Speaker 1: Welcome to zero I am Akshatrati. This week inside Reforms,
Speaker 1: climate plans, British politics is in a state of upheaval.
Speaker 1: The incumbent Labour Party is unpopular and the Conservative Party,
Speaker 1: which for the past one hundred years has been its
Speaker 1: major opponent, isn't doing much better. The most popular party
Speaker 1: right now is Reform UK, a party of right being
Speaker 1: populists formed by many of the same people who successfully
Speaker 1: campaigned for Britain to leave the European Union in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: In local elections earlier this month, Reform won the most seats.
Speaker 1: As a result of the fate of Prime Minister Tearstarmer
Speaker 1: hangs in the balance, with many expecting leadership challenges from
Speaker 1: within the Labor Party. While the next scheduled national election
Speaker 1: is not until twenty twenty nine, it could come much sooner.
Speaker 1: If Reform does end up running Britain, it would be
Speaker 1: the first time in the modern era that the country's
Speaker 1: government explicitly opposes policies to limit climate change. Since the
Speaker 1: late nineteen eighties, when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, the
Speaker 1: UK has been a supporter of climate policy and often
Speaker 1: one of the countries pushing for more ambitious actions to
Speaker 1: reduce emissions. By contrast, reforms policies would see the UK
Speaker 1: and all subsidies for renewable energy, encourage drilling for more
Speaker 1: oil and gas in the Nazi, ban battery energy storage,
Speaker 1: end net zero targets, and encourage fracking on British soil.
Speaker 1: So it's time to look at their climate and energy plans.
Speaker 2: We're going to stop right. You can't present me with
Speaker 2: the whole autographs that I can't read, that may well
Speaker 2: be boot okay, okay, and put this out there so
Speaker 2: this this terminates now its end podcast.
Speaker 1: Joining me on zero to discuss reforms policies is Richard Twice,
Speaker 1: the party's Deputy leader and spokesperson on energy. He is
Speaker 1: a member of Parliament for the constituency of Boston and Skegness.
Speaker 1: Despite reforms surge in opinion polls, a twenty twenty five
Speaker 1: Yugov survey found that only seventeen percent of British people
Speaker 1: believe that humans are not the main cause of climate change.
Speaker 1: Tice falls in that camp. As you will hear, he
Speaker 1: is not interested in what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Speaker 1: Change says and decline to read its summary for policymakers,
Speaker 1: the Climate Science Document that has been signed off by
Speaker 1: all governments, including those of major oil producing nations, and
Speaker 1: that steers climate policy worldwide. Still, this is the first
Speaker 1: time where Ties has been probed at length on his
Speaker 1: views about climate change and clean energy, and it's important
Speaker 1: that voters understand how such a popular politician plans to
Speaker 1: act on this major issue, whereas comments contained inaccuracies or
Speaker 1: required additional context. I've recorded explanations for listeners. You can
Speaker 1: also see a full annotated transcript of this conversation with
Speaker 1: graphs and more on Bloomberg dot com. We've linked to
Speaker 1: it in the show notes. As always, if you have
Speaker 1: feedback for the show, please email us at zero pod
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot net. Now here's my conversation with Richard Tye.
Speaker 1: Richard Tice, Welcome to the show.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me. So.
Speaker 1: The local election results are out. The Reform Party has
Speaker 1: performed really well. They're about nineteen thousand council seats, five
Speaker 1: thousand were up for election, Reforms one about fifteen hundred. Nationally,
Speaker 1: Reform is pulling higher than any other political party. Of course,
Speaker 1: a national election is not scheduled until October twenty twenty
Speaker 1: nine or earlier August twenty nine, but it could happen
Speaker 1: even sooner than that, so there's a lot to talk about.
Speaker 1: You are the deputy leader of reform, but you're also
Speaker 1: the energy spokesperson. This is a climate podcast, so I
Speaker 1: want to start there. Okay, last year, the global average
Speaker 1: temperature was one point five degrees celsius above the pre
Speaker 1: industrial period. What do you think is the cause behind
Speaker 1: that heating?
Speaker 2: Climate's always changed for millions of years, and it goes
Speaker 2: through cycles long, medium and short. And let's remember a
Speaker 2: few thousand years ago the average temperature was a couple
Speaker 2: of degrees higher than where it is now. So these
Speaker 2: things move in cycles and always has done, always will do.
Speaker 1: So I want to show you a couple of things
Speaker 1: because it's important that we get the basics right before
Speaker 1: we progress. This is a chart from the Intergovernmental Panel
Speaker 1: on Climate Change. It's a summary for policymakers, so very
Speaker 1: much for people like you and me who are not
Speaker 1: experts in climates science. And what you're seeing there is
Speaker 1: two thousand years worth of temperature change and the rapid
Speaker 1: increase that has happened. On the right hand side chart
Speaker 1: you'll see you're right, the climate change has happened over
Speaker 1: the past because of natural causes. The green line there
Speaker 1: shows what the natural causes do, and then the orange
Speaker 1: light shows you what is causing climate change, which is
Speaker 1: human caused emissions. Some people think that, well, that is
Speaker 1: sixty six thousand studies put together by scientists for the
Speaker 1: sixth time since the IBCC was founded, So it's not
Speaker 1: some people, it's unanimous among scientists.
Speaker 2: With the RPCC has just resiled from one of its
Speaker 2: core assumptions, which was the eight point five scenario.
Speaker 1: So our CP eight point five, which is the that
Speaker 1: you're talking about.
Speaker 2: Which is which is dominated lots of people's catastrophe thinking
Speaker 2: and formulas, and they've just basically and said they've just
Speaker 2: abandoned it and.
Speaker 1: Said, so that one is now off the table. There
Speaker 1: are these new models.
Speaker 2: One of the foundations of the whole IPCC's scare mongering
Speaker 2: for the last twenty or thirty years. They've just abandoned.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, that's a that's a that's exactly.
Speaker 2: What they've done. And and forecasters have based their forecasts
Speaker 2: around something the IPCC has now admitted they've got badly wrong. No, literally,
Speaker 2: what's happened.
Speaker 1: Let's take a beat. What we are talking about here
Speaker 1: is the IPCC's different climate scenarios. These simulate the level
Speaker 1: of human emissions and show what mild to catastrophic climate
Speaker 1: change could look like. RCP eight point five is the
Speaker 1: worst case scenario, and it simulated world with heavy continued
Speaker 1: use of coal. Santis now say that our CP eight
Speaker 1: point five as imagined is no longer plausible because of
Speaker 1: the falling cost of renewables, the emergence of climate policy,
Speaker 1: and recent emissions trends. It does not mean that climate
Speaker 1: change is not happening or that there won't be severe impacts,
Speaker 1: and IPCC still has other worst case scenarios to inform policymakers.
Speaker 1: I write about climate science for my day job, so
Speaker 1: let me present the facts to you.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to do a podcast where people can't
Speaker 2: see the graphs and the things. We're going to stop right.
Speaker 2: You can't present me with the whole editgraphs that I
Speaker 2: can't read, that may well be booted. Okay, okay, and
Speaker 2: put this out there so this this terminates now, it's
Speaker 2: it's end of podcast. This is ridiculous, Okay, okay, sorry,
Speaker 2: you cannot you cannot seriously think this is a sensible
Speaker 2: way to conduct a podcast. We're not doing it. We're
Speaker 2: ending now.
Speaker 1: All I'm saying is, this is the summary for policymakers, and.
Speaker 2: I don't agree with any of it. And you can
Speaker 2: present something to me, right and expect me to comment
Speaker 2: on it when I haven't read it. I don't know
Speaker 2: what you're talking about right in terms of what you're presenting, right,
Speaker 2: And one of the foundations of the IPCC's very ethos
Speaker 2: in the last twenty thirty years they've just abandoned.
Speaker 1: So let me just tell you what this is, and
Speaker 1: then we can move on. This is the summary for
Speaker 1: policy makers, which is let me explain. So, the IPCC
Speaker 1: puts out a report every five to seven years. It's
Speaker 1: thirty thousand pages long. At the end of it, they
Speaker 1: produce a summary. Every government on the planet goes through
Speaker 1: that summary word by word, including places like Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 1: and they approve those words so that people who have
Speaker 1: no knowledge of science can read it. So I'll just
Speaker 1: leave it here. We can move on from this. I
Speaker 1: just want to understand you. You are, you know, passionate
Speaker 1: about net zero, So how do you define in the pheze,
Speaker 1: what do you think that zero means?
Speaker 2: Look? Zero is essentially you know, it was something that
Speaker 2: basically certain governments have adopted under great pressure around the
Speaker 2: you know, frankly just in a sense on a net
Speaker 2: basis getting to zero.
Speaker 1: CO two emissions, and you are to which.
Speaker 2: Many thousands of scientists fundamentally disagree about the need to
Speaker 2: or the pace too. And the whole point of science
Speaker 2: is that scientists disagree, okay, And that's actually how science
Speaker 2: progresses by challenging each other. And thousands of scientists fundamentally
Speaker 2: disagree with the IPCC approach, but they have been smeared
Speaker 2: and labeled. They can't get any research grant funding, and
Speaker 2: there has been a whole consensus of this is the dogma.
Speaker 2: This is what everyone's got to believe, and if you
Speaker 2: have the temerity believe anything else, you are a bad person.
Speaker 1: According to one twenty nineteen study in the Bulletin of Science,
Speaker 1: Technology and Society, consensus among recent scientists that humans are
Speaker 1: the cause of global warming is now at one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: Other studies find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high,
Speaker 1: and most studies put it at ninety seven percent or greater.
Speaker 1: While there may be disagreements about the scale and pace
Speaker 1: of response. There is little disagreement about the cause or
Speaker 1: existence of climate change in the scientific community. So you're
Speaker 1: going to be a party that is being taken seriously
Speaker 1: in the UK. Given where you are in the polls,
Speaker 1: maybe you get into government. Do you think scientists should
Speaker 1: be advising you on what policy is to set out?
Speaker 2: I think we should be listening to sciences from all
Speaker 2: different sides of the spectrum. At the end of the day,
Speaker 2: let's remember, sorry, advisers, advice directors decide in the corporate world.
Speaker 2: In the governmental world, advisors advise minister's desire.
Speaker 1: So your view on climate science, which is that thousands
Speaker 1: of scientists disagree that net zero is not the way
Speaker 1: to tackle climate change. Who are the scientists who are
Speaker 1: advising you on that? Can you name any the thousands
Speaker 1: of scientists.
Speaker 2: I've got lots of people advise me. I don't list
Speaker 2: all my private advisors with regard to anything, whether it's
Speaker 2: net zero, whether it's housing policy, whether it's industrial policy.
Speaker 2: You know, people who advise me from all different sides,
Speaker 2: who are coming at me from all different angles, very
Speaker 2: often opposing. And that's great because that's how you listen
Speaker 2: and learn that's who we are.
Speaker 1: So I've watched a lot of your interviews in preparation
Speaker 1: for this one. You use this phrase, you call it
Speaker 1: net stupid zero. What's the stupid part?
Speaker 2: The stupid part is that it's incredibly stupid for the
Speaker 2: UK to almost unilaterally say we're going to lead the
Speaker 2: way in the world. We're responsible for NERO points seven
Speaker 2: zero point eight percent of CO two emissions. We're going
Speaker 2: to lead the way. We're going to have the most
Speaker 2: expensive electricity, We're going to have a shortage of supply
Speaker 2: of it. We're going to destroy our industrial sector, destroy
Speaker 2: millions of jobs, impoverish ordinary people who are already not
Speaker 2: very well off. And then we're going to say to
Speaker 2: the rest of the world, look at us, We've got
Speaker 2: to net zero. How's it gone, folks? Can you follow
Speaker 2: us and the rest of the world look at us
Speaker 2: and laugh at our naive stupidity as they've taken our jobs,
Speaker 2: they've taken our money. We are impoverished, and they think
Speaker 2: happy days, the stupid mad Brits.
Speaker 1: The UK's economic growth has been sluggish since it voted
Speaker 1: to leave the European Union in twenty sixteen. Green jobs
Speaker 1: have been a bright spot. The Confederation of British Industry,
Speaker 1: the country's largest business group, set in twenty twenty five
Speaker 1: that the net zero economy in the UK grew three
Speaker 1: times faster than the whole economy. That year, there were
Speaker 1: nearly seven hundred thousand green jobs according to the Office
Speaker 1: of National Statistics. So the stupid part here is not
Speaker 1: so much the climate science, but it's the policies that
Speaker 1: the government has put forward to try and tackle climate
Speaker 1: change and deploy lots of renewables. Specifically, what do you
Speaker 1: think is wrong with the UK governments under labor or
Speaker 1: under COMMISERVETI.
Speaker 2: First of all, the proof of my of my argument
Speaker 2: is one of the IPCC reports a few years ago
Speaker 2: that said, even if you get to net zero effectively tomorrow,
Speaker 2: it'll make no difference to one of the key things
Speaker 2: people are most worried about, which is sea level rise.
Speaker 2: Correct for somewhere between two hundred years on the one
Speaker 2: hand and a thousand years on the other hand. They
Speaker 2: do generously say they have that with high confidence correct. Right,
Speaker 2: there's no high confidence in an eight hundred year timespan.
Speaker 2: It means they're completely guessing.
Speaker 1: But let me just make sure, I add to your evidence, Bace.
Speaker 1: So not just sea level rise want halt for the
Speaker 1: next two hundred two one thousand years. Glacier melting also
Speaker 1: won't halt. But there are all sorts of other impacts
Speaker 1: that happened from glacier thing. You know about the Swiss
Speaker 1: down that went down when there was a glacier.
Speaker 2: Mat And just let me ask you. Now you've asked
Speaker 2: the last questions, let me ask you. Did glacial changes
Speaker 2: and melting take place before eighteen fifteen? This thran?
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, it did, but never this, Thank
Speaker 1: you very much.
Speaker 2: So thank you very much for agreeing so that the
Speaker 2: climate's always changed and it always will so and this
Speaker 2: mad nonsense that climate change didn't happen before eighteen fifty
Speaker 2: And the moment you get to net zero and Lord's
Speaker 2: Mattley stop is dangerous. It's irresponsible, and it's killing our economy.
Speaker 2: And we're leading in the polls right and the voters
Speaker 2: are agreeing with us on this.
Speaker 1: Can I respond?
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: So the reason why scientists say that we should try
Speaker 1: and hold climate change is not because they can ensure
Speaker 1: that sea level rights stops. It's because at least listen
Speaker 1: to me, please listen to me. They want to make
Speaker 1: sure that it doesn't rise even further on sea level.
Speaker 1: But also, if you hold climate change, you can stop
Speaker 1: you can you can halt the rye that we are
Speaker 1: seeing in extreme weather events of wildfliers.
Speaker 2: Or arrogant naivety of people who think you can stop
Speaker 2: climate change that's gone on for millions of years.
Speaker 1: Right, Okay, so let's let's come to policies because the
Speaker 1: thing that you what is the.
Speaker 2: Point on carrying on a podcast where we fundamentally disagree
Speaker 2: on everything.
Speaker 1: Great, well, we can fundamentally try to have a policy
Speaker 1: discussion because neither of us are scientists. I'm presenting you
Speaker 1: what the scientist said. You can take the time, you
Speaker 1: can read it later. Do you want to need to
Speaker 1: talk about Yeah.
Speaker 2: It's a waste of It's literally you're wasting my time.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about policies because we're not policies.
Speaker 2: We've got our policies. And guess what, we're winning in
Speaker 2: elections because the British people agree with us. They're being
Speaker 2: shafted by the stupidity of this globe, of this IPCC
Speaker 2: consensus that has that is destroying our economy. That let
Speaker 2: me remind you, in the eighties and nineties of the
Speaker 2: last century, we were going at between two and a
Speaker 2: half and four percent a year. We had deep, plentiful
Speaker 2: energy driven by oil and gas from north sea. Right,
Speaker 2: No one was worried about the price for electricity, No
Speaker 2: one was worried about the quantitative supply, no one was
Speaker 2: worried about the reliability of supply. Now that's all anybody
Speaker 2: is talking about. So every board here the country is.
Speaker 1: To try and lower the cost of energy, and one
Speaker 1: of the ways you're going to do that is drill
Speaker 1: in the Nazi for oil and gas.
Speaker 2: Well, the first thing we do is we scrapnet stupid
Speaker 2: zero okay, scrap all the daft taxes okay, And so
Speaker 2: that we can immediately bring down the cost of energy.
Speaker 2: And then we allow licenses to drill throughout the both
Speaker 2: offshore and on shore, to use our energy treasure. And
Speaker 2: that if you increase the supply of anything, it's basic economics,
Speaker 2: the price of that good will come down, as it
Speaker 2: does in America, where their gas price, the wholesale gas
Speaker 2: price is give or take thirty percent of.
Speaker 1: US oil and gas prices are largely said by international markets.
Speaker 1: So even if more oil and gas could be produced domestically,
Speaker 1: it won't make a difference to how much British people pay.
Speaker 1: According to the UK's Energy Research Center, the UK has
Speaker 1: already used up most of its accessible reserves in its
Speaker 1: part of the NAZI, and a parliamentary analysis says that
Speaker 1: the NAZI has been a declining basin for quite some time.
Speaker 1: Let's take it in three parts. So the first part
Speaker 1: is scrap net zero policies, the second part is drill offshore,
Speaker 1: and then third part is drilled on shore on scrapping
Speaker 1: net zero policies. So you know, one of the things
Speaker 1: that you talk about is that in this policy set
Speaker 1: the government pays billions of pounds and subsidies to clean energy.
Speaker 1: Do you know how much the government pays in subsidies
Speaker 1: to fossil fuels?
Speaker 2: What depends what you call a subsidy.
Speaker 1: No defined as government giving direct benefit to fossil fuel industry.
Speaker 1: So I'll give you one estimate. Between twenty twenty one
Speaker 1: and twenty twenty four, the UK people paid ninety billion
Speaker 1: pounds extra to buy the liquified natural gas, mostly right
Speaker 1: natural gas that came from abroad. Of that fortnds was
Speaker 1: government such.
Speaker 2: I guess what if we'd had this common sense not
Speaker 2: to abandon our North Sea, we wouldn't have been in
Speaker 2: that pickle. And that was of course, that was partly
Speaker 2: because of the issue around the Ukraine War, where we're overexposed. Right. Yes,
Speaker 2: we weren't paying any subsidies, right, we were benefiting from cheap,
Speaker 2: plentiful oil and gas back in the eighties and nineties.
Speaker 2: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Speaker 1: So one of the ways in which you will do
Speaker 1: it is to go and drill in the Nazi Now,
Speaker 1: ninety percent of the reserve in the nights, not sea
Speaker 1: on oil and gas has been extracted, so you get
Speaker 1: about ten percent more with new licenses, you know. So
Speaker 1: that's what the reserve is.
Speaker 2: Okay. So why why are the Norwegians drilling forty nine
Speaker 2: new wells last year? Right because they think there's plenty
Speaker 2: more to go that's worth going for. We so stupid
Speaker 2: that our side of the line, we think it's a
Speaker 2: good idea to drill zero any.
Speaker 1: Well, the United Kingdom has a border, Norway has a border,
Speaker 1: not really has its own resource where I think, and
Speaker 1: it knows we have more reserves.
Speaker 2: We've got we've got lots of reserves. But if you
Speaker 2: just say it's not viable because you make the regulations
Speaker 2: and everything too expensive, then and be surprised if people say,
Speaker 2: well there's not much to go for.
Speaker 1: Well, the UK government was so good at drilling in
Speaker 1: the Nazi that it extracted ninety percent of it, so
Speaker 1: you get ten percent that's left the other Let's come
Speaker 1: to the sole point, right.
Speaker 2: You're stating facts that fundamentally many people don't agree with.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's come to the fact that you would like
Speaker 1: to frack in Lincolnshire. For example, there's a reserves that
Speaker 1: are being found in Lincolnshire. Now in Lincolnshire, Stuart Hazeldean,
Speaker 1: who's a University of Edinburgh professor, says, the most you
Speaker 1: can get from shale is about ten years worth of
Speaker 1: gas for the US.
Speaker 2: Hell of a lot of gas. Right. What happens after
Speaker 2: that I agree to give or takes a decades, Well,
Speaker 2: that's a hell of a lot of UK gas.
Speaker 1: What happens after that?
Speaker 2: Well, the first thing is where have we've got a
Speaker 2: crisis at the moment? Right, We've got a we're importing
Speaker 2: a whole load of gas was sent and here's the
Speaker 2: thing that people need to understand. When you buy energy
Speaker 2: from overseas, what is the transaction? You send them your money.
Speaker 2: You're essentially outsourcing your jobs. They send you the energy,
Speaker 2: you burn it. A week later, you've got nothing. You
Speaker 2: need to send them more money, right, so much better
Speaker 2: to use your own. Therefore, the money and the job
Speaker 2: stay in the UK. You get the multiplier effects. This
Speaker 2: is the reason why the US economy has seen compound
Speaker 2: growth when they've become a energy either self dependent or
Speaker 2: an exporter in the last twenty years since the use
Speaker 2: of shell gas, and we could do the same now
Speaker 2: after ten years time. Of course, I love technology. I
Speaker 2: drive a Tesla. Do I think it's going to change
Speaker 2: the climate? No, but I'm not a petrol head.
Speaker 1: Last year, the use of electric vehicles reduced oil consumption
Speaker 1: by two point three million barrels of oil per day,
Speaker 1: according to Bloomberg and Eif electrification is considered the main
Speaker 1: route to cut transport emissions and to tackle climate.
Speaker 2: Change, here's the point. Though there were incredible technologies being
Speaker 2: looked at. For example, step fusion mail may not deliver
Speaker 2: anything remarkable over the next twenty to forty years. In
Speaker 2: the intrim we know we need loads of energy, right,
Speaker 2: and we know that basically fossil fuels represents about eighty
Speaker 2: percent of our energy consumption in the UK, So why
Speaker 2: not use as much of our own as we possibly can?
Speaker 1: So electricity last year in the UK, all of twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, sixty five percent came from non fossil sources
Speaker 1: in the.
Speaker 2: UK, and yourize energy, that electricity is about twenty percent
Speaker 2: of our energy consumption. So we need a lot of
Speaker 2: oil increasing, We need.
Speaker 1: A car, it's increasing right a bit?
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, we need a lot of oil and a
Speaker 2: lot of gas. So for God's sake, use our own.
Speaker 2: Stop sending our jobs and our money overseas. So we
Speaker 2: seem to want to outsource everything and impoverish our nation.
Speaker 1: After ten years, if you have scrapped net zero policies
Speaker 1: and there are no renewable plants being built, what happens
Speaker 1: after ten years? Do you restart the renewable energy industry?
Speaker 2: My expression is every last barrel, every last drop, right,
Speaker 2: all the tire backs, whatever you make it viable, right,
Speaker 2: and we must be looking for as much as we
Speaker 2: can domestically, and where we haven't got it domestically, we
Speaker 2: import it. But if you make it impossible for a
Speaker 2: whole bunch of taxes and regulation, then don't be for
Speaker 2: people uh to make it viable in the UK, then
Speaker 2: people go overseas. I've got lots of oil and gas
Speaker 2: companies saying if you reduce the taxation, make the regulation
Speaker 2: smart not daft, then we've got lots to go at.
Speaker 1: So the Oil and Gas Authority says that even if
Speaker 1: we take on all the licenses and drill in the Nazi,
Speaker 1: the dependence on imports for oil and for gas will
Speaker 1: increase over the next twenty years because there's just not
Speaker 1: enough oil and gas in the Nazi. If you tap
Speaker 1: some shill maybe you get little less gas import, but
Speaker 1: oil is still something that the UK will continue to
Speaker 1: import from international markets.
Speaker 2: Right now. We use ourselves. The more money and jobs
Speaker 2: we keep here, so make it attractive to do that
Speaker 2: to the greatest extent possible.
Speaker 1: After the break, I ask Richard Ties how many people
Speaker 1: actually support reforms energy policies, and whether people really prefer
Speaker 1: fracking to solar. If you're enjoying this episode of Zero,
Speaker 1: please take a moment to read the show on Apple, podcast, YouTube,
Speaker 1: and Spotify. It helps more listeners find the podcast thank
Speaker 1: You has the Iran War and the spike in energy
Speaker 1: prices based on imported oil, change your mind about anything
Speaker 1: to do with.
Speaker 2: It's reinforced my point of view that for God's sake,
Speaker 2: if you're lucky enough to have energy treasure, use it.
Speaker 1: But having we are the only we have the only.
Speaker 2: G seven nation, possibly they G twenty nation that is
Speaker 2: lucky enough have to have significant energy treasure reserves, that
Speaker 2: is stupid enough to think is a good idea not
Speaker 2: to use it. Well, all of the nations you've got
Speaker 2: energy treasure who are extracting it right, they are growing,
Speaker 2: whether it's America, whether it's the Middle East, whether it's
Speaker 2: in Asia. We are almost unique in our stupidity.
Speaker 1: The fact is the UK will continue to import oil
Speaker 1: because the UK doesn't have very much oil. You've said
Speaker 1: one of the ways in which you're going to reduce
Speaker 1: costs of energy is to tax renewables and ban battery
Speaker 1: energy storage. How exactly does that lower energy prices?
Speaker 2: So let me just take you back to the eighties
Speaker 2: and nineties that where we didn't have renewables, we didn't
Speaker 2: have batteries, and what do we have We have cheap energy?
Speaker 2: There is a direct link between the growth in renewable
Speaker 2: generating capacity and the growth in electricity prices in the UK.
Speaker 1: The Office of National Statistics says UK electricity prices are
Speaker 1: high by international comp garrison because of the relative dependence
Speaker 1: on gas. In countries such a Spain, which have a
Speaker 1: higher share of renewables and much less dependence on gas,
Speaker 1: electricity is much cheaper than the UK.
Speaker 2: Here's a simple thing, right, The wind doesn't always blow
Speaker 2: and the sun sadly doesn't always shine in the UK.
Speaker 2: So the cost of renewables plus backup literally by definition,
Speaker 2: must cost more than backup because there is a cost
Speaker 2: of capital and a cost of retention of all of
Speaker 2: the backup when you get, for example, a Dunkel flout.
Speaker 1: And the assets that have been built that are producing power.
Speaker 1: By adding tax on it, it increases the capital cost
Speaker 1: that will increase cost of energy.
Speaker 2: Don't build it in the first place. We don't need batteries.
Speaker 2: It's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: But how does taxing renewables that exist lower the price
Speaker 1: of energy? That's the question.
Speaker 2: Don't build the don't build the new stuff, and the
Speaker 2: existing stuff they will, they will, they will operate over time.
Speaker 2: We are paying over ten billions of pounds of subsidies
Speaker 2: and a growing multi billion pound constraint payments right to
Speaker 2: the renewable industry for the cost of renewable right and
Speaker 2: eighty percent of the offshore renewables is overseas owned, so
Speaker 2: the British consumer is being shafted to help overseas investors.
Speaker 2: How does that help my constituency?
Speaker 1: So would you tax, say the profits of oil and
Speaker 1: gas that come from the Nazi from the drilling that
Speaker 1: you will approve, that can then be put to buy
Speaker 1: these renewable plants for the British people so that they're
Speaker 1: not right.
Speaker 2: We will share. I'm not writing the first reform budget
Speaker 2: here at now on your Lovely podcast, but what we
Speaker 2: do know is that tax needs to be competitive to
Speaker 2: encourage investors to invest. And I want a lot more
Speaker 2: in gas. I've said to the industry. I've said, get
Speaker 2: your applications ready. We could, for example, do what they
Speaker 2: do in Norway, which is give better right of allowances
Speaker 2: in respect of exploration so that you encourage the ability
Speaker 2: to get to every last job.
Speaker 1: They also tax the oil and gas profits and put
Speaker 1: that money into the Sovereign Wealth Fund. But you don't
Speaker 1: want to copy the sovereign wealth fund.
Speaker 2: I do. Actually, if you've listened to me elsewhere, I've
Speaker 2: talked very much about creating one of the biggest sovereign
Speaker 2: wealth funds in the world over five hundred billion pounds
Speaker 2: by transforming the local government pension skeis. But that's not
Speaker 2: related to oil and gas.
Speaker 1: Local government pensions are valued at about four hundred billion
Speaker 1: pounds and currently invest that sum in assets around the
Speaker 1: world to generate returns and pay the retirement benefits of
Speaker 1: six point seven million people. Reforms plan is to consolidate
Speaker 1: those funds into a sovereign wealth fund to invest in
Speaker 1: British industries, including strategic ones such as steal. However, experts
Speaker 1: say that other sovereign wealth funds, such as the one
Speaker 1: in Norway or Singapore, are able to make those investments
Speaker 1: because they do not have to guarantee pension payments and
Speaker 1: thus are able to invest in risky assets to maximize returns.
Speaker 1: You were a businessman before you became a politician. You
Speaker 1: made millions of pounds as a businessman. You know what
Speaker 1: sanctity of contracts mean. You have said that in AR seven,
Speaker 1: the offshore win projects that have been awarded already a
Speaker 1: businesses don't build anything, but you will cancel those licenses.
Speaker 2: We put people on notice, we put so in instance,
Speaker 2: people are going into it caveat emptol. It's literally one
Speaker 2: of the main things around businesses. How they know what
Speaker 2: they're going into. They know we're against it, they know
Speaker 2: we're winning the votes and elections, so they know the
Speaker 2: British people are with us, so they can make their
Speaker 2: own choice.
Speaker 1: Governments are run by political parties that change, So as
Speaker 1: a businessman who's making a contract for twenty years, thirty years,
Speaker 1: they will see changes in parties. How do you think
Speaker 1: businesses can have confidence investing in the use.
Speaker 2: Them up in front? I said you exactly. They've got
Speaker 2: more confidence because I've told them up front, invest in nuclear,
Speaker 2: invest in gas, invest in all No, don't invest in
Speaker 2: renewables that is increasing the prices for British consumer.
Speaker 1: How will they have confidence when one hold them up front?
Speaker 1: When one ideological party says we are going to rip
Speaker 1: up renewables contracts, and then another ideological party might come
Speaker 1: and say we are going to rip up oil and gas.
Speaker 2: Consistency between is this nuclear? So invest in nuclear?
Speaker 1: So I'm going to show you another chart, and it's
Speaker 1: very clearly pointed out. On nuclear the UK has some
Speaker 1: of the most expensive nuclear power plants. So what you're
Speaker 1: seeing on the chart is on the y axis is
Speaker 1: the cost per unit of electricity and on the X
Speaker 1: axis is the cost to build that plant. The capital
Speaker 1: expenditure right at the top in the right hand side
Speaker 1: is Hinkley point C and size. We'll see the most
Speaker 1: expensive nuclear power plants in the world. Why do you
Speaker 1: think building more our nuclear power plants will lower the
Speaker 1: cost of electricity?
Speaker 2: Have you heard of SMRs?
Speaker 1: Yes, right, wells exist in the world.
Speaker 2: Maybe what we should.
Speaker 1: Swing mesmrs exist in the world.
Speaker 2: Maybe what we should do is learn from others around
Speaker 2: the world. Rather than arrogantly think we know it all,
Speaker 2: Maybe we should say, why is it that South Korean
Speaker 2: technology can build nuclear plants and a fraction of the
Speaker 2: price that we're building. Why is it that we're overregulating
Speaker 2: to such a degree?
Speaker 1: South Korea has no small modulary actuations.
Speaker 2: Why are we so stupid that we spent seven hundred
Speaker 2: million quid on Hinkley point C seven hundred million quid
Speaker 2: of taxpayers cash to protect a bunch of salmon About
Speaker 2: seventy salmon for God's sake, it's ridiculous. So we can
Speaker 2: build safely and smartly and not waste a whold load
Speaker 2: of cash. Those are the reasons why we've ended up
Speaker 2: with all of our infrastructure costing way too much. So
Speaker 2: we can do it much smarter. The government has just
Speaker 2: recently awarded the first designation for SMRs in North Wales.
Speaker 2: We support that. Do we think we could build it cheaper? Well,
Speaker 2: let's hope so is. You know that they're using sort
Speaker 2: of foundationally British technology, Roads, Rice Rolls, Royce technology. I'm
Speaker 2: a great fan of that. But equally, competition is a
Speaker 2: good thing. So we might want to say, for example,
Speaker 2: there's other nuclear plants being looked at, for example in
Speaker 2: Hartlepool and elsewhere. Big fan of it, great, let's get
Speaker 2: on with it.
Speaker 1: So here's the fact that you may be able to
Speaker 1: use next time, because it supports your argument. There are
Speaker 1: two small modular reactors in the world that are being
Speaker 1: built for civilian use. One is in China, one is
Speaker 1: in Russia. There exists no other small modular reactor in
Speaker 1: a commercial setting anywhere else. Neither Russia nor China are
Speaker 1: the technologies that we would like here in your ats.
Speaker 2: There are lots of companies building nuclear plants of a
Speaker 2: variety of different sizes, whether it's whether it's South career
Speaker 2: in technology, whether it's American technology that's looking to bid
Speaker 2: over here. Lots of people are bidding here. We should
Speaker 2: look at all of it. Because the thing about nuclear
Speaker 2: is that we know it's it's probably actually over the
Speaker 2: last fifty or sixty years, some say it's been the
Speaker 2: safest technology. It's reliable in terms of its consistency, and
Speaker 2: so it has a clear important place within the mix.
Speaker 2: There's almost no dispute about that.
Speaker 1: The safety of nuclear I want disputy on disputy on that.
Speaker 1: If you take the number of deaths that have happened
Speaker 1: as a result of nuclear power plants and compare them
Speaker 1: to a coal parp plant or even a gas poper plant,
Speaker 1: or even tiny.
Speaker 2: To wind turbines, had a lot of people who have
Speaker 2: died building wind turbines that have died in the nuclear
Speaker 2: power industry. The largest comes from the renewable industry.
Speaker 1: The largest comes from burning fossil fuels, so burning coal
Speaker 1: and natural gas, because they're obviously no they're causing air pollutants.
Speaker 1: So per unit of energy produced over time, and so
Speaker 1: you have the numbers per terra, what are of electricity
Speaker 1: produced all kills to T five people, gas three, hydro
Speaker 1: power one point three, win zero point zero four, nuclear
Speaker 1: zero point zero three and solar zero point zero two.
Speaker 1: You agreed with the government in supporting the small modular
Speaker 1: reactor technology through Rolls Royce Well Kirstarmer just this morning
Speaker 1: has announced that he's going to nationalize British Steel. Do
Speaker 1: you agree?
Speaker 2: Of course he's done it because of our recommendation. We
Speaker 2: literally stood outside British Steel on that Tuesday this time
Speaker 2: last year and we said there's literally three or four
Speaker 2: days to save British steal. And guess what. On the
Speaker 2: Saturday they recall Parliament and they save those blast furnaces.
Speaker 2: They didn't want to, but they knew electorally we were right.
Speaker 2: And since then they have prevaricated, They've not really come
Speaker 2: up with anything. But it is one of the rare things.
Speaker 2: I've been telling him for a year. I told him
Speaker 2: in that debate, I said, do the job properly, kick
Speaker 2: you out, nationalize it. The difference with us is they
Speaker 2: want to shut down the blast furnaces. This is their
Speaker 2: plan and they want to build an electric arc furnace there.
Speaker 2: They don't need to build an EAF there. They've got
Speaker 2: the EF in the former Liberty plants down down the
Speaker 2: road at Rotherham, so take those out of being mothboard.
Speaker 2: Use those. Our plans would be to refurbish and renew
Speaker 2: the two blast furnaces in Scumthorpe fit for the next
Speaker 2: fifty or sixty years, so that we've got the capability
Speaker 2: to build primary steel here in the UK.
Speaker 1: There will involve subsidizing the buildout. I mean once it's
Speaker 1: government owned, well it's government spending that money. It will
Speaker 1: involve government also paying to ensure that it's got enough
Speaker 1: metallurgical call supply to support the blast furnace, which will
Speaker 1: involve the government trying to start a metallurgical coal mine
Speaker 1: here in the UK, or depend on imports. You're okay
Speaker 1: with that.
Speaker 2: I've said it very clearly, so you will. I've said
Speaker 2: it very clearly. The idea that we could be the
Speaker 2: only G twenty nation without the capability to build primary
Speaker 2: steel and a time when people are worried about sovereign
Speaker 2: independent resilience is bonkers. We need the ability to build
Speaker 2: primary steel so that we can have the strongest steel
Speaker 2: for a whole variety of uses. Because what we've learned
Speaker 2: is that, yes, you know, you can have just in
Speaker 2: time delivery when the sun shines, but the sun doesn't
Speaker 2: always shine. And sometimes what you think our friendly, reliable
Speaker 2: partners sometimes turn out to be to be people where
Speaker 2: you can't guarantee it.
Speaker 1: Coming to the point about building competitive industries, building new technologies.
Speaker 1: You own a Tesla. You've talked about how it's a
Speaker 1: superior technology. Your words were you like electric cars because
Speaker 1: they're silent.
Speaker 2: I didn't you say it was a superior technology. I
Speaker 2: said it's great technology. It's amazing, but there's some amazing
Speaker 2: you know, combustion engine cars.
Speaker 1: And you did not mention the fact that you have
Speaker 1: rooftop solar on your businesses. That good use of rooftops.
Speaker 2: Because because it's a good ucy rooftops, there's no subsidy
Speaker 2: on those. You sell the electricity to the ten and below,
Speaker 2: you reduce the pressure on the national grid. We should
Speaker 2: have been doing that with all the big logistics.
Speaker 1: So with these attacks on net zero policies, how do
Speaker 1: you think companies that build rooftop solar, that build electric
Speaker 1: cars here in the country. How do you try you
Speaker 1: under your government.
Speaker 2: Because they don't need a subsidy, right, that's the difference.
Speaker 2: Whereas all the renewables, all the wind turbines and the
Speaker 2: solar farms, they want a fat subsidy for very long
Speaker 2: term contracts. None of my solar panels on my roofs
Speaker 2: has a subsidy.
Speaker 1: So reform one in the councils of Sunderland and Hotleypool
Speaker 1: from labor Now those are regions which have thousands of jobs.
Speaker 2: Liter just differentiate the clarify it. We've got majority control
Speaker 2: in sun yes, no minority. We are I think we
Speaker 2: are just the biggest party in.
Speaker 1: Hardpool, right, So those regions have thousands of jobs in
Speaker 1: the renewable energy industry, specifically making electrical parts, wind turbines,
Speaker 1: wind blades. You don't want to build more wind power
Speaker 1: in this country. What will happen to the jobs that
Speaker 1: those people have right now? In the thousands?
Speaker 2: What what are happening to the hundreds of thousands of jobs
Speaker 2: being destroyed by net stupid zero? What happens to those
Speaker 2: net net right? Many many many more, tens, if not
Speaker 2: hundreds of thousands of jobs are being destroyed across the
Speaker 2: whole of the UK economy because of net stupid zero.
Speaker 1: But Sunderland Sunderland. Hardly do you accept that Sunderland had.
Speaker 1: Let's focus on the jobs that will be lost under
Speaker 1: your policy first, as they try and understand.
Speaker 2: National politicians are government, Yes, your responsibility is to the
Speaker 2: whole of the United Kingdom.
Speaker 1: And when I got to it, I'm not running a
Speaker 1: national government right now, you're running a local Councilcilities first
Speaker 1: to local people, we.
Speaker 2: Are said, but I'm a national politician, shutting up national policy.
Speaker 2: Right And in the event that we win a local
Speaker 2: councilor isn't it interesting they know what our policy is
Speaker 2: and guess what. Voters in those areas have voted massively
Speaker 2: for reform because they know the cost of the renewables
Speaker 2: thanks to net stupid zero, is making them poorer. And
Speaker 2: when I go to Aberdeen and they're literally losing one
Speaker 2: thousand jobs a month in and around Aberdeen and the
Speaker 2: oil and gas industry because of this mad policy, right,
Speaker 2: that's what's going on.
Speaker 1: About eighteen thousand jobs have been lost in Aberdeen's oil
Speaker 1: and gas sectors since twenty ten, according to the Scotland
Speaker 1: Herald that works out too roughly one thousand jobs lost
Speaker 1: per year.
Speaker 2: So I say to the renewables industry, love technology, fantastic,
Speaker 2: but if you keep telling me it's going to be cheaper,
Speaker 2: it's about time you delivered. It's about time you stop
Speaker 2: gaslighting the British people saying it's going to get cheaper
Speaker 2: in twenty years. Time forget it.
Speaker 1: So when you look at war and you pull them
Speaker 1: reform voters specifically fifty six percent support on shore wind,
Speaker 1: fifty nine support solar farms, sixty six percent support offshore
Speaker 1: wind across the.
Speaker 2: UA, I'm just going to stop you there right then,
Speaker 2: why are we winning all these elections? Why have we
Speaker 2: absolutely smashed it?
Speaker 1: Why?
Speaker 2: Why is it that in Lincolnshire where they're looking to
Speaker 2: cover one hundred square miles of solar farms, nobody wants them.
Speaker 1: Do you think there's an element here that you are
Speaker 1: benefiting from the unpopularity of other parties, Like people don't
Speaker 1: want what's there now, they don't want the incumbent, so
Speaker 1: they are looking for something new and they are giving
Speaker 1: you the vote versus them actually liking your policies.
Speaker 2: I think that if the two main parties had done
Speaker 2: the job properly and people are getting more prosperous and
Speaker 2: the quality of life was getting better, which it was
Speaker 2: in the eighties and nineties, then we wouldn't exist. There'll
Speaker 2: be no need for us. Competition is a good thing.
Speaker 2: You Bloomberg competes against other organizations. The whole financial sector
Speaker 2: is around competition. We exist because the main parties have failed,
Speaker 2: and we know that our policies around getting rid of
Speaker 2: mass uncontrolled immigration is popular. We know people are very
Speaker 2: concerned about their bills and that actually our net zero
Speaker 2: policy is resonating hugely. We all care about the environment,
Speaker 2: We all care about clean air. There is nothing environmentally
Speaker 2: friendly about covering one hundred square miles of Lincolnshire agricultural
Speaker 2: productive farmland with solar panels, surrounding whole villages, decimating property
Speaker 2: prices in those villages or making them unsailable, and thinking
Speaker 2: that's going to end well.
Speaker 1: Well, do you think if you were surrounding those towns
Speaker 1: and villages with fracking they would like it more?
Speaker 2: Well? I've talked about a lot in Lincolnshire and guess
Speaker 2: what we're doing really well in Lincolnshire. We won the
Speaker 2: county council election last year We've just done really well
Speaker 2: in northeast Lincolnshire in the elections. We've just done really
Speaker 2: well and people understand that oil and gas generated wealth,
Speaker 2: prosperity's growth, and yeah, I use this patriotic slogan. It's
Speaker 2: our patriotic duty Lincolnshire gas for Lincolnshire, jobs for Linkshire growth,
Speaker 2: and it seems to be going down pretty well.
Speaker 1: When you ask voters whether they want cheaper energy, they
Speaker 1: say yes. When you say that will come at the
Speaker 1: cost of higher climate change, they say no. So let's
Speaker 1: talk adaptation because you have talked about for adaptations.
Speaker 2: That we disagree on that principle point.
Speaker 1: But let's talk about adaptation because one of the things
Speaker 1: that you have mentioned is we can't stop climate change
Speaker 1: human beings so adapt to it. When we adapt to it,
Speaker 1: there are things that we'll have to adapt to. We'll
Speaker 1: have to figure out how to reduce wildfires that are
Speaker 1: happening in places like London. Eleven homes that burnt in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two. We're going to have to figure out
Speaker 1: how to deal with droughts. The Fire Service can't the fire.
Speaker 2: Literally, if there's a fire, the fiber gade go and
Speaker 2: put a fire out. In a house fire. Yes, are
Speaker 2: you seriously suggesting Are you seriously suggesting that it is
Speaker 2: better aspend trillions of pounds on a on a I'm
Speaker 2: asking about policy as opposed to doing what we used
Speaker 2: to do, which is, for example, we were worried about
Speaker 2: flooding in London, so we built the Thames Barrier. If
Speaker 2: we're worried about flooding on the East Coast, maybe we
Speaker 2: should improve our defenses, raise them up, or do what,
Speaker 2: for example, they do elsewhere, which is an adaptation mitigating
Speaker 2: circumstances off shore. Those are the smart things to say.
Speaker 2: My debate is, My debate is the policies of net
Speaker 2: stupid zero. Thinking you can stop climate change is absurd.
Speaker 2: You can't.
Speaker 1: So we are not talking about emissions and need to
Speaker 1: adapt to it. Let's adapt to it. If you're saying
Speaker 1: on wildfires, let's fund the fire brigade better so that
Speaker 1: they can deal with fires. Let's talk about droughts, how
Speaker 1: is how are you going to address droughts? How are
Speaker 1: you going to adapt to droughts? When there's not enough
Speaker 1: rain in the UK, which feels like.
Speaker 2: A strange you must say you must be living on
Speaker 2: your own planet because most people can plain there's too much.
Speaker 1: The issue is the issue has got issue is not
Speaker 1: good issues.
Speaker 2: Quantity of water in the UK, The issue is how
Speaker 2: the water companies do or don't capture it. Have we
Speaker 2: got enough storage capacity? Have we built enough reservoirs in
Speaker 2: the last twenty years, given that the population has increased
Speaker 2: by give or take twelve million people, The answer is
Speaker 2: how many reservoirs are we built in the last twenty years? Zero?
Speaker 2: How stupid is it right under government policy to say
Speaker 2: it's a good idea to increase the population by twelve
Speaker 2: million people and not build any extra water capacity. How
Speaker 2: stupid is it to let your water companies pay fat
Speaker 2: dividends overseas investors and not make sure that they've got
Speaker 2: enough treatment plant, that they're looking after the pipes properly,
Speaker 2: and we've got enough storagey So where is the debate about, well,
Speaker 2: is it cheaper to build reservoirs or should we do
Speaker 2: what other countries do and look at desalination plants? These
Speaker 2: all these strategic things we need to look at.
Speaker 1: So wildfire's better fire brigade droughts, you do reservoirs and
Speaker 1: you do desalination plants. For floods, you do flood defenses
Speaker 1: like the and the things sea level, sea level rise.
Speaker 1: You know, at least three of the eight members of
Speaker 1: Parliament out of the six fifty that are there, are
Speaker 1: from coastal constituency. So Farage for Clacton, Sarah Pochin for
Speaker 1: run Con, and yourself for Boston and Scagnus. Uh. These
Speaker 1: are coastal constituencies. You're going to have to deal with
Speaker 1: sea level rise. You will pay for sea level protection.
Speaker 1: Is that right?
Speaker 2: The whole country, the whole country is paying the cost
Speaker 2: of net stupid zero and it's and it's I mean.
Speaker 1: We're talking adaptation. We're not talking about cutting emissions. We
Speaker 1: are talking about your policies to try and much cheaper.
Speaker 2: Much cheaper to adapt to climate change than to think
Speaker 2: you can stop it.
Speaker 1: Costs come from both transitioning the economy to net zero
Speaker 1: emissions and from the damage to the economy caused by
Speaker 1: climate change. The UK's Office for Budget Responsibility says the
Speaker 1: latter is the more significant physical cost. That is, in
Speaker 1: the long run, it will be significantly cheaper to mitigate
Speaker 1: climate change than to adapt to the impacts. It's also
Speaker 1: worth noting adaptation costs increase the higher temperatures rise. In
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen there was a thirty six million pound fund
Speaker 1: that was given from the Environment Agency to build a
Speaker 1: pier from tracking peer to Holland and seed to try
Speaker 1: and dealing.
Speaker 2: To do with global climate change and sea level defenses.
Speaker 1: That's it's to try and hold back sea level rise.
Speaker 1: So that was the fund that was given. The fourth
Speaker 1: thing that we talked about, fire brigade, desalination plants, reservoirs,
Speaker 1: flood defenses and sea level protection. All of that will
Speaker 1: require money that's going to come from the Sovereign Wealth Fund.
Speaker 2: Seriously, the cost of net zero right which the Climate
Speaker 2: Change Committee admits, is in the trillions of pounds. We
Speaker 2: don't know how many trillions. Who's paying that the British people,
Speaker 2: we're all paying it, and we're all getting poorer. The
Speaker 2: cost of adapting with some sensible adaptation measures is a
Speaker 2: hell of a lot cheaper. And that is our key point.
Speaker 1: We can come back if you wonder if zero.
Speaker 2: That is the key fundamental. Everything else is a subset
Speaker 2: of that fundamental. The whole point is that thinking that
Speaker 2: you can get to net stupid zero and that you're
Speaker 2: going to stop global climate change, and you think that's
Speaker 2: a good investment of trillions of UK taxpayers money, right,
Speaker 2: as opposed to sensible adaptation, which is what we used
Speaker 2: to do with things like the Thames Barrier. That's the
Speaker 2: crux of the debate. That's fine, I'm winning it.
Speaker 1: I'm asking you the question, how will you pay for
Speaker 1: the adaptation?
Speaker 2: Right? The national taxpayer is currently being forced to pay
Speaker 2: tens and tens and tens of billions of pounds every
Speaker 2: year and suffer huge job losses, which means to people
Speaker 2: on welfare, which is costing the British taxpayer fortunes. The
Speaker 2: alternative that we suggest will be much much, much cheaper
Speaker 2: to the British taxpayer, and we know it works because
Speaker 2: guess what, that's what made us wealthier. In the AI nine.
Speaker 1: March eleventh, the Climate Change Committee that you just cited
Speaker 1: actually put out a report and it's said that by
Speaker 1: twenty fifty, if you reach net zero, the saving to
Speaker 1: the UK taxpayer would be between forty billion pounds and
Speaker 1: one hundred and thirty billion pounds, which is the cost
Speaker 1: of one energy crisis. It said purely on energy savings change.
Speaker 2: It is full of eco zealots, but you just cited them.
Speaker 1: You just cited them.
Speaker 2: I'd quoted the IPCC and approved fact. Frankly, they've admitted
Speaker 2: they're wrong on some things. And what we name if
Speaker 2: you look at if you look at the Climate Change
Speaker 2: Committee that you seem so obsessed with in the next
Speaker 2: few years, they admit that it's going to cost the
Speaker 2: taxpayer many tens of billions of pounds, right, many tens
Speaker 2: of billions of pounds. You don't need to spend that
Speaker 2: much in order to have some sensible adaptation strategies, that's
Speaker 2: the point.
Speaker 1: So you don't you don't have numbers yet on how
Speaker 1: much you'll spend on adaptation, but you know that you
Speaker 1: will have to s on adaptation, and you're okay with
Speaker 1: spending on adaptation tens of billions of.
Speaker 2: Point, you know that it's a hell of a lot
Speaker 2: cheaper than the trillions of pounds that can you see
Speaker 2: that the trillions? You know?
Speaker 1: How you know that?
Speaker 2: How we know that? How?
Speaker 1: Yes? Like, on what basis have you done an analysis
Speaker 1: looking at the cost that you will have to pay
Speaker 1: for adaptation?
Speaker 2: Because we know, because we know it worked beforehand. We
Speaker 2: know in the eighties and nineties and two thousand.
Speaker 1: Climate change has accelerated since. So I'm asking you about
Speaker 1: the climate change today, not that was there in the
Speaker 1: eighties and nineties.
Speaker 2: You can have this debate all you want. We're winning it. Okay,
Speaker 2: we're winning elections. The voters are backing us.
Speaker 1: I'm just asking for evidence as all.
Speaker 2: Well, okay, evidence cheaper. You seem to think that climate
Speaker 2: change is a sort of is only around ten or
Speaker 2: twenty years. Climate change goes on for millions and millions
Speaker 2: of years. And the idea fundamentally that we should impoverish
Speaker 2: ourselves as a single nation responsible for zero point seven
Speaker 2: scent of global CO two missions to try some great
Speaker 2: experiment and to pray that everybody else follows us, and
Speaker 2: then to pray that that stops climate change is for
Speaker 2: the birds.
Speaker 1: Thank you Richard twice, and thank you for listening to zero.
Speaker 1: You can see a full annotated transcript of this conversation
Speaker 1: with Grafts and more information on Bloomberg dot com. We
Speaker 1: link to it in the show notes. Now for the
Speaker 1: sound of the week, but I know that is the
Speaker 1: sound of firefighters cutting a fire brake in Alaska. Due
Speaker 1: to drought and record breaking heat, wild fires have consumed
Speaker 1: more than one hundred and fifty million hectares in the
Speaker 1: first four months of twenty twenty six. That's an area
Speaker 1: nearly the size of Alaska and roughly double the seasonal
Speaker 1: average for this period. Read more about it on Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com, Forward slash Green. If you liked this episode,
Speaker 1: please take a moment to rate and review the show
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, and Spotify. This episode was produced
Speaker 1: by Oscar Boyd with help from Soamersadi. Our theme music
Speaker 1: is composed by Wonderly Special Thanks to Lucy White, Olivia Rudgard,
Speaker 1: Laura Milan, and Sharon Chen. I'm Akshadrati back soon.