Skip to content

May Puts Green Agenda Before World’s Poor

July 3, 2019

By Paul Homewood



Conservative Woman’s scathing assessment of the disastrous Theresa May’s latest policy shambles:




IN the last wretched days of her premiership, Theresa May has announced her worst policy yet. No, I am not talking about her decision to rush through a £1trillion ‘Net Zero’ emissions target with no scrutiny and no impact assessment, extraordinarily ill-considered though that is. I mean her pledge that in future Britain’s entire £14billion aid budget must be spent ‘in a way that contributes to the transition to the global low-carbon economy’. 

The phrase is pure jargon, but it means that the welfare of the poorest people in the world is now less important to us as a country than supporting a trillion-dollar worldwide ‘green’ energy racket. What does that say about us?

It means we will not build a road that would help emergency services reach remote areas ‘because climate change’. It means we will not help build a power station that would bring electricity, jobs and growth to an under-developed region ‘because climate change’. It means less money on life-saving medicine ‘because climate change’.

It is difficult to think of a more direct or brazen abrogation of our responsibilities to the world’s most needy people.

Her decision may have been influenced by her absurd International Development Secretary, Rory Stewart, who claimed: ‘The real lesson of the last ten to 15 years is that poverty and climate are actually one of [sic] the same thing.’ Has a more intellectually lazy, morally bankrupt, ignorant statement ever been made by a Government minister? I try to stay level-headed when thinking about these things, but people may well die or be impoverished needlessly because of this totally callous attitude. When Stewart looks around him, he will see an economy in the West that owes its development to the use of fossil fuels, and yet he would pull up the drawbridge for so many others.



Full story here

This immoral policy to put green energy before the world’s poorest people

  1. Bertie permalink
    July 3, 2019 6:50 pm

    Our responsibility ‘ to the poor of the world’ will soon enough include the people of Britain when the totally absurd measures to reduce carbon emissions to zero kick in.

  2. Robert Fairless permalink
    July 3, 2019 6:53 pm

    If there was ever any doubt, Teresa May appears determined to emphasise the totalitilty of her failure as Prime Minister. We have indeed had some terrible Prime Ministers, indeed even traitorous ones if one thinks of Edward Heath, but Mrs May takes the biscuit as they say.
    The Parliamentary Conservative Party must take some of the blame, because they chose her and supported her when her total incompetence was manifest to even the most stupid.

  3. Coeur de Lion permalink
    July 3, 2019 8:39 pm

    But hey, look, she has the Church on her side! The Bishop of Salisbury who leads for the Synod on ‘climate change’ is ardently in favour of decarbonisation in accordance with the IPCC’s SR 1.5 study. The Synod is disinvesting in fossil fuels- a virtue signalling policy of unbelievable stupidity. They haven’t told their threadbare pensioners, the poor retired parish priests. Nor do these proud prelates think about the poor of the world who need electricity now. The problem is that these senior churchmen are all lefty Arts graduates and know no science. And trained to be dogmatic rather than consider reason. I think I’ll withdraw my generous parish tithe.

  4. The Man at the Back permalink
    July 3, 2019 8:40 pm

    I dare not comment on Theresa May. I don’t want Paul to block me!!

    Some figures in there to frighten anyone, but would any UK MP read them.

  5. July 3, 2019 8:44 pm

    Green energy policy, based on the non-existent ‘climate crisis’, is leading to a lowering of living standards and increased fuel and food poverty.

  6. July 3, 2019 8:54 pm

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:

    It means we will not build a road that would help emergency services reach remote areas ‘because climate change’. It means we will not help build a power station that would bring electricity, jobs and growth to an under-developed region ‘because climate change’. It means less money on life-saving medicine ‘because climate change’.

    Green Imperialism is still Imperialism. Barry Woods encapsulated this defective attitude on Twitter thread back in 2015:

  7. Ariane permalink
    July 3, 2019 9:31 pm

    Just like the Nazis who wanted to subjugate the Volk. But how does one defeat these Nazis, when they have smiley masks and live among us?

  8. I_am_not_a_robot permalink
    July 3, 2019 9:45 pm

    ‘En route to Osaka, May said she had been inspired to take more action to tackle the climate crisis in part by noticing the changes in the environment on her Swiss walking holidays with her husband, Philip …
    … “Philip and I go walking, not just in Wales but also in Switzerland, and there’s a particular place we go to where over the last decade you can see the glacier retreating quickly …’.
    The indifference and self-regard are truly sickening.

    • Robert Christopher permalink
      July 3, 2019 10:54 pm

      May’s degree was in Geography, wasn’t it?

      • Chaswarnertoo permalink
        July 3, 2019 11:23 pm

        Did she pass? And how?

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      July 4, 2019 6:52 am

      Well, if I saw her coming I would retreat quickly. Who knows what disaster she would bring on?

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      July 4, 2019 10:01 am

      The glacier may well be retreating but why does she think that means the climate was “perfect” before it started retreating?

      Just the extraordinarily superficial thinking of modern politicians and those who think they “elite”.

  9. yonason permalink
    July 3, 2019 10:26 pm

    As I’ve said before, and as her policy makes clear, any money transferred to third world countries won’t help them. They won’t be able to spend it to their own advantage, but will have to invest in useless technology supplied by the likes of wind and solar scammers. And they are all based in the West. I.e., it is just one vast money laundering scheme to benefit the most useless and corrupt scam artist pals of stupid self serving politicians.

  10. Chaswarnertoo permalink
    July 3, 2019 11:22 pm

    I understand there is crowdfunding for her headstone: “You stupid woman!”….

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      July 4, 2019 9:34 am

      Alternatively: “YOU ONLY HAD ONE JOB TO DO!”

  11. July 4, 2019 5:11 am

    The really frightening thing here is that Parliament nodded through her zero catastrophe amendment to the equally catastrophic Climate Change Act 2008.which commanded a Kremlin type majority.
    “If the gods wish to destroy they first make mad”

    The parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind here. If the good samaritan was in similar dire straits to that of the traveller; what would have been the outcome?

    • Ariane permalink
      July 4, 2019 9:32 am

      May be the good Samaritan would have said, ‘Bro’ , let’s help eachother.’ But if he were really an arrogant, nasty hypocrite, he’d have dialled for his taxi and been out of there.

  12. Eliza permalink
    July 4, 2019 5:44 am

    Fortunately I live in Paraguay a paradise compared to Australia or Britain or anywhere else except maybe USA Miami or Brazil. I was born in Miserable Ireland. Today middle of winter 22C due to global warming

  13. July 4, 2019 8:25 am

    Reblogged this on Climate- Science.

  14. Harry Passfield permalink
    July 4, 2019 9:31 am

    Mishal Hussein on Today this morning interviewing Lovelock on his 100th birthday.

    Having explained his Gaia hypothesis to her and the listeners – about his theory that the Earth is a self-limiting, self-correcting ‘entity’ – he then went on to contradict himself by telling us that ‘man-made climate change’ needed to be tackled as it would do irreparable damage to the planet. Well, either Gaia is correct or not.

    At least he was in favour of nuclear power and was explaining why wind was no good when Hussein abruptly finished the interview. But then, that was a lot better than the Green MEP (missed the name) who earlier had claimed that ‘we don’t need nuclear (as) wind and solar are so cheap and plentiful’.(!!!)

  15. Phoenix44 permalink
    July 4, 2019 10:07 am

    Stewart really is a ( ) of the highest order. The last ten to fifteen years have seen the continued decrease in poverty globally. So either climate change is REDUCING poverty or there’s no link. You have to be peculiarly stupid to make his statement.

    But typical May – listens to one person on any issue then that’s her view forever.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: