The conservative’s guide to acting on climate change

Lord John Randall. gov.uk / OGL v1.0

Lord John Randall is a person of significance in the British Conservative political scene. When current British Prime Minister Boris Johnson re-entered national parliamentary politics in 2015, the seat he took was Lord Randall’s old seat. So the following is very much a message from the British Conservative Heartland.


The conservative’s guide to acting on climate change

Lord John Randall
AUGUST 4 2020

Prior to the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, both the UK and Australia had been grappling with the devastating effects of another crisis: climate change. As both our governments seek to reboot our economies, both nature restoration and the development of clean technologies provide great opportunities to reduce emissions while also generating jobs and growth.

In the early part of this year, the UK was submerged by winter floods, culminating in the wettest February on record. Meanwhile, we watched in horror as bushfires tore through Australia, destroying more than a fifth of the forest area and seriously imperilling over 100 species. For many, these images offered a stark reminder of the urgent need for more ambitious climate action to mitigate the threat from extreme weather events, which will become more devastating without serious climate action. 

As prudent stewards of our nations’ finances, it should be axiomatic for conservatives that investing in climate action now makes economic sense, rather than bequeathing a much larger bill to future generations who would suffer the consequences of our inaction. As such, while I was environment adviser to former UK Prime Minister Theresa May, we became the first major economy to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050 – honouring our commitment, as a signatory to the historic Paris Agreement, to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

Under the terms agreed in Paris, both the UK and Australia are required to submit updated emissions reduction plans – known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs) – to the UN this year, and the UK has already committed to delivering an enhanced NDC before it hosts the UN climate change summit in 2021.

Having the courage to set ambitious targets provides clarity for business and creates new opportunities for investment, innovation and job creation. As our Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab told the Petersberg Climate Dialogue last month, successive Conservative governments in the UK have demonstrated that cutting emissions is not at odds with economic growth. Since 1990, the UK has reduced emissions faster than any other G7 nation, while also topping the G7 for per capita growth in national income over the same period.

Emissions have fallen by almost 30 per cent in the last decade alone, thanks in part to our burgeoning renewable energy sector, which now accounts for 37 per cent of British electricity generation. The UK, historically a maritime nation, now has the largest installed offshore wind capacity in the world, generating over 10 per cent of our electricity and employing 11,000 people directly, with an equivalent number of jobs supported in the supply chain. This investment has revitalised many coastal and deindustrialised regions, especially along the east coast of Britain.

 Under former prime minister Theresa May, the UK became the first major economy to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050. Picture: Shutterstock

Scaling up investment in offshore wind has been achieved through a market mechanism known as “contracts for difference”, whereby developers compete at auction for contracts which guarantee a fixed price for the electricity that they produce over a 15-year period – providing the necessary stability to mobilise private capital with low financing costs and to drive competition and innovation. A further expansion of offshore wind capacity, and the establishment of new auctions for less-established technologies such as floating offshore wind, could help power a clean recovery from COVID-19 in the UK.

Indeed, when it comes to fiscal stimulus measures, economic analysissuggests that green investments could provide the greatest returns. This has not gone unnoticed among political and business leaders, many of whom are calling for a clean and resilient recovery. The Australian Industry Group, representing more than 60,000 businesses, has urged the federal government to ensure that Australia’s recovery from COVID-19 also aids with the transition to net zero emissions, and believes that doing so would boost growth.

Australia has much to gain from embracing a low-carbon recovery, possessing all the attributes necessary to become a world leader in renewable energy and clean technologies. The Federal government has shown encouraging ambition in its hydrogen strategy which, if focused on hydrogen produced from renewable energy, could reduce energy costs and replace natural gas as a major export – especially if production can be achieved at the target of less than $2 a kilogram.

Additionally, tapping into Australia’s vast renewable energy potential could spark a job boom, generating three times as many jobs as the equivalent investment in fossil fuels. And as the cost of solar and wind power continues to decline steeply, Australia can gain a competitive advantage in energy-intensive industries.

It has been encouraging to see that Australia’s three Liberal state governments, in South Australia, NSW and Tasmania, are already leading the way in renewable energy. The federal government should establish its own clean energy trajectory, which will unlock vast quantities of private capital for the many large-scale wind and solar projects which are shovel-ready.

In tackling climate change and reinvigorating our economies, we must also recognise our obligation to safeguard nature for future generations. Protecting and restoring carbon-rich natural ecosystems, such as forests, can make a significant contribution to climate mitigation while providing vital habitats for endangered wildlife. The UK has recently established a Nature for Climate Fund, to invest in reforestation and other nature-based solutions to climate change. There is huge potential for natural carbon capture in Australia too, from which species threatened by habitat loss, like the iconic koala, could also benefit.

Both the UK and Australia have experienced first-hand the consequences of a more hostile climate. As governments around the world prepare to unleash further unprecedented sums of money to repair the damage wrought by COVID-19, the choices we make now will reverberate for generations to come. Green investments offer a route to a more sustainable, productive, and resilient future. I hope both our countries seize this opportunity. 


The essay above originally appeared in The Canberra Times, and has been reproduced with kind permission from Lord Randall.

131 thoughts on “The conservative’s guide to acting on climate change

  1. Conservative means advocating for smaller government, lower taxes, and less intrusion into the lives and businesses of it’s citizens. A limited government.
    Conservatism is diametrically opposed to foolish policy action on the Climate Change non-problem. It is a scam that grows government and imposes itself with higher taxes, more regulations, more bureaucracy in order to alter the weather in 80 years while crony capitalists get richer of the government welfare. One might as well believe in voodoo magic as trust that a government’s “Climate Change policy” as having anything to do with climate.

    • Being in the Conservative (big-C) party doesn’t mean he’s a real conservative (small-c). Assuming that he once held conservative ideas, they did not make him immune from having his brain hijacked by the Climate conspiracy.

      Likewise, our Liberal party in Canada is far from being traditionally liberal (a political system which was originally based on free trade, minimal government involvement in the economy, etc.)

      At the risk of giving offence, I might also say that the US Democrat party seems to be drifting dangerously far from democratic ideals.

      • No you are correct about the Democratic Party in the US.
        It just needs to disband if they are true to their identity politics and their socialist platforms of Medicare for All (government run cimpulsory health care) and reparations for slavery that ended 155 years ago.

        They then can reform as multiple parties. One Left-Center as joining with the Big Government RINO Republicans, and another party of Marxists and Socialists (and then the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in that New Marxist can fight it out for control).

        The Democratic Party is probably going to splinter into factions after Trump mops the floor with Dementia Joe in November, and ultimately Cancel Itself as it currently exists.

        • Joel,
          I pray it is so, but the DemoKKKrats will try to start Civil War 2.0 rather than accept an electoral loss to Trump again!
          Shouldn’t anyone trying to build a better world be pushing for a massive increase in nuclear energy? It’s the only “green” energy source dense enough to power a modern civilization unlike the the Unreliables; wind and solar! Perhaps he has investments in the Unreliables like many wealthy and powerful do, making money off the poor and the working class!

    • “Conservative means advocating for smaller government, lower taxes, and less intrusion into the lives and businesses of it’s citizens. A limited government.”
      That roughly what it means in the US. But only in US.
      One can mostly think US became independent from Brit Monarchy, but wasn’t as though there was not also problem with Brit parliament.
      The smaller government thing is related to how the British parliament “worked” – or more accurately, failed to work. Just today the British parliament fails to work. And also just US Congress fails to function as more power has been shifted to Federal Government over the decades.
      If even more power is shifted to US federal government, it become more and more like the British government.
      Or, quite possible US government could get far worse, than how bad it is now operating {sounds almost impossible, right?].

    • So, I wasn’t the only one who read this testimony as parody. That said, conservativism is moderating. #PrinciplesMatter

      • Speaking of reading modern conservatism as parody:

        WASHINGTON, D.C.—Conservatives in Congress proudly announced Monday they have achieved their goal of conserving massive budget deficits.

        “These progressives want to destroy our country by getting rid of all of our traditions,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “That’s why you need to vote for us conservatives—we make sure that our traditions are conserved, such as spending trillions of dollars we don’t have and expanding the size of the federal government every year.”

        “American customs and traditions like an ever-expanding federal government must be protected,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. “The progressives go a little too fast for our liking. When you vote for a Republican, you can be assured that we will hold the deficit steady at around $1 trillion per year.”

        Many people have been wondering just what it is conservative politicians are supposed to be conserving, and they’re glad to finally have an answer. Some supposed that conservatives just wanted to conserve social order as manifested in traditional marriage, religion, and morals, but since they’ve been losing that battle for years, many people weren’t sure anymore.

        “It’s nice to know that when I check the box with the little R next to it, I’m making sure our values, like spending trillions our grandkids are going to have to pay back, are being preserved,” said Republican voter Lila Billings from Idaho. “I’m helping!”

        “From President George W. Bush to the Obama years and now the Trump regime, we’ve followed through on our promising to ABC—Always Be Conserving,” said McCarthy. “Conserving a sprawling government, reckless spending, and taxes that would have led to a revolution just 50 years ago.”

        “You’re welcome.”

        https://babylonbee.com/news/conservatives-successfully-conserve-massive-deficits

    • That is what it means HERE (USA), Joel. Not what it means in Europe.

      The closest analog that we ever had to what the Europeans call “conservative right wing” would be the Democrats of FDR’s day.

      • There isn’t so much divergence. The main point of difference is health care where conservatives in Europe quite simply disagree with the Americans view, and with very good reason.

          • If you believe “efficiency” is the only mark for better, I guess you are right. I am very happy to live in a country that built its health care system on a more profound basis than efficiency.

          • Typical socialist, only respond to the portion of the comment that you think you can defeat.
            As I pointed out, our medical system is also better.
            If you are proud of poorer results that cost more, then no wonder you like socialism.

            BTW, I also love the way socialists are so proud of how much other people’s money they are able to waste.

          • Which country has a better system, Anders?
            Does that country respect the fundamental rights of the “patient”, or rather, the human being? (Calling any human being a patient, for no reasons, is the premise of violation of his rights.)

    • That’s the way it used to be. In modern terminology, conservative just means slightly less communistic than the liberals.

    • Libertarianism is self-organizing. Liberalism is divergent. Progressivism is monotonic. Conservative means moderating. #PrinciplesMatter

    • Conservative might, if you read the Conservative Party Manifesto, be taken to mean that, but the reality is far, far from that!
      The Conservatives are, by any measure, the absolute scum of the Earth! Yes, I’m looking at you, Lord Monkton of Whatever…
      If you didn’t live through the Thatcher Years as an ordinary person, you probably won’t understand or believe it. The most corrupt, sleaziest, self-centred, arrogant collection of chinless wonders and empty suits imaginable. Now, these views will be unpopular here, as the vast majority of respondents here are a self selected group of right wing, card carrying Trumpists who see anything else as Marxism or worse. And merely because of one issue – climate. Well, here’s the bad news – there are other things in the world besides climate. Not everything is about, or a function of, climate, climate change or climate policy. That’s the old “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail’ point of view, which is ridiculously wrong.
      But I digress – the Conservatives. Have a look through the pantheon of past Conservative ministers. Margaret Thatcher. Willie Whitelaw. Norman Tebbit. Cecil Parkinson, John Major. Jeffrey Archer. Leon Brittan. Geoffrey Howe. Norman Lamont, Douglas Hurd… the list goes on… each and every one corrupt, incompetent, arrogant, selfish. Most had to resign because of scandal, or because other loyal Tories stabbed them in the back, or is some cases, the front. And then Tory policies, on just about everything. Hideously inept, not thought through, badly executed, and usually dumped, or the failure blamed on somebody else, and replaced with something worse.
      The Conservatives have one purpose – to be in power. Everything else is irrelevant. The have the idea that they are the government of the UK by Divine Right, and nobody else has the right to be in power. Democracy? Nonsense! Ordinary people deciding who should run the country? Piffle! They will, and do, absolutely anything to be in power. Example – Brexit. A small section of the Conservatives have always been violently opposed to anything to do with Europe, but mostly they’ve seen it as an necessary evil and been quite pro Europe. Even Boris Johnson and Theresa May – pro European. No, really… go find out. The reason for the referendum was when the Tories, under David Cameron, failed to secure a majority in 2010 and had to go into coalition with the Lib Dems – the worst possible outcome. Worse than being in opposition. No absolute power, sharing power, being held to account, different points of view… an anathema to the Tory mind. Obviously that couldn’t happen again so they needed something to sway just enough voters to their side and secure an absolute majprity. And they decided that offering a referendum on EU membership would be the thing, by appealing to the nationalistic, xenophobic ‘Little Englanders’, they could get just enough votes to get back to where they should be – absolute power! That they might actually have to run the referendum was irrelevant, as they were quite sure that even the people of Britain couldn’t be stupid enough to actually vote for it! And so they put it off until the last possible minute. And then, when the result was declared, the nightmare scenario unfolded, and all because of the Tories and their desire for power – at any cost.
      Leaving the EU? Breakup of the United Kingdom? Destroy the economy? Millions out of work? Crippling debt? Collapse of manufacturing industry? Foreign influence in just about every aspect of UK life? All perfectly acceptable, so long as the central purpose of the Tories is met – to be in power.
      And once you grasp that fact, all Tory policies make sense. Selling off national assets, underfunding the NHS, removing checks and balances on government, raising taxes for the poor and reducing taxes for the rich, erosion of rights… and you honestly think that they’re the slightest bit bothered by ‘Climate Change’? They might be, if it secures them another term in office, but that’s it – it’s really a trivial sideshow.
      Conservatives… truly, the scum of the Earth. That so many ostensibly sensible, erudite and sagacious people here could support them, or Trump, or all of the other toxic right-wing filth purely because they are aligned on one issue is incredibly depressing, and yet, once you can see how gullible and egocentric most people are, perhaps not surprising.
      At least we now have only 167 days left to put up with One-Term Trump.

      • Adrian Mann – “ there are other things in the world besides climate. Not everything is about, or a function of, climate, climate change or climate policy” – you are so right. Please tell the BBC and ABC.
        The [fill in party name] have one purpose – to be in power. Everything else is irrelevant.“. Right again! George Orwell explained it well: Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.“. Revolution is the opposite of conservative, of course, which is why I put in [fill in party name|.
        Actually, I enjoyed your rant, but I think you have the wrong target by a country mile. The greatest threat to the western democracies – everyone actually – is the CCP. The power of democracy is not the power to put people into government, it is the power to remove the government, and the Chinese people have no mechanism for removing the CCP. A mature reasonably well-educated democracy can afford to have political parties such as you describe, because they can be removed before they totally destroy the country, but China cannot.
        Brexit? That was the will of the people, whether you like it or not. It may look like a disaster to you, but Britain has not yet collapsed, and doesn’t even remotely look like collapsing, in spite of its leader having some pretty wacky ideas. Like tearing up planning rules or zero CO2 emissions. Can anyone even be sure who will collapse first – UK or Europe?

      • I didn’t know the moderators allowed psychotic morons on the comment pages here.

        • Now, now; he may not actually be a psychotic moron! He may just be an ignorant partisan or ideologue who truly believes HIS team is without blemish! Anyone who thinks that politicians aren’t largely corrupt isn’t living in the real world. But as Mr. Bongino so aptly states: Republicans may not be the solution to your problems, but DemoKKKrats are definitely the source of most of them! I’m sure something similar holds true in England and Australia!

      • You are talking UTTER bollox!

        “Norman Tebbit. John Major” were actually examples of integrity in politics.
        Major actually succeeding in balancing the books, while Thatcher on the basis of NSO paid off the national war debt!
        “Millions out of work? Crippling debt? Collapse of manufacturing industry?”
        What are you smoking???

        It was TEFLON TONY and his sidekick Gordon the Moron, who sold off BNFL, sold all thr gold at 10% of market price to keep his cronies in Goldman sux in cash, then mired the UK in permanent debt after Major had actually put the UK in +

        As a direct result of those Labour cretins the British who were the first in the world to generate nuclear electricity now have to cowtoe to France and believe it or not CHINA to make their new reactors.

        Where are all the skilled personnel in engineering, forging and specialised steels?
        Thrown on the scrap heap just like ROVER (sold to the chinese again!), who had a decade advance on lean burn motor technology and hybrid cars.

        You better know what you are on about!
        The Tories are no virtue angels, – mostly because they are getting a blow job from the remains of “new labour” with that blabber mouth BLAIR, paid 1000s just for spouting hot air.

        It’s “war crime” Blair that makes me want to throw up.
        He makes the Tories look ‘armless.

      • Does being a communist mean that you are no longer allowed to use paragraphs?

        It really does amaze me how so many people have become convinced that they have a right to steal from others. They even get violent when you threaten to reduce how much stolen money they are allowed to receive every year.

        Adrian’s incoherent ramblings are almost impossible to decipher, but as near as I can tell, he’s complaining that anything that reduces the size of government is evil. He also takes it as a given that all right thinking people agree with him so that actually presenting an argument is unneccessary.

      • How dare you write that Margaret Thatcher was ‘corrupt and incompetent’ ? Not to mention Willie Whitelaw and Norman Tebbit. Corrupt? Are you mad?
        Margaret Thatcher was the finest Prime Minister we have ever had. I wish she was still in charge.

        • Indeed. The claim she was corrupt doesn’t deserve dignifying with a serious response. Since she departed we’ve had 30 years of pygmies unfit to carry her handbag.

          • Last fall I read parts of one volume of her memoir.

            Pertinent to this site, shes spoke of her actions leading up to the coal workers strike. The coal mines were government owned so wages were from the tax payer pot, and of course they wanted MORE.

            To avoid economic misery, she began to stockpile hugh amounts of coal at the power plants which enabled her to outlast the strike.

            Makes you think the reason for liberals want to close down so many coal generating facilities is for the instability not having months of supplies on site creates.

            Drake

      • Hate! You are a true liberal.
        Some time ago on this site, I believe, I read a statement to the effect of: The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives can listen to a liberal’s point of view, and accept that they have a different point of view, understand the other point of view and accept, but usually reject it on the merits. Liberals cannot do so. They are totally unable to walk a mile in another’s shoes so to speak.

        Your rant shows this may well be true for you. If anyone does not agree with your viewpoint they are evil, vile, disgusting. Their failure to come to your conclusions, (although that statement connotes that your opinions came from research and thought, which I suspect to NOT be the case, just indoctrination and belief without reasoned thought), makes them/us ignorant, stupid etc.

        We who disagree with MOST of your rant do not think you evil, although your goals ARE evil, we just think of you as uneducated and/or misguided and of a closed minded.

        Thatcher took a miserable UK economy and overblown government and got the economy running again by getting the government out of the business sector, you know, selling government assets like coal mines and train systems. Once the economy was running great an equivalent of a RINO (to use a US political term), Major, became the PM which led to the liberals being put back in. Why keep voting for a RINO liberal when you can get a real (but fake middle of the road) liberal in Tony Blair held the PM seat for 10 years by only slowly paying off the liberal voters by expanding the government and raising taxes on those who PRODUCE to give to the non-productive takers.

        What little I have seen of British politics, being a US citizen, and Canadian politics also, tells me that Great Britain needs to throw off Scotland to ensure a more conservative government, much as Canada needs to throw off Quebec. Any province that has their own political party has shown their total self interest, as opposed to collective National interest and needs to go. When the liberals are in charge of the national governments of the UK and Canada, they institute corrupt pay off systems that insure those regions receive far more than their fair share of government largess to so they will vote overwhelmingly liberal. Look it up. Separate them from the nation and watch them flail about without other peoples money to support their leftist non-work policies.

        Of course in England liberal=Labour.

        BTW, although the US constitutional system is more stable then the UK parliamentary system, in the US there is almost always a split government so everyone can point the finger at others for blame. With the parliamentary system, one party is in control and so is responsible. The decline under the two Labour party PMs that was purely their making, although the previous conservative PM got the UK into the EU, big mistake finally rectified, sort of?, led to Thatcher. The rise in the economy under Thatcher was purely the conservatives actions, nothing to do with liberal policies.

        As far as May and even Boris are concerned, they are both RINOs in my opinion, but the votes in the UK, as in the US is so close, that is what you get, cowardice, except for TRUMP! of course.

        One final BTW: Look at Trumps campaign promises. He has delivered on every one he was able to, only blocked on Obamacare reform by RINO McCain. That is why establishment politicians from both parties are against him. He has shown you can campaign on promises and deliver on them. Politicians from BOTH parties for years spoke of “securing”the southern boarder but would not fund the “wall” because their corporate cronies would loose the cheap labor. When the liberals could no longer claim to support border security they called it racist, xenophobic, etc. so that they could continue to carry the water for their wall street cronies. Look it up.

        Look at the promises of liberals, and what they run on, the same issues in the US for 50 years, with only Obamacare as the result of them having TOTAL control of the “levers of power” including the House, the Presidency and 60 votes in the Senate. What a mess that is. They delivered the “right” to insurance, not health care since the deductibles are so high the insurance is useless. They even forced you to buy a product from their corporate cronies.

        Drake

      • “If you didn’t live through the Thatcher Years as an ordinary person, you probably won’t understand or believe it. The most corrupt, sleaziest, self-centred, arrogant collection of chinless wonders and empty suits imaginable. Now, these views will be unpopular here, as the vast majority of respondents here are a self selected group of right wing, card carrying Trumpists who see anything else as Marxism or worse.”

        I consider myself a conservative and a card-carrying Trumpist. Your view of conservatism in Britain doesn’t bother me at all because I haven’t seen anyone in Britain lately, or Australia, for that matter, whom I would consider a true conservative, so you are not really disparaging conservatives, as far as I’m concerned.

        The guy who wrote this article is supposed to be a conservative but he looks a lot like a globalist authoritarian to me. The opposite of what I would call a conservative.

      • It really is amazing how long socialists can carry a grudge.
        Thatcher closed mines that were losing money. And for that sin, the socialists will never forgive her.

    • The parties in the EU are homogenized and interchangeable, none coming anywhere close to climbing within sight of center. In Canada, something similar has happened. Our traditional lefties -NDP have become redundant as the Liberals have swamped their territory. A silly one seater Green Party may even be to the right of the lefties. The RINOS in the US had been moving the Repubs that way until Trump blew in.

    • Its worse than that: this manifesto reads like an AOC primer.
      Let’s look at some reality:
      Price of electricity paid by UK businesses from 2004 to 2018: https://www.businesselectricityprices.org.uk/historical/
      Note that it tripled in this 14 year period. That’s multiples of inflation – and how much is due to the “green” energy that this so-called conservative espouses?
      To put in perspective: US electricity prices increased about 50% over the same period. Only 400% greater price increases in the UK vs US…
      On the consumer side – supposedly over 10% of UK households are now “fuel poverty” level: https://www.nea.org.uk/about-nea/fuel-poverty-statistics/
      No, this bullshit manifesto reads exactly like what you’d expect of a landowning oligarch who knows that wind is the best way to monetize…

    • I’ve never considered myself conservative – but I AM an American, and these days, support of democrats is either blind idiocy or deliberate enemy action.

  2. As an Aussie, can I say…..

    What a load of arrant RUBBISH !

    The bushfires down here were NOTHING to do with the climate change hypothesis.

    They were the culmination of 3 years good rain, followed by two years of very dry conditions leading to a massive build-up of dry undergrowth that was not cleared by cold weather burns.

    Yes, we have vast energy potential…. Its called COAL, and Uranium if we so choose.

    ZERO wind and solar potential on cloudy windless day or windless nights.

    • Couldn’t agree more Fred.
      It just amazes me how the climate Nazis continue the pretence by attempting to extract a climate (not weather) related reason for the fires where next to zero exists. This is a good example of how by one or two heavily biased people automatically and without any scientific evidence, pinning climate ”change” to a bad fire season we end up with the notion as generally accepted. It’s complete and utter garbage.
      And as for a ”renewable lead recovery”, more nonsense. What we actually need is several new and modern coal-fired power plants to lead the recovery by supplying cheap reliable electricity and plenty of it.

    • You left out even if we did all he asks with the fairytail and a divine miracle happens and the world goes on the 1.5deg IPCC path. Well the problem is the world emissions keep rising until 2040 and don’t come back down to current levels until after 2100. So the whole exercise would be just a very expensive political stunt

      The alternate and more flexible solution is spend the money on adapting to changed climate because it’s coming anyhow according to the IPCC. It also means if the IPCC is wrong you have a more robust nation ready to take on any changes in climate.

      That is the pragmatic view of most Australians and why the issue is dead in the water politically bar a bit of lip service to a small minority vote.

    • Long term China is eyeing Aussie uranium deposits with military ambitions of taking it if necessary.
      All that uranium and so few people to guard it: 45 million versus 1,450 million. Easy math.
      It’ll be a second half 21st Century version of the US West.
      A well-armed, numerically unrelenting European white populace moving west across to clear-out a Small-pox devastated Native American population and occupy their lands and force them into reservations like some Chinese Uighers with those who resist sent to re-education centers. Manifest Destiny. Might makes right.

      • Correction….Australia 2020 population is estimated at 25,499,884 people at mid year according to UN data. (25.5 Million) Australia population is equivalent to 0.33% of the total world population. Australia ranks number 55 in the list of countries (and dependencies) by population.

        Unless Oz becomes a hawk on Red China and the CCP, they may indeed be subject to the will of Beijing, sort of like the Philippines is becoming. You would think rational people would think critically about their own future, but it appears some have been so bought and paid for, that they will sell out their own country for 30 pieces of Silver. And ruin it while allowing it to be acquired by a hostile foreign power.

  3. This guy can call himself a “conservative” all he wants, but he’s just another liberal idiot. The energy density for renewables is FAR too low to ever support the population of this planet as it is, not mention an increased population (unless we cover up all open spaces with bird choppers or being systematic population reductions, neither of which I’m a fan).

    There IS NO green future without nuclear energy, period. The “hydrogen economy” is a dusty mirage in the Sahara desert…hydrogen has to be produced from other, more dense energy sources and requires energy to be produced. As a chemical engineer with some decades of practice, it makes no thermodynamic sense at all.

    If we truly want carbon dioxide-free energy (I, for one, do not), then nuclear is the only viable alternative without massive reductions in standards of living. Massive reductions in standards of living….maybe THAT is the end goal after all.

  4. What a load of old Cobblers from another superannuated Liberal Idiot called Lord John Randall. There is no ‘Climate Catastrophe’. The bushfires in Australia were yet another perfectly ordinary yearly event brought about by a cyclic drought returning and a lack of forest maintenance by government who have failed to learn from aboriginal fire control practices.
    If you want to waste money on an industrial scale ‘renewable’ energy is the fast lane.
    Fortunately Australia is selling coal and iron to China on an increasing scale . Unfortunately we are then wasting the money on importing useless surplus ‘renewable’ energy wind turbines and solar panel from China in response.

    • If you want to waste money on an industrial scale ‘renewable’ energy is the fast lane.

      Good one! Added to my list of factoids quotes & smart remarks (-:

    • Nicholas,
      Sounds like the Chinese have worked out a sweet deal with the Australian ruling elites; for the Aussie citizen not so much! The raw materials and jobs go to China and in return Australia gets unreliable and expensive energy that further suppresses manufacturing and industry. I guess more Australians had better learn to code!

      • Maybe if Australia stopped selling their coal to the Chinese the virtue signallers could sit back in smug contemplation of their action.
        I know that China would find alternative source of coal, so the whole exercise would be a waste of time, much like switching to extensive renewables.

  5. I agree 100% with Joel, Fred and Navarre.
    The more I see of this climate change scam the more I am convinced that it is the road to socialism and then to some sort of communism under another name .( green peace maybe )
    We need less government and more incentives to get people working in real jobs that will lift the poor up not more and more bureaucrats drawing on the public purse .
    Despite what so many climate scientists say they can still not prove that most of the warming since the end of the little ice age is not natural climate variability .
    The world has nothing to fear from dangerous global warming and the developed world should be working with poor nations to lift their standard of living and as people become better off the birth rate drops to below population replacement .
    African nations are doubling their populations every 33 years .
    Another billion people in Africa to feed house and look after a much more urgent problem than climate change .
    Stabilization of the worlds population is a much more urgent problem than climate change .
    Graham

  6. “In tackling climate change and reinvigorating our economies…”

    There is that stoopid phrase again, “tackling” climate change. What is this, a football game? The narrative that CO2 is pollution is garbage talk, trying to fool people into Socialism and Marxism. Or rip other people off with their schemes of getting rich by getting golden handshake contracts for these wind and solar contracts. Which won’t last long, and then it is all toxic waste.

    John Randall isn’t a conservative, otherwise he wouldn’t be talking rubbish. To be so arrogant as to say we can to do something about climate change, is like saying we can stop the tides. We can’t, including thinking we can change the climate. Natural variability is the overwhelming force that drives short and long term climate change, and even if we could get to Net Zero ‘carbon’ emissions, what guarantee is there that that would change the climate. And how would you measure that, as compared to what?

    If anything, lower atmospheric CO2 levels would guarantee a drop in green chlorophyll plants and trees growing all over the good Earth. CO2 is the absolute least of our problems, as evidenced by polls of people who are asked what are the major problems of our times. CO2 barely gets a mention, when not prodded and probed into saying something about doing something to reduce CO2 emissions. Clean up real pollution and get more efficient and smart with energy, including developing safe next gen Nuclear, and get behind that idea for the long term. That is what we are going to have to do in any eventuality if we want to improve the living standards of everyone on the planet.

  7. Climate is (supposed to be) the average of 30 years weather in a location. any one year’s event is not climate.

    If we have one year of a large bush fire as occurred last year and 29 years without then the average (climate) is pretty benign, especially as the 29 years without fires would allow for the regeneration of flora ‘devastated’ in the one large event.

    As others have noted, the lack of burnoffs had more effect than ‘climate change’.

    • I see.

      so 41 years of arctic sea ice decline would then definitely be climate, not weather by your definition?

      • griff

        The world has seen the decline of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice (which does no harm whatsoever as it’s sea ice) since the world emerged from the last ice age when atmospheric CO2 was at it’s lowest ever experienced by the world at around 180ppm.

        So what caused all that thawing? It certainly wasn’t atmospheric CO2, was it?

      • @griff
        Yes, correct!
        Apart from that, the 30 years mentioned by John in Oz, is a fairly common figure separating weather from climate. Back in the 1960’s my father used to say it was 40 years. I think I recall Anthony suggesting 30 years.

        • Years ago they picked those numbers? Why? I suspect it was because that’s how far back relatively good weather records went.
          Since them we have learned a lot about longer term climate cycles.
          In my opinion, we should redefine “climate” as at least 60 to 70 years of weather, so that we can include at least one full AMO/PDO cycle.

      • I see griff is still trying to pretend that history began in 1979.

        Ice levels have been higher, ice levels have been lower. However since the trends have been marginally favorable towards his favorite fantasy since 1979, he’ll stick with that.

        • I pick 1979 because that’s when the satellites first went up…

          So we have 41 years of directly comparable, accurate data.

          However there has been a great deal of effort to collate and check sea ice records in the arctic from all sources – Russian, British, Danish, Canadian, US, etc etc…

          all weather and shipping reports, records from cold war subs, whaling ships, etc, etc going back to (the arbitrary date of) 1860.

          and they confirm that the arctic sea ice we see today is at a low since that 1860 date and has had a steeper decline in recent decades…

          Now if you also look at proxies for the sea ice extent, you can make the case we now have the lowest sea ice since the period 10,000 years ago when orbital mechanics produced and ice free arctic ocean.

          The sea ice has clearly recently and rapidly and extensively declined due to warming, in extent, area, age, thickness and volume.

          I have yet to see any skeptic explanation for the state of the arctic sea ice (today still at record low for this date)

          • As always, griff completely ignores any data that doesn’t support it’s religious views.

            All of the records that show less sea ice than today, just doesn’t exist as far as it is concerned.

            The fact that sea ice in the 70’s was at it’s highest levels since the end of the little ice age, just doesn’t matter.

  8. Did the forest fires burn a fifth of the forest area of Australia.
    Australia has a version of forests that are a little different. Open country with spaced trees and grasses between (fuel) and a lot everywhere.
    The country is something like 30X the size of NZ or the UK and a lot is of this sort of “bush”. 20% burnt unlikely as the fires this year were in area relatively small by comparison with some of the past events.

    This was a forest season built on poor forest management driven by the urban ignorant “greens”

  9. Let me get this straight; in Australia Conservative means you are a left winger as opposed to the Far left wingers and Communists of the Radical and Labour Parties? Who stands up for the working class and small business owners? Oh, that’s right, they’re on their own!
    The CAGW scam is con game played by the rich and the ruling elites on the poor and the middle class! I’d say more but Earthling2 pretty much covered what needs to be said! Nuclear USA, CO2 to 1,000ppm!!

    • “in Australia Conservative means you are a left winger as opposed to the Far left wingers and Communists of the Radical and Labour Parties”

      Unfortunately, that seems to sum up our current political system rather well. !

      • Fred,
        My condolences on the sad state of Australian politics. Look on the bright side though, you’re not facing an election where the the ruling elite, the so-called media and the education system are all firmly in the camp of Communist/Progressive party bent on winning By Any Means Necessary! You’ve only got to face down your ruling class and one and half billion Chinese who would love to take your jobs, your land and probably your Sheilas as well! We’ve got to overcome an all out push with the massive voter fraud that our Democrat party has been practicing for years in places like California.
        Either way the DemoKKKrats will claim victory and will likely start Civil War 2.0 if the Republicans don’t acquiesce! So you may be on your own against the Chinese horde for a few months while we try and restore our republic!

          • That’s an optimistic view. The realistic view is that the surplus Blokes are intended as cannon fodder.

      • I’m amazed every time I hear one of these far left commentators, refer to someone who wants to merely slow the rate of government growth, as being on the far right fringe.

        • The Freedom Party of Ontario is a far right fringe party. The only political party that advocates adapting to climate change as opposed to the futility of “fighting” it. I’ve been a proud supporter of them since 1984.

    • ‘The CAGW scam is con game played by the rich and the ruling elites on the poor and the middle class’

      but aren’t the rich and ruling elite in the USA mostly right wing, conservative Republicans?

      • A common misunderstanding of the political structure of the U.S. You wouldn’t know it from their rhetoric, but The Democratic party has become the party of a majority of the super wealthy, celebrities and the well-paid state and Federal bureaucracy. The lower middle class and poor are their foot soldiers — reliable voters and occasional paramilitary. The Republican party contains some wealthy, yes, but its bulk is made of independent business people, the middle class, upper middle class — the people loathed by both ends of the Democratic party spectrum.

      • No.
        Especially if weighted by the wealth they are willing to expend for political purposes.
        (An anecdotal example would be the Hollywood millionaires.)

        Add in Foundations originally funded by long dead industrial millionaires you have a powerful source of funding for the Progressive Left (whose Utopian plans are feeding off of and destroying the poor and middle classes).

      • Like most of the things griff knows, this one is also not true.

        One of the biggest lies the left has spread is the notion that anyone who has money is a capitalist, and that the rich are all conservative.

        • The two richest, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates, are about as far from the right as you can get.

  10. ”as bushfires tore through Australia, destroying more than a fifth of the forest area”
    Why do people continuously claim that fires destroy the forest when in fact it simply grows back again. All part of the natural cycle of regenerating eucalypt forests. There wouldn’t be any eucalypt trees without fire.

  11. “In the early part of this year, the UK was submerged by winter floods, culminating in the wettest February on record. Meanwhile, we watched in horror as bushfires tore through Australia, destroying more than a fifth of the forest area and seriously imperilling over 100 species. For many, these images offered a stark reminder of the urgent need for more ambitious climate action”

    My Lord
    Kindly allow me to refresh your memory that AGW climate change is a theory about long term trends in global mean temperature over time spans of more than 30 years. The interpretation of localized weather events over brief periods of time in terms of AGW climate change is not possible because of natural climate drivers that dominate under those conditions in what is termed internal variability of climate.

    Specifically, climate science holds that “Internal variability in the climate system confounds assessment of human-induced climate change and imposes irreducible limits on the accuracy of climate change projections, especially at regional and decadal scales”.

    Details of this issue provided here: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/07/16/the-internal-variability-issue/

    To address the climate issue that has been presented by climate scientists as a science, one must be true to that science.

    Respectfully,
    Your most obedient servant,
    Chaamjamal

    • Fortunately, as an American, I neither need, nor am required or disposed to call anyone Lord.

  12. Hes not a conservative, hes a member of a conservative party that is conservative in name only,

    The difference between the 3 main UK political parties is a insult to the meaning of difference.

    The UK political environment is a liberal left standing administration, like any other administration in this type of political environment there is no debate with the people ,no consensus, because eg ,the science is settled, there is a controlled media that pushes forward a liberal left agenda ,that demonises any voice of doubt,debate,and reason, eg the way the British media treat Mr trump,

    Another turn of political events in the UK this week, no more just turning up at A and E you must make a appointment, no more pain killers prescribed ,if you have a undiagnosed illness, eg back pain, “it’s all in your head”. Reduced (hard to get) face to face appointments at doctor’s surgery’s, it would seem the sheep are wasting the NHS’S time and thier own time, as with any other political move, the truth is last in line ,the truth is for many years it’s been weeks before a appointment booked you can see a doctor, so the sheep in their desperation go to A and E this loophole as we are lead to believe is being closed.

    But it’s ok, it’s ok to underfunding for decades a free at point of service ,now the sheep will realise that funds diverted from the nations health service will be used to grow trees and such like , as you roll around in undiagnosed pain because you cant get diagnosed you cant get pain relief, you can however look out the window and see your suffering has helped fund another tree planting exercise, and if your a wise sheep you will know the real beneficiary of the tree planting exercise is rich corporations who are given Grant’s and tax breaks to plant the trees , the priorities of left wing caring for the planet xuck the people politics.

    • These days it seems that the biggest difference between the major parties is who gets rich from government corruption.

  13. This self important vacuous liberal moron is short on oxygen, grey matter and scruples, and is evidence enough why the House of Lords should be defunded and have their personal interests looked into very closely. These anointed flatulent big heads are in it for themselves, almost to a person voted remain and believe in the climate nonsense a 16 year old was fooled into heading up as no sane person would put their reputations on the line fronting such utter tosh.

  14. My Lord,
    The emssions reductions caused by both Covid lockdowns and GHG reduction polices like those of Prime Minister May, should have caused a measurable drop in the concentration of CO2 in the air.
    They have not. There is no measurable change from the expected patttern of several past decades.
    What is the point of backward moves to replace well-understood technology of fossil fuel consumption to make electricity with poorly-performing “renewables” that are far from renewable and require fossil fuelled backup in any case, to overcome intermittency?

    I suspect that your best answer would be along the lines of “But, the effects of emissions reductions are not likely to be measurable for decades because CO2 stays in the air for tens to hundreds of years. We do not expect to measure a CO2 reduction immediately.”

    My Lord, here we meet a fundamental conflict between those who model and those who measure. Concepts like residence times of gases in the air are largely modelled. Measurers look at the rate of change of nuclear bomb isotopes and challenge the official Bern model.
    To date, the modellers have failed every major test put to them.

    The measurers note that the modellers have failed the most fundamental of the relevant tests, which is the mathematical link between CO2 change in the air and its temperature change, so-called climate sensitivity.

    One has to conclude that your deductive powers have been swayed by modellers with poor track records. You should take advice from the measurers, who have failed to find past changes that have been harmful and failed to find future changes that predict harm out of the ordinary.
    It is indeed a worry when a person with your influence has failed to see the scientific outcome, the one that predicts little future harm, certainly less harm than is proportionate to the backward, expensive, tumultuous steps you propose. Geoff

  15. Sadly here in Britain all the parties hold the same unscientific obsessions over climate so we are effectively disenfranchised. It never seems to occur to Lord Randall and his ilk that the 30% drop in emissions he boasts about is because his beloved renewables are so expensive much of our industry has closed down and the same emissions are now generated in the Far East.

  16. As both our governments seek to reboot our economies, both nature restoration and the development of clean technologies provide great opportunities to reduce emissions while also generating jobs and growth.

    John Randall is out of his bloody mind.

    Even if it were true that CO2 will cause warming, it doesn’t take much research to discover that renewables are an economic Ponzi scheme, a technological fraud, a prosperity killer, and a health and safety catastrophe.

    And that’s if climate models are physically predictive and climate modelers are competent scientists, which they are not.

    The modern pandemic is one of mass irrationality. CoVid-19 is a comparative hiccup.

    • If someone had gone round Britain and broken every window instead of installing windmills, it would have “created” just as many jobs, but the total damage to the economy would have been much less because after the windows had been mended there would still be cheap reliable power.

  17. [MisterT]

    I pity the fool who thinks this article represents conservative thought.

    [/MisterT]

    What it does represent is a stupid fool from the party that is LESS leftist, who has fallen victim to the same propaganda as the far, far left, who want to destroy political liberty and freedom, and who, in order to stay in power, thinks he can poach some votes from the Greens and Labor parties, by pandering to their stupid fears, and who’s willing to throw the rate-payers of the UK under the bus on electricity prices, for changes to the environment that cannot be measured.

  18. For those unfamiliar with what actually caused the biblical floods here in the UK midlands back in February, please allow me to explain what actually happened.
    The main rivers were simply allowed to silt up over the years due to European Union policy of banning dredging. This was compounded by defining the silt from any dredge as toxic waste. No longer allowed to be spread on agricultural land which had always been the case prior, that change of definition of dredge waste, and the cost of disposing made dredging impossibly complex and expensive so it simply ceased.
    The change of authority control from the Rivers Authority to the Environmental Agency back in the late 1990s ensured that when heavy rain happened in Wales, which is the head waters of the Severn river, the rush of water had no depth of river to contain it. The result was it spilled out over the surrounding flood plains.
    The only unusual event back in February was the lack of honesty from government agencies and lack of dredging of UK rivers as a policy from the EU environmentalists.
    Climate change had zero to do with anything back in the UK in February.

    • After similar flooding in the Somerset Levels a few years previously the UK interpretation of “EU Regulations” didn’t seem to be an issue preventing dredging and clearing to stop a repeat. Climate Change and the EU are convenient scapegoats for penny pinching and neglect in the UK. After 01/01/2021 the UN and its octopus arms will be the reason for not doing maintainance of rivers, forests and moorland.

      • Ben, it may have escaped your awareness, but the Minister responsible for forcing the dredging of the Somerset levels, despite massive opposition from the Greens who wanted to “rewild” the whole of the low levels and allow flooding to happen, was Owen Patterson a Tory. He was duly fired for daring to oppose the EU Environment mandate which was to let nature take its course.
        The repairing of the pump stations, flood gates and the dredging of the drainage channels which Paterson forced through, has ensured the levels did not flood during the February rains.
        He was not able to introduce dredging of the Severn and the Wye, before he got shoved out of office by EUrophile Cameron.

  19. What percentage of global CO2 is emitted by U.K. plus Australia? Two and a half? Three? How narrow. How uninformed about the outside world, Paris, coal fired power station building, ‘tackling climate change’ forsooth.

  20. quote – “…the UK and Australia have experienced first-hand the consequences of a more hostile climate.
    ————————
    Actually no, they haven’t. What they’ve experienced is normal weather events.
    ===================================================
    quote – ” Green investments offer a route to a more sustainable, productive, and resilient future.”
    ——————
    Are you insane? Green investments to date have been unsustainable and overly costly. What makes you think this will change?

    • Green investments offer a more sustainable future, for those who run government.
      The rest of us, not so much.

  21. “Having the courage to set ambitious targets provides clarity for business and creates new opportunities for investment, innovation and job creation. ” by screwing the general public in green taxes and higher electricity prices.

    “which now accounts for 37 per cent of British electricity generation” a third of which comes from turning American forests into wood chip and shipping it half way round the world. This just offshores our CO2 footprint.

    “and employing 11,000 people” Our coal industry used to provide fork for tens of thousands too.

    “Emissions have fallen by almost 30 per cent in the last decade alone” Because we offshored manufacturing of pretty much everything we consume, and the mining and production of PV cells, steel, cobalt, etc etc etc that is used in the renewable. China and Africa now produce our CO2 for us.

    It is bullshit, all of it, and all when CO2 is not a risk to anyone or anything. In fact it is a benefit to the planet and we should produce more.

  22. There are only a small number of countries that can afford the luxury of moving to renewables. The same countries that could increase nuclear. For a far larger number of countries Paris means they want money from developed countries. Given the distribution and development of population and the natural and legitimate desire for more wealth and prosperity, focusing on solutions for the wealthy is not going to bring about much change in the total fossil fuels burnt. Developing solutions for the rest of the world might.Neither the UK nor Australia are going to make any meaningful change, developing small scale solar for sun bathed developing countries might.

    • Solar thermal makes sense, and is already done to a great degree in the 3rd world, with as simple as you can get, a barrel on a roof that is heated by the Sun all day. There is also high tech vacuum solar thermal that is a lot more efficient, but also costs more, the kind you see at a deluxe resort in Costa Rica. But it is much more efficient to get hot water out of solar, than it is to make photons with Solar PV, and then run those electrons through an electric water heater. That is a waste of all those resources to create solar PV when the same hot water could be made a lot more efficiently and cheaper by direct sunlight.

      Even solar PV makes sense for a small remote village somewhere in the 3rd world for basic needs, where it will never be connected to an electricity grid, although if a small creek with sufficient head is nearby, a micro hydro installation delivers orders of magnitude more electricity than solar panels for similar monies. But thinking grid scale solar in the first world is some type of solution for replacing fossil fuels is absurd. Actually, it is a curse to the grid operator, as they get this big slug of electricity for maybe 5-6 hours every day, 3 hours either side of peak noon. Assuming it is sunny…And then crickets for 16-18 hours a day. At least it is almost predictable, unlike wind, which when gusty, drags the grid around with garbage asynchronous junk electricity that can lead to massive power outages. Big wind and solar are going to wind up being massive toxic waste in the not too distant future. Literally.

  23. Just goes to show that mental illness is no respecter of social position. A ‘lord’ is just a susceptible to cultist delusions as the dimmest lower class ‘leftist’.

  24. This article, from an “expert” suitably qualified on climate change: having been nothing more than a shopkeeper and only qualified with a degree in Serbo Croat; together with similar inputs from other of our equally qualified “betters” in Parliament and the Government, explains why the UK continues to descend into oblivion. They are simply useful idiots in an ever more complex scientifically and technologically driven environment, succumbing to whoever shouts the loudest, and not capable of judging what these factions are demanding, let alone what questions should be asked of them.

    He talks of 30% emissions’ reductions in CO2 emissions in the UK, blithly ignoring the fact that such global emissions are ever increasing due to others’ actions in using ever more cheaper energy systems rendering us ever more uncompetitive. He even fails to mention the cost of the massive hermatically sealed greenhouse with entrance/exit air locls covering the whole of the UK, as needed to make the UK’s current Energy Policies effective and to achieve what objectives they have set – even supposing such objectives are necessary.!

    He fails to rrealise that the recent UK flooding was not due to increased or changed rainfall but to the massive changes in land use since the majority of our drainage systems were built. The increase in impervious surfaces from urban spread, and the lack of river and tributory dredging and clearing, massively increase the intensity and extent of flooding even for the same raifall profile.

    He talks about forest fires, yet the fact is that the extent and severity of recent forest fires in Australia and California was the result of a lack of fire break maintenance and brush clearance.

    Even the IPCC has had to admit that there has been no increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events.

    A major clear out of the House of Commons and House of Lords is needed, followed by a replacement by others suitably open minded and with a majority sufficiently qualified professionally to make the necessary judgements and to ask the relevant questions needed across a whole range of policies, and not simply climate matters, in an increasing more complex and scientifically and technologically environment.

  25. “As prudent stewards of our nations’ finances, it should be axiomatic for conservatives that investing in climate action now makes economic sense,”

    Axiomatic = ‘obviously true and therefore not needing to be proved’

    What he really means is get on the gravy train as it starts to pick up steam.

    It’s like a mind disease, rational thinking is being eradicated everywhere.

    “Emissions have fallen by almost 30 per cent in the last decade alone”

    What has that done to the climate exactly?

    Co² has gone up by 6% in that same time span, so steadily you could almost set your watch by it.

  26. Lord John Randall is NOT a person of “significant importance “anywhere.He is an insignificant mini brain puffed up with a sense of his own importance.That’s what we Brits do.We kick useless politicians up to the House of Lords hoping they will shut up and not be able to annoy us any more.Doesn’t always work!Something to consider-Well over 20,000 deaths in England and Wales alone are judged to be down to cold.In one year the figure was over 40,000. Our electricity bills are seriously higher due to green subsidies.Greta is right!
    ” people are DAAYING”

  27. Essentially kicked up to the HoLs to make room for Boris Johnson in a safe seat.
    Seems he followed the dictum that successful businesses only last to the third generation. He was about as stellar as an MP, achieving a good level nonentity.

  28. Ps.Meant to say.A shining example of an exception to the “kick the duds upstairs”rule is Britain’s best ever Chancellor Lord Nigel Lawson who has never bought into the climate scam and continues to”fight the good fight “against it.Now there’s a politician of real significance.Talk to him Lord”Damn Your Eyes” Randall.

  29. Congratulations, Lord Randall. You have won a copy of Michael Shellenberger’s book Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All . I’ll send it to the House of Lords.

  30. Perhaps we should look at Lord Randall’s career, we can then understand why we are becoming increasingly lead by inexperienced political appointees rather than experts in the field upon which these people pontificate; people who are aloud to advise governments on policy without any experience whatsoever on the subject upon which they are advising. Like Lord Debben, Chairman of the Climate Change Committee, Randall has no scientific, meteorological, historical on any subject relating to Global Warming, and his only experience of business is when he took over as Managing Director of the family business in Uxbridge which failed and he was forced to close it down. Like Lord Debben, he is a professional politician who climbed through the protected ranks of local conservative agent, chairman, and later appointed as local member of parliament. All without history of success in business. He became a member of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and subsequently a whip in the Conservative office He was awarded a knighthood in 2014, and a peerage in 2018. These then are the people that are advising governments on matters for which they are ill-qualified. This is a man that boasts having advised Teresa May to spend £50 billion of our money on a subject for which he and she were far from qualified to adjudicate, and which accepts advice from Lord Deben to spend additional £ billions on windmills and our electricity supply system, all approved by a compliant parliament who are now afraid to oppose the government at the risk of losing their jobs, which would put most of them out of work since they have no outside professions to turn to. We all thought that Boris Johnson might start to put a stop to this unacceptable situation, but he, with his green family connections, seems to want to spend more of our money on global warming stupidity, rather than have the courage to face the reality of the situation. As a result I am one of many, I am sure, who will not give him my vote at the next general election. It seems that true parliamentary representation through our local members of parliament is now a thing of the past.

  31. Eric,did you warn Lord Randall what he was in for when he agreed to “star” on this site?

  32. Yet another climate kook pushing fear and lies to impose green dystopian crap.
    It is long past time to confront the false assumptions and deceitful claims of the climate fear mongers.

  33. Ok looks like he’s got balls after all.And a very dashing heard as well m’ lud!Now go read a book by Tim Ball and return..We’ll be asking questions.

  34. Ok looks like he’s got balls after all.And a very dashing beard as well m’ lud!Now go read a book by Tim Ball and return..We’ll be asking questions.

  35. “Additionally, tapping into Australia’s vast renewable energy potential could spark a job boom, generating three times as many jobs as the equivalent investment in fossil fuels. And as the cost of solar and wind power continues to decline steeply, Australia can gain a competitive advantage in energy-intensive industries.”

    If the renewables employ 3 times as many people, then it follows that the energy will cost 3 times as much in real terms. Employing more people in green energy is really not an advantage, but a major problem, since that will increase the costs to produce anything else and reduce the number of people available to produce other things.

    Of course, there will be situations where renewables are cheaper than anything else, and it’s logical to use them in those places if the intermittent nature can be accepted. Though we are seeing advances in battery and other storage technologies almost weekly, they are still not cheap enough over their working life to afford to store enough energy to last a few weeks of bad weather, so if you require power 24/7/365 you’re still going to need backup generation. Overall costs are almost certain to be more than buying that energy from the grid, unless you’re simply too far away from grid access and the cabling cost and maintenance would be too high. People I know who live off-grid using solar panels for their electrical power adjust their use of electricity to what’s available, and they also cook and heat using fuels, and of course have a generator for when there’s not enough sun. Though their cost per kWh is higher than grid, it’s cheaper than buying a grid connection.

    Of course, the other question to ask would be “what anthropogenic climate change?”. As far as I can tell, looking back over just the last 1000 years, there’s no correlation between CO2 ppm in the atmosphere and global temperatures. Climate change has been a problem throughout human history, and has driven the rise and fall of civilisations, and we’ve either adapted to it or moved or died. There are obviously other things that control the global temperature and climates other than CO2. Looking back around 13000 years, the disconnect between CO2 level and global temperatures becomes even more obvious.

  36. The first paragraph, which is intended to establish his “liberal” bona fides, says it all. It is the usual “we can have it all — yes we can” statement. By abandoning all current operating assets, completely redesigning the world economy, we can fight a problem not yet established and at the same time create lots of high paying jobs, achieve true justice and reduce costs at the same time. With all the money we will save it is going to be a Tesla in every garage and two synthetic chickens in every pot.

  37. Randall was MP for Uxbridge when Boris finished being mayor of London and was looking for a safe Parliamentary seat. Randall obliged him by standing down and was rewarded with a Peerage – thus it is now Lord Randall, very swish as we say over here in England. He writes a load of complete rubbish here, I’m surprised at you for publishing it. Thanks to twits like him we have extremely expensive electricity from wind turbines all round the coast – and a terrible eyesore they are too!

    • Alan,
      Never forget the added bonus of chopping vast numbers of birds and bats into nice chunks of meat for the flies and other insects to feast on! Think how avid bird lovers like me feel about people like him and our traitorous Audubon Society who continence this slaughter for the good of nature!
      There will be a reckoning for this and the other atrocities of the Green Blob!

  38. Lord Randall writes: “In the early part of this year, the UK was submerged by winter floods.”
    Cor blimey! What, the whole lot of it? Glug, glug I must have drowned months ago.
    This is a typical alarmist statement. There were a few bits of the UK which were flooded but the noble Lord would have foreigners think that the whole land area of the UK, including, no doubt, the Scottish Highlands, the Cambrian Mountains, the Brecon Beacons, Exmoor, Dartmoor, the Chilterns, the South Downs, etc, etc was under water. And isn’t it amazing that no part of the UK has previously been subject to flooding – ever.
    This clip must have been a hoax:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr8a4UTo4bM
    NB. In 1953 300 people drowned in the floods. How many drowned in 2020?
    Even Queen Elizabeth, the First of the UK monarchy with that name, was persuaded to take part in the Great Flood Hoax:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdpNe7y5snI
    Five years later, the hoaxers were at it again,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdpNe7y5snI
    And would you believe it, they were up to their same old tricks in 1968.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdpNe7y5snI
    Yes, noble Lord, a few areas of the UK flooded in 2020 must have been caused by something that had never happened before.

    • There have been only 2 years since 2000 when the UK has not seen severe flooding – frequently setting new records for floods and rainfall.

      It has seen more storms. It has seem many 1 in 100 or 1 in 300 year flood events.

      It has seen more summer flash flooding.

      The UK climate has clearly changed to one with more intense/slow moving rain systems causing floods.

      • If the flooding was being caused by record rains, you might have finally managed to make a point.

        The sad reality is that while heavy, the rains have not been outside the realm of normal.
        What caused the flooding was you environmentalists sabotaging the existing flood control mechanisms.

  39. The problem is not any of the above.

    The problem is that the peer seems sincerely to believe that there is something the UK or Australia can do to ‘tackle climate change’.

    We are always hearing this nonsense from activists. The assumption is always that some national reduction by the UK or the US or Australia will ‘tackle climate change’. Or will help. It won’t.

    These countries cannot, either collectively or especially acting individually. They can’t. They are too low a percentage of global CO2 emissions. Nothing they do will make the slightest difference.

    Now China, India and Indonesia together? That would be a different matter. They could collectively, with the developing world as a whole, act so as to significantly lower global emissions.

    The West cannot. The world has changed.

    The numbers are in Wikipedia. Its not like this is hard to find out.

  40. One of the definitions of Conservative is people who want to go back to the way it used to be. When the Soviet Union collapsed the communists were labeled ‘conservative’. Another definition is ‘slow to make changes just in case’. Using these definitions, the Climate Alarmists are very conservative. They believe the past was better and that we should try to get back there and if there must be change it must come slowly. It is the ‘watts up with that’ readers who are the progressives on this issue: we don’t believe the past was ideal, we are happy to use new technology like nuclear not windmills and higher CO2 may actually be a good thing for the environment.

    My personal opinion is that the left embraced environmentalism as a way of bringing people of a conservative bent into the fold. I don’t believe they actually care about the environment.

    • Given how much damage most of the preferred solutions do to the environment, that is a reasonable conclusion to make.

  41. From the article: “Prior to the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, both the UK and Australia had been grappling with the devastating effects of another crisis: climate change.”

    The only devastating effects of the current Human-caused Climate Change “crisis” is all the money being wasted in a vain effort to control the Earth’s temperature and reduce CO2 production.

    CO2 is not a danger to the Earth or its inhabitants. Those who say it is, such as the author, are misinformed.

  42. Man cannot affect climate. We have neither the power nor the knowledge. TO endlessly tilt at windmills as gladiators is foolhardy and self defeating. But tilt on Mikey Moorons! No matter what you do, no matter what change you make, the Earth will abide. And laugh at the ants on her skin trying to dictate to her how to behave.

  43. It is interesting to see how often someone makes statements like this:

    “Additionally, tapping into Australia’s vast renewable energy potential could spark a job boom, generating three times as many jobs as the equivalent investment in fossil fuels.”

    It is usually said in a tone that suggests it’s a good thing. Economists have a different word to describe the situation – inefficient.

Comments are closed.