philip hammond, not a exchequer, philip hammond, not a man i always agree with, but who was very wise about this, calculated it would cost us £1 trillion to get to net zero. the war in ukraine has taught us, amongst many other things, the importance of having our own energy security and the americans have shown us through their inner security because of their inner security because of their willingness to make use of their willingness to make use of their own domestic energy supplies. that if you have energy security, you also have lower inflation because it's low energy costs that are helping the us economy to grow faster than ours and has kept inflation down when even tony blair has spoken out against burdening the pubuc spoken out against burdening the public with the cost of net zero, you can be sure that we are being too hasty with the green agenda. britain has already done more than most for the transition to net zero. as i've mentioned before, yale university publishes an annual environmental performance index and the uk finished in second place out of 180 countries last year , only behind denmark , year, only behind denmark, according to the independent climate action tracker. we are the only major economy held at the only major economy held at the most at the almost sufficient standard. no country is at a higher standard , but we is at a higher standard, but we can't pursue this agenda to the detriment and the cost of the public, least of all those who aren't particularly well off. it's democratic to have a vote on this, to allow people to choose. but in recent elections, all parties have been saying the same thing. we need to ensure that the least well off in society are protected and are helped, and that this transition has their support. and as we saw in the uxbridge by—election when it comes to the vote , people it comes to the vote, people don't want to be cold and poor. so the question for the prime minister, whilst he talks the talk is can he walk the walk ? talk is can he walk the walk? are we going to see low traffic neighbourhoods stop? are we going to see boilers are allowed to continue gas boilers in our houses? are we going to see cars are still being built with the internal combustion engine after 2030? these are the things that need to change to keep costs down. as always, i want to know your thoughts. don't forget to let me know what you think. male mogg at gbnews.com. but i'm now joined by lord frost . perhaps joined by lord frost. perhaps the greatest frost to have hit these shores. david, thank you for coming in. you made the point last week which attracted some controversy that actually a little bit of warming in the uk could be quite good for us. >> well, absolutely. it's a simple statement of fact in fact and i was quoting a government agency and what i said that many more people die this country more people die in this country from the cold than from the heat. so the idea that a little increase in temperature is going to make things worse simply does not stand up. of course, that's not stand up. of course, that's not the whole picture. there's much more to it. but that from that narrow perspective, it's absolutely clear. >> that net agenda >> and that the net zero agenda was turned into law by 2019 for the 2015 deadline being set. at that point , the economy was that point, the economy was still going well. there'd be no covid. there hadn't been half £1 trillion spent on covid measures . the nation's balance sheet was in pretty good order. all the political parties thought this was a cost that people could absorb and bear. that's fundamentally changed, doesn't it, in the last four years? it's absolutely has. >> and to be honest, i thought it looked a bit unwise in 2019. but as you say, maybe it was something we could have supported. but now conditions have changed a lot. that's absolutely clear. and the bill is now not quite so far away . is now not quite so far away. people are beginning to see it and they're beginning to think about what's going to happen to their and they're about what's going to happen to theisure and they're about what's going to happen to theisure they and they're about what's going to happen to theisure they liked they're about what's going to happen to theisure they like it.:hey're not sure they like it. >> but this has become politically quite divisive. we heard thangam debbonaire politically quite divisive. we heard her thangam debbonaire politically quite divisive. we heard her viewsjam debbonaire politically quite divisive. we heard her views on| debbonaire politically quite divisive. we heard her views on this)bonaire earlier her views on this matter, quite frankly , i'm matter, quite frankly, i'm astonished that rishi sunak is doubung astonished that rishi sunak is doubling down on his failing and weak policy on climate action, on businesses and individuals and families have suffered 13 years of failing tory energy policy that has left us the worst hit of any western european country during this this energy crisis . this energy crisis. >> instead, rishi sunak is pushing ahead as though climate climate crisis isn't happening . climate crisis isn't happening. it's clear it's present danger. and as the head of the un said, only this last week, the age of global warming is over. the age of global boiling has arrived . of global boiling has arrived. and this sort of policymaking , and this sort of policymaking, having called for leaders to lead, is such a disappointment . lead, is such a disappointment. >> well, she puts it , of course, >> well, she puts it, of course, in a slightly exaggerated tone . in a slightly exaggerated tone. but her point is we're in the age of global boiling rather than simply of warming. is there any evidence for that as far as you're aware? >> well , climate you're aware? >> well, climate change is a problem . it isn't. we're not in problem. it isn't. we're not in a climate crisis or in a climate emergency. in my view. i don't think the evidence supports that. problem that we can that. it's a problem that we can master. what we're seeing, master. and what we're seeing, to be honest, what we've been seeing today in this hysterical reaction, not just from thangam debbonaire, but from others, is people who are having to justify their positions for the first time up to now, this has not been questioned. now we're having a discussion and it's great. >> and that's really important because saying that 13 because she was saying that 13 years of tory failures with energy actually see energy policy, but actually see such as there have been such failures as there have been is accepted the is because we've accepted the consensus. is because we've accepted the consensus . and if we were to do consensus. and if we were to do more of the same, that's when we get risk of the lights get to the risk of the lights going off. >> that's right. i mean, the labour policy is based on this, this fantasy that we get rid this fantasy that we can get rid of and gas, we of oil and gas, we can decarbonise the grid 2030, decarbonise the grid by 2030, simply not going to happen. simply not possible . all one has simply not possible. all one has to get real about this. and there are ways of reducing emissions in a proportion that and sensible way modern gas power stations , nuclear power power stations, nuclear power stations, investment in new technology is the way forward . technology is the way forward. it isn't doubling down on wind power. that doesn't work well, and that must be right that you've seen with the internal combustion engine with cars emissions declining dramatically over decades, led going out of petrol oil miles per gallon , petrol oil miles per gallon, increasing that everyone has an interest in that because it makes the use of energy cheaper and therefore the technology develops . when people are given develops. when people are given a better product, they tend to choose it. the problem is that what we are trying to do at the moment is force on people products that aren't better and make them pay more for it. and thatis make them pay more for it. and that is going to be a hard sell, probably an impossible sell, and it's very good that we're rethinking now rather than letting this go a bit further down the line and letting the market choose seems to me to be a key point i thought lord a key point that i thought lord bamford's were bamford's comments recently were very important, the very important, that the government decided to give government has decided to give huge subsidies to electric motors, actually he has motors, but actually he has developed a hydrogen motor which may be both cleaner and more economic for people . economic for people. >> but the government is skewing the scales now , in your the scales now, in your experience, does the government ever pick winners successfully ? ever pick winners successfully? >> i mean, the government never picks winners. it is inherent that nobody knows the future . that nobody knows the future. nobody knows what the best way of getting around is going to be. maybe it's going to be electric cars, maybe it's going to be hydrogen, maybe it's going to be hydrogen, maybe it's going to something else that we to be something else that we haven't invented yet. best haven't invented yet. the best way of that is for the way of doing that is for the government to be neutral as government to be as neutral as possible in the decisions it takes and let the markets choose. but we're not doing that. we're leaping at the first technologies that are available all, and it's costing more than it needs to. >> and very often the first technology doesn't work so well. yeah, i'm very impressed with what the prime minister is saying at the moment. he's saying at the moment. he's saying the right saying to my mind all the right things. recognised the things. he's recognised the problem, he's recognised in electoral that most electoral terms that most conservative voters are motorists he's on their motorists and that he's on their side. what, what in your side. but what, what in your view does he need do to make view does he need to do to make the change so that between now and the next election people nofice and the next election people notice some difference? >> well, i think there are some retail he needs to do. retail things he needs to do. the 2030 ban on internal combustion engines. i mean, that is even tougher than the european union's measures . we european union's measures. we didn't leave the eu to impose even tougher measures on ourselves . so that's one, we ourselves. so that's one, we could push that back. the imposition of boilers , the heat imposition of boilers, the heat pump boilers, the ban on oil boilers that's coming in, those are the things that people will notice. yes. >> but both of those, the government has confirmed that it is continuing with and will not change. so i think michael gove this afternoon said the heat this afternoon has said the heat pumps carrying on and the pumps are carrying on and the prime minister himself has said the 2030 ban on on diesel and petrol engines , this doesn't petrol engines, this doesn't seem to me to make any sense. he's got a popular policy. why isn't it being implemented? >> still time to rethink. government's always say that policy doesn't change up to the point it changes. and point at which it changes. and i think the polling and the economic reality he is going to force a rethink and devolution or banning ulez. >> there was a very interesting article in the times today saying you haven't devolved all these powers to councils then to take them away, then we'll do something you don't like. i think we are a unitary state and that the central government think we are a unitary state and that th> so i do think probably the government ought to intervene on this. think it's been this. i think it's been a failing of democracy. this has not been properly debated. and i think every democratic think there's every democratic case for, if we can, imposing a delay until the mayoral election next year. and then it is an electoral issue that people can can have their say on. >> well, david, thank you very much for coming in. don't forget to let me know what you think. male margaret gbnews.com coming up continuing our up we'll be continuing our assessment of the green agenda. the is, is elitist? the question is, is it elitist? plus what is the worst tax of . all welcome back. i'm still jacob rees—mogg and this is state of the nation. you've been getting in touch with your views, peter. i'm all for north sea oil and gas licences, but will the companies invest in this when it is more than likely that they will be cancelled if labour get in next year? can i reassure investors ? the labour party has investors? the labour party has said not cancel any said it will not cancel any existing licences which is important actually wise of important and actually wise of them. not that i normally call them. not that i normally call the labour party wise. roy while we try and keep our co2 levels to zero, the uk is getting poor while many countries are just carrying on as normal and taking advantage of making a fortune. why bother as it won't why do we bother as it won't make any difference to the planet only ever planet right now. we only ever hear the moral costs of hear about the moral costs of failing to meet net zero targets, but few people talk about the financial cost that net zero burdens on the taxpayer . first of all, the scrappage scheme of oil and gas heaters and now the ban on new diesel and now the ban on new diesel and petrol cars. the old boiler upgrade scheme is one the government's flagship plans government's key flagship plans to meet zero targets, but it to meet net zero targets, but it requires a de facto ban on gas boilers being installed in new builds by 2025, costing upwards of £13,000 per heat pump. shock aching figures reported by experts claim that it would take about 36 years for a household to save enough money on energy bills to cover the cost of an air source pump. the national gas chief, jon butterworth, has said that because of its extortionate price heat pumps are only affordable for the privileged. well, i can tell you i'm not privileged enough to afford one. the government promised to pay £5,000 of taxpayers money per heat pump purchase. that's for a new installation, not for new build houses , leaving the individual houses, leaving the individual to up approximately £8,000 to make up approximately £8,000 in upfront costs . but subsidies in upfront costs. but subsidies just taking money from one taxpayer and giving it to another. the cost doesn't go away . it doesn't get magicked away. it doesn't get magicked out of existence . and last week out of existence. and last week the levelling up secretary, michael gove, responded to concerns over its costly burden on the public in which he hinted the government might consider u—turn on its current plans to ban the installation of gas boilers . but ban the installation of gas boilers. but of ban the installation of gas boilers . but of course, the boilers. but of course, the department of energy security back—pedalled in a statement today made it all today and made it clear all heating systems in the uk will be compatible with net zero standards by as standards by 2050. as i mentioned , and i, along with mentioned, and i, along with more than 40 other parliamentary parliamentarians, signed a letter calling for the reversal of the government's 2030 goal to ban new diesel and petrol cars. it's another deeply unpopular net zero policy which will cost you the taxpayer, more money to reach a target that will offset only 1% of the world's global emissions . well, i'm now joined emissions. well, i'm now joined by green party councillor steve masters. steve so much for joining me again. masters. steve so much for joining me again . on on the 36 joining me again. on on the 36 years to make a ground heat pump work , is this something that work, is this something that people are going to be able to afford to install? where's the money coming from? well well it's interesting actually , it's interesting actually, jacob, that you talked about that my partner is currently going through the process of getting a heat pump installed in her house. >> and the actual cost after the £5,000 subsidy is less than it would for be the equivalent oil boiler to be replaced in a rural area such as hers. and what we've what we're finding is that actually the oil industry and the oil and gas industry are still being subsidised large amounts of money. it's very easy for you to talk about the green subsidies and they are not being passed on to the taxpayer. the oil and gas industry have been subsidised for trillions of pounds. >> what subsidies? what subsidies are they getting ? subsidies are they getting? >> tax breaks. they don't have to clean up the north sea, for example . there's no there's no example. there's no there's no responsibility . responsibility. >> that's when they decommission the money they spend on decommissioning reduces their tax burden. but that's true of all companies on their capital expenditure , lowers their tax expenditure, lowers their tax burden. it's no different for oil companies than any oil and gas companies than any other but they're one other company, but they're one of the biggest polluters , you of the biggest polluters, you know, that's different know, in the that's different argument. you said you said they got tax breaks. >> they don't. >> well, they don't. >> well, they don't. >> where are these subsidies coming from ? coming from? >> so we we're way behind on the adoption of heat pumps. and to say that it takes 36 years, you said they got tens of trillions of dollars. >> where are these subsidies coming from? because i've heard other people will make this argument, but nobody's ever identified where these subsidies come from . they're the huge tax come from. they're the huge tax payers profits for oil and gas companies skyrocket over the last few years. >> that again is a complete different argument . different argument. >> they get taxed very heavily on their profits . on their profits. >> they're not taxed, you know, highly enough people. >> but that again, isn't a subsidy . subsidy. >> jacob you know , you talk >> jacob you know, you talk about freedom of speech and letting people speak. if you if you want to take the burden away from working people that you and you ought to be supporting in this argument against net zero, we need to be taxing the polluters and making sure that they're the ones who face that burden. you know, we need a just transition towards net zero, whether it's 2050 or 2030. you know, we need to make sure and i agree it shouldn't be the work every day working man and woman who's paying for this. it should be the polluting industries and they should be the argument against the new oil and gas licences is at what point do we stop issuing those licences we're already. >> thank you . thank you, steve. >> thank you. thank you, steve. thank we've got we've got to move on. we've got to move on. but thank you so much for joining me this evening. >> i'm sorry to cut you off, but i've got to move on to my panel. well, nigel, you saw what the prime minister had to say. this is obviously a very big change in tone from what it any government's been saying now for many years. how important is it politically? >> well, i mean , i think that >> well, i mean, i think that what is happening now is that all politicians have been spooked by that rather bizarre result in uxbridge . and it's result in uxbridge. and it's a pity result in uxbridge. and it's a pity that one byelection is actually changing everything. i mean, including labour in this, that labour are are rowing back somewhat as well . the prime somewhat as well. the prime minister's obviously changed direction . i think he's direction. i think he's capitalising on that . and in capitalising on that. and in electoral , as you can see electoral terms, as you can see that he thinks he's found a wedge issue with the labour party and because we're coming up to an election year, like all politicians , he thinks no politicians, he thinks no further than the next election , further than the next election, not the next century. >> but he's still quite nervous about it because he's said all the right things from my point of view, and not necessarily from yours. but he hasn't actually announced change actually announced any change in policy licences policy yet. the 100 licences were started in my very brief pehod were started in my very brief period as energy secretary. >> yeah, no, i think it's more tone anything else that tone than anything else that i do take the point. there's 100 licences were in the pipeline line before that, but it would have interesting to see if have been interesting to see if keir starmer said as no new licences at what point he's talking about the no new licences but i mean, it is the tone . it's the tone about he tone. it's the tone about he wants to have another look at travel by motorists and whether they need more freedoms. so he's sending a signal here that although he says he's committed to net zero, it seems difficult to net zero, it seems difficult to work out how we'll get there if we don't do the kind of things necessary. but david, isn't this just a recognition of political reality and indeed of economic ? economic? >> i think it's a it's a recognition of that strange thing called reality that we've had a consent politics which has been merely fairytale. >> it's been mythmaker saying things like the cop summit, you know, you you take some minor politician, you elevate him to this world role of leader of it. he he rolls around in the glory . it's a modern version of the bourgeois gentilhomme or something . the and we need what something. the and we need what i think has happened is and two things have happened, i think the uxbridge by—election did two things. it showed that people will say to an opinion poll, oh, we're so keen on global warming , but doing something about it, stopping it. but the moment you say , oh, do you know what you're say, oh, do you know what you're actually going to have to pay, you're going to have to change how you behave. the support collapses unless you've got a lot of spare cash, which is why this is not simply becoming a wedge issue between labour and conservative. it's becoming a class issue . class issue. >> it's an elite issue because the elite think they can afford it. yeah, i mean, who else? >> who ? well, just one second. >> who? well, just one second. who else can dip into their pockets to pay £24,000 for a heat pump? who else can buy a tesla car? which about the only electric cars that works? >> doesn't. >> doesn't. >> nigel, doesn't this leave the labour once again, not on labour party once again, not on the side core supporters? the side of its core supporters? well i mean, no, it doesn't actually . actually. >> because the one thing you mean its core supporters are middle class people with names like tamsin and theo. the labour party would like to actually attract the middle class as well, like blair did. well, much like tony blair did. but it has much that what but no, it has much that what keir has been talking but no, it has much that what keir provided; been talking but no, it has much that what keir provided he zen talking but no, it has much that what keir provided he carries.ing but no, it has much that what keir provided he carries itg about, provided he carries it out . it is idea about, provided he carries it out. it is idea of making out. it is the idea of making britain a green superpower , and britain a green superpower, and he's focusing mostly on this is myth. the creation of jobs. this is myth that it's pure. >> sorry, nigel, this is pure economic pie in the sky. what you're doing is you are spending vast . you would be spending vast vast. you would be spending vast billions replacing an efficient technology with an inefficient one. you would therefore be shrinking the economy. >> there is if you're going to get to net zero, that is what you've got to do. if you don't believe in net zero, that's really important. >> it is the myth. >> it is the myth. >> if you want to get to net zero, you've got to spend the trillion pounds that philipno current politician on is admitting no current politician on is admittir also with no no current politician on is admittiralso with no economic >> and also with no economic gain . with no economic gain. gain. with no economic gain. >> well , i gain. with no economic gain. >> well, i mean, first of all, the trillion pounds, what >> well, i mean, first of all, thetold ion pounds, what >> well, i mean, first of all, thetold theresa|ds, what >> well, i mean, first of all, thetold theresa may what >> well, i mean, first of all, thetold theresa may whetherat >> well, i mean, first of all, thetold theresa may whether it he told theresa may whether it would actually turn into £1 trillion, don't know what it would do . would do. >> government most government estimates would suggest it would turn into 3 trillion economic growth, that would get from growth, that we would get from green industry and that is the point. it's not economic growth . this is nigel. this isn't utter fiction. and it rea