Skip to content

Who Wrote The Climate Assembly Report?

November 15, 2020

By Paul Homewood

The new survey on the Climate Assembly’s recommendations reminded me to take another look at their report, which was published in September:

 The Path to Net Zero Climate Assembly UK full report

https://www.climateassembly.uk/report/

First thing we need to remind ourselves is that the Assembly was originally set up by the six Select Committees of the House of Commons. Government was never actually involved in it, and it is Parliament which is responsible for this new survey., not government, as some people wrongly believe.

The purpose of their creation was quite clear, to put pressure on government to take action, as the Climate Assembly’s own website makes clear:

In a statement opening the report, Assembly members said that it is “imperative that there is strong and clear leadership from Government” that should “forge a cross-party consensus that allows for certainty, long-term planning and a phased transition” and stress that “now is not the time for scoring party political points.” One assembly member commented: “It is the ambition of every government to remain in power. This ambition has, in the past, limited government’s appetite to take bold and decisive action on policies which might prove too hard or unpopular with the electorate. This can no longer be the case.”

“This is an extremely important contribution to the debate on how the UK reaches our net zero target and I hope it gives impetus to policy makers to take bold action to reduce our emissions. The range of voices within these pages reflect our population. The fact that assembly members have been able to arrive at clear recommendations whilst respecting each others’ values and experiences sets an example for us all. Participants speak of their learning, how they clarified their views and their respect for each other’s perspectives, even when they didn’t agree. Their voices are front and centre, just as they should be. “It is vital that Parliament and Government examine and use the recommendations which the Assembly sets out today. Assembly members agree that the task of reaching net zero is a responsibility shared by all generations and we thank them for doing just that, giving up their time to listen, understand, debate and propose solutions which are underpinned by a desire to be fair to everyone in our society, and to retain freedom and choice for individuals and local areas wherever possible.”

Welcoming the publication of the report, Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee, Darren Jones MP

In response to calls for strong government leadership and cross-party cooperation, the Chairs of the six commissioning Select Committees have written a letter to the Prime Minister, urging him to ensure that the Government acts on the recommendations of Climate Assembly UK by “showing leadership at the very highest level of government” ahead of the UK hosting COP26 in November 2021.

https://www.climateassembly.uk/news/uk-path-net-zero-must-be-underpinned-education-choice-fairness-and-political-consensus-urges-climate-assembly/

The first thing that struck me though was the length of the report, all of 556 pages. There is simply no way that a bunch of 108 nobodies would have managed to write the introduction, never mind a long report such as this one.

So who did write it then? Step forward the “Expert Leads”!

 

image

https://www.climateassembly.uk/report/read/#preface

 

We know all about Chris Stark, the global warming zealot who runs Gummer’s CCC.

Jim Watson, currently  Professor of Energy Policy and Research Director at the UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources, is no better, with over twenty years working in climate change related areas.

Neither will you get any objective or independent contributions form Lorraine Whitmarsh. Not only is she an Affiliate Member of the Tyndall Centre, she is also an environmental psychologist, specialising in perceptions and behaviour in relation to climate change, energy and transport at the University of Bath.

Finally we have Rebecca Willis. You only need to read her resumee to realise how biased her views will be:

Rebecca Willis is a researcher with twenty years’ experience in environment and sustainability policy and practice, at international, national and local level. She is a Professor in Practice at Lancaster Environment Centre, and an Expert Lead for Climate Assembly UK, the national Citizens’ Assembly commissioned by Parliament. In 2009 Rebecca founded Green Alliance’s Climate Leadership Programme, an initiative to support Members of the UK Parliament, and still supports Green Alliance’s work in this area.

https://www.rebeccawillis.co.uk/

 

Plainly this Gang of Four knew exactly what their report would say before they even wrote it. The views of the Assembly members were irrelevant, and all they were allowed was a vote on the extent to which they agreed with what the experts told them they had to say, assisted of course with a nudge and a wink, along with a bit of arm twisting where necessary.

A glance at the section, “In The Home”, shows how this all worked:

 

 image

Much of it is, of course, management speak mumbo jumbo – the need for information, energy market rules and so on.

But the central points were:

  • Ban on gas boilers, and replacement with heat pumps, hydrogen and district heating.
  • Retrofit insulation.

At no stage in the report is there any indication that the potential costs of these choices was discussed, although evidently some members did suggest that cost would be a problem.

To get around this, most members voted that government should foot the bill.

It is worth noting, by the way, that this particular topic was only discussed by a 35-member subset of the full 108 Assembly members.

The whole report covered many other topics of course, such as renewable energy, cars, air travel and so on. No doubt the very pertinent matters of cost and practicability were ignored in those as well.

Which makes it all the more astonishing that this new survey only allows us to give our opinions on meat eating and buying less goods. Evidently the public are not allowed to have a view on gas boilers, electric cars and flight taxes.

Naturally the results from both this Chapter and the report as a whole were exactly what the “Experts” wanted, and can now be used to bludgeon the government.

It will, of course, be government which will get the blame when the public get the bill, and not the CCC, the Select Committees, or the assorted gangs of green fanatics. Which evidently what their plan was all along.

69 Comments
  1. Chaswarnertoo permalink
    November 15, 2020 12:21 pm

    More insanity from the watermelons. See Notricks zone list of papers disproving the greenhouse effect.

  2. ianprsy permalink
    November 15, 2020 12:40 pm

    And of course, they start with “how” when the first question should have been “why”. A classic case of policy-based research.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      November 15, 2020 1:05 pm

      Ian: Good point. In my project management days I was taught to always ask, ‘Why’ – to the seventh! It was the best advice I ever got.

      • Broadlands permalink
        November 15, 2020 1:21 pm

        Harry… Another piece of good advice. When “they” say or tell us something, find out who “they” actually is. Especially important in this case?

  3. Vrager 1 permalink
    November 15, 2020 12:41 pm

    Just wait when the electricity – supposedly green” runs out because we aren’t using fossil fuels… if we have electric transport and heating the supply/output already precarious, will have to increase by 50%. These numpties (experts and lawmakers) will be collecting their pensions and won’t be the ones in the cold and dark as they’re rich enough to afford batteries, solar panels and a windmill on their estates.

    • Hivemind permalink
      November 15, 2020 9:33 pm

      Don’t be silly. They’ll be using diesel generators. They still work in the dark.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      November 16, 2020 9:14 am

      The simple truth is that for every one new installed renewable capacity we need 0.6 new installed fossil fuel capacity. But of course I can guarantee that in our brave new world, those forcing blackouts upon us will be nit suffer from them.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      November 16, 2020 9:46 am

      Our saviour – the French nuclear power plants – is already starting to disappear as they have been forced to fire up their coal plants and import expensive power from Germany during the wind lull having closed just one perfectly good plant. And the French taxpayer is having to compensate EDF for the government’s stupidity.

  4. Barbara permalink
    November 15, 2020 12:45 pm

    In Dorset our Council’s strategy consists of constantly reminding central government – you set the targets – this is what we propose to do, though we don’t really know what all this will cost – but just give us the money anyway.

    Click to access climate-and-ecololgical-emergency-strategy.pdf

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      November 15, 2020 12:58 pm

      Barbara, in the DT last week they were reporting that a majority of County Councils were on the brink of bankruptcy as a result of covid and would need to look at their finances and costs in order to keep services going. I wrote (not published) that perhaps the first place they could make cuts was to remove all the Climate Change departments they have set up, along with all their trappings. Must be worth a few bob.

      • Barbara permalink
        November 15, 2020 1:36 pm

        Harry, why am I not surprised your letter remains unpublished?

    • Broadlands permalink
      November 15, 2020 2:03 pm

      Barbara… I downloaded the full report and it is clear that they are also among those who do not understand what NET-zero means. They define carbon sequestration in the glossary…but that’s it.

      “Reaching net zero emissions requires an annual reduction of emissions that is 50% higher than under the UK’s previous 2050 target and 30% higher than achieved on average since 1990. This is an indication of how substantial the step up in action must be to cut emissions in every sector.”

      Cutting emissions is a ZERO goal. NET-ZERO means a negative emissions goal. A huge difference. CO2 already in the atmosphere must be captured and stored, not just left in the ground. The amounts required to affect the Earth’s climate are huge.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        November 15, 2020 4:29 pm

        Broadlands: Love to read your analyses, but I would love even more to read the platitudinous response you would get from this Council if you were to explain the actualities of NetZeroC to these thick-heads. Please post if you do.

  5. Pancho Plail permalink
    November 15, 2020 12:51 pm

    I must have missed the debate they are talking about. The decision that there is a problem and we are to blame seems already to have been made.

  6. Harry Passfield permalink
    November 15, 2020 12:52 pm

    Para 3 was a scream: ‘Tailored solutions’ for homes – but prescribed solutions, it turns out. Yet on the very next line: ‘Increased choice’!!
    How I wish these stupid, stupid people would just p*ss off somewhere remote and work on their theories without dragging the whole country down to their pathetic levels. If they ever get to inflict their views on this country, it will be finished. Thank God I shall be finished before then.
    If you want to have a gob-smacking face-palm moment, over at WUWT there is a post about the planned HUGE solar/wind park in the NW Australian desert which will be used to create ‘green hydrogen’. A poster pointed out that in order to keep the nearly 80 sq km of solar panels clean of desert dust they would need to import approx 2,000,000 gallons of water A DAY with which to clean them!! I bet the Climate Assembly members would never think of that.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      November 16, 2020 1:10 pm

      And the real killer on top of the already impossible amount of water is that it would have to be purified otherwise it will leave a film of dried minerals on the panels. You may be able to use osmosis for this on a large scale otherwise it needs distilling.

  7. Broadlands permalink
    November 15, 2020 12:52 pm

    What continues to be so astonishing is that none of these “experts” seems to understand clearly what NET-zero actually means…qualitatively or quantitatively.

    Noun: net zero:

    “A target of completely negating the amount of greenhouse gases produced by human activity, to be achieved by reducing emissions and implementing methods of absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”

    There is no viable realistic achievable path to Net-zero without “absorbing” and permanently storing massive amounts of CO2 geologically and liquified under pressure. A risky proposition at best.

    Redefining the term to include the various goals and choices in these types of reports is sleight-of-hand policy. Irresponsible and very costly leadership.

    Someone needs to educate a few experts about their various plans and their path to Net-zero.

  8. MrGrimNasty permalink
    November 15, 2020 12:58 pm

    We elected Boris and got an extreme Green/Liberal in No.10.

    No doubt everything bad that is coming down the line, economics wise, will be the fault of Brexit, not crazy covid and green policies.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8925509/Boris-green-lights-Carries-environmental-funds-despite-Chancellors-concern.html

    • Gerry, England permalink
      November 16, 2020 1:20 pm

      No, we didn’t elect Boris. The office of Prime Minister is not subject to election which is a flaw in our system. Still, Boris will be gone come summer either because it is all too much for him and he can’t be bothered, or the Tories realise what a liability he is as Transend brings such chaos and damage to the economy, and who knows what will happen in N Ireland.

  9. November 15, 2020 1:07 pm

    From long experience I would say that a group of 108 nobodies can never form consensus opinions. Once one gets above a dozen participants deep discussions of expert opinions are not possible. So when you have a 108 disparate views one has a babble not a discussion. With 12 or 108 the real power is the person writing up the flip charts – in this case it will be the Gang of Four who had decided the “proper” result before the useful idiots entered the room. For the conspirators to dress this up a legitimate document is amoral, but, neo ideologs any thing goes a la Gobbles.

    The report is not even as useful as bog roll.

    • James Neill permalink
      November 15, 2020 3:13 pm

      If it was a bog roll it would feel rather rough, again not useful!

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        November 15, 2020 4:32 pm

        Thinking of the hypocrites who are behind it I figure it would be double-sided.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        November 16, 2020 1:21 pm

        As somebody said of the Guardian – there is already crap on both sides.

  10. JimW permalink
    November 15, 2020 1:17 pm

    Well now the UK has got Princess nut nuts and Allegra running the show, its all systems go for a wonderful green future.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      November 15, 2020 1:56 pm

      Jim, I found these letters lurking in the void beneath your comment: N O T
      🙂

  11. November 15, 2020 1:59 pm

    We talk a lot about the madness of these people but i don’t hear many proposals on how to stop them! If we want to stop this madness we have to coordinate and join in battle foe the minds of the uk population. If the government has to foot the bill for any of this rubbish it means the taxpayer will get the bill. come on everyone we need to stop this rubbish.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      November 15, 2020 4:55 pm

      Taylor. How many ‘climate assembly members’ were there? According to Wiki there were 110, of which 108 actually attended the presentations (many fewer actually cobbled together the fake report). If you take into account the number of sceptic blogs and their contributors we are in the majority. That said, we need an aggregated blog presentation that would include the best of the commentariat her and in other blogs presented as an opposition to the CCC shills. Maybe get someone like Monckton, Lawson and Stringer (off the top of my head) to present this to Parliament (the whole point of parliament – a place for people to talk! – is, surely, that there should be an opposition. With Green policies, opposition is not allowed. That is totalitarianism.) We need a concerted opposition. I can list, off the top of my head many blogs that could qualify.

      • Mad Mike permalink
        November 15, 2020 6:01 pm

        Talking of Monkton, some time back he and that German girl, forgotten her name, produced a video which they said was the first of a series debunking CC. What has happened to this series? Anybody know?

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        November 15, 2020 9:00 pm

        Owen Paterson might be another possibility. I’m not sure where he stands on climate as such but he was certainly opposed to a lot of the eco-rubbish that the EA was practising a few years ago.

        Peter Lilley, now in the HoL, was one of the few who voted against the Climate Change Bill. I’m sure that with a bit of effort these people could put together a good enough presentation to convince a few in places where it matters.

        What is needed is a push-back against the likes of the “four horsemen” that have produced this report. We need some honesty about the financial implications of what is being planned and from that can come the argument that on any cost/benefit analysis it makes no sense.

        And this reanalysis of MSLB15 (the ‘M’ is Monckton) should provide ammunition properly used. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/14/the-paper-that-blew-it-up/

        There is plenty of stuff around. What is lacking is a “critical mass” of believers to pull it together into a convincing presentation. Once the activists are forced into debate — and they can be if we can find the right goad — then some honesty is bound to surface and that really is all we are entitled to expect.

    • November 15, 2020 5:40 pm

      One of the most sensible comments I’ve read in a long time.

  12. Crowcatcher permalink
    November 15, 2020 2:26 pm

    Yo can bet your life that they are all extremely well paid and have “carbon footprints” the size of a herd of elephants – hypocrites all!!!!!!!!

  13. November 15, 2020 2:54 pm

    The 4 people who constructed this #GreenDogma cart
    have put out the bogus survey to be used for PR purposes

    The questions with 4 built in premises are used to drive the HORSES of public opinion
    instead of truly asking openly what the public desire,
    and letting that drive government policy and spending

    • saighdear permalink
      November 16, 2020 12:36 pm

      Indeed and I just have to add: the leader of the horses is that Filly in No.10

  14. Vernon E permalink
    November 15, 2020 3:34 pm

    The events of the last week in Number 10 are a glimpse into the fight for the soul of the Tory Party in the UK – hence for who will govern us from now until and after the next general election. The announcement that Biden had won super-charged the unification of the liberal elite caucasus and at the heart of it is exactly what Paul has put front and centre viz are we ready for our lives to be impoverished to satisfy some fatuous ideology that the planet is being destroyed by traces of the most most benign component of the atamosphere. But sorry, folks, we have lost. The only glimmer of hope is Farage’s resurgence but that isn’t going to save us – it will merely give us a Labour government under Starmer and more of the same. I quit.

  15. keith permalink
    November 15, 2020 4:20 pm

    I don’t think any of the this stupidly will stop until things start crashing down around their ears. The green idiots and those in Government do not listen to anybody and never learn from theirs or others mistakes. In a few years transport will collapse when there is insufficient power and charging facilities for all the electric transport, if Government thinks they can make millions of home owners spend a fortune on new heating system, something very nasty will happen. Cost isn’t an issue to the idiot Boris, he ignores that as a problem.

    • Penda100 permalink
      November 15, 2020 5:08 pm

      When transport stops, with just in time resupply to shops, food will also become unavailable. Hungry people are definitely unhappy.

  16. November 15, 2020 4:43 pm

    I received an e-mail from The Petitions team, UK Government and Parliament telling me about the survey. The petition I signed was “Hold a referendum to scrap the UK’s policy of Net Zero CO2 by 2050”.

    But there is no official option to state the case for scrapping net zero in the survey as the whole point of the assembly is to suggest ways of working towards net zero. From the e-mail I received: “MPs from six select committees of the House of Commons joined together to set up a citizens’ assembly on climate change to look at how the UK should reach its commitment to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. “.

    I did query the net zero goal in my responses, however.

    The petitions team don’t seem to have realised the whole point of the petition that I signed.

  17. Peter permalink
    November 15, 2020 4:51 pm

    It makes my blood boil to read the nonsense written by the politicians and their fanatical advisors. We, the voters and taxpayers, are in a difficult place. There is currently no common sense party that we can support. All the parties think that saving the planet is a vote winner.

    The science on which all of this is based is flawed. The models cannot handle cloud cover and the resulting uncertainty swamps any CO2 warming signal. The models have no valid predictive capability and are thefore literally useless. This does not stop the modelers from generating alarmist warming projections that far exceed any subsequent obsevations.

    The equilibrium climate sensitivity is the temperature increase expected from doubling atmospheric CO2. Derived from the useless models, the range is now a ludicrous 1-10 degrees Celsius. This is the so called settled science on which the entire scam is based.

    At a time when Happer and Wijndgaarden claim that the absorption bands of greenhouse gases are saturated it is arguable that climate change is indeed becoming a scam. Extracting taxpayers’ money under false pretences is moving closer to being a provable offence.

  18. Jeremy permalink
    November 15, 2020 5:04 pm

    Where I’m from, this is called self-serving propaganda.
    Pity it’s being paid for by the public (with the consent of silence).

  19. Jackington permalink
    November 15, 2020 5:11 pm

    We ain’t seen nothing yet; I read that President-elect Biden is threatening to take the US down the net zero carbon path ASAP. That’s when the fertilizer really hits the fan.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      November 15, 2020 5:28 pm

      Let’s just leave the ‘President Elect’ bit out until the Electoral College reports on Dec 14th.

    • November 15, 2020 5:45 pm

      Biden is not yet “president elect,” and won’t be unless all the safeguards our founding fathers installed are broken.

      • Mack permalink
        November 15, 2020 6:08 pm

        And, even if Biden is confirmed as president, there are an awful lot of skeptics over there who happen to be armed to the teeth and whose livelihoods depend on fossil fuels. Could be very messy.

      • Mad Mike permalink
        November 15, 2020 6:10 pm

        I know nothing of computer programming so most of this went over my head on a technical level but this guy guides you through the video very well. Its about an hour long so if you want to skip to the nub of it go to minute 34 or there about.

        Anybody care to comment?

      • November 15, 2020 10:55 pm

        @Mack

        Could be, but I hope it doesn’t come to that.

        @Mad Mike

        Is it just me, or is there no link for anyone else? I just see the rainbow google symbol

      • November 15, 2020 10:57 pm

        @Mad Mike

        Oops, There it is now. I guess it took time to load.

      • November 16, 2020 2:00 am

        @Mad Mike,

        Sounds legit to me. Not looking honest for Democrats.
        https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/wikileaks-soros-linked-voting-machines-now-used-battleground-states-used-rig-2004-venezuela-elections/

        If it involves Democrats, you can be sure it involves something crooked.

      • Adam Gallon permalink
        November 16, 2020 8:26 am

        Your safeguards gave the options of Trump & Clinton, then Trump & Biden. As safeguards go, they’re up their with chocolate fireguards.

  20. November 15, 2020 5:16 pm

    The domestic heat pump heating has a number of problems, cost, not enough electricity to go round, noise from all the equipment, lifecycle replacement cost, how do you stop people using it for cooling.

    I thought we had a citizens assembly called parliament, and every five years we vote for which member of the assembly we would like to represent us!

    • November 15, 2020 5:34 pm

      Just like the US, most may not represent their constituents, but they do a great job of representing themselves.

  21. November 15, 2020 5:32 pm

    Sorry, but it’s not Shakespeare. They’ll have to toss it and tell those monkeys to keep typing.

  22. HuwT permalink
    November 15, 2020 6:07 pm

    How do we stop this green insanity before it’s too late ? The green zealots dominate all the major political parties, they control the BBC and now they are in Downing Street. It’s disturbing how no one asks ordinary people about the coming of the green tyranny. I feel utter despair at this situation.

  23. Robert Christopher permalink
    November 15, 2020 7:32 pm

    1) Does ANYONE have a commercially funded electricity (or Hydrogen 🙂 ) generating plant that burns a hydrocarbon and captures the Carbon Dioxide? If so, who and where: and some financials should be interesting reading.

    2) Does ANYONE have a Transport and Permanent Storage of Carbon Dioxide Facility up and running, ANYWHERE? Again, if so, who and where: and some financials should be interesting reading.

    If the answer to both are No, then they are wishful thinking, and they are stuck with Wind and Solar, and not much else. Remember, if Methane, without the Capture and Storage, is needed, it might as well be used for heating in the home: it is the most efficient use of this valuable fuel. And the Distribution Network is already in place.

    The same could said for Petrol/Diesel and Cars and Lorries.

    • StephenP permalink
      November 15, 2020 9:16 pm

      The steam reforming plant at ICI’s ammonia plants used natural gas to produce hydrogen for combining with nitrogen in the Haber Bosch process. IIRC the CO2 was compressed and sold for use in fizzy drinks and for cooling the nuclear plant in Anglesey.
      It was OK for producing ammonia, but would probably be a very expensive way of producing hydrogen for home heating etc and CO2 for sequestration.
      It would be much cheaper and more efficient to burn the gas directly for heating, cooking and electricity generation.
      Just because something can be done doesn’t mean that it is economic, especially if it is done to fulfill a theoretical problem.

  24. MikeHig permalink
    November 15, 2020 8:03 pm

    If anyone wants to see the presentations that, presumably, “guided” the deliberations, they are listed here:
    https://www.climateassembly.uk/resources/
    From a quick scan, the Gang of 4 identified by Paul were heavily involved. The other players were unknowns but I strongly suspect they belong to the same cabal.

  25. Thomas Carr permalink
    November 15, 2020 10:47 pm

    2 Questions:-
    Who has an MP who understands the futility of seeking a green nirvana?
    Who has been to see that MP and explain why he/she is asleep at the wheel?

    There is little point in this forum serving as an echo chamber of thinkers and experts if Dorset C.C. is typical of the level of public sector understanding. Newspapers are already having a hard time breaking even so they are not likely to be brave in challenging the green army. Least of all questioning Sir David’s followers if that hazards the advertising revenue from overweening environmental charities.
    I fear that the only way to turn the boat around is to watch the course of the Titanic first.

  26. William Birch permalink
    November 15, 2020 11:15 pm

    The key to heat pumps is that it needs a replenishable heat source. Ground sourced heat pumps generally deplenish the heat source at a faster rate than the source can replenish itself. Thus the heat differential increases and the efficiency decreases until it no longer functions adequately. To function adequately what is needed is flowing water or a very large lake and I doubt the environment agency would allow many such installations in the same catchment area. My advice, by their very nature heat pumps are uneconomic but also ultimately they will fail and provide no heat at all.

    • November 16, 2020 10:49 am

      William,

      I would suggest that the name ‘heat pump’ is misleading. Ground or air source do not take heat from outside, that heat is required to load the refrigerant compressor which actually provides the heat. That is why as the evaporator temperature (the outside part of the heat pump) drops the heat output from the device also drops.

      I would also question the figures quoted that give so many more times output to electrical input, particularly as the source of energy, is lost in being generated, transmitted and distributed to the home where a gas boiler, for example, uses much more of that power, i.e. it has a very high efficiency, almost twice that of the input efficiency to a heat pump.

  27. November 16, 2020 9:34 am

    10am Radio4 Woman’s Hour Power List: Our Planet

    The Woman’s Hour Power List 2020 is celebrating the contribution women are making across the UK to the health and sustainability of our planet.
    Today Jane Garvey reveals the 30 names on this year’s Woman’s Hour Power List, which celebrates women from across the UK that are making a significant contribution to the health and sustainability of our planet.

    Jane talks to some of the women on this year’s list and hears how the judges – Lucy Siegle, Zunaira Malik, Emma Howard Boyd, Flo Headlam and Prof Alice Larkin – managed to take over 1000 listener emails and whittle it down to our final Power List of 30.

    Judges
    – Lucy Siegle : Green activist TV presenter
    – Alice Larkin … @tyndallcentre “Head of School of Engineering, University of Manchester. Professor of Climate Science & Energy Policy. Born at 330ppm”
    – Zunaira Malik .. the brown one
    Zunaira Malik from @IslamicReliefUK had to say about climate change “Yes is about racism! It is about colonialism!”
    – Zunaira Malik setting a strong line on the nature of the climate crisis at #GPConf Clapping hands
    Jul 7, 2017

    – Flo Headlam … the black one : BBC Gardeners’ World Presenter from Lewisham
    – Emma Howard Boyd … chair of the Environment Agency
    The box ticking is BBC’s not mine.

    • jack broughton permalink
      November 16, 2020 6:58 pm

      A few years ago I listened to Woman’s Hour a lot when travelling, it was a really good programme, with a lot of male contributors too. Now I usually switch it off within 5 minutes as it is aimed at a minority group of women even, certainly aim is to exclude men!

  28. stevejay permalink
    November 16, 2020 9:34 am

    If these morons are so keen on renewables, I suggest we put them on board a prototype solar powered aircraft and send them on a night flight over the Atlantic.

  29. Bill Hutchison permalink
    November 16, 2020 10:42 am

    Do not despair, there are people out there who do understand at least part of the problem:

    “Just when we thought the war was over, it is starting to dawn on some London hacks that it has only just begun. Beyond the Red Wall are rumblings of a new revolt, utterly unanticipated by No 10 and overlooked by a liberal media still shell-shocked by the election. With its drive to “green” the economy at any cost, the Tory party has seemingly decided to celebrate its populist landslide by bogging down the country in zero-carbon paternalism. And so, we career towards another People vs Establishment conflict that could be more explosive even than that sparked by the referendum.” Sherelle Jacobs, Daily Telegraph 5 March 2020

    And in today’s Telegraph, Nick Timothy (remember him? adviser to Theresa May in No.10) describes how the Conservatives are going to have to chose between being the “Respectables” with invitations to dinner parties in Islington and Notting Hill and who fuss about Climate Change, transgender issues and so forth and being the “Dependables” who put the interests of ordinary working families with modest means first. He fears, with the departure of Cummings, they will end up with a messy compromise between the two.

    Most of the Westminster and Whitehall bubble seem to think that no reasonable person could possibly object to their virtuous green policies.

    PLEASE CONTACT YOUR MP AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT NET-ZERO. NUMBERS DO MATTER.

  30. Malcolm Chapman permalink
    November 16, 2020 4:39 pm

    I have hoped for some time that Cummings was someone who could see through the green crap, and understand the numbers. Now he has gone, do I have to fall back on Boris’s good sense? I thought that was perhaps good enough – now not so sure. The company he now keeps is worrying. As we have said repeatedly in comments on this excellent blog – it is time to do something! What? Or do we really have to wait until the lessons are learned in real time, with real physics, real colossal wastes of money, real power cuts in winter, real old people unable to turn up the heating.

    I too have received the email about the petition that I signed, calling for a referendum to scrap the net zero policy. The questions it asks are fatuous. Is there any point trying to reply? I would genuinely welcome advice. Would it be worth co-ordinating a response?

  31. Malcolm Chapman permalink
    November 16, 2020 5:00 pm

    And in reply to Bill Hutchison, yes, of course, that is the first right thing to do. I did, after ‘climategate’, and got a very sympathetic response, but that was from one who voted against the climate change act in the first place. What about all the rest? Yes, Owen Paterson made sense on these subjects, but only seemed to have worked it out after he left government. Peter Lilley? I don’t see a movement. Nearly all of them seem to feel (and ‘feel’ is right, not ‘think’) that ‘being green’ makes it impossible for them to go wrong with the voters. And you are right, as Sherelle Jacobs points out, there is a ‘green wall’ / ‘red wall’ confrontation coming up, for which there is no existing party structure in the British political machine. If the Tories have any sense, they will make the realist low-cost side of the argument, and make it their own. If they could see that, it would put good clear water between new Tory voters of the ‘red wall’, and the well-heeled Hampstead greenies that one meets (so I understand) at Islington-style dinner parties in Notting Hill and Chelsea (or something like that). Electricity bills are very very real. Being cold in winter kills. Say it loud.

  32. Harcourt permalink
    November 16, 2020 6:57 pm

    Never has so much been produced by such ignorance!

    Also where is the mandate for all this. Was it in the Tory manifesto last December? Did we vote for the abolition of the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030? The abolition of gas boilers? Retrofitting all buildings?The continuing increase in electricity bills to subsidize offshore wind farms? And who voted for Johnson’s girlfriend?

    The cost of attempting to go net zero by 2050 will be horrendous – I suspect three to five trillion and who will pay – the poor bloody public who have had no say.and even less understanding of the practicalities. The UK could sink into the sea and the annual CO2 emissions saved would be emitted by China in 12 days

    And then there is the “science” and the IPCC..You start with the answer you want and then torture the data until it tells you exactly what you want to hear. Unfortunately the science is far from settled and the more I have been studying climate change (now 11 years) the more I realise we do not know. It is an extremely complex topic of which we understand little and especially about models where you make the assumptions that will give you what you want. If you read the small print of the IPCC’s working group 1 – the Science Basis – for AR5 the uncertainties for clouds and aerosols are rampant although strangely they all seem to be left out of the Summary For Policymakers. Nor are our estimates for ECS any better than Charney’s in 1979. .. . ..

  33. November 16, 2020 9:12 pm

    Yes I believe we should respond to the questionnaire. I have, and thought the questions were loaded to make us give a positive response, I think it opens the door to questioning whether government should be advising us to eat less meat or purchase less new goods. These are personal choices where the state has no business. What’s more they are advocating policies which would undermine businesses and hence the economy. They seem to be advocating the end of capitalism, which is odd for a Conservative party..

  34. REM permalink
    November 22, 2020 12:50 pm

    And, Lo!…

    Letters from Professor Jim Watson and Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh were carried in The Times, next to each other, on 19 November, in support of Boris’s green industrial revolution. Whitmarsh repeated herself, or rather her “guidance to “our” committee” by saying we must all travel less, eat less red meat and dairy, and buy less new “stuff.” If she practices what she preaches she could also be paid less as she won’t need it.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: