Category: Global Warming

Jerry Wraith writes notes on annual CO2 emissions for the UK.

“the UK’s insane drive to achieve net zero must be abandoned forthwith, as it is ruining the UK economy at a cost of £trillions, for virtually no effect at all”

SUMMARY

The average annual global increase of CO2 emissions from 2017 to 2022 was 2.4 ppm (parts/million)

The human element of that was allegedly 3%, or 0.072 ppm/annum

The UK’s contribution, assumed to be at a further 1%, is then 0.00072 ppm/annum

A global, (i.e. natural and human) rise in CO2 of 180 ppm from the current level of 420ppm to 600 ppm results in a temperature difference of only 0.396°C, and it will take 75 years for the current global output of CO2 to reach that level at 2.4 ppm/annum, and 190 years to reach 1 ºC.

The human element of that temperature increase is allegedly 3%, so the human contribution to the temperature increase would be 0.012°C over 75 years or 0.00016°C/year

The UK’s contribution at 1% of the total human element would be 0.0000016°C/year

Hence, it will take the global human element 6,250 years to add 1°C

It will take the UK 625,000 years on its own to add 1°C to the global total

The global temperature rise from the pre-industrial level to the present day was only 0.05 °C so claims on the UK for “reparations” due to the “damage” caused by the Industrial Revolution, which are probably much less than 0.015 °C for the total human input are total nonsense and must be vigorously rejected. Also, the UK’s insane drive to achieve net zero must be abandoned forthwith, as it is ruining the UK economy at a cost of £trillions, for virtually no effect at all.

In addition, Roger Arthur, C.Eng., MIEE, MIET, has pointed out many times the total stupidity of relying on wind and solar means due to their unreliability and the cost of having to provide reliable back up supplies from fossil fuel sources. He is also an expert at describing the difficulty of providing the materials, manpower and money required to cope with establishing a net zero environment and has confirmed that the UK does not possess the materials, trained manpower or the money to achieve net zero by 2050.

DISCUSSION

According to Our World in Data (https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions), in 2023, the worldwide CO2 emission was 37.79 billion tons, while for the UK, it was 305.15 million tons. This is the format always quoted by the powers that be and climate fanatics as it appears to be an enormous figure. It is a big figure, but in terms of the total annual human global amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere of 37.79 billion tons it is infinitesimal. In other words, in 2023, the UK contributed about 0.8% to the worldwide CO2 emission.

However, a much more realistic and useable figure for CO2 emissions, is to quote the global concentration of CO2 in parts/million, (ppm). The Moana Low observatory confirmed that the global CO2 level,

in 2017 was 405 ppm,

in 2022 it was 417 ppm and,

in 2024, about 420 ppm.

This means that the average annual global CO2 increase from 2017 to 2022 was 2.4 ppm, from 2022 to 2024 it was about 1.5 ppm and between 2017 and 2024 it was 2.14 ppm. This hardly shows a massive annual global increase in CO2, rather the reverse! Also, bear in mind that this increase comprises the natural global output plus that of nearly 200 nations of which the human element amount was allegedly only 3% of the global total, or 0.072 ppm/annum. We are therefore talking about extremely small annual increases of CO2 by humans. Although the UK contribution in 2023 was 0.8% of the world total it is assumed to be 1%, for the purposes of this note. This therefore gives the UK’s annual CO2 contribution as 0.00072 ppm/annum.

The figure of 0.00072 ppm is indisputable, but its implications will possibly not mean much to the average man/woman in the street. The main concern about rising CO2 is the mistaken and manufactured belief that increasing CO2 levels by humans are dangerously increasing global temperatures. Hence, we must look at how much increasing CO2 really increases global temperatures.

Firstly, it is a proven fact that increasing levels of CO2 have a reduced effect on global warming due to the effects of CO2 saturation. See Professor Happer and Dr van Wijngaarden’s, graph in Figure 1 below.

So, what effect on global temperature does the annual human CO2 level of 0.072 ppm and the annual UK contribution of 0.00072 ppm have on global temperature? This is difficult to analyse accurately as Prof. Happer’s graph is not very helpful in this respect as small increases in the CO2 level cannot be easily or accurately established from his graph, particularly as the graph is tending to be asymptotic at higher levels of CO2.

But by expanding the graph and by careful measurements it is possible to establish that the temperature increase at a CO2 level of 420 ppm is 5.2118 °C and the temperature increase at 600 ppm is 5.514 °C.

Therefore, a global rise in CO2 of 180 ppm results in a temperature difference of only 0.396°C, and it will take the global output of CO2 75 years to reach that level at 2.4 ppm/annum, and 190 years to reach 1 ºC.

(N.B. Compare that figure with the predictions by 383 out of 843 lead authors of the IPCC’s reports for their estimate of the how much human global warming there would be at the end of the century, i.e. 75 years away! The so-called IPCC’s expert’s answers ranged from 1.5 ºC to 5 ºC. Hardly a “consensus” even within the IPCC!)

“no amount of increasing taxation on aviation, the push to EV’s, heat pumps etc., etc., is going to affect the 97% of annual CO2 produced naturally”

However, the insane rush to net zero can only be concerned with the human production of CO2. Obviously, no amount of increasing taxation on aviation, the push to EV’s, heat pumps etc., etc., is going to affect the 97% of annual CO2 produced naturally. Hence, we need to look carefully at the 3% human level of CO2 produced globally and the UK’s contribution to that total.

Firstly, it must be noted from the graph above that the pre-industrial global CO2 level was 280 ppm. This has increased to about 420 ppm in 2024 a rise of 140 ppm from about 1760 or about 0.54 ppm/year. This rate of increasing CO2 is being used to fuel the panic stricken claims regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming, or AGW, caused by human activity, mainly by the use of fossil fuels.

However, readings off the Happer graph show that the global temperature increase at 260 ppm was 4.614 °C and was 5.118 °C at todays level of 420 ppm. Hence, there was only a 0.504 °C rise in temperature over the 264 years or about 0.002 °C/annum. A 0.5 °C global rise over 264 years hardly counts as a catastrophe especially as the human element was probably much lower than the 3% currently assumed. Hence, claims on the UK for “reparations” due to the damage caused by the Industrial Revolution, which are probably much less than 0.015 °C for the total global human input are total nonsense and must be rejected.

More recently, the Moana Low observatory readings show that the temp increase at 600 ppm is about 5.514 ºC and 5.115 ºC at today’s 420 ppm. This gives us a temperature rise of 0.399 ºC for a 180 ppm increase of CO2. Hence, the human element of this amounts to 0.012 ºC. This therefore means that the global push to achieve net zero will, over 75 years, only reduce global temperature by a maximum of 0.012 ºC at an annual rate of 0.00016 ºC. At this rate it will take 6,250 years for the current global output to increase global temperature by 1 ºC. Hence,

THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS!

“the UK’s contribution to the so-called “global warming” and the “climate crisis” is clearly an even more trivial addition to a trivial global amount”

The UK contribution at 1% of the annual global human output would be 0.00012 ºC and it would take the UK more than 625,000 years to add 1 ºC to the global total on its own. Thus, the UK’s contribution to the so-called “global warming” and the “climate crisis” is clearly an even more trivial addition to a trivial global amount.

Hence, a CO2 concentration rise to 460 ppm from 280 ppm has little effect, (i.e. less than 0.5 °C) on the world’s so-called global warming. In addition, Happer’s graph shows that there will be a negligible effect on global warming if the CO2 level increases to 600 ppm, the extremity of his graph. It will take the world as a whole (600 – 420) ÷ 2.4 ppm/annum = 75 years to reach 600 ppm at an annual increase of 2.4 ppm. This again confirms that there is NO immediate crisis concerning rising CO2 levels.

Furthermore, if the global level does reach 600 ppm this will be highly beneficial to the world’s population due to its beneficial effect on increasing world food production.

The above analysis has been based on Prof.Happer and Dr van Wijngaarden’s graph. It is interesting to note that their results are confirmed in principle by the IPCC as shown in FIGURE 2 below. This is based on IPCC published information defining the effect on global temperature with increasing CO2. This graph is copied from Gregory Wrightstone’s excellent book, “Inconvenient Facts, The science Al Gore does not want you to know”, as it confirms the shape of the H&vW graph in Figure 1 above. However, it appears from the graph that it gives higher temperature’s than the H&vW graph. Hence, an independent technical assessment of both systems must be carried out which is backed up by test results. It is not feasible to do a comparison between the two graphs at this stage as the IPCC graph starts at 100 ppm and lower concentrations are likely to give much higher results for the temperature increase.

“China emits more CO2 in 11 days than the UK does in a year. There is no point in “leading” if other big emitters are NOT following”

COMMENTS

I am indebted to Roger Arthur, C.Eng., MIEE, MIET, for the following comments. He has over 30 years Power Systems experience, including the design and commissioning of large power projects around the globe and has repeatedly pointed out the risks of continuing along the net zero path. This increases the risk of power cuts, while leaving the UK over dependent on Wind and Solar which produce negligible power for days in a row – all of which, including gas, are more expensive in £ per TWh of energy delivered, than are SMR (Small Modular Reactors), which can be made in the UK.

Apart from building SMRs to carry the UK grid base load (of around 25GW) which cannot be carried by those farms, we need to stop subsidising solar and offshore wind farms now, to utilise our own energy resources and to increase our gas storage from 12 days, to at least 50 days. At present we would be quickly brought to our knees in the event of war.

He also points out that China emits more CO2 in 11 days than the UK does in a year. There is no point in “leading” if other big emitters are NOT following but are taking over our manufacturing base. In any event, it should be clear that the sun is the principal driver of global temperature, to which CO2 is a follower.

Global temperature has risen by around 8°C since the last interglacial trough, which occurred around 20,000 years before the Industrial Revolution. To extrapolate backwards based on around 200 years of history – to validate IPCC models while ignoring factors other than CO2 was naive in the extreme.

Human CO2 emissions fell during lockdowns but the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 went up and it should be clear that the impact of human (never mind UK) emissions is infinitesimal.

Business professionals would not have begun a project like net zero, without a thorough costing and a cost benefit analysis. But the Climate Change Act was put into law, committing millions to misery – without asking them – in a form of taxation without representation. That was gross negligence, and the Act must be repealed as a priority, before even more die from poverty.

Finally, he has confirmed that the UK does not possess the materials, trained manpower or the money to achieve net zero by 2050. The UK’s insane drive to achieve net zero must be abandoned forthwith, as it is ruining the UK economy at a cost of £trillions, for virtually no effect at all.

CONCLUSIONS

1) The UK economy is being decimated and destroyed by the Labour Party, and allegedly fully supported by the Conservative, Lib Dem and Green Parties to give the world an “example” to follow. Unfortunately for us, the rest of the world is not so incredibly stupid as to take any notice, so the UK is well and truly on its own up a blind and destructive dead end!

2) In addition, Roger Arthur, C.Eng., MIEE, MIET, has pointed out many times the total stupidity of relying on wind and solar means due to their unreliability and the cost of having to provide reliable back up supplies from fossil fuel sources. He is also an expert at describing the difficulty of providing the materials, manpower and money required to cope with establishing a net zero environment.

3) Roger Arthur has confirmed that the UK does not possess the materials, trained manpower or the money to achieve net zero by 2050.

4) Hence the UK achieving net zero is blatantly impractical, unachievable, catastrophically expensive and ineffectual and must be abandoned forthwith.

Resume

• Born: 16/08/1938 in Khanspur, NWFP, India
• Education: King Edward VI Grammar School, Southampton
• Northampton College (now City University) BSc in Aeronautical Engineering
• 6 year Engineering Apprenticeship, Vickers Armstrongs A/C Ltd. Southampton, Swindon, Weybridge
• BAe Engineering, Wind Tunnel engineer and Aerodynamics Office
• 4 Years in New Zealand with NZ CAA, Wilson and Gollin and Air New Zealand
• Worked in Westlands Helicopters, Yeovil
• 30 years as a Hovercraft Design Surveyor and then Aircraft Design Surveyor, managing UK certification programmes of new aircraft before acceptance on UK aircraft register.
• Retired 31/08/1998.
• 12 years in the RNR retiring as a Lt Cdr. RNR.
• Married, with two children and three grandchildren.

Main Image includes picture from Mojca JJ from Pixabay 

Jerry Wraith writes to energy supplier OVO Energy Customer Care:

Thank you for your kind response to my email concerning the tragedy that is net zero. I have responded to your comments and apologise for the delay in this reply.

I am not convinced by your arguments and suggest that you, and OVO, rethink your net zero strategy, as I believe all your arguments are totally spurious and unsupportable. However, I understand that OVO (and probably all the other energy providers) are under pressure from various UK governments to support their catastrophic net zero policy. However, if OVO made a stand against it I feel sure this would be rewarded by vastly increasing your customer base, as the public would appreciate an energy company which is on their side and trying to reduce their costs.

“Net Zero is all about reducing emissions of CO2 which is not a pollutant“

Jerry’s response:

I sent my FOI to Milliband on net zero to OVO my energy supplier. This was part of their response. My comments are in bold and italics, with grateful thanks to Roger Arthur, CEng, MIEE, MIET, for his expert contributions. 

The Bigger Picture: Why the UK’s Efforts Matter

I completely understand why the UK’s CO₂ contributions might feel small compared to the global total—it’s a fair observation. However, tackling climate change is a collective effort, and every country’s actions contribute to the larger picture. By leading the way in reducing emissions, the UK is setting an example

 By destroying our economy?

Net Zero is all about reducing emissions of CO2 which is not a pollutant. In fact SO2 emissions have also been reduced in the process and that has increased the intensity of electromagnetic radiation hitting the earth.

and showing that transitioning to a greener economy is not only possible but can also come with major benefits, like cleaner air,

 What cleaner air? We breathe out CO2!

“Many hundreds of thousands of UK jobs are being sacrificed on the altar of net zero, as industries move abroad, where they will cause higher global CO2 emissions than before“

improved public health,  

One common objection to this argument is that decarbonization has other benefits—for example, reducing local air pollution. But consider the case of China, where life expectancy allegedly increased by 10 years from 1980 to 2020, even as fossil-fuel use increased by 700 percent. (Some of that owes to the reduction in indoor pollution due to cleaner cooking fuels like LPG, a fossil fuel.) Even the dirty Chinese coal plants had great benefits, since increased energy availability was much more important to most Chinese than cleaner air.

Also, if you check how many Death Certificates cite air pollution as the cause of death, you will find only one or two, while the numbers suffering from fuel poverty increased by around 67% between 2020 and 2023, impacting most on the vulnerable. Which do you think had the greatest impact on public health?

and job creation in growing industries like renewable energy.  

Many hundreds of thousands of UK jobs are being sacrificed on the altar of net zero, as industries move abroad, where they will cause higher global CO2 emissions than before. China emits more CO2 in 11 days than the UK does in a year, but we are to spend £trillions to help the Chinese take away our industries and jobs. They and other big emitters are building 100s of coal fired power stations every year and they are clearly not following our so called lead.

It’s also worth noting that the UK’s leadership inspires other countries to take action.

Prove it! How many countries followed Starmer’s boast at COP 29 that we would reduce UK CO2 emissions by 81%? NONE! The USA is likely to abolish net zero when Trump gets into the White House, thank God!

The main momentum that is building up is in reduced growth, increased poverty and excess deaths, due to deranged net zero targets. More people are dying from cold than from excess temperature.

When countries commit to ambitious targets, it builds momentum on a global scale—something that’s essential for addressing a challenge as complex as climate change.

Again, prove it?  Like India, China, and the USA for example? Look at the EU? Germany and France plus other EU countries are really struggling due to totally irresponsible and unnecessary net zero aims.

Addressing Your Specific Questions

a) What benefit is there to the UK, its citizens, and taxpayers by limiting its CO₂ emissions to 0.00072 ppm/annum, when the rest of the world is producing CO₂ at vastly greater quantities?

The benefits extend beyond just the numbers. By reducing emissions, we’re investing in cleaner air, which directly improves public health and reduces healthcare costs.

How dirty is our air now and how much cleaner will it be after emissions are reduced. Also see the comment above about the Chinese experience.

How much have UK healthcare costs reduced due to reduced CO2 emissions?

How many extra deaths have occurred in the UK due to extreme cold and the incapability of energy poverty people being unable to pay for their astronomical heating costs?

How many extra businesses have closed or gone abroad in order to survive by reducing their astronomical energy costs?

As indicated above, more people are suffering from health problems and dying from the cold, than from overheating. In fact, an average increase of ½ of 1 deg C would reduce the numbers dying, due to the cold.

At the same time, we’re building a stronger, greener economy. Renewable energy is now one of the UK’s fastest-growing sectors, creating jobs and making us less reliant on imported fossil fuels, which in turn shields us from volatile energy prices.

Not true! We are building a rapidly reducing economy. Industries and jobs are being exported to China which is building more fossil fuel powered stations as rapidly as possible. We have closed all ours down under instructions from the EU, which is now building hundreds of new fossil fuelled generating stations. Our current rate of growth is about zero and will probably reduce further. We are facing massive power cuts due to our reliance on intermittent renewable energy and are having to increase our reliance on imported energy.

Also, we don NOT have to import fossil fuels. The UK taxpayers have big reserves of coal and gas under our feet and gas in the North Sea.

b) What benefit is there to the UK, its citizens, and taxpayers by reducing its emissions from 0.00072 ppm/annum to 0.000137 ppm/annum?

“Our current rate of growth is about zero and will probably reduce further. We are facing massive power cuts due to our reliance on intermittent renewable energy“

Achieving this reduction shows the world that it’s possible to make meaningful progress while maintaining a thriving economy. 

Again, NOT TRUE! See note above. This reduction is any case not achievable without completely destroying the UK economy. Maybe that is what you and the politicians really, really, want?

What are your estimates of the UK’s GDP now and after the reduction proposed taking into consideration the high cost of energy, the power cuts and the cost of importing most of our goods from China and elsewhere?

With regard to the high cost of energy: That’s because these guarantees are irrespective of how competitive the prices actually are in the energy market. For example, floating offshore wind was recently awarded an eye-watering strike price of £176 per MWh, even though the wholesale price for most of 2024 averaged £78.70 per MWh. Why would these renewable energy companies look to cut costs and become more efficient if they can rely on such cushy subsidies?

It also helps us remain competitive in the global race for green technologies, which are rapidly becoming essential industries of the future.

Not true. The green technologies are mainly imported. We get our wind turbines from Denmark and our solar panels from China. Our EV’s are ruinously expensive and are ticking time bombs ready to burst into uncontrollable flames at the moment their batteries develop a fault. In addition, they are so heavy that they must be making our pot holed roads even worse. Furthermore, they are being shunned by UK motorists and rightly so due to their cost and dismal trade in value! EV’s made in China are much, much cheaper than those made in the UK and the EU!

So, how much profit has the UK made from exporting green technology in the last 15/20 or so years?

What is the TOTAL amount of money in £billions/trillions the UK taxpayers have had to pay for “green” energy in subsidies over the last 15/20 years?  

“In the past 150 years the warmest period was from 1880 to 1942 with many records from these years still standing today. The last two warm periods were during Roman times and from 750 to 1200 AD“

Plus, the reductions we make now help to mitigate the long-term costs of climate change—whether that’s through extreme weather, flooding, or other impacts that we’re already starting to see.

Nonsense! There is absolutely NO evidence that increasing CO2 causes extreme weather, flooding or other impacts like hurricanes, heatwaves etc. Rather the reverse is true as records show that these events have all been reducing over time!

Also, you can’t make such judgements based on short term trends. Global temperature trends run on for thousands of years and we are nearing an interglacial peak as we continue to emerge from an Ice Age. As seen, that peak is lower than many of the previous ones, which occurred long before the Industrial Revolution and we are about to enter a cooling period. The previous peak was higher and it occurred long before the Industrial Revolution.

More recently the last notable climate change was between 1500 and 1850, but since around 1870 there been no significant change. Global warming is when average temperatures increase but currently many places have seen a temperature decrease

In the past 150 years the warmest period was from 1880 to 1942 with many records from these years still standing today. The last two warm periods were during Roman times and from 750 to 1200 AD when it was a lot warmer than today.

The worst UK drought on record was in 1540 when half a million died, when CO2 levels were much lower than now.

Since the 1920s, the number of deaths due to extreme weather events has reduced by more than 90% – in spite of a four-fold rise in population – in parallel with increasing CO2 levels.

Just check what happened when human emissions fell due to Covid and Lockdowns, then decide for yourself. Total human related emissions fell noticeably, due to Covid and Lockdown, but CO2 content continued upwards, by record amounts. So, the reduction in human emissions had no discernible impact on the upward trend in CO2 

The government should check Professor William Happer’s findings – that a 50% increase in CO2 levels would cause global temperature to rise by less than 1/10^th of 1 deg C – and abandon UK net zero altogether. You should be lobbying them to do just that.

I understand your concerns about the scale of the UK’s contribution, but these efforts are part of a much larger, interconnected plan. Climate change affects everyone, and by acting together, we have a much better chance of protecting the planet for future generations.

NONSENSE! As stated above a 50% increase in CO2 will increase global temperature by less than 1/10 Deg C according to Prof, Emeritus William Happer of Princeton University.  The current rate of CO2 increase is 2.4 ppm/annum (see my FOI request to Ed Milliband). Hence it will take 75 years for global CO2 (i.e. natural and human) to reach that level. Kindly detail how much damage a rise of less than 1/10^th of deg C (97% of which is beyond human influence) will create for the earth after 75 years!

CONCLUSION

I sent you a detailed analysis of how small and insignificant the UK’s CO2 contribution to the global CO2 total really is, with references to my sources. Your response has been totally airy fairy with unsubstantiated claims which have absolutely no proof. Hence the OVO boasts about its green energy etc is total NONSENSE and not worth the paper they are written on. I note that you have not tried to refute my figures as they are clearly irrefutable!

I appreciate that OVO is probably complying with government (Conservative and Labour) directives, but your customers are paying extortionate amounts for their energy and destroying the UK economy, (as planned by them) in the process. You and OVO are supporting and perpetuating one of the greatest scams of modern life and should be doing the exact opposite. i.e. refusing to participate in deranged government demands to install smart meters, and inefficient and expensive heat pumps etc. All these demands are obviously making your customers energy bills much larger. You could start by making your customers aware of the unfair, unreasonable and unnecessary costs involved by detailing the total proportion of your customers bills that are simply subsidies for the “green” energy we are all having to pay for and are therefore totally divorced from the actual energy supplied!

However, if you and OVO are so keen on renewable energy I challenge you all to install smart meters and limit your company and personal electricity consumption, every hour, on a daily basis, to that proportion provided by renewables. Please let me know how you all get on with that scenario!

In the words of Prof Richard Lindzen:

“The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.” 

“China emits more CO2 in 11 days than the UK does in a year“

Main Image includes picture from Mojca JJ from Pixabay 

By Jerry Wraith

“The human contribution to this annual increase was 3% of which the UK contributed just 1%. Therefore, the increase in the global concentration of CO₂ by the UK was 0.00072 ppm”

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

To Ed Miliband MP, Minister of Energy Security and Net Zero

Dear Sir,

The current global level of CO₂ in the atmosphere is about 420 parts/million (ppm). According to the Mauna Lao laboratory the level in 2017 was about 405 ppm which rose to 417 ppm in 2022. Hence from these certified figures the annual increase in CO₂ was 12 ppm or about 2.4 ppm/year. The human contribution to this annual increase was 3% of which the UK contributed just 1%. Therefore, the increase in the global concentration of CO₂ by the UK was 0.00072 ppm.  Hence it will take the UK nearly 1,400 years to add just 1 ppm to the global total.

Despite this infinitesimal amount you and the PM boasted to the COP 29 meeting that the UK would reduce its CO₂ emissions by 81% by 2030. If this was achievable (which it obviously isn’t) the UK’s emissions would drop to about 0.000137 ppm. At that rate it would take the UK 7,300 years to add just 1 ppm to the global total.

“Using this figure, it is estimated that the UK’s current annual contribution to global temperature increase is therefore going to be 0.0000004 °C. If the ludicrous reduction in emissions is achieved this will drop to 0.000000077 °C”

However, Emeritus Professor Happer of Princeton University has shown that increasing the current level of CO₂ from about 420 ppm to 600 ppm would increase global temperature by less than 1/10 of 1°C or about 0.00056°C per 1 ppm. Using this figure, it is estimated that the UK’s current annual contribution to global temperature increase is therefore going to be 0.0000004 °C. If the ludicrous reduction in emissions is achieved this will drop to 0.000000077 °C.

From the above the following conclusions may be drawn:

1. It will take 75 years for global CO₂ level to reach 600 ppm at the current emission rate.
2. At that time the global increase in temperature will have risen by less than 0.1°C.
3. Compare this with the farcical predictions made by so-called “experts” in the IPCC which range from 1.5 to 5°C. (See https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a9_JmjlwgixQnwdURDL-oDVMWBtdUk2_/view?usp=sharing also https://croydonconstitutionalists.uk/lies-damn-lies-and-net-zero/)
4. The UK’s contribution to the global temperature rise at that time will be in the order of 0.00003°C at the current rate.
5. It will take the UK 1,400 years to add 0.00056 °C to the global total.

“In order to achieve this infinitesimally small target you, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Lib Dems and the Greens have severely damaged the UK economy”

In order to achieve this infinitesimally small target you, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Lib Dems and the Greens have severely damaged the UK economy already and are allegedly all totally committed to deliberately completely destroying it in the near future.

Hence you are requested to provide the answers to the following questions as a FOI request:

1. What benefit is there to the UK, its citizens and its taxpayers by limiting its CO₂ emissions to 0.00072 ppm/annum, when the rest of the world is producing CO₂ at vastly greater quantities?
2. What benefit is there to the UK, its citizens and its taxpayers by reducing its already suicidal low level of CO₂ emissions of 0.00072 ppm/annum, to 0.000137 ppm/annum when the rest of the world is producing CO₂ at vastly greater quantities?

Yours faithfully

J WRAITH

Main Image includes picture from Mojca JJ from Pixabay

By Jerry Wraith

“such a wide range of views on the next three quarters of a century discredits the notion that the IPCC represents a ‘scientific consensus’ on climate change”

Ben Pile reported in The Daily Sceptic that the Guardian recently published its survey of ‘climate experts’. For the purposes of creating this story, the Guardian’s Environment Editor Damian Carrington contacted 843 ‘lead authors’ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reports (IPCC) and 383 responded to his questions. The actual substance of the survey does not seem to have been published by the paper, but the main response Carrington wanted to get from his respondents was an estimate of how much global warming there will be by the end of the century. “World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5ºC target,” claims one headline. A graphic in the article shows the responses:

Ben Pile pointed out that the obvious problem this raises is that such a wide range of views on the next three quarters of a century discredits the notion that the IPCC represents a ‘scientific consensus’ on climate change. The ‘consensus’ – the putative expression of agreement by the worlds ‘top climate scientists’ – is the lynchpin of the narrative, epitomised by the Guardian, that the climate debate is between scientists and denialists. “Seventy seven per cent of climate scientists expect a rise of at least 2.5ºC,” explains the chart. Well, yeah, but 23% of climate scientists do not. And a good number of those connected to the IPCC believe that there will be just 1.5 degrees of warming – a third less warming than is anticipated by their colleagues at the other end of the spectrum. Clearly, there is, or needs to be, a debate.

Clearly, the wide range of results shows the so-called IPCC “experts are and the organisation is itself a complete joke as it cannot even get its so-called experts to agree on a point which is fundamental to its whole existence.

However, help is at hand, because I can state the exact number that the IPCC’s own results show should be the answer!

The question was: “How much global warming will there be by the end of the century”?

Firstly, for more information on the numbers and figures involved it is necessary to refer to my article https://croydonconstitutionalists.uk/the-lunacy-of-net-zero-policies/.

“This is the effect of global CO₂ increase. That due to humans is 3% of the total. So, the human contribution to the total global temperature rise is about 0.017 ºC”

Now we have to estimate the possible rise of CO₂ from the present day to that at the end of the century, 2100 or in 76 years time.  

The total global rise in CO2 from 1980, (335 ppm) to 2024 (420 ppm) was 85 ppm or nearly 2 ppm/annum over the last 44 years. Hence, at that rate the global total of CO₂ will rise about

152 ppm. So, the global total CO₂ level will be about 420 + 152 ppm = 572 ppm.

For convenience sake let us round this figure up to 600 ppm.

From figure 2 of my note above the ΔT (increase in temperature) against CO₂ ppm for 420 ppm is 3.5 ºC and that for 600 ppm is 4.05 ºC.

Hence the global temp increase by the end of the century implies a total temp increase of 4.05 – 3.5 ºC or just 0.55 ºC.

This is the effect of global CO₂ increase. That due to humans is 3% of the total. So, the human contribution to the total global temperature rise is about 0.017 ºC.

So, the ACTUAL ΔT due to human activity is 0.017 ºC or:

17,000 ppm of 1 ºC

The UK contribution to global CO₂ increase is about 1% of the total human contribution. So the UK’s element of the temperature increase is:

170 ppm of 1 ºC

“the responses from 77% of the so-called climate experts of the IPCC which claim a 2.5 ºC rise in temperature is nearly 150 times too large! Their answers range from 90 to 300 times too large”

But the Guardian article and the whole climate change hysteria evidently assumes that the increase in global temperature is entirely due to human activity. This is evident because no distinction is drawn between them. Hence, the responses from 77% of the so-called climate experts of the IPCC which claim a 2.5 ºC rise in temperature is nearly 150 times too large! Their answers range from 90 to 300 times too large. So ALL of the so-called IPCC experts who responded got nowhere near the ACTUAL temperature increase that the IPCC results predict!

It is therefore clear that the IPCC’s predictions of catastrophic climate change are nothing more than total horse manure, which is spread around by the shovel full by the media. Unfortunately, this is swallowed wholesale by our politicians, such as Rishi Sunak and Claire Corthino, and the climate fanatics to the total detriment of our society and economy.

As the IPCC is so unreliable I have argued in my note above that their results should be ignored in favour of data produced by the eminent scientists Dr William Happer, of Princeton University and Dr van Wijngaarden, of York University, Canada, (see FIG 1 of my note). The revised and probably much more accurate result is that the temperature increase due to the human element of increasing the global CO2 level from 420 ppm to 600 ppm is:

 0.0036 ⁰C or 3,600 ppm of 1⁰C

 of which the UK contribution would be:

36 ppm of 1⁰C

CONCLUSION

It is absolutely scandalous that the government is basing its policy on such a ridiculous entity as the IPCC. This  was set up purely and primarily to promote the concept that human activity causes increased levels of CO₂ which is causing catastrophic global temperature increases.

The hysteria generated by the IPCC and the media, including the BBC, Sky News and the Guardian for example suggests that the title of this note should be changed to:

GOOD GRIEF, HOW STUPID CAN YOU GET?

Main Image includes picture from Mojca JJ from Pixabay

By Jerry Wraith

“Why are the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parties and many civil servants so keen to destroy the UK economy, knowing that net zero is unachievable”

SUMMARY

This note aims to expose the fallacy of net zero and how the current main UK political parties are all promoting the myth. It will examine how certain factors have contributed to this situation by comparing the effect of CO2 on global temperature and the UK’s contribution. In all the hype of human activities supposedly increasing global temperatures and the claimed deleterious effect on the earth’s climate, the actual effect of achieving net zero on the earth’s temperature is rarely mentioned, because it is insignificant.

This statement can be seen to be supported by two graphs of the effect of CO2 on global temperatures which are presented and discussed. These graphs produced by the IPCC and eminent professors Dr William Happer, of Princeton University and Dr van Wijngaarden, of York University, Canada, are referred to as (H&vW) and IPCC in the discussion that follows.

The H&vW graph indicates that the current solution to the so-called global warming to reduce global human CO2 to pre-industrial emissions by all the countries in the world may only reduce the global temperature increase by:

0.0036 of 1°C or 3,600 ppm of 1°C

So the UK should only reduce the global temperature after reducing its CO2 output to preindustrial levels by a derisory:

0.000036 of 1°C or 36 ppm of 1°C

It must be noted that the results presented in this note are estimated values interpreted from Figures 1 and 2 rather than absolute values. However, I believe that the results obtained are of the right order.

In addition, it should be noted that the results presented in this note obtained from the IPCC graph have been ignored as there is ample evidence, referred to in the text and in the Appendix, which show that the IPCC reports are unreliable as they are intended to vigorously promote the global warming fallacy at all costs and to avoid giving any impression of alternative views.

So the question is:

Why are the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parties and many civil servants so keen to destroy the UK economy, knowing that net zero is unachievable and is already ruining the lives and livelihoods of many UK citizens and taxpayers? They are ignoring the best interests of the UK and are complying with the globalist agenda of the WEF, UN, EU and IPCC. If you agree then the remedy is in your hands, so:

NEVER, EVER VOTE CONSERVATIVE, LABOUR, LIB DEM, GREEN OR SNP AGAIN!

“Carbon Dioxide, (CO2) is a trace gas, currently accounting for about 420 parts/million (ppm) or 0.04% of the atmosphere. It is an essential part of our life”

Introduction

Carbon Dioxide, (CO2) is a trace gas, currently accounting for about 420 parts/million (ppm) or 0.04% of the atmosphere. It is an essential part of our life, as if it falls below about 150 ppm all vegetation will die and all life on earth with it. (See “Inconvenient Facts” by Gregory Wrightstone.) Satellite images have shown that higher levels of CO2 have increased global greening, which increases life preserving global oxygen levels. Commercial growers also pump CO2 into their greenhouses to vastly increase plant growth.

Unfortunately, CO2 is also a “greenhouse” gas, as it does affect the earth’s global temperature. It is this aspect of its attributes that has been picked on by the climate alarmists to use, quite wrongly, as a cause of concern by blaming increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere caused by human sources for excessive global warming. This is called Anthropogenic Global Warming, (AGW), which the climate alarmists claim causes serious weather extremes and will melt the polar ice caps and flood vast areas of low-lying land, killing billions of people as a result.

But the earth produces CO2 naturally and over the past centuries CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today. (Wrightstone, “Inconvenient Facts, quotes a CO2 level of 2,500 ppm, 140 million years ago.) Hence their misguided aim to reduce CO2 to preindustrial levels at any and all cost, despite the fact that the IPCC states that anthropogenic CO2 is only about 3% of the annual total. In addition, water vapour, over which man has no control whatsoever, is by far the largest and most effective greenhouse gas.

The effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global warming and the earth’s surface temperature is discussed below as the hype on AGW is strangely reluctant to quote the temperature changes involved. This is likely because the temperature changes caused by AGW are so small that they would have no impact on the public and would also illustrate what a monumental scam was being played upon them.

Global Warming

Figure 1 is copied from a lecture given by Dr Tom Sheahan. For the full lecture view at:

“increasing global CO2 by 140 ppm has an imperceptible effect on increasing earth’s temperature. In fact, higher levels of CO2 have even less effect on increasing global temperature”

The figure, compiled by Prof Happer, and Dr van Wijngaarden, clearly defines the effect on global warming due to increasing levels of CO2. This shows that increasing levels of CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm (parts per million) to the warming effect at today’s level of about 420 ppm is practically indiscernible. This shows beyond any doubt that increasing global CO2 by 140 ppm has an imperceptible effect on increasing earth’s temperature. In fact, higher levels of CO2 have even less effect on increasing global temperature. The graph is referred to as (H&vW) in the discussion below.

FIGURE 1

H&vW GRAPH

FIGURE 2, below is based on IPCC published information defining the effect on global temperature with increasing CO2. This graph is copied from Gregory Wrightstone’s excellent book, “Inconvenient Facts The science Al Gore does not want you to know”, It also confirms the shape of the H&vW graph above.

FIGURE 2

IPCC GRAPH

The implications from Figures 1 and 2 are presented in Table 1 below, which shows the total temperature change (ΔT) as CO2 rises from zero to 800 ppm. (NB The results have been scaled from Figures 1 and 2, so should be regarded as estimates rather than totally accurate values. However, the trend is clear regardless of the values presented. See the Appendix for additional information justifying FIG 1 and for ignoring FIG 2).

TABLE 1

TEMP RISE ΔT AGAINST CO2 ppm INCREASE: FROM FIGURES 1 AND 2

The main points to note are that:

The absolute minimum level of 150 ppm required for all vegetation and therefore all life on earth means a temperature increase, from zero ΔT at zero CO2, of 4.15 0C from H&vW and 1.81 0C from the IPCC.

The graphs have a fairly large difference of 2.66 0C at 100 ppm but they gradually converge at much higher concentrations.

The global temp increase at the 1830 pre-industrial level of about 280 ppm produced a total temp increase of 4.58 0C according to H&vW and a 2.85 0C increase according to the IPCC.

The current, (say 2024) level is about 420 ppm, an increase of 140 ppm over 194 years, or 0.72 ppm/annum.

The total temp increase due to the rise in CO2 to 420 ppm is approximately 4.7 0C (H&vW) and 3.5 0C (IPCC). This means that the global temp increase due to increasing CO2 from 1830 to 2024 is 0.12 0C (H&vW) or 0.65 0C (IPCC).

“As the UK only contributes 1% of the global human CO2 this means that the UK will only reduce the global temperature after reducing its CO2 output to pre-industrial levels”

BUT, the human contribution to this global increase, according to the IPCC, is 3% of the total. Hence, the current solution to the so-called global warming to reduce global human CO2 to pre-industrial emissions will only reduce the global temperature increase by:

0.0036 0C (H&vW) or 3,600 ppm of 1°C

Or

0.02 0C (IPCC) or 20,000 ppm of 1°C

As the UK only contributes 1% of the global human CO2 this means that the UK will only reduce the global temperature after reducing its CO2 output to pre-industrial levels by:

0.000036 0C (H&vW) or 36 ppm of 1°C

Or

0.0002 0C (IPCC) or 200 ppm of 1°C

So to produce this derisory 36 ppm, or 200 ppm of 1 0C effect on the global warming “crisis” the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parliamentary parties are allegedly all intent on ruining the UK economy and are making the UK citizens lives a misery.

Also, it must be noted that increasing the current global CO2 level from 420 ppm to 600 ppm is 4.82 – 4.7, (H&vW) and 4.06 – 3.5 0C, (IPCC) or 0.12 0C (H&vW) or 0.56 0C (IPCC)

Hence, increasing the global CO2 by nearly 50% to 600 ppm from the current level of 420 ppm has a minimal effect on global warming. The global human contribution to that would only be:

0.0036 0C or 3,600 ppm of 10C (H&vW)

Or

0.0170C or 17,000 ppm of 10C (IPCC)

of which the UK contribution would be:

36 ppm of 1 0C (H&vW)

Or

0.00017 0C or 170 ppm of 1 0C (IPCC).

It should be noted the huge benefits to food production resulting from the increased CO2 which promotes world plant growth and agriculture. Higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases food production and more life sustaining oxygen for all living creatures on earth.

The total global rise in CO2 from 1980, (335 ppm) to 2022 (420 ppm) was 85 ppm or 2.02 ppm/annum over the last 42 years. Hence, it will take the earth nearly 90 years to increase the global CO2 level to 600 ppm at that rate. This will only increase global temp by 0.12 0C (H&vW) or 0.56 0C (IPCC) at that level.

Assuming human emissions were 3% of the annual total of 2.02 ppm gives a global increase of 0.0606 ppm/annum. The UK share of that at 1% gives an annual UK emission figure of 0.000606 ppm/annum as the UK’s increase in CO2 over the last few years.

This means that it will take approximately 1,650 years for the UK to add just 1 ppm of CO2 to the global total.

The results derived from the IPCC graph are considered to be unreliable and are therefore being ignored. There is ample evidence that the IPCC’s reports and procedures are littered with examples of questionable practice, including many examples where the IPCC has ignored and supressed evidence that does not support their net zero agenda. Numerous publications, listed in the Appendix, describe in detail the many examples of the IPCC failings.

“the drive to net zero is totally unrealistic, totally unachievable and is going to cost the UK trillions of pounds to de-carbonise the grid together with all the other mandatory costs involved”

CONCLUSION

The current hysteria over the “so called” effect of rising CO2 levels causing disastrous increases in global warming, thereby causing melting of polar ice-caps, more extreme weather conditions etc., etc. is entirely unnecessary.

The current rise in global temperature of 4.7 0C, (H&vW), or 3.5 0C (IPCC), due to the current CO2 level of 420 ppm has already happened and the world is still carrying on as normal.

Increasing global CO2 level to 600 ppm will only add 0.12 0C or 0.56 0C to the global total and it will take nearly 90 years to reach that level at the current rate of increase.

This misguided rush to reduce global warming by reducing CO2 to pre-industrial levels is ruining the UK economy, its residents’ livelihoods, living standards and freedom of movement.

In addition, the drive to net zero is totally unrealistic, totally unachievable and is going to cost the UK trillions of pounds to de-carbonise the grid together with all the other mandatory costs involved.

Net zero is however, fully supported by the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parties. as they are ignoring some basic evidence on the limited effect of CO2 on global warming which is described above.

So, why are the Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green and SNP parties and many civil servants so keen to destroy the UK economy and the UK as an independent sovereign country?

For example, the drive to net zero has recently resulted in stopping steel production in the UK. Steel was invented in the UK and is an essential strategic commodity. Yet the government, supported by the other parties in parliament, are allegedly quite happy to abolish UK production of this essential material by closing all UK coal powered generating stations.

This is clearly ridiculous as 1,893 new coal powered generating stations are being built in the world. The total number in operation will then then increase from 3,743 to 5.636. Of these the EU has 465 existing plants and is adding 25 giving a total of 490 plants. The UK has only one plant still operating and that is being closed soon.

So, do you really agree that it is in the best interests of the UK to abolish steel making and throw thousands of skilled craftsmen out of work for the sake of saving 36 ppm of 1°C? The Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, Green, SNP parties and many civil servants allegedly do! They are clearly adopting the diktats of unelected international bodies whose aim is to 7 impose their policies on the world. The 5 UK political parties listed above are therefore completely ignoring what is best for the UK ‘s citizens who have voted them into office. They are all therefore totally unfit to be represented in parliament, let alone governing the country in any shape or form.

If you agree that these parties are not representing our best interests the solution is in our hands. So,

NEVER, NEVER VOTE CONSERVATIVE, LABOUR, LIB DEM, GREEN, OR SNP AGAIN!

It is also incumbent on the PM, the government and all the climate change fanatics to explain how the UK’s 0.000165 0C (0.55 x 3% x1%) maximum extra contribution to global temperature over 194 years, or on average:

0.0000008 0C/annum

has endangered the earth so much that it justifies the net zero legislation and all the trauma that goes with it. In addition, it makes Rishi Sunak’s donation of £1.6 billion of taxpayer’s money to the UN’s Climate Change Fund a grossly stupid and irrelevant payment.

In addition, the Cabinet Office confirmed they had no record of ANY data whatsoever to support this payment. In other words, it was apparently an impromptu payment to impress other delegates and make Sunak look big in the eyes of the delegates at a COP meeting. Hence, he should be made to reimburse the UK taxpayers out of his own pocket for that amount of taxpayer’s money he threw away.

APPENDIX

THE ACCURACY AND FEASABILITY OF THE H&vW and IPCC GRAPHS

The two graphs presented in Figures 1 and 2 of the note are similar in shape but show different results. It is therefore necessary to examine which graph is more meaningful and accurate.

The Happer & van Wijngaarden results in Fig 1 can be justified by means of the following graphs which show excellent co-relation with measured results:

The figure below, is also copied from the lecture given by Dr Tom Sheahan at https://youtu.be/CqWv26PXqz0?si=taBgTQ3Lj8wTiLZ1.

With regard to the IPCC results, Andrew Montford’s excellent books “The Hockey Stick Illusion” and “Hiding the Decline”, which details the history of the “Climategate Affair” show how the IPCC operates. These and other books, (see list below) are essential reading to understand the workings and methods employed by the IPCC. These clearly show that the IPCC, and the authors of IPCC reports are quite willing to edit information and ignore results that do not fit in with their intention to promote global warming at every opportunity.

In addition, the graph below, copied from David Craigs excellent book “There is no Climate Crisis”, shows the results of IPCC estimates of global temperature increase over time This clearly shows the IPCC results are well over actual results.

Hence, in view of the above and more evidence of IPCC failings to represent real values it can be assumed that the IPCC results are not reliable and should be ignored.

References

Christopher Booker, “The Real Global Warming Disaster”, Continuum, 2009.

A.W. Montford, “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, Stacey International, 2010

A.W. Montford, “Hiding the Decline”, Anglosphere Books, 2012

Gregory Wrightstone, “Inconvenient Facts”, The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know, Silver Crown Productions Ltd., LLC, 2017

Bruce C Bunker, PhD, “The Mythology Of Global Warming”, Climate Change Fiction vs. Scientific Facts, Moonshine Cove Publishing LLC, 2018

M J Sangster,PhD, “The Real Inconvenient Truth”, Amazon, 2018

David Craig, “There Is No Climate Disaster”, Original Book Company, 2021

Ian Plimer, “Green Murder”, A life sentence of Net Zero With No Parole, Connor Court Pty Ltd., 2021

Dr Niall Mccrae, RMN, MSc, PhD, “Green in Tooth and Claw”, The Misanthropic Mission of Climate Alarm, The Bruges Group, 2023

I recommend you also watch Climate: The Movie. The film that lifts the lid on the climate alarm, and the dark forces behind the climate consensus.

Main Image includes picture from Mojca JJ from Pixabay

Jeremy Wraith writes:

“Danish renewable energy firm Orsted said Wednesday it will build the world’s single largest offshore wind farm off Britain’s eastern coast“

“will demand huge subsidies from UK householders and taxpayers, and which will require a reliable back-up power generation system”

I cannot for the life of me understand the thinking behind the massive wind farm order. This is an intermittent power source, which will demand huge subsidies from UK householders and taxpayers, and which will require a reliable back-up power generation system when it is producing little or no electricity. Apart from being unreliable offshore wind farms are a blight on the landscape and are a massive hazard to bird life. It is also being built by a Danish company which will increase our existing massive total balance of payments deficit with the EU which has already cost us over £2 trillion.

“The alternative is to invest heavily in Rolls Royce SMR’s, which can be operated continuously”

The alternative is to invest heavily in Rolls Royce SMR’s, which can be operated continuously (except for maintenance periods) and which are designed and made in the UK by the world-renowned UK manufacturer. In addition, SMRs provide the same energy output pa at a lower capital cost than wind farms. Also, 370,000 miles of new HV cables and overhead lines, must be installed to connect remote wind and solar farms. The reactors in RN submarines are expected to last for over 30 years, compared with a 20-year typical life span for a wind turbine and 40,000 UK jobs will be created during development & commissioning of SMRs – leaving us independent in spares & back up. Once these are fully developed and operational, they would provide excellent export potential, thereby earning the UK valuable foreign funds.

The proposal suggests a death wish for UK design and manufacturing, a policy shared by many parties.  So, in the next general election please do consider this when voting.

Image: Rob Farrow / Offshore windfarm, Skegness / CC BY-SA 2.0

Letter from Jeremy Wraith to the PM asking what justifies retaining the net zero policy. 

“net zero policy is catastrophically damaging the UK economy and destroying the normal lives and freedoms of all UK citizens”

To Mr R Sunak
Prime Minister
10^th Dec 2023

Dear Sir

Please note that this FOI is in the public interest as the net zero policy is catastrophically damaging the UK economy and destroying the normal lives and freedoms of all UK citizens, (e.g. abolition of our petrol and diesel powered cars, 15 minute cities, imposition of smart meters, massive costs of green energy subsidies, lack of reliable power generation, etc., etc.)

1 What information do you have which justifies retaining the net zero policy imposed upon the UK by the pernicious EU?

2 What information do you have that negates that the increasing CO₂ from the start of the industrial revolution to the present day has had a negligible effect on increasing global temperature?

 3 What information do you have which proves that the man made CO₂ produced by the UK from the start of the industrial revolution to the present day has created any damage to the world environment?

4 What information do you therefore have that justifies giving £1.6 BILLION of UK taxpayers money to the UN climate change fund?

“What information do you have, and can list, that defines EXACTLY what damage the UK’s CO₂ emissions since the 1830’s have supposedly caused other countries”

5 What information do you have, and can list, that defines EXACTLY what damage the UK’s CO₂ emissions since the 1830’s have supposedly caused other countries, and which you are using to justify paying huge “reparations” using UK taxpayers money?

6 What information do you have on any cost benefit analysis carried out by the government to prove that giving £1.6 BILLION of UK taxpayers money to the UN climate fund is more beneficial to the UK taxpayers than using that money to repair crumbling concrete in our schools, universities, museums etc.? Especially when the £1.6 BILLION has to be borrowed and when we already have an enormous public debt of well over £2.5 TRILLION, costing every UK household over £2,000/annum just service the interest?

I look forward to receiving your responses to this FOI request.

Jeremy Wraith

Image by Mojca JJ from Pixabay

WHY IS NET ZERO BEING CONTINUED?

Image by Mojca JJ from Pixabay

Letter from Jeremy Wraith to the The Prime Minister asking ‘Why is net zero being continued?’

“More CO₂ means more and greener vegetation. Commercial growers increase CO₂ levels in their greenhouses to increase plant growth”

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

Dear Prime Minister

WHY IS NET ZERO BEING CONTINUED?

“Climate Change” is being blamed on human production of CO₂ or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). This is obviously an outrageous and dangerous lie as shown below.

CO₂ FACTS

• The earth produces CO₂ naturally. 140 million years ago the CO₂ level in the earth’s atmosphere was 2,500 ppm (parts/million).
• CO₂ is essential for life on earth.
• If the CO₂ level falls below about 150 ppm plant life cannot exist. Hence, all animal and human life will expire with it.
• More CO₂ means more and greener vegetation. Commercial growers increase CO₂ levels in their greenhouses to increase plant growth.
• Global CO₂ level in 1850, beginning of the industrial revolution was 280 ppm.
• Global CO₂ level in 2021 was 410 ppm.
• Hence, total increase of CO₂ over that period, natural and man made, was 130 ppm.
• 130 ppm increase over 171 years gives an average annual increase of 0.76 ppm.
• Mankind is responsible for about 3% of that annual increase, or approx. 0.02 ppm.
• There are about 200 countries in the world. This gives an average of 0.0001 ppm/country/annum! This gives some idea of the small quantities of CO₂ involved, even on a global scale.

HENCE: Based on these average numbers it will take:

EACH COUNTRY 10,000 YEARS TO ADD JUST 1 ppm/YEAR  TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL!

• However, some countries produce far more CO₂ than the average. 70% of annual global CO₂ emissions are produced by China, the USA, the EU, India, Russia and Japan combined.
• The UK produces only 1% of total man made annual CO₂ or 0.0002 ppm.

HENCE: Based on these average numbers it will take;

“to avoid adding 1 ppm to the worlds CO₂ level over the next 1,560 years the UK’s Conservative government, (supported by the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties) is….”

THE UK 5,000 YEARS TO ADD JUST 1 ppm CO₂ TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL!

• However, the CO₂ level was possibly rising faster more recently than the average, perhaps about 2.13 ppm between 2021 and 2022.
• The man made element of that would be 3% or 0.064 ppm of which the UK’s contribution to that at 1% would be 0.00064 ppm.
• So, even taking one extreme result for CO₂ increase it will still take:

THE UK 1,560 YEARS TO ADD JUST 1 ppm CO₂ TO THE GLOBAL TOTAL!

“Threatening to fine objectors £15,000 with a possible 12 month jail sentence if they refuse entry AND legalising the use of brute force by fitters and the police”

1. Banning the use of our diesel and petrol cars by 2035.
2. Making us buy EV’s at a much higher cost and which are liable to burst into flames if their batteries get wet or damaged. (EV cars have numerous other disadvantages)
3. De-carbonising the national grid which National Grid (NG) estimates will cost £3 trillion to decarbonise the Grid alone – by 2035 – i.e. at an average cost of around £120,000 per household – to which must be added the cost for industry, transport and agriculture.
4. Banning the use of our efficient gas boilers and making us buy inefficient heat pumps at great expense.
5. Making our homes unusable and un-sellable by insisting on unreasonably high and extremely expensive insulation properties.
6. Decimating our power supplies by abolishing coal fired power stations.
7. Relying for our electricity supply on unreliable and costly wind and solar farms which require substantial subsidies to be paid by UK consumers. All fossil fuelled and nuclear stations will have been decommissioned by 2035 and the national grid will be unable to meet the additional load of millions of EV chargers and heat pumps. By then the Grid will be almost totally dependent on solar and wind power – when on some days the output from those sources is less than 1GW, i.e. 2% of grid maximum demand – a demand which is expected to reach around 90GW by 2035.
8. Making householders install smart gas and electricity meters, so that they can be switched off when electricity supplies are overloaded. It will also enable the supply companies to charge exorbitant prices during periods of high demand.  NB The use of these meters on householder’s health, (due to high energy pulses they emit) is highly suspect and has not been adequately investigated and proved safe by the authorities.
9. Threatening to fine objectors £15,000 with a possible 12 month jail sentence if they refuse entry AND legalising the use of brute force by fitters and the police to make householders let smart meters be installed.
10. Forming “15 minute” cities and severely restricting residents and visitors rights to travel and move around their cities.
11. Banning practically all air travel and preventing people from enjoying foreign holidays and seeing their families based abroad.
12. Severely taxing air travel to put people off from taking holidays abroad.
13. Scrapping good farmland to re-wild it!
14. Putting taxes on meat to encourage people to eat bugs.
15. The key materials needed to meet net zero, range from copper, aluminium, nickel and silicon to rarer metals such as lithium All of which require substantial increases in their production to produce the quantities required for the expected demand in 2035.
16. The irony is that increasing CO₂ greens the planet more: which will increase the global plant life, which will increase the uptake of CO₂ by the vegetation and produces more Oxygen!
17. Paying £billions of UK taxpayers money to UN carbon funds and paying “reparations” to other countries for “polluting” the earth with CO₂ during the industrial revolution and afterwards. A totally despicable lie as adding CO₂ from 1800 to the present day has had a negligible effect on global warming, (see Figs below).

So, to avoid adding 1 ppm to the worlds CO₂ level over the next 1,560 years the UK’s Conservative government, (supported by the Labour, Lib Dem and Green parties) is;

“ALREADY donated $2 billion of our, taxpayers’ money to the UK climate change fund. Was that penance payment REALLY just for adding 0.039 ppm to the global total over 171 years?”

NB In fact, of the total 130 ppm increase in CO₂ between 1850 and 2021 the 3% man made element was only 3.9 ppm. Of that the UK contribution of approximately 1% was 0.039 ppm over 171 years.

Yet you, Mr Sunak, have ALREADY donated $2 billion of our, taxpayers’ money to the UK climate change fund. Was that penance payment REALLY just for adding 0.039 ppm to the global total over 171 years?

ALL THAT AND MORE TO PREVENT THE UK ADDING 1 ppm CO₂ TO THE WORLDS CURRENT TOTAL OF 400 ppm OVER THE NEXT 1,560 YEARS, WHEN DOUBLING THE CO₂ LEVEL FROM 400 to 800 ppm MAKES A NEGLIGIBLE CHANGE TO GLOBAL WARMING!

Hence, in view of the above I would like to ask you to justify WHY each of the points listed above are required and WHY:

1. You still insist on applying “net zero” when it is so obviously a totally unjustifiable, unattainable and horrendously expensive scam and making the UK taxpayers and residents so utterly persecuted, all for nothing.
2. You gave away $2 billion of taxpayers money to the UN for just adding 0.039 ppm to the global total over 171 years when doubling the global CO₂ from 400 to 800 ppm has a negligible effect on global warming.

Please treat this as a Freedom of Information request.

Yours faithfully

J G Wraith