Why did she lie?

This afternoon (Saturday November 21st) I heard a radio report from Belem. The BBC interviewed Rachel Kyte the UK Special Representative for Climate. She said that getting agreement at a COP was very hard and that '193 countries were trying to get the best result'. It sounds measured, sensible and diplomatic. But its not true. 

The best result for the planet would be an enforceable and explicit agreement to eliminate all use of fossil fuels by 2050 - ideally sooner. Kyte is a Professor of Practice in Climate Policy so she knows this.

She also knows - she even said in her interview - that some countries are trying to prevent the final declaration from even mentioning fossil fuels. As I write the current draft does not mention fossil fuels. These countries - Saudi Arabia leads the pack - are not trying to get the best result but the result that is best for their countries or their typically undemocratic regimes. 

So Kyte is saying thing she knows to be untrue. In any other context we call that lying. Why should politics be different? It is lying and we should tell our representatives not to do it.

Unpopular Opinion 1: 1.5C is dead

In the Paris Agreement the nations of the world agreed to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” It was always an ambitious target and we’ve missed it.

The global annual temperature increase first exceeded 1.5C last year. Climate scientists were surprised at the speed at which it rose and have stressed the impact of a strong El Nino event. This allows them to say that the long-term trend has not taken the temperature over the second Paris Agreement target. Probably true. But so what?

The temperature has exceeded the target and – to coin a phrase – the climate doesn’t care about special factors. Up is up. 2025 will probably be a little cooler but it will be the second or third warmest year on record. Then the increase will resume.

We can be a bit more formal. The admirable Global Carbon Project (GCP) has calculated the remaining carbon budget for an annual temperature of 1.5C at 170 GtonnesCO2. That’s almost exactly four times the likely 2025 emissions. Last year emissions rose by 0.8%; similar to the previous four years. The UN Shared Socioeconomic Pathway that best fits the data (SSP2-4.5) shows annual emissions rising until about 2040. That would exhaust the 1.5C budget within a little less than four years so we'll exceed the target unless we reach Net Zero in 2029.

Surely I’m joking? Yes. Short of a nuclear winter that won’t happen.

So we cannot keep the temperature increase below 1.5C. The target is dead. And I’m not alone in saying so. Michael Le Page said the same in New Scientist last month (19/10/25) as did Hannah Ritchie of Sustainability By Numbers this month.

That matters a lot.

The clear evidence won't stop people arguing to "keep 1.5 alive!" but it can't be done. We can, perhaps, accept that we'll exceed the target but hope to bring the temperature increase back down to 1.5. That's really not the same and any plan to do so will face the same problems that have beset the COP process.

Saving money on charging

Last year I moved house and this year I replaced my Nissan Leaf with a VW ID.3. A good choice, newer – even though second-hand – and 200% more range. But it needed a different home charger – one with a type 2 connector. I’d been using an untidy lash-up so now I needed a real home charger.

There are lots of home chargers. They charge at up to 7kW and promise lots of advantages such as access to money-saving dynamic tariffs. But they cost £300 to £700. And then there’s installation cost. One electrician quoted £1,150 to install a new consumer unit, mine has no spare circuits, run a thick cable on a safe and inconspicuous route, tricky in my house, and connect the charger. Would it be worth it?

Some chargers do give access to EV-friendly tariffs that allow you to charge at low rates. But I estimated that EV charging would only be 10% of my power use and the tariffs I looked at would charge more than my current rate on the other 90%. So the total cost would be higher. Bad idea.

Which just leaves charging speed. At 7kW I could charge the ID.3 from 20% to 80% in about 6 hours. That’s nice but I rarely need to charge it that much as I generally keep it charged above 40%. When I do I can usually put it on charge the previous afternoon. So If I start charging at 6 pm and plan to leave next morning at 8 am I’ll have 14 hours to charge it. That’s more than enough to charge it from 20% to 80% or, more likely, from 40% to 100%.

So I just didn’t need an expensive charger but I did need something tidy. I employed an electrician to install an external three-pin socket on a spur from an existing ring main. He did a good job and charged £276. I bought a charging cable, cost £106, which is permanently plugged in and attached to the wall. Also a plastic holder for the connector on the cable, £14. Total cost £401. Saving £750.

So far it’s been easy to use, has charged at 3kW and has had zero faults. Why pay more?