WHEN I recently read the Hansard record of the debate in the States Assembly in 2019 – when they followed the lead of other world governments and voted for Jersey to be “carbon neutral” by 2050 – there were a number of words that were notably absent.

Speeches made by Reform Jersey members were all in enthusiastic support of their spokesperson on the subject, Deputy Rob Ward, who was making the proposition, but important words were also missing from many other States Members who spoke in support of the proposal, with only the late Senator Sarah Ferguson, pictured right, voicing her opposition.

As a qualified engineer, she was the only one who saw the folly of it all and the disastrous economic consequences for the Island getting on board this popular bandwagon without understanding the consequences.

This debate in 2019 revolved about the need to replace the methods we were currently using (and still do) to create our major sources of energy – electricity, gas, petrol and diesel – with just one basic source – electricity, manufactured from what is known as “renewables” – wind and solar systems So what were those missing words? Many of the issues not mentioned back then were these vital questions:

1. Why are we asking the people of Jersey to make such a financial sacrifice of replacing their existing cars, and their oil central heating with expensive alternatives powered by electricity?

2. Why are we demanding Liberty Bus to replace their whole bus fleet with electric buses and other island businesses to replace their lorries, delivery trucks and vans with electric models?

3. Why are we asking all 12 parishes and the States to change over their refusetrucks, lorries and cars for electric models?

4. Why are we asking landlords with oil-fired central heating to refit the homes they are renting out and replace them with a system operated by electricity?

5. Why are we asking parishes with heating systems in their parish halls and churches – as well as Catholic and other denominations – also with churches and public halls who are operating heating systems that are oil-fired to rip their systems out and replace them with electric systems?

6. What compensation will begiven to the two companies who provide petrol and oil to island motorists, airline companies, boat owners and to all those homes and buildings currently relying on heating oil as well as those garages operating petrol stations around the Island?

7. Why did only one States Member ask vital questions such as:Why are we doing this? Or how much is it going to cost the States to achieve this plan for Jersey to be “net zero”? (a year later it was officially estimated that the cost to the States would be between £60 million to £360 million but no estimate has yet been given as to the total cost to the general community for making this transition or the economic impact of having this vast sum sucked out of the Jersey economy to replace all these items and the effect of this on the Island’s retail and hospitality industries and on all the other businesses of the Island being forced by law to go all-electric.

We already have the answers to some of these questions. Earlier this year,the Parish of St Helier, in preparation for carbon neutrality, converted its oilfired heating system to an electric one.

This cost £74,000 to carry out the work necessary for the change and the result has been that what was costing £6,000 a year now costs £70,000 a year.

Last week I received details from a reader of his experience of “going green” when he had to replace his oil-fired boiler which was, as he put it, “on the blink”.

This makes alarming reading.

“The easiest solution was to replace my 14-year-old oil-fired boiler with a new more up-do-date one at a cost of £2,500, plus the cost of a few hours of a heating engineer’s time to supervise the installation and removal of the old boiler. However, to comply with the net zero target there were three sustainable options – electric boiler (£2,000), air source (£12,500) or ground source (£25,000) plus installation costs.

“I then learned that for the electric boiler option I would need a power upgrade which involves digging holes and creating a new location to house the boiler which will make the total cost £7,000. I also find out that the annual cost of providing heating and hot water in this property will be 30% more with the electric option and that does not include the 12.5% increase the JEC will impose in 2024.”

He adds: “The property concerned is tenanted so I will have to ask my tenant to pay 40% more for their heating and hot water, which is hardly palatable.”

It is clear that only one person in the States at the time understood that pursuing a net zero carbon policy would inevitably lead to a monopoly in the supply of our most basic commodity – energy – without which modern life as we know it cannot function.

At the moment, Islanders have the freedom to choose how they heat/ cool their homes or cook their food, as well as having a huge choice of the kind of car/van/truck/lorry, powered either by diesel or petrol they can use each day.

That freedom will be gone in 2035 and we will have an all-island electric monopoly with the Jersey Electricity Company holding all the cards.

Over the years, the size of Jersey and its comparatively small population has meant that many monopolies of essential services have been created as businesses with larger resources have been able to dominate certain local markets. In many cases, this has been detrimental to Islanders generally both in the quality of service and the prices of that service.This is what Jersey is doing to itself with this carbon neutral policy. Without having to lift a finger, the JEC has had all their opposition eliminated. No wonder they applaud the policy and praise it.

When I put a view to a States Member of how risky it was to put all our eggs in the JEC basket and how difficult it would be to prevent price rises in electricity for the public, he responded by saying that the States would ensure that the JEC were bound by watertight legal contracts of supply.

I was immediately reminded of a television interview I watched in Australia with a union official who had won his battle for higher wages for his members after a very long strike. He made this response to the interviewer, who asked him how he had successfully persuaded the industry he was battling with to agree to his terms. His short answer was: “Brother, when you’ve got ‘em by the testicles, their hearts and minds will follow”.

Certainly, a crude response but it perfectly illustrates the situation Jersey would be in if, for instance, the JEC were to unreasonably increase the cost of their electricity to the consumer.

So why are the States of Jersey putting the Island in this situation? The issue that was never raised in that States debate or in the Citizens Assembly in 2019 was this: will the rest of the world do what they promise at the various large world conferences on climate change? And if they don’t why should we? The evidence now is that this is highly unlikely. After all, the world is emitting 50 billion tons of it: China 10.6 billion, the USA 5.4 billion and India 2.65 billion.

Jersey’s contribution of 350,000 tonnes or .0001%. of the world’s total, an amount so tiny that people are wondering why we are so prepared to subject our citizens to such a punishing and expensive fate for something so small it would not even be noticed – as in dropping a single grain of sugar to sweeten a cup of coffee.

When challenged as to why he is prepared to push this plan forward the Environment Minister’s answer was “every little helps”.

No wonder his department is deemed to be dysfunctional. 

What do you think?

•Can the Island make a difference by trying to reduce its carbon footprint?

•Is the cost of going carbon neutral too high for Islanders to bear? Send your thoughts to editorial@ jerseyeveningpost.com