X Close

How conservative is Net Zero? The Tories are torching their green roots

Eco-fanatic or true Scrutonian? (Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)


August 14, 2023   6 mins

In 2019, the Conservative manifesto promised to “lead the global fight against climate change, by delivering on our world-leading target of Net Zero”. In the wake of the Uxbridge by-election, that ambition looks much more precarious. As the Prime Minister pledged to “max out” the North Sea oil-fields, the Energy Secretary took aim at Labour, calling it the “political wing” of Just Stop Oil, and blaming its “dangerous plans” on “eco-fanatics” and “the eco-mob”.

For a party that is trailing in the polls and uncertain of its direction, hostility to Net Zero has an obvious allure. As a rallying cry, it can speak both to the tax-cutting, libertarian wing of the party and to its culture warriors, eager to renew the fight against experts, elites and international organisations. It offers a bridge between the tech-bro-utopianism of the prime minister and the concerns of motorists and lower-earners, who are facing rising emissions-costs. For many Conservatives, Net Zero smacks of subsidies, price guarantees and market interventions: a centralised re-planning of the economy that owes more to socialism than to science. And while the Uxbridge by-election centred on air-quality, not Net Zero, it offered a glimmer of electoral light to a party raking through the ashes of its recent poll-ratings.

But climate scepticism does not (yet) have a monopoly on Conservative thought. The Conservative Environment Network lists more than 200 MPs and peers on its website, drawn from across the party spectrum. The conflict over Net Zero, then, is not a contest between the “woke” Left and the “radical” Right. It brings into collision different visions of Conservatism, in a struggle for ownership of the Conservative tradition.

Tory environmentalists can point to a strong record on the issue, stretching back to the Fifties. It was Conservative governments that created the Department of the Environment, the National Parks Authorities, the Environment Agency and the Hadley Centre for Climate Research. Tory administrations introduced the Clean Air Acts, the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the Environment Act, as well as the Landfill Tax, the Road-Fuel Escalator and, in England, the Plastic Bag Charge. And it was a Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May, who made Net Zero a legal obligation.

When global warming first entered public consciousness in the Eighties and Nineties, it was Margaret Thatcher who sounded the most trenchant warnings. Addressing the World Climate Conference in 1990, she accused the world of “playing with the conditions” of life. “We have treated the air and the oceans like a dustbin”, endangering “the biological balance 
 on which human life depends”. This was a distinctly Conservative environmentalism — even taking care to warn business that “there will be no profit
 for anyone if pollution continues to destroy our planet”.

For Conservative environmentalists, this is not simply a record to defend. It is a reminder that there are powerful strands within Conservatism that can be mobilised against its climate sceptics. The first is the instinct to “conserve”: the idea on which both “conservatism” and “conservation” are founded. For the Conservative intellectual Roger Scruton, global warming engaged “a fundamental moral idea to which conservatives attach great importance: the idea that those responsible for damage should also repair it”. He drew inspiration from the writings of Edmund Burke and his call to partnership “between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born”. For Burke, the living were but the “temporary possessors and life-renters” of society. As such, they had a moral responsibility not to “commit waste on their inheritance by destroying at their pleasure”, or “to leave to those who come after a ruin instead of a habitation”.

That belief intersected with an emphasis, drawn from Christian conservatism, on “stewardship”: the belief, as Margaret Thatcher once put it, that humans were not the lords of creation but “the Lord’s creatures, the trustees of this planet, charged
 with preserving life itself”. As she told the Conservative party conference in 1988: “The core of Tory philosophy and the case for protecting the environment are the same. No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy — with a full repairing lease.”

For much of its history, the Conservative Party was pre-eminently the party of the land; rooted, not just in the “landed interest”, but in a patriotic commitment to the natural environment. As Stanley Baldwin put it: “England is the country and the country is England.” Its sights, sounds and smells — “the corncrake on a dewy morning
 the wild anemones in the woods of April” — should “be the inheritance of every child born into this country”. Scruton called this “oikophilia”: the love of home, understood not as nostalgia, but as a desire to pass on the heritage into which we were born. It was an impulse, he noted, that had mobilised millions behind the cause of environmental protection, through bodies such as the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

Conservatism also has a tradition of thinking critically about markets, though it has been less visible in recent decades. For Scruton, markets were not a “quasi-religious” institution but a means to an end. In so far as they tended to equilibrium, markets were a useful “social organism” that contributed to “the maintenance of the social ecology”. But if costs could be dumped on “future generations”, or if “waste and spoliation” were treated “as cost-free externalities”, markets would become “anti-social and exploitative machines”.

Scruton offered a passionate, Conservative critique of the view that “growth” was always to be prized: “Growth is good only if it does not fill the sinks. In this sense much of the growth that we have seen since the Second World War has not been a gain but a loss — a vast appropriation from the future of assets that are being used up and not replaced.” Even Thatcher insisted that “free markets” would “defeat their object” if they did “more damage to the quality of life through pollution” than the well-being they promoted by “the production of goods and services”.

In this spirit, not with the laissez-faire insouciance they’re remembered for, the Thatcher governments intervened directly in markets, using taxes to discourage leaded petrol and banning products containing harmful CFCs. This owed something to Thatcher’s respect for scientific opinion: as she warned in 1988, “a nation which does not value trained intelligence is doomed”. It also marked her aversion to debt and her belief in “precautionary action”. If it was wrong to burden future generations with the costs of borrowing, it was equally wrong “to leave environmental debts for our children to clear up”. She compared climate action to household insurance, warning that it would be “more cost-effective to take action now than to wait and find we have to pay much more later”.

This was climate politics as good housekeeping. It was also ecology as national security. “Spending on the environment”, Thatcher told an American audience, “is like spending on defence — if you do not do it in time, it may be too late”. In the decades that followed, the security implications of climate change would become ever more pressing. The 2021 Integrated Review, published by Boris Johnson, listed climate change alongside terrorism as a threat to security and prosperity. It was in response to such warnings that Johnson named “tackling climate change” as his “number one international priority”.

What does this mean for the future? Climate change asks new questions of all political traditions, but Conservative environmentalism has rich resources on which to draw from across its intellectual firmament. For those who are not Conservatives, the results may sometimes be frustrating. Conservative environmentalism may be more drawn to market solutions, or more sceptical of international agreements. The localism prized by Scruton may seem hopelessly inadequate to a global crisis, while the commitment of the Conservative Environment Network to “grow our economy faster” will alarm for whom “growth” itself is the problem.

Conservative environmentalism will not look the same as its Labour or liberal equivalents — but that is precisely why we need it. Faced with such an awesome challenge, conservatism can bring a set of tools, ideas and insights that would otherwise be missing, in a mutually enriching exchange. As John Stuart Mill reminded the liberals of his own day, “from points of view different from his, different things are perceptible; and none are more likely to have seen what he does not see, than those who do not see what he sees”.

If Conservatism turns its back on the climate question, it will be a dereliction of the Conservative tradition and those who claim to represent it. In 1936, in a debate over German rearmament, Winston Churchill, issued a warning that is as resonant today as when it was first delivered:

“Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest warnings, we have now entered upon a period of danger
 The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place, we are entering a period of consequences.”

“We cannot avoid this period,” Churchill concluded; “we are in it now”. Conservatives, and everyone else, should rise to the challenge.


Robert Saunders is a Reader in Modern British History at Queen Mary University and author of Yes to Europe!

redhistorian

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

66 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Simon S
Simon S
9 months ago

Conflating climate change with pollution assumes climate change is caused by humans, which many leading, independent scientists reject, whereas nobody disagrees that pollution is indeed caused by us.

“Net Zero” is an empty meme that endeavours to mob-silence climate dissenters while distracting us from the very real poisoning of our air, water, soil and bodies by the mass of products and emissions deriving from the extractive and chemicals industries, through our foods (and medicines), vehicles and materials.

We should be tackling pollution at the front end instead of re-engineering society based on highly questionable data models – our understanding of the world’s climate is so limited we cannot even safely predict rainfall in Epsom.

Explaining to Londoners that their nasal mucus could once again be a colour other than black, instead of inventing arbitrary planetary goals that descend into meaningless numbers games exploited and circumnavigated by those with the most financial resources, would represent a far more effective approach to building consensus for change if our overall objective is, indeed, human health.

Last edited 9 months ago by Simon S
Glyn R
Glyn R
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon S

Good comment.
‘The welfare of the people is the alibi of tyrants’. Albert Camus
That Net Zero is nothing to do with the terrible blight of pollution on the earth and seas tells us all we need to know about this scam.

Last edited 9 months ago by Glyn R
Andrew Horsman
Andrew Horsman
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon S

Agree. It’s cover for the imposition of a radically collectivist mode of government, politics, society and culture, from the top down, and a distraction from the very real harms done by large corporates, with little regard for the inevitable unintended consequences of corruption, hardship, misery, and loss of basic freedoms. To be fair to the International Panel on Climate Change, though, they are pretty open about their revolutionary political intent, if anyone is prepared to read what they actually say in detail (as I have). See my comment below for all of the gory details.

Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon S

Conflating climate change with pollution assumes climate change is caused by humans, which many leading, independent scientists reject.

What ‘leading scientists’? This is utter nonsense.
It’s really hard to believe there are still people on this planet that are in full denial that humans are causing climate change. This is primary school level science and about time that seemingly intelligent adults finally let go of their biases and accept what is clearly happening.

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

“This is primary school level science”
Which you have not outgrown. The study of climate change has long since degenerated into a scam: The biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in modern times. Enjoy your poverty – you’ve earnt it. Or perhaps you imagine that you will be elevate to membership of the elect. (You won’t)

Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

‘A scam’. That’s just lazy. And how is it going to put me in poverty? Very peculiar claim.

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Net Zero, the solution to climate change, will reduce you to poverty. That is the point of it. It’s how we ” save the planet”. I feel sorry for you – you are outlandishly naive

Last edited 9 months ago by polidori redux
Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

lol, you are funny.

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

And right as well. Enjoy your life of self-induced poverty.
PS: But I am sure that you will find somebody else to blame.

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

And right as well. Enjoy your life of self-induced poverty.
PS: But I am sure that you will find somebody else to blame.

Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

lol, you are funny.

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Net Zero, the solution to climate change, will reduce you to poverty. That is the point of it. It’s how we ” save the planet”. I feel sorry for you – you are outlandishly naive

Last edited 9 months ago by polidori redux
Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

‘A scam’. That’s just lazy. And how is it going to put me in poverty? Very peculiar claim.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Maybe that’s junior high science. The models used to create hysteria are far from simple. They are highly complex. It’s not like the IPCC bases its projections on one highly studied, rigorous model. It uses an ensemble of 48 different models – all projecting different outcomes – and synthesizes the results to get an average. Clearly it’s not so simple or the IPCC would use one model. The climate is an open ended, chaotic system. Modeling this correctly is light years from junior high science. Even the most alarmists scientists acknowledged their models don’t have a firm grasp on clouds or volcanoes.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

This comment disappeared for about 24 hours. WTF is that about? What in this comment deserves censorship – that it triggered another poster who probably ranted about it? Pathetic

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

A couple of weeks ago I queried the removal of number of my comments. I received this reply
“Comments are usually temporarily removed due to multiple flaggings by other community members, random spot checks carried out by the system, or spam checks.”
This seems a bit heavy-handed to me. 

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Can you tell me how to contact admin?

Do you think that comment was removed because of multiple flaggings? And if it was, do you think they should have read it first before pulling it? There is nothing inflammatory about it.

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

email [email protected]
I think it odd to remove posts just in order to check them. I have no way of telling why any particular post was pulled – Sophie didn’t say.
When I find that 4 of my posts were pulled simultaneously, I suspect that I was being systematically flagged, but cannot prove it.
My posts have always been reinstated the next day, so there was nothing in them that was deemed to be against the rules.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Thanks for the help PR. It’s never occurred to me, not even one time, to flag a post. Totally don’t get it.

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I agree, don’t flag or even downvote. If you disagree then argue or keep your peace.

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I agree, don’t flag or even downvote. If you disagree then argue or keep your peace.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Thanks for the help PR. It’s never occurred to me, not even one time, to flag a post. Totally don’t get it.

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

email [email protected]
I think it odd to remove posts just in order to check them. I have no way of telling why any particular post was pulled – Sophie didn’t say.
When I find that 4 of my posts were pulled simultaneously, I suspect that I was being systematically flagged, but cannot prove it.
My posts have always been reinstated the next day, so there was nothing in them that was deemed to be against the rules.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Can you tell me how to contact admin?

Do you think that comment was removed because of multiple flaggings? And if it was, do you think they should have read it first before pulling it? There is nothing inflammatory about it.

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

A couple of weeks ago I queried the removal of number of my comments. I received this reply
“Comments are usually temporarily removed due to multiple flaggings by other community members, random spot checks carried out by the system, or spam checks.”
This seems a bit heavy-handed to me. 

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

This comment disappeared for about 24 hours. WTF is that about? What in this comment deserves censorship – that it triggered another poster who probably ranted about it? Pathetic

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Ah Robbie! Take note of the dissidents: Those who have the intellectual integrity to ask awkward questions. And take it as read, that anyone who tells tells you that the science is settled is a charlatan protecting their own wage packet.

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

“This is primary school level science”
Which you have not outgrown. The study of climate change has long since degenerated into a scam: The biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in modern times. Enjoy your poverty – you’ve earnt it. Or perhaps you imagine that you will be elevate to membership of the elect. (You won’t)

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Maybe that’s junior high science. The models used to create hysteria are far from simple. They are highly complex. It’s not like the IPCC bases its projections on one highly studied, rigorous model. It uses an ensemble of 48 different models – all projecting different outcomes – and synthesizes the results to get an average. Clearly it’s not so simple or the IPCC would use one model. The climate is an open ended, chaotic system. Modeling this correctly is light years from junior high science. Even the most alarmists scientists acknowledged their models don’t have a firm grasp on clouds or volcanoes.

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Ah Robbie! Take note of the dissidents: Those who have the intellectual integrity to ask awkward questions. And take it as read, that anyone who tells tells you that the science is settled is a charlatan protecting their own wage packet.

Glyn R
Glyn R
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon S

Good comment.
‘The welfare of the people is the alibi of tyrants’. Albert Camus
That Net Zero is nothing to do with the terrible blight of pollution on the earth and seas tells us all we need to know about this scam.

Last edited 9 months ago by Glyn R
Andrew Horsman
Andrew Horsman
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon S

Agree. It’s cover for the imposition of a radically collectivist mode of government, politics, society and culture, from the top down, and a distraction from the very real harms done by large corporates, with little regard for the inevitable unintended consequences of corruption, hardship, misery, and loss of basic freedoms. To be fair to the International Panel on Climate Change, though, they are pretty open about their revolutionary political intent, if anyone is prepared to read what they actually say in detail (as I have). See my comment below for all of the gory details.

Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon S

Conflating climate change with pollution assumes climate change is caused by humans, which many leading, independent scientists reject.

What ‘leading scientists’? This is utter nonsense.
It’s really hard to believe there are still people on this planet that are in full denial that humans are causing climate change. This is primary school level science and about time that seemingly intelligent adults finally let go of their biases and accept what is clearly happening.

Simon S
Simon S
9 months ago

Conflating climate change with pollution assumes climate change is caused by humans, which many leading, independent scientists reject, whereas nobody disagrees that pollution is indeed caused by us.

“Net Zero” is an empty meme that endeavours to mob-silence climate dissenters while distracting us from the very real poisoning of our air, water, soil and bodies by the mass of products and emissions deriving from the extractive and chemicals industries, through our foods (and medicines), vehicles and materials.

We should be tackling pollution at the front end instead of re-engineering society based on highly questionable data models – our understanding of the world’s climate is so limited we cannot even safely predict rainfall in Epsom.

Explaining to Londoners that their nasal mucus could once again be a colour other than black, instead of inventing arbitrary planetary goals that descend into meaningless numbers games exploited and circumnavigated by those with the most financial resources, would represent a far more effective approach to building consensus for change if our overall objective is, indeed, human health.

Last edited 9 months ago by Simon S
polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago

“lead the global fight against climate change, by delivering on our world-leading target of Net Zero” ”
We are truly living in the land of comic cuts and inflated egos. The real rulers of the world, the adults, do not care what the British Establishment thinks about anything. And as for the claim to “lead the world”. Don’t you realise how ludicrous that is? Kim Jong Un, The Dear Leader, has a firmer grasp on reality than the Net Zero brigade.
I am not angry. I am just embarrassed.

Last edited 9 months ago by polidori redux
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Precisely, the so called ‘ British Establishment’ seems to have NO shame, and is an embarrassment to us all, and has been for some years now.

Matt M
Matt M
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

I’ve just been in Florida for a fortnight. I refuelled the hire car up for $38! Here in Britain a similar car would cost me $80-$90. We are impoverishing the working man to salve the egos of the Establishment.

Last edited 9 months ago by Matt M
Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Given the basic math of how much energy it takes to run modern society to maintain current standards of living, I have to conclude that any reasonable person of intelligence has to conclude that NetZero is impossible under current conditions. I can only conclude that the elites pushing such nonsense are either stupid to the point of incompetence or irresponsibly using NetZero to accomplish other things, such as increasing government power over people’s lives and/or profiting from industrial subsidies that always favor large businesses over everybody else.

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Tell Robbie K.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Alas, appealing to religious zealots using facts and logic is futile, because to them, all facts and all logic already point exclusively to their doctrinal approach. Likewise, appealing to their better nature for restraint, compromise, and understanding is equally pointless, as utopia cannot suffer dissent and still fulfill its promise. The Christians, Jews, and others who appealed to reason or begged for mercy during the rise of the Caliphate received no quarter, nor did the Muslims when the crusaders retaliated a few hundred years later. I likewise expect nothing short of totalitarianism reminiscent of Stalin, Mao, or the Ayatollahs should the eco-crusaders ever achieve power, a doubtful prospect I grant but stranger things have happened.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Alas, appealing to religious zealots using facts and logic is futile, because to them, all facts and all logic already point exclusively to their doctrinal approach. Likewise, appealing to their better nature for restraint, compromise, and understanding is equally pointless, as utopia cannot suffer dissent and still fulfill its promise. The Christians, Jews, and others who appealed to reason or begged for mercy during the rise of the Caliphate received no quarter, nor did the Muslims when the crusaders retaliated a few hundred years later. I likewise expect nothing short of totalitarianism reminiscent of Stalin, Mao, or the Ayatollahs should the eco-crusaders ever achieve power, a doubtful prospect I grant but stranger things have happened.

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Tell Robbie K.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Precisely, the so called ‘ British Establishment’ seems to have NO shame, and is an embarrassment to us all, and has been for some years now.

Matt M
Matt M
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

I’ve just been in Florida for a fortnight. I refuelled the hire car up for $38! Here in Britain a similar car would cost me $80-$90. We are impoverishing the working man to salve the egos of the Establishment.

Last edited 9 months ago by Matt M
Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
9 months ago
Reply to  polidori redux

Given the basic math of how much energy it takes to run modern society to maintain current standards of living, I have to conclude that any reasonable person of intelligence has to conclude that NetZero is impossible under current conditions. I can only conclude that the elites pushing such nonsense are either stupid to the point of incompetence or irresponsibly using NetZero to accomplish other things, such as increasing government power over people’s lives and/or profiting from industrial subsidies that always favor large businesses over everybody else.

polidori redux
polidori redux
9 months ago

“lead the global fight against climate change, by delivering on our world-leading target of Net Zero” ”
We are truly living in the land of comic cuts and inflated egos. The real rulers of the world, the adults, do not care what the British Establishment thinks about anything. And as for the claim to “lead the world”. Don’t you realise how ludicrous that is? Kim Jong Un, The Dear Leader, has a firmer grasp on reality than the Net Zero brigade.
I am not angry. I am just embarrassed.

Last edited 9 months ago by polidori redux
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

Good to see Unherd offering a different perspective on climate change. However, the author fails to distinguish between pollution and climate change. They are not alike at all.

Other than reducing CO2 emissions, I fail to see how renewables are better for the environment than fossil fuels. They certainly have a much bigger ecological footprint than fossil fuels. The amount of land required to generate one unit of power is much more significant with wind and solar. They use a lot of rare earth metals and they require an entirely new network of transmission lines.

And we should further distinguish between climate change and net zero. You can be worried about climate change and understand that our approach to the issue is utter nonsense. If western govts were building out nuclear power, rather than wind and solar, it would shut up a lot of critics.

But they aren’t doing that. Instead, they will build a bunch of unreliable, intermittent solar and wind plants, making everyone poorer and requiring us to make unnecessary sacrifices to our standard of living.

Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Other than reducing CO2 emissions, I fail to see how renewables are better for the environment than fossil fuels.

It’s really very simple – renewables do not contribute to the greenhouse effect in the same manner is burning fossil fuels.
This is really basic stuff, come on.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

As I said, govt could easily shut up its critics by building out nuclear. They are not doing that. Renewables do not address climate change and they do damage the environment. This is really basic stuff, come on.

Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I agree on nuclear completely. Our energy supply should be from a variety of sources however including renewables, which do not ‘damage the environment’, unless of course your view is that merely existing does so.

Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I agree on nuclear completely. Our energy supply should be from a variety of sources however including renewables, which do not ‘damage the environment’, unless of course your view is that merely existing does so.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Robbie K

As I said, govt could easily shut up its critics by building out nuclear. They are not doing that. Renewables do not address climate change and they do damage the environment. This is really basic stuff, come on.

Ed Newman
Ed Newman
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Jim: I am trying to find a way to contact you. I would like to interview you on my Ennyman’s Territory blog. Contact me at [email protected]  
I resonate with your insights and perspectives.

Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago
Reply to  Ed Newman

More garbage on the internet then.

Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago
Reply to  Ed Newman

More garbage on the internet then.

Robbie K
Robbie K
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Other than reducing CO2 emissions, I fail to see how renewables are better for the environment than fossil fuels.

It’s really very simple – renewables do not contribute to the greenhouse effect in the same manner is burning fossil fuels.
This is really basic stuff, come on.

Ed Newman
Ed Newman
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Jim: I am trying to find a way to contact you. I would like to interview you on my Ennyman’s Territory blog. Contact me at [email protected]  
I resonate with your insights and perspectives.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

Good to see Unherd offering a different perspective on climate change. However, the author fails to distinguish between pollution and climate change. They are not alike at all.

Other than reducing CO2 emissions, I fail to see how renewables are better for the environment than fossil fuels. They certainly have a much bigger ecological footprint than fossil fuels. The amount of land required to generate one unit of power is much more significant with wind and solar. They use a lot of rare earth metals and they require an entirely new network of transmission lines.

And we should further distinguish between climate change and net zero. You can be worried about climate change and understand that our approach to the issue is utter nonsense. If western govts were building out nuclear power, rather than wind and solar, it would shut up a lot of critics.

But they aren’t doing that. Instead, they will build a bunch of unreliable, intermittent solar and wind plants, making everyone poorer and requiring us to make unnecessary sacrifices to our standard of living.

Marcus Leach
Marcus Leach
9 months ago

Putting aside the debate about whether there is a “climate emergency” and the fact that Britain’s efforts and sacrifices will be rendered meaningless by the countries around the world – particularly the developing world – who will not follow our lemming leap into unilateral energy disarmament, the better question is: how conservative is the way Net Zero is currently being implemented compared to the alternative?
The current long term model model for Net Zero is for the bulk of electricity generation to come from wind and solar, with a currently non-existent enormous bank of battery technology that is able to store enough energy to supply the needs of the entire country for a number of continuous days when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.
As fossil fuels are removed from transport, heating, and any number of other things, there will be a massive increase in demand for electricity, and so the wind, solar battery model not only has to replace present energy demands, but a multiple of it. Vast numbers of turbines will need to be installed, and with their limited lifespan, the great bulk of them will need to be will need to be decommissioned and replaced every 20-30 years. Britain will be littered with solar farms covering vast tracts of good arable land. Aside from producing no electricity at night, and little during the winter, solar panels lose 0.5% of the generation capacity for every year of their 20-25 year lifespan.
How conservative is covering the countryside with an enormous number of bird mincers and solar panels that have to be junked every 20-30 years, producing enormous amounts of landfill? Not much.
All of the above is before one considers the enormous amount of construction and digging up the countryside that would be needed to upgrade the grid to bring power from where the wind turbines and solar panels are to where it is needed, and the environmental costs of mining vast quantities of materials such as lithium and cobalt for the battery storage that, with current technology, will be entirely incapable of storing enough energy to compensate for wind and solar intermittency.
Net zero is a worthless folly that will destroy industry, jobs, cost trillions and involve vast tracts of our countryside being covered in turbines and solar panels destined for landfill every 20-30 years, and enormous numbers of pylons carrying power from far off wind and solar generation sites. The current battery technology, as well as being wholly incapable of solving intermittency (so fossil fuels will still be needed to plug the gap) requires the mining of vast quantities of lithium and cobalt (currently being mined by child slave labour). Clearly, then, Net Zero on the current path is a disaster and not conservative of our environment.
If Net Zero is to be pursued, there is only one sensible choice: nuclear. With zero emissions it can provide all our energy needs. All the problems with intermittency go away, as does the need for the loss of vast tracts of countryside to turbines, solar panels and pylons. Nuclear offers us energy security and we could even become a major supplier of energy to other countries – especially those who are foolish enough to bet on wind and solar.

Last edited 9 months ago by Marcus Leach
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Marcus Leach

Duplication due to Censorship.

Mention of the arch-heretic perhaps?

Last edited 9 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Marcus Leach

Precisely as annunciated by the late, lamented, James Ephraim Lovelock CH CBE FRS*.

Incidentally was he ever offered a Knighthood can anyone recall? Or did he perhaps reject such a bauble?

(*26 July 1919 – 26 July 2022!)

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Marcus Leach

Duplication due to Censorship.

Mention of the arch-heretic perhaps?

Last edited 9 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Marcus Leach

Precisely as annunciated by the late, lamented, James Ephraim Lovelock CH CBE FRS*.

Incidentally was he ever offered a Knighthood can anyone recall? Or did he perhaps reject such a bauble?

(*26 July 1919 – 26 July 2022!)

Marcus Leach
Marcus Leach
9 months ago

Putting aside the debate about whether there is a “climate emergency” and the fact that Britain’s efforts and sacrifices will be rendered meaningless by the countries around the world – particularly the developing world – who will not follow our lemming leap into unilateral energy disarmament, the better question is: how conservative is the way Net Zero is currently being implemented compared to the alternative?
The current long term model model for Net Zero is for the bulk of electricity generation to come from wind and solar, with a currently non-existent enormous bank of battery technology that is able to store enough energy to supply the needs of the entire country for a number of continuous days when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.
As fossil fuels are removed from transport, heating, and any number of other things, there will be a massive increase in demand for electricity, and so the wind, solar battery model not only has to replace present energy demands, but a multiple of it. Vast numbers of turbines will need to be installed, and with their limited lifespan, the great bulk of them will need to be will need to be decommissioned and replaced every 20-30 years. Britain will be littered with solar farms covering vast tracts of good arable land. Aside from producing no electricity at night, and little during the winter, solar panels lose 0.5% of the generation capacity for every year of their 20-25 year lifespan.
How conservative is covering the countryside with an enormous number of bird mincers and solar panels that have to be junked every 20-30 years, producing enormous amounts of landfill? Not much.
All of the above is before one considers the enormous amount of construction and digging up the countryside that would be needed to upgrade the grid to bring power from where the wind turbines and solar panels are to where it is needed, and the environmental costs of mining vast quantities of materials such as lithium and cobalt for the battery storage that, with current technology, will be entirely incapable of storing enough energy to compensate for wind and solar intermittency.
Net zero is a worthless folly that will destroy industry, jobs, cost trillions and involve vast tracts of our countryside being covered in turbines and solar panels destined for landfill every 20-30 years, and enormous numbers of pylons carrying power from far off wind and solar generation sites. The current battery technology, as well as being wholly incapable of solving intermittency (so fossil fuels will still be needed to plug the gap) requires the mining of vast quantities of lithium and cobalt (currently being mined by child slave labour). Clearly, then, Net Zero on the current path is a disaster and not conservative of our environment.
If Net Zero is to be pursued, there is only one sensible choice: nuclear. With zero emissions it can provide all our energy needs. All the problems with intermittency go away, as does the need for the loss of vast tracts of countryside to turbines, solar panels and pylons. Nuclear offers us energy security and we could even become a major supplier of energy to other countries – especially those who are foolish enough to bet on wind and solar.

Last edited 9 months ago by Marcus Leach
Andrew Horsman
Andrew Horsman
9 months ago

One can’t be a conservative – or any have any form of politics short of the revolutionary – and support “Net Zero” as conceptualised by the IPCC. This is a very long comment but it contains a lot of factual content that I hope will help to inform interested readers of this article about what, exactly, the IPCC has in store so please bear with me. All of quotations in double speech marks are verbatim from the IPCC’s own material.

The IPCC’s Sixth Synthesis report, published earlier this year, contains the headline conclusions that “Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health (very high confidence). There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all (very high confidence).” This will require “rapid and far-reaching transitions across all sectors and systems 
 to achieve deep and sustained emissions”. “Systems transitions include 
 socio-cultural changes”.

Moreover, “Climate resilient development is enabled when governments, civil society and the private sector make inclusive development choices that prioritize risk reduction, equity and justice, and when decision-making processes, finance and actions are integrated across governance levels, sectors, and timeframes (very high confidence).” The “transboundary nature of many climate change risks 
 increases the need for climate-informed transboundary management, cooperation, responses and solutions through multinational or regional governance processes (high confidence)“.

Can you guess what it is yet? If not, let’s sketch out more of the detail the IPCC reveals to us deeper in their documentation 


According to the the much more detailed third part of the Sixth Assessment Report “Working Group 3” report on “Mitigation of Climate Change” published last year, demand-side management – that is, reducing the demand for energy – and new ways of end-use service provision could “reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in end-use sectors (buildings, land transport, food) by 40–70% by 2050 compared to baseline scenarios”. Demand for energy can be reduced in three ways: avoiding energy use altogether (eg not travelling at all), shifting to a less energy intensive activities (eg cycling instead of driving), and improving technology to reduce energy use (eg electric cars instead of petrol cars).

It is clear that the IPCC believes that most people in rich countries are consuming too much for the common good: “The challenge then is to address the upper limits of consumption. When consumption only just supports the satisfaction of basic needs, any decrease causes deficiencies in human-need satisfaction. This is quite unlike the case of consumption that exceeds the limits of basic needs, in which deprivation causes a subjective discomfort (Brand-Correa et al. 2020). Therefore, to collectively remain within environmental limits, the establishment of minimum and maximum standards of consumption, or sustainable consumption corridors, (Wiedmann et al. 2020) has been suggested.” (WGIII, Chapter 5.1.1.1, p514).

The implication is that Britons earning c£30k and £45k per year will on average need immediately to *halve* their total energy consumption (including food, transport etc not just heating or electricity) to get to 50 GJ per year, which is the top of the range “consistent with enabling well-being for all”. The less well off also need to cut back and may have to make do with “living arrangements [that] are built expressly around the practice of sharing toilets, bathrooms and kitchens”.

Try putting that on a Conservative Party, or indeed any party, leaflet! It gets worse 


The IPCC acknowledges that “policies that are aimed at behaviour and lifestyle changes come with political risks for policymakers 
 There is high evidence and high agreement that ‘Avoid’ policies that affect lifestyle changes 
 would need to overcome political sensitivities around government efforts to shape and modify individual-level behaviour (Rosenow et al. 2017; Grubb et al. 2020) (Table 5.5).” They recommend, therefore, “Longer term thinking and implementation that involves careful sequencing of policies“.

Chapter 13 of the WG3 report makes it clear that such sequencing can be a way to overcome “the potential for political contestation” (Section 13.7.1, p1397). Policies “can generate positive feedbacks by creating constituencies for continuation of those policies, but need to be designed to do so from the outset (Edmondson et al. 2019, 2020) 
 Another promising strategy is to design short-term policies which might help to provide later entry points for more ambitious climate policy (Kriegler et al. 2018) and supportive institutions.”

They make it pretty clear that they mean to create havoc in the short term as an instrument to secure political support for radical solutions, in the classic, ‘problem, reaction, solution‘ frame: they recommend “[s]trategic targeting, or the identifying of specific intervention points (Kanger et al. 2020), [or] points of leverage (Abson et al. 2017)” with a “focus on undermining carbon intensive systems, thereby reducing opposition to more generalised acceleration policies”. (Chapter 13.9.7, Steps for Acceleration, p1410).

Conservative? I don’t think so. These are the tactics of upstart communist revolutionaries.

But don’t think this is just about energy policy. No, what the IPCC wants is systemic, root-and-branch, revolutionary political change, in the name equity, justice, and the sustainable development goals. We know so because they say so. The above section 13.9.7 on steps for acceleration draws two conclusions from the “emergent literature” that it discusses:

First, “the benefits of focusing on a coordinated, cross-economy systemic response. Coordination is central to this. For example, coordination of actions and coherent narratives across sectors and cross economy, including within and between all governance levels and scales of actions, is beneficial for acceleration (robust evidence, high agreement)”.

Second, “explicit transformational system changes are necessary, including efforts at directing transformations, such as clear direction setting through the elaboration of shared visions, and coordination across diverse actors across different policy fields, such as climate and industrial policy, and across governance levels.”

For the IPCC, “political systems are so politically and historically entrenched they are not likely to change quickly even though this could facilitate domestic climate mitigation efforts” (p1371). But if only such historical baggage, or “lock-ins” as the IPCC would have it, could be dispensed with, along with other “structural factors that constrain and enable climate governance” such as “prevalent ideas, values and belief systems”.

For it is written, in Chapter 13: “Corporatist societies, where economic groups are formally involved in public policy making, have better climate related outcomes (lower CO2 emissions and higher low-carbon investments) than liberal-pluralist countries.” And those lovely cuddly public-private partnerships of which we are all so fond – including everyone’s favourite, the “transnational” ones – “have been found to enable better mitigation results in areas outside direct government control”.

Recognising that the Great Leap Forward may be some time off, in the short term we can expect more fear, propaganda, and manipulation of culture, media and the arts, with covid policy as the proof of concept: “more proximate and personal feelings of being at risk triggered by extreme weather and climate-linked natural disasters will increase concern and willingness to act (Bergquist et al. 2019), though the window of increased support is short (Sisco et al. 2017)” (Chapter 5.4.1, p547) 
 “presenting apocalyptic stories and imagery to capture people’s attention and evoke emotional and behavioural response“ (p555). The media is too two-sided for the IPCC’s liking, rigidly sticking to the tiresome old “norm” of “representing both sides of a controversy” (what an irresponsible, naughty media!) therefore “bearing the risk of the disproportionate representation of scepticism of anthropogenic climate change”.

We can expect to be the cheery recipients of “Education and information programmes, using the arts” to “heighten [our] risk perception”. Lucky us. And, of course we can’t even go to church to escape front this full frontal cultural assault on our “malleable preferences”: “Religion could play an important role in enabling collective action on climate mitigation by providing cultural interpretations of change”.

And finally, conservatives and all political moderates: if you tolerate this, then your children will be next. Chapter 5’s executive summary highlights that “Changing from a commercialised, individualised, entrepreneurial training model to an education cognisant of planetary health and human well-being can accelerate climate change awareness and action”. This is a naked and unabashed call to inculcate collectivist ideology in children through their education. If conservatives can’t see the danger in this, they’re not really conservatives.

Please feel to copy and use this material as you wish, with or without attribution. Use it ask questions of your MPs and parliamentary candidates if you like. My sole motivation for putting the work in to understand and communicate this is simply to raise awareness and allow others to come their own conclusions about what the IPCC’s “net zero” agenda may mean in practice. I would recommend reading the IPCC reports themselves if you have the time and patience but I can assure anyone reading this summary that I have not cherry-picked or mis-represented what they say: they really do want a global political and cultural revolution.

——-

Links
Summary for Policymakers of the Sixth Synthesis Report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf

The third part of the Sixth Assessment Report (Working Group 3):
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

Thank you so much for that simply wonderful evisceration of the wretched Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

Do they ever ask themselves: what happens if we inflict all this pain and it has no effect? The greatest crime committed in recent years was the French government’s decision to destroy the last remaining guillotine.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Don’t despair both France and Luxembourg have at least one each in a museum.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Don’t despair both France and Luxembourg have at least one each in a museum.

Simon S
Simon S
9 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

Superb comment. Many thanks. The question is how can we can prevent this. It is nevertheless very encouraging that so many Unherd readers do see what is happening.

Andrew Horsman
Andrew Horsman
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon S

Thank you. I think simply raising awareness that this is what “net zero” means, and inviting people in your trusted circles (beyond Unherd readers!) to explore the question of whether this is what they want for their future and for their children’s future. Very few people want revolutionary change, especially one which even on its own terms would be severely constraining, and pretty miserable for everyone and not just those sharing a toilet to save the planet. The report itself notes that “Between 10% and 30% of committed individuals are required to set new social norms.” Well, that works both ways. Once 10 to 30% figure out that net zero means deliberately undermining the systems on which we all depend for life’s basics in an attempt to influence public opinion, they will find that out the very, very, hard way.

The fear factor – of a “hothouse earth” etc – will work against us. But, although they might try (and indeed have tried) it on with their “apocalyptic narratives”, I don’t think they are going to be able successfully to get most people sufficiently scared, or guilt-tripped, as they managed to with covid. I am optimistic that within 5 years or less mention of “net zero” policies will be met with an embarrassed, awkward silence and usually followed with an attempt to move the conversation on – much as mention of “lockdowns” is treated in polite company now. Within 10 years it will be regarded as a monumental folly, and within 20 years it will be near-universally regarded as self-evidently evil. These things can swing around very quickly, even if it might get a bit worse before it gets better simply because of the sheer vested interest that there is in the “climate change industry” and their client class.

The key thing, though, to remember whatever happens is: do not be afraid. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon S

UnHerd ‘readers’ are perhaps one of the best informed therefore cynical audiences on the Planet.
Very little ‘nonsense’ gets past them!

Andrew Horsman
Andrew Horsman
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon S

Thank you. I think simply raising awareness that this is what “net zero” means, and inviting people in your trusted circles (beyond Unherd readers!) to explore the question of whether this is what they want for their future and for their children’s future. Very few people want revolutionary change, especially one which even on its own terms would be severely constraining, and pretty miserable for everyone and not just those sharing a toilet to save the planet. The report itself notes that “Between 10% and 30% of committed individuals are required to set new social norms.” Well, that works both ways. Once 10 to 30% figure out that net zero means deliberately undermining the systems on which we all depend for life’s basics in an attempt to influence public opinion, they will find that out the very, very, hard way.

The fear factor – of a “hothouse earth” etc – will work against us. But, although they might try (and indeed have tried) it on with their “apocalyptic narratives”, I don’t think they are going to be able successfully to get most people sufficiently scared, or guilt-tripped, as they managed to with covid. I am optimistic that within 5 years or less mention of “net zero” policies will be met with an embarrassed, awkward silence and usually followed with an attempt to move the conversation on – much as mention of “lockdowns” is treated in polite company now. Within 10 years it will be regarded as a monumental folly, and within 20 years it will be near-universally regarded as self-evidently evil. These things can swing around very quickly, even if it might get a bit worse before it gets better simply because of the sheer vested interest that there is in the “climate change industry” and their client class.

The key thing, though, to remember whatever happens is: do not be afraid. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Simon S

UnHerd ‘readers’ are perhaps one of the best informed therefore cynical audiences on the Planet.
Very little ‘nonsense’ gets past them!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

Thank you so much for that simply wonderful evisceration of the wretched Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

Do they ever ask themselves: what happens if we inflict all this pain and it has no effect? The greatest crime committed in recent years was the French government’s decision to destroy the last remaining guillotine.

Simon S
Simon S
9 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

Superb comment. Many thanks. The question is how can we can prevent this. It is nevertheless very encouraging that so many Unherd readers do see what is happening.

Andrew Horsman
Andrew Horsman
9 months ago

One can’t be a conservative – or any have any form of politics short of the revolutionary – and support “Net Zero” as conceptualised by the IPCC. This is a very long comment but it contains a lot of factual content that I hope will help to inform interested readers of this article about what, exactly, the IPCC has in store so please bear with me. All of quotations in double speech marks are verbatim from the IPCC’s own material.

The IPCC’s Sixth Synthesis report, published earlier this year, contains the headline conclusions that “Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health (very high confidence). There is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all (very high confidence).” This will require “rapid and far-reaching transitions across all sectors and systems 
 to achieve deep and sustained emissions”. “Systems transitions include 
 socio-cultural changes”.

Moreover, “Climate resilient development is enabled when governments, civil society and the private sector make inclusive development choices that prioritize risk reduction, equity and justice, and when decision-making processes, finance and actions are integrated across governance levels, sectors, and timeframes (very high confidence).” The “transboundary nature of many climate change risks 
 increases the need for climate-informed transboundary management, cooperation, responses and solutions through multinational or regional governance processes (high confidence)“.

Can you guess what it is yet? If not, let’s sketch out more of the detail the IPCC reveals to us deeper in their documentation 


According to the the much more detailed third part of the Sixth Assessment Report “Working Group 3” report on “Mitigation of Climate Change” published last year, demand-side management – that is, reducing the demand for energy – and new ways of end-use service provision could “reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in end-use sectors (buildings, land transport, food) by 40–70% by 2050 compared to baseline scenarios”. Demand for energy can be reduced in three ways: avoiding energy use altogether (eg not travelling at all), shifting to a less energy intensive activities (eg cycling instead of driving), and improving technology to reduce energy use (eg electric cars instead of petrol cars).

It is clear that the IPCC believes that most people in rich countries are consuming too much for the common good: “The challenge then is to address the upper limits of consumption. When consumption only just supports the satisfaction of basic needs, any decrease causes deficiencies in human-need satisfaction. This is quite unlike the case of consumption that exceeds the limits of basic needs, in which deprivation causes a subjective discomfort (Brand-Correa et al. 2020). Therefore, to collectively remain within environmental limits, the establishment of minimum and maximum standards of consumption, or sustainable consumption corridors, (Wiedmann et al. 2020) has been suggested.” (WGIII, Chapter 5.1.1.1, p514).

The implication is that Britons earning c£30k and £45k per year will on average need immediately to *halve* their total energy consumption (including food, transport etc not just heating or electricity) to get to 50 GJ per year, which is the top of the range “consistent with enabling well-being for all”. The less well off also need to cut back and may have to make do with “living arrangements [that] are built expressly around the practice of sharing toilets, bathrooms and kitchens”.

Try putting that on a Conservative Party, or indeed any party, leaflet! It gets worse 


The IPCC acknowledges that “policies that are aimed at behaviour and lifestyle changes come with political risks for policymakers 
 There is high evidence and high agreement that ‘Avoid’ policies that affect lifestyle changes 
 would need to overcome political sensitivities around government efforts to shape and modify individual-level behaviour (Rosenow et al. 2017; Grubb et al. 2020) (Table 5.5).” They recommend, therefore, “Longer term thinking and implementation that involves careful sequencing of policies“.

Chapter 13 of the WG3 report makes it clear that such sequencing can be a way to overcome “the potential for political contestation” (Section 13.7.1, p1397). Policies “can generate positive feedbacks by creating constituencies for continuation of those policies, but need to be designed to do so from the outset (Edmondson et al. 2019, 2020) 
 Another promising strategy is to design short-term policies which might help to provide later entry points for more ambitious climate policy (Kriegler et al. 2018) and supportive institutions.”

They make it pretty clear that they mean to create havoc in the short term as an instrument to secure political support for radical solutions, in the classic, ‘problem, reaction, solution‘ frame: they recommend “[s]trategic targeting, or the identifying of specific intervention points (Kanger et al. 2020), [or] points of leverage (Abson et al. 2017)” with a “focus on undermining carbon intensive systems, thereby reducing opposition to more generalised acceleration policies”. (Chapter 13.9.7, Steps for Acceleration, p1410).

Conservative? I don’t think so. These are the tactics of upstart communist revolutionaries.

But don’t think this is just about energy policy. No, what the IPCC wants is systemic, root-and-branch, revolutionary political change, in the name equity, justice, and the sustainable development goals. We know so because they say so. The above section 13.9.7 on steps for acceleration draws two conclusions from the “emergent literature” that it discusses:

First, “the benefits of focusing on a coordinated, cross-economy systemic response. Coordination is central to this. For example, coordination of actions and coherent narratives across sectors and cross economy, including within and between all governance levels and scales of actions, is beneficial for acceleration (robust evidence, high agreement)”.

Second, “explicit transformational system changes are necessary, including efforts at directing transformations, such as clear direction setting through the elaboration of shared visions, and coordination across diverse actors across different policy fields, such as climate and industrial policy, and across governance levels.”

For the IPCC, “political systems are so politically and historically entrenched they are not likely to change quickly even though this could facilitate domestic climate mitigation efforts” (p1371). But if only such historical baggage, or “lock-ins” as the IPCC would have it, could be dispensed with, along with other “structural factors that constrain and enable climate governance” such as “prevalent ideas, values and belief systems”.

For it is written, in Chapter 13: “Corporatist societies, where economic groups are formally involved in public policy making, have better climate related outcomes (lower CO2 emissions and higher low-carbon investments) than liberal-pluralist countries.” And those lovely cuddly public-private partnerships of which we are all so fond – including everyone’s favourite, the “transnational” ones – “have been found to enable better mitigation results in areas outside direct government control”.

Recognising that the Great Leap Forward may be some time off, in the short term we can expect more fear, propaganda, and manipulation of culture, media and the arts, with covid policy as the proof of concept: “more proximate and personal feelings of being at risk triggered by extreme weather and climate-linked natural disasters will increase concern and willingness to act (Bergquist et al. 2019), though the window of increased support is short (Sisco et al. 2017)” (Chapter 5.4.1, p547) 
 “presenting apocalyptic stories and imagery to capture people’s attention and evoke emotional and behavioural response“ (p555). The media is too two-sided for the IPCC’s liking, rigidly sticking to the tiresome old “norm” of “representing both sides of a controversy” (what an irresponsible, naughty media!) therefore “bearing the risk of the disproportionate representation of scepticism of anthropogenic climate change”.

We can expect to be the cheery recipients of “Education and information programmes, using the arts” to “heighten [our] risk perception”. Lucky us. And, of course we can’t even go to church to escape front this full frontal cultural assault on our “malleable preferences”: “Religion could play an important role in enabling collective action on climate mitigation by providing cultural interpretations of change”.

And finally, conservatives and all political moderates: if you tolerate this, then your children will be next. Chapter 5’s executive summary highlights that “Changing from a commercialised, individualised, entrepreneurial training model to an education cognisant of planetary health and human well-being can accelerate climate change awareness and action”. This is a naked and unabashed call to inculcate collectivist ideology in children through their education. If conservatives can’t see the danger in this, they’re not really conservatives.

Please feel to copy and use this material as you wish, with or without attribution. Use it ask questions of your MPs and parliamentary candidates if you like. My sole motivation for putting the work in to understand and communicate this is simply to raise awareness and allow others to come their own conclusions about what the IPCC’s “net zero” agenda may mean in practice. I would recommend reading the IPCC reports themselves if you have the time and patience but I can assure anyone reading this summary that I have not cherry-picked or mis-represented what they say: they really do want a global political and cultural revolution.

——-

Links
Summary for Policymakers of the Sixth Synthesis Report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf

The third part of the Sixth Assessment Report (Working Group 3):
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

After devoting so much ink to Thatcher in this essay, I’m baffled the author failed to mention her change in perspective to climate change – not the environment, but specifically climate change. In 2003, her book Statecraft recanted her earlier views, casting doubt on “alarmist” science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – a body she helped to create – and warning that: “The new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

The alarming thing about the alarmist IPCC is the IPCC’s report on the modelling is nowhere near as alarming as preface written by the politicians and NGOs. Even the heavily politicised IPCC can’t match the alarmist rhetoric of the UN. The preface is simply dishonest, which is the hallmark of everything associated with climate change.

As you rightly point out, the author has been highly selective quoting Thatcher and declaring what she thought about CO2 linked climate change, to the point of dishonesty. Perhaps worse still, because it is uncontested by anyone, is to omit the fact that Lawson convinced Thatcher to promote CO2 linked climate change as a handy retrospective reputation polisher after closing almost all deep coal mining in the UK. The author is uncritically promoting the political epitaph they concocted.

Last edited 9 months ago by Nell Clover
Nell Clover
Nell Clover
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

The alarming thing about the alarmist IPCC is the IPCC’s report on the modelling is nowhere near as alarming as preface written by the politicians and NGOs. Even the heavily politicised IPCC can’t match the alarmist rhetoric of the UN. The preface is simply dishonest, which is the hallmark of everything associated with climate change.

As you rightly point out, the author has been highly selective quoting Thatcher and declaring what she thought about CO2 linked climate change, to the point of dishonesty. Perhaps worse still, because it is uncontested by anyone, is to omit the fact that Lawson convinced Thatcher to promote CO2 linked climate change as a handy retrospective reputation polisher after closing almost all deep coal mining in the UK. The author is uncritically promoting the political epitaph they concocted.

Last edited 9 months ago by Nell Clover
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago

After devoting so much ink to Thatcher in this essay, I’m baffled the author failed to mention her change in perspective to climate change – not the environment, but specifically climate change. In 2003, her book Statecraft recanted her earlier views, casting doubt on “alarmist” science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – a body she helped to create – and warning that: “The new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes

Right-Wing Hippie
Right-Wing Hippie
9 months ago

In 2019, the Conservative manifesto promised to “lead the global fight against climate change, by delivering on our world-leading target of Net Zero”.
It’s probably best to keep in mind that the names of the two parties are ironic, like how a very large man might be called “Tiny”, or a bald man might be called “Curly.”

Right-Wing Hippie
Right-Wing Hippie
9 months ago

In 2019, the Conservative manifesto promised to “lead the global fight against climate change, by delivering on our world-leading target of Net Zero”.
It’s probably best to keep in mind that the names of the two parties are ironic, like how a very large man might be called “Tiny”, or a bald man might be called “Curly.”

Albireo Double
Albireo Double
9 months ago

The government has used the “Climate crisis” as a cynical tax-grab and a convenient virtue-signal. It has invented, falsified, and distorted facts and statistics, and used them to bully, to hector, and to control and browbeat the population.

Meanwhile where has been their stewardship of our society? Our borders are wide open, millions of non-integrating migrants flood our society, distort our culture, and drain our already slender resources while contributing nothing, and sending home the money that we give them.

There’s going to be one hell of a reckoning at the next election. I’m a former member and they’ve lost me, and everyone I know, and millions of others. No matter what the outcome, their betrayal of their voters will be punished.

Albireo Double
Albireo Double
9 months ago

The government has used the “Climate crisis” as a cynical tax-grab and a convenient virtue-signal. It has invented, falsified, and distorted facts and statistics, and used them to bully, to hector, and to control and browbeat the population.

Meanwhile where has been their stewardship of our society? Our borders are wide open, millions of non-integrating migrants flood our society, distort our culture, and drain our already slender resources while contributing nothing, and sending home the money that we give them.

There’s going to be one hell of a reckoning at the next election. I’m a former member and they’ve lost me, and everyone I know, and millions of others. No matter what the outcome, their betrayal of their voters will be punished.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago

Of course Conservatives care about the environment. But conservatives are also practical people – and net zero is pie-in-the-sky.
Practical people know that it will damage millions of lives whilst having a net zero impact on the problem.

The trillions we’re about to waste on it would be much better spent on things we actually can fix.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Like HS2 perhaps?

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago

I said ‘things we can fix’.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

My apologies, sadly I am the eternal optimist.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

My apologies, sadly I am the eternal optimist.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago

I said ‘things we can fix’.

Albireo Double
Albireo Double
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

It shows the difference between Conservatives and conservatives. Were our Conservative politicians so practical, then why have they pursued Net Zero for so long, and why have they inextricably enshrined it in law? And why are they still doing almost nothing, except talking, to slow down the relentless march towards national and personal bankruptcy that they (and no one else) have set in motion?

Last edited 9 months ago by Albireo Double
Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago
Reply to  Albireo Double

Our Conservative politicians are not conservatives, they’re neo-liberals and globalists.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Or to put it another way, they are complete rubbish.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Or to put it another way, they are complete rubbish.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago
Reply to  Albireo Double

Our Conservative politicians are not conservatives, they’re neo-liberals and globalists.

Peter B
Peter B
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Love that phrase: “[the pursuit of net zero] will have a net zero impact on the problem”.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Like HS2 perhaps?

Albireo Double
Albireo Double
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

It shows the difference between Conservatives and conservatives. Were our Conservative politicians so practical, then why have they pursued Net Zero for so long, and why have they inextricably enshrined it in law? And why are they still doing almost nothing, except talking, to slow down the relentless march towards national and personal bankruptcy that they (and no one else) have set in motion?

Last edited 9 months ago by Albireo Double
Peter B
Peter B
9 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Love that phrase: “[the pursuit of net zero] will have a net zero impact on the problem”.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
9 months ago

Of course Conservatives care about the environment. But conservatives are also practical people – and net zero is pie-in-the-sky.
Practical people know that it will damage millions of lives whilst having a net zero impact on the problem.

The trillions we’re about to waste on it would be much better spent on things we actually can fix.

Rob C
Rob C
9 months ago

This idea that we should preserve as much as we can for unknown future generations sounds nice, but doesn’t it require the present (and all future) generations, to live with the bare necessities of life? Do people understand that and agree with it? I certainly don’t see it in their lifestyles.

Glyn R
Glyn R
9 months ago
Reply to  Rob C

The reason so many people are with the idea of Net Zero is that they have been relentlessly propagandised and made fearful that climate change constitutes a climate emergency that can only be controlled by the reduction of carbon in the atmosphere. They have been given no access to any other opinions via MSM or education generally except for it to be demonised and de-platformed and the advocates of dissent cancelled. Thus people have been led to believe that it is possible to turn down the global thermostat if only we stop using gas and switch to electric cars etc. It is absurd but so were the covid lockdowns, social distancing, cloth masks etc that overwhelming majority were successfully made to believe their lives depended on thanks to a highly successful propaganda operation between government and media.Similarly with Covid we saw highly qualified doctors and virologists who dared to question the narrative silenced and crushed.
The rush for ‘green’ renewable energy in the forms currently on offer will necessitate even more mining of rare earth minerals and the devastation that will entail. Net Zero is a massive lie.

Glyn R
Glyn R
9 months ago
Reply to  Rob C

The reason so many people are with the idea of Net Zero is that they have been relentlessly propagandised and made fearful that climate change constitutes a climate emergency that can only be controlled by the reduction of carbon in the atmosphere. They have been given no access to any other opinions via MSM or education generally except for it to be demonised and de-platformed and the advocates of dissent cancelled. Thus people have been led to believe that it is possible to turn down the global thermostat if only we stop using gas and switch to electric cars etc. It is absurd but so were the covid lockdowns, social distancing, cloth masks etc that overwhelming majority were successfully made to believe their lives depended on thanks to a highly successful propaganda operation between government and media.Similarly with Covid we saw highly qualified doctors and virologists who dared to question the narrative silenced and crushed.
The rush for ‘green’ renewable energy in the forms currently on offer will necessitate even more mining of rare earth minerals and the devastation that will entail. Net Zero is a massive lie.

Rob C
Rob C
9 months ago

This idea that we should preserve as much as we can for unknown future generations sounds nice, but doesn’t it require the present (and all future) generations, to live with the bare necessities of life? Do people understand that and agree with it? I certainly don’t see it in their lifestyles.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
9 months ago

The climate has been in a state of continuous change since the moment the Earth was formed. It’s an entirely natural phenomenon that got the planet into and out of several ice ages, involving far greater temperature changes than foreseen by the IPCC, without any input from mankind. Fighting climate change is therefore a hubristic fantasy.
We can, however, adapt to it. Our species is highly adaptable and innovative. People already live successfully in places where the temperature reaches over +50C and also in places where it reaches -50C. The good news is that adaptation will be massively cheaper than futile attempts to “combat” climate change.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
9 months ago

The climate has been in a state of continuous change since the moment the Earth was formed. It’s an entirely natural phenomenon that got the planet into and out of several ice ages, involving far greater temperature changes than foreseen by the IPCC, without any input from mankind. Fighting climate change is therefore a hubristic fantasy.
We can, however, adapt to it. Our species is highly adaptable and innovative. People already live successfully in places where the temperature reaches over +50C and also in places where it reaches -50C. The good news is that adaptation will be massively cheaper than futile attempts to “combat” climate change.

Jim Haggerty
Jim Haggerty
9 months ago

The West is going through these moral contortions on CC and the energy transition and meanwhile coal usage is hitting records across the globe. The Global South isn’t listening unless the West pays them trillions towards the transition. It’s all so ridiculous.. The new Head of the IPCC recently said the World won’t end if we don’t make NET ZERO by 2050…which of course we won’t…tulip mania once again

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Haggerty

Climate change is the ultimate luxury belief.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Or laxative relief.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Or laxative relief.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Haggerty

Climate change is the ultimate luxury belief.

Jim Haggerty
Jim Haggerty
9 months ago

The West is going through these moral contortions on CC and the energy transition and meanwhile coal usage is hitting records across the globe. The Global South isn’t listening unless the West pays them trillions towards the transition. It’s all so ridiculous.. The new Head of the IPCC recently said the World won’t end if we don’t make NET ZERO by 2050…which of course we won’t…tulip mania once again

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
9 months ago

The problem is that Net Zero is a political issue but its basis is corrupt science which says CO2 is causing global warming.

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
9 months ago

The problem is that Net Zero is a political issue but its basis is corrupt science which says CO2 is causing global warming.

Michael W
Michael W
9 months ago

Are you still trying to think that anything this ‘Conservative’ Government does is conservative?

Michael W
Michael W
9 months ago

Are you still trying to think that anything this ‘Conservative’ Government does is conservative?

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
9 months ago

There is some truth in this analysis – but only a little. The reason ‘net zero’ could be conservative is because it is not compatible with growth; with either the permanent expansion of the state or of price-setting markets (and the State-Market has always been a single organism, states depending on fiscal transfers from growing markets; and global abstract markets depending on increasingly intrusive social and societal regulation by states). The WEF and WHO agenda is only an extension of this dynamic to the global stage.
The difficulty is that a green economy can’t be organized around growth. All major green movements and parties used to understand this but now hide the truth from themselves. The reason is that their social/liberal/cosmpolitan commitments take priority – above even the steady state economy. So one time limits thinkers are now, to a person, eco-modernists and trans-humanists, on the side of the machine. Paul Kingsnorth understands this very well. Hence his despair, recovery and conversion to Christianity,
If the pro-Euro, liberal author was being consistent, he would point also to the fact that just about every non-negotiable liberal shibboleth, from open borders, free for all transgenderism, and of course a massive global expansion of the welfare state – depends on growth, and so on carbon.
Net zero can’t be liberal nor cosmopolitan, nor individualist. It could only be communitarian, place-bound and group oriented. It’s completely incompatible with consumerism and the materialist metaphysics that destroys meaning and enchantment. Only a widely shared, deeply rooted and familial religious metaphysics could sustain anything that looked remotely like net zero.
Roger Scruton understood this. Saunders clearly doesn’t understand ROger Scruton.
Yes the only viable green political economy is conservative – but of the paleo- Christian or Jewish (or perhaps Muslim) variety.
Yes conservatives should be green: if they are revolted by the trans mutilation cult, by consumerism, crass materialism, the prospective transhumanism, the WEF/WHO powergrab and the frankly fallen/sinful and pagan nature of modern society…….they should embrace some version of green political economy (as well as going back to church, resanctifying marriage and possibly taking seriously the biblical ban on Usury But this will be a distributist, anti-socialist, localist, pro-natalist, and anti-capitalist, pro (place-bound)free market vision of economic life centred on families, communities, sufficiency and a daily, central, lived, experiential devotion to God. It will be the sort of economy imagined by Chesterton, Belloc – but also E.F. Schumacher,
The kind of economy that gets an airing in https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/ and https://theimaginativeconservative.org/ and more rarely in the post-liberal musings of some post-liberals in Unherd (Mary Harrington’s book on feminism against progress. ….. https://swiftpress.com/book/feminism-against-progress/ )
National conservatism and post-liberalism are a start. Any Neo-con BS is just what it always was globalist BS….. And any kind of conservative, socialist or centrist liberalism is major obstacle.
This guy is a liberal and has it all back to front – hence his rejoinder/remainer fantasy (the EU is the greatest growth coalition on earth)
Talk to Kingsnorth and write the article again.

Stephen Quilley
Stephen Quilley
9 months ago

There is some truth in this analysis – but only a little. The reason ‘net zero’ could be conservative is because it is not compatible with growth; with either the permanent expansion of the state or of price-setting markets (and the State-Market has always been a single organism, states depending on fiscal transfers from growing markets; and global abstract markets depending on increasingly intrusive social and societal regulation by states). The WEF and WHO agenda is only an extension of this dynamic to the global stage.
The difficulty is that a green economy can’t be organized around growth. All major green movements and parties used to understand this but now hide the truth from themselves. The reason is that their social/liberal/cosmpolitan commitments take priority – above even the steady state economy. So one time limits thinkers are now, to a person, eco-modernists and trans-humanists, on the side of the machine. Paul Kingsnorth understands this very well. Hence his despair, recovery and conversion to Christianity,
If the pro-Euro, liberal author was being consistent, he would point also to the fact that just about every non-negotiable liberal shibboleth, from open borders, free for all transgenderism, and of course a massive global expansion of the welfare state – depends on growth, and so on carbon.
Net zero can’t be liberal nor cosmopolitan, nor individualist. It could only be communitarian, place-bound and group oriented. It’s completely incompatible with consumerism and the materialist metaphysics that destroys meaning and enchantment. Only a widely shared, deeply rooted and familial religious metaphysics could sustain anything that looked remotely like net zero.
Roger Scruton understood this. Saunders clearly doesn’t understand ROger Scruton.
Yes the only viable green political economy is conservative – but of the paleo- Christian or Jewish (or perhaps Muslim) variety.
Yes conservatives should be green: if they are revolted by the trans mutilation cult, by consumerism, crass materialism, the prospective transhumanism, the WEF/WHO powergrab and the frankly fallen/sinful and pagan nature of modern society…….they should embrace some version of green political economy (as well as going back to church, resanctifying marriage and possibly taking seriously the biblical ban on Usury But this will be a distributist, anti-socialist, localist, pro-natalist, and anti-capitalist, pro (place-bound)free market vision of economic life centred on families, communities, sufficiency and a daily, central, lived, experiential devotion to God. It will be the sort of economy imagined by Chesterton, Belloc – but also E.F. Schumacher,
The kind of economy that gets an airing in https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/ and https://theimaginativeconservative.org/ and more rarely in the post-liberal musings of some post-liberals in Unherd (Mary Harrington’s book on feminism against progress. ….. https://swiftpress.com/book/feminism-against-progress/ )
National conservatism and post-liberalism are a start. Any Neo-con BS is just what it always was globalist BS….. And any kind of conservative, socialist or centrist liberalism is major obstacle.
This guy is a liberal and has it all back to front – hence his rejoinder/remainer fantasy (the EU is the greatest growth coalition on earth)
Talk to Kingsnorth and write the article again.

Graeme Laws
Graeme Laws
9 months ago

Muddled thinking, I fear.
The notion that we could lead the world in tackling climate change was and is ridiculous. No-one in the world who matters cares one jot about what we do or don’t do.
We have cut emissions by failing to have any clear plan to provide the energy we need at prices that make it possible for manufacturers to compete. The brilliant endgame of this policy is the flood of Chinese EVs about to hit our shores.

Graeme Laws
Graeme Laws
9 months ago

Muddled thinking, I fear.
The notion that we could lead the world in tackling climate change was and is ridiculous. No-one in the world who matters cares one jot about what we do or don’t do.
We have cut emissions by failing to have any clear plan to provide the energy we need at prices that make it possible for manufacturers to compete. The brilliant endgame of this policy is the flood of Chinese EVs about to hit our shores.

Andrzej Wasniewski
Andrzej Wasniewski
9 months ago

CO2 emission has nothing with air pollution. Environmentalism has nothing to do with climate change scam. Less air pollution, clean water, preservation of natural habitat to the best of our abilities is not controversial. But then we jump to the conclusion that the only way to survive the heat wave is not to install AC, not at all, it is to cool the Earth. Nothing less will do. How dishonest and stupid is that?

Andrzej Wasniewski
Andrzej Wasniewski
9 months ago

CO2 emission has nothing with air pollution. Environmentalism has nothing to do with climate change scam. Less air pollution, clean water, preservation of natural habitat to the best of our abilities is not controversial. But then we jump to the conclusion that the only way to survive the heat wave is not to install AC, not at all, it is to cool the Earth. Nothing less will do. How dishonest and stupid is that?

David Lindsay
David Lindsay
9 months ago

My favourite question of Greens is, “Do you regret the defeat of the miners in 1985?” It always stops them in their tracks. And I have the same question for post-Thatcherite culture warriors and opponents of Net Zero, “Do you regret the defeat of the miners in 1985?” If not, then I can give you chapter and verse as to why you did not really regret the loss of any of things that you claim to, although you might sincerely believe that you did. At the recent local elections in England, the considerable Green gains were mostly from the Conservatives.

Although she began to blather on about environmentalism as a means of Socialist control once she had the dementia that also turned her into a born again Eurosceptic, Margaret Thatcher was very Green indeed as Prime Minister, shocking first the Royal Society, and then the United Nations General Assembly, with her passion on the subject. Theresa May gave the nation the Climate Change Act, and her erstwhile Chief of Staff was recently selected for Matt Hancock’s seat. Boris Johnson described Thatcher’s destruction of the British coal industry as “a big early start” towards Net Zero. Her milk-snatching is now held up as a pioneering strike against the wicked dairy industry, as I had been predicting for donkey’s years.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  David Lindsay

“At the recent local elections in England, the considerable Green gains were mostly from the Conservatives.”

Indeed, but as a result of protest vote against the depravity of the Tory Party rather than any heartfelt enthusiasm for this Green nonsense!
Plus anything is better than voting socialist, repeat anything!

David Lindsay
David Lindsay
9 months ago

There are lots of ways of protesting against the Tories. It is a conscious choice to vote Green.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  David Lindsay

In my, albeit limited experience, a lot of it is down to sheer devilment, provoked by utter exasperation!

However, quite a few my friends seem have inadvertently conflated ‘Industrial pollution’ with ‘climate change’!
Thus for example there is real anger about how the ‘Water Companies’ are dumping billions of tons of human excrement into our rivers and coastal waters, whilst their CEOs are walking off with seven figure salaries.

This will have to stop.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  David Lindsay

In my, albeit limited experience, a lot of it is down to sheer devilment, provoked by utter exasperation!

However, quite a few my friends seem have inadvertently conflated ‘Industrial pollution’ with ‘climate change’!
Thus for example there is real anger about how the ‘Water Companies’ are dumping billions of tons of human excrement into our rivers and coastal waters, whilst their CEOs are walking off with seven figure salaries.

This will have to stop.

David Lindsay
David Lindsay
9 months ago

There are lots of ways of protesting against the Tories. It is a conscious choice to vote Green.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Reply to  David Lindsay

“At the recent local elections in England, the considerable Green gains were mostly from the Conservatives.”

Indeed, but as a result of protest vote against the depravity of the Tory Party rather than any heartfelt enthusiasm for this Green nonsense!
Plus anything is better than voting socialist, repeat anything!

David Lindsay
David Lindsay
9 months ago

My favourite question of Greens is, “Do you regret the defeat of the miners in 1985?” It always stops them in their tracks. And I have the same question for post-Thatcherite culture warriors and opponents of Net Zero, “Do you regret the defeat of the miners in 1985?” If not, then I can give you chapter and verse as to why you did not really regret the loss of any of things that you claim to, although you might sincerely believe that you did. At the recent local elections in England, the considerable Green gains were mostly from the Conservatives.

Although she began to blather on about environmentalism as a means of Socialist control once she had the dementia that also turned her into a born again Eurosceptic, Margaret Thatcher was very Green indeed as Prime Minister, shocking first the Royal Society, and then the United Nations General Assembly, with her passion on the subject. Theresa May gave the nation the Climate Change Act, and her erstwhile Chief of Staff was recently selected for Matt Hancock’s seat. Boris Johnson described Thatcher’s destruction of the British coal industry as “a big early start” towards Net Zero. Her milk-snatching is now held up as a pioneering strike against the wicked dairy industry, as I had been predicting for donkey’s years.