Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Mirage News; According to the author of a new study on European climate concern, “It seems there is a chance the current generation will be content to sell their great grandchildren down the river” when it comes to climate change.
Research reveals “climate-change complacency” across Europe
Most European citizens do not particularly care about climate change. That’s the striking finding from new research on the views of 70,000 randomly sampled European men and women. Only 5% described themselves as “extremely worried” about climate change. The climate and the environment ranked only fifth in people’s overall views about priorities. There was also scepticism that co-ordinated action, for example to cut personal energy use, would make much difference.
“It seems there is a chance the current generation will be content to sell their great grandchildren down the river,” said Andrew Oswald, Professor of Economics and Behavioural Science at the University of Warwick, and senior author of the study – Do Europeans Care about Climate Change? An Illustration of the Importance of Data on Human Feelings.
He also pointed out that so-called desirability bias, which is the tendency for interviewees to feel compelled to shade their answers towards ‘politically correct’ ones, might mean the true level of worry about climate change is lower than indicated in the statistical surveys.
The study has implications for economists and policymakers, Oswald explains. “There is little point in designing sophisticated economic policies for combatting climate change until voters feel that climate change is a deeply disturbing problem. Currently, those voters do not feel that.”
Professor Oswald and Mr Adam Nowakowski of Bocconi University in Italy analysed data from two large-scale sources, the 2016 European Social Survey and the 2019 Eurobarometer survey. They found:-
- Europeans do not exhibit high levels of worry about climate change, with 1 in 20 describing themselves as ‘extremely worried’
- Europe’s citizens are more concerned with inward-looking issues seen as closer to home, such as inflation, the general economic situation, health and social security, and unemployment.
- Europeans do not have a strong belief that joint action by energy users will make a real difference to climate change.
- Women, young people, university graduates and city-dwellers show higher levels of concern about climate change.
- People living in warmer European countries had higher levels of concern than those in the cooler North of the continent.
On the way to move forward, Oswald and Nowakowsi suggest parallels with the original government campaigns to cut smoking. They argue that it will be necessary to change people’s feelings about the problem of rising global temperatures. Just as education about the risks of smoking went hand-in-hand with graphic warnings and tax increases, governments should consider doing more to educate and alter people’s perceived level of worry about climate change.
Adam Nowakowski commented: “We should not conclude that Europe does not care at all about climate change. However, our analysis of the data does suggest that European citizens are not ready for policies which would have strongly negative consequences on their day-to-day lives – not least because we have found a low level of confidence in the usefulness of joint action.”
- Do Europeans Care about Climate Change? An Illustration of the Importance of Data on Human Feelings. Adam Nowakowski, Bocconi University and Andrew J. Oswald, University of Warwick, CAGE and IZA. IZA Discussion Paper No. 13660
- Downloadable from www.iza.org or www.andrewoswald.com
14 September 2020
Press Release Source: https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/research_reveals_climate-change
Professor Oswald’s study is available here.
Convincing people to make lifestyle sacrifices will be a real uphill battle, after all the nonsense which has been published about solar energy and wind being the cheapest sources of energy. Why would anyone need to cut their personal energy consumption, in a world awash with inexhaustible renewable energy?
Even Extinction Rebellion doesn’t appear to believe in cutting personal energy use, at least if you are rich and famous. When challenged about fly in celebrities joining their anti air travel protests, Extinction Rebellion claimed celebrities couldn’t help their gigantic carbon footprints because “we are stuck in this fossil-fuel economy and without systemic change, our lifestyles will keep on causing climate and ecological harm.“.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I wish everyone, well, nearly everyone, would stop lumping “climate change” and “the environment” together. They are two totally different problems.
We can’t do anything about the first, it is probably all or mostly natural. The second we can to something about. Stop building useless windmills and covering productive land with polluting solar panels for a start, and get the disposing of used plastic sorted out.
+1M
“get the disposing of used plastic sorted out” OH YES THIS, so much THIS.
How would those same “climate activists” react if they knew how much plastic is actually recycled in comparison to the tons of plastic dumped elsewhere in the world because there is NO MARKET TO RECYCLE IT?
I’ll tell you how…they will dismiss the entire concept of needing a market for all their grab and go salads in clamshells they throw in the recycle bin without concern because “it’s in the recycle bin” and they can pat themselves on the back. They have done their “duty”. But chances are that clamshell does not have a market to recycle it–so all those good feels about recycling are based on nothing of substance.
The problem I see with climate activist vs real environmentalism is very simple: squirrel syndrome (or new shiny puppy for those that don’t get the squirrel reference). While a real environmentalist looks at all factors (including the market to recycle plastic in this case) an activist only sees what is in front of them. They toss that recyclable clamshell after carefully washing it into the recycle bin but don’t think about the water used to wash it or the power used to move it to the sorting center, the machines to sort it, or what happens when it is separated out and deemed landfill. And environmentalist will look at the entire chain of custody from that clamshell and ask a very simple question, if there is no market to recycle it; why not? And if it is too cost prohibitive to recycle it, is there a better product that can be mass produced at the same price and recycled afterwards? No? Well then, how long will it take to break down and wouldn’t it be cheaper then to just stop buying the salad using that clamshell? And wouldn’t it be easier to just reduce the amount of unrecyclable materials rather than trying to create a market to recycle them? So let’s just do that, educate on which materials are recyclable and reduce our consumption of those that aren’t.
But you say that to an activist and they’ll go on and on about how they don’t have the time deal with that big of stuff because they have a march to get to and forget the time to make their own salad because they have better things to do, nor to buy the “appropriate” reusable container because they don’t have the money to pay for the latest and greatest plastic ware along with the stylish insulated lunch bag that is all the rage. And none of them would be caught dead using a paper bag if it was suggested.
REDUCE, REUSE and Recycle. All they think is that “plastic is recyclable” without actually understanding that a vast majority of it is not. They are stuck on the Recycle, without understanding the reduce and reuse portion…because that means inconvenience to them.
The vast majority of recycled goods ends up in the same place as non-recycled goods. It just costs a lot more to get them there.
I really don’t think you are in touch with many ‘activists’.
Here’s just one of many examples of advice to ‘activists’ about reducing single use plastic in the first place:
https://completely-green.co.uk/blog/practical-guide-reducing-households-plastic-waste/
griff
Once again, you are demonstrating how short-sighted you are. For people who live alone, buying perishables in bulk quantity means that the food usually spoils before it is consumed, and then has to be thrown away. For countries like Sweden, that should be a significant concern.
What is it about people like you that cause you to have such a myopic view of the world?
I know some people who might be interested, I’ll pass on your handy guide.
https://www.google.fr/maps/@16.0016762,-16.5079498,3a,73.8y,137.49h,77.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO5JlkT3VhbpzQs2nDjfUNg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
https://www.google.fr/maps/@14.5872925,120.9570957,3a,75y,178.29h,74.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0PNFwOEdb3aydNsO6r5qvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
I’m guessing that rabid “activist” are the only people you ever come into contact with, griff.
You have that “totally ignorant” aspect that relates to myopic fundamentalism, devoid of any actual balance or rational thought.
Some of the alarmists are entering the “Despair” phase of grief. Good.
Carry on, people. The next and final phase is to accept that most people truly don’t care about your obsession and will do nothing about it.
I can assure you, griff, that things are far worse in the UK than you claim. Our grid trips out on a pretty regular basis in the part of the UK where I live, mainly because it can hardly cope with demand. In addition local businesses haven’t been able to expand because there isn’t sufficient capacity in the grid for them to do so. On top of this we’re being encouraged to drive electric cars — quite where the power for them is going to come from is anyone’s guess.
As for costs, electricity in the UK is incredibly expensive and given that most of the housing stock has been around for a long time this idea they can be made ‘energy efficient’ is pure fantasy. We’re sleep-walking towards energy disaster and everyone I talk to knows it — the only people who don’t seem able to understand this are our wonderful politicians.
As for ‘renewable’ energy, the plain truth is this will never be sufficiently reliable in the UK to meet demand at the times when power is most needed. As a result we’ll need a lot of capacity on standby — and Lord knows where this is going to come from given what we have at the moment can hardly cope.
None of this is to say that renewables don’t have a place and can’t make a contribution. I’m all for anything that reduces pollution, but claiming they’re the answer to our energy needs in the UK reveals total ignorance of the facts. They can’t and they never will and the sooner people wake up to this the better.
And where is that?
I get the odd power cut, but not from grid overload or ‘too many renewables’. Are you sure that you know what is cutting off your power?
Why can’t the housing stock be insulated? I’ve been in a German ‘victorian’ terrace with applied external insulation and it was beautifully cool on a 31C day…
climate tears flow on Australian TV:
VIDEO: 7m15s: 10 Sept: ABC 7.30 Report: Jane Fonda on why she’s devoting the rest of her life to fighting climate change
TRANSCRIPT:
LEIGH SALES, ABC: Can you remember when you first saw Greta Thunberg and the impact it made on you?
JANE FONDA: When I first saw her was on the pages of a book by Naomi Klein called ‘On Fire. A Burning Case of the Green New Deal’.
I’ve seen Greta on TV and found her so clear, so direct and of course, everyone talked about the fact that she was autistic but it was Naomi who helped me understand the relationship between the autism and the climate crisis.
Unlike most of us who aren’t on the spectrum, people with autism or Asperger’s, when they are interested in something, and she’s been a science nerd all her little life, when they focus on that it’s with a laser focus.
It doesn’t matter if people agree with them. It doesn’t matter if they’re not popular. That’s it and she saw what was happening and she looked around and people weren’t reacting the way you would when your house is on fire. And she said, “We have to act like it’s a crisis, cause it is and we have leave our comfort zones.”…
LEIGH SALES: You’re 82. Do you think about whether climate change will be the cause to which you dedicate the rest of your life?
JANE FONDA: Given the small window that we have to avoid the tipping point, I think probably, yeah. I think it will be, this is what I’ll be doing for the rest of my life. Yeah, because it’s the most important thing. If we don’t make it, oh God, it breaks my … really breaks my heart.
I have children, I have grandchildren and things are just going to spiral out of control.
All these wonderful species are going to go and life is going to be very, very difficult to live and eventually possibly the human species will go as well because we are trashing our home and I just, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself or die with myself if I don’t do something…
LEIGH SALES: Observing from here, it really feels like America is going through a very pivotal moment in its history. Is that how it feels to you there as well?
JANE FONDA: Yes. Totally. This is, a lot of people call it an inflection. I think it’s a tidal wave. I don’t know. It’s big, it’s a big deal. It’s a big deal and it’s so, a lot of people are waking up.
The COVID has, COVID didn’t break us, COVID exposed where we were already broken and I think a lot of people are seeing that for the first time and that’s really important…
LEIGH SALES: Do you consider yourself an actor foremost and an activist second or the other way around?
JANE FONDA: Activist, actor.
LEIGH SALES: Given that, how do you then decide which acting projects you want to allow to take up some of your time?
JANE FONDA: Do I need money? There’s that. People forget that we are working people. I belong to three unions. I have to earn a living. I have a bottom line that I’ve got, that I have to meet and its tough right now.
I mean, not that tough, I have roof over my head and a very nice home that’s paid for and food and I have an assistant with me and I’m very, very lucky, but I’m worried. We will have gone almost a year without working and that’s scary…
https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/jane-fonda-on-why-she%E2%80%99s-devoting-the-rest-of-her/12652618
Conclusive proof that Jane Fonda is from planet Zog.
This reads like a Monty Python sketch.
She belongs to three unions.
That’s her problem.
Australia’s PM Morrison backs gas power with impending retirement of aging coal plants which fires up Mike Cannon-Brookes of recent beachfront shack purchase fame-
https://dynamicbusiness.com.au/featured/weve-got-to-get-the-gas-prime-ministers-covid-19-recovery-plan.html
Not to worry Mike as you should be confident flogging Oz solar power to Singapore will do the King Canute trick. Wouldn’t that be a carbon neutral undersea cable and solar farm?
When the people are constantly lied to they eventually tune out the liars. Therefore they have tuned out the climate “scientists”.
This is so sweet it deserves it’s own post:
Trump to Californian eco-tard blatherers self-wedgying over wildfires: “It’s going to get cooler”
Biden just doesn’t get it. Trump has nothing to do whatever with hurricanes, floods, fire and brimstone. If he is not re-elected those will just continue as nature doesn’t care one iota about who is president. And then Biden will get all the flak. Perhaps it could enlighten him.
Oh, but they’ll have the perfect excuse ready and waiting: “It’s Trump’s fault”.
People have such short memories…… Obama/Biden 2009 – 2017…….. any natural disasters over that 8 year period?……. here’s a few highlights:
2011 Mississippi Floods : the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century.
2012 Hurricane Sandy : was the deadliest and most destructive, as well as the strongest, hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season. Also the Colorado wildfires.
2013 Colorado Floods : The flood waters spread across a range of almost 200 miles (320 km) from north to south, affecting 17 counties.
2016 Louisiana Floods : The flood has been called the worst US natural disaster since Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Biden gets double bonus points for this one.
2017 Hurricane Harvey : It is tied with 2005’s Hurricane Katrina as the costliest tropical cyclone on record, inflicting $125 billion (2017 USD) in damage.
…….c’mon man.
Just like homelessness disappears as an issue whenever a Democrat is in the White House, so does Climate issues disappear.
If the media notices these issues at all, they will continue to blame them on Trump.
Homelessness doesn’t exist in Democrat states. 😉
Just look at LA, Portland etc..
If the media doesn’t cover something, does it really exist?
Got that backwards. When media covers something does it really exist?
It should be clear now that we are in an experiment. Here is Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, calling for “climate lockdowns”, noting that the public have been amazingly compliant during the virus lockdowns.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1334816/climate-change-rules-lindsay-hoyle-G7
He obviously knew his host, Nancy Pelosi would agree. Likewise most EU politicians. This is no longer conspiracy theory, but open reported fact.
The best way to get approval for global warming actions is to provide actions that make sense and don’t involve stupid renewable , unreliable, expensive power generation. Educate the masses of the revolutionary molten salt small modular nuclear reactors that are literally at our front door. It’s the global warming alarmists’s solutions , as much as their gross exaggerations, which leads thinking folks to discount their arguments.
Global warming is almost as real as molten salt small modular nuclear reactors.
ColMosby:
Fourth generation nuclear technologies are in their research and development phases (R & D) now, and I fully support that work. This of course includes molten salt reactors. I however accept that there are no guarantees that any of them will find their way into commercial use if the engineering and technical problems with them are to difficult, costly or complex to overcome.
It is true that the the MSR experiment at Oak Ridge back in the late 1960s did appear to demonstrate the technical feasibility of the MSR. Unfortunately, President Nixon pulled the plug on it in the early 1970s for political reasons, and the technology was lost and forgotten until 2008 if I remember correctly. So some three and a half decades of development time for the MSR was lost. Would the MSR be in commercial use today if development continued? I don’t know.
Bill Gates is committing some of his vast wealth into a company (TerraPower) that is working on 4th gen reactors, and I applaud him for it. His company was given a grant some years back from the DOE for R&D work on the molten chloride fast reactor. I think the Southern Company was given some of the money to do the same. Gates’ company is also working on (if I recall correctly) sodium-based integral fast reactor technology. He and his company made a recent announcement….
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2020/08/31/bill-gates-nuclear-firm-says-new-reactor-can-backstop-grid-with-molten-salt-storage/#d8093ad5e65c.
A large part of the problem here is (I believe) the political clout of the environmental movement in govt and the mainstream media. With their emphasis on a seriously faulty climate alarmist narrative and wind and solar energy, all of this new nuclear technology work gets barely noticed. If the R&D on 4th gen technologies received more money and attention, it might displace all this nonsense about wind and solar energy. I am not holding my breath that it will happen anytime soon.
So ColMosby, be aware that I do share your enthusiasm for the MSR and 4th gen nuclear reactor technologies in general. My enthusiasm is tinged however by the realization that there are no guarantees in life except death and taxes. I would be careful about being a cheer leader for the MSR until there is significant concrete evidence that it might make its way to commercial viability someday. Unfortunately, if it happens, it is likely still many years away.
Really? After decades of increasingly-shrill and dire warnings about what “will happen” if they don’t “act now”? After a continuous stream of propaganda from the MSM, governments, climate “scientists”, NGOs, power-hungry Greenies, and a whole host of carpet-baggers looking for their cut of the climate dough? They still need to “educate people” on the “dangers” of “climate change”? Really?
Good! They sound like sensible and intelligent people, now if they would just drive out the socialists and islamists they may have a chance yet.
I could have sworn that one of our trolls was telling us that Europeans were 100% committed to stopping climate change. Don’t tell me that trolls lie.
all the EU govts and the UK have plans for net zero carbon by 2050 or earlier… many have either shut down coal plant or have an end date for its use… all have increasing amounts of renewable energy… there is no serious opposition to this, politically…
Effectively that means Europe is completely dedicated to fighting climate change…?
Griff, it’s easy to make commitments that are scheduled to be implemented long after you have retired from public office, and it’s your grandchildren who will have to figure out how to reach those goals. It’s much tougher to explain to people honestly the sacrifices they will have to make to achieve those schemes right now, but if they did that, no one would follow. So our woke politicians make grand gestures, pat themselves on the back, and walk away.
Well look: this translates to current actual spending and detailed implementation plans. Look at coal power… there is no chance whatever the last 4 UK coal plants will last beyond 2024. The Germans are already moving on retiring their coal… look at investment in the hydrogen economy, where govt R&D funding is going.
In short is there any evidence that this is just words, hot air – or are there actual infrastructure, legal and energy changes resulting already?
from Griff:
“there is no serious opposition to this, politically”
There will be when the lights go off, people cannot afford electric bills, gas is banned and you are forced to install electric heating and cooking, gas boilers and cookers won’t be allowed to be replaced except with electric, only expensive electric new vehicles can be bought, EV charging points become mandatory – everyone has to upgrade their fuse boards at home at their own expense, EV charging points overcrowded and too slow, range of vehicles severely reduced compared to ICE cars, new houses are not connected to the gas grid and the subsidies for renewables continue growing.
Eventually the idiocy of government policy is going to meet the real world. So far its hidden away in subsidies for renewables and future policies. Soon (5 – 10 years) the consequences of those policies will be here and now. I think the backlash will be quite unpleasant. It’s not going to be pretty for the politicians.
But here we are 30 years into German expansion of renewables, in a continent which is already retiring its first offshore windfarms after 25 years service and as yet none of those dire predictions about lights going off have come to pass. Not one of them.
Thanks to all the imports from reliable power supplies in surrounding countries.
Stop those imports and the whole German electricity system would collapse.
Eventually the parasite (Germany), will kill those that feed it. Then the whole lot dies.
Apparently everyone but Griff knows this is fantasy. By 2050 all of the politicians who promised this will be dead, or at least retired, But not to worry, the new plan will be to become “net zero carbon” by 2070 don’t you know….
30 years ago we only had 5 years to turn everything around to avoid the “tipping point”. Then 5 years later we only had 5 years (etc). Then 10 years later we only had 5 more years (etc). Now 30 years later we will all be dead in 10 years if we don’t end capitalism and return to stone age living almost immediately. 10 years from now the same type of people will be saying “we only have 5 years left”…
Strangely enough, those of us who have been hearing this tripe for 30 years now can’t get all worked up about it. But of course students who have only been hearing it for a few years still get sucked into the alarmism. How they will deal with this in 20 years when the glaciers haven’t melted, the seas haven’t risen, and the storms are the same as always? Mostly they will have forgotten all about it, and the politicians will again lament that they can’t get people to “care enough”…..
And I feel the same way after 11 years of reading on this site about the imminent collapse of the German electricity system…
Germany is a parasite on surrounding countries.
Absolutely reliant on them for stability of supply.
Just like South Australia is.
And both have far higher electricity prices of the countries/ states that support their system from collapse.
Hello, Robert. When I was eighteen in 1970 there was a neverending supply of grown-ups ready to tell me that life on Earth was about to become miserable for most people, and especially me. Fifty years later, it is beginning to dawn on me that they may have been a tad pessimistic. It seems that life has improved for most Canadians in that time.
The only thing that seems to have got worse is that a smaller portion of the population can afford to own stand-along houses. It takes two people with professional level incomes to afford a house in most cities in Canada.
What is the most striking advance in human happiness that has come to pass in my lifetime? Young people reach the age of twenty without having had any dental caries. That’s my pick for the greatest general population blessing of the last fifty years.
Ah yes, the old all the politicians are for it, therefore the people must love it argument.
I seem to remember a number of French politicians having to hide from a group of farmers not to long ago.
Just because you have a plan to commit suicide does not mean real human beings have to go along with it. And we aren’t.
There are several reasons that I fight against climate change action. One is that I value truth. One is that I value the scientific method. There are indeed several reasons, but chief among those are that I know that any and all climate change action policies will make the lives of my children and grand children so much worse.
The general population has a pragmatic bent. The economy always ends up getting top billing. Having said that, the climate wroughters and their fellow travellers have not only never demonstrated a link to any worrisome development in 40yrs of hysteria, but none of the horrors they have wrought with their climate muddles are showing a hint of coming to pass. They keep pushing the drek off into the future. Note the used to worry about the grandkiddies but now (as in this article) it has become something for the great grandkids.
Meanwhile, the only palpable manifestation of climate change is the rapid greening of the planet and bumper crops! They’ve tried to wrought this as a terrible development but, in embarrassment, they choose to remain fairly quiet about it. The snows of Kilimanjaro are back. Tigers in the Ganges delta are back. Polar bears are beginning to be a factor in earth’s albedo. The green-headed turtle of Myanmar has returned from extinction (probably for camouflage in the strident greening), Lake Chad is full…
Yeah, minds are turning to the economy.
Great grandchildren? The problem is not in the future. We’ve already stolen Greta Thunberg’s childhood. People are dying. Right now. All because of these darn fairy tales about perpetual economic growth.
People who claim to be worried about the year 2050 are pretty strange. I don’t worry about anything more than six months out myself. I will surely be long dead in 2050, when I will be (a) unconscious, (b) living in a state of eternal bliss or (c) screaming in agony forever. The most probably option is (a), the one I deserve is (b), and I’m not going to worry about (c), because I don’t need any more anxiety in my life than I already have.
Well, Ian with a mental constitution like yours, I hope you are wide awake and laughing about all this. Actually you’ll have a fairly good idea about what 2050 will be like long before that.
We are slowing pop. growth and will round out at about 9Bil and decline a bit to little more than what we have now. We are entering Garden of Eden greenness and plenty! Bangladesh today has a GDP growth of over 8%. Even Pakistan is at 6% and Africa south of the Sahara is at 3%.
Trump has broken the back of the self immolation coma affecting the West. Europe and the English-speaking lefty world just don’t know it yet being in real D*Nile. The best is just ahead.
So basically, we now know that Europeans are more intelligent than their choices in government would make them appear to be. Now if they would just start voting the Climate Nazis out of power, they’d improve their lot – and that of their children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren by a whole bunch.
And the author has it all backwards. If Europeans “don’t care about “climate change” (TM), they refuse to sell their great grandchildren down the river because of climate propaganda. Because “climate policy” will do that, NOT “climate change” (which is nonexistent as the author means it).
“There is little point in designing sophisticated economic policies for combatting climate change until voters feel that climate change is a deeply disturbing problem. Currently, those voters do not feel that.”
Increasing energy prices and decreasing availability are “deeply disturbing problems”.
My survey shows that people who answer surveys are 25 times more likely to understand fundamental reality than the people who design surveys.
Take away their summers off globetrotting and see how committed they are.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has today officially backed plans to increase the EU’s 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target to 55 per cent from 1990 levels, as she announced a raft of climate priorities in her maiden State of the Union address to European lawmakers this morning.
Addressing the European Parliament in Brussels, von der Leyen emphasised that pushing the EU’s existing carbon reduction target of 40 per cent to a more stretching 55 per cent by 2030 was “ambitious, achievable and beneficial for Europe”, and would enable to bloc to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 in line with the Paris Agreement.
“I recognise that this increase from 40 to 55 is too much for some and not enough for others,” she said in her speech, designed to set out the Commission’s priorities for the year ahead. “But our impact assessment shows that our economy and industry can manage it.”
Bringing DEATH to the EU economy !
One slash at a time.
Socialism and the anti-science, anti-CO2 agenda at its worst.