Why we need "Net zero"

[Beelbeebub]

19 minutes ago, Spinny said:

That is not actually true. The point was about 100 year events, not all time record events.

The same applies, if you are regularly getting measurements that you would normally expect infrequently (eg every 100 years) then the system has changed. 

 

It is irrefutable fact that the climate is changing at a rate not seen before. 

19 minutes ago, Spinny said:

What nonsense is this ? I don't think so. Medieval Warm Period ? Got any actual data to back that up ?

From NOAA

 

As for the medieval warm period - that was mainly concentrated in the North America, North Atlantic and Europe. Globally the average temp rose by less than 1C, ie less than now 

[SteamyTea]

4 minutes ago, Onoff said:

I'm going up the pub later to sit in front of a roaring open fire with a pint and talk b@llocks rather than read it. 

Ah, talk about this when you are there:

From the corrupt (maybe), left wing, multi million turnover press:

 

New wood-burning stoves to carry health warnings in UK plan

Pollution from wood burners kills thousands but proposed emissions limit would cut toxic particles by 10%

Damian Carrington Environment editor

Thu 22 Jan 2026 13.56 GMT

 

New wood-burning stoves will carry a health warning highlighting the impact of the air pollution they produce, under UK government plans.

Ministers have also proposed cutting the limit on the smoke emitted from wood burners by 80%. However, the measure would only apply to new stoves, most of which already meet the stricter limit. The new limit would cut the annual toxic emissions from wood burning in the UK by only 10% over the next decade, according to the consultation.

 

Clean air campaigners said the proposals ignore the pollution from existing stoves and compared less polluting stoves to low-tar cigarettes.

Pollution from burning in homes is one of the UK’s biggest sources of air pollution, contributing 20% of fine particles, about the same as all road transport. The fine particles are the most dangerous air pollutant for human health, the government said. Wood-burning stoves and fires in homes are linked to 2,500 early deaths a year in the UK, according to a recent study, as well as 3,700 cases of diabetes and 1,500 cases of asthma.

 

Wood burners linked to 2,500 deaths a year in the UK, analysis finds

Wood burners are used by about 12% of households, but more than 90% of these have other sources of heating. Many use the stoves and fires solely for their aesthetic appeal.

Emma Hardy, the air quality minister, said: “Dirty air robs people of their health and costs our NHS millions each year to treat lung conditions and asthma. We are determined to clean up our air. By limiting emission levels and introducing new labels as outlined in our consultation, families will be able to make better, healthier choices when heating their homes.”

The UK-wide consultation proposes labels for new stoves that clearly state the impact burning solid fuels has on the health of individuals and their families. A suggested warning reads: “Please be aware that this appliance emits air pollution into and around your home which can harm your health.” The label would also rate the energy efficiency of the stove from A to C.

Wood sold for burning would also carry a health warning, with a suggested wording reading: “Burning in the home leads to air pollution which has a negative impact on the health of you and your family.” The final proposed measure would increase the fine for fuel suppliers who sell insufficiently dry wood from £300 to £2,000. Damp wood produces more pollution.

The proposed limit for smoke emissions from new stoves is 1g per hour, down from the current 5g per hour. About 70% of stoves tested since 2018 already meet the new limit, the consultation said, and the new standard would not come into force for three to five years from the date the new law is passed.

The foreword to the consultation said: “We all deserve to live in an environment where our everyday lives are not negatively affected by the quality of the air that we breathe.” Emissions of fine particle pollution from domestic burning rose by 36% from 2009-20, largely due to a rise in emissions from the burning of wood.

Larissa Lockwood, director of clean air at Global Action Plan, said: “While measures to tighten pollution standards for wood burning stoves and better inform people of the health risks of these products at the point of sale are a good first step, they don’t go far enough.

“A less polluting stove is like a low tar cigarette: it’s slightly better for your health, but still significantly worse than not using them in the first place. We want to see further action from the government to ensure everyone can access cleaner, greener forms of heating and give local authorities the powers they need to curb harmful emissions for the benefit of their local communities.”

Research found that no prosecutions for illegal wood burning were made in England in the year to August 2025, despite 15,195 complaints. Only 24 fines were issued by local authorities during that period.

Jemima Hartshorn from the Mums for Lungs campaign group said: “Almost daily, people tell us about being smoked out of their homes and gardens, of non-stop coughing and wheezing during the winter despite their neighbours burning in a legal way across the country.

“Non-essential wood burning needs to end,. The consultation outline does not go far enough – it only suggests measures that will reduce wood burning from new stoves but does not address the huge pollution emitted by existing stoves. Hopefully, the final outcome will be more aligned with scientists and health professionals and the needs of the public and children’s health.”

The consultation closes on 19 March.

[Beelbeebub]

Again to get this thread back on track - 

 

My argument that we need many of the policies described as "Net zero" is agnostic to climate change.  It is purely rooted in the fact our reserves of oil and gas are running out.

[Spinny]

5 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

The same applies, if you are regularly getting measurements that you would normally expect infrequently (eg every 100 years) then the system has changed. 

Nope, still wrong.

What you say would be somewhat true for a single location if 100 year events became say 10 year events. But that is not what I said, and even then would depend upon whether 100 years was actually a meaningful timeframe anyway relative to long term fluctuations in the earth's climate.

 

By definition a 100 year weather event is only statistically expected to occur once every 100 years. If you monitor a thousand different locations around the globe for 100 year weather events then you might well find 10 in a single year.

[ProDave]

52 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

I'm not saying we should abandon the remaining reserves.

 

What we shouldn't do is dig them up at great expense in order to burn them to heat our homes and driven our SUVs because we are too stubborn to use a near infinite energy source to accomplish those things.

 

The oil industry projects that we could extract as much as 3x more oil and gas as we are currently set to do. 

 

The problem is that our current "withdrawal rate" is equivalent to maintaining our existing levels of extraction for 5 years. Then that's it. All gone. 

 

So taking the oil industry's best projection - which includes not only us coming up with ways to extract more oil from existing sites but also discovering some new sites - is 3x or our existing rate (which is only 50% of demand) for 15 more years before we have used every last drop. 

 

We are not "too stubborn"   We have been installing wind and other renewable generation for years, and it is working.  What the tree huggers want us to do is stop using oil NOW.  That is simply not possible.  We are transitioning as fast as we can already.  

 

BUT a lot of people, including me, are to some extent put off by "we must change or we will ruin the planet"  That puts a lot of people off because it is simply not believed by everyone and not actually proven fact.

 

That added to the fact there is no choice but what we are offered (present EV's I am talking here) are in many ways inferior to what we have now.  So trying to "sell" to the non believers you MUST have an EV but by the way this EV will not do all your present vehicle does you will just have to accept that.

 

I am convinced if the move to more renewable electricity generation and more use of electricity for heating (heat pumps) was "sold" to the public as an energy security policy due to our diminishing oil reserves then more people would be likely to adopt it.

 

Fixed usage, like home heating, industry etc is far far easier to switch to electricity without being inferior.  So that should be the priority.

 

Transport is much harder.  We are not there on the technology yet for an EV to have the range, load carrying or towing capacity and refill/ recharge time anywhere close to present ICE cars.  So it really irks me that these are the ones being mandated to switch over first.  Why not home heating with heat pumps first?  That works and is no worse than a gas boiler so why not mandate that switchover first?

 

Oh and if you want the public on board, stop telling us all how bad we are, and start telling us how much good we have done already, but there is more to do.

 

 

[Beelbeebub]

23 minutes ago, ProDave said:

We are not "too stubborn"   We have been installing wind and other renewable generation for years, and it is working.  What the tree huggers want us to do is stop using oil NOW.  That is simply not possible.  We are transitioning as fast as we can already.  

I get your point but I do think we could transition a little faster *if* the naysayers who would like to "cut the green crap" got back in their box. 

 

24 minutes ago, ProDave said:

BUT a lot of people, including me, are to some extent put off by "we must change or we will ruin the planet"  That puts a lot of people off because it is simply not believed by everyone and not actually proven fact.

I have been somewhat out off by the antics of extinction rebellion, just stop oil and insulate Britain.  I think they are broadly correct (caveat: as mentioned I don't think we should or could stop using oil derivatives but we should stop burning the stuff unnecessarily) but agree many of their methods are somewhat counter productive. 

 

28 minutes ago, ProDave said:

 

I am convinced if the move to more renewable electricity generation and more use of electricity for heating (heat pumps) was "sold" to the public as an energy security policy due to our diminishing oil reserves then more people would be likely to adopt it.

Absolutely, hence this thread. There is more to "Net zero" than tree hugging. 

 

28 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Fixed usage, like home heating, industry etc is far far easier to switch to electricity without being inferior.  So that should be the priority.

Yes but there are many naysayers out there saying that HPs won't work, they can't heat old houses, they cost a fortune to fit, they cost a fortune to run etc. Whilst some of those criticisms have some basis in fact, none are insurmountable. Our biggest barrier is a skilled workforce. HPs require somewhat more skill to install effectively than a "bung a 30kw combining there and bugger off" gas install. There are many examples out there of old buildings fitted with HPs without extensive replumbing and upgrading functioning well. Of course there are plenty of horror stories as well. 

 

32 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Transport is much harder.  We are not there on the technology yet for an EV to have the range, load carrying or towing capacity and refill/ recharge time anywhere close to present ICE cars. 

For the majority (statistically speaking) of people who use thier car for short commutes or city driving etc EVs function perfectly. For some people who travel long distances regularly or (in particular) tow long distances (caravans being thr classic case).  2nd cars (1/3 of households) are a fertile area for EVs as are commercial vehicles in urban areas (trades and delivery) which also provides air quality benefits.

 

More importantly EVs are ultimately the future. In 30 or so years ICE vehicles will be specialist vehicles, for heavy haulage, long distances, remote working etc and most other cars will be electric.  The problem is of we transition to gradually our auto sector risks being left behind. They are lazy buggers intent on wringing every last drop of value out of the ICE technologies thry have developed. The Chinese and Koreans have stolen a march and are dominating electric vehicle production. Our about makers need demand now to get them to switch. 

[Onoff]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

Ah, talk about this when you are there:

From the corrupt (maybe), left wing, multi million turnover press:

 

New wood-burning stoves to carry health warnings in UK plan

 

It's fine, this is a very OLD one.

[Beelbeebub]

40 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Oh and if you want the public on board, stop telling us all how bad we are, and start telling us how much good we have done already, but there is more to do.

The UK has done spectacularly well on increacing renwable generation. That should be celebrated - as you say. 

 

But we do need to keep up our momentum, and that does mean continuing to install capacity. 

 

That means more offshore, more onshore, more transmission lines (or more accurately upgrading some and adding some) and more solar. 

 

But current right wing media is against all of these. "valuable farm land being taken over by solar farms" - the majority of the land going for solar farms isn't top grade. It's the lower grade stuff you graze livestock on or have lower rates anyway. That's why it's available to lease! If it was growing vast quantities of grain etc the farmer would keep doing that. 

[Onoff]

4 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

More importantly EVs are ultimately the future.

 

Yeah but they don't make your willy go funny like a V8!

 

This from somebody who's just about to take delivery of an EV. 

[ProDave]

17 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

I get your point but I do think we could transition a little faster *if* the naysayers who would like to "cut the green crap" got back in their box. 

Tell the English planners to allow wind farms on all major UK hills, just like we have in Scotland, that includes Chilterns, downs, Cotswolds etc.  THIS is where more wind power is needed and can be accommodated by the grid, but currently not allowed.

 

So those that say we need more wind farms and we need them quicker, start petitioning the UK government to remove the ban on on shore wind farms in England, and then please don't object to them because you don't think they and their pylons are ugly.

 

17 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

For the majority (statistically speaking) of people who use thier car for short commutes or city driving etc EVs function perfectly. For some people who travel long distances regularly or (in particular) tow long distances (caravans being thr classic case).  2nd cars (1/3 of households) are a fertile area for EVs as are commercial vehicles in urban areas (trades and delivery) which also provides air quality benefits.

 

I agree, a LOT of our usage could be done by an EV but both our cars need to so long journeys regularly and carry heavy loads or tow something.  IF ONLY there was a way for us to have a THIRD car in our household, and EV for all those local journeys, but present car insurance, road tax and MOT would not make that cost effective.

[Spinny]

On the Medieval Warm Period - I did not make any claim as to whether it was hottest or not - I used a ?

Your claim was - since humans left Africa - seems to be variously attributed to between 60,000 and 125,000 years ago. Your graph covers 12000 years only, but I do see that as we are on the back end of an ice age, yes it is warmer than it has been for some roughly 120k years. Nothing whatsoever strange or man made about any of that of course. We call it climate change - way outside of human control. Looks like it will be getting rather cold over the next 25,000 years - I'll buy a thick winter coat and some long johns :0). Looks like humans might be rather glad of some higher temperatures in that period - methane generators all round perhaps.

 

So we are heading towards a new ice age, I'd be far more concerned about the impact of that on the future of humanity, rather than scaring half the planet into not procreating.

[Spinny]

11 minutes ago, Beelbeebub said:

We are not there on the technology yet for an EV to have the range, load carrying or towing capacity and refill/ recharge time anywhere close to present ICE cars.

I believe we will be very soon on range, cost and fire safety - I guess you are not following the developments in battery technology - try youtubing sodium batteries.

[-rick-]

11 minutes ago, Onoff said:

Yeah but they don't make your willy go funny like a V8!

 

They can pretend if it helps

 

https://electrek.co/2026/01/21/watch-hyundais-ev-sports-car-take-off-with-fake-shifting/

 

 

[ProDave]

5 minutes ago, Spinny said:

I believe we will be very soon on range, cost and fire safety - I guess you are not following the developments in battery technology - try youtubing sodium batteries.

Yes but I don't want to be the Guinea Pig testing technology that is not mature enough.  One day I will have an EV but not until the technology has matured to meet my needs.

 

When changing one of our cars last year, we thought about a plug in hybrid.  My logic was it could run much of it's time on the local journeys purely as an EV but with the range of an ICE car.  I was woefully disappointed with the pure EV range of what I found, barely capable of doing the 50 mile round trip to go shopping.  So we settled for a mild hybrid as our previous car was.

[Beelbeebub]

31 minutes ago, Spinny said:

I believe we will be very soon on range, cost and fire safety - I guess you are not following the developments in battery technology - try youtubing sodium batteries.

Hopefully soon. 

 

I maintain people don't have range anxiety with electric cars

 

They have recharging anxiety. 

 

My (3l petrol auto) work car has a 200mile max range, but that doesn't worry me becahse

A) I do about 1200 miles a year

B) I know I'm probably never more than 30 miles from a filling station and when I get there there will be a pump free for me with a man wait of maybe 5 minutes, it will take me 5 minutes to fill up and will cost me between 135 and 150p per liter. 

 

If electric cars could boast the same (albeit with maybe a more relaistic 10 minute charge time) then 200 miles range ( and all the benefits of lower mass, cost etc) would be ample for an ev

[Onoff]

All ready:

 

[Onoff]

Listen to that! 

 

https://flic.kr/p/2rT7t8f

[Roger440]

4 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Ah, talk about this when you are there:

From the corrupt (maybe), left wing, multi million turnover press:

 

New wood-burning stoves to carry health warnings in UK plan

Steamy said more stuff:

 

Good as that all is, and i agree with most of it, the reality is, having been bullshitted and lied to so many times, no one believes a word of it.

 

This crops up quite often on some of the traditional building/rural living groups on facebook.

 

About 98% simply think its a money making scam for government, restriction of freedoms or some other variant. Consistently that is the view. There is alnost no one, sometimes no one at all saying that it is actually a real issue.

 

Thats the problem with constantly telling lies, eventually people realise you are telling lies, and assume everything is a lie.

 

There was a story we used to tell children about it..............................

[Roger440]

4 hours ago, Beelbeebub said:

That's not actually true. 

 

Record readings of any stable system become rarer the longer you take measurements. This is a mathematical fact. 

 

If the rate at which you set record measurements increaces then the system you are measuring has changed, again a mathematical fact. 

 

The rate at which we are setting temperature records has increaced. 

 

All 10 of the hottest years ever recorded occurred in the last 10 years. That means the world is warming. 

 

And we should be worried as the world is now hotter than at any time since humans left Africa. 

 

As you do every 3 months or so, you put a lot of effort into these arguments, for what im not sure. Because it always goes the same way.

 

But half this thread is full of debate about how climate change is caused. Does it matter? Its fairly evident its changing.

 

However, and as ive stated before, the idea that if we buy a heat pump and plant some windmills everything will be ok, is pure fantasy.

 

Us meddling about with such wheezes isnt going to have any effect. At all.

 

We are just going to have to deal with it. Expending resources trying to stop it, will come to be seen as one of the greatest follys ever attempted by man. And leave us with minimal resources to actually deal with the consequences.