"They show that the net zero economy now directly employs more than 300,000 full-time workers, while supporting the jobs of 1.1 million".
Those people might just as well be digging holes and filling them in again. That they get paid for such futile "work" makes no difference. If something is not worth doing, it is not worth doing - no matter how much taxpayers' money is misused to subsidise it.
"The net zero sector is worth £100bn to the UK already, and is likely to grow by hundreds of billions more".
"Worth"? Does that mean transfer payments from British people to other British people? (Taking in each others' laundry). Surely no foreigner would be foolish enough to buy such rubbish - especially when they get it better and far cheaper from China.
Mr Monbiot demonstrates, yet again, a complete inability to think clearly combined with some strange delusions. For example, that the purpose of industry is to pay workers. While that is desirable and useful, the main purpose of industry should be to do things that need to be done.
You raise a fair and important challenge. Not all spending labelled “net zero” is genuinely productive, and some of it does resemble digging holes only to fill them in again — especially when it funnels public money into corporate subsidies without delivering real ecological or social benefit.
That said, the dismissal of the entire net zero sector as worthless transfer payments needs nuance. The alternative — continuing business-as-usual with fossil fuels — also involves enormous hidden transfers: massive externalities in the form of health costs, environmental damage, and future adaptation expenses that society ultimately pays. The question is not whether we subsidise industry, but which industry, toward what end, and who actually benefits.
Monbiot’s broader point (and the evidence from many studies) is that a genuine transition away from fossil fuels can create meaningful work — retrofitting homes, building renewable infrastructure, restoring ecosystems — that delivers both economic activity and long-term resilience. The problem arises when this transition is captured by the same Achiever-stage logic: corporate enclosure, rent-seeking, and greenwashing that prioritises profit over real decarbonisation and justice.
We should be ruthless in calling out wasteful or performative “green” spending. But we should be equally clear that continuing the old extractive model is not cost-free — it simply externalises the costs onto future generations and the living Earth.
The real conversation we need is about sovereign, community-rooted transition: public investment that serves the commons rather than private equity, local resilience rather than distant supply chains, and genuine ecological repair rather than accounting tricks.
Neither blind faith in “green growth” nor outright rejection of the transition gets us where we need to go. We need clarity, not slogans.
Appreciate the pushback — these questions deserve rigorous scrutiny.
I think my main objection is focused on that word "transition". As many far better informed people have pointed out, never in history has there been a transition to a less dense form of energy. But the "transition" to windmills and solar cells would be exactly that.
Instead, the reasonable thing to do would be to combine all available energy sources in the most efficient and cost-effective way. Wind and solar by all means - if it is cheaper or more effective. Nuclear for continuity and reliability. And various fossil fuels as most convenient.
Public energy policy is the very last place where blind dogma is appropriate.
Tom, our team will be preparing a very detailed response to the article by George Monbiot, it will use some comments you used in your reply as anchors for demonstrating alternative unitive perspectives, I hope, if you review it, you will receive it in the spirit of our intention and that is using bohms dialogue that challenges many of the misunderstandings in communication. We always hold the deepest of respect to views that enable ‘pushbacks’ ‘transition’ is indeed a loaded construct! With kindest Regards, Neil, editor
“When everyone thinks the same, no one is thinking”.
- attributed to Walter Lippmann
"Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making".
Thank you for this detailed and data-driven open letter to Greg Jackson. It correctly highlight real problems: the hidden costs of intermittency, the way Contracts for Difference have locked in higher prices, and the way policy costs are socialised onto consumers while benefits accrue to developers and investors.
These are not trivial issues. Britain does have some of the highest electricity prices in Europe, and the current model has elements of enclosure — public risk for private gain.
At the same time, we should be careful not to let valid criticism of how the transition is being managed slide into rejection of the need for transition itself. Continuing heavy dependence on gas also carries massive costs: price volatility, geopolitical risk, health impacts from pollution, and the rapidly escalating bill for climate adaptation and damages that future generations will pay.
The real failure is not renewables per se, but the Achiever-stage logic that treats energy as another enclosure opportunity rather than a public commons. We get the worst of both worlds: subsidised intermittency on one side, and continued dependence on volatile fossil fuels on the other, with ordinary people paying the bill either way.
A more honest path would include:
• Massive investment in storage, grid modernisation, and demand reduction (efficiency, insulation, public transport).
• Genuine public ownership or strong public oversight of key infrastructure.
• Planning that prioritises resilience and sovereignty over short-term profit.
Neither blind faith in “more renewables” nor romanticising the old fossil system serves the living commons. We need clarity, not slogans.
Appreciate the push for better arithmetic and accountability.
"They show that the net zero economy now directly employs more than 300,000 full-time workers, while supporting the jobs of 1.1 million".
Those people might just as well be digging holes and filling them in again. That they get paid for such futile "work" makes no difference. If something is not worth doing, it is not worth doing - no matter how much taxpayers' money is misused to subsidise it.
"The net zero sector is worth £100bn to the UK already, and is likely to grow by hundreds of billions more".
"Worth"? Does that mean transfer payments from British people to other British people? (Taking in each others' laundry). Surely no foreigner would be foolish enough to buy such rubbish - especially when they get it better and far cheaper from China.
Mr Monbiot demonstrates, yet again, a complete inability to think clearly combined with some strange delusions. For example, that the purpose of industry is to pay workers. While that is desirable and useful, the main purpose of industry should be to do things that need to be done.
Tom,
You raise a fair and important challenge. Not all spending labelled “net zero” is genuinely productive, and some of it does resemble digging holes only to fill them in again — especially when it funnels public money into corporate subsidies without delivering real ecological or social benefit.
That said, the dismissal of the entire net zero sector as worthless transfer payments needs nuance. The alternative — continuing business-as-usual with fossil fuels — also involves enormous hidden transfers: massive externalities in the form of health costs, environmental damage, and future adaptation expenses that society ultimately pays. The question is not whether we subsidise industry, but which industry, toward what end, and who actually benefits.
Monbiot’s broader point (and the evidence from many studies) is that a genuine transition away from fossil fuels can create meaningful work — retrofitting homes, building renewable infrastructure, restoring ecosystems — that delivers both economic activity and long-term resilience. The problem arises when this transition is captured by the same Achiever-stage logic: corporate enclosure, rent-seeking, and greenwashing that prioritises profit over real decarbonisation and justice.
We should be ruthless in calling out wasteful or performative “green” spending. But we should be equally clear that continuing the old extractive model is not cost-free — it simply externalises the costs onto future generations and the living Earth.
The real conversation we need is about sovereign, community-rooted transition: public investment that serves the commons rather than private equity, local resilience rather than distant supply chains, and genuine ecological repair rather than accounting tricks.
Neither blind faith in “green growth” nor outright rejection of the transition gets us where we need to go. We need clarity, not slogans.
Appreciate the pushback — these questions deserve rigorous scrutiny.
✊🌎❤️
Niel / eaarthnet
I think my main objection is focused on that word "transition". As many far better informed people have pointed out, never in history has there been a transition to a less dense form of energy. But the "transition" to windmills and solar cells would be exactly that.
Instead, the reasonable thing to do would be to combine all available energy sources in the most efficient and cost-effective way. Wind and solar by all means - if it is cheaper or more effective. Nuclear for continuity and reliability. And various fossil fuels as most convenient.
Public energy policy is the very last place where blind dogma is appropriate.
Tom, our team will be preparing a very detailed response to the article by George Monbiot, it will use some comments you used in your reply as anchors for demonstrating alternative unitive perspectives, I hope, if you review it, you will receive it in the spirit of our intention and that is using bohms dialogue that challenges many of the misunderstandings in communication. We always hold the deepest of respect to views that enable ‘pushbacks’ ‘transition’ is indeed a loaded construct! With kindest Regards, Neil, editor
Thanks, Neil! I would be only too happy to do so.
“When everyone thinks the same, no one is thinking”.
- attributed to Walter Lippmann
"Where there is much desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making".
- John Milton, “Areopagitica” (1644)
In breaking news today: https://richardlyon.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-greg-jackson
Thank you for this detailed and data-driven open letter to Greg Jackson. It correctly highlight real problems: the hidden costs of intermittency, the way Contracts for Difference have locked in higher prices, and the way policy costs are socialised onto consumers while benefits accrue to developers and investors.
These are not trivial issues. Britain does have some of the highest electricity prices in Europe, and the current model has elements of enclosure — public risk for private gain.
At the same time, we should be careful not to let valid criticism of how the transition is being managed slide into rejection of the need for transition itself. Continuing heavy dependence on gas also carries massive costs: price volatility, geopolitical risk, health impacts from pollution, and the rapidly escalating bill for climate adaptation and damages that future generations will pay.
The real failure is not renewables per se, but the Achiever-stage logic that treats energy as another enclosure opportunity rather than a public commons. We get the worst of both worlds: subsidised intermittency on one side, and continued dependence on volatile fossil fuels on the other, with ordinary people paying the bill either way.
A more honest path would include:
• Massive investment in storage, grid modernisation, and demand reduction (efficiency, insulation, public transport).
• Genuine public ownership or strong public oversight of key infrastructure.
• Planning that prioritises resilience and sovereignty over short-term profit.
Neither blind faith in “more renewables” nor romanticising the old fossil system serves the living commons. We need clarity, not slogans.
Appreciate the push for better arithmetic and accountability.
✊🌎❤️
Niel / eaarthnet