1953 Communist Art, slightly modified

Green British Academics Blast Politicians for Allowing Consumer Choice

Essay by Eric Worrall

British Academics have blamed the Government’s failure to restrict meat, cheap flights, fashionable clothes and consumer electronics for our failure to tackle the climate crisis.

To address climate change, lifestyles must change – but the government’s reluctance to help is holding us back

Published: October 14, 2022 3.43am AEDT
Christina Demski Reader in Environmental Psychology, University of Bath
Stuart Capstick Senior Research Fellow in Psychology, Cardiff University

Without changes to people’s behaviour and lifestyles, it will be impossible for the UK to reach net zero emissions by 2050. But the government is failing to put in place the conditions that would enable this to happen – or even recognise its relevance in cutting emissions and meeting climate targets. Its laissez-faire approach of simply “going with the grain of consumer choice”, according to a recent report, has no chance of bringing about the urgent changes needed.

A House of Lords inquiry assessed the role of public behaviour in meeting climate and environmental goals. The report drew on evidence from leading experts on behavioural science and social change, as well as submissions from a wide range of organisations, including Tesco, Natural England and Cycling UK. 

Among the criticisms levelled at the government were accusations that it places too much faith in unproven technologies to fix the climate, and is reluctant to communicate to the public the scale of social change needed to create a low-carbon society. The varying remits of different government departments charged with helping the public change their polluting behaviour were characterised as a “muddle” and “inadequate” to the task. In some instances, government actions have pushed people away from low-carbon choices, like offering a tax cut for domestic flights just before 2021’s UN climate summit in Glasgow.

Perhaps most uncomfortable for a government that has elevated economic growth as its foremost priority, the report stresses the need for absolute reductions in many of the commonplace activities that are driving the climate crisis. This includes people buying less of the things with sizeable environmental impacts, like long-haul flights, beef and products that use a lot of resources, such as fast-fashion clothing and electronics.

It is for this reason that the House of Lords report urges the government to use taxes, regulations and infrastructure to level the playing field in favour of greener lifestyles, …

Simply waiting for people to make low-carbon choices in a world that doesn’t support those choices, and where people feel no stake in the changes taking place, is unfair and irresponsible.

Read more: https://theconversation.com/to-address-climate-change-lifestyles-must-change-but-the-governments-reluctance-to-help-is-holding-us-back-190300

British academics could lead by example, by boycotting the long haul flight to COP27, in Egypt’s infamously hedonistic resort town of Sharm El Sheikh.

But somehow the would be leaders of our socialist green utopia always seem to find a reason why they must, however reluctantly, continue to enjoy the privileges which they demand be denied to ordinary folk.

Make no mistake, these people are serious. A climate lockdown society in which politicians and academics get to dictate your choices appears to be their genuine end goal. In places like Britain, they are perilously close to getting their way.

5 27 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 15, 2022 2:19 am

In places like Britain, they are perilously close to getting their way.

And it is all absolutely unnecessary.

Reply to  Philip Mulholland
October 15, 2022 8:54 am

They are against the novel concept of individual freedom, choice, equality, and responsibility. No biggie to deny the populace when you know you’re right…..

Richard Page
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 15, 2022 4:06 pm

They are totally against the population having another ‘Brexit’ moment – to the UK leftists this was a horrifying dystopian world where they no longer got things the way they wanted. To the leftist way of thinking, that disaster must never be allowed to happen again; only people like them will be allowed to make decisions in the future.

Dave Fair
Reply to  DMacKenzie
October 15, 2022 4:22 pm

But you know you aren’t responsible for making those decision. Rails, tar and feathers are cheap.

October 15, 2022 2:25 am

Psychologists are usually way more messed up than their patients

Give them some Librium

Reply to  Strativarius
October 15, 2022 4:36 am

I remember many years ago while I was in school I was invited to a party put on by Psychiatric residents. They were the most depressed group that I can remember.

October 15, 2022 2:48 am

Welcome to the Great Reserf.

Reply to  Eric Huxter
October 15, 2022 4:21 am

+ 100

Reply to  Eric Huxter
October 15, 2022 6:39 am

I’m beginning to believe that net zero is more about eliminating people than about eliminating their emissions. The WEF may think it’s two birds with one stone.

Giordano Milton
Reply to  Scissor
October 15, 2022 8:38 am

It is. Greens want to depopulate the planet

Reply to  Giordano Milton
October 15, 2022 11:25 am

Uh, eliminate everybody else but them.

Wait ’til those trust fund greenies find out that they don’t know the recipe for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Ron Long
October 15, 2022 3:00 am

“Academics…fix the climate.” First of all it can’t be done, as the natural chaotic cycles are substantially in excess of anything anthropogenic (40 meters higher and 150 meters lower sea level is normal). Second of all, it is an empowerment and wealth-redistribution scheme, foisted on idiots by slightly less idiots. Third of all I’m charging ahead with my excess consumer lifestyle, thank you very much.

patrick healy
Reply to  Ron Long
October 15, 2022 8:01 am

fourthly Ron, the weather does not need “fixing”

October 15, 2022 3:12 am

Environmental psychology??? We are really doomed.

Reply to  Hartog
October 15, 2022 6:51 am

An excellent disguise name for brainwashing.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Hartog
October 15, 2022 7:56 am

Became a must do University choice not long after Prince Charles admitted he talked to plants to help them grow. 🙂

Gunga Din
Reply to  Dave Andrews
October 15, 2022 8:40 am

As long as he doesn’t hear it reply, “Feed Me, Seymour. Feed Me!!”, it’s probably just a harmless habit.

Reply to  Dave Andrews
October 15, 2022 10:57 am

Actually, if you talk to plants close-up and directly, you provide them with a highly enriched CO2 content…

.. so yes, plants do like you talking to them. 😉

(when they can ignore the garlic breathe)

October 15, 2022 3:15 am

So The House of Lords is behaving like a house of lords telling the lesser human beings to settle for poverty, hunger, and freezing in the dark because the parasitic aristocracy demands it.

Reply to  tgasloli
October 15, 2022 10:44 am

Except that the “House of Lords” is no longer that, except in name. For which the blame rests squarely with that never to be sufficiently damned constitutional vandal Tony Blair.

Many of the members are now appointed by the two parties in the house of commons. They are, of course, appointed on the basis that they will work to promote a certain party and block the other, not to work for the good of the country, except as, maybe, a by product.

He did this because he was fed up of the lords, who had no political axe to grind, who tended to think of the good of the country, bouncing most of his attempted legislation with a not attached to the effect: “You have to be F-ing joking!”

He got some support from the conservatives, because a lot of their attempted legislation met the same fate. Which, if you think about it, probably indicates that they were actually doing a pretty good job.

Reply to  Philip
October 15, 2022 7:22 pm

Quite right.
And I should point out, for the benefit of our old Colonial readers, that the Mother Country effectively now only has one party. The Lablibdemcons.

They still agree on anything they imagine is important, but one group attempts to get the ball rolling whilst the others scream “Sooner! Harder! Faster! Longer!” Lockdown a great example.

Out of 650 MPs and God knows how many Lords, I doubt you would find enough dissenters (almost all Tories / Unionists) to make up a football team.

Mike Lowe
October 15, 2022 3:25 am

If I had known years ago how easy it would have been to fool those “academics” and alter public opinion with lies, I could have devised a scheme to enrichen myself – just as Al Gore and his fellow-liars have done!

October 15, 2022 3:26 am

I wonder ‘who’ was the lead author of the report from the House of Lords? Possibly the Chairman of the Climate Change Committee (Lord Deben) perhaps? He who is Chairman (and owner) of his family Climate Change Consultancy who has already received government funding (I believe in the range of £800k)? No, he can’t possibly be involved as there would be huge pecuniary interest! Could he?

Reply to  JoHo
October 15, 2022 6:21 am

Lord Deben? Ah, you mean John Selwyn Gummer (AKA “Little Gumgum”), the man who fed his daughter a burger on camera to prove that beef was safe during the Mad Cow Disease panic. Didn’t eat one himself, though…

Dave Andrews
Reply to  atticman
October 15, 2022 7:59 am

Yeah and the way he did that was repulsive.

Uncle Mort
October 15, 2022 3:27 am

Stuart Capstick Senior Research Fellow in Psychology, Cardiff University

I originally read his name as Stuart Slapstick. I suppose there must be a psychological reason for that.

Reply to  Uncle Mort
October 15, 2022 8:46 am

I read “Chapstick”.

Reply to  Uncle Mort
October 15, 2022 9:11 am

Perhaps he longs for times past, as described by his namesake:


Reply to  Uncle Mort
October 15, 2022 12:17 pm

His brother was a far better comedian than he is a “scientist” – no, wait, they are both comedians and “unrelated”……….

Reply to  Uncle Mort
October 18, 2022 1:12 pm

I read dipstick.

October 15, 2022 3:36 am

The government needs to focus these academics minds by removing all state support for their universities when said academics spew this sort of spittle.

It’s a win-win: the government spends less money and these people get to live the austere lifestyle they want to impose on everyone else!

Reply to  OweninGA
October 15, 2022 6:22 am

The state of the UK finances at present, this could be a good place to start!

October 15, 2022 3:41 am

“the House of Lords report urges the government to [..] level the playing field in favour of greener lifestyles”. Ahem. You can’t level the playing field in favour of something. That’s a biased playing field not a level playing field.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 15, 2022 8:10 am

Let’s face it. If they really wanted to reduce emissions from air travel, they would simply mandate an end to “travel miles” programs…which would cut airline traffic by 30%…but no politician wants to face the voter and air industry fallout of that…so they won’t do anything except greenwash some BS talking points…

October 15, 2022 3:59 am

Here’s a potential client for these academic psychos…

“”Mass migration is not a negative consequence of the climate crisis, but a solution — one that needs to be seized and planned for. This is the argument put forward by environmental expert Gaia Vince, author of the recent book “Nomad Century: How to Survive the Climate Upheaval”. Large-scale people movements have the potential to address many societal problems, she argues, and pave the way towards a fairer, safer and more prosperous world.””



Mark BLR
October 15, 2022 4:27 am

The report drew on evidence from leading experts on behavioural science and social change …

I recently came across a preprint paper by Dillon Bowen (direct arXiv link), titled “Simple models predict behavior at least as well as behavioral scientists”.

The Abstract is, in my opinion, worth copying in full in response to the Conversation article :

How accurately can behavioral scientists predict behavior? To answer this question, we analyzed data from five studies in which 640 professional behavioral scientists predicted the results of one or more behavioral science experiments. We compared the behavioral scientists’ predictions to random chance, linear models, and simple heuristics like “behavioral interventions have no effect” and “all published psychology research is false.” We find that behavioral scientists are consistently no better than – and often worse than – these simple heuristics and models. Behavioral scientists’ predictions are not only noisy but also biased. They systematically overestimate how well behavioral science “works”: overestimating the effectiveness of behavioral interventions, the impact of psychological phenomena like time discounting, and the replicability of published psychology research.

The start of the “Introduction” section is also relevant to generic “trust the experts” arguments :

Behavioral scientists’ predictions regularly inform academia, public policy, and business decisions. Academic researchers decide which projects to pursue based on which hypotheses seem most plausible. Nudge units test and implement interventions they expect will be most effective. Businesses regularly consult marketing and management experts for advice.

The underlying assumption in these instances is that behavioral scientists’ predictions are accurate. In general, we expect experts in any domain to be able to make accurate predictions about their domain of expertise [Tetlock, 2009]. We should have especially high expectations of scientific experts, given that prediction is a fundamental function of science [Kuhn, 2011]. We might even argue that accurate predictions are necessary for the credibility of a scientific discipline [Tetlock, 2009, Tetlock and Gardner, 2016].

From the “Discussion” section :

Behavioral scientists’ bias can have serious consequences. A recent study found that policymakers were less supportive of an effective climate change policy (carbon taxes) when a nudge solution was also available [Hagmann et al., 2019]. However, accurately disclosing the nudge’s impact shifted support back towards carbon taxes and away from the nudge solution. In general, when behavioral scientists exaggerate the effectiveness of their work, they may drain support and resources from potentially more impactful solutions.

Experimental economics might suggest that behavioral scientists are less biased because people with experience tend to be less biased in their domain of expertise.

Then again, there are at least three reasons to believe that behavioral scientists should be more biased than the general population: selection bias, selective exposure, and motivated reasoning. First, behavioral science might select people who believe in its effectiveness. On the supply side, students who apply to study psychology for five years on a measly PhD stipend are unlikely to believe that most psychology publications fail to replicate. On the demand side, marketing departments and nudge units may be disinclined to hire applicants who believe their work is ineffective. Indeed, part of the experimental economics argument is that markets filter out people who make poor decisions [List and Millimet, 2008]. The opposite may be true of behavioral science: the profession might filter out people with an accurate assessment of how well behavioral science works.

Second, behavioral scientists are selectively exposed to research that finds large and statistically significant effects. Behavioral science journals and conferences are more likely to accept papers with significant results. Therefore, most of the literature behavioral scientists read promotes the idea that behavioral interventions are effective and psychological phenomena substantially influence behavior. However, published behavioral science research often fails to replicate. Lack of reproducibility plagues not only behavioral science [Collaboration, 2012, 2015, Camerer et al., 2016, Mac Giolla et al., 2022] but also medicine [Freedman et al., 2015, Prinz et al., 2011], neuroscience [Button et al., 2013], and genetics [Hewitt, 2012, Lawrence et al., 2013]. Scientific results fail to reproduce for many reasons, including publication bias, p-hacking, and fraud [Simmons et al., 2011, Nelson et al., 2018]. Indeed, most evidence that behavioral scientists overestimate how well behavioral science works involves asking them to predict the results of nudge studies. However, there is little to no evidence that nudges work after correcting for publication bias [Maier et al., 2022]. Even when a study successfully replicates, the effect size in the replication study is often much smaller than that reported in the original publication [Camerer et al., 2016, Collaboration, 2015]. For example, the RCT study paper estimates that the academic literature overstates nudges’ effectiveness by a factor of six [DellaVigna and Linos, 2022].

Finally, behavioral scientists might be susceptible to motivated reasoning [Kunda, 1990, Epley and Gilovich, 2016]. As behavioral scientists, we want to believe that our work is meaningful, effective, and true. Motivated reasoning may also drive selective exposure [Bénabou and Tirole, 2002]. We want to believe our work is effective, so we disproportionately read about behavioral science experiments that worked.

Isn’t it fortunate that “behavio[u]r science” is the only scientific domain that suffers from the deficiencies highlighted above …

Dave Fair
Reply to  Mark BLR
October 15, 2022 4:45 pm

Whether or not your last sentence is sarcasm: “Lack of reproducibility plagues not only behavioral science [Collaboration, 2012, 2015, Camerer et al., 2016, Mac Giolla et al., 2022] but also medicine [Freedman et al., 2015, Prinz et al., 2011], neuroscience [Button et al., 2013], and genetics [Hewitt, 2012, Lawrence et al., 2013].

Brandon Galt
October 15, 2022 4:31 am

I wonder how this academic feels about free elections?

Richard Page
Reply to  Brandon Galt
October 15, 2022 6:00 am

What? Give the great unwashed a choice of candidates? Hardly – they’ll almost certainly pick the wrong one. Remember how badly they messed up the Brexit vote? sarc

Reply to  Richard Page
October 15, 2022 6:24 am

…and (no sarcasm here) the choice of British Prime Minister.

Reply to  atticman
October 15, 2022 9:15 am

I thought the British voters had little say in who got to be Prime Minister, only in which party they support.

Richard Page
Reply to  atticman
October 15, 2022 10:28 am

The choice of PM is solely made by the MP’s of that party as well as the membership, which is a small minority of the country.

Elliot W
Reply to  atticman
October 15, 2022 1:46 pm

The choice was Boris or Jeremy Corbyn. What kind of “choice” was that?

October 15, 2022 4:52 am

Make no mistake, these people are serious. A climate lockdown society in which politicians and academics get to dictate your choices appears to be their genuine end goal. In places like Britain, they are perilously close to getting their way.

The response to the wuflu shows that it can be done. The official response to the wuflu was to push a vaccine that demonstrably doesn’t prevent transmission and that, through constant boosters, may actually reduce natural immunity. That’s bad enough but then they did their best to suppress the free speech of those who thought the official response was proven to be wrong.

Ben Vorlich
October 15, 2022 5:10 am

British academics could lead by example, by boycotting the long haul flight to COP27, in Egypt’s infamously hedonistic resort town of Sharm El Sheikh.

Aye that’ll be right

Sean Galbally
October 15, 2022 5:14 am

Man-made CO2 has a minute effect on the climate and can be ignored. Net Zero achieves nothing but poverty.

Reply to  Sean Galbally
October 15, 2022 5:39 am

And that is the plan

Andrew Wilkins
October 15, 2022 5:41 am

“Christina Demski Reader in Environmental Psychology”
If she stopped working today, the world wouldn’t notice a jot. Completely useless non-job hoovering up taxpayers cash.

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 16, 2022 3:50 pm

Which is the whole point of most academic jobs.

October 15, 2022 6:11 am

“Reader in Environmental Psychology”, or you could say a modern-day Witch.

Reply to  Nicholas
October 15, 2022 6:27 am

If you invent a new scientific discipline, you are the sole arbiter on the subject until others jump on the bandwagon.

Reply to  atticman
October 15, 2022 10:16 am

True, if it were a science, but it is largely studying the immaterial mind. Therefore nearer to spiritualism or whatever.

Andrew Wilkins
October 15, 2022 6:26 am

“report urges the government to use taxes, regulations and infrastructure to level the playing field in favour of greener lifestyles, …”
This is the sinister bit: make it illegal and use fines and even more drastic punishments to stop people flying without permission from the authorities, force them to eat only government approved food (bugs washed down with almond milk anyone?), and ensure they wear only government approved clothing (sackcloth and ashes?). Fascism, in other words.
These people have the ear of governments and they are very, very dangerous.

Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 15, 2022 9:22 am

Welcome to China.

October 15, 2022 6:32 am

They are called “academics” because they should not be taken seriously.

October 15, 2022 6:39 am

A simple solution to all this balderdash. Defund all universities from taxpayer monies. Make them prove their worth by surviving on just the fees from students who attend their brainwashing institutions. That should sort it all out in short order.

October 15, 2022 7:13 am

Complaining that the masses below them won’t voluntarily surrender to a near total destruction of their standard of living are they? Reflect instead perhaps, on the results for the aristocracy from the French revolution that resulted from a similar program.

October 15, 2022 7:28 am

Many universities require their academics to work outside the academic world periodically so they don’t lose touch so to speak. As the article states in other words to the old saying, a liberal is one whose interests are not at stake.

There is something seriously wrong when a small group of people seek to change society to satisfy their personal goals. It is natural for people to seek to improve their lives and to maintain their lifestyle. Without saying what I would like to say, the climate change crowd seeking to change others, to a lesser way of living, are unnatural.

Insufficiently Sensitive
October 15, 2022 8:02 am

It is for this reason that the House of Lords report urges the government to use taxes, regulations and infrastructure to level the playing field in favour of greener lifestyles, …

Oh, what fashionably modern euphemisms these greenie ‘journalists’ lay out for us, when they mean that the government should play the fascist card and deny citizens their choices of transportation, heating and goods transport. How cleverly they cloak the grim reality of their preferred ‘greener lifestyles’ – no cars, buses, airplanes, construction equipment, greatly reduced diet choices and greatly increased costs for about everything. Such an unaffordable heaven they choose! Of course, they’ll personally be excused these sufferings because they’re morally Better.

October 15, 2022 8:13 am

“(government)….is reluctant to communicate to the public the scale of social change needed to create a low-carbon society.”

Must be difficult for politicians to stand before their citizens and sell the “Great Reset” knowing it is the transition to a future of hunger, poverty and misery.

Reply to  Tommyboy
October 15, 2022 7:30 pm

Not only all that.
They have to keep a straight face.
Another challenge.

John Oliver
October 15, 2022 8:33 am

This is the same profession (psychologist, psychiatrist) that have tried to drug our children into oblivion with everything from ADHD drugs to anti anxiety meds) . They tried to get us to put my daughter on some of this crap in the first grade( was nothing wrong with her except a speech empediment , she was born at 7 months) I told them :no way in hell! I told them It is a statistical impossibility for this many kids out of a population to have ADHD or any other affliction at that rate. Worse yet they continued to push it, I never gave in.

She turned out great – high GPA thru all her school years ,now works as a well paid travel Nursing tech.

The vast majority of her class mates that were put on those meds ended up with all kinds of drug and alcohol and psychological problems. Mist of them are completely unproductive members of society now.

Elliot W
Reply to  John Oliver
October 15, 2022 1:59 pm

Yup, the school tried to push adhd drugs on my kid in Grade One too, “to help him focus”. I also refused.

The eerie thing is now some 25-30 years later, kids are no longer being diagnosed with adhd! Now autism is the diagnosis du jour. Scads of kids drugged up with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Not a word about the statistical unlikelihood of adhd disappearing like that and this autism suddenly taking its place. I can only surmise autism drugs make more money for the drug companies?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Elliot W
October 15, 2022 4:53 pm

“to help him focus” Its called “being a boy.” They want to turn all the boys into compliant girls.

Reply to  John Oliver
October 15, 2022 9:38 pm

Tried doing that with my daughter, too, after a friggin’ TWENTY minute interview.

Nope, no way. I also took a few seconds to acquaint the psychiatrist that I didn’t (and don’t) believe in lawyers to deal with people that harm my family.

Giordano Milton
October 15, 2022 8:37 am

Always the iron fist and jack boots

Jack Frost
October 15, 2022 8:47 am

In places like Britain, they are perilously close to getting their way.

I think not. These nut jobs are not listened to save for a small minority, the majority of the population have more sense than to listen to these wacko’s.
Depriving my fellow Brits of their McD’s, KFC, Greggs, cheap throw away clothes and holidays in the sun will see a response akin to the Poll Tax riots.

Get cracking with the fracking and give the yogurt knitters something to really get worked up about.

Andy Pattullo
October 15, 2022 9:28 am

I blame the government for failing to curtail academic activities that are devoid of scientific rigor. Now that’s a real problem.

Jeff Reppun
October 15, 2022 12:08 pm

These “scientists” are the ones that will tell us to believe in “The Science” as generated by a computer program but then tell us chromosomes have little to do with gender.

October 15, 2022 12:54 pm

level the playing field in favour of greener lifestyles

Silly me – I always thought the point of a level playing field was to be level and NOT favour anything.

Reply to  Roger
October 15, 2022 1:30 pm

We all saw this coming. Electric supply must equal demand second by second. Wind & solar are incapable of doing this. Normally that would be a dealbreaker, but somehow the greens never worried that. Now they admit their plan was to fit our demand to their supply.

October 15, 2022 1:09 pm

Oh this is rich, I’m being ostracized for not paying more attention to psychologists and the House of Lords. There is no need to reach or attempt to reach net zero. Net zero is a fiction, it is an imaginary solution for a non problem. These people make me sick.

October 15, 2022 2:37 pm

What are historians going to write about 1900-2100? From my perspective it is the heyday of government gaslighting. From the new liberals and progressives right through to today’s UN, WEF, WHO and on and on, the public is being lied to on what seems like a level no one could believe to be possible. And it seems to have no end in sight except collapse.

Dave Fair
Reply to  JBP
October 15, 2022 4:56 pm

You can ignore reality. But you can’t ignore the effects of ignoring reality.

October 15, 2022 2:41 pm

Without changes to people’s behaviour and lifestyles, it will be impossible for the UK to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Hence the need to force compliance. Just like your mommy and daddy did. You’re grounded, now go to your room.

Dave Fair
October 15, 2022 4:19 pm

Yep, politicians are going to get reelected by telling you to lower your lifestyle by passing laws and issuing regulations. Propaganda can only go so far; cynicism became the hallmark of the old Soviet Union.

Edward Katz
October 15, 2022 6:11 pm

As soon as people hear that academics are involved in the climate debate, they should get their guards up. All these brain trusts are concerned about is more funding for more deadend environmental research., scams.

October 15, 2022 11:29 pm

In France univ might close during the coldest days of winter to reduce heating bills.
Also some experiments are going to stop. I don’t have much details.

October 16, 2022 12:18 am

“Comrades!” he cried. “You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organization of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink that milk and eat those apples.”

Campsie Fellow
October 16, 2022 1:50 am

Two British Academics have blamed the Government’…

October 16, 2022 4:10 pm

To address climate change, lifestyles must change”

Especially that most liberating of modern conveniences: Readily available stable electricity.

October 16, 2022 4:17 pm

It is for this reason that the House of Lords report urges the government to use taxes, regulations and infrastructure to level the playing field in favour of greener lifestyles,”

How many of the “peers of the realm” would be bothered by higher taxes and more regulations? Oh, it’s great to be rich, rich, rich. Regulations? Fah! We peers have lots of friends in the government who can make sure we don’t have to follow all the rules imposed on the peons.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights