The Fossilized Thinking of The Men From 'Tufton Street'
Hear! Hear! Reporting back from a local meeting where two young men from The Tax Payers Alliance and Net Zero Watch were invited guest speakers.
Dear Human of Planet Earth,
This is a true story, though like so many true stories, stranger than fiction. It began when I was invited via email to a meeting of the Croydon Constitutionalists. This meeting was described as a Net Zero Skeptical event.
I accepted, and so there I was, like a cat among the pigeons - or perhaps, the attendees would have preferred to think, like a mole among British bulldogs.
But not a real mole, because I’d made it clear to the host I’m an advocate for Net Zero and would be coming with pen and paper. Always good to have material for an article or newsletter.
And now here’s the story:
September 28th, 2022, Upstairs Elliot’s Bar in Purley.
I’m the last to arrive. The mingling is over and the speakers are being introduced to a seated audience of about twenty. With the chairs set around tables, the room is full. I look for a seat. To the back of the room, there are two free chairs at two separate tables.
I adjust my chair to the side, so as not to block the view of one of the men at my table. His long white hair is noticeably wild and springy. We have common hair, if not common ground.
If the story below feels a bit incoherent, it’s because the two speakers’ presentation was a patchwork of the sort of opinions you can find spouted on Twitter any day of the week. One fellow represented The Tax Payers’ Alliance and the other Net Zero Watch. The Net Zero Watch fellow was Head of Policy for his organisation and the other Grassroots Campaign Manager.
I begin to scribble in the notebook on my lap, hoping the men at the table can’t read my writing from where they sit. I write whatever strikes me as odd, interesting or noteworthy.
Note 1:
‘The Office for Budget Responsibility [OBR] has said Net Zero will cost £1.4 Trillion pounds. This will cost £50K per household.’
The audience gasp, whistle and shake their heads at this.
Note 2: As for heat pumps:
‘Air pumps don’t work well; ground pumps are a bit better but they cost all of £20K-£45K. How does the government expect us to replace our gas boilers with these useless heat pumps?’
This strikes me as fearmongering. Since the government hasn’t made a policy where heat pumps are mandatory replacements, why the hysterics? Where’s the threat? Surely, if they don’t work well, then they’ll stop being promoted, until they become more efficient, if ever. I make a note to look up the actual policy on heat pumps - as well as learn more about the role they may or may not be able to play as we seek alternatives.
Note 3:
The speaker objects to the anticipated ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars. He presents electric cars as hopelessly expensive.
I wonder why he doesn’t anticipate prices falling as the volume of electric cars grow. Already I can see how commonplace electric car charging outlets have become. Many car parks have them. Some street parking spots have them.
The large Tesco in Purley, five minutes walk from where we’re sitting has them. Why is he convinced we should stick with petrol and diesel?
If journey apps don’t already tell you where on your drive from Brighton to Aberdeen you can charge up your electric car, they will soon.
Note 4:
A neat young man who’s head of policy of Net Zero Watch explains it’s a rebranded version of the Global Warning Policy Foundation, founded by Nigel Lawson. He doesn’t mention what qualifies him to act as an authority on climate policy, which is telling.
We’ve been told at least one of these fellows has some work experience in insurance or finance, but neither has a background in climate science or economics.
Note 5:
He claims the IPCC’s own reports say there is low confidence in its predicted trends of droughts and flooding. More alarm bells go off in my head. What information is he misrepresenting, or is this pure disinformation?
Note 6:
He emphasises that none of the climate scientists’ ‘trends’ should be treated with confidence either. They could easily be wrong. Nobody can really be sure of any of this.’
I find it bizarre he could say this and nobody shouts out, ‘Bullshit!’ but then I’m keeping my own head down and quietly making notes myself. What do the men at my table think?
Note 7:
The speaker argues that we are dependent on fossil fuels in all areas of our life – even the clothes we wear. I make a note that there are textile factories where genetically modified bacteria produce textiles and in that very building, the finished item of clothing is completed. We’ve got alternatives. But they need investment and scaling up.
Note 8:
The speakers talk about companies producing wind energy, exploiting government subsidies while sitting on massive profits. There might be something to learn here. But I don’t trust these guys. I’ll have to do my own research.
Note 9:
They make the rather foolish Trumpian argument, ‘What about when the wind doesn’t blow?’ Are they unaware that research is being done on better energy storage for renewables? And that nobody is intending to depend on moment-by-moment wind energy?
Note 10:
They argue that the 2050 Net Zero goal is impossible – both impossible to achieve and impossibly expensive.
But they haven’t made any rigorous or persuasive arguments. Nonetheless, the audience is roused, encouraged to hear a position they already believe in. In place of evidence, they declare smoothly, ‘…We of the free market persuasion…’
I think to myself how much change has occurred in the last 20 years alone. When I left school in 1993, the world wide web was a brand new anticipated thing. They said it would change the world - and in 20 years it did just that.
In 2002, Facebook was new, if it existed at all. Smartphones were just taking off. Since then, social media has become embedded in our societies in a way we could never have anticipated. And our smart phones have become like an extension of our brains and hands.
So much changed, driven by technology pioneers and adventurers with a vision of a different way to do things! Why can’t we get to Net Zero by 2050? Our grid is already 45% running on renewables and that change has occurred faster than we could have dreamed of 20 years ago. 2050 is 27 years away! The pessimism of the young speakers is perplexing. They clearly believe that the law adopted for Net Zero by 2050 should be struck down.
It soon emerges that the speakers are not merely wary of the difficulties that might come with change. They were also enthusiastic about maximising fossil fuel extraction.
Note 11:
They are pleased Jacob Rees-Mogg lifted the moratorium on fracking. They complain grumpily that Liz Truss had been ‘harangued’ into accepting Net Zero during her leadership campaign. But they are pleased Liz Truss has used much softer language about Net Zero than her predecessors.
 ‘We have a government now that’s more open-minded.’
The speeches are over. There have been no PowerPoints, no reference to research sources, but many accusations. Yep, I might as well be scrolling Twitter for the level of discourse offered.
Note 12:
When the Q&A begins, the Net Zero Watch fellow argues that the climate hasn’t really changed much. There’s a lot of audible and skeptical chuckling from the audience about the reliability of climate models, as there was when poor Greta Thunberg was mentioned earlier.
The speakers claim that the small changes in average temperature amount to variations that might not be that bad for the UK. They referred to ‘the warmer Mediterranean temperatures in Mediaeval times which are overlooked by today’s climate scientists as if they never happened.’ They claim that present temperature patterns might be in keeping with natural fluctuations. They claim human beings are safer than ever in history, in the event of weather disasters.
I think of the flooding in Pakistan a few weeks ago, where 1/3 of the country was under water - Â and of the 40 deg Celsius life-threatening heat in the UK this summer, and wonder what they are talking about. What planet are they living on?
Note 12:
‘We’re not against green energy, if it’s done in a tax-efficient way’.
I’d say they have their priorities back to front. We have to switch to energy usage that’s compatible with planetary life. Using our collective taxes for a collective priority and doing this fairly, such that the burden falls least on the poorest, seems the morally correct thing to do.
Note 13:
‘97% of economists believe the way forward is a carbon tax’.
I write this down and wonder whether I heard right. I make a note to fact-check this. It doesn’t sound likely.
Loudmouth Speaks but Long-Haired Man Keeps Quiet
Audience point 1
The loudmouth fellow in front of me has a lot to say. He talks about the University of East Anglia destroying data and feeding information into modelling that was ‘upside down’. (?????) He talks about climate scientists knowing nothing about programming – resulting in their models being rubbish. Well, I’ll have to look that up. Dear University of East Anglia, please don’t sue me for defamatory remarks. I’m only reporting.
I am baffled as to whether Loudmouth believes his own bullshit. The audience seems to. He speaks with confident bluster. I wonder who he is and what he does for a living.
He inflates the figure mentioned at the beginning - £50K - saying it will cost each household £100K to get to Net Zero. He proposes this ‘fact’ could be a basis for a political campaign against Net Zero.
The long-haired guy next to me pulls out a mini-laptop and shows me what £100K divided by the 27 years left before 2050 actually amounts to: £3700.00. He’s pointing out that Loudmouth isn’t distributing the cost over time – and furthermore, that the cost wouldn’t be evenly distributed over time either. It’s clear he disagrees with Loudmouth. I wonder if he’ll raise any objections of his own to the room. He doesn’t.
Loudmouth also doubles the figure the speakers claim the OBR gave. Using the OBR figure, we get £1851.85. But will your family really be £1851.00 poorer every year?
Or is that £1851 just an average figure for the portion of your family’s annual taxes that will go into building Net Zero Infrastructure?
What about costing the value of the jobs, expertise and exports developed in the process of getting to Net Zero? That’s the stuff we put in the assets column, not so? What about the taxes paid by the new businesses built along the way?
Audience point 2:
Someone says, ‘It’s always good to see TPA (Tax Payers’ Alliance) graduates in the heart of government!’ – in reference to someone close to Liz Truss.
Are they talking about these fellows, maybe?
Audience point 3:
Someone else says, ‘There’s little point us taking ANY measures, since we only produce 1% of emissions and China and India aren’t doing anything.’
I’m shocked. China and India are doing plenty. 1% of emissions? Need to fact-check that.
Audience point 4:
Someone else points out we’ve offshored some of our emissions by producing what we import in countries like China, so our emissions are higher than we claim, once we consider our consumption. Now that’s a fact.
Audience point 5:
‘Why should we be penalised while other countries are industrialising?’
Audience point 6, said triumphantly:
‘Isn’t it selfish too, to argue that other countries can’t industrialise?’
As far as I know, nobody is arguing that.
Audience point 6:
‘Is it that there are some people in this country who hate themselves?’
My god. It really is like being on Twitter.
I wonder if I should have taken the time to invite a few people from XR.
Audience point 7:
Someone raises the subject of carbon capture – but they seem to be talking about nursery seedlings, rather than industrial carbon capture. They seem to think they’re being very clever. My husband studied this subject for his Oil and Gas MBA. I wish he was here. At least he’d have something sensible to say.
Audience point 8:
‘Carbon capture has never worked anywhere in the world!’
It’s Loudmouth again.
I suspect he hasn’t the slightest idea what he’s talking about. I know carbon capture isn’t ‘The Big Solution’. But it may be able to play some role.
As Long-Haired Guy said to me during the break, ‘We should be doing all we can. And we need to be doing many things.’
Does it not occur to these people that countries behind on the industrialisation curve don’t have to go the oil and gas route, now that renewables are both here and competitive?
The Q&A is less about asking technical questions and more about spouting points of view. Fair enough, if I speak, I myself would be challenging the speakers, rather than questioning them. After all, I don’t believe they have any answers worth hearing.
Audience Point 9:
The red-haired fellow with the beard, who makes me think of a white version of  Jamael Westman’s portrayal of Hamilton, on account of his thin frame and serious demeanour, as well as how he styled his facial hair, has this to say:
‘We all know politicians are lazy and take the easiest way out. When it comes to policy they just take up whatever is lying on the table. Whatever Oxfam or Greenpeace hands to them ….’
The audience sniggers at the mention of Oxfam, Greenpeace and the like. I wonder how civil servants feel at the suggestion Oxfam and Greenpeace are doing all their work for them!
He continues:
‘I’m hoping that the Tax Payers’ Alliance is going to be drafting policy and have it ready to go …’
‘We are not a climate policy organisation,’ replies one of the speakers apologetically.
The other speaker claims they aim to get the Emissions Trading Scheme suspended. He explains why its present workings are problematic. I realise it’s one of many things I know nothing about. He claims that the UK scheme is worse than the EU one. I’m so busy scribbling that I don’t know which of the speakers has said this – and therefore whether this is an explicit goal of Net Zero Watch or the Tax Payers’ Alliance. But I feel sure they share the same goals behind closed doors.
One of the two speakers asserts,
‘They [his organisation] have developed an energy plan that they’ve put in front of the Ministers.’
Is this true? Isn’t this the job of experts in the civil service?
They are asked what they consider their recent successes.
The speakers reply:
The Truss administration’s cutting of income tax
The crackdown on Trade Union Facility Time
The lifting of the moratorium against fracking
The next policy they say they hope to influence is getting government spending under control.
Given that public services have been cut to the bone, I can only imagine they mean to excise services altogether at this point. Chop and sell to the lowest bidder.
I think of the influence of private capital on everything from prison services to education in the USA. This was what Brexit was all about, Americanising our economy, so that it works better and better for those with capital and for those without – well, they don’t matter. This isn’t Denmark or Norway. People don’t need to be happy. But rich folks deserve to be as stinking rich as they can be.
One of the hosts - not the one who invited me - asks if there will be any more questions. He seems to be looking at me, hoping I have no questions. Well, I don’t – only challenges. I hesitate and the moment is lost.
I turn to my table and lower my head in despair, ‘The level of ignorance in this room is astounding,’ I say.
Long-haired man is charitable, ‘Well, they live in their own bubble. What we really need is to get both sides talking and come up with something half-way.’
It sounds good. For a moment I agree with him. The next moment I realise he’s suggesting we negotiate with mad people who have no grounding in, or acceptance of reality.
Host #2 seems to be giving me a hard look, not for the first time this evening, or maybe he looks at everyone this way. I’m speaking loudly as usual, and he’s probably overhearing me decry the insanity of importing blueberries from Ecuador. The air miles aren’t okay with me. Because I really do believe in Net Zero as a Policy goal enforced by law.
I found the whole experience shocking.
The next morning I de-brief with my husband, who’s worked in oil and gas all most of his working life. We disagree routinely on the speed of intervention necessary to avert the worst, so he’s not a ‘Yes man’ to my climate positions.
It shocks me, I tell him, that these two young speakers could waste an evening spouting casual unsubstantiated nonsense and call it a ‘talk.’ It baffles me that their audience lapped it up, challenging nothing.
They offered no hard statistics, no sources, not even a powerpoint slide. I was told it was a Net Zero Skeptical event and that’s all it was.
My husband said, ‘You thought you were going to a West End Play but it turned out to be a pantomime. Now you’ve seen both sides of the coin. XR wants to change things too fast, even if it’s painful - and these people don’t want to change anything at all – unless it’s painless. The answer is somewhere in the middle.’
The answer might be in the middle, but who has the government’s ear?
The trouble is, we have a government that wants to label Extinction Rebellion an extremist radicalising group, but has a revolving door for the Tufton Street ‘think tanks.’ You can listen to George Monbiot, one of UK’s contemporary heroes speaking passionately about this here.
It feels only right to end with a Twitter screenshot where Tweeters are decrying neo-liberalism, right-wing think tanks and a scientist is screaming out in despair all at once:
I’m duty-bound to explore, fact-check and share with you the unsubstantiated arguments carelessly raised by these two young men in future letters to you. So do look out for that.
I chose not to name the speakers or hosts. I don’t really know if naming them matters. The names of their organisations and what they stand for matters more.
You can learn more about their host, the Croydon Constitutionalists here. They say they’re a non-partisan organisation and all about bringing ‘Classical Liberalism to South London’. I’d never heard of them before they invited me to their meeting.
I know the subject of how to address our climate crisis is complicated. Replacing all our petrol and diesel vehicles with electric cars isn’t the answer either. We need to re-design communities so people don’t need to travel as far so often. Community-owned public transport and better mass transit are part of the solution.
But fossilised thinking won’t get us any solutions, especially when culture change is what we need.
Thanks a million for reading, and if this was shareworthy please share it. If you thought it was valuable, please hit the ‘like’ button.
If you have something to say, don’t hesitate.
With Love,
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Radical,
Croydon,
London,
That patch of earth known today as the United Kingdom
Lat +51.51 Long, -0.118
Thanks for this. So typical: "Nonetheless, the audience is roused, encouraged to hear a position they already believe in. In place of evidence, they declare smoothly, ‘…We of the free market persuasion…’"
It reminds me of the idiots in the US during the Obamacare debate holding up a sign that read "Keep the government out of my medicare!" Fossil fuels are, in fact, one of the single most subsidized industries in the world. These "free market" claims they make are just so much BS.
Thanks for a great report! Without any evidence to present to back up their claims it seems that the fear of change these individuals have has manifested into something quite bitter and angry. It would be sad if it wasn't so politically dangerous and contagious.