Last week, I wrote about I wrote about Tessa Khan, funded by European and American philanthropists, who uses the courts to impose Net Zero policies voters have rejected at the ballot box. She spoke at an invitation-only gathering of politicians, journalists and policy figures assembled at Westminster Central Hall last November.
This week, I turn my attention to one of her colleagues who spoke to the same invitation-only gathering of over 1,200 politicians and business leaders for the so-called National Emergency Briefing (NEB) — supposedly an “expert-led” briefing to address the UK's “climate and energy crisis”.
The “briefing” event was supported by an array of organisations ranging from the National Trust and WWF to the National Education Union and the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds). Of the 10 featured speakers, each introduced as a leading expert in their field, the slot for "economics" was given to Angela Francis, a self-styled "low carbon economist" and Director of Policy Solutions at WWF-UK. The audience, carefully selected, received her message with the reverence one might accord a scientific briefing.
This is a pattern that should by now be familiar to anyone who follows the climate-industrial complex in the United Kingdom. A convener with activist credentials assembles a sympathetic audience, presents a line-up of credentialled speakers and proceeds to make policy advocacy sound like dispassionate expert testimony. The format — emergency briefing, Westminster — is chosen for its associations with urgency and authority. What it
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
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.
Two hot days after a cold June the BBC is at it again. Radio 4 this morning the expert told us that these heat waves are becoming regular and were not happening before. And, incredibly, it’s not even summer yet. It’s all down to human CO2 of course.
I’d be sceptical of an organisation which doesn’t know how to spell Caribbean on its website.
Why do articles on Net Zero go on,and on, are the writers still thinking they are writing dissertations?, its almost as if to compete with the clearly incompetant arbitors of so called “crisis”, there is no climate crisis, Net Zero is a waste of our money, its that simple, can list all the quango names, we dont know them, just that we are all paying the price!!
Net Zero/Climate Change = evolved Marxist Socialism. Aim to destroy successful free-market, capitalist economies and their prosperous societies to “prove” capitalism is a failure and replace it with Socialist Statism and a command economy.
Market failure: failure is how market corrections occur without Human intervention, to reallocate mis-allocated resources, to achieve best outcomes.
Government controlled markets never fail because it is politically embarrassing and “correction” is just a matter of: keep doing it with more effort, do it for longer, more regulation, spend more taxpayer cash on it.
See: Ruinables and BEVs – intermittency of the former mean they cannot supply a stable grid or make a profit, the latter, consumers don’t want them. Answer: mandates, regulation, hurl more taxpayer cash about.
GDP is NOT an amount of money, it is the net value added to an economy in a given period. It varies each year and can be anywhere from below zero (recession) to above zero (growth). It is also a very unreliable metric, difficult to calculate, often revised down retrospectively.
There can be a cost to GDP: crazy Net Zero will reduce economic activity and reduce value added by 0.2%. That means make us… Read more »
The economic case for taxing or restricting CO₂ rests on its hypothesied effect on global mean temperature over decadal timescales — a genuinely complex, highly uncertain and contested matter — not on any direct toxicological harm.
And what, pray tell, was the control used to confirm this hypothesis – the Climate Zealots refuse to answer or address this question – because they can’t.
Also, for good measure, what is the optimal level of CO2 they think is appropriate? Would it be high enough to support photosynthesizing plant life?
Some economists might argue that the ‘optimal level’ is higher than it is now, so as to improve the speed of production of products in farming of one sort or another, hence improving the cash efficiency of the industry.
They didn’t do elementary biology which explains the role of CO2 in plant life. Nor do they seem to be aware that most CO2 is given off by the world’s oceans. It’s a case of the ignorant leading the stupid.
So another bollocks-peddler spouting fantasy to an echo chamber?
They’ll keep pushing this bullshot because they have nothing else to do.
The real concerns are that people such as this and organisations like those in the audience are financed by taxpayers who do not agree. They are woven into the political and Whitehall system where they pollute decision making by people who have no skill set to make the judgements required.
We are being greenlit and made poor by these people. Vote Reform.
… and our young greenwashed.