee jerking politicians who support their tenuous careers with ideological nonsense. I am also almost ashamed of our previous CAS, who in that position proved to be a rather spineless political pawn. He was a good pilot and a good Squadron Commander, but at the top level he rather lost his way. Incidentally our new CAS is an Engineer, the first time ever!! However, within industry, there may just be a few green roots of reason appearing, the aviation world and the auto sector in particular, but is it all too late.?
And as an aside, how many years have we been unsuccessfully banging on about the destruction of the South American rain forests. Of course international giants like Shell were involved who seemed to have much more sway than governments.
I Totally agree with all you state here, Sharkey. To me, it’s clear that the UK Politicos pushing this crazy plan are either thick, gullible, under the thumb of the “Establishment”, or they too want to rule us plebs with a constant “fear factor”. ‘To control your people by fear’ has been the MO of many a dictator. Our UK environmental Fear!! In the 70s, we were told to be afraid the oncoming new ice age but it did not happen. So, in the 90’s, they switched to man made Global warming (AGW). Hmm! After zero increased temperature for 20 plus years that too failed so they conveniently switched again, for us to then fear – man made climate change! Horrors! LOL, as though humans could influence the effects of the sun, the moon, the planets and all of the weather patterns around the Earth. They all contribute to our numerous climates. It is totally illogical, dangerous and is destined to be, economically devastating for us to undertake to save the world when we ourselves are only responsible for a mere <1% of the global total of LOL, "dangerous" Carbon emissions. Especially when the world's biggest offender, China, now throws out a massive 31% of that total yet still builds two new "dangerous" coal fired power stations each WEEK! Similarly India. Our net zero output will not change the global outbid one tiny bit. How could it? NB: The UK is way down at 17th, in the league table of "offenders", yet our country is probably spending more 'green' cash (via taxes, funding etc) per GDP than any of the other 16 to "correct" it. And it is OUR cash! Tax payers and householders, et al.
So I would ask Downing Street, “Why are we wasting it on a dubious project that sees China reaping the full benefits of cheap energy while we price ourselves out of the home and world markets because of it? It makes absolutely NO SENSE! Are you, the Government, really that senseless"? Seems so. I can now see the UK really is the home of those infamous White Elephants and those in power still seek to continue to breed them! It certainly looks that way.
I agree. Net Zero is an aspiration and one day may be achieved but not in the time scale demanded by the global warming activists, nor because those time limits have ,ludicrously, been written into law by our government. The technologies that will allow it to happen are still in development and the industrial infrastructure that will make it possible is way behind schedule. I doubt it will be fully achieved this century. In any case, man’s part in the present period of global warming, while it exists, is minimal compared to the natural cycle, but what is apparent is his arrogance in believing that he can stop it. PS: Nice to see that you have amended the text to get the correct King with feet wet. Harold was the one with the arrow in the eye (although there is the belief that he wasn’t, and instead was cut down with a sword or battle axe).
Agreed!
Climate has, and will always be changing. It is right to consider what we consume and I applaud moves to do more with less. In your note, you could have added a 12th point, which is we are in long terms cO 2 decline. If it drops from its current level by half, plant life is unsustainable, and all life that relies on them. Conversely, if it rose 100 times from the current.04%, they would thrive, and we’d be fine. As it is, man made CO2 accounts for tiny percentage of the total. Our political leader do not grasp the basic engineering required nor what minerals are needed.
Bang on Sharkey..to many eco nuts who are blinkered to the point of absolute stupidity.
Spot on old chap, as a former RAF Engineer Officer, I tear my hair out at these mid informed knee jerking politicians who support their tenuous careers with ideological nonsense.
I am also almost ashamed of our previous CAS, who in that position proved to be a rather spineless political pawn. He was a good pilot and a good Squadron Commander, but at the top level he rather lost his way. Incidentally our new CAS is an Engineer, the first time ever!!
However, within industry, there may just be a few green roots of reason appearing, the aviation world and the auto sector in particular, but is it all too late.?
And as an aside, how many years have we been unsuccessfully banging on about the destruction of the South American rain forests. Of course international giants like Shell were involved who seemed to have much more sway than governments.
I Totally agree with all you state here, Sharkey.
To me, it’s clear that the UK Politicos pushing this crazy plan are either thick, gullible, under the thumb of the “Establishment”, or they too want to rule us plebs with a constant “fear factor”. ‘To control your people by fear’ has been the MO of many a dictator.
Our UK environmental Fear!! In the 70s, we were told to be afraid the oncoming new ice age but it did not happen. So, in the 90’s, they switched to man made Global warming (AGW). Hmm! After zero increased temperature for 20 plus years that too failed so they conveniently switched again, for us to then fear – man made climate change! Horrors! LOL, as though humans could influence the effects of the sun, the moon, the planets and all of the weather patterns around the Earth. They all contribute to our numerous climates.
It is totally illogical, dangerous and is destined to be, economically devastating for us to undertake to save the world when we ourselves are only responsible for a mere <1% of the global total of LOL, "dangerous" Carbon emissions. Especially when the world's biggest offender, China, now throws out a massive 31% of that total yet still builds two new "dangerous" coal fired power stations each WEEK! Similarly India. Our net zero output will not change the global outbid one tiny bit. How could it?
NB: The UK is way down at 17th, in the league table of "offenders", yet our country is probably spending more 'green' cash (via taxes, funding etc) per GDP than any of the other 16 to "correct" it. And it is OUR cash! Tax payers and householders, et al.
So I would ask Downing Street, “Why are we wasting it on a dubious project that sees China reaping the full benefits of cheap energy while we price ourselves out of the home and world markets because of it? It makes absolutely NO SENSE! Are you, the Government, really that senseless"? Seems so.
I can now see the UK really is the home of those infamous White Elephants and those in power still seek to continue to breed them!
It certainly looks that way.
Well said Nigel.
I agree. Net Zero is an aspiration and one day may be achieved but not in the time scale demanded by the global warming activists, nor because those time limits have ,ludicrously, been written into law by our government. The technologies that will allow it to happen are still in development and the industrial infrastructure that will make it possible is way behind schedule. I doubt it will be fully achieved this century. In any case, man’s part in the present period of global warming, while it exists, is minimal compared to the natural cycle, but what is apparent is his arrogance in believing that he can stop it.
PS: Nice to see that you have amended the text to get the correct King with feet wet. Harold was the one with the arrow in the eye (although there is the belief that he wasn’t, and instead was cut down with a sword or battle axe).