Net Zero (Insanity? - Julie Hartley-Brewer's label)

[admin]

A row over congestion charging has broken out in Peterborough – despite all major parties saying they have no plans to introduce the controversial measure.

MPs, councillors and residents alike have waded into the debate online, with the city’s Labour Party claiming the Conservatives are trying to smear them with the false suggestion they would introduce congestion charging if in power and the Conservative Party saying Labour has left the policy on the table by refusing to vote against it.

So what does each party actually believe and is there really a chance drivers could be asked to pay for their journeys in Peterborough? And why has this debate arisen at all?

The Conservative view

The debate was triggered by Cllr Ishfaq Hussain (Conservatives, Dogsthorpe) bringing a motion to a Peterborough City Council (PCC) meeting, asking the council to “formally note its rejection of 15 minute cities that restrict vehicle movements along with “any notion of introducing a Low Emission Zone (LEZ) or Congestion Charges in Peterborough”.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats, as well as some members of independent group Peterborough First, criticised the motion and particularly its calls to reject the concept of 15 minute cities as well as LEZs – which can result in daily charges for the most polluting vehicles in particular areas.

LEZs are mentioned in a report that passed through a cabinet meeting made up entirely of Conservatives last year; it says that they “could help accelerate the transition to electric vehicles”.

Opposition parties said that this was the only time in which the policy had been written down in black-and-white and that no-one else has actually asked that LEZs or congestion charging be introduced.

The Conservatives say that they've since reviewed their position and won't be introducing any form of charging, including but not limited to congestion charging and ULEZ zones.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats voted against Cllr Hussain’s motion, though, as did all but one member of Peterborough First (who voted in favour), all but one member of the Green Party (who abstained) and PCC’s only Independent who’s not also a member of Peterborough First.

This shows they’re open to it in future, several Conservative councillors have said, as well as Peterborough’s Conservative MP Paul Bristow.

“It’s two different messages,” Cllr Hussain told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS). “You can’t pull the wool over residents’ eyes by voting one way and saying your intentions are something totally different.

“They’ve obviously voted against the motion to keep it on the table.”

Cllr Hussain has also rejected the suggestion that the motion was politically motivated, saying that he brought it to council because some residents were concerned about the possibility of congestion charging and that it was devised before the Uxbridge by-election which saw a Conservative victory, attributed by some by residents’ distaste for Labour mayor Sadiq Khan’s plan to introduce an Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to the area.

“We can't control how people are going to vote on a motion and we don’t know whether they’ll be in favour of it or against or abstain,” Cllr Hussain said. “So to say that it's a politically motivated motion is ridiculous.”

Deputy leader of the Conservative group, Cllr Steve Allen (Eye, Thorney and Newborough), similarly rejected suggestions the motion was politically motivated, saying that all opposition groups had to do, “rather than smell a political rat, was support the motion” and that that would have “been the end of any further conversation”.

The Labour view

So why didn’t Labour just vote in favour of the motion, given that they’ve said themselves there’ll be no congestion charging or LEZs in Peterborough?

Cllr Shabina Qayyum (Labour, East), who criticised it during the council debate, said that the motion was “blatant electioneering” which the group rejected “as a matter of principle” and that it also contradicted the report the Conservatives adopted last year.

“What's the point in voting for a motion that contradicts those same policies that their administration has brought about?” she said.

Cllr Qayyum also criticised the Conservatives for “scaremongering”, pointing out that a Change.org petition calling on the council’s administration to “STOP ULEZ IN PETERBOROUGH” has been set up since the council meeting, which refers to a “secret plan”, brought about by Labour, to introduce the measure.

The party has denied even having discussed the possibility.

Labour group leader Cllr Dennis Jones (Dogsthorpe) said that the party couldn’t support Cllr Hussain’s “nonsense motion” in part because it conflates so many issues (congestion charging, LEZ, 15 minute cities).

He has also denied the possibility that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA), which actually has responsibility for transport in the region, could impose one or that the national Labour Party would either.

“There's no plans locally, regionally, or nationally to impose congestion charges anywhere that I'm aware of,” he said. (never the most convincing defence, and to add "not aware" just puts a cherry on it )

“There's absolutely no way – even if we took power tomorrow – there’d be congestion charging; it's not right for Peterborough.”

An Independent’s view

Labour aren’t the only ones who believe the motion was politically motivated, though.

Cllr John Howard (Peterborough First, Hargate and Hempsted), who recently departed the Conservative group, said it was “nothing more than a political stunt”

“No speaker in the chamber, if you recall, from any party or group supported the introduction of 15-minute cities or ULEZ congestion charges in Peterborough,” he said; adding that the motion was based on a “false premise”.

“I believe the motion was needless and wasted officer time as the administration is already responsible for such policies,” he said.

“The cabinet member should have had a one-minute conversation with their senior officer to be clear on policy. It didn't therefore need the time for officers to process and check the motion.”

Cllr Hussain says that the motion would have saved council officer time if it had passed as they could discount congestion charging and LEZs from future discussions rather than considering them as options for Peterborough.

So will there be a congestion charge?

Any time soon, the answer appears to be no.

The Conservatives remain in power in Peterborough and have been clear that they’re against the measure.

Labour says they’re staunchly against it too. They’re the second largest party in Peterborough and as such aspire to lead the council after the next set of local elections.

Whose side you’re on in the row that’s erupted over it is, as ever, a matter of political preference and perspective.

peterboroughtoday 3/8/23

[admin]

Not that I'll ever go to London, I thought that I'd check whether my car complies with ULEZ and I'm fine b0252

Have a go yourself tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/check-your-vehicle/ - if you vote for the Net Zero duo parties at the general election then you'll more than likely be doing it locally at some point via a local link anyway

[admin]

[admin]

Lauren Boebert@laurenboebert 14/8/23

The only thing Net Zero will reduce to zero are our civil liberties.

Authoritarian governments will squeeze their citizens all under the veil of "protecting" the environment.

[admin]

The heroes (Paul Bristow et al, oh dear ) hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-09-05/division/47DCC4BF-5DB0-49D6-AD9C-44698CFEFBC9/EnergyBill(Lords)?outputType=Names

Members voting No b0252

Bridgen, Andrew
Campbell, Mr Gregory
Davies, Philip
Donaldson, rh Sir Jeffrey M.
Drax, Richard
Duncan Smith, rh Sir Iain
Girvan, Paul
Lockhart, Carla
Mackinlay, Craig
McCartney, Karl
Paisley, Ian
Redwood, rh John
Rees-Mogg, rh Sir Jacob
Robinson, Gavin
Shannon, Jim
Smith, Henry
Swayne, rh Sir Desmond
Wilson, rh Sammy

[admin]

From National Highways: Standing advice to the local planning authority The Climate Change Committee’s 2022 Report to Parliament notes that for the UK to achieve net zero carbon status by 2050, action is needed to support a modal shift away from car travel.

That's the direction of travel (on foot, bicycle or horse and cart) if you vote for a Net Zero party!

[admin]

Andrew Bridgen@ABridgen 30/9/23

Australian senator, Ralph Babet, highlights the ludicrous and fraudulent nature of Net Zero, in the Australian parliament.

"Net Zero is a complete and utter scam, designed to shut down our nation, enrich predatory globalists and the CCP. That is all it's going to do."

Instead of asking the salesman for free floormats, with a range of 200 miles loaded ask for a free diesel generator & Jerrycan b0252

[admin]

China and India Burn Record Amounts of Coal (Institute for Energy Research (IER) OCTOBER 26, 2023)

China and India – both considered “developing countries” by the IPCC – are burning record amounts of coal and using more kinds of energy to keep energy prices affordable and increase the standard of living for their people.
Wind and solar energy in China and India are complements, not substitutes, to their massive growth in energy, particularly in fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels provided 82 percent and 88 percent of China and India’s energy, respectively, in 2022.
Both China and India are experiencing rapid growth in energy use for services such as air conditioning, heating, cooking, lighting, power and transport as they attempt to raise living standards closer to those in the advanced economies. Both countries depend heavily on coal for their electric power generation. In China, domestic coal production is at a 6 month high; in India, declining coal inventories are requiring more coal to be imported. Growing demand for energy services is so vast that both fossil fuels and renewable energy are increasing and acting as complements rather than substitutes. Further, both China and India are likely to consume far more electricity in the next few decades as their populations seek to reach the same living standards as North America and Europe. Unlike developed countries, both China and India want to ensure energy remains affordable and reliable for their people and industries. China and India are increasing their use of indigenous coal even as they import more oil and gas, build and use more nuclear power, and invest in renewable generation from wind, solar and hydro.

In 2022, the populations of China (1.43 billion) and India (1.42 billion) were each similar to the total for countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1.38 billion). Total primary energy consumption, however, in China (159 exajoules) and India (36 exajoules) was far lower than in the OECD (234 exajoules). (One exajoule is roughly energy equivalent to 174 million barrels of oil.) In China, consumption per person in 2022 was 66 percent of the energy their counterparts in the OECD demanded and in India, the figure was just 15 percent. Both countries, however, and particularly China export a high proportion of their energy-intensive manufactured output to the OECD, which makes the dichotomy on a per person basis even larger. The off-shoring of manufacturing by countries of the OECD simply transfers the energy consumption there.

China’s and India’s Electric Generation

In 2022, fossil fuels accounted for 82 percent of primary energy consumption in China and 88 percent in India, with fossil fuels providing 70 percent of electricity generation in China and 77 percent in India. While the share of fossil fuels used in electricity generation remains high, renewable capacity has increased in both countries. Since 2018, China’s solar generation capacity grew 26 percent per year and wind generation capacity by 18 percent per year, while thermal capacity grew by 4 percent per year. In India, solar generation capacity grew by 25 percent per year, wind grew by 5 percent per year, and coal grew by 1 percent a year. Of course, renewable capacity growth in both countries occurred from low amounts resulting in the large percent increases, while the opposite is true for thermal capacity. Despite policymakers from OECD countries wanting China and India to speed up their transition from fossil fuels to zero-emission alternatives, the reality is that both governments have prioritized increasing access to energy services and ensuring energy remains affordable and reliable, which follows the historical pattern of the OECD nations. China and India also welcome manufacturing, which has been transferred from OECD countries, and its associated jobs.

The global problem of transitioning from affordable and reliable fossil fuels to non-zero carbon alternatives will only get worse as sub-Saharan Africa continues growing in population and energy needs. Its population increased to 1.20 billion in 2022 and is forecast to rise to 2.17 billion by 2050 and 3.57 billion by 2100. The region’s urbanization, industrialization and energy consumption per person now is lower than China and India, but has commensurately greater potential to increase in the future.

China’s Coal Consumption and Production

In 2022, China’s coal consumption grew by 4.6 percent to a new all-time high of 4.5 billion metric tons–nearly 9 times higher than the United States, and it is expected to be higher yet this year.

China’s September coal output increased 0.4 percent from August to the highest level since March, due to rising power demand as economic activity picked up. In September, coal production was 392.98 million metric tons (13.1 million metric tons per day), compared with an average of 12.71 million metric tons per day so far this year. For comparison, the United States consumed 513 million short tons of coal in all of 2022. Economic activity picked up in China after the summer due to several economic stabilization measures.

China’s coal-fired electricity generation increased by 2.3 percent year-on-year in September, while power demand increased by 9.9 percent. Coal output over the first nine months of 2023 was 3.44 billion metric tons, up 3 percent compared with the same period last year, and putting China on track for another year of record coal production. In 2022, China produced 4.496 billion metric tons of coal—a record. Production is expected to continue to increase in the fourth quarter as mines have resumed normal operations following accidents, and state-owned miners are increasing production to ensure sufficient supply during the winter.

The production of coke used in steelmaking increased 3.6 percent in September to 41.44 million metric tons, with year-to-date output reaching 368.31 million metric tons, up 2.6 percent.

India Imports More Coal

As electricity demand increased in October, India had to increase its coal imports because fuel use outpaced domestic supply. Coal inventories held by power plants fell by 12.6 percent to 20.58 million metric tons in the sharpest decline since the second half of September 2021. Stocks fell to their lowest level since November 2021 despite state-run Coal India, the dominant domestic supplier, increasing supplies to power plants by 6 percent year on year to 23.5 million metric tons. India-bound shipments of thermal coal are expected to increase to 19.35 million metric tons in October, the highest level since June 2022.

India’s coal-fired power generation increased 33 percent year on year in October – much faster than the 21.6 percent increase in September. Unusually dry weather, decreasing hydropower output, a decline in renewable generation, and an increase in economic activity increased coal consumption in October. Power demand increased 20.4 percent, while hydropower output declined by 26.8 percent. The share of generation from renewable sources (wind and solar power) fell to 10.1 percent in the first half of October from 12.1 percent in September. Natural gas-fired generation also increased almost three-fold in the first half of October to 1,993 million kilowatt-hours, up from 700 million kilowatt-hours a year earlier.

Conclusion

To the disappointment of politicians in the developed world, the developing world is not transitioning from fossil fuels to non-zero carbon energy. Rather, the developing world is using renewable energy as a complement to traditional generating technologies, not as a substitute. Using it as a complement avoids the need for costly batteries to back-up intermittent and weather-driven wind and solar power. The developing countries want to reach the living standard of North America and Europe and see fossil fuels as the most affordable and reliable way to get there, despite what western politicians say about it.

[admin]

The unelectable Labour Party rewording unpopular Net Zero and hope that you don't notice:

Labour wants to decarbonize UK power by 2030. Mission impossible?

Mission-Climate.pdf (899.57 KB)

[admin]

Vivek Ramaswamy@VivekGRamaswamy Mar 19 2024


You can be pro-environment while rejecting the climate cult. Clean air. Clean water. Preserving national parks. In fact the Earth’s surface area is covered with more plant life today than a century ago - because, yes, CO2 is plant food & surface temperatures are a little higher.

[admin]

Elon Musk@elonmusk 5/4/24

Too much of the environmentalist movement has morphed into a human extinctionist movement

[admin]

Wide Awake Media@wideawake_media 6/4/24

Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore: "[CO2] is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth, and without it, this would be a dead planet... I am firmly of the belief that the future will show that this whole hysteria over climate change was a complete fabrication."

[admin]

Neil Oliver: "The climate crisis, the world at boiling point, rising sea levels, dying polar bears—it's all lies... Renewable energy is another scam... Electric vehicles are made using the energy from fossil fuels, and they're powered with electricity generated by burning more fossil fuels."

[admin]

June Slater@juneslater17 7/4/24

Thank the Lord for fossil fuels - you can't beat an online shopping delivery, if you're lucky.

[admin]

LONDON, April 17 (Reuters)

Scotland's devolved government will abandon its target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030, the BBC reported on Wednesday.

Scotland would keep a separate goal to reach net zero by 2045. The BBC report, which did not name its sources, said annual climate targets could also be scrapped.