UK Climate Minister Comes Home–He Has More Important Things To Do
December 12, 2023
By Paul Homewood
The Guardian has got its knickers in a twist again!!
There are actually no emissions created by Stuart’s flights, as the plane was flying anyway!
Apparently Guardian readers are too stupid to work this out!!
50 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
The Guardian has got its knickers in a twist again
Of course 😃
And the problem is?
The BBC decided to send 47 bodies to the gab-fest.
40 of whom may well have flown from the UK.
Including a dedicated “King Charles Cameraman” who presumably is similar to a King Charles Spaniel, but tamer.
Thanks for that Joe.
My wife and I had a little bet on the number of UK based BBC correspondents made it to COP28. She said 30 I said 50, an honourable draw.
And are we to believe the Guardian didn’t send anybody? tens of thousands of people flew, many on private jets. The vast majority are doing nothing whatsoever – King |Charles for instance. And if the Guardian cares so much about this MP, why did not urge Labor to “match” his vote and have a Labour MP stand down? Lies, hypocrisy and stupidity.
I did think of that, but of course the whip was worried about getting enough Tory votes.
“There are actually no emissions created by Stuart’s flights, as the plane was flying anyway!”. Yep, even if there were no passengers, the flight would have happened, otherwise the plane would not be in the right place for it’s next flight. This happens all the time.
Feel sorry for the MPs on the international development committee. They were on their way to the airport when they were recalled. Their destination? Barbados and Domenica to examine after effects of Climate change on the Islands. Makes you want to weep – or not
Of what possible relevance is the climate change of Barbados and Domenica to the UK to justify flying MPs out there (for a jolly) when a Zoom/Teams/etc. call would suffice? These MPs’ duty is SOLELY to their constituents.
It might also be carrying cargo that needs to be moved.
The majority of air freight into the UK comes on board passenger aircraft. Most scheduled passenger flights can actually operate economically with no passengers at all onboard. My wife and I were once the only passengers on board a flight from Schipol to Manston kept company by the aircrew!
No they cannot and no they do not! Most LCCS don’t do cargo for example. And flights operate even when empty both to ensure positioning for the next flight (crew and aircraft) but also because EU regulations on slots means slots have to be used 80% of the time or you lose them. And its majority by value, not volume. And lots of non-LCC short haul is unprofitable even full. And even large cargo aircraft don’t make enough money to land at e.g. Heathrow because the landing charges are so high.
And stupid EU rules (that we haven’t changed) make airlines fly empty aircraft to maintain slots under the 80:20 rule. But its EU regulation, so the Guardian says nothing about it.
I’m sorry but I don’t agree with this way of looking at it.
Air services are put on for a reason, and that reason is to satisfy demand for flights on that route.
If there were not people like this minister then the service wouldn’t run.
This is one of those rare events where the Guardian is correct.
Of course, without all of those pesky jets, none of the 80,000 would have got to Dubai in the first place!!
Message to the Guardian: the ‘Climate talks are not ‘crucial. One man flys back to UK – probably on scheduled flight – while many 100s went to Dubai for no real purpose.
Yes, all three of them and two are bots!
Also given that there is ZERO science to support the religion against CO2 and in fact a wealth of empirical data which supports the opposite stance they should be thanking him for firstly helping to feed their exponentially growing world population ( all in places where it is unsustainable) and also to “fight” the next and coming mass extinction set to arrive when the 160 million year decline in atmospheric CO2 falls to 150ppm and photosynthesis stops, so good on him and everyone else who puts CO2 into the atmos!
70,000 people went to the COP 28 boondoggle. If they all flew commercial (which we know they didn’t) that’s 35,000 metric tons of CO2 not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars, pounds, euros, etc. How many of the 4,000 reporters (2000 metric tons of emissions) did the Guardian send? Has the Guardian even questioned why 2x as many people went this year vs. last?
See Wiki: Transporter_(Star_Trek)
All the money being wasted on the demon CO2 molecule could be spent on transporter technology. Likely to better effect.
Aye , the bloke is probably coming home to gran some bargain heating oild: Oil prices fall sharply again on Tuesday. The discount in the afternoon is minus 3 percent. Brent crude falls below $74 a barrel and US light oil WTI plunges below $70. https://www.agrarwelt.com/top-meldungen/oelpreise-brechen-heftig-ein-heizoelpreise-fallen-mit-rohoel-heizoelpreis-oelpreis.html
It does actually cost a little more fuel to carry a little more weight on an aircraft.
A quick and dirty calculation suggests that increasing the aircraft payload by 100kg for passenger and baggage for the ~3,500 mile trip (including diversion to avoid Iraq/Kurdistan) consumes an additional 21kg of fuel producing around 65kg of CO2 each way. The Grauniad claim is over a factor of 7.5 higher.
Under 12g/km of emissions, which is probably way below the real emissions of running an EV.
True, but would they have sold the ticket anyway?
Let’s be fair – in the 21st century Parliament really should be able to hold a vote whereby MPs can vote remotely. I’m sure they must have managed that during covid lockdowns. It is madness for that Minister to fly back to the UK from Dubai just to spend moments in a voting lobby, then fly back again.
That said, the Guardian really would do better to concentrate on the very real carbon footprint of the 90,000 hangers-on who went to Dubai and whose presence will have made not one jot of difference to the outcome of the talks.
In the 2020 US elections, dead people could vote remotely.
But only those in Hell. 😉
No GC, we have been instructed that you must have that wrong by a bunch of 20 something arts graduates doing a “reality check” for the BBC and proving” your assertion is completely untrue!!!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54874120
Though actually I know who, and what, I believe.
“My father voted Republican all his life. Since he died, he only votes Democrat.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/12/12/survey-more-than-1-in-5-mail-in-voters-admit-to-cheating-in-2020-election/
Or Labour could have offered to “match” the vote, as they do for MPs who are ill.
This is the bit that always bothers me:
“Almost 200 countries are working into the night to salvage a deal on climate change, a new draft deal is expected to be published overnight, which negotiators will immediately scrutinise to see what’s changed on fossil fuels”
Another COP which works right through the night for our benefit – thankyou so much.
I vote for a certain manifesto at election time and my government then swans off to Dubai where it changes its policies to appease those 200 countries. So my vote doesn’t count and what I thought was a democratic process isn’t!
“Almost 200 countries are working into the night to salvage a deal on climate change, a new draft deal is expected to be published overnight, which negotiators will immediately scrutinise to see what’s changed on fossil fuels”
This quote is about COPn, where n = 1 to 28. Probably 1 to infinity.
It’s kicking off at the DT: Allison Peaŕson has a great piece against NZC. Comments are flying!,
I don’t really mind this nonsense thinking about emissions on flights, because it allows me to point out that the annual emissions from my boiler total less than the emissions made by a family of four flying to Orlando. Yet apparently I am supposed to spend a fortune on some useless alternative means of heating my home, which is totally unsuitable, because an unnecessary holiday is far more important. I haven’t been on a plane for over 20 years, not because of the emissions, but because I couldn’t be bothered with the hassle. The last time I tried the flight was cancelled due to the French having a routine air traffic controllers’ strike.
In what way is a holiday “unnecessary”? It’s this sort of thinking that is why we are in such a terrible state. People believing their values are better than other people’s values.
You can live without a holiday. You can’t live without shelter.
I agree !
People these days travel incessantly, often going on several foreign holidays by air per year.
Those very same people will also be fully behind Net Zero.
The fact that they will have a lifetime limit of four flights has not hit home yet. They need to know that support for NZ means their globetrotting lifestyle is finished.
‘outrageous dereliction of leadership’
What does that even mean?
Hopefully it mean that because he flew back, there won’t be a deal…
I would prefer to measure their CO2 emissions in tonnes rather than kgs.
At the rate these politicians travel many will be up in the tens of tonnes of CO2.
Well, to be precise each extra passenger does involve the combustion of a
small additional amount of fuel, insignificant as it is.
If he was extra, i.e. the seat wouldn’t have been sold otherwise.
Is there an irony in all this since Sushi’s Rwanda Bill is unworkable from the start as despite claims from some MPs – yep, not a good source of facts – having signed up to international treaties, the government is bound by them unless it withdraws from them. The legacy media fail to point out the real issue is who runs this country – our elected Parliament or international treaties? As with immigrants, so also with climate but I think it is far easier to ignore a climate obligation than it is something relating to immigrants and alleged refugees.
So the flight back and return from whence he came by our Minister for Controlling the Weather is utterly pointless.
I don’t agree with this viewpoint of “..well it would’ve flown whether he was on it or not…!
That applies to every single passenger. They could all say that.
Air services are put on to satisfy customer demand. This minister is part of that customer demand just like the other customers.
The Guardian is effectively accusing the minister of increasing carbon emissions, which is simply untrue
So when I book a flight, can I say, this flight is happening irrespective of me being on it, therefore I should get it for free ?
Or perhaps a small marginal cost to cover the tiny amount of extra fuel I use?
The Minister flew on a scheduled flight. Over half of the air freight entering the UK arrives in the hold of scheduled passenger flights. They can often fly economically with no passengers on board at all. Passenger demand is not the sole driver of scheduled flight numbers and the plane would have flown regardless of whether he was on board or not.
But every single passenger could say that. They could ALL say the flight would run whether or not I was on it.
But if none of them created a demand for a flight then the service would not be provided.
You cannot make exceptions like this. It is like saying, my factory can pollute the river because one factory is negligible. It might be true, but you can’t allow an exception can you.
“It’s not my fault; it’s all them other people.”