In a somewhat awkward, rambling and weird speech on Tuesday, Foreign Secretary David Lammy set out his vision of “restoring our international credibility”, by putting the “climate and nature crisis” at the heart of foreign policy. “This issue has been on the agenda for nearly every meeting that I’ve had with another minister in my early weeks,” he explained in his opening remarks. And what green weeks they have been, with his colleagues throwing Britain’s pensioners under the bus, energy price caps rising, the Grangemouth refinery and Port Talbot steelworks closing, shedding thousands of jobs. Lammy spoke of a “reset”, but even that word now seems like a boring cliché. He is no exception to the tin-eared, dead from the neck-up politicians, whose agendas are expressed in cascades of woke-green piety, wrapped in banal slogans. That was all his talk was.
The speech was superficially an announcement of three new ambitions of the new Government. First, a “Global Clean Power Alliance” will be created, which Britain shall lead by becoming “the first major economy to deliver clean power by 2030”. Second, at the COP29 climate meeting in November, “an ambitious new climate finance goal focused on developing countries” will be unveiled. Third, our heroic Government shall “reverse the decline in global biodiversity”.
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.
That picture at the top: What’s creeping up on David through the undergrowth? Behind you!
The Climate Emergency monster?
Silly me! There’s no such thing as the Climate Emergency monster.
Like most with an infantile mind that doesn’t stop him being scared of it.
This guy is a cold-blooded traitor photographed at an unfortunate moment. Or a complete imbecile who’s wax in the hand of those who dicate his moves and words. In either case, he’s seriously dangerous and not comical at all because what he means to do to us won’t be comical at all.
My money would be on “complete imbecile”.
Here’s a bloody great threat to this country…
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-first-invasion-of-england-since-1066/
At some point this lot are going to be turned against the people of this country.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/09/18/the-un-and-the-biden-administration-want-net-zero-for-the-u-s-while-china-opts-for-energy-realism/
‘2006 (was) the year of the great cross-over, when China’s emissions of carbon dioxide overtook those of the United States. This helps explain why China wielded its veto three years later at the Copenhagen climate summit.
By 2019, America’s carbon dioxide emissions had fallen by 875 million metric tons from their 2005 peak. Over the same period, China’s rose by 3,511 million metric tons. Twelve years of falling American carbon dioxide emissions were erased by three years of rising Chinese emissions.
In terms of policy, China is energy realism on steroids. Its bureaucrats are even having second thoughts about renewable energy.
Writing in the Financial Times in July, contemporary historian Adam Tooze sees a “worrying” gap between the pace of China’s investment in renewable energy in recent years and its plans for the future.
“Whereas China’s solar and wind industry installed almost 300 GW of new capacity in 2023, its National Energy Agency envisions a future build-out of barely more than 100 GW a year.”
One reason for the slowdown, Tooze suggests, is that China’s energy bureaucrats point to the need for “more smoothly operating pricing systems to make a renewable system reliable.”
If true, it would show that China’s communist bureaucrats have a surer grasp of the damaging economics of wind and solar energy than their Western counterparts.
As a laboratory for net zero, Britain’s experiment with renewable energy provides unambiguous evidence that wind and solar increase the cost of electricity.
Although the cost of coal and natural gas used in Britain’s power stations was flat between 2009 and 2020, residential electricity rates in Britain soared by 67 percent, to 17.9p (23.4¢) per kilowatt hour (kwh) – 75 percent more than the average 13.5¢ per kwh American household paid in 2020.
These increases were driven by a near tripling of environmental and social levies and increased spending on the infrastructure needed to connect far-flung wind farms to where people actually live and work.’
‘The evidence to date shows that China does whatever advances China’s economic and ultimately its geopolitical interests.
That is a lesson for America’s political leaders: if the United States wants to prevail in the geopolitical contest with China, it, too, needs to drop the Biden-Harris goal of net zero and embrace energy realism.’
That is also the lesson for Britain.
Your choice, Prime Minister; wise up or face armageddon at the polls.
We’ve just done it to the Conservative Party.
You will get a taste at the next council elections, May 2025
Don’t think we won’t do it to you.
It is rather ironic that, compared to the ‘democratic’ countries of the West, China’s state is more attuned to the needs of its citizens. Presumably they are aware that there is the potential for the whole system to be thrown out if people really feel worse off.
After the Brexit vote, I’m sure I heard politicians of various stripes saying ‘nobody voted to be made poorer’ – but when it comes to climate policies, that’s (almost) the only possible way to vote.
It’s good the see that Ben Pile is gradually coming round to calling a spade a spade, referring to energy policy as being based on “stacks of fibs” (a better phrase would be “a pack of lies”), WWF “bullshitery” on alleged mass extinctions and his conclusion that “It is green policy, then, that is worse than climate change. And worse than terrorism”.
It’s good that he links these climate change deceptions to prior establishment mass deceptions like 9/11, alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Covid. Topically in the face of the recent attempts to kill Donald Trump, he could have referred further back to the assassination of JFK. How long before he unequivocally states the obvious, that “climate change” policy has nothing whatsoever to do with climate but is simply a means of oppressing and controlling the populace under the eventual goal of a tyrannical system of one-world governance.
A look at the actual number of bird and mammal species that have become extinct in the past 500 years shows a slight discrepancy from the “millions facing extinction claim” by David Lammy.
“If we exclude the small number of island species eradicated by invasive species, in the past 500 years, we have only seen 9 continental mammal or bird extinctions”. So, is Lammy making shit up or is he unbelievably dense? Is he the kind of bloke who thinks Henry 7th acceded the throne after the death of Henry 8th?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/
WUWT solid source for actual science.
In answer to your question about this bloke, he perfectly combines both options. Not that you needed an answer of course!
Its hard to imagine he would be employable in a decision making role in the real world. What an absolute joke and perfect illustration of the level of politics we now have to suffer.
I’m sure you’ll already know this, but Lammy once appeared on Celebrity Mastermind – and his answer to the question: “Who acceded to the throne on the death of Henry 8th?” – was “Henry 7th”. Unbelievable!
Ha ha – yes! In any normal situation a public demonstration of that level of ignorance would cause an abrupt termination of any career progression
!
If, as he claims, these things are accelerating then why have so many so-called tipping points failed to materialize?
Accelerating means happening faster and faster. The evidence of ones own eyes and experience is that they are not happening at all.
In a […] speech on Tuesday, Foreign Secretary David Lammy set out his vision of “restoring our international credibility” by putting the “climate and nature crisis” at the heart of foreign policy.
Niall Toru, a senior lawyer at Friends of the Earth, said:“This mine should never have been given permission in the first place. The case against it is overwhelming: it would have huge climate impacts, its coal isn’t needed and it harms the UK’s international reputation on climate.”
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/13/high-court-blocks-cumbria-plan-for-first-new-uk-coalmine-in-30-years]
Two sock puppets, same operator, same script. More serious with Lammy, though, as he’s supposed to act for the benefit of the UK and not for the shady international (UN/USA) actors behind climate alarmism.
Paradoxically somebody like this vile Niall Toru person is quite possibly more influential and dangerous than the imbecile Lammy, as he can act with even less scrutiny and probably has more credibility with the actual movers and shakers than the ridiculous Lammy.
I thought the 45 minutes WMD warning applied to Cyprus not London. We have a base there. It would take a missile 45 minutes to fly from Iraq to Cyprus.
Lammy———–Another useless tub of lard and part of the group think that blindly accepts all the climate change junk science without even understanding or questioning any of it. The climate socialism masquerading as science filters its way from the UN/WEF down through all western governments all the way down to the tiniest council in remote places like the Outer Hebrides where all there are only 5 houses, and a post office.
——Dear Mr Lammy, —How much CO2 is in the atmosphere? How much of that is natural and how much is emitted by humans? Does CO2 have a linear effect on temperature or is it logarithmic? When was the Medieval Warming period? What was the Hockey Stick Graph? What is Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity? Are storms increasing? Are floods increasing? Are droughts increasing? If you answer yes where is your evidence? You don’t have any evidence do you? Infact isn’t it the case that you know next to nothing about this issue? ——–So who the f..k are you to tell anyone in this country what is dangerous you total buffoon?
On the medieval warm period:
The MWP was 1°C or 2°C warmer than the average temperature of the millennium. The LIA was 1°C or 2°C colder. The current warm era is about 0.75°C warmer and thus not warmer than the MWP. Grape growing and wine making are still not possible in areas that supported it during the MWP. These temperature excursions, both positive and negative, are not very different from excursions occurring during the past 10,000 years.
So Mr. Lammy, if man’s emissions of CO2 is the primary driver of climate – explain how it caused the 2 – 3 degrees cooling between 1200 and 1850 despite the CO2 level in the atmosphere being roughly the same in both years?
He like the rest of the Political class imposing Net Zero on us don’t need to explain anything. They don’t need to know or explain. They are there to IMPOSE.
100% agree. How the politicians and establishment have managed to avoid debating and scrutinising AGW bollox is beyond belief. They’ll commit to spending trillions of taxpayers’ pounds and impoverishing the electorate without a long hard look at the evidence and competing theories.
What gets me, though, is that when it’s all found to be complete garbage, there will be no punishment for the people responsible for pissing away our money.
But let’s remember that Net Zero was waved through parliament with no questions asked. The whole rotten lot of them are in on this eco socialist scam and they all suck up the arses of the UN and WEF
It’s my birthday tomorrow, I will be 77. What is exercising my mind is what did I do wrong during my life to be saddled these moronic imbeciles with the collective IQ of a flea? Whatever it was, it must have been pretty serious.
Oh it’s your fault? I knew it couldn’t be mine.
I would apologise but I am more focused on this evening. One of my offspring is taking me to dinner.
Mankinds’s original unsinn.
[Unsinn, German for nonsense, even literally as un- equals non- and Sinn means sense]
“Climate Change Isn’t the Greatest Threat to Mankind, David Lammy. The Biggest Threat to our Security is Climate Policy”
As this article makes clear:
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/how-much-sense-have-miliband-co-net-zero/
“The introduction of half hourly settlement from 2025 means customers will have more flexibility in how they use and pay for electricity, and is expected to lead to a growth in smarter time-of-use tariffs that reward customers for being more flexible in their energy usage. This will allow consumers to benefit from cheaper energy when renewable generation increases such as when it is particularly windy or sunny.’
And if the wind doesn’t blow we could be paying £100 per hour for electricity.
The quotes is from Ofgem. It’s a typical example of the kinds of lies these people employ: reward customers for being more flexible in their energy usage obviously really means punish customers unless they stop using energy as their personal needs dictate,
eg, No storm today? Well, then we unfortunately cannot have hot water or hot food or even just heat our home until the weather becomes more windy. And we can’t go to local instead, either, because the landlord who has to live with the same ‘flexible pricing’ can only open when electriticy is cheaper.
Half-hourly changing operational costs will be a real bitch to deal with for any business, especially for regional small businesses as they can’t offset the higher cost in location A by the lower cost in location B. That’s bound to render a lot of the unviable.
Half-hourly charging will decimate businesses. If this comes in I predict blood on the streets in 2025. At some point Kneel’s push will take us too far and chaos will erupt.
And the warm-up will start next month when pay-per-mile is forced on us. A sort of hors d’ouvre.