In a recent monologue on climate change, LBC radio host James O’Brien hit out at politicians opposing Net Zero, framing them as in denial of objective reality. To many on that side of the debate, a simple opposition to EV mandates, dietary changes, ULEZ, accelerated deindustrialisation, or any other harmful policies associated with Net Zero is a rallying cry of climate denial. They tell us how many jobs the Government is creating, and how good for everyone the Climate Change Committee’s advice will be.
Anyone suffering high energy costs and industry layoffs can see that promises of Net Zero bringing prosperity are plainly untrue.
While niche left-wing blogs might accuse us all of climate vandalism, the reality is far removed from this. I am not a climate denier, nor have I ever been one. Millions of Net Zero sceptics aren’t either; many realise that what was once an aspirational target has now hardened into a stifling reality. Some of us didn’t grasp it in 2019, when the Climate Change Act amendment was passed, but the blatant statism that goes along with a statutory target of Net Zero by 2050 is now hard to deny.
Opposing a policy instrument has traditionally cultivated debate between sides, not name-calling. If I were to oppose a certain crime-fighting measure, such as mass surveillance, would that make me pro-crime?
In the case of Net Zero, the response is an emotional one – unsurprising after years of overly alarmist framing. The only
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.
While rightly criticising statism, this author seems just blindly to accept the need to transition to a low-carbon economy, without offering any justification.
Moreover, the statism vs free market dichotomy is totally fake, as anyone who follows the machinations of the WEF and its stakeholder capitalism should know.
There is no free market when banks, which ultimately allocate the flow of credit, mandate certain outcomes.
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/connecting-the-central-banks
Not only that, but giving free rein to completely unnecessary tradeable carbon credits, which are a solution to a problem that hasn’t been proven to exist, opens to door to complete monetisation / tokenisation of absolutely everything, including the air that you breathe.
If you think this is far fetched, read the following:
‘Air and water are simply no longer the “free goods” that economists once assumed. They must be redefined as property rights so that they can be efficiently allocated. It is self-evident that the allocation of these scarce but vitally important resources will be a major problem of the twenty-first century and beyond. Population growth and further industrialization of the planet assure this. These simple facts make it essential for research to continue as rapidly as possible so that we can implement… Read more »
The Earth’s atmospheric phenomena are part of a chaotic, non-linear, coupled, dynamic system with multiple, natural, powerful variable inputs. No sane reasonably intelligent person could believe that burning fossil fuels, emitting CO2 could overwhelm this and take control. So that leaves us with useful idiots and grifters.
“Some of us didn’t grasp it in 2019, when the Climate Change Act amendment was passed, but the blatant statism that goes along with a statutory target of Net Zero by 2050 is now hard to deny.”
That’s because “some of us” didn’t grasp alleged Man-made climate change was an evolution of the Marxist-Socialist ambition to have Global Government under its rule. And of course “some of us” don’t know the difference between science – evidence based, and religion – consensus based.
If “some of us” were so incurious, so lacking in even basic understanding of science, blind to the evident exaggerations, fear mongering, failed predictions, and lack of any empirical evidence, then it’s hardly surprising “some of us” lacked the intellectual rigour, critical analysis to understand that Net Zero was impossible without suspending the laws of physics and economics and returning us to a pre-industrial living.
Ah, I remember the days of the objective realities of the geocentric universe, the flat earth and phlogiston. Those were the days!
PS I forgot miasma!
Statism.. yeah, ok.
Grift, theft, vandalism, (legal) corruption on a global scale, more like.
Statism suggest the people behind it are well-intentioned, doing it for the good of us all.
Yes, the useful idiots might be well-intentioned. But the people actually behind this are anything but.
100%. Money Laundering – the root of much evil.
Of course it’s statist, because it underpins Agenda 2030 and the SDGs.
See Nigel Lawson’s book An Appeal to Reason. He made two strong points:adaption and free markets.
There has not been a government for 30 years here that understands or approves of markets.
The climate is the climate. It changes, always has, always will and the now institutional and normalised use of the noun “change” is redundant. The attempts of men to ameliorate the daily impact of the bright yellow orb in the sky while the earth spins through space are laughable. It’s all a politically motivated scam to frighten taxpayers into paying higher taxes and complying with government intervention. Like Covid was, only further reaching, more expensive and more dangerous to our security and way of life.
You only need to know one word to understand that Net Zero is nothing more than a state whip to control behaviour of the masses – China. When the UK produces less than 1% of global emissions, but pay China who produce about a third of all global emissions to build their ’emission-free’ solar panels and wind turbines, then the game is up. It’s not even a cheap trick, it’s just blatant gaslighting of the proles.
Money Laundering.
One of the great drivers of all fraud – is the money.
U$1 Trillion p.a. on offer with this cult.
Statism, power, NGO chains etc etc are also part of the objective.
Follow the trucks load of money to get to the fake ‘science’.
True. Control and money. Always control and money.
Unless I’ve completely misunderstood, the author seems to accept the theory of anthropogenic climate change, and sees the move towards Net Zero as justified. The only thing that sets him apart from government policy is his contention that a Net Zero economy could come about through normal market forces, driven by consumer choice. He’s wrong.
EVs have already provided an illustration of what would happen. The wealthy poseurs were quick to adopt the new vehicles because that was the trendy thing to do if you had the money. But look how sales have stagnated. The fact is that, given the choice, the majority of consumers will not, or cannot, opt for a more expensive way of getting from A to B.
Look at industry. Why would one company choose a “greener” but more expensive way of producing its goods, only to see itself being undercut by another company using traditional manufacturing methods and driving it out of business? That’s how the European industrial base has been eaten away by China.
No, if we want to achieve Net Zero, the only way to do that is by the State stepping into every aspect of our lives. But until I see real… Read more »
I was not sure about his view on that. But if the market and free people were left to their own choices we would go about whatever works much more cheaply and quicker.
It remains a mystery to me why the catastrophists think that, while Singaporeans can thrive in temperatures way above ours, we will not be able to adapt.
New technology (invention) or new uses for current technology (innovation) in a free market will be adopted by consumers by natural course if it offers significant benefits: lowers cost, and provides additional utility.
The use of mandates, taxes, subsidies, regulation to force consumers to make choices not in their best interests indicates that Net Zero reduces utility and increases cost. The claim that “green”energy is cheaper does not stand up to even cursory scrutiny.
Consumers will not adopt new tech if it does the same job less well and at greater expense.
Exactly, because most of them aren’t stupid or see no value in virtue signalling beyond ticking a box on social media…
The GWPF got off to a good start under Nigel Lawson but is now too mealy-mouthed for my liking. It’s beyond me why, after listening to so many years of blatant lies, such a collection of experts can’t see that “climate change” is a massive hoax, and publicly say so. Mr Newson falls into the same category as the untrustworthy Conservatives who now say they want to scrap the 2050 target on Net Zero yet are still unwilling to stop fretting about supposed but unproven anthropogenic global warming.
But the point needs to be made than even if you accept the extreme versions of meteorological eschatology net zero still makes no sense. The GWPFs arguments don’t depend on human influence on climate not being an issue.
I don’t think you have misunderstood.
Millions of climate sceptics aren’t “climate deniers” – a deliberately chosen pejorative term – but they do reject the non-evidence based hypothesis that any change to climate is Man-made, and understand that it is in real time impossible to observe climate changing since climate is not a tangible phenomenon, so not observable, but a term for an averaging of meteorological data going back many thousands or years.
The sceptics also know future climate cannot be predicted on past trends.
The author implies climate sceptics accept – don’t deny – the premise the climate is change by the intervention of Man. I do not think that is the case.