‘Give up net zero and do what is best for Guernsey’

The recent purchase by the States of two very expensive electric buses raises the question of whether it is logical for Guernsey to engage in efforts to reach net zero. Does it make any rational sense to try to achieve this at all? In light of a few simple propositions and their logical implications, it is clear that it is wholly irrational and wrongheaded to pursue net zero in Guernsey. This is simply because whatever Guernsey does literally makes no material difference (i.e. a difference in outcome) to the climate change crisis. Yet efforts to achieve net zero do have the effect of costing Guernsey large amounts of extra money. This is money Guernsey cannot afford to spend on trying to reach net zero, as it has other pressing concerns and lack of funds to meet them.

It is a very simple argument based on propositions which cannot be refuted. The first proposition is that Guernsey contributes a portion to world emissions which, if completely removed (made net zero or even zero), would not make any material difference to the climate change crisis at all. We can deal with the argument of ‘leading by example’ shortly.

The next proposition is that what Guernsey does will not influence what China, Russia, India, the USA and the rest of the world do with regard to climate change. If these countries reduce emissions sufficiently, the crisis will be averted. If they do not do so, then the crisis will ensue – but in either case, Guernsey’s conduct makes no difference to the outcome. That is what I mean by saying it makes no material difference.

Some argue we must lead the way, be an example – but on examination, this is simple nonsense. No one is following us, in our little Channel Island – I am not belittling Guernsey, but it is hard to deny that the large emitters of the world will decide what to do based on their own considerations and will not be influenced at all by what Guernsey does. When you add the very high cost of trying to achieve net zero, such as buying two buses for £700 000, it borders on hubris to say, ‘well, they may be costly but we are showing the world the way’. The world will not, in any event, follow the model of a small and (perceived to be) very well-off island.

What is even more worrying is that as well-off as Guernsey is perceived to be, the States are in fact short of money and are currently debating GST to raise more funds to run the island and pay for essential services on which we all rely, and on which the worst-off in our society rely most. In addition, the worst-off here cannot afford to pay more and yet are likely to be asked to foot the bill through GST.

So we end up with a policy of trying to meet net zero in Guernsey at very high cost, when this will not make any material difference to the climate crisis but will have a material impact on the amount of money left for other costs, such as social welfare, healthcare and everything else Guernsey needs. We have for example a homelessness crisis, so why did we spend £700,000 on two new electric buses? And homelessness isn’t our only pressing and costly concern.

It is the height of virtue-signalling to sacrifice funds needed for real social costs, which are not being met, in order to say to the world, ‘we lead the way for you’ – especially when there is net zero prospect (pun intended) of anyone actually following us. This is not merely nonsense, but nonsense on virtue-signalling stilts. The real cost of net zero in Guernsey is privation for those most in need, with no real gain save for the warm glow felt by the virtue-signallers (and the profit made by those who sell these expensive net zero products). But let us not doubt integrity – it is sufficient to point out the complete lack of logic and purpose. If we are serious about not wasting our limited resources, the States should give up net zero altogether and do what is best for Guernsey.

Name and address supplied