Not likely. We just sent away £11m to some far off country instead of to our elderly for their winter fuel allowance. Seems the £22B hole doesn't matter anymore. Short memories and a calculator with flat batteries too
Thank you for the article. It educated me. What if the next energy transition wasn't renewables but say fusion? Presumably we would survive and even continue to thrive?
James - thank you for taking a moment to read the essay, and for your thoughtful question. Nuclear is not my area of expertise so I cannot comment on how feasible such a transition would be, and would note that very little of our current global industrial manufacturing system - the one that creates wind turbines, for example - can be converted to run on electricity. However, if we can't, then we face something of a predicament.
I know - it's the same feeling as pressing "like" on some report of a horrific genociddal massacre on Twitter. Thank you for taking the time to read it and to comment, which I appreciate.
Excellent. I have on my desk, a one billion Mark Weimar banknote. It’s only printed on one side, because by that point, it wasn’t worth the cost of the ink for both sides. People would get paid twice a day, so they could run out and buy something at lunchtime before the money lost all its purchasing power. Also check out the hyper inflations of Zaire and Zimbabwe, and the current ongoing hyperinflation in Venezuela, where it takes a brick of currency to buy a loaf of bread. BTW, “redenomination”. That’s a word you are going to start hearing. That’s when you run out of room for all the zeroes on your currency and everyone has to turn in the old money for “new” bills with fewer zeroes but still less purchasing power. That’s going to be a thing soon.
Harry that's fascinating, I'd love to get one. Perhaps you can confirm, but I'm under the impression that "billion" is the term used then for "trillion" today.
Re. "redenomination". My expectation is that they will shut the financial system down on a Friday evening and reboot it on a Monday morning. On Monday, your savings will be convertible into a new digital currency at a rate and at a time determined by the government. I believe that explains all of the preparation underway for digital currency, digital ID (with access to money programmatically linked to social credit score), etc.
Somewhere I have a photo that an economist at McGill sent me once. It’s a pic of one of those old blue super thin airmail envelopes. It was a letter from a student in Zaire applying to grad school at McGill. The addressee is written on a tiny sticker in the centre of the envelope. The remainder of the envelope, on both sides, is completely covered with $5 postage stamps. During the Zaire hyperinflation, it cost this kid around $500 to mail a 3 gram letter. One more stamp, and there would have been no room for an address. That’s hyperinflation!
I’m no economist but if your high-grade versus low-grade energy thesis gains traction, it will provide another good cudgel to use against the climate zealots.
I‘m amazed that a company like McKinsey can, apparently in all seriousness, publish their Net Zero Transition report estimating that global [as if!] Net Zero will cost $275 trillion when they appear to have overlooked the fact that there is no credible proof that rising levels of atmospheric CO2, allegedly due to burning fossil fuels, will cause dangerous global warming. To the contrary, many independent scientists have proved that it will have a minimal, almost imperceptible impact on the global climate.
And what, I wonder, do McKinsey think will happen when Net Zero Nirvana finally arrives and all the Heath Robinson wind and solar farms supplying our low-grade energy fall to bits, with no high-grade energy resources and equipment to build replacements?
Douglas. In trying to make sense of McKinsey's it's worth remembering that their objective function to their shareholders is to make a profit, not to "tell the truth". Their only constraint is to not lie - or, at least, to not be caught lying.
You can be certain that when the Net Zero narrative collapses and we are all scratching our heads over how to repair the damage, they will be selling their extremely expensive advice on that one, too.
Thanks Mitch. Estimating the projected cost to the UK of Net Zero would require a fully scoped definition of what they are trying to achieve, a fully detailed and costed plan for achieving it, and around half a dozen technologies for which no commercial prospects exist from which to estimate cost. These don't exist. McKinsey's report doesn't break costs down by individual country. I read that the US figure is equivalent to an expenditure of multiples of its current defence budget, for decades. I think its reasonable to assume the UK's is measured in tens of trillions of pounds. UK public debt stands at a little over 100% of GDP.
Yeah, thanks. I've looked for a ballpark cost but it's no where to be found. I can't believe that no one has asked that bloke Miliband for it. What are they all scared of🤔 I wish somebody had the balls to ask him or Rachel (from accounts), I mean, she must know given she has to sign the cheques, does she not🤷🏻♂️ Surely she is not allowing him to run around spending vast amounts of cash when we have a £22 Billion hole that she keeps going on about. Would she🤔🙈🙈
An excellent educative article that needs a wider audience in our Nation, especially to registered voters.
It's a brilliant article, and I hope Rachel from Accounts will read it before passing it on to Comrade Milliband.
Has Red Ed learnt to read yet? And has Rachel from Complaints learnt to add up yet?
Not likely. We just sent away £11m to some far off country instead of to our elderly for their winter fuel allowance. Seems the £22B hole doesn't matter anymore. Short memories and a calculator with flat batteries too
Thank you for the article. It educated me. What if the next energy transition wasn't renewables but say fusion? Presumably we would survive and even continue to thrive?
James - thank you for taking a moment to read the essay, and for your thoughtful question. Nuclear is not my area of expertise so I cannot comment on how feasible such a transition would be, and would note that very little of our current global industrial manufacturing system - the one that creates wind turbines, for example - can be converted to run on electricity. However, if we can't, then we face something of a predicament.
I feel quite guilty for having enjoyed your article so much. I think I ought to be weeping instead of smiling.
I know - it's the same feeling as pressing "like" on some report of a horrific genociddal massacre on Twitter. Thank you for taking the time to read it and to comment, which I appreciate.
Excellent. I have on my desk, a one billion Mark Weimar banknote. It’s only printed on one side, because by that point, it wasn’t worth the cost of the ink for both sides. People would get paid twice a day, so they could run out and buy something at lunchtime before the money lost all its purchasing power. Also check out the hyper inflations of Zaire and Zimbabwe, and the current ongoing hyperinflation in Venezuela, where it takes a brick of currency to buy a loaf of bread. BTW, “redenomination”. That’s a word you are going to start hearing. That’s when you run out of room for all the zeroes on your currency and everyone has to turn in the old money for “new” bills with fewer zeroes but still less purchasing power. That’s going to be a thing soon.
Harry that's fascinating, I'd love to get one. Perhaps you can confirm, but I'm under the impression that "billion" is the term used then for "trillion" today.
Re. "redenomination". My expectation is that they will shut the financial system down on a Friday evening and reboot it on a Monday morning. On Monday, your savings will be convertible into a new digital currency at a rate and at a time determined by the government. I believe that explains all of the preparation underway for digital currency, digital ID (with access to money programmatically linked to social credit score), etc.
Somewhere I have a photo that an economist at McGill sent me once. It’s a pic of one of those old blue super thin airmail envelopes. It was a letter from a student in Zaire applying to grad school at McGill. The addressee is written on a tiny sticker in the centre of the envelope. The remainder of the envelope, on both sides, is completely covered with $5 postage stamps. During the Zaire hyperinflation, it cost this kid around $500 to mail a 3 gram letter. One more stamp, and there would have been no room for an address. That’s hyperinflation!
I’m no economist but if your high-grade versus low-grade energy thesis gains traction, it will provide another good cudgel to use against the climate zealots.
I‘m amazed that a company like McKinsey can, apparently in all seriousness, publish their Net Zero Transition report estimating that global [as if!] Net Zero will cost $275 trillion when they appear to have overlooked the fact that there is no credible proof that rising levels of atmospheric CO2, allegedly due to burning fossil fuels, will cause dangerous global warming. To the contrary, many independent scientists have proved that it will have a minimal, almost imperceptible impact on the global climate.
And what, I wonder, do McKinsey think will happen when Net Zero Nirvana finally arrives and all the Heath Robinson wind and solar farms supplying our low-grade energy fall to bits, with no high-grade energy resources and equipment to build replacements?
Here’s my “report” to prove that alleged man-made global warming is a hoax: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
Douglas. In trying to make sense of McKinsey's it's worth remembering that their objective function to their shareholders is to make a profit, not to "tell the truth". Their only constraint is to not lie - or, at least, to not be caught lying.
You can be certain that when the Net Zero narrative collapses and we are all scratching our heads over how to repair the damage, they will be selling their extremely expensive advice on that one, too.
Well said. I remember that the treasonous William Hague was a puppet at McKinsey.
Very enjoyable. Thanks!
So, exactly what is our (UK) projected costs of net zero before this £1 Trillion is added, please
Thanks Mitch. Estimating the projected cost to the UK of Net Zero would require a fully scoped definition of what they are trying to achieve, a fully detailed and costed plan for achieving it, and around half a dozen technologies for which no commercial prospects exist from which to estimate cost. These don't exist. McKinsey's report doesn't break costs down by individual country. I read that the US figure is equivalent to an expenditure of multiples of its current defence budget, for decades. I think its reasonable to assume the UK's is measured in tens of trillions of pounds. UK public debt stands at a little over 100% of GDP.
Yeah, thanks. I've looked for a ballpark cost but it's no where to be found. I can't believe that no one has asked that bloke Miliband for it. What are they all scared of🤔 I wish somebody had the balls to ask him or Rachel (from accounts), I mean, she must know given she has to sign the cheques, does she not🤷🏻♂️ Surely she is not allowing him to run around spending vast amounts of cash when we have a £22 Billion hole that she keeps going on about. Would she🤔🙈🙈