Posts
A friend’s idle inquiry, “how much electricity does a heat
pump use and how much do they cost to run,” prompted me to flick to Google on
the mobile phone. A helpful site
informed me that, for an average 4-bedroom house, a heat pump with capacity 9-16
KW, depending upon the standard of insulation, would be required. Mushroom Towers was constructed in 1996,
according to the standards of the time so I suspect additional insulation and
higher capacity radiators would now be required to keep us warm, even with a
high capacity heat pump on continuously, as recommended. At our age, we’d rather not feel pinched so
let us assume a 16 KW pump. That is an
awful lot of electric fires on all the time.
The standard variable tariff with my current provider quotes a rate of
15.83 pence per KWH – until March 2022 when goodness knows what the cap
increase will be – to say nothing of the cost of installation. A Screwfix best-seller, rated at 12KW, would
set me back £7799.99 including VAT to which should be added; the installations
cost including higher capacity radiators and additional wall insulation. Without reporting to the precision of Excel
to crunch the numbers, on face value, it would seem impossible to construct a
coherent business case to dispense with my trusty 24-year old gas boiler even
if, according to British Gas, “we can’t get the parts any longer,” and I should
need to replace it, like for like.
Although the economic case doesn’t stand up, who would say
that they don’t want to live in cleaner and greener world? But are we really confronting an existential
climate emergency or is it more likely that the so-called “emergency” is only
speculation of what could happen, other things being equal? So it could be worth reminding ourselves how
we arrived at this net zero race to the bottom.
The Spectator reminds us that it was Theresa May, in a throw away line
at the fag end of her disastrous tenure, who committed us to reach net zero
emissions by 2050. This grand design was
accepted with “minimal debate or scrutiny.”
Yet here we are, committed by our Parliament, to a “Net Zero Strategy,”
but with no clear idea of the costs to individuals or the impact on their
lives. I realise that, by questioning
the King’s new suit of clothes, I have become a “climate change denier,” which,
as Charles Moore observes, is “a deliberately libellous term, echoing the Holocaust.” Doubtless other paragons of climate change virtue would simply brand me
“scum,” in the vernacular of current political debate.
In truth, I do not know whether we face an existential
climate crisis or not and I am certainly not well enough informed to opine on
the most cost effective and socially acceptable measures we might ned to put in
place in mitigation. The debate has become
so polarised that it has become impossible to reason – the politicians bound
headlong on a virtuous journey, the global warmers shrieking that disaster is
merely round the corner and those who are not too sure branded head-banging deniers. Someone needs to call time out – time to stop
and reflect.
Recognising the “groupthink de jour” surrounding
environmentalism, Allister Heath, writing in the Telegraph, argues that, “the
green challenge is too important, its implications too dramatic, to be left to
an establishment that has embraced net zero as if it were a new religion.” He suggests the public should have the final
say through a referendum. A referendum would afford the opportunity for all issues, not just the science of climate change, to be exposed and scrutinised. Who,
especially in a post-Brexit democracy, could argue with that? Of course, we should need to fight to ensure
that the establishment did not rig the question on the ballot paper but any
party promising an open referendum on the momentous costs and changes inherent in
the Net Zero Strategy would get my vote, and many more, I suspect.
But will our political elite, so intent upon cementing their
place in the hall of virtue fame, take heed. They should do, especially if they
have read Roger Scruton. This extract
from “Green Philosophy – How to think seriously about the planet” should
preface all parliamentary discussion on the environment:
“The solution to the real
environmental problems will always elude us, if we cast away the one human
motive that is able to take over when markets fail, which is that of public
spirit. But whence comes public spirit? It comes from patriotism, from love of
country, from a sense of belonging and of a shared and inherited home. It comes
from believing that this problem is our problem, and therefore my problem, as a
member of the group. That belief disappears when anonymous bureaucracies
confiscate our risks, and pretend that they can regulate them to extinction.
Those commonsensical observations are all but politically incorrect, in a
culture that has surrendered so much to the state, that it no longer trusts the
ordinary human instincts.”
In other words, trust the people who elected you (in the
privacy of the polling booth)!
