Express Readers Rebel Against Its Green Agenda
By Paul Homewood
One of the strangest phenomena this year has been the sight of the Daily Express embracing far left climate policies, courtesy of their ex-Mirror, Remoaner, left wing editor Gary Jones.
The Express is famous for its Putinesque opinion polls, but has never put its ludicrous Green Britain agenda to such a vote. Now however their readers have stuck two fingers up:
Forking out for the future?
You recently took part in our Green Britain survey. More than 4,000 votes were cast and the results are now in.
A staggering 83% of respondents say they wouldn’t be happy to invest £10,000 into greener energy over the next 20 years, in order to give their grandchildren a better chance at climate survival.
It’s worth noting that some voters may not be able to afford to invest such a hefty sum.
When it came to personal choices, 73% of voters said they won’t buy an electric car instead of a petrol or diesel car, even after considering on average that they sell at the same price. 16% said they would purchase an electric car, while 2% of those who voted already own one.
A whopping 72% refused to cute down on their meat consumption per meat – while 20% of respondents said they will down by at least 25%. 7% of those who voted already have meat-free diets. Here, scientists say cutting out meat won’t solve climate change.
When it came to clothing, 69% of Express.co.uk readers said they do not purchase anyt fast fashion – while a fair 13% said they will reduce the amount they buy.
I don’t understand why they needed a poll to tell them that.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I wonder what the polling would look like to the questions:
Would you be willing to pull the lever to open the trap door and
Who do you think should be first?
The idea that one guy pulled the lever and that was it is a fantasy. It was a team of three, but the other two never get a mention.
They need a poll to find out because the affluent elite (including, clearly, the editor of the Express) – live in a bubble. This bubble contains a lot of people who have had a very soft upbringing, are well heeled, and circulate in the same (sub-)community. They think everyone thinks as they do – hence the Brexit vote came as a very big shock. “We didn’t see that coming. how can these people vote like that?”
I suspect none of them have inquisitive minds nor science or engineering backgrounds. Hence they will have difficulty doing what Paul is so adept at – fishing out the other side of the story. Some simple examples are: floods are normally a result of poor or non-existent flow management, not just heavy rain; wildfires are usually a result of poor pseudo-green management with undergrowth not cleared; Arctic ice may reduce in one place but build in another; record show that polar bears are increasing, not decreasing in number. And so on.
It’s interesting that their readers seem to be wakening up to the way this alarmist nonsense and the poorly engineered solutions will affect them – very seriously in many case.
There seems to be some stirring in the DT community, but still rather limited
Yrs, my brother held a number of very senior roles in government as a civil servant and was heavily involved in negotiating climate change treaties. He is no fool, but has a degree in history. He’s never built even a simple model, has no understanding of statistics or data analysis, has very little understanding of basic economics. None of that has stopped him being responsible for lots of what we see now from government. He’s completely convinced by the whole climate change nonsense beche has absolutely no means of interrogating what he’s told by advisers and “scientists”. When I’ve explained simple stuff like averages and their misuse he’s been quite surprised. And he’s much more reasonable and willing to listen thcn most of his friends from similar backgrounds.
The tyranny of the arts grads. Dunning Kruger in action.
The people you describe so accurately are the ‘in crowd’. The people who know the right people, eat in the right places, live the right lifestyle, mix in the right circles, holiday in Tuscany……… and express pseudo concern for the ‘poor’ people hence the support for socialism, providing it does impact upon them of course.
Collectively, they are the champagne socialist brigade!
The USA equivalent mob recently attended O’Bama’s 60th Birthday bash, no change of lifestyle for them, classic ‘do as I say not as I do’!
Noted loading with: “in order to give their grandchildren a better chance at climate survival”.
That’s completely ridiculous. How about: “because they are not convinced climate threatens their grandchildren”?
Did the Express miss a trick. They might have a different answer if they had added: “in order to stop puppies tails being cut off”. Or how about “in order to save bags of kittens being drowned in the river”. If it was still a negative result, would it have been any more “staggering”?
Express.co.uk readers seem to think its readership is heartless. Maybe they are just making rational risk/value judgements. Maybe they can see through the doom mongering.
My puppy’s tail is docked and I WANT IT THAT WAY. Let’s ask all the crybaby animal “rights” people if they dress their dog in stupid outfits and push it around in a stroller. THAT is animal abuse.
We have no control over the life-chances of our grandchildren.
My father was born in 1901. He and his grandparents had no idea that in his short lifetime he would live through TWO world wars and die shortly after as a result of colliding, while riding his motorbike, with a dog.
I don’t think he would have cared a jot for the hysterical arguments of the green extremists.
The biggest surprise in this poll is they asked the 10,000 pound question. Bureaucrats are taught that if they don’t think they will like the answer to a question, don’t ask it. Whoever wrote the poll was either incredibly honest or incredibly naïve.
Earl Mountbatten said in an interview that to get the right answer you must ask the right question, not think of the answer you want and then ask the question that will give you that answer.
This survey seemed to ask the right questions, even if they were loaded with grand-children.
Coverdale (project management people) always taught that to get to the right answer you should ask ‘why?’ to the seventh. It’s fascinating to use it in practise.
PS: Try using it to the statement that we need HS2.
I’ll start: Why do we need it? to get passengers from London to B’ham faster.
Why? …
Why is the saving of 20 minutes on a train journey worth spending so many billions of pounds, when it will take more time to get to the start and from the finish of the journey?
The provision of Wi-Fi on trains allows travellers to work during the train journey, so the travel time need not be wasted. Also many people might like the opportunity of a quiet time to get on without interruptions.
The people are starting to recognise the climate scam when the brass tacks are put to them.
Long may that realization continue. Even the brainwashed alarmists, including the elite may come to see the light.
Never was a UK people’s revolt more justified: bring it on!
As a staunch climate realist/sceptic, call it what you will, I need to make a comment about veganism.
I must admit I don’t know many vegans, but those I do know are vegan on humanitarian or also spiritual grounds. We know that living creatures are conscious, have feelings, and feel fear and pain. Anyone who has a pet must surely realise that!
I once kept pigs, to fatten them up and send to be slaughtered for meat. They only lived a matter of months. I never particularly liked them, but there was definitely a relationship in existence with them!
However, in the end it wasn’t any feeling, or intellectual concept that decided it. The pork came back from the farmer’s meat business, in bags which, by the way, were instantly snapped up by friends. For ourselves, we cooked the tender pork and served it up……but it literally stuck in my throat. i could not swallow it. That did it.. From then on I began to move away from meat.
It was a gradual process, over years, from that date in the 1980s, to the present time when I am now close to 100% vegan.
So please don’t knock vegans, simply because the climate movement has hi-jacked the philosophy to support their virtue signalling. I don’t criticise meat eaters….this is a very personal choice. But I would say that over the years the variety of vegan food has increased hugely….and it’s great to eat, and fantastic for ones health!
Nothing wrong with following your conscience/taste.
I’ve no particular objection to red meat but I’m 100% chicken/fish – just sort of happened.
It’s the diet dictators people object too.
And the liars that misrepresent facts to further a political agenda.
Ian,
your eating habits are a personal choice and yours to make.
What is wrong, to me, is that it seems more amd more pressure is being applied to get people to change their eating habits, from the nonsense that farming meat is changing the climate and that legislation, possibly through taxation is required.
As it happens I don’t eat a lot of meat anyway but I do not expect to be controlled in any way as to my diet. I most certainly could not give up dairy products at all, they just taste too nice.
And that is the point, I am fortunate that I do not have to eat to survive but to savour what I do chose to eat and drink.
You have to be so careful with a vegan diet because you miss out on the nutritional value of meat. Vegans always look sickly to me.
Shunning dairy removes your calcium intake leading to bone problems such as osteoporosis in later life and so women who are already more susceptible to it will be storing up a mass of problems.
I see it as a personal choice Ian and would never criticise anyone for being Vegetarian or Vegan. It is likely that if we all had to kill our own meat and butcher it ( as obviously our distant ancestors did) there would be a lot more folks eating plants. Us carnivores are that sort of hypocrites. I do tend to see meat eating as acceptable as long as the animals are treated well and kept in good conditions. After all they would never live at all if we didn’t eat them. For me that life has to be a good one and personally would never kill any living creature for sport.
My wife and I eat a lot less meat now we are older and will eat veggie on many occasions, but veganism is a jump too far for us. And even Vegan authorities warn of likely deficiencies and problems in such a diet.
I thought this was informative-
https://www.cleaneatingkitchen.com/vegan-diet-dangers-health/
Bon Appetit Ian
Anyone can make any choice they like about the food they eat as far as I am concerned.
However I do object to being lectured, hectored, criticised and patronised about my food choices by those that choose vegetarian or vegan diets. They will have to prise the steak from my cold, dead hands.
Regarding killing and eating your own food, I take the view that you should be able to look it in the eye, kill it, butcher it and cook it. I confess I haven’t dealt with large animals like pigs or cows but I entirely comfortably dispatching fish, pheasants, pigeons and deer. There is a whole larder for free waiting on the roadside in the autumn and winter months…..
I notice a question was loaded with ‘give your grandchildren a better chance of climate survival’. Based on what? Britain changing some boilers? Temperatures have risen, thank goodness, since the Thames regularly froze, but the current CO2 fad, is just that, a fad. The best science can tell us is that our CO2 output is too tiny to be noticed. The arrogance of the true believers that they can avert dangerous temperature change (which is unknown), whilst being duped by anti-capitalists. And a mild virus signalled the end of days. Crossing the road must really stress these people.
What is “climate survival”?
Just a nonsense phrase.
It’s language manipulation.
(Despite) prevailing trend of opinion in community or period
(one) continues to live or exist.
Designed to fit the Agenda 21/30 reset.
Madness, just like having to injure high wheat prices here in the UK despite a good harvest because Canada had a bad one.
Specific benefits/profits for specific people.
Now they’re talking of an electric car factory in Somerset.
Bonkers.
They may ‘survive the climate’ but they won’t survive the debt mountain it will take to accomplish it, if indeed it ever does. But then, the great and good can slap themselves on the back to say how wonderful they’ve been saving us from climate Armageddon – then China unleashes WWIII.
They didn’t need the poll because by tomorrow they will have forgotten the outcome.
Is there a therapy group for ‘climate survivors’?
I’m sure the weather was once inappropriate towards me.
The trouble is, thoseceho commissioned the poll think it shows (i) how stupid people are and (ii) that they haven’t been “educsted” enough yet.
It gives the elites more material for sneering, not pause for thought.
I don’t know whether my grandchildren will regard the wind turbines as their saviour, or just rusting monuments to a failed belief. I cannot predict the future, and neither can anyone else.
Is all I can do is try to make sure I leave them loads of money and to always question the consensus and the views and beliefs of those chosen to lead us, that is likely to help them.
If their lives are not damaged by effects of warfare i will rest in peace. My father and grandfather went to war and looked at life very differently to the eco warriors now in charge.
Hmm, I wouldn’t be so sure that you’ll leave them loads of money. Care home fees & inheritance tax, will see to that.
The Express was on my morning read list until I got sick of this green indoctrination.
I never look at it now.
Let’s deny these greenists our clicks and throttle their advertising revenue.
Surprised by the results were they?
In the same way that the Twatteratti were surprised that the British public went “Corbyn? No, no way, not on my watch”, because everybody they “Followed” were saying he was marvellous, they’d vote for him.
invest £10,000 – meaning: waste £10,000.
Well, polls everywhere in the world show that three-quarters of people HAVE swallowed the Kool-Aid and think climate change is a VERY serious problem now or in the near future. The highest concern, at over 95%, is in Latin America, oddly enough. Even odder to me is that the main fear is of drought – how on earth they think that an increase in warmth would decrease water picked up by wind over the sea beats me – and hardly at all of what the natterati witter on about all the time, in the UK – extreme weather, polar bears sinking under the tumbling, rising waters, etc.
We should look to the world of USA ‘preppers’ to see what is appropriate, if there is really any sort of existential threat. They do not seem to put the purchase of electric cars high on the list of priorities. Heading for the hills to an off-grid cabin at the first sign of trouble makes more sense to them. If I had any grand-children I might give them enough money for THAT. Many of the present ‘preppers’ are preparing for the COLLAPSE of society that they think the PREPARATION for warming is bound to CAUSE.
Back in the day I did have such a bolt-hole in rural USA and I did have enough supplies for six months. That was in case of nuclear war of course. I did not think it at all likely, but it was a damn sight more likely than ‘death by hot climate.’
The real problem of preparing for a PARTICULAR threat is that whatever happens it will be so different from what you expect, that all you will have done is thrown away your resources in an idiotic premature ejaculation.
As I do not have any grand-children, the question is ‘moot’ for me.
“Even odder to me is that the main fear is of drought – how on earth they think that an increase in warmth would decrease water picked up by wind over the sea beats me ”
Too true Dave – but you are using thought and intelligence – not “Feelings”
If you are a religious believer, you can soak up huge chunks of alternative reality without batting an eye-lid. Do you remember the congregation of one chapel in the southern States of the USA back 2012 – their Pastor convinced them that the world would end on December the 12th. God had told him so.
When it didn’t happen, they didn’t tell him was a fake, they accepted his excuse that his calculations were in error and it was still coming.sometime
Truly a Potentates Garments situation.
BUT as Mark Twain said –
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
How odd that there doesn’t seem to be much fear of CC in Afghanistan.
Slightly off topic but yesterday Jillian Ambrose showed her remarkable grasp of science by writing
“By contrast, blue hydrogen is made from natural gas, which has to be extracted from gas fields and then purified by the removal of carbon dioxide and methane,”
So she seems to think blue hydrogen is made by taking methane away from methane (natural gas).
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/20/oil-firms-made-false-claims-on-blue-hydrogen-costs-says-ex-lobby-boss
I got them to change it (see notes at bottom of article) but not without the Reader’s editor daftly trying to point out that natural gas was not 100% methane as some form of justification.
‘Silly Jilly’ obviously thinks that natural gas is a MIXTURE of: a lot of hydrogen [good], a little methane [evil], and some carbon dioxide [evil]; and some jolly clever fellows know how to SEPARATE the good from the evil and send the good stuff down a pipe to Islington, and consign the evil stuff to a hole in the ground.
Whereas, of course, natural gas is almost entirely the COMPOUND methane which has to be broken by applied heat (input 1662 KJ per mole) into the more elementary fuels carbon and hydrogen, if you have the bizarre idea of not using both fuels to cook your dinner.
I honestly do not know how the UK has so tamely succumbed to the onslaught of aggressive nonsense shouted everywhere by what must surely be the dumbest ‘intelligentsia’ of any society in history!
I am surprised that they published the results. I assumed that, if you didn’t get the answer you wanted, you kept it quiet!
Ever notice the most “climate friendly” places are like Africa, with a lifespan of 40 years and starving children? It’s probably also the most organic and the one with least landscape changes. So one has to conclude that 40 year life spans, starvation and disease are the goal of the climate change people. Their star examples live that way.
Yes it must be a bummer for Express readers to see their newspaper move heavily left from under them!!
Many readers/commenters at the DT and Spectator are fighting a rear-guard action to avoid the same fate.
It is part of the Common Purpose and long march through the institutions perhaps??
The myth of Progress in which civilisations improve for ever can be countered by a study of economic history. Causing the collapse of civilisations by over regulation happens again and again.
There may not be a Future,though. “What if this present were the World’s Last Night ?” is a phrase which should be considered when making sacrifices of present prosperity for a Future which may never happen.
The Green agenda pages of the Express seem like advertising pages for Dale Vince