In 2021, let’s challenge green tyranny
By Paul Homewood
A timely and pertinent piece from Tim Black:
At the start of the year, the world’s plutocrats gathered alongside their political allies in Davos for the World Economic Forum, and listened excitedly while special guest Greta Thunberg berated them for not going far enough in the fight to save the planet. It was a telling moment, capturing just how central environmentalism – especially today’s self-flagellating, end-of-days version – now is to the worldview of the West’s political, business and cultural elites.
It has been quite the rise. For much of environmentalism’s history, it was largely on the fringes of elite discourse, not at the centre. It was the counter-enlightenment preserve of landed aristocrats, disillusioned Tories (the origins of the Green Party), and the New Left. Not the mission statement of prime ministers, multinationals and the very institutions of globalist rule, from the EU to the UN.
But that is what it has become in recent decades: the hug-a-husky purpose of governments; the corporate social responsibility of international conglomerates; the cause to unite nations.
Two key factors account for its ascendency: the long-standing demoralisation of capitalism, and the emergence of essentially technocratic governments after the end of the Cold War. In the anti-modern narrative of environmentalism, these managerial elites found their raison d’etre: to manage the risks and the threats produced by industrial modernity. It even provided them with an ultimate aim: to manage us out of environmental disaster.
But environmentalism has always been more than just a story appended to ‘third way’ governing. It is itself essentially technocratic. It invests authority in ‘the science’ and the expert at the expense of the demos.
And it did so successfully until 2016. Until Brexit and Trump. Until, that is, so many across the West, disenfranchised for so long under this technocratic consensus, seized back some degree of control.
And this has had a tremendous effect on environmentalism. Ever since 2016, the tone has become shriller, the threat supposedly more urgent, the narrative more apocalyptic. Climate change is now a climate emergency. Al Gore’s merely inconvenient truth is now XR’s truth that must be told. And the future towards which we are forever tipping is catastrophic.
his is because environmentalism is no longer the handmaiden of technocratic rule; it is now a weapon in the fight to restore technocratic rule. Hence the presentation of climate change is now so aggressive, so hyperbolic, so threatening. Because it is being used to fight populism, frighten citizens back into obeisance and roll back the democratic gains of recent years. And that is what we have witnessed over the past 12 months, from the wilfully apocalyptic framing of Australia’s wildfires in Janaury through to the UN secretary general’s December demand that all nations declare a climate emergency: namely, the further elite turbocharging of environmentalism as a justification for the restoration of the pre-2016 consensus
Full story here.
There are of course many strands of vested interests, which have joined together to promote the climate scam. But Tim Black neatly sums up how it has taken hold of the establishment, rather than remaining as a fringe activity.
In reality, governments, big business, and, arguably most of all, state bureaucracy have always felt uneasy about true democracy. That is why for so long the British public were denied any say in the remorseless advance of the EU political juggernaut. Far better, they say, that we let the “experts” run our lives.
As Tim concludes:
Of course, there will be no democratic debate about the nature of all this green-washed, post-Covid rebuild. That is being decided elsewhere, by experts, in the name of sustainability. And that should worry us. At the end of this wretched year, the green restoration of the managerial order is in full swing. The political response should be the same in the coming months as it was four years ago: we need more democracy, not less.
What we need to remember is that democracy is not, and never has been, the norm, even here in the West. It is authoritarianism which has been the rule.
Democracy has been a short lived experiment, an extremely short one even in much of Europe.
We must not let it slip out of our hands.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Happy New Year! Yes for 2021 I’m on board. We need to start with the Tech monsters and the Fake News Media. If he’s available – let’s get President Trump (or maybe another big name) on board. I really think THIS problem overlaps with CV19 and WEF agendas too.
President Trump has had his chance and he has failed to overturn the EPA’s endangerment finding (that CO2 was ‘dangerous’). That will have serious consequences for the USA. He could have taken the Paris Agreement to the Senate for rejection. That would have caused difficulties for Biden. I am nor optimistic on this issue. Trump was our trump card, but sadly he seems a busted flush. There seems no prospect of finding another such high profile figure. Boris appears to be a fully paid member of the church of climatology. The opposition are worse. Is Nigel Farage still beyond the clutch of climatism?
Unfortunately, throughout his term,Trump lost a golden opportunity to “enlighten” the American public about climate realities, despite appointing the sceptic Dr Happer as a science advisor. Dr H resigned in 2019 due to “lack of sufficient support from the White House”. Trump’s only climate legacy will have been removing the US from the Paris Climate Accord, a temporary policy since Biden has sworn to reinstate it.
Yes, I fail to understand why Trump failed to make these appointments in 2017, instead of the last minute, or put the Paris Treaty to the Senate for approval
Was it cos Trump couldn’t things through the House ?
Michael Moore in a boo 30 years ago explained how most US presidents are lame ducks co of this.
He also said the 2 parties are not really that different, but rather serve same special interest groups.
The Republicans Overseas guy on TalkRadio who likes Trump said that for all Biden’s talk he doesn’t have the mandate to go full green madness.
Biden this, Biden that.
Except that Biden is too far gone to do anything, except read from a giant teleprompter.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-uses-giant-teleprompter-at-yet-another-sparsely-attended-rallies
Even that will soon be beyond him.
People with moderate Alzheimer’s are adept in using vacuous sound-bites to cover-up the fact that they can not process new information. Since politicians are already used to spouting trite nonsense while campaigning (and the sheeple are used to nodding along with them) they can hide the full extent of their mental incompetence until they are in power.
The Green movement, based on non-scientific chancers, lies and waste, is an obscene misuse of resources.
Why has it convinced the Western world’s body politic to dismiss and vilify sceptics?
A new order of responsible, realistic governance still seems far off.
The Orientals and the unduly denigrated Pres. Trump have seen and acted upon the sensible likliehoods.
It’s not just the green movement. See this depressing story from Unherd. Essentially about the USA but works here as well.
https://unherd.com/2020/12/why-americas-elites-keep-on-winning/
Wishing everyone a better 2021.
Excellent article, similar to one calling 2020 the year of the Preset, not yet Reset.
but democratically how do we change the direction as its being driven outside democratic channels?
2021 could be a lot of things to a lot of people I guess.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55498657
It has never been about the climate…
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
The Press Release: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2020/09/united-nations-releases-special-2020-broadcast-calling-for-collective-action/
JimW has asked the key question, how can we slow this astonishing roller coaster of green wash? The recent Royal Institution Lectures demonstrates the size of the problem.
I am still reeling from that travesty. My first degree and my daily life is geology by one means ( direct observation) or another (geophysics) and to listen to this person sell out and trash what for me has only been about the pursuit for truth…and get away with it unchecked shocks me to the very core.
To cap it all… if you look at the Royal Institution Web page they have the shear effrontery to claim “Science Lives Here” in their heading…when the reality is it should read “Science Dies Here”.
https://www.rigb.org
The climate is a convenient tool with which to berate us all until we submit to autocratic control of our lives. The insidious creep of authoritarian politics will be exposed, hopefully, when the true costs begin to emerge. All this nonsense of banning fossil fuels is unsustainable when the price tag, financial and otherwise is revealed.
Going off on a tangent, the weather forecast ( remember those?) looks cold and still for quite a while. Hands up who wants to freeze whilst we wait for the battery storage to kick in.
And why has there been no mention of this extremely cold weather; snow everywhere for days and for days to come. I was under the impression we were unlikely to ever see snow again! Only Accuweather tells the truth about temperatures and gives a daily record of ‘normal’ temps and ‘temperature on this day last year’. Has the Grand Solar Minimum arrived at last?
And Gates of hell wants to dim the sun. And population reduction….
The recent Greta statement, put in front of her to learn by heart no doubt, connects the Covid crisis with the supposed environmental crisis.
But we can also see this from a basic position of “Project Fear”. We had Project Fear most strongly articulated in the case of Brexit….the world would end if we left the EU, etc. We then realised there had been a pre-existing Project Fear – Climate for years, working its way into all and sundry. And now we have a new Project Fear – Covid.
By prolonging the Covid shutdown, the goals of the climate reset are being quietly achieved with out anyone apparently noticing. How many governments are going to announce…”OK everybody, we’re going to close down 3/4 of the economy to satisfy the alarmist cries of the environmental movement, who by the way refuse to countenance nuclear energy because actually they are not really a green movement at all, but an anarchist philosophy fed by all that complex woke psychology currently being unravelled by brighter brains…..and full explanations asap please. We understand you’re not sure about the global warming question, but we know you would prefer not to die from Covid, that horrible death of slow suffocation, etc, etc. So better we just all got on with a temporary, 10 year, lockdown.”
When Boris talks about a new normal, he is riding two horses. There’s the bouncing Boris, ridding us of the deadening EU, but the other guilt sensitive/”we must save the planet” Boris responding to, I guess, a sustained barrage of environmentalist house visitors. I would like to see his social diary over the last year. I wonder how many times Attenborough has visited. No, Boris sees Covid also in Greta’s mechanical words, as a way of disguising the introduction of a low level green economy, inevitable controlled by energy rationing and travel restrictions….se Vax Visa proposals in the air (literally).
This all needs to be dissected, spelled out and widely publicised.
Great comment.
All too obviously true.
Agreed but to whom could we turn for realistic political leadership now?
There seem to be very few appropriate people that I can think of in active politics today.
I tentatively suggest John Redwood and Owen Paterson.
Does anyone know of any realistic possibility for PM?
Strongly recommend John Constable’s “Who are they fooling? – The UK Energy White Paper – 14 Dec 2020” From which two extracts :
“The degree to which Net Zero stands or falls on decarbonised electricity is worth emphasis. The White Paper and indeed the whole Net Zero strategy is an interconnected series of gambles – on hydrogen, on carbon capture and sequestration, on energy efficiency to contain demand, and so forth– but of these the central bet is on the electrification of heat and transport, and in turn this is itself a gamble on the falling cost of renewable electricity generation, and in particular on the falling cost of wind power. If renewable electricity on average and that from offshore wind in particular is expensive then the whole project fails, regardless of whether the ancillary gambles are successful or not.”
AND
“If we learn anything from the Energy White Paper, it is that the British government is now insusceptible to reasoned and empirical criticism on the subject of renewable energy and climate change. This cannot end well. The civil service and the weak and ignorant politicians they lead may be able to fool themselves, and for a while they may even deceive some part of the public, but ultimately what we think about the viability of these policies is unimportant. The matter will be decided, finally and without appeal, by the underlying physics, which is to say by the unfavourable thermodynamics of the renewable energy sources that have been administratively selected.”
In plain language, Net-Zero is not going to work!
NET-Zero doesn’t even have a goal. Except for the man responsible for the global warming scam, James Hansen with his testimony to the US Congress. The physicist has insisted that we need to return the atmosphere to a “safe” 350 ppm. Today that would mean the capture and burial of ~65 ppm. But that is 500 BILLION metric tons, a totally impossible amount. Yes, Net-Zero is never going to work but it will cost a “ton” to keep trying as the greens want us to do. We cannot even lower emissions to zero when 40 billion tons in 2019 was about 5 tons per person for 8 billion people. These facts should be part of any attack on “Green Tyranny. They cannot be rebutted with “How dare you?”
The basic gamble, and unknown, is on the obviously very dubious main blame attributed to CO2 as the climate changer.
At least in the.UK, there is NO realistic case for decarbonisation.
If our body politic is to (re)0 lolgain its sanity, the CCActs and everything stemming from them must be ended forthwith.
cajwbroomhill, agree completely. Repeal repeal all ‘climate’ legislation and ROs. It was never about ‘climate’ and only ever about control and hurting ordinary folks via our energy use. What a plot: anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 0.00065% of global atmosphere cause warming, and when there’s no warming they cause climate change! Those who perpetrate this rubbish are criminals.
Ariane – you say, ‘It was never about ‘climate’ and only ever about control and hurting ordinary folks via our energy use.‘
I doubt if that’s true. But, even if it is, it’s not an argument that has the remotest chance of ending the green tyranny.
In all my 78 years I have noticed that apart from natural variability, our weather has always been on the wet side, but our CLIMATE itself over the years, has actually NOT changed. Winter, Spring, Summer and Autumn have remained broadly the same.
In 2007 Al Gore predicted the Arctic would be ICE-Free by 2014. It wasn’t and still isn’t. He was hugely WRONG.
Polar bears we were told, were to become a threatened species, but the truth is they are thriving.
As many Pacific Islands are sinking as are rising.
The state of the Great Barrier Reef Corals rather than dying we are now discovering, are cyclical.
Even the IPCC now admits that CO2 is not as dangerous as previously thought.
World cooling cloud cover has very significantly, – been left out of computer model calculations.
Our environmentally ignorant politicians need to embrace some Common Sense, listen to the true qualified environmental and engineering professionals and release us from the grip of HYSTERICAL CLIMATE EMERGENCY ALARMISTS advocating FREEDOM LIMITING ENSLAVEMENT for us all through hugely EXPENSIVE and DISADVANTAGEOUS ENERGY POLICIES.
What is clearly wrong is where politicians get their opinions from. The environment gestapo are a very small if voluble group YET they gain such traction expected from a substantial proportion of the public which is just not there. They whole lobbying system is corrupt and has clearly been taken over by the marxists peddling doom and lining the pockets of those weasels in the business world who lacking morals of any kind accept a free ride on the good ship gravy train.
PMFB, why would marxists want to line the pockets of those weasels in the business world…? Real marxists would not want to help business people get more wealthy! Lazy thinking is THE problem as is blaming people who want to save the planet. The blame lies with people who want to deindustrialize and impoverish ordinary people – and who put out the propaganda – using their huge funds – that the planet needs saving from industrial and transport CO2. It is lies and money of the wealthy against the ignorance, powerlessness and poverty of the many ordinary and poor people. Don’t blame the marxists.
Very few politicians go into national politics (or even local politics these days) hoping to make their local school or hospital a little better. They all want to save the world, to “make a difference”. And to do so, as Hayek showed so convincingly, they have to become Authoritarians. Greta sounds as like a childish Fascist, demanding she gets what she wants RIGHT NOW, and politicians listen to her because that’s exactly how they feel and exactly what they want.
It was a Tory minister, years ago, who said that our parliament was an elective dictatorship. Ken Clarke was not far wrong, but now we need to fear the likes of XR and Greens (not just the Green party) who would remove the ‘elective’ part of Clarke’s claim.
Whenever a vested interest group claims that the argument is settled (and the BBC are guilty of this in spades) then we can see they really just want tyranny, despotism and an end to our freedoms. They know that debate is the very lifeblood of freedom. They know it has to be repressed.
HYN!
When activist groups, no matter how limited their appeal is in reality, start demostrating and disrupting normal life politicians start noticing. As a result in order not to lose support to these new and very vocal groups they start incorporating these policies into their own promises. thus we get all main parties now having, what 40 years ago would have been extreme, environmental policies in their manifestos.
The normal evolution would be that as all parties exit more sensible ground new parties move in to reflect the views of more sensible groups. This has yet to happen, probably for several reasons, the real effectives of green extremism have yet to hit the population, but probably more importantly the EU and Brexit have taken the attention away from what is happening virtually everywhere else.
It was Hailsham who is first on record of having said it, in 1976, except he got it from Rab Butler who used to describe the UK Constitution following the Salisbury Convention and the Parliament Act of 1949.
Butler is not credited anywhere that I can find, but he used the term extensively in the 50s.
Sorry, we have had it. Johnson has already turned us into a single state socialist Dictatorship. He will not give up the power he now has. He is enjoying it and has turned into a full blown socialist spending money and racking up debts without even thinking about it. He will not change, he has never been responsible where money is concerned. Now he has found he can ride rough shod over Parliament and do whatever he likes. The so called reprimand by the Speaker some months ago, that he had held Parliament in contempt, did a lot of good. He is still doing it. With his green zealoty he will wreck the country, thinking nothing of it, wreck people’s lives with his ridiculous EV and Heating legislation, not caring it will throw millions into poverty with his renewable energy windmills. After all it is Greenpeace that is running his Government’s Business and Environment Departments. He must keep in favour with them. They are the people he cares about, not the people in the street. They can go hang.
Left wing activists are driven by the need to bring about change, usually in terms of equality, human rights, care for the environment and so on. On the face of it, these are worthwhile activities but the problem arises when the determination becomes extreme, obsessive and intolerant, rather in the way that some religious extremists punish non-believers to this day.
Then climate change became added to the mix. This allows a wide range of beliefs and assumptions, claims and alarmism to be underpinned by the respectability of science.
The middle classes can now indulge in virtue signalling at their dinner parties and what is more virtuous than saving the planet by purchasing the latest electric vehicle or offsetting one’s jet setting with carbon credits? The threads of green awareness, gender identity, BLM, no platforming, toppling of symbols of white supremacy or empire, cancel culture and general wokery all combine in an apparent tsunami of intimidating left wing intolerance to control society and punish dissent.
If you dare to question alarmism you must be stupid, mad or evil. Soon you may be at risk of prosecution for holding views that could jeopardise the global effort to save the planet. There is no political party that will question the green agenda. The BBC will not permit the settled science to be challenged. If you are a taxpayer you must shut up and pay up.
extreme, obsessive and intolerant
But they don’t like being called greenshirts.
Be warned.
Today the BBC will insert a climate politics propaganda message from Attenbollox at what they hope is peak viewing between their New Year Day ‘flagship’ programs.
“The message will be shown on BBC One at 7.57pm on January 1, between Doctor Who and EastEnders.”
I believe the only way to address this…and other issues is by referendum….Swiss style not David Cameron style. Both sides of the argument are put on one document and people debate from there. Ken Clarke’s statement is correct. This is the only way to deal with small, vocal, sometimes violent, over influential lobby groups imo. We had such an event in Australia when the Federal Government tried to usurp the powers of state governments…it created al situation which removed the 2 party system .
So, three fictitious storylines on the trot….
I suggest that we all scrutinise the propaganda for falsehoods and complain about them.
The article and comments give me hope. At least I now know I am not alone in my feelings of despair at what our politicians are doing when they are pandering to the Green blob.
I am staggered at the human species and its willingness to believe hysterical ramblings of lunatics about climate change. Where is the intelligent arguments about climate change and how it is about to destroy our world? There are none, because there cannot be an intelligent, honest and compelling argument that can claim the planet will be shortly destroyed and that we will all die. Instead any dissenters are silenced and not allowed a voice.
Climate change cannot be denied, but is it really to be feared? I think not, as a species we are very capable of adapting to changing circumstances.
The ‘planet’ will survive too because for one thing, it continually evolves. We are a failing species when we do not use our brains, skills and innovative capabilities to adapt to the climate and instead terrorise children into believing they only have ten years left to survive. We must never allow ourselves to succumb to the hysterical ramblings of a faux religious cult.
The cult would have burned me at the stake not that long ago for my stubbornness to concede to their indoctrination.
Climate change cannot be denied, because its natural and has been happening for billions of years. The unproven theory of manmade Climate change certainly can be denied and disproven, as it rests on false notions about the capacities on CO2, a weak and scarce gas that’s in short supply.
The more CO2 we release the greener the planet gets. Any attempts to lockup CO2 should be countered with a campaign to free the gas of life.
I would suggest a FACT OF THE DAY published in Newspapers and on Social Media. The message must be short and become eye or Click bait as a lot of people have limited ability to absorb long messaging. For funding a “go fund me” approach may be possible.
I hope that as we are all fans of Greta Thunberg….., you won’t miss the “all new” Documentary “I am Greta” on BBC 1 at 22.45 Wednesday January 6th. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p090xz9z
Survey about the BBC, commissioned by the BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/send/u61149175
tell them what you think . fill your boots
Challenge green tyranny? How, exactly? Write to your MP? I did, referring to various facts and figures. I got back a letter how much she supported renewable energy, and she failed completely to address any of my points. A waste of my time.
Write to the national press, hoping to stir things up a bit? Try getting a letter published – I have on several occasions, with no luck.
The local press? I’ve had some success, but lo and behold – the greenies are allowed to prattle as they please in reply, producing no solid data or arguments – after all, 97% of scientists can’t be wrong, can they?
I’ve got a solid scientific and technological background, including a few years of postgraduate research – yet many my work contemporaries from those days (I’m retired) believe it all – going so far as to buy electric cars. Even trying to discuss this with friends (not all of them) leads to heated arguments. The BBC and media are solid backers of the climate horror stories, so overall it seems to me that any rational discussion is virtually impossible.
Maybe we need someone like Nigel Farage in our midst.
The only way I see an end to all this is some sort of financial meltdown whereby people can no longer afford to heat their homes because of the idiocy of the climate clowns in government. I despair at the stupidity of those in power in the Western world.
I mailed the MP responsible for the opposition’s stance on matters environmental giving him the links to threads on this website. This was his reply –
“I’ve looked at the links and think this is poor quality and, I believe, not helpful. I am concerned about the high levels of fake news about climate science and I worry that good people are falling for things that are false. There is over-whelming evidence for the climate emergency and I would encourage you to get your news from reputable and evidence-led sites.”
Agree with all the excellent comments above. However, as the crux of the AGW claim is based on C02 emissions, it has been very disappointing to find a number of purported sceptics apparently paying lip service to it being a partial factor in temperature rise. With this in mind, I recently asked Dr Constable of GWPF to explain what he meant in a recent article by: “ the social cost of carbon” and “the harm done by carbon dioxide”. He responded thus:-
“In a debate like this you have to work with the tools available, and the concept of “harm” is very widespread and indeed orthodox throughout the governments of the world (regardless of whether they believe it matters much or not).
I think of this mathematically rather than arithmetically and suggest you do the same. One can set the value of “harm done” to whatever seems appropriate on the basis of the evidence, $-n/tCO2e (i.e. negative harm, which is benefit), or $0/tCO2e (neutral or agnostic), or a low or a high positive value. I know of people who hold all these views.
In fact, the UK govt. in common with many other administrations, is rather scared of the Social Cost number and hasn’t updated its estimate since 2004 or thereabouts, because they can’t find a policy that comes in under even extreme (high positive) estimates of the “harm done”.”
Does anyone find this argument would be of any use as “a tool” to convince the general public?
Agree with all the excellent comments above. However, as the crux of the AGW claim is based on C02 emissions, it has been very disappointing to find a number of purported sceptics apparently paying lip service to it being a partial factor in temperature rise. With this in mind, I recently asked Dr Constable of GWPF to explain what he meant in a recent article by: “ the social cost of carbon” and “the harm done by carbon dioxide”. He responded thus:-
“In a debate like this you have to work with the tools available, and the concept of “harm” is very widespread and indeed orthodox throughout the governments of the world (regardless of whether they believe it matters much or not).
I think of this mathematically rather than arithmetically and suggest you do the same. One can set the value of “harm done” to whatever seems appropriate on the basis of the evidence, $-n/tCO2e (i.e. negative harm, which is benefit), or $0/tCO2e (neutral or agnostic), or a low or a high positive value. I know of people who hold all these views.
In fact, the UK govt. in common with many other administrations, is rather scared of the Social Cost number and hasn’t updated its estimate since 2004 or thereabouts, because they can’t find a policy that comes in under even extreme (high positive) estimates of the “harm done”.”
Loved it!! The BBB response: Bullshit Baffles Brains. But I find it difficult to believe this came from GWPF. I shall have to take a deeper look at Dr Constable….
Alexei – I think that Dr. Constable offers sage advice; the anti-AGW position is so far behind the pro-AGW position that to tackle it head on is akin to objecting to someone not respecting social distancing – it just results in an irrational diatribe that reduces to “I’m right, you’re wrong and who are you to critisize me?” This appears to be the modern way of thinking amongst the non-rational majority.
Most of the pro-AGWers are comfortably well off (I know this from experience of volunteering at a ‘Mend and Repair Cafe’ run by Extinction Rebellion) and see the whole thing as a kind of interesting intellectual exercise in their otherwise dull and useless lives. No amount of rational argument is going to persuade them otherwise because they will never have to bear the cost of what they hope to achieve.
The only hope is to mobilise the usually stoic group who live from week to week on a low income or state pension and will be the ones who suffer most under this idealism. If the situation is left to continue until this group finally wakes, then the Poll Tax riots will seem like Afternoon Tea at the Palace by comparison.
I had considered trying to remain a passive observer as this develops but the sight of heads on spikes, even those of the loathsome green idiots we all know and loathe, does not really appeal.
Count me in to any challenge to the green tyranny before this gets very messy indeed.
Cyan, one of the most sensible commentators on this blog. Can you make a few million clones of yourself, please, then politicians might start to listen?
I agree with Cyan that Dr. Constable offers sage advice. But for a rather different reason.
I’ve explained here more than once that I’m agnostic regarding the claimed need for GHG reductions: without scientific training I’m not qualified to judge. Therefore I’m neither convinced nor unconvinced.
But that doesn’t stop me from pointing out that most non-Western countries (the source of 75% of global emissions) are either unconcerned about climate change or have other priorities. Therefore, unless these countries completely reverse their climate policies (most unlikely) – and do so very soon – there’s no possibility of the world reducing annual emissions to 19 Gt by 2030 (as required by the UN and by Alok Sharma, president-designate of COP-26) and thus getting on the ‘path to net zero’. In which case, emission reducing efforts by Western governments would achieve nothing – except economic damage bringing misery to in particular their most disadvantaged citizens.
It’s a powerful (and accurate) message that believers in dangerous man-made climate change (the green tyranny) cannot ignore. And don’t really know how to deal with. But, were I a sceptic and included an argument along the lines that, in any case, the idea that’s it’s necessary to get to ‘net zero’ is nonsense, a believer would happily focus on attacking me on that and conveniently ignore my key message.
I remember watching an episode of “The Pledge”, the political discussion programme broadcast by Sky News (I have no idea why it is called “The Pledge”) at the beginning of 2020. One of the panelists was the ex-BBC director general Greg Dyke, and he raised a discussion topic about the world needing to take action in reducing CO2 emissions, probably in connection with the UK being scheduled to host COP26 that year. The Pledge has a much greater political diversity amongst its panelists than is normal for political discussion programmes on British TV, and somebody actually asked Dyke why China apparently doesn’t have to reduce CO2 emissions for many years. Dyke’s reply was interesting (and you probably can’t get anybody more representative of Metropolitan Liberal opinion in the UK than somebody like Dyke) – he thought that it didn’t matter if China was on board with emission reductions at present, as once the climatic changes predicted by climate scientists were obviously unfolding, China would then implement whatever needed to be done. Dyke thought that it was the democratic West that needed decades to implement a transformation, super-authoritarian China could implement the transformation much more quickly when it absolutely needed to be done. I suspect Dyke’s view is shared by Western liberal politicians in general.
China has massive kudos amongst Western environmentalists because it is the only country in the world that has had a population control policy, operating from 1970 to 2015 (a two child policy in the 1970s followed by a one child policy). Environmentalists tend to be ‘secret admirers’ of China, they regard it as the only country in the world that is in a position to genuinely implement Green policies.
Dave, I think you’re reading far too much into what Dyke said. Here’s a link to the discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXqsxmb7ir0. Towards the end of a very short programme (only eight minutes), the issue of China’s emissions was raised and in a ten second comment (7.40 – 7.50) Dyke said this (or something like this – it was hard to follow):
That seems to be all.
Ariane: Thank you (blushes) but the million clones will have to be those who can be persuaded from’ the bottom up’ to ask if the proposed hardship is justified and if those compelling us to obey will suffer proportionately. I had the following published in our local newspaper which I hope will get some of them thinking:
On 9th December the Climate Change Committee (CCC) published it’s 448 page “Sixth Carbon Budget”, describing changes necessary to achieve net zero CO2 emissions by 2050. I recommend that everyone reads it, because the implications are considerable. A few domestic examples:
1. The cost of domestic electricity will rise by between 58% and 72% above inflation by 2035.
2. The use of natural Gas will be phased out by banning the sale of new Gas boilers from 2033. In the interim, Gas prices will increase to align with electricity prices, in order to make electric heating more attractive.
3. Oil fired boilers will be banned from sale from 2028.
Based on current OFGEM typical domestic consumption values of 2900 kWh / 12000 kWh for Electricity / Gas, the ‘all electric’ house of 2035 will have an annual energy bill of between £6612 and £7163 compared with £1172 for today’s Electric/Gas house. The best case scenario will leave the basic state pensioner £25 per week to pay for council tax, food etc.
The CCC does it’s best to polish this up with suggestions of heat pumps and decarbonisation costs requiring “an average investment of less than £10,000 per home” but a heat pump and associated insulation costs a great deal more than that.
Our council, with it’s “zero carbon 2030” policy would do well to read this document and update it’s Climate “Rapid Action Plan” accordingly. Scaled to 2030, new Gas boilers would have to be banned by 2024 and Oil boilers by 2022. Alternatively it could admit that zero carbon 2030 is merely virtue signaling that will put residents under extreme and unreasonable financial pressure, and align itself with the national 2050 target instead.
Interestingly I usually get attacked by our local Greens in response to my letters but on this occasion – silence. Perhaps they find it difficult to deny physical facts although it doesn’t usually stop them.
Robin Guenier: thank you for your insight. I believe we view the same thing but from different perspectives. My perspective is admittedly confrontational, perhaps due to social class and the youthful influence of Orwell, Huxley and Solzhenitsyn.
Sorry but that’s just wrong. The social cost of carbon is an externality, a cost borne by others not consuming the goods or services. The benefits are captured in the existing price and are always excluded from the externality calculation. There can be positive externalities – higher growth of plants say – but they are rare.
Where the calculations for Net Zero and the rest go wrong is to assume that (i) prices are the same as value and (ii) to put no value on loss of utility for individuals. As a simply example I fly 6 times a year because flying to places has a value to me. If i can only fly once, i lose substantial value. That cost is not included in Net Zero – i am supposed to just want to give it up.
Sudan floods, the worst evah! – always. Now lazily blamed on climate change.
(cut/paste and remove *** to view links)
2019/20 “worst in memory”
***https://more.talktalk.co.uk/news/2021/01/01/our-children-die-in-our-hands-floods-ravage-south-sudan***
2007 “worst in living memory”
***https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/18706/floods-in-sudan***
1988 “unprecedented”
***https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-9493.00012***
“However, an examination of evidence for floods caused by the Nile and rain storms during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries leads to the conclusion that neither the Nile flood nor the rain storms nor their coincidence in one season were unprecedented and that similar situations will recur.We argue that most problems were created by complacency, lack of planning and mismanagement.”
1967 “More than 30 people died in floods which hit Khartoum and other parts of Sudan.”
***https://www.britishpathe.com/video/VLVA55XTJCIEPCOTBQMCACW44LZUL-SUDAN-FLOODS-WHICH-HIT-KHARTOUM-THE-WEEK-BEFORE-MEETING-OF-ARAB/query/Khartoum***
(The last few seconds gives views of the extent of flooding outside town).
And dozens of other reports nearly every other year of course.
Besides air pollution and plastic in oceans etc etc – all worthy- SAVING THE PLANET is REDUCING CO2. Now, CO2 is not going to reduce whatever is done. It will climb at c. 2ppm a year. In due course the AGW scam will fade away. Don’t worry about it.
Derek Spence, as an Australian perhaps you can explain about this event that pitted the Federal and State Governments and the outcome? I have hear or read nothing of this?
To Challenge the Green Tyranny, you must knobble the BBC TV media Channels. That alone will do it.
The slitest exposure and show of dissent, or debate on the subject of the veracity of Climate Change will in a very short space of time, change public attitudes.
This is the reason the Elite are absolutely terrified of losing control of the media.
All that is needed is for a few bold statements refuting the Climate Change Emergency and the genie will never get back into the bottle.
The BBC have reached new levels of lying by broadcasting the latest bilge from Attenborough where the statement is made that the earth’s environment is in balance. The earth’s environment has never been in balance, it’s always changing. The moon’s environment is probably in balance i.e. dead.
This is my new year resolution
Australia is a giant solar panel.It can power desalination plants to make water to convert the desert to a green oasis=CO2 meanwhile Australians watch their place burn to a crisp…..same story for California. Why is the obvious not talked about and dealt with? What is the deep vein political scullduggery here?
Mi you really should think a bit. You make it sound like desalinating water by evaporation is easy and we are just holding back. Here is a suggestion buy a bit of desert and show us just how easy it is and how stupid we are, alternatively put a sock in it! This is an adult site.
johnsnowy and Mi, Australia’s fires are usually due to people who, unlike the Aborigines, don’t know how to manage vegetation and land. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are not involved. But if you want ideas on how to make some water out there:
https://www.israel21c.org/israeli-scientists-generate-water-from-air-even-in-the-desert/
In these freezing days anyone out there with a heat pump and also opening windows for fresh air against the virus? Are you having to wear a coat inside the house?
To think that the Green Party started with some kinky woman buying a copy of Playboy. I wonder what turns Caroline Lucas on? Mein Kampf maybe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEOPLE_Party
If there is even ONE green elected MP in Parliament, I’ll be surprised.
Why then have we got a green Prime Minister whose partner is a Climate Activist, when the British electorate with a substantial margin, voted Conservative ?
While thanking him for getting Brexit on track as promised, it is surely now time for the Climate Dictator to go, with his 10-point Green Revolution and his floozy Climate Activist with him.
It is urgently required that he be replaced by a proper market orientated CONSERVATIVE Prime Minister with Conservative beliefs.
https://www.carolinelucas.com/
This from her Christmas newsletter:
“While Coronavirus has rightly grabbed most of the headlines, and much of my attention, I have also been working hard to address another emergency we face – the climate and nature crises. At the beginning of this year, I attended the first meeting of the UK Citizens’ Assembly on climate in Birmingham. It brought out its final report in September, coming up with a raft of brilliant ideas and showing the public appetite for strong climate action from the Government which it just isn’t delivering.
In early September, I tabled the Climate & Ecological Emergency Bill, which sets out a pathway for meeting the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, protects nature and biodiversity and provides a critical role for citizens in how we transition to net zero emissions, as we must. My Early Day Motion in support of the Bill continues to gain support.
The Bill is backed, among others, by Extinction Rebellion, who brought their protests to Parliament in support. I caught up with some of them in Parliament Square, and later that day joined an amazing line-up of artists including Sir Mark Rylance, Zadie Smith and George Monbiot in a Writers Rebel event outside the offices of the Global Warming Policy Foundation which, with other right-wing think-tanks, lobbies against effective climate action.”
Now, while you and I think she’s barking mad, either the people of Brighton and Hove are totally woke, or she’s a bloomin good constituency MP.
showing the public appetite for strong climate action from the Government
The appetite of a few selected and brainwashed stooges, that is.
Further to my earlier comment on the domination of the media, I’ve had further thoughts on the matter.
The major websites questioning in various ways the ‘dangerous climate change, we’re to blame’ dogma (as far as I see it) are Jo Nova, Watts up with That, Roy Spencer, and Not a Lot of People Know That, plus the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Hardly internet ‘click bait’ titles. are they?
Not, I suggest, the first place a member of the public might go to when looking for information.
In my view, the sceptical side needs to get its act together. Grouchy posts on a website don’t achieve anything – people just argue amongst themselves time and again.
How about ‘Climate Lies’ as a good click bait title?
Present all of the tired propaganda, and counter it with referenced facts which anyone can look up – but don’t let the public comment on it. Don’t let the trolls in, just stick to the facts.
The power of the internet needs to be harnessed.