By Ted Vibert
REGULAR readers of this column will know that ever since the States made the decision in 2019 that the Island would have to be carbon neutral by 2030, and then later adjusted to 2050, I have been pointing out the idiocy of that position.
And I make no apology for that, as I consider it to be the most irresponsible decision made by our government, certainly in my life time.
To achieve this, our government will have to pass legislation to make it illegal to have our houses warmed by gas or oil, our cars to run on any fossil-based fuel (petrol or diesel), our homes will have to be heavily insulated, our air travel restricted and all goods coming into the Island counted as part of our total emissions figure. In other words, a total demolition of important elements in the life of anyone living in Jersey.
The greatest impact will be on the less well off in our society, those people struggling to pay their rent, buy food, run their cheaper second-hand cars that enable them to take their children to school and bring the shopping home or take a trip to the countryside. In short, a total financial re-adjustment and downgrading of their way of life. It’s hard to imagine a proposal that favours the better-off section of our society more. This path we are on will increase the division in Jersey between the wealthy and those of ordinary means, in contrast to the stated aim of the government to ‘level up’ our society.
This idiotic proposal was agreed by the States four years ago and I decided to look at the Hansard recording of the debate during which it was approved. I was interested to see how much fact was contained in the speeches made and to see how many Members opposed it. Only one person voted against it – the sensible and pragmatic former Senator, the late Sarah Ferguson.
The proposal to declare a ‘climate change emergency’ and for Jersey to be ‘carbon free’ by 2030 (later changed to 2050) was lodged by former teacher Deputy Rob Ward, a member of Reform Jersey, the political party that claims to represent and care for the less well off in the Island yet was prepared to initiate and champion this massive financial burden on the very people they should be helping.
During that debate, absolutely no one mentioned who the main culprits are when it comes to polluting the world’s atmosphere with greenhouse gases (China and India account for 31%) and a lot of States Members talked incessantly about how the world’s weather was changing and the threat to Jersey’s future unless we all changed our habits. No one mentioned how much of the world’s greenhouse gases Jersey actually sends up into the atmosphere as a percentage of the total (it’s about 0.0008%) and no one mentioned the probable cost of going carbon neutral – between £60 million and £300 million (four years ago). No one asked why should we bother to do this?
Only the late Senator Ferguson – a qualified engineer – challenged the science that insisted that it was the inhabitants of the world who were responsible by their actions for the problem, and she disputed the view that ‘all of the world’s scientists agree that this is the case’. In fact, she argued, there is no consensus in that community on this subject – far from it
More importantly, not one Member asked the question: ‘If we only contribute 0.0008% to the problem, why should we do anything about climate change, since we contribute so little to it and just get on with our lives?’
And no one asked: ‘How much will the States put on the table to enable people to make such a massive change in their lifestyles?’
We only have one ‘official’ estimate of what the cost will be to the public purse, provided by the Fiscal Study Group. To that four-year-old range of figures we can add another 10%.
At a Scrutiny hearing on the subject, former Environment Minister John Young was asked ‘where will the money come from to meet the carbon neutral dates set by the States?. His answer was: ‘I have no idea.’ He was not responsible for the proposal.
Meanwhile, of course, JE must be thrilled at the prospect of all those new EV cars having to be charged and homes previously heated by oil or gas being switched to electric power. In addition, the company sees itself becoming a major shareholder in a wind farm somewhere off our coast, with local investors able to get involved in the scheme – even if they only want to invest £500.
The suggestion is that wind farms are a guaranteed money spinner, but that has not proven to be the case. Only last month one of Sweden’s largest energy companies who won a contract to build and run what would have been one of Britain’s largest wind farms off the coast of Norfolk halted the project, announcing that they would not continue because the cost of the build meant the whole project had become a loss-maker.
Their announcement produced an editorial in the Daily Telegraph, part of which read: ‘The government’s flagship wind farm scheme is no longer fit for purpose and the UK needs to establish a long-term funding plan for renewable auctions as inflation and supply chain pressures start to bite, trade bodies have warned.’ In the same month, Sieman’s, a German industrial powerhouse which has been in the wind power market for almost 20 years making and installing the giant turbines, massive blades and support columns for the wind farm industry, warned that it was facing a £5 billion loss this year due to wrinkles in the rotor blades and faulty gears. These defects have led to operating issues and warranty claims from buyers. The news wiped £7 billion off their value.
The very idea that Jersey has the technical and financial ability to enter this highly competitive risky global marketplace is irresponsible, especially as we can buy all the electricity we need from French nuclear power stations.
Other stories that made the news last week show how UK voters are now reacting unfavourably to many of the lifestyle changes being forced on them to achieve carbon neutrality and which are causing many government backbenchers and ministers to question the wisdom of pursuing them. These stories were:
-
Electric car revolution hits the skids amid lack of charging points.
-
House of Lords launches inquiry into UK electric car transition.
-
The heat pump ‘hard sell’ is all hot air.
-
Heat pump fury as people in rural hotspots hit with £45,000 bill to replace their gas system.
-
Environment Secretary facing backlash in her own constituency over heat pump edict.
-
Britain is a nation of net zero NIMBYS (polls suggest that British voters support action on climate change – well, as long as it doesn’t cost them anything).
Back in 2019 the Council of Ministers declared that ‘it is important that people in Jersey can see, and come to value, the significant social, environmental and economic benefits from becoming carbon neutral and can acknowledge the legitimacy of their providing financial support to the cost of the transition’.
So far, we know nothing about the social, environmental or economic benefits of this likely expenditure of massive sums of our money. All we know for certain is that what it will achieve will not even be noticed – as significant as a drop in the ocean.
It’s time we heard from the Environment Minister about how the people of Jersey will get those promised benefits and what they will be. We should be insisting on knowing what good will come from the heavy financial burden we are going to have to bear by being forced by the government to change our habits.
And we shouldn’t have to be asking for that information.
-
Ted Vibert can be contacted on tedvibertt@gmail.com.
