From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Philip Bratby

From the Telegraph:

Slowing the pace of net zero could save the British economy £350bn, an official report has concluded.

A new analysis published by the National Energy System Operator (Neso) said that aiming for an 80pc reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, rather than the current “net zero” target, could save £14bn a year on average.

The Conservatives claimed the estimates showed that “rushing to net zero” would lumber the UK with sky-high electricity prices for decades and leave Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, unable to meet his promise of cutting household bills by £300.

Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, said: “For years, the public has been told the lie that net zero means cheaper energy.

“This report shows the truth – rushing to net zero is forecast to make our energy system £350bn more expensive than going slower.

“Britain cannot afford to spend the next 25 years having uncompetitive electricity prices. We would continue to deindustrialise, miss out on the economic growth of AI and see living standards suffer.”

Mr Miliband’s department dismissed the findings as merely “illustrative” and said it was possible that the costs of renewables could fall faster than was assumed. It also pointed to large variations in some of the estimates.

The Neso report, published on Thursday, explores the potential economic impact of different scenarios, including a “holistic transition” in which the UK achieves net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and another, called “falling behind”, in which emissions only fall by 78pc compared with 1990 levels.

Analysis found that the “falling behind” scenario, in which emissions were cut at a slower pace, was £14bn per year cheaper than the net zero transition.

Full story here.

What is the point of commissioning a report if you are going to ignore it?

And why is there not a “doing nothing” scenario? The Telegraph has not told us the full cost of the “doing something” scenarios!