First the War Against the Motorist, Now the War Against the Homeowner...

 Just as there is now a war between the establishment and the motorist, there is soon to be a war between the establishment and the homeowner. 

The latest net zero laws being proposed aim to make it a criminal offence if you don't comply with net zero regulations regarding your home, or make an incorrect or inaccurate statement on any compliance documentation.

The war against the car has been going on for over a decade now and it's never more clear than the proposals around ULEZ, the utter failure of the London ULEZ to make the air around London any clearer and the ever increasing taxation of the car, especially cars deemed "unnecessary" by the people that see themselves as our overlords. They have made it more difficult to own a car and will continue to make it more difficult until the majority of us give up and settle in our 15 minute cities.

Now the establishment are coming for your house. During the Blair years we had the decree that only condensing boilers could be installed. There was no opposition. Then they said that we will only be allowed to install heat pumps instead of gas boilers. Despite the majority of UK housing stock not being compatible with heat pumps, they are making it law.

Now we have the Net Zero legislation being proposed to make criminals out of homeowners that cannot afford to make the required changes to their home.

In other words, they are making it more difficult to own a house, such that eventually you'll give it up.

I'm sure the government will have something akin to the Car Scrappage Scheme where they take ownership of your home. and then rent it out. Not necessarily to you of course, because you couldn't afford to comply you'll be deemed not worthy of house occupation. A retired couple? Nah, off to the government-owned home for you. I say "home": what I mean is "processing facility" where all the old, useless unproductive people go to be "reclaimed". In other words killed and made into compost. 

And you thought raising the pension age was a stand-alone thing? Don't be stupid.

Produce & consume, or else. Serve your corporate masters, consume their output. Accept the credits they give you that allow you to consume, but don't ever think of saving those credits to be able to better your position. Those credits are calculated by A.I. in order to keep you nourished just well enough to serve in the factory. If you do not use your allowance you will be malnourished and will be deemed unproductive and sent off for reclamation.

If you think this is a bit far fetched, I'm only joining the dots and seeing the trend that has been in place for over two decades.

Remember the WEF statement "You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy"? Well, the first part of that is in play. They are making it so difficult to own a car, travel and now own a home, you'll be begging the government to take them off your hands. 

Vote for Labour, or Conservatives or Liberal Democrats at the next election and you'll get more of the same. Another 5 years of oppressive diktats from  whichever government gets in power.

UNLESS YOU VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE!

The All-Electric Dream Turning into a Nightmare?

This article in the Daily Mail starkly illustrates the real-life problems facing electric car owners now that numbers are increasing on the road. 

Service stations with only a handful of chargers, where electric car owners have to queue to charge, broken chargers not allowing owners to charge; basically the charging infrastructure not keeping up with demand. 

Even the best charging network, provided by Tesla has had issues over the holiday period, with Tesla owners having to queue to use chargers. 

There's a reason that the number of chargers is low: the electricity supply to (usually isolated) service stations is limited. Only a certain number of chargers can be supported before new electricity supply cables have to be laid to the service station to supply the amount of current demanded by more chargers.

That then becomes prohibitively expensive. Tesla get round the issue by current-sharing. If one car hooks up to a charger, then you can usually supercharge fine. If two cars hook up to the same charging plinth, then the current to each car is reduced so the overall demand on the grid supply is shared and kept below the limit of the supply cables. 

That's why you find (or should find) more chargers in service stations in urban areas. The grid in built up areas should be able to cope with the demand without too much hassle. 

But this is yet more evidence that the push to electric is ideological. Had the push to electric been anything else, then the implications of a million electric vehicles on the road would have been investigated and the correct policies put in place to provide adequate charging infrastructure.

As it is, government policy is to set an end date for fossil-fuelled vehicles and then let the market sort out the infrastructure.

It's not good enough. The National Grid needs to be modified, planning laws need to be amended and so much more secondary changes need to be made to support electric vehicles, if they are to become a success.

The issue of grid supply to service stations is just one. Others are supplying charging infrastructure in historic preservation areas where there are planning restrictions. For instance how does one get permission to bolt a charger onto the wall of a listed building? How do you install on-street charging in preservation areas? In both instances how do you modify planning laws to allow it, or do you make preservation areas and historic buildings charge-free zones?

Even when the charging infrastructure starts to get better, it needs to be able to support electric cars in winter with vastly reduced range. Electric car drivers are now beginning to realise that battery range can be as much as halved in very cold weather. Meaning that drivers are forced to hook up to chargers more often and create more demand for chargers in winter. I doubt very much the charging infrastructure has even considered this effect. Instead just plonking chargers willy-nilly wherever they can be shoehorned in and grid capacity will allow. No consideration for range, no consideration for demand. Instead the market provides the solution for the cheapest cost, ensuring maximum profits.

No-one has yet cottoned onto the brand loyalty that could be gained by providing adequate numbers of reliable chargers for all, similar to the Tesla network, but without the limitations of having to own a Tesla. Of course the hurdles to this are many, with the risk of competitors undercutting you and providing just enough charging capacity at a lower cost. Although it appears that Tesla have now opened up their network to those who are able to use it. 

Over the past month I've been posting articles about the wider issue: that of the means used to generate the electricity we use. Even if we went all-electric tomorrow, the issue still remains that the bulk of our generating capacity is provided by gas-powered stations. Renewables are okay when the wind and solar are available, but when they are not (which is most of the time) gas has to come on stream to provide the shortfall. 

So at the moment electric cars are not as green as the hype suggests. They are still powered mostly by fossil fuels. It's just that you don't see any emissions from the car. They are moved away from the car to the power station. Just like industry has been closed in the UK and moved to India or China. We still require the materials, it's just that their manufacture (and therefore the emissions created by making the item) have been moved elsewhere.

We are far from Green, far from net-zero, far from the ideological perfection the disciples of Greta Thunberg demand. 

That's what you get if you blindly follow an ideology, a requirement, a target, without a plan or a convincing end-game, without thinking it through.

The Power of Recall: Should we Trigger it?

 It's quite clear now that rather than following an affordable road map to zero emissions, ALL the parties in Parliament are set on and unaffordable course, euphemistically termed "Net Zero". 

Just like the innocuous term "Final Solution" has been tarnished historically and has come to signify the murder of millions of Jews, the term "net Zero" may come to signify the ruthless search for zero emissions at all costs, including loss of life.

Now, if you are one of those people struggling to pay your current energy bills and are staring into a black abyss come this Autumn, you might feel you have no recourse politically: all the main parties are net zero zealots and anyway the government are bedded in like Alabama ticks for the next few years until the next election.

However, there is a second option: recall.

We do now have the power to recall any member of Parliament. Unfortunately there has to be some sort of legal action against the MP in question, but I'd argue that if the MPs in Parliament continue down their current path and cause deaths this winter, there could be a case for charging the government with Gross Negligence Manslaughter.

The government must know at this point that energy bills will be too expensive for a percentage of the population. To do nothing in response to the circumstances their policies caused, resulting in these deaths, the government and all MPs supporting net zero must be held accountable for Gross Negligence Manslaughter.

If they are then prosecuted and convicted (tall order I know, but at least it'll be a shot across the bows), then prosecuted MPs can be recalled and a by-election triggered. 

We have to say to MPs that enough is enough and doing nothing is bad enough. But clinging on to policies that also make the situation worse than it would be normally should result in them being sanctioned.

Energy Supply & Blackouts: Questions the Media Are Not Asking.

Questions I'd like to ask are:

Why are we pressing ahead with Net Zero, when it's quite clear the policy will price energy out of the reach of the poorest in society?

Is the government going to suspend or ease the Net Zero policy given it is increasing the burden on the poor?

Given the above, if the Government continues to press ahead with Net Zero, is the end game population reduction? Are the government prepared to accept that people will die off over the winter as they cannot afford to heat their homes?

If the government are not willing to sacrifice lives as a direct result of the Net Zero policy, how many lives lost is too many?

If they are not actually prepared for part of the population to die off over winter, what exactly are the government planning to do? Especially given that doing nothing will result in deaths, I assume doing nothing is not an option.

If the government do want to save lives and intervene, what will they do? Will they cut fuel duty and/or VAT? 

Given that this affects everyone and not just those on benefits, are the government considering including the working poor in any additional help, above the removal of VAT and duty?

What provisions do the government have if there are blackouts this winter? Provision for the elderly and infirm? Will the government provide warm facilities where people can stay and not freeze?

Will the government accept that the net zero policy is incompatible with energy affordability for the poor?

Will the government scrap or modify their policy so that the poor are not adversely affected?

Will the government agree that any government policy that doesn't care for the poorest and most vulnerable in society is at best untenable and at worst criminal?

If there are numbers of deaths this winter due to people not being able to heat their homes, would the government resign?