Our new Government seems, as expected, to have put climate and energy at the top of its agenda. The Secretary of State for Net Zero and Energy Security, Ed Miliband, is back in office with the energy brief he lost in 2010 and full of enthusiastic zeal for Net Zero, despite the public comprehensively rejecting Milibandism in 2015. But this enthusiasm belies serious instability in the relationship between the Government and the public. According to news reports, Miliband believes the public has given Labour a mandate to act on his green zeal. Here are some reasons why Miliband is wrong – there is no such mandate, and the Government would be foolish to let him act like a kid in sweetshop with the public’s credit card.
In a recent interview with Sky News, an exuberant and confident Ed Miliband told Kay Burley:
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
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 Net Zero scam like the Covid scam will be propagandised by every media outlet so the People will believe it is their duty to accept high energy prices and constant blackouts to save the planet.
A furious response is needed, if these people are determined to kill us off then we need to return the favour.
If only, we are the inconvenient 15% they will kill off first, and realise too late, that we are also the 15% that keep the Country running.
My hopes lie with the criminal, undocumented fraternity that might put up a fight.
In general I’m not for revolutionary acts but in this case the perpetrators of net zero deserve the guillotine.
And you’ll get people like Jeremy vine this morning to test the water with the question: Is it OK to disrupt holiday makers at Airports. Yeah totally fine, is it ok to rape that woman because she’s in a short skirt, is it OK to commit burglary because I fancy what is in there FFS!
If people thought Tories were bad, and they were, then they are about to see what bad really is. Notice that Miliband talks of freeing us up from volatile fossil fuel prices by building masses of wind and solar. But the main reason governments are doing Net Zero is to “fight climate change” or at least that is their number one excuse. It is only when you question the phony climate change science, the manipulated data, the fact there is no increase in the frequency or intensity of any type of weather event etc that they then switch to talking about tyrants and dictators controlling fossil fuels.
——Our Political Class are fully signed up to the UN Sustainable Development Agenda that declares the lifestyle and standard of living of the affluent middle classes all over the wealthy west is TOO HIGH, and that fossil fuels are why we have this prosperity. So they have set about removing those fuels and fobbing us off with wind and sun. In 2009 the WEF published a huge report called “The Global redesign Initiative”, which called for a new system of global governance (a new world order). In this new world order National Governments will act not according to the wishes of their citizens but instead in line with Sustainable Development Goals. That is what the Tories were doing and that is what Labour will do even harder and faster. When you look at the face of Miliband above you are looking at the face of a TRAITOR and a LIAR. Even Tony Blair has recently said that nothing we do in this country will make the slightest difference to global climate, so why do it? ————Because it isn’t and never was about the climate.
Correct. They are “levelling down” the affluent middle class in the west ….. and the economies of the west.
They believe that Communism only failed because it wasn’t imposed everywhere at the same time.
wink. ——Earth Day isn’t on Lenin’s birthday for nothing, and the UN and WEF don’t even try to hide their intentions. It is all there in black and white in their various pronouncements and agenda’s —-Agenda 21/30 etc. Leftist governments didn’t choose 2030 for the silly Net Zero Scam by chance. It ties in with the goals of the global government people at Davos.
I expect you’ve seen the bust of Lenin in the office of Klaus Schwab. But what the WEF is pushing is Steakholder Capitalism that is more in line with fascism don’t you think?
Yes I do, where a few elites run the world. The Technocrats and Corporations with their Net Zero, their ESG etc are the winners and the rest of us are the losers.
One way of destroying capitalism comrade
It turns out it is the only way apart from a bloody coup CO2 is the Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Liberal Progressive dream gas. it allows them to put policies in place they have long craved, and they have this very plausible excuse of “climate change” where they can tell the public virtually anything they want, and they wheel out their bought and paid for scientists, who are actually mostly climate modellers putting assumptions and guesses into their models.
The UK is responsible for less than 1% of global CO2 emissions. Labour’s pursuit of unilateral Net Zero (like the Uniparty Tories before them) when the majority non-Western world clearly has no intention of following suit is the easiest giveaway that “climate change” is more than just a hoax, it is a long-planned deadly assault on the people (as with Covid). It’s time to join the obvious dots and expose their despicable lies and tyrannical motives in no uncertain terms. My debunking of the climate change hoax is here: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
Yes everything you say there is what I have realised since about 2007. This is when I saw the Martin Durkin film “The Great Global Warming Swindle” and I have been investigating this issue ever since. ———Your debunking is all well and good but unless people see the debunking on mainstream news they will continue to be lambs to the slaughter and reliable affordable energy will be removed and replaced with unreliable unaffordable energy all to “save the planet”. ——-I hear 70% of people get their news from BBC, and since they are simply climate change activists spouting UN/WEF propaganda all of these people are being fed politicised junk science in support of Sustainable Development (A world run by globalist technocrats controlling the words wealth and resources). Very few will be listening to you or I and the mainstream media are simply bought and paid for.
One can but try. A Google search for “Debunking the climate change hoax” (including the quote characters) reveals that my paper has been reproduced on many different platforms, some because I copied it to the platform proprietors, others because it has been copied from these “authorised” versions. Suppression or censorship seems to be creeping in however, as this search doesn’t yield as many now as came up a few weeks ago.
In contrast, the same search on Yahoo finds nothing. I was forced to use Yahoo for a while after my laptop flipped to it from DuckDuckGo and I couldn’t change it back because the Settings menu had been corrupted, I assume deliberately. I’ve since sorted it out.
“One can but try” ——–Yes and I appreciate you doing that. I have been “giving it a try” for about 17 years. This is the corruption of science on an industrial scale for political purposes.
An excellent paper Douglas. But referring publicly to the science or to tyrannical motivation will inevitably result in your being sucked into into the ghastly and mind-numbing world of climate change orthodoxy where debate is not allowed and where you’d be dismissed as a ‘climate denier’ or worse and therefore unworthy of serious attention however cogent your arguments. Therefore, as it’s easy to completely demolish Net Zero – surely our primary motivation? – without mentioning either science or motivation, that must be the way to go. Here are the arguments that I believe achieve that:
https://cliscep.com/2024/06/08/the-case-against-net-zero-a-third-update/
I’m sorry Robin, but for 20 years we’ve been using rational arguments to try to dissuade the Uniparty political class from the economy-destroying disaster of Net Zero (as it became in 2019) and that approach has got us precisely nowhere.
In the intervening period the establishment has shown their evil true colours with, inter alia, their 9/11 scam pretext to introduce their Patriot Act surveillance regime, their Covid “plandemic” with their “safe and effective” (not) experimental jabs, their politically-engineered war in Ukraine and the deliberate sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline, their junk science-based wars against farming and motorists and most recently the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, so obviously the work of the deep state. What more do you need to show that they cannot be reasoned with? They only get away with it because the mainstream media and most corporate bodies have been bought and paid for, largely by multi-billionaire “philanthropaths”, to go along with their lies.
I don’t care if I get cancelled and suppressed by the establishment for going against their official narratives. All I’m trying to do is enlighten the brainwashed general public as to what is really going on, and sadly that includes many friends and family who think I’m a crank. It seems to me that those who refuse to acknowledge and speak out against the evil confronting us are part of the problem.
Douglas: I reject your assertion that I and presumably other far better known authors who deal in facts and practicalities, such as for example Ben Pile, Vaclav Smil, David Turver, Gordon Hughes, Andrew Montford, Paul Homewood, Francis Menton, Kathryn Porter, Chris Morrison, Matt Ridley, John Constable, Richard Lindzen, David Whitehouse, Ian Plimer, Judith Curry and Rupert Darwall, are ‘part of the problem’.
I’m not saying that such experts are not spot on in their technical debunking of Net Zero, I’m just pointing out that collectively they are getting nowhere in trying to stop the madness and they ought to question why that is. I say it’s because they don’t acknowledge that they are fighting against deeply entrenched evil. I don’t accept that our oppressors are just mad and as such open to having their ideas straightened out by rational argument, I say that they are thoroughly bad.
It’s so obvious that net zero fossil fuels by 2050 will lead to economic collapse and mass starvation. Net Zero is bound to collapse before then but it will be thanks to the ordinary man in the street who seldom if ever reads the technical works of the people you list, fighting back against oppressions like pointless, user-unfriendly EVs and heat pumps, electricity blackouts and/or rationing and extortionate energy and food bills.
What I object to Douglas is your assertion that these people are ‘part of the problem’. I reject that. As you say, the Net Zero policy will collapse in due course because of its built-in contradictions. That is precisely what many of these people have been saying for some time and there’s evidence that their message is getting through albeit often indirectly. In other words, they’re part of the solution.
The only truths about the renewable energies of wind and solar are that the cost of the fuel is zero and their production rate is unpredictable and extremely variable.
Meanwhile we are having to pay for additional back-up capacity and distribution networks and their maintenance.
People will notice, I am sure, that an increasing proportion of our power bills are not related to the cost of fuels but the cost of the infrastructure through the standing charges.
When we have to finance parallel production and distribution systems then the fixed costs are bound to rise and no amount of cheap or free fuel will offset these costs.
The only way that any commercial investor will support a project is where the return on investment is attractive and reliable, the higher the risk the greater will be the expected ROI. The only way a government can interest investors is the subsidies that provide the guarantees.
A government that claims otherwise is either naive or dishonest.
Of course, the coal, oil and gas are also “free”. Wind and sunbeams are cheaper to extract, but the total cost of Ruinables (including the cost of building wind turbines and solar panels, from mineral extraction all the way through final disposal, is enormous.)
Just remember, there was never a wind turbine or solar panel that produced enough energy to make another.
And also remember that no one would ever build a turbine without 100% subsidy and guaranteed price which is mostly way above the market price. They wouldn’t build them because they are totally uneconomical. Those building wind farms are basically subsidy farmers.
Coal, oil and gas are universal raw materials that are used for numerous other purposes than just producing electricity. They are not free because they are resources from land that is owned by someone and who will want to realise the value of their property by selling it to someone else. These charges are shared between the various users of the mineral and are not carried solely by the electricity generators. .
There are no restrictions (yet) on wind and solar energy resouces. I have used them myself, although with the wind in my area is so poor that I gave up my trial because it was costing me more to power the electronics that converted it and stored it in a battery, the consequence was a constantly flat battery.
So the air and sunshine are free, but the landowners will again levy charges for the use of their land to site the commercial generators (turbines, panels).
And once you have access to the raw energy, as you so rightly say you carry the costs of converting it to provide a reliable source of energy.
Wind and sun are free but harnessing them is not free. Far from it. The countries with the highest energy prices are the ones with the most turbines. They create their own environmental problems regarding cobalt and lithium extraction and recycling turbine blades etc, and they take up huge areas of land when a few nuclear plants tucked away in a corner would provide most of our electricity.
He certainly does have a mandate. The only mainstream party committed to reviewing “net zero” was Reform as far as I know. 14% of those who voted supported Reform, 86% voted for parties who support Net Zero. That’s democracy.
A bit disingenuous for you ToF. You could argue that if the same parties stated that the moon is made of cheese in their manifesto that 86% of the electorate believe that to be true.
It clearly isn’t though, and if you asked people to vote in favour of hunger, cold and an early death they won’t will they?
I don’t think it’s at all disingenuous. Of very few people support every single thing in the manifesto of whatever party they vote for, but you have to assume that they broadly support the direction of travel and the big ticket items, and that there are no red lines for them – or they are just asleep idiots. Either way, the mandate is clearly there in my view.
I do so wish that “asleep idiots” were not able to wreck everyone’s life by voting for parties that publish idiotic manifestos. It would save so much time and trouble.
Indeed.
Most bad policies, including this one, are reversible – at great cost, but reversible.
The one I think isn’t reversible in practice is mass immigration. Once it reaches a certain level, our culture and civilisation are gone, never to return.
Yes, I think that is true. The only way of preventing this was rate limiting, but the last couple of decades have knocked that pit prop out and brought the ceiling down.
What’s rate limiting?
I think Germany has some constitutional provision for limiting how much money the government can borrow, but I’m not sure how I feel about a constitution that limits what seem to me to be political decisions.
Rate limiting of immigration I meant, in other words what people will accept. Of course the political class have worked around this, the government has control over who gets a visa.
I think legal and illegal immigration need to stop completely – maybe a few thousand legal for very special cases – for several decades/centuries/millennia. But they won’t.
It was flowing in a more ordinary manor during the 90s (fuck I’d love to time travel back to 1990) a Net 0 on immigration is the only Net 0 I’d support.
Soros gave the EU a quota, I think the buck stops with this guy; great replacement, cheap labour etc.
That might be reversible, but maybe too late for it to be done in a peaceful way.
Yes, some kind of civil war.
I don’t think so. E.g. I didn’t vote Reform because there was a better option to keep the Lib Dem out. The only way to establish a mandate is by a referendum.
You voted tactically – your choice.
You can’t have a referendum for every policy decision. Parties stand on a platform so you should know what you’re going to get, more or less – if they don’t deliver, vote for someone else next time. We could have more referenda but you’d need to establish a criteria for them. I guess the Swiss have done that. But that’s not our current political system.
I fear very few voters read the manifestos before voting. Even fewer afterwards.
You are probably right, but that’s their choice.
His father was a Communist. In the case of Red Ed, the apple fell directly below the tree.
His father may have been a man of principle. It says noting about Ed.
Westminster turnouts seem to be drifting towards local government turnouts, for which most of them are less than 50% – typically around 40%, most years. Then there are lots of Parish or Town Councils with no election on account of insufficient candidates to force one.
Lower turnouts don’t make corporations or bureaucrats go away of course – but they might reflect loss of confidence in them all.
Talking of mandates, my local council declared their “climate emergency” in 2019, along with several others. Their policies will have zero impact but cost £millions. In our case, specifically, over £40m on “active travel”, in one of the poorest boroughs in the country, when hand-wringing about fuel poverty, child poverty, etc. They set up an administration for this costing £200K a year (never mind another £200K for EDI) whilst reducing planning staff. What’s the impact of all this across the UK?
I eventually gave up trying to get them to account for this lack of democracy when I realised that, apart from virtue signalling, they were just spending money from London, regardless of value to locals.
The problem with local authority budgeting is that unless it’s spent, they don’t get more in the next financial year, so there is no reason to use it wisely.
If there’s a pot of spare cash towards the end of the fiscal year, they often do jobs towards the end to avoid having a surplus that cannot be carried forward.
That is fucked up, I wonder if there is similar with the Police, they made such a fuss about the mirror of my car being knocked off back in 2009 that it made me suspicious, and I wasn’t following many conspiracies back then.
Yes. The harm climate policies do to people and economies far outweighs the alleged harm from climate change, and that alleged harm comes only from un-validated climate models which so far have all been WRONG. ——You could not make this up.
Re voting, which politicians stood against Net Zero?
By Net Zero do you mean the 2019 amendment to the 2008 Climate Change Act? It was never voted on in Parliament. It was changed ‘by order’ from what was effectively ‘Net 20%’ (the 2008 Act) to ‘Net 0%’ by Chris Skidmore signing the Order. None of ‘our’ politicians had a conventional vote in Parliament on the change to the law.
I was hoping to see more No Farmers No Food No Future posters at the royal Welsh last week. Very disappointed. I hear Jeremy Clarkson is the Trump or Farage of the country now, when he starts talking about Agenda 2030 (Net 0) then I will take him seriously. As for the show it was good to see so many happy kids having a good time carrying away so many toys with a smile. Not so happy with the average price of a Hot dog at £14!
Though it was nice to come across some free pizza slices, fucked if I know why they were free though.
Did they use ‘nutritious’ insect flour for the pizzas? I check every label of foodstuffs that I now buy.
I don’t want to think about that!
I can’t take to this fella at all. I think it’s the lingering and lasting recollection of the ‘bacon butty’ saga. I find him quite distasteful.
There is nothing more destructive than a self-delusional weak person with power. Just ask the poor Canadians. What the Global Elites fail to consider is that they will be able to control those for whom they are destroying their lives and families. The political instability and poverty they create will also produce opposition and strong leaders that will fight their seizure of power. They truly are living in a group think delusional bubble.
The UK is responsible for 1% of humanity’s annual CO2 emissions and humanity as a whole is responsible for 4% of the planet’s annual CO2 emissions. The UK is therefore responsible for 0.04% of the planet’s annual CO2 emissions.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing by 2.5ppm per year. 2.5ppm is 0.00025% of the atmosphere.
Human activities in the UK are therefore responsible for the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increasing by 0.04% of 0.00025% which is 0.0000001%. Clearly then, if the UK goes full net zero tomorrow, next year, next decade, next century, or next millennium it will make absolutely no meaningful difference to the planet’s atmospheric composition.
The whole thing is a scam and people need to wake up to it.
Even Tony Blair recently admitted that nothing the UK does will make the slightest difference to global climate. But you gotta remember that 70% of people get their news from the BBC who are simply climate change activists who harp on about the climate crisis day and night. Is it any wonder that an unsuspecting public truly think there is an emergency and that scientists in white coats with barely time for a cheese roll are busy busy busy all day studying the climate and run to government with their findings. When infact the opposite is true. Government provide the funding bait and all manner of people chase after that funding with increasingly absurd reports in support of the political agenda.
Lets not forget the money.
It is a scam, and many people and institutions and Media are bought and paid for. £billions will be used to extract £Trillions from the rest of us. We are at war with the Globalists.