A GOOD friend of mine told me last week that he took his nine-year- old son to Queen’s Valley reservoir to see the big globe floating on the water.

He explained that his son had been desperately disappointed, not by the sight itself, which he thought was marvellous, but because he couldn’t find Jersey on it. His son wanted to know why Jersey wasn’t on the globe and his father explained to him that it was because “Jersey is just too small to be shown – a bit like a pimple on your face”.

On the day that he told me that story, the UK Prime Minister had announced that he was going to radically alter their carbon neutrality programme by extending the date from which the sale of new petrol/diesel cars would be banned in the UK (originally 2030) to 2035 In addition, the Conservative leader said that their original plan that all oil/ gas central-heating units in British homes would have to be replaced by heat pumps by 2035 would not apply to 25% of homes, as the newer tech would not be suitable.

Plans to financially punish landlords for renting out houses that don’t reach a certain level of energy efficiency have also been scrapped and the plans to make homeowners insulate their properties put on hold.

So why has Rishi Sunak and this Conservative government made these decisions? He argues that it is a matter of simple common sense: “We need to be pragmatic and proportionate in getting to net-zero carbon emissions.”

The Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, said: “There’s no sense in getting to net zero and bankrupting the country.”

A large number of practical problems have been piling up for the UK government since they declared that they would be a carbon-free society by 2050, although Mr Sunak claims that this overall date is still the target at which his party will be aiming.

But the news that not one company that is currently operating and experienced in the construction of offshore wind farms had made a bid for any of the six planned offshore wind farms was a serious blow to Britain’s planned future energy programme to replace oil, gas and coal as its major source of energy.

Further disquieting news was the revelation by the UK Fire Service that electric cars posed a serious combustion risk and last year had seen a major increase in car fires caused by faults in their batteries (a television news programme illustrated how the service could not extinguish the fire in one electric car). The organisation went on to recommend that people did not keep their EVs in their garages.

It was also revealed last week that the insurance cost for a motorist with an electric car would be double if not treble that of a petrol/diesel motor.

In England there are already stories of motorists with electric cars having fights with other EV owners while trying to access plugs at charging stations.

Electricity-producing companies are also claiming that there is no way the current UK grid would be able to handle a huge increase in the demand that would come if Britain went ahead with its plans.

Major investment from these companies would be required first, they say. This cost would no doubt be passed on to customers.

To add to their problems, many environment groups are using the UK planning process to object to the massive number of ugly electricity pylons required to update the distribution system, scarring the natural landscape.

Many marine conservationists are objecting to off-shore wind farms, claiming that they will damage sea life.

And so on...

But the most important factor in the Conservatives’ decision to row back and soften their plans was the realisation that it was going to cost both the public and the government massive sums of money.

And their research showed that it was a “no-no” with voters. For politicians, that is a pill they always find difficult to swallow.

So, what has been Jersey’s reaction to this UK decision? In short, nothing.

Jersey continues as if nothing has happened and remains committed to their climate change pledges. Environment Minister Jonathan Renouf and his Assistant Minister, Deputy Hilary Jeune, can see “no reason to fall in with the UK’s timetable and ease up on our plans”.

According to Deputy Jeune: “Any changes we would make would be because of Jersey and what we think is important in a Jersey context. Our proposed changes won’t be impacted by the UK’s decision although, internationally, we are linked to bigger targets. For the moment I am committed to the timetable set out.

It’s concerning to see that the climate emergency has now become extremely political and short-term and playing into party politics rather than thinking about future generations.”

And, of course, she was supported by Deputy Rob Ward, of Reform Jersey, who was responsible for bringing the climate change proposal to the States.

So here is the situation: the UK, with a population of 67 million and with 25 million houses, and which produces only 1% of the world’s carbon emissions, has decided that it would not be financially fair on its population to impose crippling costs. Yet in Jersey, with a population of 107,000 and roughly 26,000 homes, our government believes it is worth up to £300 million and beyond of taxpayers’ money to decrease the world’s carbon emissions by 0.0008%.

What I find so extraordinary is that not one States Member has, to my knowledge, asked for any explanation from the Environment Minister about what can only be described as a ludicrous situation.

It’s such a shame that the globe has gone from Queen’s Valley reservoir.

Otherwise our politicians could have seen for themselves Jersey’s place on the world stage.

And finally, something for the minister to consider. When you were elected you stated: “As a new government we have an acute responsibility to engage more with the public to explain what we are doing and why and to deal with concerns that are raised.

“I am up for that. I’ve spoken a lot during my election campaign about the need for a reset between government and the public. I’ve committed to explain what I do and why, but, in return, it would be nice to be given the space to explain without an automatic assumption of bad faith.”

I know that you have refused to meet a highly qualified member of the public who wishes to discuss your net-zero programmes and put a case to you that the Island is being misguided. I also asked a question of you in this column recently to justify the approach being taken and the accurate cost, but have not received any answer.

Is it any wonder that we have little faith in some of our politicians?