The Case Against Net Zero, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)

The push for net zero is accused of undermining Britain's industrial base at a time when economic resilience is critical. The Telegraph article (behind a paywall):

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/03/07/the-horrifying-truth-about-the-cost-of-net-zero/

highlights the closure of the Grangemouth refinery, set for Q2 2025, as a stark example. This facility's shutdown is linked to net zero policies like carbon taxes and permits, which have driven up energy costs, making British industry uncompetitive. The result is not just job losses—hundreds at Grangemouth alone—but also the offshoring of production to countries with laxer environmental standards, paradoxically increasing global emissions while crippling local economies. Critics argue that this sacrifices high-value industries for an ideological goal, ignoring the immediate need for affordable energy to sustain manufacturing and employment.

A frequent critique of net zero is its impact on household energy bills. The Telegraph piece notes Britain's "uncompetitive energy prices" as a direct consequence of decarbonisation efforts. Despite promises from figures like Miliband that renewables would lower costs, the reality has been the opposite. Ofgem's recent price cap hikes—£111 annually in early 2025—underscore this trend, contradicting Labour's pre-election pledge to cut bills by £300 by 2030. The transition to renewables requires massive infrastructure—new grids, wind farms, and solar arrays—plus balancing costs to manage intermittent supply, all of which are passed onto consumers. This burdens households, particularly the vulnerable, like pensioners who face choosing between heating and eating, a point raised sarcastically in reader letters cited in related Telegraph coverage.

Net zero targets, such as Miliband's ambition to decarbonise the UK grid by 2030, are criticised as divorced from reality. The Telegraph article implies that the speed of this transition overlooks the complexity of replacing fossil fuels, which still provide reliable, dispatchable power. Renewables like wind and solar, while low-cost to operate, require vast upfront investment and backup systems (e.g., gas plants or batteries) for when the weather fails—costs Miliband's department has not transparently quantified. The closure of Grangemouth exemplifies this: no viable Green alternative exists yet to replace its output, leaving a gap in energy security. Critics argue this haste risks blackouts and dependence on imports, as seen with declining domestic gas production and reliance on foreign suppliers.

Miliband's net zero drive has fuelled accusations of betrayal. The Telegraph reports worker shock at Grangemouth, where promises of a "just transition" to Green jobs rang hollow—replacement roles aren't materialising fast enough. This echoes wider scepticism about claims of 650,000 new jobs by 2030, with even Labour allies questioning feasibility. Politically, the policy pits Miliband against Cabinet colleagues like Rachel Reeves, who prioritise growth over emissions cuts, suggesting net zero could be sidelined in a "dash for growth." This internal conflict highlights a broader critique: net zero prioritises optics over people, risking voter backlash as costs mount and benefits remain intangible.

A common argument against net zero, bolstered by the Telegraph's focus on offshoring, is its negligible global impact. Britain's emissions are a tiny fraction of the world's—about 1 percent—yet its aggressive policies drive production to high-emission nations like China, negating any climate gain. The article's reference to businesses moving abroad underscores this: net zero in one country can mean dirtier energy elsewhere. Critics also point to the hypocrisy of rejecting domestic resources—like the vast Lancashire shale gas field Miliband banned—while importing fossil fuels, compromising energy security and offshoring moral responsibility.

Finally, net zero is accused of disproportionately harming ordinary citizens. The Telegraph hints at this with Grangemouth's "bleak times," but the critique extends further: policies like heat pump mandates (£15,000 installation costs) or frequent flyer levies (hitting holidaymakers) shift the burden onto individuals, not corporations or policymakers. This sentiment reflects a view that net zero is an elite project, ignoring the working class it claims to protect.

The case against net zero, as drawn from the Telegraph article, paints it as an economically ruinous, practically unfeasible, and socially inequitable policy. It risks deindustrialisation, energy insecurity, and soaring costs for little global benefit, all while failing to deliver promised jobs or savings. Critics argue for a balanced approach—leveraging existing resources and technology over dogmatic decarbonisation—lest net zero become, as Lord Mackinlay put it in a related Telegraph piece, a "sepsis" spreading economic ruin under the guise of progress.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/07/miliband-net-zero-huge-costs-green-energy/

https://dailysceptic.org/2025/03/07/the-horrifying-truth-about-the-cost-of-net-zero/

"The Telegraph has a piece by Gordon Hughes, former Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh, about the real cost of Net Zero in the UK and it doesn't make for comfortable reading. Frustrated by the absence of the lack of any sensible costings of the Government's Clean Power 2030 plans, he's done his own. The person who should be squirming in his seat the most is, of course, Ed Miliband, except that his head is firmly in the sand.

Hughes points out that the UK simply doesn't have either the capital or engineers to achieve the 2030 ambitions. But it's much worse:

You won't hear that from Ed Miliband, who still insistently repeats the mantra that decarbonisation of the grid will protect us against price spikes caused by "volatile" gas markets. But he cannot know this, because his department has resolutely refused to produce a credible estimate of what the planned Net Zero electricity system will cost. Indeed, one of his first acts as Secretary of State was to cancel the system costing belatedly commissioned by his predecessor, Claire Coutinho.

In the absence of any official estimate, I have recently calculated and published my own system costing of the Net Zero grid, and I can therefore tell readers with some certainty that Clean Power 2030 is an astonishingly poor deal. On average my calculations show that the Net Zero grid would be a remarkable £15 billion per year more expensive than our current one – even allowing for the possibility of our being hit every 10 years by the rare combination of events that led to the 2022 energy price crisis, namely the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline and the simultaneous outage of large parts of the French nuclear fleet. Put another way, Net Zero will only look affordable if there's a crisis. In normal times it will cost us dear.

Why is decarbonising the grid so expensive, given that the cost of generating wind and solar power is almost nothing? The answer is that Clean Power 2030 involves building, maintaining (and periodically replacing) enormously more machinery and grid connection than we currently have, and the payment of huge extra costs in such areas as balancing the grid. My calculations indicate that every household will need to find an extra £925 per year, probably paid for via higher electricity bills.

It's already clear that the economy can't sustain any further energy price rises, let alone increases on the scale that Clean Power 2030 would produce. And there are worse problems: it's not at all clear that we will make it to 2030 without blackouts, as a glance at the Government's plans for generation capacity over the next few years shows that we might have a crisis on our hands before then.

In essence we may not have enough generation capacity to keep the lights on.

That will mean new gas power stations, but there's a problem, says Hughes:

Even if we can get the new gas-fired power stations we need built in time, it is unlikely that they will be the high-efficiency combined cycle units that have been the backbone of the grid for three decades. Instead, we will get so-called open-cycle units, which are more suited to intermittent operation, but will deliver more expensive power (and more emissions). Worse, their owners will have to be paid very high prices when we need them to get through periods of no wind and sun, as much of the time they will sit idle. And there will have to be enough of them to power most of the grid without help, as Dunkelflaute windless gloomy periods can last for days and the grid's batteries for only hours.

The costs will be astronomical:

To put it another way, under our current direction of travel, the best-case scenario is that electricity becomes impossibly expensive but the lights stay on.

With the Government desperate for growth, it is clear that Net Zero is a voyage that the United Kingdom simply can't afford to take. We will have to turn back if our economy is to survive.

Hughes suggests consumers will be priced out of using power. Unless the Government starts waking up it may be too late and it will face the uncomfortable discovery that when the power cuts start the voting British public won't care where the power comes from or who provides it, so long as they get it and can afford it."