Prime Minister Rishi Sunak
By Jo Nova
Was this the “Peak NetZero” moment for the British Isles?
Perhaps the threat of jailing people for owning the wrong fridge was a step too far?
On Monday the UK government was insisting the ban on petrol cars by 2030 would still go ahead. Today, in a rush, it’s been delayed 5 years, along with slowing down the forced push to get rid of gas boilers. About a fifth of all householders apparently won’t ever have to buy a wildly expensive heat pump they could not afford. (Shame the other four fifths will). People won’t be getting seven different recycling bins, taxes on meat, flying and new rules on car sharing, at least not yet. Here’s hoping they’ll get delayed forever.
Naturally the PM is insisting this is “not a short term decision aimed at winning the next election” — because in a democracy, that would be a terrible thing, right. Imagine trying to appeal to voters. The Sin of it!
Labor immediately promised to undo this travesty of allowing the public to choose whatever kind of car they want for another five years. Which is good news. If Rishi Sunak really does this, and the election becomes “a climate vote”, the people of the UK might get a choice.
We know this is step in the right direction because Al Gore, Greenpeace and the Grantham institute people have already said they don’t like it.
h/t MrGrimNasty, and NetZeroWatch
Rishi Sunak takes axe to Tory net zero plans warning current 2030 target would cost families £15,000:
PM waters down ban on gas boilers and petrol and diesel cars, scraps plans for seven bins per home and says there will be no extra tax on flights or meat
The Prime Minister hosted a Downing Street press conference to confirm plans to delay a ban on new petrol and diesel car sales by five years to 2035. And about a fifth of all households will be covered by an ‘exemption’ from ever having to remove their gas boiler and replace it with a heat pump.
‘We are not going to save the planet by bankrupting the British people.’
— Home Secretary Suella Braverman, Sky News
NetZeroWatch welcomes this and points out it was inevitable given the retreat in other nations and the impossibility of it all:
Net Zero Watch has long warned that current Net Zero plans are astronomically costly, technologically impossible and politically unsustainable. As European governments have begun to retreat from their own Net Zero plans, it was just a question of time before the UK, which has even more utopian targets, had to make a U-turn, and return to the path of economic and technological realism.
A few small truths come out…
‘Unacceptable costs’: Britain delays petrol car ban, weakens net-zero targets
Sydney Morning Herald
Sunak, who said governments “of all stripes” had not been “honest with the public” about the costs of net-zero…
He said the debate around climate change had been charged with “too much emotion and not enough clarity” and that the approach should shift to “consent, not imposition, honesty not obfuscation, pragmatism not ideology.”
“If we continue down this path, we risk losing the consent of the British people and the resulting backlash would not just be against specific policies, but against the wider mission itself,” he said.
What consent do they risk losing? The fake one created with ambiguous polls, loaded questions and by calling people “deniers”?
Funny how a PM facing hanging in the morning can suddenly focus his mind.
590
Amazing, they “sacked” Liz Truss and her team who were elected by the rank and file, but now they’re forced to adopt a lot of her common sense ideas. Hope they choke on it every day…
461
That’s what you need, a different executioner.
https://www.weforum.org/people/liz-truss
20
Self preservation trumps all.
30
“If we continue down this path, we risk losing the consent of the British people and the resulting backlash would not just be against specific policies, but against the wider mission itself,” he said.
Which is not-so-subtle code for, “Our jobs might go down with the ship.”
520
When I read we risk losing the consent of the British people my first thought was “No sheet Sherlock”.
330
It is a bit rich – outrageous lie? – to say that they currently have our consent. We have never had an honest vote on Net Zero economic suicide – the Tories claim that it was in their 2019 election manifesto but nobody voted for them because of that. The 2019 was all about pushing through our exit from the EU and really nothing else – what else would matter other than becoming a free nation again?
180
i know a “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead” moment. I am equally sure he will have a “Bob Brown” to tell everyone “It’s worse than we thought” after the election.
140
It’s time resuscitate the British National Party.
The plug must be pulled from the centre of the Island, sunk, given a good shake to wash all the muck & mire away, hung up, dried off & start again from scratch.
It’s either that or or it’s going to be smothered & will die! Same for the USA. Get Trump back in office or it’s going t I t s up for good!
121
Yes, trusting a Prime Minister that was not even elected by MPs let alone party members to be the leader and hence PM, and has been through the World Empire of Fascism’s Hitler Youth programme, is a big ask.
70
“Against the wider mission itself”. Is that the one world government Mr Sunak and his ilk are irrevocably moving to? You know, the one based on the CCP model.
450
Apparently Mr. Sunak is even more open and transparent than even Jacinda Ardern.
🙂
110
Great to see what voter pushback can achieve, in just a short space of time.
BTW Willis Eschenbach has another look at the IPCC reports and their so called rare events.
And Micky Mann is up to his anti science tricks again to try and ban studies based on proper Data and research.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/09/19/extremely-common-rarities/
280
.
30
Now that is something I can understand.
62
At least his on point.
50
Where is his off point?
10
.
10
That was destabilising….. I nearly gave you an accidental red.
00
Arguably difficult to refute.
20
I can see your point but I can’t quite grasp it
60
?
10
This decision proves what we already know. It’s all about the vibe and politicians are quite happy to change any policy to remain in favour to the electors.
The public aren’t happy…change the policy else we’ll be tossed out at the next election.
We are told that we are facing an existential crisis. We are doomed we were told. Fire and brimstone…the seas are boiling…the seas are rising…gerbil warming is racist…etc.etc.
What every country needs is a referendum on this net zero BS.
Gerbil warming is the greatest con in history.
361
Richard Gere disagrees
10
Net zero offsets by planting forests in burned out parts of Australia and Canada? Growing corn? Burning the world’s garbage? Building solar farms in Indonesia? Putting up windmills next to nuclear power stations in France? Bring in more immigrants from the developing world? Tax on children?
Hard to see how the UK can even approach Net zero carbon emissions.
230
This was their first try. I’m not even sure who “they” are , to be quite honest. They’re the blob who by accident or planning are pushing these climate and world health narratives. The likes of Sunk, Biden and Albanese are just the useful idiots. The planners behind the scenes have taken notes and will be tweaking their policies for the next shot. That, or this is a limited hangout and behind the scenes some of these policies (boilers, reduction in air travel, total cashless society, carbon points etc) will advance quietly behind the scenes. It will be death by a thousand cuts.
311
Obviously there is money behind so much of this political activism and it crosses state and national boundaries with just a hop, skip and a dump.
It must be traceable when a BLM “organiser” can arrange for a load of bricks to be delivered to a specific site where a “demonstration” later occurs. There is a money trail.
182
The BLM was/is controlled by the Chines Consulate in San Franciso
31
So the question is; would a tax audit show the origin of BLMs “funds”?
If not, there are some big problems in USAs tax/legal system that strongly indicates korrupshun.
Follow the tax trail; and if you can’t, then put someone in jail (it’s the US) and send a message.
But maybe the current government are quite happy with what’s going on.
20
Apologies, my comment should have been better edited. 🙁
41
“pushing these climate and world health narratives. ”
Barely disguised control narratives in fact.
Throw in a CBDC , and you’ve got the trifecta.
50
Betcha that’s Sunak’s new nickname starting now.
60
Or “skunk” “stunk” but not “spunk”
20
I still dont trust Sunak.
He was merely testing the limits and discovered them and is now temporarily backing off.
350
Yes. This isn’t a u-turn, just a ploy to pause net zero till AFTER the election. He is, after all, a wealthy globalist technocrat himself.
311
I should add that this ‘pause’ will only affect NEW spending and legislation. The billions already committed will still be spent.
150
I don’t trust Sunak either. But it’s a U-turn in that there was no delay on Monday, but now there is.
It’s not a lot, but I’ll take it. Next we push for more…
If the UK has a climate election the promises made repeatedly and in public will be harder to undo. If the only way the Tory’s can win is to make this a climate election and they do that, the UK is in a much better place than if it repeats the last stupid Australian election where the climate was barely mentioned, except in wealthy inner city Teal seats, and the “conservatives” campaigned to be Labor-lite.
The worst case scenario is where both sides of the uniparty offer the WEF wish-list.
170
I completely agree and hope this is the beginning of the end for the climate gravy train, but there is a huge risk here. If the Tories do make the next election all about reducing ‘climate action’ and they LOSE (for whatever reason), the AGW crowd will claim vindication and the ramifications will be very bad indeed.
10
He’s taking a lead from NZ’s National and Labour parties’ “postponements ” of various climate/environmental issues, in the lead up to next month’s election.
5 years has been popular.
Still seven to go until 2030.
70
Correct. Nothing had changed but the deadlines pushed back a little. As the net zero policies bite they will get pushed back some more becasue of fear of not getting re-elected. The problem in the UK is that the Labour Party will re-instate the original deadlines. Like Australia the Socialist Progressive Uniparty (pronounced “spew” h/t Memoryvault) is in power.
200
Uturn = 5 years, used to mean change direction, back track.
Lot of nothing about nothing.
90
I’m not sure there is a “blob” with a plan. I think the human race, or a good proportion of it, has descended into madness. Is it a result of a virus, bacteria or parasite (See Carl Zimmer “Parasite Rex”) or a mind virus like in the SF of John Barnes where self aware, self porting computer viruses decide Human Being 1.0 is just another operating system, or is it the “Screwfly Solution” by James Tiptree Jr – actually Racoona Sheldon. SF fans will get the references.
90
On second thoughts, maybe the human race gets insane when it gets comfortable and away from basic survival.
140
Can someone point this out to Albanese and Andrews so that they take note – or is that a Bridge too Far?
90
They’ll only take note if/when the polls turn. And in “we want to be known as the wokest country on earth”, aka ‘Straya that is unlikely to happen until the financial reality doesn’t start to bite.
50
AGAIN who will pay for the UNRELIABLE, EXPENSIVE, TOXIC W & S disasters in Australia?
Their Net Zero Australia loonies have told us the full cost will be 7 to 9 TRILLION $, compared to just 0.194 Trillion for Nuclear power stations that last at least 60 years and about 94% reliability.
And their W & S disasters only provide power for about 30% of the time and last about 15 to 20 years.
Yet Bowen BELIEVES this is cheap, reliable , clean energy?
210
I am simply celebrating.
141
David how long do you think W & S would last and then what about the ongoing cost to dismantle and build replacements?
I’m quoting 15 to 20 years and a combined capacity factor of about 30%.
And do you think 7 to 9 TRILLION $ is a reasonable cost to replace Aussie Coal and Gas generation?
You see our Energy minister BELIEVES that W & S are cheap, clean and reliable and always makes delusional jokes about Nuclear energy.
50
“What consent do they risk losing?”
Good one Jo.
Again, misdirection by the powerful.
It’s not about “consent” when in ninety percent of the decisions that need to be made on behalf of the community the proper path is obvious.
If a “government” chooses to “overlook” reality and insert a money making scheme that will benefit their friends and relatives, then they do not have implied “consent” for that and should be tried, prosecuted and gaoled.
There IS a force that is driving this very obvious collapse of western civilization and it should be confronted.
How do we do that.
250
Take a walk on the wild side.
The history of now.
https:/https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/03/10/the-hidden-history-of-the-incredibly-evil-khazarian-mafia//www.veteranstoday.com/2022/03/10/the-hidden-history-of-the-incredibly-evil-khazarian-mafia/
11
Indeed. They don’t have my consent for anything they are doing: from digital IDs and CBDCs; futile support for Ukraine; deliberately not stopping the invasion across the Channel (Belgium stops the boats leaving and limits asylum to genuine families, so why can’t we?); forcing ‘Smart meters’ on us (that are designed only for control); ruining our heritage sea- and landscapes with useless astronomically expensive wind and solar farms; and every other net zero imposition, nugatory solutions for a fraudulent threat. Summed up for me by an online clip showing a girl virtue signalling that her ‘leather belt’ was synthetic, only to be schooled that the synthetic one had released far more CO2 in its production than leather ever could.
30
Dr Faustus
Sep 21, 2023 9:59 AM
Just back from a Body Corporate meeting, where we were informed that the Queensland Fire Service has advised that it will no longer attempt to extinguish fires in underground car parks which contain an EV or a fixed EV charging station. This is consistent with the recent QFES Position Statement on the hazards of EV’s.
First Responders will continue to save lives and protect property but, for their own safety, will not try to dump tonnes of water on your blazing and erupting Tesla in the confined space under your apartment, surrounded by toxic and corrosive fumes, for hours. Quite sensibly.
We are also informed that, due to the above, when the Building Insurance comes up for renewal, it will likely have either an exclusion or special risk provision for loss and damage caused by incendiary EV’s.
The present advice is that owners of EV’s should ensure that their Own Lot insurance covers Third Party damage caused by their combustible vehicle – if such insurance is available – or face the risk of being sued for unlimited damages by the Body Corporate. Or park on the street.
Down the track down the track we are told to expect Building Code requirements that underground garage spaces containing an EV must be fitted with a sprinkler system designed to control any fire. Sprinkling tonnes of water? Good luck with that.
The EV owner at the meeting was quite taken aback: “Faaark! And how much is all this going to cost us?”
And even more taken back by the Committee response: “Us? Us? Who is this ‘Us‘ of which you speak, kemosabe?”
Luckily, the Top Men who wrote Sh@tweasel Bowen’s National Electric Vehicle Strategy are all over the problem:
While evidence suggests EVs are less likely to catch fire than ICE vehicles, this does not mean we can ignore the potential for EV battery electric shocks or fire related incidents (EV FireSafe 2022). The Government will support emergency service workers and first responders by funding the development of world-leading guidance, EV road rescue demonstrations, and fire safety training to address safety and risk knowledge gaps around EVs, chargers and battery technology.
Two critical sentences in a 45-page strategy document. We can relax now, knowing that Ministerial Policy Advisors and Communications Graduates are not in ignorance and are currently developing “world-leading guidance“.
In the best of good hands.
170
Dr Faustus
Sep 21, 2023 10:30 AM
I wonder how many residents charge their e-bikes and e-scooters in their flats? Body corporates might start to get quite antsy about that.
Funny you should mention that.
The BC has advised owners that they need to consider the risks of e-fires in those devices in their insurances. It appears that bike and scooter fires are far more common than reported.
140
I recharge my eBike is my garage, which is isolated from my home. While I have fitted an extra smoke detector above the charge point, I need to extend it alarm back to my residence. I also limit the charge time.
00
“While evidence suggests EVs are less likely to catch fire than ICE vehicles”
How ships have sunk recently which DID NOT have EVs on board.
60
I wonder if someone who is still permitted to use Disqus could post the reference on “thedriven dot io”?
20
I’m not convinced that this is a sign of a Net-0 turn-around. One of the trademarks of the long march to Marxism is that if the change is too fast or radical and the public resists, then they back off for a while and continue. Moving the EV target date to 2035 would indicate this is just a slight slow down to reduce public outrage and the end goal is still the target.
110
Public transport for all by 2030 is their goal.
No private car ownership.
The regional councils in NZ are planning for it now.
Of course , I mean consulting for it now.
LOL
50
If hypothetically Netzero were to be undone it would start with a delay to buy them more time.
Whether or not that delay can be extended is now the new goal.
A win is a win. It’s a step in the right direction. Push for more…
110
“It’s a step in the right direction. Push for more…”
You’re right, but I think that it is a feint.
Who needs C-zero and “pandemic” mandates for control , when one can control ALL financial transactions through a CBDC, and achieve the same result?
10
Meanwhile in Britain: Magistrate Removed After Bringing Nuremberg Code Case Against UK Government
Kaira McCallum was removed from the magistrates’ bench after 20 years of exemplary service after submitting a case to the International Criminal Court of genocide, crimes against humanity, and breaches of the Nuremberg Code against certain members of the UK government and its advisors.
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/meanwhile-in-britain-magistrate-removed
Do you think the government really cares?
Power costs, food, Covid, vaxxes, net zero.
Try to hold them accountable and what happens?
They mouth platitudes, lie endlessly, then do what they’re told to do behind closed doors.
This will only end one way.
80
It’s worse than I thought.
10
Here’s an interesting exercise to think about.
If our govts agreed to change to 100% W & S in 2000 we would’ve changed to a complete new replacement by now and this could’ve cost at least 4 TRILLION at least.
So add that 4 T $ to the original 8 T $ means a total of 12 T $ in just 23 years.
And by 2043 another 4 T $ replacement + inflation = 6 T $.
Then another 6 T $ by 2063 + inflation = 9 T $.
The total cost until 2063 would be at least 27 T $ and yet the real generation would be just 30% of that time period or about 21 years.
Anyone still think that TOXIC W & S are cheap, reliable and clean anymore?
Of course the cost of battery backup over that 63 years would be horrendous to cover the 70% deficit of the W & S disasters.
So we’d need to spend at least that sum again and the TOTAL cost by 2063 would be 54 + TRILLION $ .
70
And BTW that TOTAL cost of 54 TRILLION $ by 2063 is close to the number I quoted using Lomborg’s estimate of NZ’s cost of NET ZERO = 5 trillion $.
You see NZ is about 0.1% of global co2 emissions and we are 1.1%. So I just multiplied 5 T by 11 = 55 T $ for Australia to reach NET ZERO.
And my estimate was probably a couple of years ago on Jo’s blog.
70
So that’s nearly a cost of 1T p.a. since 2000 for those 63 years you refer to. Not small change considering GDP was only about 1.63T in 2021, so we would be royally under water by now.
40
Another quick exercise using Nuclear Energy and starting at the year 2000 and the cost of 0.194 Trillion $.
A change over at 2060 could cost 0.3 T $ and last until 2120.
So that’s about 0.494 T $ until 2120 and only proper maintenance required over that 120 years.
I ask who wouldn’t want to save at least 53.5 T dollars and have cheap, reliable and clean energy for that long period of time?
50
There you go Peter Dutton, precedent set!
Now get rid of the bedwetters in the Liberal Party and set some fact based policies to go to a real climate election with and undo this lunacy before the productive farm land of Australia is covered in transmission lines designed to provide renewables investors with a steady stream of taxpayer subsidies. 80m people worldwide depend on that farmland.
The one room Australians need the adults to control is Parliament House.
Start listening to the 1600 scientists including Clauser, Happer, Lindzen and return to fact based government policy. Reduce the Australian taxpayer funding to the UN and any body which keeps promoting this delusion.
Let’s go Dutton, time for Nuclear.
100
If an industrial windmill installation and a nuclear power station were completed at the same time, by the time the nuke station had its 50th birthday, the windy thing would have been rebuilt 3 times.
So it looks like not only do windmills only supply 30% of their nameplate but they only last 30% as long too,
80
I note the scepticism from my fellow commentators! As if Politicians would lower themselves to tell lies in order to win votes just prior to an election. What Politician would have the temerity and audacity to trick their constituents with such a pathetic story? Oh, perhaps all of them!
90
It’s not a u-turn, it’s a temporary, slight application of the brakes, before we get more acceleration next year.
Al the MSM are very unhappy, so it must be a good idea. One minute the BBC is telling us we mustn’t miss the 1.5deg target, the next it is telling us the climate is unpredictable.
70
They just worked out they need to boil the frog slower.
90
From Allister Heath in the UK Daily Telegraph’s article “The furious Blob will try to destroy Rishi Sunak for his net zero heresy” (paywalled):
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/20/net-zero-rishi-sunak-blob-heresy/
In a dramatic move that may yet upend British politics, the Prime Minister has declared war on the green establishment, torn up the cross-party, fanatical consensus on how to achieve net zero, defied the useful idiots within his own party… and promised a… more sophisticated environmentalism committed to protecting consumers. It was the best speech he has ever given…
There is now clear green water between the parties, making life trickier for Sir Keir Starmer. But I hope Sunak realises just how vicious the backlash will be: the Blob, the cultural aristocracy and myriad pseudo-Tories will unleash every dirty trick in the book to force him to back down. Broadcasters will continue to be hysterically negative… he will be accused of hating the “youth”… there will be leaks, resignations, and attempts at ousting him…
Sunak is merely being pragmatic and realistic: banning pure petrol cars in six and a bit years’ time… would guarantee chaos, mass impoverishment, power cuts and a popular revolution. The same holds true for the other policies Sunak is delaying… They are all examples of what the philosopher Rob Henderson calls “luxury beliefs”, ideas performatively adopted by hypocritical jet-setting elites…
Sunak’s pragmatism is… an intolerable transgression of the boundaries of rightthink. To understand why Britain is now about to return to Brexit-style legal and cultural warfare, one must grasp just how much power our hapless politicians have handed over to bureaucrats.
The central problem is Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband’s subversive 2008 Climate Change Act…. Green activists, corporate subsidy junkies and the rest are crying blue murder. They will… rush to their lawyers. The Left is already planning a raft of judicial reviews to prevent any airport expansion… This battle is a harbinger of things to come: the courts may well rule that the delay to phasing out the combustion engine is unlawful.
If Sunak wants to win, he will need to change the law… requiring a Parliamentary vote. He may even need to amend the Climate Change Act itself. He will need to whip his MPs… If that fails, he will need to include a pledge to legislate for his relaxed deadlines in his 2024 manifesto.
The public tells pollsters it is pro net zero, but also objects to paying more to go green. The voters are on Sunak’s side…
It is not well understood, even by many politicians, that under the British way of doing things Parliament really is supreme, even over judicial review; if necessary it need simply change the law, which it is mandated to do:
https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/Fixing-Human-Rights-Law.pdf
70
Electioneering ?
At the very best this is only a short delay on the madness. What’s needed is a complete halt and return to ‘normality’.
“… the terrible truth is, … , that even these mild changes may be unlawful – the PM needs to change the law.
the courts may well rule that the delay to phasing out the combustion engine is unlawful.”
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/09/21/the-terrible-truth-is-that-even-sunaks-mild-net-zero-relaxation-may-be-unlawful/
20
I frankly doubt that Sunak has the strength of will to face dow the Greens in his own party and in the media and the banks over even this mild U-turn. Only someone of strong will who genuinely disbelieves the carbon scare will not buckle.
40
Rishi is a trojan horse . Lizz Truss was put in the naughty corner for similar policies . Now fully woke she is ready to go again . Fool me once…
30
It should be good news. But it’s worrying that Sunak didn’t say anything about the Energy Bill that is in the final stages of amendment by Parliament before receiving Royal Assent. Why didn’t he scrap it?
20
Got the UK disinvited to the UN climate summit
11
I don’t think one less at that circle jerk will matter.
90
So many look askance at this seeming political retreat.
I offer this latest Tucker Carlson interview with the Texas AG that was just acquitted in impeachment.
A glimpse behind the curtain.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7mMiuecR2vId/
This struggle between Neo Feudal forces and the rights of the common man is international and very sinister.
Once at least, the barons were English or American, French or Australian* … seems different now.
Exposure is the crucifix and wooden stake … probably all we have until the Sun rises again.
*(In no way am I implying any comparison of Ozzians with snail consumers, I wouldn’t do that.)
40
You may not have been implying that, but you also put us after the frogs, that is unforgivable.
10
E.L. Rothschild Chair & Council for Inclusive Capitalism Founder & Co-Chair Lynn Forester de Rothschild says its time to put the term ‘ESG’ in the dustbin and focus on making businesses sustainable. She joins Bloomberg’s Menaka Doshi at the B20 Summit in New Delhi, India.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZzZubPKPrw
30
In a surprising shift of policy direction, the United Kingdom has made a substantial U-turn on its NetZero commitments, particularly concerning cars and heaters, while also pledging to avoid imposing taxes on meat and flights. This change in approach, unveiled recently, carries significant implications for the country’s climate goals and economic landscape 918kiss เข้าสู่ระบบ.
Reversal on NetZero Targets for Cars and Heaters: The UK government, previously known for its ambitious NetZero goals, has decided to backtrack on certain key aspects of its climate agenda. In a significant departure from prior commitments, it has opted to reconsider its plans for transitioning to electric vehicles and phasing out gas-powered heaters. This shift in priorities raises concerns about the country’s ability to meet its carbon reduction targets and combat climate change effectively.
Tax-Free Meat: In a move that has captured attention and generated debate, the UK government has promised not to impose taxes on meat consumption. This decision appears to contradict efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with livestock farming, as the meat industry is known to be a significant contributor to carbon emissions. The decision to avoid taxing meat aims to address concerns about affordability and potential backlash from consumers.
Tax-Free Flights: Similarly, the government has committed to refraining from imposing taxes on flights. While this may be seen as a boon for travelers and the aviation industry, it is likely to raise questions about the UK’s commitment to reducing the environmental impact of air travel, which is a major source of carbon emissions globally.
Environmental and Economic Implications: The UK’s U-turn on NetZero targets for cars and heaters, as well as its decision to forgo taxing meat and flights, has sparked debates about the balance between environmental sustainability and economic concerns. Critics argue that these policy shifts may hinder progress towards achieving climate goals and jeopardize the country’s international reputation as a leader in climate action.
the United Kingdom’s recent policy changes, including a reversal on NetZero commitments for cars and heaters and a promise to avoid taxing meat and flights, have raised questions about the country’s dedication to combating climate change. These decisions reflect a delicate balance between environmental goals and economic considerations and have garnered mixed reactions from stakeholders and experts alike.
40
Wow. A politician telling the truth. How about that? Governments all around the world have been lying about pretty much everything for a long time, maybe forever.
70
Notice also how the ‘name of the game’ is changing.
Wasn’t it imperative to act now (only 10 years, 31 days and seven-and-a-half hours to save the planet)? Suddenly, well it’s ok we can postpone tackling Armageddon for 5 years.
And then we had Quentin Wilson, one of the original Top Gear presenters from when the Earth was young, a long-time pusher of EVs, telling Farage with a straight face that Net Zero is “about making as much as we can for jobs and economic activity in the UK, that’s the opportunity we face.” Come again? What happened to saving the planet at all cost?
That was perfectly shown for the lie it is with the parallel news that 3000 jobs will be lost as Port Talbot steel works is to be converted, at phenomenal cost financially and in skills lost, to electric arc production, with no mention that this can only recycle and produced lower grade steel.
He also parroted the Left’s go to phrase for any policy that might enable us to stand on our own two feet: He said we risk losing our place on the world stage. Losing our place in the vanguard of the lemmings heading for the cliff more like.
Then there was Labour’s shadow Minister for Industry and Decarbonisation (yes, seriously!) knee-jerk reaction that this is a lost opportunity to create jobs (those jobs again) and to lower bills. Lower bills? Politicians lying at least used to be subtle; now it’s brazen and on every narrative.
50
We have been here before – time and time again we hear the politicians and Press say we are listening and will stop doing, meanwhile in the background the relentless government machine churns on its last setting… No one will take charge and sack – it wont happen until that happens!
20
The only answer is to realise that this is a “Watt Tyler” situation: our governments have clearly and irrevocably broken their contract with the electorate and democracy must be restored.
It Must be restored.
20
I keep saying that NetZero was never meant to be implemented. It was just a promise that sounded nice to green voters.
01
But it WAS implemented. Whilst future spending might be paused, billions of dollars are already legislated and committed, and this will be spent irrespective of the ‘pause’. I have no doubt whatsoever that zero carbon will be back on the table once the election is over.
My most cynical brain cells are already thinking that the green blob is so determined, and so devious, that Sunak is just offering himself as a sacrifice in order to actually INCREASE zero carbon spending. How so? Well, should the Conservatives campaign on a (partly) anti-zero carbon platform but then lose the election (even if the loss is simply due to voters wanting a change), then the zealots will credibly claim that the UK voters don’t want to slow down on zero carbon, in which case the lunacy will actually accelerate.
And then Sunak will reappear as a bigwig in UN/WEF circles.
10