According to an article in Politico, big changes may be afoot in the relationship between the European Commission (EC) and the big NGOs that the EU monolith has long been funding. The EC “has told environmental NGOs that the money they receive from the EU’s green funds pot can no longer be used for advocacy and lobbying work”. If true, and if the extremely angry backlash from green organisations and their media pals doesn’t reverse the decision, this is big news. The EC has been extremely generous with public money over the years, and it would mean the loss of “€5.4 billion of funding between 2021 and 2027” to organisations such as WWF and Friends of the Earth, whose use of the cash, not only to lobby European and British politicians, has advanced their agendas throughout the public sphere.
Politico’s framing of this putative divorce between Big Green and the EU is that it reflects the “anti-green campaign promises from the centre-Right European People’s Party [EPP] during the EU election”. This would seem to mark the EPP as a climate sceptic group, but that would be very far from the truth. The EPP has long been the dominant group in European politics, and politicians from its fold, such as former European Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard, and the current EC president, Ursula von der Leyen, have been nothing but so-called ‘climate champions’. However, the EPP has never been able to win a majority of seats, and so has formed a grand coalition with the Socialists and Democrats (S&D). But even this coalition began to fracture in the 2019 European elections, in which the combined seats won by the partners was insufficient to form a majority. European Greens have not been part of any coalition agreement, and despite claims and perceptions to the contrary, rarely perform well in elections. The better explanation for the divorce therefore appears to be that radical environmentalism, as has been advanced by green NGOs, has at long last been identified as a liability.
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.
Is it still ‘Mother Earth’ these days, or have we moved on to another name?
Being very cynical as well as sceptical, i always start by following the money. For example, SEN = extra grants for schools; climate change = research money for unemployable academics. Where is the cash in the transgender debate (apart from a few sports winnings, which will be declining)? And how do I get my hands on some of it, apart from playing real tennis in a pink frock?
I’m amazed they still refer to ships as female, especially the embarressingly woketastic Royal Navy. Surely for any new ship they’d have to think of a unisex name and follow it with “God bless they/them and all who sail in they/them”.😐
God???
They’d probably say “all deities, tree spirits and extra terrestrial beings bless ze”.
Insh Allah more likely.
Biological fact and real science – Ofcom ‘No’.
ClimateCon, Green Nazism, Green fraud & corruption, Green Communism – Ofcom ‘well of course, it is settled’
End Ofcom.
Make Thinking Great Again.
Ofcom is not fit for purpose its subject to regulatory capture, staffed clearly by woke zealots, and probably always was!
Needs scrapping, and soon.
Its also effectively defying a Supreme Court judgement – another organisation that needs to be scrapped – that creature of Blair.
OFCOM and science are poles apart. It is a politically driven body with a remit now for censorship and control.
It’s all quite straight forward…
BBC:
Jimmy Savile is a top DJ with an unblemished reputation
The vaccines are safe and effective
the world is boiling due to man’s C02 emmissions
Anybody slightly to the right of Jeremy Corbyn is an unhinged right wing bastard and should be locked up.
Ofcom – all of the above is tickety-boo and all executives in the BBC are purer than the driven snow.
GB News:
There are only 2 sexes as per the Supreme Court ruling.
There has been widespread sexual abuse of young girls by predominantly asian men
The primary driver of the climate is not man’s C02 emmissions.
Ofcom – if you continue to repeat such blatant and scurrilous untruths, we will fine you into oblivion.
So, GB News presenters should be metaphorically burned at the stake as heretics.
The era of the New Inquisition is here.
Hopefully it won’t be centuries until the New Age of Enlghtenment arrives.
They probably also believe Ukraine is just weeks from victory.
Off topic but relevant if we generalise lies told by the establishment and their bureaucratic machinery to the citizens of our once great but now third world country.
Paul Weston on the r@p€y gangs.
https://youtu.be/OvbbB4nZldE?si=i-bjLPasHcufM0g8
OfCom should not have an opinion about these matters. Its role is to supervise broadcasters, etc not to fix opinions or editorial policy.
or it should be.
It was founded to manage the broadcast spectrum.
One of the many things I find depressing and shocking is the number of people I speak to who just accept that we (well, it’s usually other people, in their minds) need to be nannied and protected from content that we should not be seeing.
As this keeps being repeated, people will remember it when asked about the topic and will then produce the correpsonding lines from memory they honestly believe to be their own thoughts. That’s the basic idea behind any kind of marketing: Make it an ubiquitous background appearance to program it into people’s memory.
What I would find depressing were I to be depressed by something like this is that this is a universal phenomenon. Some people think that claims that woman is a biological category must not be made. Some other people think that expressing support for enemies of Israel must not be allowed. Both routinely claim they value freedom of speech. But only ever their own speech.
Indeed.
It’s good that you’re not depressed by things like this.
It should be limited to regulating the spectrum and other technical matters. I don’t believe that broadcast content should be limited in any way by the state or any state-aligned quango. All radios, TVs, phones, laptops etc that I have ever seen have controls that allow the user to adjust the volume, channel or to switch it off. Anyone not living under a rock has a fair idea what they are likely to see on a given channel. Caveat emptor.
All seems a bit off to me.
🤣 Great, I say. Give them enough rope to hang themselves!
You sound like a far right conspiracy theorist!
On temperature: go to AI and ask it if an intensive property can be added. Answer No
Then ask it if it can be divided: Answer No.
Then ask it if temperature is an intensive property. Answer Yes.
Ergo there is no such thing as average temperature, Just some sort of statistic.
Think of it this way: if you add 2 kg to 3kg you get 5kg. If you add 20C to 30C you don’t get 50C. You’d get a median temperature based on the volumes and thermodynamic properties of what you were mixing.
And thermometers don’t measure such things. Eg: Try mixing a litre of water at 20C with 40 litres of air at 30C. Good luck!
You will get AI to admit such, but it segues, deflects and dissembles first, trying to avoid telling the truth. Like all climate activists.
Surely this not what Ofcom is supposed to be. They are now just a political, censorship bunch of opinionated pratts.
Broadcast content has been regulated by the state since Day 1.
Cameron apparently said Ofcom would have a strictly technical role under a Tory government – that didn’t happen. But he also said that their other roles would be taken directly under the control of the DCMS. So he didn’t really believe in freedom of speech – he just wanted to make sure it was him that directly controlled what speech was acceptable.