The Media Continues To Stubbornly Defend Their ‘Green’ Ideology
Recently, it has felt like we had reached a new dawn on energy and climate policy with energy Jedi winning the argument against the ‘net zero’ by 2050 target
Reform fought the election on a policy of abandoning ‘net zero’.
The Tories have followed suit by abandoning the 2050 target, setting out their own ‘cheap’ power plan and beginning to purge the party of ‘net zero’ zealots like Gavin Barwell.
But the ‘green’ empire is striking back with a new article (no paywall version here) in The Telegraph from Tim Stanley, and Greg Jackson has also weighed in, cheering on Stanley’s article.
Even DV himself has weighed in to support Tim Stanley. The trouble with Tim Stanley’s argument, in common with many ‘net zero’ supporters, is that it is based on vibes and emotion, not analysis of actual data.
Time to dive in to see what Tim Stanley and Greg Jackson got so wrong.
Tim Stanley’s Claims
Stanley claimed the wildfires of Europe are “pitiless and persistent” and made “infinitely worse” by the long, hot summer. He also claimed the UK has endured the three worst harvests on record in the past six years and warned that on third of Bangladesh’s agricultural GDP is expected to disappear by 2050.
He also stated Pakistan is enjoying a solar boom and said it was ridiculous that Britain was reluctant to follow suit. Stanley also claimed developing countries are more worried about ‘climate change’ than we are.
Finally, he characterised ‘net zero’ sceptics of the online right as “talking itself into corners of angry irrelevance”, as having “misplaced sympathy for the devil” and lacking compassion or charm.
However, he became incoherent by claiming he was not arguing for an ideological commitment to ‘decarbonisation’ and said Kemi Badenoch is correct to abandon the dogma of targets.
Greg Jackson thought Tim Stanley’s article was “superbly written and that ‘renewables’ solutions are “increasingly economically better than the fossil fuel alternatives”. According to Jackson, solar is the cheapest power on the planet and onshore wind is “bonkers cheap”.
He thinks a freer market in electricity could use renewables to drive down energy costs.
Infinitely Worse Wildfires?
Stanley’s article was illustrated by an apocalyptic image of raging wildfires in Europe. Whilst fires like these must be terrifying for those affected, policy should be set by reference to facts, not emotive images.
This image was used to support Stanley’s claim that wildfires in Europe are pitiless and persistent and made infinitely worse by long hot summers. We can test this claim against data produced by Our World in Data (OWID) as shown in Figure 2.
This shows that far from becoming infinitely worse, wildfires in Europe are running at the lowest rate on record. We should note that OWID’s definition of Europe includes the whole of Russia.
But even if the geographical scope of the chart is limited to the EU27, 2026 year-to-date is the sixth worst year on record, with area burned running at just 42 percent of the worst year in 2012.
The data undermines the whole premise of Stanley’s article.
Tim Stanley might also note that many of these fires in France are manmade, just not in the way he thinks because 162 people have been arrested in France on suspicion of arson.
Worst UK Harvests?
Tim Stanley also claimed the UK has endured the three worst harvests on record in the past six years. Although data from OWID only goes to 2024, we can see the claim is false as shown in Figure 3.
Recent levels of production and yield have not been unusual compared to the last 30 years. Peak production came in 1984, with cereal production around 174 percent higher than the 1961 baseline, but then there was nearly 32 percent more land dedicated to cereal production.
In 2024, there was twice as much cereal production and 106 percent better yields than in 1961, despite using 3.1 percent less land. It certainly looks like those evil ‘fossil-fuel’ derived fertilisers have helped us to feed ourselves.
What is more worrying is the land dedicated to cereal crops looks to have begin a downtrend. Maybe carpeting prime farmland with solar panels is not such a good idea after all.
Bangladesh Agriculture Under Threat?
Stanley’s claim that one third of agricultural GDP in Bangladesh is at risk appears to come from a 2022 report by the World Bank. Again, OWID has data to show that fear is at best misplaced, see Figure 4.
Agricultural GDP in Bangladesh is soaring and the 13.3m climate migrants expected by the World Bank are probably not going to materialise, because deaths from natural disasters in that country have plummeted from a one-off peak of 1.9m in 1943, due to drought to just 28 in 2025, with 10 of those from earthquakes which are of course unrelated to climate.
Bangladesh also seems more concerned with economic development than ‘climate change’ because energy consumption is soaring and almost all of it comes from hydrocarbons – coal, oil and gas, see Figure 5.
This contradicts Stanley’s claim that developing countries are more concerned about ‘climate change’ than we are.
Pakistan Solar Boom?
Tim Stanley’s article also claimed:
“Contemporary Pakistan is enjoying a solar boom. How? Because millions of peasants, sick of high utility prices inflated by corruption, have bought cheap solar panels from the Chinese and hung them from their roofs and balconies.”
He went on to chide Britain for not following suit.
It is true that Pakistan now generates nearly 19 percent of its electricity from solar and the solar share has been growing rapidly. Britain’s solar share is 6.6 percent of electricity generation.
Despite this disparity in solar penetration, the ‘carbon’ intensity of Pakistan’s energy is higher than the UK’s, see Figure 6.
By international standards, Pakistan generates very little electricity, producing just 764kWh per person, compared to the world average of 3,860kWh, the UK’s 4,203kWh and China’s 7,474kWh per person.
A big part of the reason remote regions of Pakistan are turning to solar power is because less than 55% of households are connected to the grid.
For them, access to some solar is better than no power at all. Another reason Pakistan is more suited to solar power is latitude. Pakistan lies between 23 degrees and 37 degrees north, where it is sunnier than Britain which is much further north.
This is why the World Bank rated Pakistan in roughly the top quartile of countries for practical solar power potential and the UK second bottom, just above Ireland.
Poor Countries Worried?
As shown above, Bangladesh does not appear to be overly concerned about ‘climate change’, in contradiction to Tim Stanley’s claim that poor countries are more worried than we are.
OWID also produces data to show carbon dioxide emissions by income group, see Figure 7.
Even though emissions from high-income countries like Britain are falling, emissions from upper-middle and lower-middle income countries are rising sharply. Emissions from low-income countries are low and rising slowly.
High-income countries will become poorer and be overtaken by upper-middle income countries who want to become more prosperous.
There is growing demand for oil and gas in Africa. For example, a farmer in Kenya, Jusper Machogu, campaigns for ‘fossil-fuels’ for Africa because he wants to Just Stop Toil.
He is getting angry that Greenpeace is acting like a neo-colonialist, blocking a new oil refinery in his country. Another strike against Tim Stanley’s evidence free tirade.
Renewables Increasingly Economically Better?
Let us turn now to Greg Jackson’s claims that ‘renewables’ are “increasingly economically better” and a freer market for them would being down energy costs.
As we have discussed before and as shown in Figure 8 the UK already has the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world and domestic prices are also among the highest.
The term of contracts for difference (CfDs) has been extended to 20 years and the prices awarded in AR7 for offshore wind and onshore wind rose in AR7.
Prices for solar dipped slightly, but on a like-for-like 15-year contract basis prices rose. There is no evidence that the base cost of ‘renewables’ is falling.
The news gets worse though, because the cost of integrating intermittent ‘renewables’ into the grid is soaring, with balancing, backup and grid expansion costs are set to triple from 2024/25 levels by 2030/31 as shown in Figure 9.
Far from becoming “increasingly economically better” intermittent renewables are getting increasingly expensive.
If were to make the electricity market freer by for instance cutting ‘carbon’ taxes on gas-fired electricity, eliminating ‘renewables’ subsidies and making them pay for their grid integration costs then most ‘renewable’ projects would fail and there would be little new spending.
Greg Jackson is wrong on both his main points.
Who Lacks Compassion?
Tim Stanley’s most emotive line was when he accused ‘net zero’ sceptics of having misplaced sympathy for the devil and lacking compassion.
We may ask what is compassionate about making electricity so expensive that families have to choose between heating and eating?
Where is the compassion for oil and gas workers in Aberdeen losing 1,000 jobs per month?
Is there an ounce of sympathy for Port Talbot steelworkers, Grangemouth refinery workers or thousands more losing their jobs in other energy intensive industries like petrochemicals, chemicals, ceramics and glass?
Isn’t it simply evil to deprive the developing world of cheap, abundant hydrocarbons to support their economic and social development?
Conclusions
We know the energy Jedi are winning the argument when the ‘green’ empire has to resort to emotive pictures and mendacious invective to make their point.
None of Tim Stanley’s points stand up to close scrutiny and the cheerleading Greg Jackson is reduced to making completely false claims to stop his Octopus Energy business from collapsing into further losses.
The trouble is that lies travel halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on, so the ‘green’ empire striking back can be temporarily effective.
But be in no doubt, the energy Jedi will return and economic and physical reality will prevail.
See more here substack.com
Bold emphasis added
Header image: Yes Magazine
John V
| #
Just like Covid and Biden, the MSM carried water for those and quadrupled down on the lies and disinformation they can never come forward and say “So sorry, our bad. We failed to be actual journalists and guardians and you all paid the price.”
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Researcher,
As the Law of Conservation of Momentum, M1V1 plus M2V2 = M1V3 plus M2v4, states, in an elastic collision energy flows from the object with more energy to the object with less energy regardless of their masses. An object with less kinetic energy can add energy to an object with more kinetic energy if its level of energy is greater. A small car running into the rear of a larger slower truck will slow down even though the truck has more kinetic energy..
The problem with physicists is they keep compounding their errors instead of correcting them. Starting with the Law of Gravity.
Herb
Reply
Her Rose
| #
Hi Researcher,
Mean kinetic energy is a meaningless term. Equalization does not mean equal kinetic energy but an object radiates the same amount of energy that it is absorbing. The total kinetic energy remains the same, mass has nothing to do with the transfer of energy
The surface of the Earth is not heating the atmosphere, it is gaining energy by the absorption of uv energy by N2 and O2 from the sun. The energy of the gas molecules increases with altitude, that is why it becomes less dense. At absolute zero there is no atmosphere.
It is energy that is being transferred and in order the get an accurate measurement of the energy of gas molecules you must divide the temperature at an altitude by the density to get the ke of a constant number of molecules, not a constant volume of molecules. This graph shows the energy of the gas molecules increases with increasing altitude, not the idiotic zig-zag line shown in books. It increases in a straight line in the troposphere, where water absorbs energy and in an exponential curve at high altitudes.
If the Earth heated the atmosphere in the middle of the oceans the air temperature could never be greater than the water temperature.
The correct formula for kinetic energy is ke = mvsquared. Energy is distributed to all the mass not half and the energy equals the level arriving from the source, not half the level.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Researcher,
First; All the ‘basic’ physics you’ve been taught has nothing to do with reality. Newton’s formula for the force of gravity is contradicted by the evidence used to devise it. A planet at he apogee of its orbit will begin to gain velocity/energy and begin to move closer to the sun. This means the attractive force between the planet and the sun is at its maximum when the distance between the planet and sun is at a maximum. At the perigee of the orbit the attractive force is at a minimum and the planet begins to slow and move further from the sun.
Energy is attracted to mass producing motion and will flow to it until the energy the mass radiates is equal to the energy it. absorbs. At this point it will have a constant velocity with energy equal to velocity squared. Did only 1/2 the mass absorb energy or did only 1/2 the energy level from the source transfer to the object/
N2 and O2 do not absorb visible light but like all matter absorb radiated energy. It requires 400,000 joules to break the double bond of O2 creating the ozone in the stratosphere. If this energy is coming from the Earth’s surface why doe it not affect the O2 in the troposphere and what gas molecule is absorbing the 95 percent of the uv coming from the sun. Not the 10 ppm ozone molecule, created by uv, in the ozone layer, but 999 ppm O2 and N2 in the atmosphere.
The definition of temperature as being the mean ke of the medium is stupid. The ideal gas law, PV=NRT, states that the macro properties of a gas, pressure, volume, are a result of the properties of the gas molecules in it, number of molecules, a gas constant for that gas, and the kinetic energy of those molecules. It is nt an equation. When the gas molecule gain more energy the volume of an unconfined gas will increase and there will be fewer molecules colliding with the thermometer and transferrin energy to it.
The bottom of the Grand Canyon is always 10 F hotter than at the top. If the molecules had more ke the gas would expand and rise to the top. The reason for the 10 F difference is because there are more molecules with less ke transferring energy to the thermometer.
There is no adiabatic heating of gas molecules in the atmosphere. When the atmosphere loses energy by radiation at night, it contracts, the molecules fall towards the center of the Earth. The loss of energy by the molecules does not cause them to gain energy.
If you look at the chemical oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere you wil, see that the energy of the molecules is greatest at the highest altitudes going from oxygen atoms to nitrogen-oxygen molecules to O2 and N2 at lower altitudes. The reason O3 is stable n the stratosphere is because the molecules are unable to lose energy to neighboring molecules.
There is no force of gravity pulling matter towards the center of the Earth. What there is is a radiated energy field that is attracted to mass. When an object/satellite is in equilibrium with that energy field it can neither gain or lose energy to the field and the distance to the Earth will, remain constant. If the object/satellite gains energy it will lose energy to the field and move into a weaker field reestablishing equilibrium at a lower velocity.
There is not a separate force between the sun and every object in the solar system,
Sorry, the well established physic you have learned has no connection to reality but is the result of trying to find excuses for bad theories.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
HI Researcher,
The bottom of the canyon’s higher temperature has nothing to do with gravity, it is due to compression with more molecules transferring energy to the thermometer If you fill a scuba tank from a high pressure storage tank, even though the two tanks and their gases are the same temperature, the scuba tank gets hot and must be cooled to be filled. It is more molecules striking the walls that causes the increase in temperature.
The difference o 4 mi in the radius of the Earth and the force of gravity is insignificant when squared. It could not produce that magnitude of temperature change.
In order for matter to heat up it must gain energy from an outside source. What is the source of energy at the top of stratosphere that is heating the molecules in the mesosphere and losing heat to the molecules in the troposphere?
You don’t get it. Kinetic energy has two factors, mass and energy. In a gas these two factors are variable as the energy changes the number of molecules, mass, changes. You cannot compare the energy of molecules at different altitudes from a thermometer when both factors are changing. Density is the mass (number of molecules( in constant volume. The inverse of density is the volume of a constant mass of molecules. Do the math for yourself, divide the temperature at an altitude by the density instead of assuming the atmosphere is homogeneous.
You should also explain why you continue to believe that gravity is a function of mass when the work of both Galileo and Kepler showed that the rate an object falls and the orbits of the planets had nothing to do with thir mass.
The evidence used to come up with the force of gravity contradicts the belief in the force of gravity but physicists insist on believing theory and math instead of reality., creating magic and imaginary things in order to preserve their theories instead of correcting their mistakes. They are not scientist but fools trying to make their fantasy universe more plausible all the while making it more ridiculous.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Researcher.
Gravity is not a function of mass it is a result of the energy attracted to positive matter. That energy radiates from the mass creating an energy field. Objects within that field will equalize within it, moving in an orbit where they neither gain or lose energy. Nothing in the universe travels in a straight line.
The result of believing in gravity is a function of mass has created the belief of ridiculous masses for the planets, there are no gas giants. The use of these erroneous values caused three attempted soft landings on Mars to crash. The excuse of mixing metric and standard units is absolute garbage. It doesn’t matter what the mass of the satellite is, 100 kilograms or 100 pounds the rate of fall is a factor of Mars.
The DART project, where a satellite crashed into an asteroid in a binary asteroid system, provides a way to demonstrate how ridiculous the use of Newton’s formula is in determining the mass of objects.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Entropy is one of the nonsensical invention by physicists trying to support their fantasy. Physic is observing patterns and trying to explain them. This is what Copernicus did changing the erratic but regular movement of planets into a heliocentric solar system. Objects do not move randomly but are the result of the flow of energy in the field of energy they are in. Objects radiate energy to and absorb energy from the energy field they are in, not to other objects.
Herb
Reply
Me
| #
Go and post your ideas on Wikipedia Talk pages. You will need to change their statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which reads “in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Me,
The Law of Entropy is an effort to confuse not enlighten. Look at the universe. You see the same patterns repeated over and over not random movement.
It is the flow of energy from higher levels to lower levels that determines how matter moves.
Energy is attracted to positive matter and repels negative mater. Since the force of energy is stronger than the force of matter by a factor of psi it is able to split neutrons into electrons, protons and radiate energy as a gamma ray. Both the force of energy and matter decrease as a function of distance but their strengths decrease as the square of the distance and they act perpendicularly,. At an angle of around 38 degrees there strengths will be equal at a value of pi causing objects to move in arcs with a radius of the energy force, creating a universe consisting of nested spheres, a three dimensional object with only one dimension.
Herb
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
There are supposed to be nine comments here, but only one is visible.
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
Did you tell John about it?
Reply