Having been caught using just one high wind year to persuade British parliamentarians to donkey-nod through an insane rush to Net Zero in 2019, interest is growing in some of the other stunts pulled by the Climate Change Committee (CCC) to promote the green collectivist agenda. In 2020, the CCC used a supposed finding of the Citizen Climate Assembly to promote to Parliament the idea – found in its Sixth Carbon Budget – that meat and dairy consumption should be cut by up to 40%. In fact only a third of the 108-strong assembly discussed the matter, and only 10 people expressed priority support for such severe reductions in the diet. The assembly was largely curated by the CCC, while £200,000 of funding for the event organiser was supplied by the European Climate Foundation, a green activist operation drawing heavy financial support from Extinction Rebellion funder Sir Christopher Hohn.
The CCC’s Sixth Carbon Budget identified the drastic legal pathways the U.K. Government must follow to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide during the years 2033 to 2037. Everything must go it seems in the unreal world of Net Zero, despite the fact that human activity – and survival – depends on exploiting the Earth’s natural resources. “The experience of the U.K. Climate Assembly shows that if people understand what is needed and why, if they have options and can be involved in the decision-making process, they will support the transition to Net Zero,” states the CCC.
The investigative journalist Ben Pile broke the meat story and wondered at the time how just 10 individuals can be used to somehow represent the wishes of 66 million people. Needless to say, poodle media took the bone with Roger Harrabin of the BBC writing that members thought politicians should encourage people to eat up to 40% less meat.
The assembly was set up by a number of Parliamentary committees to include 108 members of the public invited for six weekend sessions around the time of the first Covid lockdown in 2020. Three were held in Birmingham and three by Zoom. The Chief Executive of the CCC, Chris Stark, was one of the four main organisers and one of the four ‘Expert Leads’. The leads chose the speakers who addressed the gathering. What transpired, of course, was 12 days of relentless eco propagandising. Just 35 members of the Assembly discussed the ‘what we eat’ issue and, noted Pile, listened to one speaker who said the following:
We know that red and processed meat is associated with a number of health conditions so it’s linked to heart disease, it’s linked to strokes, it’s linked to particular types of cancer like bowel cancer, it is also linked to diabetes. Whereas on the other hand, eating fruit and vegetables is linked to prevention of all these conditions, so the more fruit and vegetables you eat, you are less likely to suffer from those diseases.
Alas, when it came to a vote on eight options, only 29% of the group, or 10 members, chose eating less meat as a priority. In fact it was the second least popular option.
Mike Thompson was the Chief Economist of the CCC and the lead author of its Sixth Carbon Budget. He put a slightly different spin on the ball:
The Climate Change Assembly said it would be happy with a 20-40% reduction in meat consumption. We’ve looked really carefully at the Climate Assembly recommendations and actually we were quite engaged in the process as well. If you take the time to guide people through this, to explain why the changes are needed, to explain the sorts of things that need to happen, they’re really supportive of action, and actually we were really surprised how supportive they were of late of the things we were thinking of already.
Quite what planet people like Thompson operate on is not clear, but a good case can be made that extreme eco activists like him, indeed anyone associated with the Climate Change Committee, should not be allowed anywhere near the machinery of public policy and Government. The agenda of Net Zero, with its capacity to wreak havoc on economic and social lifestyles, is far too important to be left to public sector extremists and lazy Parliamentarians content to follow a Net Zero narrated plan. The push to 100% Net Zero was rushed through with barely an hour’s debate in the House of Commons in 2019, with MPs relying on advice from the CCC that there would be just seven days a year when wind turbines produced less than 10% of their potential electricity output. This of course helped play down the enormous cost of storage required for intermittent wind and solar power. Net Zero Watch has noted not seven, but 30 such days in 2020, 33 in 2019 and 56 in 2018.
Always in the background, as we have reported in the Daily Sceptic on numerous occasions, is the seemingly unlimited supply of elite billionaire money to buy influence with politicians, media and academia. Although set up by Parliament and curated by the CCC, the billionaire money was still in evidence at the Climate Assembly with £200,000 given specifically to Involve, the event organiser. Step forward with the cash, the European Climate Foundation whose other good works include backing for the Labour Climate and Environment Forum and the Conservative Environment Network. This latter operation runs a caucus composed of around half the backbench MPs of the ruling Conservative party, dedicated, it is noted, to supporting Net Zero ‘champions’.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The Article nails ‘the Science’ ™. There is only ‘one’ ‘Science’ of course. To find it, follow the money.
Always in the background, as we have reported in the Daily Sceptic on numerous occasions, is the seemingly unlimited supply of elite billionaire money to buy influence with politicians, media and academia. Although set up by Parliament and curated by the CCC, the billionaire money was still in evidence at the Climate Assembly with £200,000 given specifically to Involve, the event organiser.
Nobody in power was ‘duped’. There is no cock up. The climate agenda isn’t an accident. The woke agenda isn’t an accident. The trans agenda isn’t an accident. The million little things that now makes life so difficult you want to tear your own head off isn’t an accident. All there is is a very simple plan to subvert democracy. To attack us. To frustrate us. To confuse us. To punish us. To make it clear that there are lords and their serfs. They kick us in the face while we lick their boots. Our response? To moan about having to pay the TV licence. We’re f*cked
Correct. ——–The people being “duped” are the unsuspecting public. ——The stuff written above by Chris Morrison and all the stuff in his other articles cannot just be appearing here on the Dail Sceptic though. If the “duped” public are to ever have a chance of becoming “un-duped” then there must be a way found to make them understand that climate change is simply not the black and white issue as presented on BBC and SKY NEWS. There are huge uncertainties that are simply being ignored and there is actually no empirical evidence that CO2 is causing or will cause dangerous changes to climate. But there is clear evidence that 3 billion people in the world living on a dollar a day (one billion of them with no electricity) are being denied the chance to prosper because of these eco socialist policies all emanating from the world government in waiting at the UN. There is plenty of evidence of fuel poverty in the western world as dumb governments are having to dish out huge sums in welfare just to prevent the vulnerable from freezing half to death in winter. ——–Once people realise the extent to which they are being “duped” under the false pretences of “climate crisis”, then they will rightly be very angry. ——-That is the challenge. —–Get the message on Mainstream Television. For if it never appears there then the “duping” will continue and people will meekly surrender their prosperity to the secular religion that is politics masquerading as science.
I share your concerns but since lockdown there are, in my view, far too many people who like being at home watching a small screen & getting their food delivered. So as long as they are enabled to do this they will not care about anything else.
Yep well they can watch a screen and find out plenty about the climate change fraud. ——–But I know what you mean.
One challenger party currently on 12 % in the polls says it will scrap net zero targets. People will have choice to overthrow this scam if they choose to.
They will have the chance to overthrow this scam only if they become aware that it is occurring. ——–I make the argument in other comments that it is ok for us on this website to rant about the scam, but until people get the different perspective on why it is a scam on mainstream TV then they are mostly going to keep falling for the official narrative that there is a climate crisis and Net Zero is essential to stop it. Which is patently absurd. ——-People are being seriously misinformed for political purposes on BBC, SKY etc, and until the information that appears in articles such as Chris Morrisons happens on National TV then most people will continue to be brainwashed and simply accept their lot.
Yesterday on GB News Patrick Christie show I saw this “Just Stop Oil” guy rant on about fossil fuel companies and how the world will almost certainly soon be ending etc etc. The usual evidence free pseudo scientific crap that these silly activists always spout. Despite the fact that the very same IPCC that these idiots think they are quoting have recently said that their worst case scenario’s from models are very unlikely to ever occur. But remember that they are just models, but models full of speculations and guesses are NOT science. ———-So Ok then Patrick next time you get these extreme activist nutters on just ask them this —“What will you use instead of the fossil fuels that we have, and how long will you take to get rid of those fuels and replace them with your fantasy power sources? Then ask them what difference this will make to global climate, and to provide EVIDENCE for all of this. ——–Their answer if you ever receive one will be total nonsense., because they have no clue about how energy works. ——-There has been an attempt to get little smart meters in everyone’s house now for about 10 years and it still has not been achieved. What hope is there of removing 21 million gas boilers from the UK and replacing them all with heat pumps in the timescale that the stupid Climate Junkies say should happen to avoid their apocalypse. ———THERE IS NO CHANCE. —And the gas boilers are just one part of the equation. There is all of the transport, all of the electricity generation that cannot possibly be provided by wind no matter how many thousands of turbines you have. ——-The fact that politicians who cannot really be classed as stupid people have passed Net Zero through parliament with not a single question asked as to cost or practicality reveals that this has NOTHING to do with the climate for even the most dim-witted moron would realise that this is simply Alice in Wonderland on stilts.
And you never hear anything about the miles of gas pipes in the network which will have to be decommissioned, at a huge cost to the taxpayer, because to leave them in situ would be hazardous.
Think of the cost of removing gas central heating radiators, pipes under floorboards, re decoration, then the cost of the new heat pumps and associated radiators etc, or silly hydrogen if the experiment in Scotland gets underway elsewhere and we are talking a mountain of cash. Even with large subsidies the poorest cannot afford this nonsense and it is all for NOTHING as it will have no effect on global climate, which even Tony Blair whose government gave us the Climate Change Act freely admits. ——-So if it will make no difference then why do it? ——-The answer is simply that it isn’t about the climate and never was.
When we’re being gaslit by morons like Thompson, then we’re in real trouble. Best advice comes from Marvin Gaye: “Believe some of what you see son, and none of what you hear.”– ‘Heard it through the Grapevine.’
Or as someone once pointed out “Lies spread half way around the world while truth is still tying its laces”.
Wandering down Whitehall yesterday I passed the department for energy.
Except it’s not called that, it’s called the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
When I saw that, it clicked. The name really reveals the whole game.
The European powers have lost control of the main sources of oil and gas. Comparatively small European powers cannot dominate the bigger more populous world without controlling oil and gas.
Net Zero is a desperate attempt to undermine the oil and gas market and replace it with renewable sources which can still be dominated by European powers.
And China, who have the same problem of big global ambitions but no oil and gas.
It’s no coincidence that the two places in the world that are gung-ho about renewables and electric cars are major European countries and China.
Net Zero is a desperate ploy by our elites, those who have ruled us and the world up to now, to keep the power and see off the rising influence of the big oil and gas states.
And if that doesn’t work, which it isn’t, it’ll be war with Russia, as they are starting to prep us for.
Big wars are always about someone coming up and someone trying to keep others down.
Good comment. I would love to be a fly on the wall as the parasites discuss Net Zero, where the real reasons for it and the seemingly plausible excuse given to the public regarding the phony climate emergency would be revealed.
I clearly recall reading an article in the DT shortly after 9/11 which said the western nations were going to “have to build a wall” to protect themselves from oil-rich, but unstable regimes.
The “wall” would be to wean themselves off foreign oil. Shortly afterwards we started getting the climate change nonsense.
It all comes down to oil.
For all of those things you need a plausible excuse and that excuse is “climate change”.
Possibly, but why are we not fracking then, and going all-out with nuclear and North Sea oil and gas exploration? Domestic energy security at all costs is probably sellable to the voting public.
Good question.
I don’t think it’s about getting energy for ourselves. We can buy it. And we don’t need to produce the things we need. I would say that microchips are absolutely critical and essential but we’re happy to buy the stuff in.
The issue with oil and gas is the wealth and power it confers. I think it’s a threat from a geopolitical standpoint. The Anglo countries have been ruling the world for 200 years and they want to continue doing so.
Whoever has oil and gas in abundance will be able to challenge that rule and power. Since WWII through a combination of their own production, the oil majors and control of oil producing countries like Saudi, through strategic agreements, the anglos have managed to keep control.
But that control has clearly slipped away in the last few decades and these oil nations have become more self assertive.
Countries like Iran that “went rogue” have been attacked and reviled relentlessly. But there are too many of those countries now doing their own thing. Look at all the countries that we’ve had issues with. Iraq, Libya, Russia. The Americans have been relentless against Venezuela. All countries with huge reserves.
They realise d they’re losing their grip. So make up climate change and try to destroy the market for oil and gas.
And that failing, war.
Possibly, though of your list I can only take Russia seriously as a rival – the rest have not amounted to much.
If this is the case isn’t there a fatal flaw in this- oil is used for a lot more than electricity generation and fuelling cars
We don’t frack and we don’t go after oil and gas because we are fully paid up members of the pretend to save the planet eco socialist UN political agenda called “Sustainable Development”. We have forced ourselves in law with Net Zero to reduce emissions by 100% of 1990 levels. This will cause untold misery for millions but all of our mainstream parties only care about the little gold star they will receive from the UN.
I do get the impression that people like Sunak are in love with the idea of world (unelected) government and see UK politics as a stepping stone to that. Once you’ve made your mark it doesn’t matter that you lose an election because that then frees you up for a endless round of positions of influence – much more secure, less stressful and probably allows you to “shape the world” more than being an accountable elected politician ever could.
They don’t work for us. ——They work for the Global Community. The UN and WEF are where they want to be with their own citizens as simply a minor inconvenience.
Net Zero hasn’t been imposed by “our” Parliament. It’s been imposed by the UN, WEF and EU …. and the propaganda is funded by a handful of billionaires who expect to make £billions more out of the scam.
Citizens have to resist …. like the Dutch, German and French farmers.
Personally, I intend to get a nice – large – steak for dinner tonight. I’ll pay for it with cash and I’ll be washing it down nicely with a glass or two of Aussie Shiraz.
Absolutely, except for the Aussie Shiraz: since watching Dan Andrews and his like abusing the population, I’ve only drunk wine from Eastern Europe, S. Africa and the more lax S American countries.
That’ll show ’em.
(Ok, probably not…)
Every little bit counts.
If everyone did just that little bit, we’d be well away.
And even if they don’t, there’s nothing like doing what you think is right and sleeping easy.
Boycotts work if they catch on and take off. But otherwise there’s no point in depriving yourself of something if you really want it, when it will make no difference in the grand scheme of things. If it’s a matter of conscience, where do you draw the line? To be in the best shape to oppose the insanity of today’s world, we need to enjoy ourselves.
That’s a question for each tp grapple with individually.
I doubt staying away from Australian wine puts much of a dent in anyone’s happiness, but what do I know…
I was speaking generally.
I doubt staying away from Australian wine puts much of a dent in anything.
Start with the French ….
But our Parliament had the choice to not accept Net Zero being “imposed”. ——They chose to accept it and not a single question of cost or practicality was asked, despite the estimated cost being in the trillions and with no realistic hope that it could ever be achieved anyway. ———-This is insanity and economic suicide.
Slightly off topic, but very relevant is the MannV Steyn defamation trial currently taking place in Washington. This case against the brilliant writer and broadcaster (who many of you may know from GB News) is taking place 12 years after MS called Mann a fraud for his famous ‘hockey stick graph’ which appeared to show that World temperatures had risen sharply since the 19thC when Industrialisation took place and fossil fuels were widely used. This graph has been widely used to ‘prove’ that Climate Change is all the fault of mankind.
Mark Steyn is ill and using a wheelchair after 3 heart attacks, but remains as sharp, funny and well-informed and so the podcast Climate Change on Trial https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/climate-change-on-trial/id1713827256?i=1000632768141 is entertaining as well as showing his in depth knowledge of the fraud.
You can also follow Mark here https://www.steynonline.com
If we know which years the wind allows the windmills to produce <10% faceplate, then surely the data is out there somewhere which shows average daily wind speed for the last say 25 – 30 years. That data could in turn be used to plot a simple line graph showing daily wind speed for 25 – 30 years and the subsequent number of windmills required each day to produce in real world terms circa 40GW which is broadly speaking the UK’s peak need.
Back of a fag packet says we need at least 12 times more windmills than we have at present to achieve this on low wind days. Seeing as there are no financially viable storage solutions, there is no other option than this if we’re to abandon fossils.
Adding costs, resource requirements in gigatons, and pictures of African kids digging in open cast mines alongside photos of freezing British grannies would also help.
Get Frosty to add all this to a Telegraph piece and who knows, the brainwashed masses might start paying attention.
“If you take the time to guide people through this, to explain why the changes are needed, to explain the sorts of things that need to happen” – note not a single piece or mention of actual EVIDENCE! This is always the case with these people, unevidenced assertion; always belief not truth.
People should be able to eat whatever they want.
The problem is when some people/groups want to force other people to eat what they want because of their ideology.