Skip to content

What Does The Tory Manifesto Say About Climate Policy?

December 14, 2019

By Paul Homewood




There are, of course, many factors which have influenced this general election, including Brexit, anti-semitism and the extreme, Marxist policies put forward by Corbyn.

However, I think what we can say is that climate change has had very little effect at all in the way people voted.

We must remember that Labour put forward a detailed and extremely expensive set of proposals, which I dissected here. It would have been even more extreme if the Trades Unions had not blocked some of the more potty policies. Yet their vote has plummeted.

Meanwhile the Green vote has barely gone up.

In my view we cannot simply dismiss all of the parties as being the same when it come to climate policy, despite the apparent consensus. That was why FOE scored Labour so high and Tories so low in their green scorechart, retweeted by Harrabin here. 

So let’s see exactly what the Tory manifesto actually says about climate policy:





There is talk of international partnerships, but in terms of concrete action all we have is:

  • Investing in R&D and EV infrastructure
  • More offshore wind
  • £800m for CCS
  • £500m for industry
  • “Supporting” gas for hydrogen production
  • £9.2bn for energy efficiency schemes
  • Consulting on a phase out date for petrol and diesel cars.
  • Plant more trees

1) We await the budget, but I strongly suspect that the amounts available R&D and charging points will be tiny, and will have virtually no impact at all.

2) We currently have 20 GW of offshore wind power either already operational or awarded CfDs, and due on stream by around 2025. This would suggest an further 20 GW to be built between 2025 and 2030.

How 40 GW of offshore wind, along with the existing 14 GW of onshore wind, can be safely integrated into the grid will be one of the cans kicked down the road. What we can say though is that there will be many days when wind power will exceed total demands on the grid, even before allowing for baseload nuclear output.

But even if all of the wind output can be used, it will only reduce UK emissions of carbon dioxide by about 5%.

3) £800m for a CCS cluster is again chicken feed. The £1bn competition to develop CCS at Peterhead and Drax launched by Ed Davey in 2013 soon collapsed, after concerns that it would be money down the drain.

Similarly £500m for industry to develop low-carbon technology is likely to prove a pittance. Businesses are more likely to offshore if extra costs are imposed upon them.

4) I’m not quite sure what “supporting hydrogen production” means, but I suspect it is little more than window dressing. The Committee on Climate Change have already estimated that it could cost £100 billion simply to convert household appliances for hydrogen use. On top of that is the cost of building hydrogen producing plants and networks.

My guess is that we will see no more than a few million allocated for tests and small pilot plants.

5) £9.2bn for energy efficiency schemes over 5 years is also a pretty small sum, which will have very little effect on energy usage. Prof Michael Kelly recently estimated that the cost of retrofitting British homes could amount to £3 trillion.

6) Consulting on phasing out of petrol and diesel cars. Again , this sounds like an excuse for kicking the problem into the long grass.


All in all, there is very little of any substance here, other than offshore wind, which is already pretty much factored into government plans.

As I have repeated ad nauseam, the actions taken so far to reduce emissions have been relatively easy, if extremely expensive. It does not need rocket science to build heavily subsidised wind and solar farms, or convert Drax to burn wood. The costs have been hidden away on energy bills, with the subsequent rises blamed on “wicked” energy companies.

Most of the low hanging fruit however has now been picked. Further large scale decarbonisation will be extremely expensive and will have a substantial and detrimental effect on the lives of ordinary people.

So far, the government has chosen to kick the can down the road, leaving future governments to take the flak. This new Tory manifesto continues this strategy, pretending that new technology will solve all of our problems eventually.

Maybe there is some hope that future governments will be just as reluctant to face up to the catastrophic economic reality of zero carbon.

Meanwhile climate action seems to be well down the list of priorities of most voters.

  1. Broadlands permalink
    December 14, 2019 5:25 pm

    “We will lead the global fight against climate change by delivering on our world-leading target of Net Zero greenhouse emissions by 2050, as advised by the independent Committee on Climate Change.”

    This drastic proposal ignores (or doesn’t understand) that a goal of Net Zero carbon fuel emissions can only be accomplished by a rapid reduction in the production, distribution, sale and use of gasoline, diesel and biofuels in transportation. And especially long distance movement of people and the goods and services they all need. A seriously damaging process to all economies and stakeholders. In addition, a reduction of CO2 emissions does nothing to lower what has already been emitted and is still rising. This is clearly not a well thought out plan for the future. It is more than just risky.

    • bobn permalink
      December 14, 2019 9:42 pm

      There is nothing independent about the Committee on Climate Change. They are all hand-picked bigoted and biased Climate alarm activists. To be independant it’d need to include a few rationalists like Paul Homewood!

    • December 15, 2019 12:19 pm


      Yup. I’ve posted on that before. See here from 2:00 – 2:19.

      It would be a shame if you were to win the Brexit battle to then only be destroyed by “ruinable energy.” You can’t win the way Boris say you will in the earlier portion of his presentation if he has you destroy your ability to function cheaply and efficiently.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        December 16, 2019 9:56 am

        Worth remembering here that our ‘great’ PM Boris Johnson is a serial liar so what he says he will do is not certain to happen.

  2. Stuart Wakefield permalink
    December 14, 2019 5:26 pm

    I can only speak for myself, I voted Conservative because I want to leave the EU. It had nothing to do with the climate which is a global problem. The world is Capitalist run, controlled by very wealthy people, not politicians. To make changes these world leaders would have to be removed and I cannot see a way to do that. They own and bribe political leaders to pass laws to allow them to do what they like. Just look at Monsanto to see what I mean. We are being pushed to buy electric cars but the power station uses gas to produce electricity. Solar is no use in our winters and wind generators are not a constant power source. Nuclear power has the problem of the cost of building and what to do with the contaminated material. Tidal power may be the answer and needs to be looked at soon.

    • December 14, 2019 5:56 pm

      You seem to be living in conspiracy theory territory old chap. The fact you demonise Monsanto proves that. They have been a terrible victim themselves of extreme environmentalist luddites. Why has this secret all powerful cabal you speak of not intervened to help them? You need to get out more.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      December 14, 2019 7:37 pm

      Tidal and wave power have been ‘looked at’ since I was in a nappy and before.The Tomorrow’s World program used to be stuffed with ‘promising’ schemes. Numerous different schemes/devices have been trialed and they all fail. The Swansea lagoon shows it is impossibly expensive and disruptive to coastal ecology. Large scale tidal power is nuts economically and practically speaking.

      • Edŵard Bull permalink
        December 14, 2019 8:14 pm

        I was just 10 in 1958 when the UK’s ZETA experiment was going to bring us fusion energy for free. I’m 71 now and still waiting. Thank heavens for fossil fuels.

      • Pancho Plail permalink
        December 14, 2019 8:32 pm

        And apparently a disaster for wild-life.

      • December 14, 2019 11:16 pm

        Bottomline , if something works it will already be being done WITHOUT a subsidy.

      • December 15, 2019 6:51 am

        @Edŵard Bull – December 14, 2019 8:14 pm

        And I remember when the very first nuclear power plant came online in 1960/61.
        It wasn’t long before they were springing up everywhere. Something about being functional.

        Thanks for letting me know how they were making promises about totally untested fusion a year prior to that. LOL. I guess pols back then were actually as clueless as they are now.

        From Hiroshima to the first nuclear power plant in 2 decades. Been waiting for Thorium for about as long as for fusion, i.e., 7 decades, and not a glimmer of production in sight. My hopes don’t rest on them, any more than on wind or solar which, while we have them, they are more trouble and harm than they are worth.

    • Paul Reynolds permalink
      December 14, 2019 7:43 pm

      To make changes world leaders need classes in evidence data based science not computer modelled gobbeldygook peddled by truant misguided schoolchildren and national treasures. Oh for the wonderful Bellamy and his ilk!!!

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      December 15, 2019 10:37 am

      The world is not controlled by the wealthy. If we chose to do so, we could make any company bankrupt in weeks. Look at what happens to almost every big company eventually – gone and forgotten. There’s barely a company left alive from the original Dow index and not many from the original FTSE100. Today the turnover us even more rapid . What the Left refuses to understand(or perhaps these days understands but hates) is that capitalism and free markets gives power to us, the consumer, and forces companies to compete with each other for our favour.

    • December 15, 2019 12:27 pm

      “They own and bribe political leaders to pass laws to allow them to do what they like.” – Stuart Wakefield

      That is “crony capitalism,” NOT “free-market capitalism” ….YUGE difference. The former is always corruptly favored regardless of performance and is the hallmark of a fascist economy, while the latter is performance based and the hallmark of free people. They couldn’t be more different. The latter is what the socialists want to destroy when they tell you “capitalism is bad,” while wanting to retain the former, because that’s where all their personal wealth comes from, at your expense.

    • George Lawson permalink
      December 15, 2019 12:37 pm

      “The world is Capitalist run, controlled by very wealthy people, not politicians. To make changes these world leaders would have to be removed and I cannot see a way to do that.”

      Wrong, The world is made possible to run as it does today through capitalism, as a direct result of very successful people developing the world’s industry and commerce. They are generally made wealthy by their efforts in starting companies or taking control of companies that create the wealth for society. Company bosses like Sir James Dyson, or Lord Bamford of JCB, two of many hugely successful people have given their lives and taken huge risks in developing their companies, and in doing so they have provided employment for tens of thousands of people. Forget how much salary they get and just look at the huge tax contribution they make from their income (£35,000 on a £million) plus considerable corporation tax. But that is the least of their contribution; if between them they employ 5,000 people, then each of those 5,000 will pay up to 40 per cent in tax, In addition they will buy circa 3000 cars all giving additional employment to the motor industry and carrying VAT. They will also buy homes, clothes, holidays, plus everything a successful working family needs, all of which will provide more employment further down the line. So do get out of the habit of knocking successful people just because they earn high salaries, they deserve it. Let us instead celebrate success in industry and don’t look upon successful industrialists as a drain on society.

      Let us hope the current enlightened government will give support to dramatically increasing the number of company start-ups, and create incentives for industry that encourage them to stay in this country rather than move abroad through increased taxation. if they do we should all be very grateful. Finally, wealthy business people do not control politicians, but sensible politicians will readily acknowledge that without successful business people, governments and economies cannot operate.

      • December 16, 2019 9:42 am

        Yes, George Lawson. Exactly. That’s the “free-market capitalism” I’m talking about, as well. Nice exposition.

  3. Dave Ward permalink
    December 14, 2019 5:50 pm

    My Tory MP came knocking on the door this week (with a small majority after the last election, she had obviously been told to get “out and about”). I told her I thought the present political system was an utter disgrace, and I felt like voting for the Brexit Party (who as it happens weren’t standing here). But I did say that if she still had a job after the election I would book another meeting to tackle the subject of Climate Change and Energy policies. I’ve touched on this during past meetings, but I feel the need is far more urgent now, thanks to the entire political establishment’s slavish devotion to a certain Autistic class-skipper…

  4. Joe Public permalink
    December 14, 2019 6:15 pm

    “2) We currently have 20 GW of offshore wind power either already operational or awarded CfDs”

    Ah, the expensive ones – at up to £170/MWh

    The ones the Greenies & the Beeb choose to ignore when they spout their false propaganda “Wind is cheapest source of generation”

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      December 14, 2019 11:11 pm

      Don’t forget those getting 1.9 or 2 ROCs/MWh – the latter worth over £100/MWh in subsidy. Not to mention the curtailment payments. Last Sunday, the APX marker price for CFDs was negative all night long, creating highly subsidised exports on the interconnectors to France and the Netherlands – subsidies on your bills. It means that Hornsea Wind Farm, with its £158.75 CFD, will be paid up to £225.80/MWh by the CFD settlement. Then we are waiting to see just how much curtailment is being paid for. REF are already showing £14.8m for December updated last on the 12th (probably a week in arrears in actual days accounted for as with other accounting data at BM Reposts, so still not including the 8th).

      We are already in the era of having too much wind when the wind blows at night.

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        December 15, 2019 12:26 am

        Correction: top CFD compensation for Hornsea (on top of whatever they actually sold power for) was £231.59/MWh in the 4:00-4:30 a.m. slot. CFD marker prices (Subtract from CFD level to calculate compensation paid) per half hour on 8th December:

        00:00 ….. -£56.64/MWh – – – – – 12:00 ….. -£20.19/MWh
        00:30 ….. -£45.98/MWh – – – – – 12:30 ….. £0.01/MWh
        01:00 ….. -£50.73/MWh – – – – – 13:00 ….. £24.23/MWh
        01:30 ….. -£55.23/MWh – – – – – 13:30 ….. £23.93/MWh
        02:00 ….. -£58.61/MWh – – – – – 14:00 ….. £24.17/MWh
        02:30 ….. -£59.28/MWh – – – – – 14:30 ….. £20.70/MWh
        03:00 ….. -£59.85/MWh – – – – – 15:00 ….. £43.57/MWh
        03:30 ….. -£69.97/MWh – – – – – 15:30 ….. £43.12/MWh
        04:00 ….. -£72.84/MWh – – – – – 16:00 ….. £45.20/MWh
        04:30 ….. -£72.51/MWh – – – – – 16:30 ….. £50.84/MWh
        05:00 ….. -£66.87/MWh – – – – – 17:00 ….. £57.06/MWh
        05:30 ….. -£67.05/MWh – – – – – 17:30 ….. £56.52/MWh
        06:00 ….. -£62.98/MWh – – – – – 18:00 ….. £55.12/MWh
        06:30 ….. -£60.29/MWh – – – – – 18:30 ….. £53.20/MWh
        07:00 ….. -£15.98/MWh – – – – – 19:00 ….. £47.14/MWh
        07:30 ….. -£40.10/MWh – – – – – 19:30 ….. £46.90/MWh
        08:00 ….. -£38.36/MWh – – – – – 20:00 ….. £42.17/MWh
        08:30 ….. -£13.50/MWh – – – – – 20:30 ….. £39.11/MWh
        09:00 ….. -£28.57/MWh – – – – – 21:00 ….. £40.69/MWh
        09:30 ….. -£28.43/MWh – – – – – 21:30 ….. £37.02/MWh
        10:00 ….. -£15.83/MWh – – – – – 22:00 ….. £42.29/MWh
        10:30 ….. -£13.59/MWh – – – – – 22:30 ….. £44.33/MWh
        11:00 ….. -£16.68/MWh – – – – – 23:00 ….. £38.25/MWh
        11:30 ….. -£22.20/MWh – – – – – 23:30 ….. £14.78/MWh

        System balancing prices fell as low as minus £88/MWh.

    • Steve permalink
      December 15, 2019 12:52 am

      Electricity prices will be shooting up before the next election and new housing with no gas heating will not be terribly popular with gas heating ten times the cost per kwh. My well insulated home still needs gas to be economical. The house builders will be lobbying hard when sales dry up.

  5. December 14, 2019 6:33 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate-

  6. Michael Adams permalink
    December 14, 2019 6:53 pm

    i was canvassing for the Conservatives during the election campaign and i can confirm that CC was not a big issue. That is not to say people were not concerned about it but there were more important issues this time. My view is that, when the people realise how inconvenient and expensive these measures will be set against what they are actually seeing, they will not be happy nor will they support them.

    • December 15, 2019 12:34 pm

      Great to hear that. I hope it holds up. Thx.

  7. keith permalink
    December 14, 2019 7:04 pm

    What I never see is any reference to the conversion of the thousands of miles of diesel rail track we have. That will take years and a lot of money to covert to electric and as our Government has a rotten track record of delivering and keeping within budget infrastructure projects, this is just another can that is being kicked down the road.
    As is being said by pragmatic people, net zero emissions is just fantasy and virtue signalling. Unfortunately the green idiots employed in Government Departments, are just pie in the sky fools, leading fool politicians into believing all this is a possible,
    As for May the idiot PM who put forward net zero emissions as part of her legacy after screwing up three years of Brexit negotiations, well it demonstrates what a totally incompetent idiotic PM she was.

    • December 14, 2019 8:50 pm

      Never mind electrification. For a supposedly civilised country the potholes today on the A1 and the A17 were alarming. Like flippin’ coal mines in the middle of the road.

      (if this appears 2x, apologies; I hit the wrong key and the first try disappeared half-way through.)

      • Chaswarnertoo permalink
        December 15, 2019 9:31 am

        Just as cheap to Tarmac over the tracks and run busses on them.

  8. Martin Howard Keith Brumby permalink
    December 14, 2019 7:09 pm

    Nothing will happen until a lot of people start to regularly shiver in the dark.
    I’m afraid the people who really NEED to shiver in the dark are those living within the M25 who will have the most extensive (and expensive) back up grid connections in place.

    I have seen absolutely no evidence that there is even a smidgeon of scepticism in the Tory Party (other than maybe Owen Paterson, Peter Lilley having stood down in 2017).

    It will be interesting to see if any of the new Tory MPs have a smidgeon of common sense.

    At least Graham Stringer survived. Probably the only Labour MP who has a clue.

  9. GeoffB permalink
    December 14, 2019 7:19 pm

    Boris has in the past admired Piers Corbyn……brother of Jeremy…who does not really support the climate change crap. I hope all the virtue signalling from the conservatives about zero carbon was just for votes, Maybe once brexit is fixed, Boris will repeal the climate change act and do a Trump. Pigs may fly.

    • Adam Gallon permalink
      December 15, 2019 10:32 am

      So, once Brexit is fixed, that’ll be another few decades then?

      • Phoenix44 permalink
        December 15, 2019 10:39 am

        Why? Exports are unimportant, imports easy to arrange by declaring unilateral free trade. There, fixed for you in a minute or so.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      December 16, 2019 10:13 am

      It depends on what you mean by ‘fixed’. We shall no longer be members of the EU by the end of January. Johnson is clear that he wants the transition period – moronically called the ‘implementation period’ by many – to end by the end of 2020. To do that all that will be agreed is a bare bones tariffs and quotas agreement, which the EU have indicated that they will do if that’s what the UK wants. This means that the agreement can be dealt with by the Commission without reference to the Parliament and without the need for any ratification by any national forums because it is not a trade deal.

      But come 2021 the problems will start to come in thick and fast as the UK loses membership of the Single Market. The government will be battling to get deals in place on a whole raft of areas as the UK economy starts a slow drift downwards – which may even start before then as the limitations of Johnson’s plan become clear.

      • Philip Foster (Rev.) permalink
        December 16, 2019 3:56 pm

        Always remember that our membership of the EU meant an average tariff on all exported goods to other EU countries was about 7.5%. Our membership fee was around £11 billion, our exports were about £140 billion per annum. The US exported into the EU at an average tariff of 5% without any ‘trade deal’. It was never worth our while joining. Like joining a golf club and just playing a couple of times a year. Far cheaper to ‘pay by the day’.

  10. john cooknell permalink
    December 14, 2019 7:35 pm

    Let us not forget what the BBC and Other Media Environmental Idiots said before the election. They were biased beyond belief, and I bet they cannot believe how wrong they were.

    Boris failed to turn up to debate climate emergency and was castigated by all, they represented him as melting ice, of course the ones that matter, the voters, didn’t seem to bothered.

    I am not sure about Boris, as it usually takes a clever man to play the fool, but is Boris really just a fool? we are just about to find out.

    I didn’t vote Labour because of Momentum, they do not represent ordinary people.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      December 14, 2019 7:44 pm

      465 lost Green deposits, oh well never mind.

      The definitely-not-the-climate election!

      • Stuart Brown permalink
        December 14, 2019 9:48 pm

        Really? Oh that’s made my day! Thank you.

      • Jongo permalink
        December 14, 2019 10:40 pm

        Amazing, but they still control the agenda everywhere. Tail wagging the dog due to overwhelming MSM support.

      • Chaswarnertoo permalink
        December 15, 2019 9:35 am

        £24 K . Whoops. Time to put the deposit up to £2k each.

  11. December 14, 2019 7:37 pm

    Reblogged this on Utopia, you are standing in it!.

  12. Ariane permalink
    December 14, 2019 7:40 pm

    GeoffB, yes, let us hope the CCAct is repealed. Otherwise we need a referendum to get it done.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      December 14, 2019 9:34 pm

      Ariane,,so right. The CCA and the net-zero ‘carbon’ (sic) target represents such a change in the democratic wish of the people of this country that a referendum is probably justified – except that, I wonder how many voters would be swayed by the ravings of a 16 year-old CC illiterate – many of whom have never heard of Mann, McIntyre or Homewood.

      • Ariane permalink
        December 15, 2019 10:43 am

        Harry Passfield, a petition to repeal the Climate Change Act 2008 is online.

      • Bertie permalink
        December 16, 2019 6:52 am

        Ariane, I had no joy trying to sign the petition as it was unable to connect to the site.. Unless I was on the wrong site

      • Ariane permalink
        December 17, 2019 7:21 pm

        Bertie, Harry and anybody who wants to sign the RepealClimate Act petition, this can be found at:

        on the website.

      • Bertie permalink
        December 21, 2019 9:28 am

        Unfortunately, I am still unable to click on the link on this site. “Error 403”.

      • Ariane permalink
        December 21, 2019 11:01 am

        Bertie,yes, I see what you mean. I will follow it up.

  13. Nick Dekker permalink
    December 14, 2019 7:52 pm

    Just what were the ‘ extreme Marxist policies put forward by the Labour Party. I agreed with most of their policy proposals and I am no Marxist

  14. Ken B permalink
    December 14, 2019 7:52 pm

    Lord Ashcroft surveyed over 13,000 people after voting on election day, and lays out his findings on the Conservative Home website. When asked about ‘the most important issues when it came to deciding how to vote in the GE’, amongst all voters climate change came bottom of the list at 16%. Amongst Labour voters it came bottom at 20%, LibDem voters it came third from bottom at 30%. Climate change did not even make the list amongst Conservative voters!

    • December 15, 2019 11:04 am

      Climate change always comes at or very near the bottom of such lists. Busy people have to live in the real world, with more immediate priorities.

  15. A man of no rank permalink
    December 14, 2019 7:56 pm

    Benny Peiser, from the GWPF is on it:
    “Boris Johnson and his MPs now have the mandate and the majority to reform climate and energy policy in such a way that it won’t undermine Britain’s international competitiveness, hurt businesses and burden households with rising costs.”
    A vote-winning opportunity for Boris to show a caring government face to those in the old Labour strongholds.

  16. December 14, 2019 7:57 pm

    I think you are right. Apart from some vague target setting and virtue signalling to try to attract green votes, there is very little of substance.

    Add in Boris’s notorious reputation as a bluffer (some would say liar), and I think it’s safe to say that we won’t be seeing any drastic climate action from this government for the next five years.

  17. Martin Howard Keith Brumby permalink
    December 14, 2019 8:26 pm

    Another thing Boris might do (but almost certainly won’t) is to cancel the stupid Climate Conference in Glasgow in 2020.

    • keith permalink
      December 14, 2019 9:15 pm

      The poison dwarf won’t let him do that, and he won’t object just to keep her horrible little mouth shut.

      • diogenese2 permalink
        December 14, 2019 11:17 pm

        Note that COP25 is about to break up in complete stalemate as the contradictions and core conflicts in the UNFCCC now dominate the game.
        If Boris is as devious as I believe he will grant the poison dwarf the privilege of presiding over COP26 but insist on only the use of Scottish Power.
        December in Glasgow, cold, windless and dark with power cuts, what not to like.

      • It doesn't add up... permalink
        December 15, 2019 12:01 am

        For a moment I thought you were referring to Gove!

      • George Lawson permalink
        December 15, 2019 6:35 pm

        For heavens sake keep Gove away from anything to do with the environment or climate change, he’s done too much damage already

  18. Pancho Plail permalink
    December 14, 2019 8:35 pm

    I feel relaxed about this. When temperatures start to drop the entire corrupt climate change scam will be reassessed and “new discoveries” will be made that show the climate emergency will be more about keeping warm than preventing global warming.

  19. Michael Adams permalink
    December 14, 2019 9:27 pm

    Interesting bit I found while looking at sea level changes in the Maldives. This is not about about the Maldives per se but refers to low lying islands in general. Apparently their shape and size is changing all the time, even their height. Who’d have thought.

    • Dr K.A. Rodgers permalink
      December 15, 2019 3:19 am

      “Who’d have thought.” Darwin did.

  20. Huw T permalink
    December 14, 2019 9:30 pm

    Now that Johnson is firmly in power I hope that this will provide a window of opportunity to start challenging the flawed science that “supports” all this climate panic. And challenge a media that constantly tells lies on this issue. Boris even said he might think about the abolition of the License Fee. We live in hope!

    • Adam Gallon permalink
      December 14, 2019 9:58 pm

      Not a chance.
      Where’s the money currently harvested from “Green” taxes going to come from?
      Who’s going to be paying the levies, to support the birdmincers?

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      December 15, 2019 12:02 am

      The big problem for Boris is being nagged by Carrie. Do not expect progress until she is gone.

  21. Jason permalink
    December 14, 2019 9:42 pm

    For the ludicrous words ‘climate emergency’ to even appear in a Conservative document is deeply depressing, as is all that follows.

  22. Stuart Brown permalink
    December 14, 2019 10:05 pm

    ‘[1]And you the people of this country voted to be carbon-neutral in this election – you voted to be carbon-neutral by 2050. And we’ll do it.
    [2]You also voted to be Corbyn-neutral by Christmas by the way, and we’ll do that too.’

    First bit, no never, if I hadn’t voted blue in a more or less safe seat just to be absolutely sure of remain-yellow not getting in (red stood no chance here), I would have spoilt my vote with no Brexit or UKIP candidate standing to vote for.
    Second bit – OK yup, that too, count me in, now please now deliver on Brexit.

    But yes Paul, I too thought the manifesto was a bit vague on AGW which is partly why I went with them in the end, and didn’t like that bit in his speech.

    • December 15, 2019 11:09 am

      carbon-neutral by 2050

      Johnson will have retired long before then, so just more blather.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        December 16, 2019 10:21 am

        I would not expect him to even last the 5 year parliament once it all starts to go wrong from 2021 onwards.

  23. B Dussan permalink
    December 14, 2019 10:35 pm

    And, what about overpopulation, perhaps the # 1 problem us humans are facing?

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      December 15, 2019 12:04 am

      Who is volunteering to solve that? What are their approaches?

      • B Dussan permalink
        December 15, 2019 4:48 pm

        That’s another problem: as far as I know, few people acknowledge that overpopulation is a problem, but I don’t know, or haven’t heard, of any approach….To me, religion by default opposes population control. Ironically, the consent from the religious moguls may be enough to setup “humane” app[roaches

    • Adam Gallon permalink
      December 15, 2019 10:35 am

      Not a problem. There are fewer people in poverty & famine than ever before.

      • B Dussan permalink
        December 15, 2019 5:03 pm

        Pollution is caused by us humans: the more of us the more pollution; likewise with the more non poor. Haven’t you heard of fresh water shortages and overcrowdings, and the gradual, but certain, depletion of our natural resources? How about the inexorable shrinkage of wildlife lands?

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      December 15, 2019 10:41 am

      People who complain about overpopulation never seem to think they are one of the “overs” do they?

      • B Dussan permalink
        December 15, 2019 4:53 pm

        That’s your opinion….

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        December 15, 2019 4:59 pm

        I’ve posted the figures so many times I don’t see any reason not to do it again, I suppose.

        Just because the south-east of England is overcrowded doesn’t mean the rest of the planet is. Wyoming has a population density of 6 per square mile. The entire population of the world could each have one-fifth of an acre in Australia (or the US, if you would prefer). The earth could support a population at least twice the projected maximum (UN’s own figures; if you don’t trust them, read Hans Rosling’s “Factfulness”). Probably more, given the increased crop yields from increased CO2 levels.

        Malthus and his disciples have never been right yet. There is no reason to suppose they are right now!

        Which is not to say that if you cram yourselves into cities like rats in a cage that you won’t start to behave like rats in a cage. But that’s a separate argument.

  24. December 14, 2019 11:22 pm

    When losing Momentum candidate in Rother Valley asked how to help flood victims, she replied “first we must address climate change”.

  25. December 14, 2019 11:28 pm

    Committee on Climate Change chief issues warning for next government

    • Ariane permalink
      December 15, 2019 11:05 am

      Stewgreen, congrats for finding the recent Climate Change Committee link warning the new government (even before MPs have taken their seats) about the zero carbon legislation. Legislation being the operative word. The CCC is just like the EU: dictating what we have to do (aided by Remainers like Theresa May and her Parliament who passed the Zero Carbon law without a word of critical examination.) The CCC is exactly like a dictator – unelected and unaccountable, and each member earns very well too. High time it is closed down. Its closure should be a demand made by all citizens who have a Conservative MP. Then MPs would listen.

    • December 16, 2019 12:09 am

      Thanks for your digging Stew – never heard of “edie” before, from the web blurb –
      “edie is an industry-leading, purpose-driven business media brand that empowers sustainability, energy and environmental professionals of all levels to make business more sustainable through award-winning* content and events.

      The edie network includes the flagship edie website which powers our content; a portfolio of content-led sustainability and energy events which brings that content to life; the UK’s biggest sustainability and energy exhibition, Net-Zero Live; the high-level Sustainability Leaders Forum and inspirational Sustainability Leaders Awards; and three dedicated communities of sustainability, energy and future business leaders.

      Our purpose
      Named after a charismatic and devoted tea lady who worked for our publisher – Faversham House – edie was founded on an idea to make a positive difference among our audience through quality, informative journalism and inspirational, engaging events. Now, more than 20 years later, we still deliver on that idea every day.”

      anybody who thinks we can kill this money spinner anytime some should despair 😦

  26. December 14, 2019 11:31 pm

    Which Climate nutters have gone ?
    Mary Creagh
    \\ Labour shadow environment team and EAC Chair Mary Creagh all gone.*
    Who will be speaking for @UKLabour on climate and nature crisis //
    \\ Sue Hayman, David Drew and Sandy Martin gone. Strange days. //
    + Zac Goldsmith
    + Sarah Wollaston

    * actually not all, LukePollard won in Plymouth

  27. Jason permalink
    December 14, 2019 11:32 pm

    Overpopulation is another globalist myth! Everyone alive on earth could fit in Devon.

    • December 15, 2019 6:31 am

      I don’t know how big Devon is, but according to one source I read, if you compress all human biomass into a cube you could walk around it in under an hour. (I checked the math, and got a slightly larger volume than my source, but that didn’t change the time to walk around it enough to go over an hour.)

      • dave permalink
        December 15, 2019 10:02 am

        All squashed together. Gosh! Think of the B.O.!

        Actually, from a “science-fiction” point of view, the only physical limit to the growth and continuous stacking of human beings in automated “hive-cities”
        is the impossibility of dissipating enough heat.

      • Russ Wood permalink
        December 15, 2019 4:35 pm

        Ever read John Brunner’s “Stand on Zanzibar”?

      • December 15, 2019 7:50 pm

        @ Dave

        Ever hear of Derinkuyu. Instead of going up in skyscrapers, some ancients went deep underground. Somehow they managed to dissipate their heat.

        @ Russ Wood

        Never heard of it. Looked it up. Seems a bit too dark for my taste. I saw a review of it. I’ll have to read that later. Thx.

        We’ve survived some pretty bad stuff, which may have been what Derinkuyu was built for in the first place. We could, in theory do it again, but not if we get depressed and/or paranoid about it.

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      December 15, 2019 9:37 am

      Unable to feed the population from the land = overpopulated. See England.

      • Adam Gallon permalink
        December 15, 2019 10:38 am

        That’s why we’ve imported food & have done since the 1700s. Not overpopulated at all.

      • Phoenix44 permalink
        December 15, 2019 10:44 am

        Rubbish. Why would you (i) look only at the land (ever heard of fish?), (ii) restrict the area to only contiguous land in an arbitrary political geography, (iii) ignore the different climates around the world that lead to production of different food sources.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      December 15, 2019 5:17 pm

      Bit crowded! See my post above (if it appears). Each living person could have one-fifth of an acre in Australia and there would still be a bit of space left plus all the rest of the world. Last I saw, Wimpey’s “ticky-tacky boxes” standard was 12 to the acre which for the average family would work out at about one-fortieth of an acre each.

      It puts the size of the planet vs population in some sort of perspective. We really cannot properly comprehend the size of the planet we live on sometimes and get over-awed by big numbers.

      • B Dussan permalink
        December 21, 2019 5:05 am

        M J: do you mean that the present world population can reside in Australia (with nearly 35% desert area)? Keep in mind that us humans like to enjoy some extra roaming room, sufficient food, potable water and a variety of goods, and still keep a relatively clean and healthy environment, which we do not have at the present time. Have you read “When the Rivers Run Dry, Water-The Defining Crisis of The Twenty-First Century” by F. Pearce?

  28. December 14, 2019 11:40 pm

    BBC constantly pushed Climate-vote agenda on Facebook

    How is climate change influencing voters… – BBC Radio 5 live … › posts
    4 hours ago – How is climate change influencing voters and politicians around the world? … Radio 5 live Sport. News & Media Website. BBC Politics. Media/News Company.

    BBC Radio 4 – Could voters’ concerns about global warming … › BBCRadio4 › videos › could-voters-concerns…
    23 hours ago – How is climate change influencing voters and politicians around the world? 🌡️ (Via BBC World Service)

    The video is actually branded with both the BBC logo and a Reuters logo

    – BBC West ..and BBC World Service also have FB posts with this video

  29. December 14, 2019 11:44 pm

    I heard this Boris clip on the radio last Wednesday
    “I do push back against Trump
    I’ve done it on Climate
    .waffle waffle … 2050 carbon neutral …”

  30. It doesn't add up... permalink
    December 15, 2019 12:15 am

    Meanwhile in Madrid….

    Green activists dumped horse manure and staged a mock hanging outside the venue of a U.N. climate summit in Madrid on Saturday, airing their frustration at the failure of world leaders to take meaningful action against global warming.

    Perhaps we can all agree that’s it’s a pile of manure?

    Talks failure beckons.

    • December 16, 2019 12:41 am

      liked the plea for more money/bandwagon jumping on the children from –
      “At a time when scientists are queuing up to warn about terrifying consequences if emissions keep rising, and school children are taking to the streets in their millions, what we have here in Madrid is a betrayal of people across the world,” said Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, a climate and energy think-tank in Nairobi”

      wonder how much money they get from ?

  31. tom0mason permalink
    December 15, 2019 5:20 am

    No doubt the UK will still be giving £2billion per year to the climate funds …
    Ron Clutz does and excellent piece on where most of the climate money goes, based on Bjorn Lomborg report —

    I wonder what that $589.1 million per year of ‘Anonymized’ of funding goes to? MSM maybe? the BBC maybe?

  32. Mike Skuse permalink
    December 15, 2019 8:26 am

    I voted for Boris only because I am sure he leans towards Trumpist scepticism…and he certainly doesn’t like the little brat.

  33. December 15, 2019 8:49 am

    I think Sir Humphrey Appleby could have sorted all of this out with his hands tied behind his back if he had been real. However I’m sure Whitehall can still set up committees and think tanks and feasability studies in the time honoured way to deal with the “Climate Commitments” and put an end to the Carbon problem by 2050, by boring the hide off the public for years on end.

  34. Stonyground permalink
    December 15, 2019 11:26 am

    “However, I think what we can say is that climate change has had very little effect at all in the way people voted.”

    It effected the way I voted. Any election leaflet that mentioned “Tackling climate change” went straight in the bin. This meant that there was nobody to vote for so I spoiled the ballot paper.

    • SirClive permalink
      December 15, 2019 1:29 pm


  35. December 15, 2019 1:46 pm

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:

    “We will set up new international partnerships to tackle deforestation and protect vital landscapes and wildlife corridors. We will establish a new £500 million Blue Planet Fund to help protect our oceans from plastic pollution, warming sea temperatures and overfishing, and extend the Blue Belt programme to preserve the maritime environment. We will continue to lead diplomatic efforts to protect 30 per cent of the world’s oceans by 2030.”

    Much of that isn’t bad, per say, and likely has wide public support except for the” warming sea temperatures” which is pointless posturing as we cannot control the variables like the sun or multi decadal/centinial/millennial ocean oscillations, the other dubious part is plastics – unless we accept that 90% of plastic pollution is from 10 rivers:

    “Two of them are in Africa – the Nile and the Niger – while the others are in Asia: the Indus, Ganges, Amur, Mekong, Pearl, Hai he, Yellow and Yangtze”. ===

    Let them develop maybe? As Climate Scientist Kerry Emmanuel said:

    “You’ve got to come up with some kind of middle ground where you do reasonable things to mitigate the risk and try at the same time to lift people out of poverty and make them more resilient,” said Emanuel. “We shouldn’t be forced to choose between lifting people out of poverty and doing something for the climate”.

    Although light on detail, I doubt the newly elected govt. have tackling that in mind. One can only hope that they do look after the environment but ignore the #greencrap. Paul sums it up rather well:

    So far, the government has chosen to kick the can down the road, leaving future governments to take the flak. This new Tory manifesto continues this strategy, pretending that new technology will solve all of our problems eventually.

  36. Mike Skuse permalink
    December 15, 2019 1:49 pm

    I really liked the comment somewhere above that Boris should allow the Glasgow COP subject to using only renewable electricity produced in Scotland, and installing the Greater Funberger as President 🤡

  37. rah permalink
    December 15, 2019 4:29 pm

    Any way it goes , it sure looks like you guys are in for some significant changes. The way this Yank sees it the first step in ending this climate change madness is for a successful Brexit, Trump has already warned in the EU that if they try to hammer Britain for exiting there will be reciprocity from the US and I would take him at his word. Once USMCA passes the stakes for the EU in trying to hammer down your exit with terrible terms becomes even higher. I just hope BJ is up to cutting the knot enough to end ALL say by the EU over the internal affairs of your country.


  38. dennisambler permalink
    December 15, 2019 4:57 pm

    Although people like Deben have been at this a long time, Kyoto and beyond, Cameron started the Conservative “Quality of Life” silliness, led by Deben and Zac Goldsmith. Oliver Letwin is another one who has always been behind the scenes pushing “green” policies.

    “The Withdrawal Bill will face challenges as it moves through Parliament. Hundreds of Amendments have been tabled, dealing with a very wide range of issues. Many of those amendments relate to the environment. We have been working closely with colleagues such as Richard Benyon, Theresa Villiers, Kemi Badenoch and others – as well as the leading environmental campaign organisations that crafted those amendments.”

    Says it all…
    “David Cameron has been building on solid foundations in making the environment a Tory cause.”

    It amuses me when they describe the Climate Change Committee as “Independent”. Who appointed Deben? Cameron did. Why is he still there? Because they want him there. Who appoints the members? The government does. So much vested interest, when the members occupations depend on the very policies which they recommend.

    They also have Paul Johnson from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, a body which is revered in the media. He is an ex-civil servant from the Treasury. He pointed out the massive spending of the Labour and Tory manifestos, but signs his name to the CCC reports which have unbelievable spending implications.

    Until a few brave souls stick their heads above the parapet and chance execution by Twitter, by challenging the core assumptions of the whole fantasy, we will continue to have the auctions of promises on who can throw away the most money and achieve the least impact in the shortest possible time. Green Funding needs to end, until it does the “bright ideas” will keep coming.

    I notice that Goldsmith lost his seat to the Lib-Dems, Claire Perry stood down as an MP before the election, and Mary Creagh, Labour long time chairwoman of the Climate Audit Committee, also lost her seat. Lucas will still be in there and no doubt they will find some suitably woke replacements for the others.

    • Steve permalink
      December 16, 2019 9:57 am

      The CCC has a chairman who is an arts graduate and a CEO who appears to have no technical engineering qualifications and came from HMRC and the Treasury. The former has interests in Big Green industry and the latter is paid £300k+ and was in charge of the Scottish energy department which decided to develop wind generation to the point where it is already in excess of consumption and is sold to England to go on bills and requires cheap gas backup from English generation. He is now proposing the same for the whole UK.
      On the other hand, the late and highly qualified Prof MacKay made clear that wind would not be feasible because of the impossibility of long term storage in mid winter and he said that we should build more nuclear and run them all the time. If we used the same successful designs that are being built in other countries and, like the Finns, used Rolls Royce controls, with competitive tenders on existing sites, the cost would be below that of wind and imported gas. But the Greens do not accept nuclear and gas conversion with carbon capture is bound to be very costly. The CCC is happy to reduce nuclear to Hinckley and what is left of Sizewell.
      The Tory manifesto also uses the language of the CCC about clusters of industry with carbon capture. What on earth are they proposing – moving the heavy industrial factories to an industrial part near the empty North Sea gas and oilfields?
      No one seems to have costed anything in detail. Hopefully, Paul and the GWPF will be taking a look at the greencrap economics soon before the ignorant PM and his helpers waste any more taxpayers scarce resources.

      • Ariane permalink
        December 17, 2019 7:29 pm

        Steve, the Greens won’t agree to anything that solves problems. Re moving industry, the Greens/UNEP actually STARTED the anti-CO2 movement because they wanted to close down industries – not move them. Until our parliamentarians get their heads around this historical fact, they ()wherever they are on the political spectrum) will continue to tie themselves and us in knots trying to reduce CO2 AND our energy will continue to become more costly.

  39. Gerry, England permalink
    December 16, 2019 10:29 am

    It is important to bear in mind that what we have now is not a conservative government but a Blue Labour government that will continue to be a follow on from New Labour under that cretin Blair. Only the BBC and the Guardian would consider this to be a ‘right wing’ government. The only right wing policy they will follow is the age old Tory fantasy of ‘Fwee Twade’ as they have no understanding of how this has been left behind in the 18th century nor any understanding of how global trade actually works. They don’t even know how are relationship with the Single Market works!

  40. avro607 permalink
    December 17, 2019 1:06 am

    I intend to join the Lincoln Conservative party.At the next meeting I will try and talk to people there,and point them to websites like this,so as to hopefully inform them of all aspects of the green scam that is sucking our nation dry.
    Local councils also need to be given some information about the green agenda that is costing the poor,old and cold,money that they cannot afford.
    I would say with respect to all of you,that perhaps this could be done nationwide.
    Go to your local party meetings,talk to people,write/e.mail councillors,and somehow get the message spread that the green insanity has to cease.
    Lets create a snowball of truth and commonsense that will roll all the way into the laps of our MPs.
    Iam not computer literate so perhaps someone can think of a way that we can communicate,and consolidate our efforts.Thankyou.
    It is late,so off to bed.

  41. M E permalink
    December 17, 2019 3:43 am

    Impossible to do that in New Zealand . They tended to feature Carbon in their communications before the recent local body elections and delete any emails to their personal sites which put any other point of view.
    I put their backs up by asking them to define Carbon .I suppose.
    They know what they mean and see no reason to elucidate what must be obvious to the meanest intellect.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: