Skip to content

Harrabin Wants You All To Pay Much More To Meet Climate Targets

August 14, 2021

By Paul Homewood



h/t Ian Magness


Why does the BBC hate ordinary British people so much?




A new analysis suggests the current level of UK spending to combat climate change is lagging behind what advisers say is needed.

A study by the pressure group WWF says new green policies in the March 2021 Budget add up to just 0.01% of GDP.

But the government’s own advisory Climate Change Committee has said 1% of national wealth – or GDP – must be spent every year in the UK to ensure climate targets are met.

In November the prime minister promised £12bn for a 10-point plan "green industrial revolution".

WWF says its research also shows that some Budget policies that encourage pollution totalled £40bn – far more than the PM’s green plan.

It says that the freeze on fuel duty is costing the Treasury some £11.2bn in the financial year 2019-20 alone, rising to £13.9bn in 2022-23 if the freeze continues. 


Does Harrabin think the country has nothing better to spend its money on? 1% of GDP, which is in any case a gross understatement of the real cost, is equivalent to about £800 for every household in the country. On top of that he and his chums at the far left WWF think drivers should stump up extra £11bn in fuel duties.

And in aid of what?

If Harrabin wants to be a political activist, fine. But he should not also be employed by the BBC.

  1. August 14, 2021 11:05 am

    When were the WWF on the ballot sheets to be telling us what we should do. If they want to do that they should form s political party and stand for parliament.b that’s democracy, not unlicensed pressure groups

  2. Joe Public permalink
    August 14, 2021 11:18 am

    An update of Jo Nova’s meme:

    • dennisambler permalink
      August 14, 2021 12:12 pm

      The graphic encompasses the major networking nature of these globalist NGO’s, there really is little distinction between them and personnel interchange is frequent. Current joint CEO of Greenpeace International is Jennifer Morgan, who was at one time Climate Director at WWF International, and took over at Greenpeace after brief stops at the UK’s E3G and the US World Resources Institute.

      She was an advisor to Tony Blair and she was at one time on the “Scientific” Advisory Board of John Schellnhuber’s Potsdam Institute, (she has a degree in International Relations) along with, at that time, Nick Stern of the Grantham Institute and Brian Hoskins of Reading University and IPCC.

      She is currently on the Advisory Board at the Grantham Institute in her role as joint head of Greenpeace, along with her old boss Carter Roberts of WWF, plus LSE Grantham’s Nick Stern, Brian Hoskins again and Co-Director of the Potsdam Institute, economist Otto Edenhofer (“it’s not about climate, it’s about wealth distribution”, 2010).

      Morgan acted as nursemaid to Greta at Davos, and she is a significant policy contributor to WEF.

  3. Harry Passfield permalink
    August 14, 2021 11:18 am

    How does the absence of a tax/duty become a cost to the country? WWF (who asked them!?) will be telling us next that not having a window tax any longer is a cost to the country!

    • bobn permalink
      August 14, 2021 12:38 pm

      And what about there not being a 100% tax on vegetables. The vegetarians are defunding the Govt and receiving huge subsidies !-)

  4. Gerry, England permalink
    August 14, 2021 11:23 am

    The BBC hates ordinary British people because they are not woke liberal lefties like the BBC. Sadly too many of our ignorant population still after all these years fail to see how much they are hated and do nothing about it. Many still think of the BBC as something it ceased to be decades ago.

  5. tom0mason permalink
    August 14, 2021 11:45 am

    So Mr. Harrabin if the UK was to be stupid enough to reach ‘Net Zero’ as you wish, and using the UN-IPCC’s own fake values for CO2 warming, what would be shaved from global temperatures? A couple of 1/100s of a °C maximum.
    Call that a rational cost/benefit ratio(?) because I don’t!

    This planet does NOT need the Arctic Circle to be a permanently frozen desert. This planet could do with some more atmospheric CO2 and also to be warmer, as this helps to drive vegetative greening and ease the feeding of ALL nature.

    Mr. Harrabin, Humans are not apart from nature, they are a part of nature!

  6. In The Real World permalink
    August 14, 2021 11:45 am

    The real cost of “Net Zero ” has been shown to be massive .
    And even the CCC is now trying to stop the public finding out the truth .
    So there is no chance the Fake News BBC is going to say anything but their usual lies .

  7. Tim C permalink
    August 14, 2021 11:49 am

    The fact that WWF, Greenpeace, etc. are so dominant is the conversation proves this “emergency” is purely political.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      August 14, 2021 12:03 pm

      I’ve mentioned this before…some time ago an XR rep was being interviewed on R4 and the interviewer suggested a thought experiment to the rep: If I had a switch that could turn on a system that could remove the problem of excess CO2 immediately should I throw it?
      After a little thought the rep said, ‘no’, followed by a lot of muttering and spluttering.
      I rest my case.

    • dennisambler permalink
      August 14, 2021 12:28 pm

      Exactly that. In 2019, a WWF “climate and energy specialist, XR’s Gail Bradbrook and Ed Miliband’s co-author of the Climate Change Act, Bryony Worthington were “witnesses” at a BEIS committee:
      Tuesday 18 June, Thatcher Room, Portcullis House

      Gail Bradbrook, Extinction Rebellion,
      Isabella O’Dowd, Climate and Energy Specialist, WWF and
      Baroness Bryony Worthington, Environmental Defense Fund.

      “The session tests whether the CCC’s net zero advice, and the draft net zero legislation laid by the Prime Minister, go far enough to fulfil the UK’s commitments under the Paris Agreement and to protect our environment for current and future generations. It also scrutinises the rationale for, and feasibility of, alternative targets proposed by environmental organisations.”

      The Met Office is now under the control of the BEIS, having at one time been an MOD department, so currently answer to Alok Sharma.

      • dennisambler permalink
        August 14, 2021 12:34 pm

        Sorry, it was Sharma, until he got shunted off to look after COP 26, it’s now
        Kwasi Kwarteng who is BEIS minister.

  8. Dick Goodwin permalink
    August 14, 2021 11:55 am

    Because most of us want to see ‘Till Death Us do Part’ back on the tele.

  9. 2hmp permalink
    August 14, 2021 1:04 pm

    If we we all went vegan there would not be enough food. If we all went vegan there wouldn’t be enough CO2. Guess what would happen .

  10. Ray Sanders permalink
    August 14, 2021 1:17 pm

    “If Harrabin wants to be a political activist, fine. But he should not also be employed by the BBC.”

    That is the whole issue in a nutshell. Public or Civil servants must never be allowed to express their own political views in association with their employer the government. That way leads the way to dictatorship but then again that is probably what people like him wan!.

    Probably an even bigger offender is the obnoxious Chris Packham who I believe even had a petition raised against him for his removal from the BBC payrol.

  11. August 14, 2021 1:50 pm

    Surely the WWF is not a reliable source of climate change info.

    • Dr Ken Pollock permalink
      August 14, 2021 2:35 pm

      I once heard Tanya Steele, who runs the WWF in the UK, say at a public meeting that our air pollution was getting worse. After the meeting – no questions – I showed her the HMG graph that charted the drop in these pollutants of between 65 and 90% over the last 50 years. She expressed surprise, but refused to correct her comments to the 50+ people who heard her error. The WWF has an agenda and does not want annoying facts to get in the way…

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      August 14, 2021 7:07 pm

      I’ve always thought of the WWF as WWtF.

  12. Nicholas Lewis permalink
    August 14, 2021 1:52 pm

    They need to add in the additional costs of running the renewable energy system they’ve imposed upon us then at least that would be a true figure.

    The reality here is where can hold the higher moral ground that we have low CO2 but in the grand scheme of things but unless China, Russia and US (maybe now) are going to cut there emissions our efforts will be for didly squat and in all likelihood result in civil unrest as the prices go up and the power system collapses. OK a bit far fetched perhaps as the diesel peakers will all kick in and repollute out air..

  13. Vernon E permalink
    August 14, 2021 2:12 pm

    Since there can be little doubt that there is some anomolous climate behaviour occurring wouldn’t it be a good idea to spend some money and effort to find out what’s really causing it? It certainly isn’t tiny traces of a benign gas in the atmosphere. As I have posted many times this planet cycles from ice to tropical forest and we still don’t understand the mechanisms involved. The scientific method – observe, explain, predict.

  14. fretslider permalink
    August 14, 2021 4:14 pm

    Ah the WWF – well known “scientific” contributors to IPCC reportts and as we all know…

    • August 15, 2021 12:23 am

      And money too! There’s gold in them there hills of political crap. They raise about 3 million dolars a year from contributions
      And it’s tax free I believe.

  15. Is it just me? permalink
    August 14, 2021 5:25 pm

    That’s fine – if taxes go up I’ll just stop paying my annual licence fee – how’s that?

  16. Mike permalink
    August 14, 2021 5:51 pm

    Dioxin, Ozone Hole, Nitrites, CFCs, Saccharin, PCB, Alar, Cranberries, Asbestos, Acid Rain and now Climate. The list of scares that the NGOs have exaggerated is almost endless. They create such scare stories to raise money and influence. They are scientifically illiterate and have no morality whatsoever; damaging people’s lives to fill their own pockets and egos. They should be told to get out of politics.

  17. Stuart Hamish permalink
    August 15, 2021 12:18 am

    [ Harrabin ] and his chums at the far left WWF think drivers should stump up [ an ] extra 11 billion [ pounds ] in fuel duties ”
    ‘ And in aid of what ‘ ? Good question
    This may interest you Paul Homewood : the WWF has hypocritically reaped monetary donations from, and invested in, the fossil fuel industry for decades . This is an excerpt from ” Saving the Worlds Wildlife : WWF – the first 50 Years ” courtesy of the NFC article ‘ The WWF’s Vast Pool of Oil Money ” ” An analysis of WWF’s well documented interaction with the oil industry can shed light on the complex way in which the funds special relationship with the business world developed over time …….WWF’s earliest corporate sponsor was the petrochemical giant Royal Dutch Shell . In 1961 it gave WWF – UK the remarkable sum of 10 000 [pounds ] ” .An absolute fortune at the time
    The WWF continued to receive oil money for the next four decades from ‘ BP Shell and others ” until [ 12 years after the global warming hype and hysteria began in 1988 mind you ] , the turn of the 21st century when the fund endeavored to phase out their stakes and stipends . Or so we were told . …..Document disclosures revealed that commencing in 2008 , the WWF invested $2.3 million in Denham Commodity Partners which has ” invested in energy projects around the world including fracking or shale oil in ….Ohio and Pennsylvania …..It bid unsuccessfully for Mongolian coal ….put $262 million into MS Directional LLC , a Texas based company that provides drilling services to the oil and gas industry . And it invested $200 million into Tradition Midstream LLC largely involved in oil and gas pipelines ” Has anyone broken the news to Roger and the BBC ? Or do they know it ?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: