Our author smiles benevolently as Badenoch ditches the 2050 net zero target
Opinions are divided among Swift’s friends about Kemi Badenoch’s speech this week on Net Zero. Is it too timid, about right, or politically unwise?
Dear readers, Swift is happy to dismiss the last of these. Attacks from with her own party can be shrugged off: the claim that the public has – so far – an unthinking support for net zero by 2050 is largely due to mass virtue-signalling, a feeling which will certainly evaporate as energy prices climb, boilers are ripped out, electric vehicles are forced on drivers and so forth. All part of the grand plan which Dr. Evil, also known as Ed Miliband, intends to force on a hapless country, regardless of the consequences.
Swift agrees that Badenoch could have gone further. It is not immediately obvious why net zero from the UK makes a scintilla of difference to the globe, as our emissions are a paltry 1% of the global total. Perhaps we could reset the clock and follow behind China, India etc; rather than wrecking our economy and penalising consumers, so that a tiny coterie of fanatics and ministers can strut and pose, like so many ageing Greta Thunbergs, on the international stage? We don’t need to win the Tour d’Émissions – a spot in the peloton is absolutely fine.
But chucking net zero altogther has to be moderated by reality. Abandoning the target without the cover provided by a sober assessment of the pros and cons (to be explored by a policy commission led by Claire Coutinho MP – one of the sensble/intelligent shadow cabinet members) would be rash. Not only voters but overwhelmingly the soi-disant experts support the mad dash to 2050. They fall victim to that tendency of single issue campaigners – Just Stop Oil being a good example – to pursue a single aim at any price. Jobs, bills, growth, industry – not my business guv, can we just stop oil?
A particularly grotesque example of the boneheadedness that Badenoch is up against caught Swift’s eye recently. The Climate Change Committee, a slippery and unaccountable advisory committee, whose members are to a man (and woman) eco-fanatics, produced the following (as summarised by Bloomberg):
‘The [CCC] also plotted how British households get [to net Zero by 2050]. Switching to EVs and heat pumps accounts for more than two-thirds of the needed cuts, while driving less and eating less meat and dairy make up the balance.
To meet these goals, heat pump and EV sales need to increase by a lot in the next 15 years — something the CCC says is achievable. It only took a few years, it points out, for consumers to adopt other lifestyle-altering technologies such as the internet, mobile phones and refrigerators.’
This fair takes Swift’s breath away, and not in a good sense. Does one really have to point out that the internet, mobile phones and fridges offered immediate benefits to people, and rapidly became affordable for nearly all consumers? Heat pumps don’t, and they cost a LOT. EVs have limited range, generally require extended stops to recharge, and cost more. They are not even that eco-friendly compared to the latest petrol and hybrid models. No wonder car manufacturers have to be forced to produce and try to sell them, under penalty of fines if they do not (another example of the weird looking-glass world produce by net zero). As for eating less meat and driving less, well try that one on a focus group, guys.
As far as Badenoch’s announcement went (and it was a good speech, well-delivered, with a great deal of good sense) Swift is inclined to be more than charitable. It might be a step, rather than a leap in the right direction, but as the famous cricket saying goes, ‘we’ll get’em in singles’. This was the first run on the board. Swift expects many more.